DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Recalculation in the Green IV challenge
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 63, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/27/2014 09:48:22 PM · #26
Oh.

Dang.

*heavy sigh*
03/27/2014 09:49:03 PM · #27
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm pretty sure you'll all agree we don't want that.


I don't agree. It's an easy and common thing in photography to remove a background. I agree the rules forbid it, but I don't agree with or want the rule.
 03/27/2014 10:02:42 PM · #28
Originally posted by Elaine:
The reason for the DQ seems pretty obvious to me. The original has a detailed background and the edit has a solid background. It definitely changes the way I would describe each image.


Agreed. The original and modified versions would receive very different votes from me as the context and composition are very dissimilar. Personally, im surprised this heavy-handed processing of the bg is even being debated.
 03/27/2014 10:31:01 PM · #29
Just a question, not trying to fuel the fire. If she had shot a black BG and layered it wiping all but the portrait out, would that have been legal?
Sorry for the DQ, I certainly wouldn't have known that this would have broke a rule.

03/27/2014 11:00:17 PM · #30
I *know* SC abhor comparative examples in discussions such as this one, but this image passed validation with "an obfuscated background":

03/27/2014 11:08:19 PM · #31
Originally posted by pamb:
I *know* SC abhor comparative examples in discussions such as this one, but this image passed validation with "an obfuscated background":



That's not at all the same. And FWIW, very little was obfuscated just the top of a house peeking over the grass behind the cadets; so small it could have also been cloned out legally. And the blurring of the treeline didn't remove anything.
 03/27/2014 11:09:12 PM · #32
No worries. :)
 03/28/2014 12:03:40 AM · #33
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by pamb:
I *know* SC abhor comparative examples in discussions such as this one, but this image passed validation with "an obfuscated background":


That's not at all the same. And FWIW, very little was obfuscated just the top of a house peeking over the grass behind the cadets; so small it could have also been cloned out legally. And the blurring of the treeline didn't remove anything.

Regardless, that's actually a very useful example in this specific case: that particular amount of blurring, which makes makes distracting elements less of a distraction without rendering them unrecognizable, is perfectly OK. For people wondering "where the line is", it's somewhere between those two, the DQ'd image we're discussing and this one. The whole SKY has been blurred to the same extent as the treeline, but it's still a sky with clouds and there's still a clearly recognizable treeline.

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 00:05:57.
 03/28/2014 12:21:55 AM · #34
Originally posted by tanguera:
This is very similar to Juliet's DQ, where she darkened the bg to the point where no real detail was visible. I've looked at your image on two different monitors, and truly, there is virtually no discernible detail remaining. I think that sometimes, we are influenced by what we know is there and are still able to see it even when we've "obfuscated" it to the point where any other viewer will not. This is one of the frustrations of any site with editing rules, but it doesn't make it any less of a marvelous image.


I agree with this....I see the background still. The problem is I fully intended to use this background, and edit the image, this way, because I like the warm tones of this cabinet. Really could have left them (the cabinet doors) in the image with some darkening and it looked good, gave it more texture, which I like too. I have shot other portraits using this light and background, never have submitted them in a challenge, and really did not give it a second thought to it being 'too much'. My eyes see it, and it is exactly how I intended the image to look in my head, prior to the shoot.

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 00:22:18.
 03/28/2014 01:25:40 AM · #35
I know this probably has no place here, and I apologize in advance, but there was this one time when I tried to obfuscate my background and it didn't work out so well. I got the job, but then it was plagiarism this and felony that. See ya Pizza Hut hello Congress.
 03/28/2014 02:01:29 AM · #36
Being fairly new to all this, I'm a bit confused. If you used a technique, Guasian Blur, that is allowed, then who's to say how much of it you can use. I would have thought you could use 5% or 95% if you wanted to, that is, if the technique is allowed in the rules. I don't see what it matters as to how much you can distinguish or what you can't, either its allowed or it isn't.
 03/28/2014 02:15:58 AM · #37
Originally posted by chambo:
Being fairly new to all this, I'm a bit confused. If you used a technique, Guasian Blur, that is allowed, then who's to say how much of it you can use. I would have thought you could use 5% or 95% if you wanted to, that is, if the technique is allowed in the rules. I don't see what it matters as to how much you can distinguish or what you can't, either its allowed or it isn't.


Chambo, meet can of worms :)
 03/28/2014 02:27:26 AM · #38
As soon as I saw this, I thought about the rules re creating new elements and changing something so it would change someone's description of the photo (as it certainly would in this case).

Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to me and I am glad we still do have some rules that are checked.

Go wild in expert editing, but not in the others. There is something to be said for having to decide about your background BEFORE you take the shot and for having to pay attention to it - those are good skills, too, not only knowing how to disappear what you don't like via Photoshop afterwards.

03/28/2014 02:29:59 AM · #39
Originally posted by chambo:
Being fairly new to all this, I'm a bit confused. If you used a technique, Guasian Blur, that is allowed, then who's to say how much of it you can use. I would have thought you could use 5% or 95% if you wanted to, that is, if the technique is allowed in the rules. I don't see what it matters as to how much you can distinguish or what you can't, either its allowed or it isn't.


It's because advanced is a result based ruleset. Almost any "tool" is allowed, it's what you do with the tool that makes it legal or not. Unlike Basic, which I haven't seen in a while that was a tool based ruleset. In basic you could for example legally selectively desat your image if done to the whole image, i.e. remove everything but red, but if you made a selection around the red to achieve the exact same effect it became illegal.

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 02:30:54.
 03/28/2014 03:12:35 AM · #40
This ribboning image was successfully validated:



Like Jen, I made a conscious effort to keep some of the background in. In my shot there are only vertical folds in the curtain, in Jen's, the cabinet has vertical and horizontal lines in the original but in her edit I can only discern the vertical lines. So, as a learning question - is that a line not to cross? Had the horizontal elements been discernible would it have passed muster?

As I've said before, I think these autopsy conversations are really positive - such decisions are a SC judgement call (and so they should be), but these close-to-the-edge-of-the-envelope cases really help us (as precedents and guides) when we make our editing choices - and here it certainly was an editing choice - blur, don't remove - the 'has it been removed (through the use of excessive blur'? is the question that has been answered by the DQ. An opinion/answer to my question of 'Had the horizontal background elements been as discernible in the edit as the vertical elements, would this have been a DQ?' would help a great deal in informing our future editing choices.

As I say, I think the conversations are really useful in building clarity for us all and I really appreciate the time that the SC take to involve themselves in such conversations.

Thanks

Paul

03/28/2014 03:35:37 AM · #41
I don't know what was originally visible Paul, but I have to really move my head around to discern any background at all on your validated entry. No wonder people don't know where 'the line' is.
What could be really helpful would be a gallery of DQs, and even more helpful if they were somehow categorized according to the transgressions that earned the DQs..
 03/28/2014 04:11:24 AM · #42
For what it's worth Jen, I think you were ripped.
 03/28/2014 05:01:30 AM · #43
Originally posted by Mike:
more reason to just ditch the rule sets altogether.


++ you da man
 03/28/2014 06:17:37 AM · #44


I remember the controversy when this image ribboned as well. This is a bridge in Central Park, NYC.

Message edited by author 2014-03-29 07:59:08.
 03/28/2014 07:52:02 AM · #45
Originally posted by CEJ:
I remember the controversy when this image ribboned as well. And he definitely removed the entire background. This is a bridge in Central Park, NYC.

Surprisingly, no. The background was dark trees in that case, and the crop/exposure rendered the background all but black.
 03/28/2014 10:23:16 AM · #46
Originally posted by Paul:
An opinion/answer to my question of 'Had the horizontal background elements been as discernible in the edit as the vertical elements, would this have been a DQ?' would help a great deal in informing our future editing choices.

In my case, if I could see that geometry I would probably have voted to validate. The difference between your "x marks" entry and this one is instructive, because that's EXACTLY where the line gets drawn, for me at least. Your draperies are darkened nearly to the point of being subliminal, but they are distinctly *there*. In the current image, the panel's just not there anymore as far as I'm concerned.
 03/28/2014 10:30:12 AM · #47
Ditto Bear_Music
 03/28/2014 10:31:28 AM · #48
This can get really confusing....but I am asking this out of curiosity, and for further reference. What about if the lines were removed in the background, and I left the texture of the cabinet visible? In other words the horizontal and vertical lines were cloned out and the texture of the wood was left. Would of that been legal?

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 10:31:44.
 03/28/2014 11:35:20 AM · #49
rules hey ?
 03/28/2014 11:47:03 AM · #50
As a no talent, non ribbon winning hack, I probably am not qualified to post an opinion...

I understand pushing the envelope for art. But it seems the discussion has become how far can a rule be pushed before it breaks?

I understand that the photographer has an idea of the finished image, prior to pressing the shutter. At leat you good ones seem to...

My question becomes, why not set the scene that way in the first place? A house, or a power line may not be feasible to move, but lighting in a set scene is.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:38:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:38:13 AM EDT.