Saggy Baggy - DPChallenge Forums

07/29/2002 01:50:13 AM · #1

First, thanks for the comments and congratulations.

I thought some of you might like to see the incarnations. Not sure it''s worth doing a how''d they do that for...

If I can figure out how to do it, the smaller versions posted here will link to 640x480 version on my website. Otherwise, I''ll include links below.

First, there''s just the raw shot.

raw

From that I cropped in much tighter -- there''s only so close they''ll let you get to an elephant, even when you''re talking a little nickle and dime circus.

straight

Some mentioned the non-standard colors. That''s because the elephant was standing under a red and yellow tarp. Others mentioned the spot that looks like a lens flair or something in my submission. It''s actually something on the elephant. I knew no matter which version I submitted some people would think there was something wrong with the photograph, and completely overlook the possibility that it was actually on the elephant. Que sera sera...

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/29/2002 1:52:28 AM.

Gotcha

07/29/2002 01:58:55 AM · #2

Great work Jeff, Congrats

Konador

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/29/2002 03:54:08 AM · #3

This was an amazing entry. I was my fave out of all of them last week.
Congrats on your 2nd place :)

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/29/2002 11:28:42 AM · #4

So by "Raw" you mean the file type, or "out of the camera"?
Just wondering, because even with the crop you are not losing clarity, so I assume file type?

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

07/29/2002 11:32:04 AM · #5

Yours was my highest score as well.(could also work this week)

Patella

07/29/2002 11:38:44 AM · #6

By raw I just mean straight out of the camera -- I forget how big the original is -- 4 MP I believe...

Basically, I used PS constrained crop at 640x480 and cropped a section out of the photo that was larger than 640x480 so there wasn't any loss of detail.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/29/2002 02:28:28 PM · #7

I have to say I''m a bit disappointed about this pic. I gave it a 9 because I loved the composition, sharpness, color and many other aspects of it ... and now I see that they were good due to post-processing.
In the rules it states that "the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited" so how come you were able to SELECT parts of the original image and then tweek it to the required size? ... just curious ...

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/29/2002 2:28:25 PM.

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/29/2002 02:35:12 PM · #8

Cropping is allowed. He made his edits to his crop.

Drew

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/29/2002 02:41:30 PM · #9

Originally posted by Patella:
By raw I just mean straight out of the camera -- I forget how big the original is -- 4 MP I believe...

Basically, I used PS constrained crop at 640x480 and cropped a section out of the photo that was larger than 640x480 so there wasn't any loss of detail.

Thanks, Jeff.

I use the highest quality jpeg... that's why I was wondering. I know I'm supposed to use TIFF or whatever... although my manual says there is not much difference between the TIFF and highest JPEG, so may as well get more stored images....

Anyway, that was the reason for my question.

07/29/2002 02:42:36 PM · #10

Originally posted by drewmedia:
Cropping is allowed. He made his edits to his crop.

Drew

I'm aware that making changes to the ENTIRE image is allowed (levels, sharpness ... and even PROPORTIONATELY downsizing the image) ... but back to my point quoted from the rules that use of ANY type of selection tool is not allowed. How is it possible to to get a composition such as the one submitted from the original photo? Obviously an area was SELECTED and then cropped. So from my understanding that would be breaking the rules, no?

MrsKro

07/29/2002 02:47:10 PM · #11

The "use of no selection tool allowed" comes after the statement, no spot-editing. Of course you'd have to select an area if you were going to spot-edit. But in cropping, as stated at the beginning of the rules...it requires that you make a selection too. How else would you crop? I would think that everyone would just assume and know what the rule meant as stated...but it's not cheating if you crop. I don't believe anyone in here would ever argue that point.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/29/2002 03:00:11 PM · #12

Ok. That's cool. Didn't mean to offend anyone ... just wanted things cleared up.
But I do think that it's sort of sad that we're allowed so many corrections after taking the shot ... it takes away from the challenge to get it technically correct at the very moment when you're pushing the shutter release.

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

07/29/2002 03:10:09 PM · #13

This has been discussed before... what are the limits... but in a traditional darkroom there is a lot that is done to the original photo.

Patella

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/29/2002 04:07:14 PM · #14

I guess I don't see the difference. If I have an idea that is technically impossible to get from the camera, why not use other technology to create it. And if I don't have the idea before I shoot, but it comes to me afterward, isn't that just the flip side of the coin?

The original idea for this entry came to me because I'd done a similar one at a zoo a couple of years ago -- when I saw the circus, I knew it would be perfect. In the original, I used a different camera, with an incredible zoom (my Sony Mavica FD-91), to actually create the nice tight crop. I could have recreated the shot with that camera, but it lacks some of the quality.

If anything, I could understand people being concerned with what I did to the image by using unsharp mask. But then, I don't see that effect as any different than someone else who can shoot in blackboard mode, or solarize, or sepia, or whatever actually in their camera. What I did with this legal filter really only worked with this shot. Go ahead and try plugging 100, 100, and 4 into unsharp mask and see what it does to your photo. :-) I doubt you'll be happy with the result.

I'm here to create art. People may or may not think I'm successful. What comes out of the camera is only part of my creative process. Adjusting levels to tweak an image into something that I think looks better is an important part of that process -- as are any number of other tools. If you don't believe me, next time you take a roll of film to be developed, ask them to print you a set WITHOUT using the built in color adjustment software they now use. I bet you'll be surprised.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

07/29/2002 04:46:15 PM · #15

I took another look, and I think, for clarity's sake, maybe the part about cropping being allowed should be a little bit larger and not just lumped in with the 'whole image modifications' list.

It also might be a good idea to add something like 'Note: Cropping is allowed - this is considered a whole image modification, and not a spot-edit' to the part about no selection tools being allowable.

If there is one person under an erroneous impression, there may well be others : )

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/29/2002 04:55:33 PM · #16

Are "alternate proportions" going to be allowed soon? If so, it would make sense to rewrite the cropping section taking that into account.

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

07/29/2002 05:01:11 PM · #17

Yeah, definitely make the cropping issue clearer if needed.

The best photographers out there always give themselves some wiggle room in their photos for small amount sof cropping. The closer your submission size is to the original size benefits the photographer more than cropping in digital photographer. You always lose definition ins a crop, even if its a tiny bit.

Sylk, what type of photo editing tool do you use?

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/29/2002 05:18:01 PM · #18

dunno.

what's the latest?

anyone?

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Are "alternate proportions" going to be allowed soon? If so, it would make sense to rewrite the cropping section taking that into account.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

07/29/2002 05:19:31 PM · #19

drew said langdon said drew said langdon said drew said langdon said it could be done :)

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/29/2002 05:27:58 PM · #20

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
drew said langdon said drew said langdon said drew said langdon said it could be done :)

ROTFLMAOOTFL

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

07/29/2002 05:29:47 PM · #21

And the dimensional particulars are?

Please let it be a max of 640 on a side and 150k file :-)