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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Allow the burning of backgrounds in Advanced
Pages:  
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 188, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/12/2007 03:15:45 AM · #151
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by crayon:
question please. what if, instead of dodging n burning out the background, JJ had darkened the entire image evenly using the curve/brightness/contrast tool... and then he used dodge n burn to brighten up the subjects and the table instead? would that have been grounds for DQ?


1. If it removed the background entirely, definitely a DQ. Different method, same effect.

2. If the background was just darkened but still visible and de-emphasised, it might be legal. That's a grey area.


yes, i'd expect what you said at (1) above, and i agree that's how it should be in all fairness.

for (2), well it depends on monitor calibration. JJ's image does contain a background if you look closely. so where do we draw the link between what's legal and what is not?

if the argument was "changing the typical voters description" then one can argue that the photo could still be described as "a photo of a loving couple, one with a wheelchair" regardless of what the background had contained - even if a nekkid lady was running wild at the back.
 06/12/2007 03:35:13 AM · #152
Originally posted by crayon:
if the argument was "changing the typical voters description" then one can argue that the photo could still be described as "a photo of a loving couple, one with a wheelchair" regardless of what the background had contained - even if a nekkid lady was running wild at the back.


My description would definitely change if there was a naked lady running around. I find that it changes even with what JJ did. "A lady with a man in a wheelchair in a restaurant" vs. "A lady with a man in a wheelchair against a plain (black) background"

If it had originally been blue and modified to black, that would change the color of my description, but it's still against a plain background. A restaurant is a distinctive backdrop.

If you have to turn your monitor up all the way and can just barely see a hint of the background... it's gone.
 06/12/2007 03:39:15 AM · #153
Originally posted by digitalknight:
a small change

what is the worst that can happen here - c'mon people


It is a big change - it would be highly subjective whether something is fore- or back- ground.

The solution is found in the Expert Editing rule set - this allows all forms of photographic manipulation. If the challenge had been expert editing, the image would not have been dq'd.

Where have all the EE challenges gone?
 06/12/2007 06:02:01 AM · #154
Originally posted by Matthew:
Where have all the EE challenges gone?


Hopefully far, far away...for good.
 06/12/2007 12:06:48 PM · #155
Originally posted by crayon:
question please. what if, instead of dodging n burning out the background, JJ had darkened the entire image evenly using the curve/brightness/contrast tool... and then he used dodge n burn to brighten up the subjects and the table instead? would that have been grounds for DQ?


according to what kirbic said above, that would be okay.
 06/12/2007 12:12:20 PM · #156
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by crayon:
question please. what if, instead of dodging n burning out the background, JJ had darkened the entire image evenly using the curve/brightness/contrast tool... and then he used dodge n burn to brighten up the subjects and the table instead? would that have been grounds for DQ?


according to what kirbic said above, that would be okay.


One thing to remember though, it likely wouldn't have worked the same way. In many cases you can get pretty close to a completely dark bg using curves/bc or similar tools, but not entirely black. To get something from having quite a range of brightnesses to being totally black without burning at least some would be quite difficult.
 06/12/2007 12:17:44 PM · #157
Originally posted by ursula:

One thing to remember though, it likely wouldn't have worked the same way. In many cases you can get pretty close to a completely dark bg using curves/bc or similar tools, but not entirely black. To get something from having quite a range of brightnesses to being totally black without burning at least some would be quite difficult.


yeah, I know it wouldn't have looked the same, I just want to be clear on what I can do.
 06/12/2007 12:24:33 PM · #158
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Where have all the EE challenges gone?


Hopefully far, far away...for good.


Can't please anyone around here. If you don't like the rules, don't enter whichever rules set you happen to dislike. . How easy is that? Geez.

And BTW, I feel the same about this whole discussion. If ya don't like that you can't burn away a background, wait for an EE challenge or put it in your portfolio for others to see.

Langdon, Drew and SC will never make everyone happy. So, guess what? We have to play by the rules they deem fit or not play.

Edit: BTW, I'm in favor of both more Minimal Editing Challenges AND Expert Editing challenges. I'm not scared of the camera or the computer.

Message edited by author 2007-06-12 12:28:04.
 06/12/2007 12:28:19 PM · #159
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ursula:

One thing to remember though, it likely wouldn't have worked the same way. In many cases you can get pretty close to a completely dark bg using curves/bc or similar tools, but not entirely black. To get something from having quite a range of brightnesses to being totally black without burning at least some would be quite difficult.


yeah, I know it wouldn't have looked the same, I just want to be clear on what I can do.


I know kirbic said that darkening an image's background using curves/bc and so on would be OK. I agree with this. But I think it needs to be kept in context of what can be done with curves/bc if applied overall.

To my mind, any picture where there is quite a bit of detail in the background, even if the detail is not "important" to the image, when that detail is removed to the extent where a normal person (that is, anybody but crayon - just teasing, OK) can't see anything but a solid colour, then the image has changed quite a bit. Such a change might be grounds for DQ.

In other words, I don't think one can make a blanket statement that any image where the background was obliterated using curves or other similar adjustments would not be a DQ automatically. Probably, likely even, but not automatically. But I'm probably going to get in bit trouble for saying this. I think we've been trying to work at making the rules less subjective, and yet it seems that if anything they get more subjective all the time.

My personal opinion is that it is silly to DQ works that work well (at least for DPC), and are done beautifully. But on the other hand, we have these rules here, and we sign on to them, and we have to abide by them (or by their best interpretation). It's a tough life trying to make pictures for DPC :)
 06/12/2007 12:41:42 PM · #160
Originally posted by ursula:
In other words, I don't think one can make a blanket statement that any image where the background was obliterated using curves or other similar adjustments would not be a DQ automatically.


That's what I was afraid of. But he sounded so durn sure of himself...
 06/12/2007 12:47:38 PM · #161
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
And BTW, I feel the same about this whole discussion. If ya don't like that you can't burn away a background, wait for an EE challenge or put it in your portfolio for others to see.

Langdon, Drew and SC will never make everyone happy. So, guess what? We have to play by the rules they deem fit or not play.


um... then why do they have a "Web Site Suggestions" forum? It disheartens me to see members who aren't even in the SC come into a Web Site Suggestion thread and say that the very idea of suggesting a change is counterproductive. The purpose of a forum like this one is to imagine what is possible, not look for reasons to stomp out ideas asap. It's for brainstorming, not blitzkrieging.
 06/12/2007 12:55:28 PM · #162
I'm just saying that we don't need to change every time someone gets DQ'd. He screwed up. Oh well, life goes on. It was a nice shot. It just happened to be illegal.

There is some rules change thread at least monthly (if not more often) spearheaded by a very few.

And personally I don't care if SC changes it or not. If they do, fine, that'll be one more tool to use. If not, great, that's one more tool someone else can't use ;-) I'm not gonna get an advantage one way or the other and can't see why you can't be happy that we have the EE rule set that does allow such things. And then when people like ericwoo want EE abolished from the site (simply because he doesn't like it), it just makes one a bit flustered.

Message edited by author 2007-06-12 13:02:17.
 06/12/2007 01:06:43 PM · #163
And one more thing. If SC were to say "OK rule changed", next week when the blue ribbon shot has a completely burned out background, some one is going to start a thread saying that rule is stupid and that the photo couldn't have won without it and beg SC to change the rule. So, what's the point?
 06/12/2007 02:17:40 PM · #164
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
And one more thing. If SC were to say "OK rule changed", next week when the blue ribbon shot has a completely burned out background, some one is going to start a thread saying that rule is stupid and that the photo couldn't have won without it and beg SC to change the rule. So, what's the point?


Yes...but that would be 1 person going against the entire site that liked the image. Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority. It has always seemed bizarre to me to have such specific rules on a creative site...though not as bizarre as a photo league ;) Most likely the 3000 people who viewed that image wouldn't have if it wasn't submitted because it didn't fit in the ruleset. I would hope that quite a few people were inspired to become better photographers because of it. I would also hope at least a few agree with me in that should be the true test of photographic merit.
 06/12/2007 02:23:41 PM · #165
Originally posted by muur88:
Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority.


That might be just a teensy exaggeration.
 06/12/2007 02:27:03 PM · #166
lol ... i was just typing this in novel long post and decided not to get into ... click refresh, and Shannon said it all very nicely in one sentence.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by muur88:
Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority.


That might be just a teensy exaggeration.
06/12/2007 02:28:10 PM · #167
Originally posted by muur88:

Yes...but that would be 1 person going against the entire site that liked the image. Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority.


I'm sure if the image had been allowed to stay there would have been a lot more than one person bitching about it. It was a nice image, but illegal.

Let's drop the rules about when a photograph can be taken. That one really hampers MY creativity and that other one about it having to be my photo. Hate it.

I submit that rules help foster (not hinder) creativity. Rules are definitely a better teaching tool than lack of rules. Ofcourse we could all try to turn snap shots into masterpieces.
06/12/2007 02:28:17 PM · #168
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by muur88:
Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority.


That might be just a teensy exaggeration.


Exactly!!
 06/12/2007 02:31:59 PM · #169
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by muur88:
Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority.


That might be just a teensy exaggeration.


Yup, wish I had read that before I posted ;-)
 06/12/2007 02:34:34 PM · #170
This site "is not a DEMocracy, this is a CHEERocracy" and Langdon is the cheertator. :-P (Quote from bring it on...I know I know)

My point is we pay to play by the site rules PERIOD!

Message edited by author 2007-06-12 14:35:02.
 06/12/2007 02:35:39 PM · #171
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
This site "is not a DEMocracy, this is a CHEERocracy" and Langdon is the cheertator. :-P (Quote from bring it on...I know I know)

My point is we pay to play by the site rules PERIOD!


Or exclamation point in this case.
 06/12/2007 02:36:09 PM · #172
:-P
 06/12/2007 02:48:07 PM · #173
I think what Judi was trying to say here is that this thread just burns her butt.


06/12/2007 04:27:53 PM · #174
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
My point is we pay to play by the site rules PERIOD!


once again, Mr. Rah-Rah, this is a suggestions thread. lay off the pom poms.
 06/12/2007 04:28:34 PM · #175
Sorry I just like shaking them...

:-P
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:14:55 PM

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: 04/19/2024 09:14:55 PM EDT.