DQ'ed question - DPChallenge Forums

01/05/2008 01:26:10 PM · #176

Originally posted by desertoddity:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by AngryEwok:
We're not little kids with our momma's disposable camera, anymore, folks - we're professionals, or at least aspiring to be - shouldn't we be a little bit more resourceful? Instead of using software as a crutch with these sorts of shots, perhaps us photographers should spend more effort finding real life solutions before snapping the photo. Backdrops, anyone?

In my opinion, Danny made an effort to backdrop his subject to minimize the touch-up process in post-production editing. He did so expertly, I might add, because I'm willing to bet I could duplicate Danny's final photo from the original in a matter of moments...

Dirt_Diver's image, on the other hand, obviously requires a total photoshop overhaul to fix it up and make it usable.

In my opinion, there's a big difference between touching up and overhauling.

So, you honestly believe that Danny PURPOSELY set up his shot so that the background would require less editing????? :\

i can believe it. i'm a total newbie amateur, but i try to set up mine so that it requires as little photoshopping as possible to make it look good. my perspective scored pitifully, but it was taken in the living room of my small apartment and i had a large box that i draped a sheet over as a backdrop so i wouldn't have any distractions in the background. it was comical. all i did to it in photoshop was blur the backdrop and still i satisfy a request for validation...lol.

anyway, yeah, i believe in people trying set up their shots to minimize the editing they will have to do later.

I see your point and I do the same thing.......but, draping objects in a livingroom is far different than what both of these guys were working with, isn't it? :) I'm sure that had Diver had the chance to drape the desk there, he'd have done it. But, equally, I don't believe that Danny had any more "control" over his background in this scenario than Diver did. I'm sure neither of them could have asked to have cars re-arranged to suit their shots. :) Danny's shot just happened to be where it was as was Diver's. There's not a heck of a lot of "re-arranging" or "set-up" that EITHER of them could have done under the circumstances.

01/05/2008 01:57:27 PM · #177

You may not:
use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer�s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.

This is the the new universal DQ tool. In controversial situations it can be interpreted to mean anything that fits a given situation. Kinda like the you can use filters but you really can't rule.

Message edited by author 2008-01-05 13:57:57.

Olympus 14-42mm f.3.5-5.6 ED Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/05/2008 07:53:22 PM · #178

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

You may not:
use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer�s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.

This is the the new universal DQ tool. In controversial situations it can be interpreted to mean anything that fits a given situation. Kinda like the you can use filters but you really can't rule.

LOL......AMEN to "can be interpretted to mean anything that fits a given situation"! Well said!

That's the problem with this type of "rule". What would change one "viewer's description of the photograph" might not change it for another. In my estimation, taking out that desk/dark object in Divers' shot, did NOT change my "description" of the photograph at all.....no more than the other photographer's removal of the entire background changed his shot either.

From my perspective, that object in Divers' shot had no significance to the shot and its focus on its subject. It was an immovable oject. Diver actually removed LESS in his shot than the other photographer did in his! To me, the other photographer's background removal had far more significance to that shot than Divers' background changes. :)

AngryEwok

Olympus E-510

01/06/2008 02:42:21 AM · #179

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I see your point and I do the same thing.......but, draping objects in a livingroom is far different than what both of these guys were working with, isn't it?

It's a much more massive scale, no doubt, but here's my point...

These challenges are designed to recognize and award photographers for their creativity, and ultimately, their ability to compose excellent photographs, correct?

I would have kept my mouth shut if the challenge required Dirt to work with this specific car, in this specific showroom... but it doesn't. There's no reason Dirt couldn't have, for example, borrowed someone's junked out Ford Falcon and parked it in a much better control setting so that he could take a good photograph that didn't require heavy overhauling.

The image is nice, Dirt, I don't know that anyone has doubted this art would be adequate as a commercial device... I just don't think it belongs in a photography contest.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

01/07/2008 12:04:59 PM · #180

Originally posted by AngryEwok:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I see your point and I do the same thing.......but, draping objects in a livingroom is far different than what both of these guys were working with, isn't it?

It's a much more massive scale, no doubt, but here's my point...

These challenges are designed to recognize and award photographers for their creativity, and ultimately, their ability to compose excellent photographs, correct?

I would have kept my mouth shut if the challenge required Dirt to work with this specific car, in this specific showroom... but it doesn't. There's no reason Dirt couldn't have, for example, borrowed someone's junked out Ford Falcon and parked it in a much better control setting so that he could take a good photograph that didn't require heavy overhauling.

The image is nice, Dirt, I don't know that anyone has doubted this art would be adequate as a commercial device... I just don't think it belongs in a photography contest.

Angry, I agree with you that there was no reason why Dirt had to work with this specific car. You're right.....he could have chosen another model, or he could have, as you say....borrowed someone else's car (if there was one available to him to do so....I know that I'd not have had that chance). However, I think that most of us are not that willing to go to those lengths for a net photography challenge where the "prize" is a virtual ribbon that nets us nothing in all reality. :) Perhaps, were the "prize" $500.00 or more.....well, maybe....it would have been worth it! ;)

Now, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to ask Danny how he got his shot....his answer wouldn't be that he borrowed cars and parked them in areas and ways to "improve" his post editing chances! *smile* My bet is that Danny got his shot where he could, the same as Dirt did! (Danny, please feel free to join in here and share! :)) Danny just plain hit it lucky that his background didn't contain a darker object....but, essentially, both photographers had to edit out a lot of background in order to achieve the results that they did! Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

01/07/2008 12:30:25 PM · #181

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)

Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 12:31:01.

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

01/07/2008 01:23:51 PM · #182

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)

Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.

LOL........Exactly!!!! ;)

And, yet...Diver was dq'd.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/07/2008 01:27:10 PM · #183

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Now, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to ask Danny how he got his shot....his answer wouldn't be that he borrowed cars and parked them in areas and ways to "improve" his post editing chances! *smile* My bet is that Danny got his shot where he could, the same as Dirt did! (Danny, please feel free to join in here and share! :)) Danny just plain hit it lucky that his background didn't contain a darker object....but, essentially, both photographers had to edit out a lot of background in order to achieve the results that they did! Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)

Given that Danny used his own car, I'd take that bet.

~Terry

Olympus 14-42mm f.3.5-5.6 ED Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/08/2008 02:33:28 AM · #184

Originally posted by Phil:

Actually he didn't remove anything. He just hid it with a curves adjustment. If you were to save it as a PSD file go back and reset the curves adjustment back to the original setting, everything would still be there, he just faded it to white.

AngryEwok

Olympus E-510

01/08/2008 08:13:28 AM · #185

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Now, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to ask Danny how he got his shot....his answer wouldn't be that he borrowed cars and parked them in areas and ways to "improve" his post editing chances! *smile* My bet is that Danny got his shot where he could, the same as Dirt did! (Danny, please feel free to join in here and share! :)) Danny just plain hit it lucky that his background didn't contain a darker object....but, essentially, both photographers had to edit out a lot of background in order to achieve the results that they did! Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)

Given that Danny used his own car, I'd take that bet.

~Terry

Thought so. Thanks.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

01/08/2008 08:45:37 AM · #186

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)

Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.

Actually he didn't remove anything. He just hid it with a curves adjustment. If you were to save it as a PSD file go back and reset the curves adjustment back to the original setting, everything would still be there, he just faded it to white.

You mean like pretty much what SandyP did in this shot?

For the record, according to past dqs, it doesn't matter how you hid it and if it's still there or not. If you can't see "major elements" then you might as well have painted over them.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/08/2008 02:10:25 PM · #187

The last set of rules or the lastest says nothing about removing "Major elements." This hasn't been around since version 4 of the rules. Instead they changed it to some crap about "changing a typical viewers description."

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/08/2008 02:31:08 PM · #188

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

The crap you referenced would be a rephrased version of the same rule (an element major enough to change a basic description of the photo). The only prominent object in the background of Danny's photo was a car, which is still there. Everything else was extremely recessive in the original. You're welcome to propose better crap.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

01/08/2008 03:05:53 PM · #189

Originally posted by scalvert:

The only prominent object in the background of Danny's photo was a car, which is still there. Everything else was extremely recessive in the original.

Sorry, I guess you're right. I looked again and hardly noticed the loading ramp, set of stairs, cement wall and 8000 cubic yards of concrete. My mistake.

jdannels

Nikon D300s

01/08/2008 03:31:53 PM · #190

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think the problem I have with this ruling is that any one of the details besides the car is insignificant. Cloning parts of the garage windows or stairs only and I think few people would see that as a problem. But if you remove all of the non-prominent items in the photo which is every thing that isn't a car, I have a hard time seeing how that doesn't change the viewer's description.