Bear has asked if he's allowed to post the original, and of course I've said yes... I assume he'll be along in a bit with it. :D
Here, though, is an enlargement of the eye... no editing other than a hard brush of dodge highlights on the entire iris at the same time (no smaller brush... evenly dodged highlights on the entire iris. No burn, no clone, no sharpen. Just all over dodge of highlights.)
As you can see there ARE lines radiating out from the center through the iris.
I thought it was legal to enhance those... with dodge and burn... no cloning.
Alright, here it is, and a detail of the eye as she entered it. Big props to Lydia for letting us post the original, which I've loaded up FULL SIZE: you can open the large version by clicking, then really zoom in on it.
As you can see, even in Lydia's post of the eye only, there's a LOT more precise detail in the submitted eye than in the photographed eye.
I thought it was legal to enhance those... with dodge and burn... no cloning.
But, apparently not.
Of course you can enhance existing detail via dodge & burn, contrast, HDR or other tools. No problem at all with that. What you can't do is "use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture(s)." In this case, you've apparently used a brush to paint hard edges where none existed to create the appearance of a static object that had been radially blurred in the capture.
Well, FWIW, now that I see the original and the entry together, it seems to me that it didn't need all that editing and now looking at the entry, the eye seems very over-processed and almost fake.
I have had an image disqualified where I made a B&W image's background darker via the RGB sliders, which made the background of grass [sports field] just about disappear. I think SC were right to DQ the image, as the grass took up 70% of the image, although it was not the focal point of the image. So too much of a change.
Lydia says that she dodged the whole iris [at the same time] "with a harsh brush" so the intent was there to get something more out of it, but only from what light/information there was in the first place. The creating of new items "lens flare?" happened by increasing/decreasing the prominence of existing pixel light characteristics, but in such a manner that the viewer is fooled into seeing something that could not be discerned on the original.
I would wager that the "Sharpen" tool does the same thing [and other non-related changes], so if one can see the "halo" too much after sharpening, it should really be a DQ as well? Only if a halo is not readily apparent should the image pass the DQ test. Am I right, or missing the point completely?
I thought it was legal to enhance those... with dodge and burn... no cloning.
But, apparently not.
Of course you can enhance existing detail via dodge & burn, contrast, HDR or other tools. No problem at all with that. What you can't do is "use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture(s)." In this case, you've apparently used a brush to paint hard edges where none existed to create the appearance of a static object that had been radially blurred in the capture.
I meant that I thought it was legal at the time of my entering the image.
Lydia says that she dodged the whole iris [at the same time] "with a harsh brush" so the intent was there to get something more out of it, but only from what light/information there was in the first place.
That was referring to the posted example, not her entry.
I find your comments interesting (and usually positive), but I notice you often note that you are comenting only, and I was curious about what it is about a photo makes you want to comment but not vote?
I have just taken, and left, my last child at college.
I have just come home to a very empty house that used to be full of four "children", their friends, and their activities.
Can we please do inquisitions on everything on another day.
This thread was supposed to be just silly fun.
But... since you ask, General... I don't vote on any challenge that I cannot vote on every entry in it. If not, it skews the voting system.
However, I joined DPC five and a half years after you and have voted about 17,000 more votes than you, for instance (NOT calling you out... you're the first person I thought of to compare activity with)... and 12,000 more comments than you.
I refuse to apologize for commenting only. I could just not vote AND not comment on challenges... But, I like to tell people when I like their image (and when I see something that needs improvement in my opinion. That's because I have become a much better photographer through the comments of people taking the time to comment on my images... good or bad. I appreciate them all... even if they don't vote.) :D
As a Newbie, I'm really grateful for comments and was glad to have had yours Lydia, with or without a vote! I'm only going to get off the last pages if I know where I can improve! Thank you - and grateful for any more you may have time to give :-)
I was not at all asking for you to apologize -- I was just curious, and I appreciate every one of those comments.
I'm not sure if having a child in college these days deserves congratulations or condolences -- I should be finding out more next year -- but I suppose it is an interesting experience either way ...
I'm not sure if having a child in college these days deserves congratulations or condolences -- I should be finding out more next year -- but I suppose it is an interesting experience either way ...
Isaac can't POSSIBLY be college-bound already, can he?
I'm not sure if having a child in college these days deserves congratulations or condolences -- I should be finding out more next year -- but I suppose it is an interesting experience either way ...
At this point, it's "condolences". Try having FOUR in college at once... well... three in college... one in law school.
Balance that budget! Ha!
Thankfully, they all work and help all they can... and are frugal and take responsibility for themselves.
Lydia, you always give me great comments, usually you're seeing what I'm trying to convey and enjoying it :-) so please don't stop commenting! You're usually one of the first to comment in a challenge, so big kudos is due there too.
As for the 4 college-age kids...holy liftin...no wonder the house is suddenly all quiet! But it also sounds like you raised em right, to work and be frugal with their money as opposed to just blowing through it like there is no tomorrow. My parents would approve :-)
Keep up the good work and we await your return and comments!
I hate to speak up because I feel like a broken record, but having seen the original, I don't agree with the dq. The edit goes further than I'd feel comfortable taking it in adv editing, but in the face of all the portraits with impossible iris shimmer, radii and fleckage, it's hard to understand how this instance is cut and dried. Sorry. Btw - great capture Lydia.
... in the face of all the portraits with impossible iris shimmer, radii and fleckage, it's hard to understand how this instance is cut and dried. Sorry. Btw - great capture Lydia.
THEY start with sharp eyes. THIS one started with a blurred eye.
