if i have an image and i darken it a bit to remove to details to create pure silhouette, do you think I'll get dq'd? the image is backlit but there is still some detail in the foreground object and i want to burn it out.
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree?
can you? I know other people that have been DQd for blacking out a background simply by using curves... and I'm not quite sure how that's different.
I think if it's a backlit, mostly black subject already, I think it's ok. But if there's a lot of detail, I think that changes the definition of how the viewer sees the image and is DQable.
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree?
can you? I know other people that have been DQd for blacking out a background simply by using curves... and I'm not quite sure how that's different.
I think if it's a backlit, mostly black subject already, I think it's ok. But if there's a lot of detail, I think that changes the definition of how the viewer sees the image and is DQable.
the rules read 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"
so, are saying the "element" being removed is "detail"? if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear. and with levels or brightness/contrast adjustments you are essentially changing the "color" of the object from something to black.
maybe "removing" the background with levels took the image too much out of context, so it is more prone to being DQed.
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree?
can you? I know other people that have been DQd for blacking out a background simply by using curves... and I'm not quite sure how that's different.
I think if it's a backlit, mostly black subject already, I think it's ok. But if there's a lot of detail, I think that changes the definition of how the viewer sees the image and is DQable.
the rules read 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"
so, are saying the "element" being removed is "detail"? if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear. and with levels or brightness/contrast adjustments you are essentially changing the "color" of the object from something to black.
maybe "removing" the background with levels took the image too much out of context, so it is more prone to being DQed.
I'll be curious about an answer to this. You can read my earlier response as a "I think..... ?? maybe??? not sure?" type of response. Because it's just a guess.
well, Mike, i feel somewhat the same as Wendy ... you should take my response as a best guess, too (i may have stated it too definitive). the SC decides case by case, so what may fly one time may not the next.
if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear.
So would I. But the way to determine if it is legal, is to imagine how 10 people would describe the photo, if asked to do so.
If they ONLY see a bear, then you're good. But if they also mention the trees or the river, or the salmon jumping, or the tent he just tore to shreds or the tourists screaming or the stunning sunset etc etc etc....... then you removed details and will get DQed.
Why not just create a near silhouette, while keeping basic forms in the shadow intact?
Granted, you'll face the wrath of DNMC, but maybe their monitors are horrible for darks, too ;0
Personally, I'd leave SOME detail if it was there to begin with. You can't get rid of image area in advanced, regardless of how you do it (this is one of the major ways that basic editing is more powerful). BUT I'd keep it dark and downplayed.
If it has just a little visible detail, I think clipping the blacks a bit is just fine. I've done it, though I've never had one of them backed up with a validation.
If it has just a little visible detail, I think clipping the blacks a bit is just fine. I've done it, though I've never had one of them backed up with a validation.
I'm sorry but are we saying that in advanced editing one couldn't make a photo at the correct exposure and then crank it down in post so that it's almost black? One needs expert rules for such a thing?
I'm sorry but are we saying that in advanced editing one couldn't make a photo at the correct exposure and then crank it down in post so that it's almost black? One needs expert rules for such a thing?
One could. I wouldn't go blacking out something with normally visible details, but it it were *almost* a silhouette, then I think clipping the blacks a touch is ok. I did it on this one:
