The results of the 'Rope II' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 5th place image for being unable to provide valid originals. Congrats to our new honorable mention!
The former blue ribbon image in the "Rope II" challenge has been disqualified under the "creating new elements" rule. The photographer got a bit overenthusiastic with the clone tool and arranged areas of cordage to complete coverage of the figure in several places.
The former blue ribbon image in the "Rope II" challenge has been disqualified under the "creating new elements" rule. The photographer got a bit overenthusiastic with the clone tool and arranged areas of cordage to complete coverage of the figure in several places.
Congratulations to our new ribboner and HM.
For the record the only areas that were given 'complete coverage" were some gaps over the buttocks to hide the shorts. I did add a couple of short lengths over one shoulder and one hair strand. But if that is breaking the rules than I will take the DQ. Congratulations to the new ribboners. :)
The former blue ribbon image in the "Rope II" challenge has been disqualified under the "creating new elements" rule. The photographer got a bit overenthusiastic with the clone tool and arranged areas of cordage to complete coverage of the figure in several places.
Congratulations to our new ribboner and HM.
For the record the only areas that were given 'complete coverage" were some gaps over the buttocks to hide the shorts. I did add a couple of short lengths over one shoulder and one hair strand. But if that is breaking the rules than I will take the DQ. Congratulations to the new ribboners. :)
Here is the cropped before and after.
To me I liked this image and one of the best not from the post processing point of view but over all thought process and execution.
Though on a different note since you so good with post processing, so may be the "red" thingy you didn't like so couldn't resist and end up adding a few ropes here and there!
That's a tough one.
As usual, I can see choosing either side and having a strong opinion. On the one hand, the large majority of the shot is legitimately set up and photographed - so it's not as if the intention was to get away with anything. But on the other hand, the line needs to be drawn somewhere in regard to cloning and adjusting images that fall into the Advanced Edit ruleset.
THankfully, we have a group of folks who make these final decisions so I don't have to ;)
Sorry for DQ. I do like the processing, and I really appreciate you posting the original. It is a learning experience to not only to see where the line was drawn as far as cloning but also to see what can be done to an original image in processing by someone who knows what they are doing. DQ or not, it is a fascinating image. Thanks, Judi
The former blue ribbon image in the "Rope II" challenge has been disqualified under the "creating new elements" rule. The photographer got a bit overenthusiastic with the clone tool and arranged areas of cordage to complete coverage of the figure in several places.
Congratulations to our new ribboner and HM.
For the record the only areas that were given 'complete coverage" were some gaps over the buttocks to hide the shorts. I did add a couple of short lengths over one shoulder and one hair strand. But if that is breaking the rules than I will take the DQ. Congratulations to the new ribboners. :)
Here is the cropped before and after.
We're using complete as a verb, not an adjective; as in "finish to the photographer's satisfaction", basically.
To be clear, there are 4 areas of concern here: the most obvious one is the elimination of the red in the buttocks. In addition, cordage has been added to the model's shoulder and across his upper back in the same area. There's also addition of a braided loop of the manila rope laid down vertically where his hairfall is. also noticeable but unobjectionable is the removal of the "hair wrap" from the cordage upper left and of the bracelet from the model's wrist.
The principle to be aware of here is pretty simple: we allow cloning OUT of stuff, within limits, but we're a lot stricter about ADDING stuff to the image. It's one thing to remove, say, an annoying shrub in the middle distance and replace it with what you'd see if the shrub weren't there; but it's an entirely different issue when you decide the field NEEDS a shrub, and move one in where no shrub had been before.
It's a critical distinction and we want to be sure people understand the issue. Many thanks to Judi for volunteering her original for scrutiny, it helps a lot.
The former blue ribbon image in the "Rope II" challenge has been disqualified under the "creating new elements" rule. The photographer got a bit overenthusiastic with the clone tool and arranged areas of cordage to complete coverage of the figure in several places.
Congratulations to our new ribboner and HM.
For the record the only areas that were given 'complete coverage" were some gaps over the buttocks to hide the shorts. I did add a couple of short lengths over one shoulder and one hair strand. But if that is breaking the rules than I will take the DQ. Congratulations to the new ribboners. :)
Here is the cropped before and after.
We're using complete as a verb, not an adjective; as in "finish to the photographer's satisfaction", basically.
To be clear, there are 4 areas of concern here: the most obvious one is the elimination of the red in the buttocks. In addition, cordage has been added to the model's shoulder and across her his upper back in the same area. There's also addition of a braided loop of the manila rope laid down vertically where her his hairfall is. also noticeable but unobjectionable is the removal of the "hair wrap" from the cordage upper left and of the bracelet from the model's wrist.
The principle to be aware of here is pretty simple: we allow cloning OUT of stuff, within limits, but we're a lot stricter about ADDING stuff to the image. It's one thing to remove, say, an annoying shrub in the middle distance and replace it with what you'd see if the shrub weren't there; but it's an entirely different issue when you decide the field NEEDS a shrub, and move one in where no shrub had been before.
It's a critical distinction and we want to be sure people understand the issue. Many thanks to Judi for volunteering her original for scrutiny, it helps a lot.
I know it is hard to tell..but can people please refer to the model as a he?
Message edited by Bear_Music - correct gender references.
Okay, I fixed the gender references in the original and in your quotation. Sorry about that. Meanwhile, do you understand the distinction we're making? I was hoping I'd cleared it up for you...
Okay, I fixed the gender references in the original and in your quotation. Sorry about that. Meanwhile, do you understand the distinction we're making? I was hoping I'd cleared it up for you...
I understand your side of things. I still have my opinion but that is ok. I accept the decision and am not arguing over it. Things like that don't bother me nowadays....so as long as the before and after help others to realise what is not acceptable...then all is good.
