This is another version using curves and hue/sat to change the sky, and adding a light effect. Would the light effect be legal for an advanced challenge?
I think it would be borderline, even though it is in Heida's style. The finished version makes it look as if there's a light in only one place, dark sky elsewhere - that's quite different from the original where there's cloudy sky for the whole sky portion.
Pictures have been disqualified for adding light rays, for example this one, where the original sky was pretty much a solid blue:
This shot would definitely be pushing the border in my opinion. You're creating a "spotlight" effect where none existed before. Of course there are varying SC opinions on this type of shot, but you'd probably have a mixed vote on it.
Right - if it adds a major element, like a ray of light that wasn't in the original, that would be a no. But if you're just doing something like adding a spotlight to highlight/deemphasize, then ok. Just be warned, I'm pretty sure that treatment is why my DPC Cinema entry took such a beating. Legal, but legal doesn't make it well-received.
Originally posted by ursula:
I think it would be borderline, even though it is in Heida's style. The finished version makes it look as if there's a light in only one place, dark sky elsewhere - that's quite different from the original where there's cloudy sky for the whole sky portion.
Pictures have been disqualified for adding light rays, for example this one, where the original sky was pretty much a solid blue:
Alan is right, there would be differing opinions on this at SC.
It is borderline because even though the light is there in the original, the dark that surrounds that light is not. It's sort of the reverse of Rikki's shot. But it is this darkening of the surrounding area that creates this light spot, and the original doesn't have a light spot.
Hope that helps.
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Right - if it adds a major element, like a ray of light that wasn't in the original, that would be a no. But if you're just doing something like adding a spotlight to highlight/deemphasize, then ok. Just be warned, I'm pretty sure that treatment is why my DPC Cinema entry took such a beating. Legal, but legal doesn't make it well-received.
Originally posted by ursula:
I think it would be borderline, even though it is in Heida's style. The finished version makes it look as if there's a light in only one place, dark sky elsewhere - that's quite different from the original where there's cloudy sky for the whole sky portion.
Pictures have been disqualified for adding light rays, for example this one, where the original sky was pretty much a solid blue:
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway. So basically the light effect filter is legal in advanced if it is used to lighten an existing light area? And is the problem with the example the creating of light in the darkness no matter how it is done?
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway. So basically the light effect filter is legal in advanced if it is used to lighten an existing light area? And is the problem with the example the creating of light in the darkness no matter how it is done?
Essentially, yes. If you've created light where there was none before, not only are you playing God, but you're creating major elements which is a no-no!
Is it legal in advanced editing to clone out reflections/catch lights in eyes?
Also: is it legal in advanced editing to clone out skin imperfections/birth marks etc? (Not that I have any) ;)
I realize the rules states that minor distracting elements may be removed but a catch light in for example a close-up of an eye would in my opnion be a majoe element.
In most cases, you'd be fine with both of those things. Catch lights are generally pretty minor things, as are blemishes on skin. It's when people go overboard and create/remove really noticeable elements that it becomes a problem.
Originally posted by Are_62:
While we're at it with legal questions:
Is it legal in advanced editing to clone out reflections/catch lights in eyes?
Also: is it legal in advanced editing to clone out skin imperfections/birth marks etc? (Not that I have any) ;)
I realize the rules states that minor distracting elements may be removed but a catch light in for example a close-up of an eye would in my opnion be a majoe element.
It doesn't matter how you go about achieving it, if you're creating a new element (or removing an element) in the process, it's not likely to be legal.
Originally posted by dudephil:
Would it be legal to use dodge and burn to try to get a similar effect?
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway.
I feel the same way. I didn't use the spotlight in my DPC cinema because I was afraid of a DQ but the picture looked so muc better with it.
I think the thing to keep in mind though is that this is a photography site, and in cases such as this one, even if the final version looks so much better than the original, it is something that wasn't photographed but created in digital art.
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.
I'm not saying it's wrong or bad to create these beautiful images, but for here, as digital photography is defined here, it is not accepted in challenges.
You could, for example, dodge and burn the clouds (in advanced) until they look much stormier than they look now, and that would be OK. Or, you could adjust levels and curves (like Bear did) and have a stormier sky for basic. What you can't do is make something where there was nothing before.
Maybe it would help to think that you can emphasize what's there already, but not make something new.
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.
thanks,
this is actually why i left my spotlight out. as funny as it sounds considering the previous locked thread I was scared I was breaking the rules.
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.
thanks,
this is actually why i left my spotlight out. as funny as it sounds considering the previous locked thread I was scared I was breaking the rules.
Your final version is quite beautiful though. I like it.
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.
thanks,
this is actually why i left my spotlight out. as funny as it sounds considering the previous locked thread I was scared I was breaking the rules.
For DPC Cinema I worked hard with a flashlight and many takes to create a diagonal "line" of light in my photo with near-blackness at the corners... not that the voters cared for it much.
For DPC Cinema I worked hard with a flashlight and many takes to create a diagonal "line" of light in my photo with near-blackness at the corners... not that the voters cared for it much.
I would have done something similar but the wife was already about to divorce me for potentially making her deaf when I got fake blood in her ear:)
