With all the photos with black or white or colored backgrounds, I cannot see how by viewing this photo it was picked out for validation, when there are at least 26 photos with plain backgrounds showing no elements supporting the product.
My Processing was done by selecting and using the gradient map, sliding the location slider to 52% had I only gone to 57% a very faint outline was visible.I wonder if the person who asked for validation did the same with the other photos of the same finish.
You changed the image from a computer and boxes on a table, to a computer and boxes floating mid air. I am aware that if the table hadn't have been noticeable in the cropped version then it maybe would have been different. Also the vivid blue does not represent the initial support for the subjects.
I know there is confusion over cloning out strings and other supports, as well as changing colours...like the gradient that was used in De Sousa's image...or maybe it was because SC doesn't like that colour blue...you will have to ask them the full reasoning to your DQ. I am very sorry to hear of your demise though.
It's pretty obvious in this one that you replaced the entire background; there's no depth, no nuances of light, nothing that looks remotely natural or possible for a white backdrop.
I would have to agree with a DQ on that entry, the background has just been selected and replaced.
Had you used a white sheet or something similar to create a uniform backdrop/scoop then maybe it would be different as there would be nothing in the shot to "remove"
It's pretty obvious in this one that you replaced the entire background; there's no depth, no nuances of light, nothing that looks remotely natural or possible for a white backdrop.
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT JUST LOOKING AT THE PHOTO YOUR typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color),WAS CHANGED? AND YOU SAID TO YOURSELF NO ELEMENTS SUPPORTING THE PRODUCTS, I DON'T BELIEVE LIGHT IS AN ISSUE AS AN ELEMENT.
This had a table removed which is a fairly major object imho. If it had been shot on a plain piece of paper or something I suspect it would have been fine to flatten out any creases with dodge or burn.
I would have called this image up for validation. It looks like it was cut and pasted onto a new background. And from looking at the original its obvious that it was.
Now I know that you have issues with aimeethetoo's entry - . This was shot on a black muslin sheet. The bike was held up by the kickstand which is not visible because it was on the other side of the bike and the light was coming from in front and way high (I know cause I was holding the light). Nothing was cloned out or removed though some of the sheet was probably burned to clean up any light spillage. The background was always black, there was no cutting/pasting or major cloning that I know of. Now had I been standing in the shot with my arm visibly holding the bike up and she had cloned it out then it would be dqable. IMO my arm would be the equivalent of your table - IMHO.
BrianR, you PMed me how this shot was done. I answered your PM, not knowing you would make such a big fuzz out of your DQ (which is obvious to me, BTW). I told you, the bottles and fake ice cubes were supported by dry ice paellets, which lay in a white styrofoam box, the box itself was in a light tent. So you saw, it is possible to get a white (or black) background without breaking rules, when all the surrounding objects are white (or black). Lighting is very much an issue with these kind of shots. Your own entry has TWO differently colored backgrounds behind your subject and that is one reason, why the major object rule has been broken (I guess). The other (probably minor) reason was filling the background with blue.
Sorry to hear about your DQ. I would say it was DQ'd because of the table everything is sitting on. If it was all continuous then it might have made it but when removing a whole background like that it's very risky.
I was under the impression that we couldn't add or change the background in any way... thats why I took four huge sheets of white paper to the park for this shot
I was under the impression that we couldn't add or change the background in any way... thats why I took four huge sheets of white paper to the park for this shot
"apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process."
If you had not used the white card and just dodge'd the buildings out you would have removed major features from your shot
Sorry to hear about your DQ. I would say it was DQ'd because of the table everything is sitting on. If it was all continuous then it might have made it but when removing a whole background like that it's very risky.
If you think you were cheated view my DQ here
...and for an interesting read (for the newbies) --> DQ'ed question
BrianR, you PMed me how this shot was done. I answered your PM, not knowing you would make such a big fuzz out of your DQ (which is obvious to me, BTW). I told you, the bottles and fake ice cubes were supported by dry ice paellets, which lay in a white styrofoam box, the box itself was in a light tent. So you saw, it is possible to get a white (or black) background without breaking rules, when all the surrounding objects are white (or black). Lighting is very much an issue with these kind of shots. Your own entry has TWO differently colored backgrounds behind your subject and that is one reason, why the major object rule has been broken (I guess). The other (probably minor) reason was filling the background with blue.
Just to clear things up I am not making a big fuss about my DQ, more to the point trying to learn how all the different backgrounds are obtained for DPC Challenges.
As this is a site for learning as well as doing, you do not get any answers unless you ask.
Thank you for all the feed back, and the ideas for shooting for different challenges has been a good learning curve.
I realize that I should have cropped to the edge of the table instead of using the full frame, and used the color of the wall this would have made a difference as I would not have been removing the table.
Thank you for all the feed back, and the ideas for shooting for different challenges has been a good learning curve.
I realize that I should have cropped to the edge of the table instead of using the full frame, and used the color of the wall this would have made a difference as I would not have been removing the table.
You're welcome. but WHEN YOU WRITE IN CAPITALS or bold type it looks as if you were a bit embarrassed.
but WHEN YOU WRITE IN CAPITALS or bold type it looks as if you were a bit embarrassed.
I always read all caps as yelling or being irritated.
I use bold letters because I'm a bold kinda guy or just when I want to make something stand out but sometimes I do uSE THE caps BUT onLY BECAUSE My finger hiTS IT AND WHooopS.
