As long as doing so doesn't create anything new or obliterate something from the image like changing the exposure so much that the background disappears.
As long as doing so doesn't create anything new or obliterate something from the image like changing the exposure so much that the background disappears.
I would be burning a uncharacteristic white background and a bit of the subject's clothes...
Do you think this is NOK?
I don't think it is OK. As long as just the backgrond vanishes, it is OK, because it was intended to be white. At the point where the babies clothes disappear, it woulde be "removing a major element"
As long as doing so doesn't create anything new or obliterate something from the image like changing the exposure so much that the background disappears.
I'm in accord with cpanaioti, for me is no longer basic editing if you make disappear completely thte background
Personally I don't see anything wrong with what you've posted. The basic rules say you can't create anything new, but you haven't done that and what you have done is applied to the whole image.
I did something similar for the Bored II challenge:
Actually, by selective decolouring you can make things disappear in the first place. If you had a green and red t-shirt, and you desaturated both, you would have a grey shirt, and it would still be inside the rules.
For that shot, you could have bumped the light in the red channel and the spots would almost entirely vanish.
And when you're doing b&w conversion with the blue channel, sometimes things are created in the sky that weren't like that.
For me, the picture shown looks ok.
When in doubt, do2 things:
- send a ticket to SC
- have something for backup, in case that one is rejected :)
I think you're fine with this... what you're doing is nothing more than changing the exposure of the photograph, which could have been done in camera
I'd agree with that: I don't see how this could be illegal without the rules becoming a mockery of themselves. If you shot this in with, say, 10 different exposures, from VERY overexposed to VERY underexposed, you'd have a choice of 10 images to enter unedited, ranging from very washed out to very dark, and all you'd have to do is adjust the contrast on one of 'em to get this result. So how can that be illegal?
I think you're fine with this... what you're doing is nothing more than changing the exposure of the photograph, which could have been done in camera
I would agree. It's not like you only dogded out the sheets. But the effect has been evenly applied to the whole photo. There are those shots where the background was turned black, but the subject wasn't touched. If the same darkening effect was applied to the whole shot , I doubt those would be DQed?
If you want to enter the photo in a challenge. Best to send in a Ticket via //www.dpchallenge.com/help_contact.php
I think you're fine with this... what you're doing is nothing more than changing the exposure of the photograph, which could have been done in camera
I would agree. It's not like you only dogded out the sheets. But the effect has been evenly applied to the whole photo. There are those shots where the background was turned black, but the subject wasn't touched. If the same darkening effect was applied to the whole shot , I doubt those would be DQed?
If you want to enter the photo in a challenge. Best to send in a Ticket.
True, I remember all the shots from incense I took, I blackened the whole of the bg and then inverted it, and did it without selections, so it would be legal as well.
It IS more than changing exposure, but I won't get into an argument about that... If you really wanted to just change the exposure, you should've taken the image differently (changed settings, not post-processed). It's hard to overexpose the whole image and keep detail in the face.
ETA: I see scalvert has pitched in, so now you have at least one SC member agreeing with you. I still disagree though, as you took an image and removed a major element. Whether or not that could've been done by using a longer shutter/higher ISO/wider aperture is irrelevant IMO, so long as you took an image and edited it to remove major elements.
I think you're fine with this... what you're doing is nothing more than changing the exposure of the photograph, which could have been done in camera
I'd agree with that: I don't see how this could be illegal without the rules becoming a mockery of themselves. If you shot this in with, say, 10 different exposures, from VERY overexposed to VERY underexposed, you'd have a choice of 10 images to enter unedited, ranging from very washed out to very dark, and all you'd have to do is adjust the contrast on one of 'em to get this result. So how can that be illegal?
R.
Yeah I agree with that. Since you haven't "selected" any portion so the adjustments u made were applied to entire image equally so it is fine with basic editing rules.
I think you're fine with this... what you're doing is nothing more than changing the exposure of the photograph, which could have been done in camera
I'd agree with that: I don't see how this could be illegal without the rules becoming a mockery of themselves. If you shot this in with, say, 10 different exposures, from VERY overexposed to VERY underexposed, you'd have a choice of 10 images to enter unedited, ranging from very washed out to very dark, and all you'd have to do is adjust the contrast on one of 'em to get this result. So how can that be illegal?
R.
Yeah I agree with that. Since you haven't "selected" any portion so the adjustments u made were applied to entire image equally so it is fine with basic editing rules.
Though it may be seen as loop hole in basic editing rules that by doing this u are actually making things disappear in the photo
It IS more than changing exposure, but I won't get into an argument about that... If you really wanted to just change the exposure, you should've taken the image differently (changed settings, not post-processed). It's hard to overexpose the whole image and keep detail in the face.
Not particularly: if you jack the camera contrast up and then overexpose, that's what you'll get. Look at it this way; if you shot in RAW, you could just move the exposure and contrast sliders and see this result, easy-peasy. And that would HAVE to be legal, because in RAW there's no "actual" as-exposed baseline to deviate from, just a range of possibilities.
I'm one of the most anal retentive people on the site when it comes to removing backgrounds... but I agree that the example IS perfectly legal. Tonal adjustments are fine to whatever extreme, so long as they're applied uniformly to the whole image.
Thanks to all who replied, including the SC member.
I have to reiterate the fact that this was nothing but a very basic (even though extreme) *Curves Adjustment* applied globally.
Impressive!
The challenge has just began voting and I'm already submitting evidence. It looks like a trend in my latest pictures.
I might as well give up on those Photoshop lessons because Bibble 5 is giving me enough room already... :)
Impressive!
The challenge has just began voting and I'm already submitting evidence. It looks like a trend in my latest pictures.
I might as well give up on those Photoshop lessons because Bibble 5 is giving me enough room already... :)
