Thanks to all participants for their high votes and choosing this entry for the first Blue Ribbon in 2012. Electing this entry to 1st place demonstrated a Blue Ribbon-winning formula for Advanced Challenge (yawn) entries.
Traditionally, Tilt-Shift was for architectural and landscape shots to correct perspective and increase apparent depth of field. There's some great examples on DPC of 'proper' use of tilt-shift. But hey! wait a minute, it's more fun isn't it when tilt-shift is deliberately mis-used for dramatic effects! Tiltshift Purists will cite this as an example of when something is used 'properly', few people are aware it'd been used at all, and then popular opinion inevitably attributes this more often seen 'mis-used' effect as being what Tilt Shift actually is about! It's a great thing, democracy isn't it!
What I was going for in this entry was simple: Take something very recognisable as being very large, and then radically change the sense of its size. From the viewer's point of view, there becomes a conflict between the perceived size of the familiar object and the viewer's expectations of how that object should be perceived. I create something that looks very much a scale model of something that's real by applying the drastic blurring caused by a 'mis-used' tilt-shift lens setup.
For this to work, I quickly realised that a large object needs to be viewed from a far distance. I would then need to manipulate the image to appear as though it was recorded using a macro lens, by applying a faux 'tilt-shift' effect in post. I wanted a distortion of reality so profound, that even the owner of the familiar object would never recognise it as his/hers. After a lot of searching for large objects and suitable downward looking locations to shoot them, by chance I came across an ideal source to use in a junk box. A photo collage of london scenes, including a certain famous landmark seen from the air, of which I photographed section of, it was perfect. Most of the image was going to be savagely blurred out, while the object of interest sharpened. It would be a real bonus for me if the viewer was not sure what is is they were seeing, because that adds to the conflict !
Editing steps: Slight histogram adjustments to enhance contrast and tweak colour balance. With graphics tablet/pen. Soften brush in graduated layers (akin to a watercolour colour-wash technique). Applied to background/river water layer. Sharpen brush to Bridge structure layer, taking care to not over-sharpen. An enormous amount of dodge& burn on bridge structure. Resize. Crop. Compression for webpage.
Disqualification Details
You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Statistics
Views since voting: 4085 Views during voting: 496 Comments: 56 Favorites: 0
Faking-up a fake to fool the viewers into thinking they're viewing a real photo of a model when in fact it's a faked photo of someone elses photo of a real scene. Genius!
I owe a big Thank You to the DPC community for helping me to define an ideology that can be used
to win first place and 'blue ribbon' in advanced editing. Now that I've cracked what the 'DPC formula',
is, my challenge has come to an end. This is nothing new, Politicians had always sought out which
particular ideologies are the most effective to win votes and elect themselves into power. Except in
politics you can't "ask for your vote back" or "un-vote" if you're later dissilusioned with the president
that YOU had elected.
Special Thanks also goes out to the member who posted a direct .bmp image and a method to
achieve the same effect. To demonstrate that one does not even need to utilise a camera at all, is
could well open the floodgates for more entries using methods like this (if not already already taken
place). But more clever.
As for allegations of 'plagarism', and 'judging a photo of a photo'? Welcome to the Real World!
That's what sells Units. Example: You've heard Madonna's 2005 single 'Hung Up'? It's mostly
re-cycled Abba (1979), repeated over and over. Listen for yourself:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1RdtUJtG8s (listen to first 10 secs)
not even believing its a photo of a poster now after the pic giles posted... this is out of order.. be very surprised if this isn't DQ'd.. what a chancer lol
Yes, I'm surprised too! I haven't entered a DPC Challenge for quite a while. I see this site as getting more unfair if it doesn't DQ this. :-(
Even if it slips by the "Rules", which are necessary, it is a Copyright Infringement!
It's fine for learning a technique, but only if the copyright holder allows it.
not even believing its a photo of a poster now after the pic giles posted... this is out of order.. be very surprised if this isn't DQ'd.. what a chancer lol
Yes, I'm surprised too! I haven't entered a DPC Challenge for quite a while. I see this site as getting more unfair if it doesn't DQ this. :-(
Even if it slips by the "Rules", which are necessary, it is a Copyright Infringement!
It's fine for learning a technique, but only if the copyright holder allows it.
.......but possibly being kicked off the site for good too.
Oh, i think that is a bit harsh. Yes, it's an obvious DQ, no doubt there, but i do think it is from a misunderstadning of some of the rules as m_a_r_c quoted below. Seems a genuine mistake and i'm sure he won't do it again. Let's not get too pitchforky.
Hmmm, if it was a photo of a poster then I can see why you say this, but its looking more and more like a screen capture to me..
not even believing its a photo of a poster now after the pic giles posted... this is out of order.. be very surprised if this isn't DQ'd.. what a chancer lol
i think snaffles point is it goes against the hole ethos of the site to copy a picture off the net, crop off the copyright mirror it and apply 1 filter in photoshop then write or copy and paste a condescending spiel to attempt to draw attenion from what is basically cheating, its not a miss understanding etc, where everyone else took the time to go out and photograph something and process it etc. i bet the spiel took longer than the photo.
.......but possibly being kicked off the site for good too.
Oh, i think that is a bit harsh. Yes, it's an obvious DQ, no doubt there, but i do think it is from a misunderstadning of some of the rules as m_a_r_c quoted below. Seems a genuine mistake and i'm sure he won't do it again. Let's not get too pitchforky.
Faking-up a fake to fool the viewers into thinking they're viewing a real photo of a model when in fact it's a faked photo of someone elses photo of a real scene. Genius!
Sorry but this is not an original image captured by you. Just because you manipulated it does not make it yours. IMHO you are not only looking at a DQ, but possibly being kicked off the site for good too.
i almost hope it gets dq'd based soley on the self-righteous tone of the description, felt like i had been lectured by some anal-retentive professor of architectural photography by the time i was done reading it....
Well, not a very good idea. I thought you had shot it from an airplane because I had never seen the poster. I'm sorry you'll get a DQ... I had been DQ'ed for muuuuuch less than this (just a blurry background)
what do you mean by "a poster of london from the air, of which I photographed part of"? did you actually photograph a poster?
I was very reluctant at first to continue, but I checked the challenge rules carefully which stated: "[you may] include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." After I manipulated the image it became un-recognisable from the original, because the TiltShift effect took over, the bridge becomes a model and looks too fake to look real.
erm....
"but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo"
applying a slight lens blur to someone else photo isnt really the ethos here not to mention the copyright infringement on the original image!!
what do you mean by "a poster of london from the air, of which I photographed part of"? did you actually photograph a poster?
I loved this entry during voting but now I would question it also ... including existing works of art as part of your image is one thing, but as a whole your image is just a processed photo of a photo with no objects added by yourself to the set.. requiring no setup by you whatsoever.. sorry but i feel this is a major shoe-horned in entry now.. i do like the finished result, but you have just processed somebody elses work in my eyes.
what do you mean by "a poster of london from the air, of which I photographed part of"? did you actually photograph a poster?
I was very reluctant at first to continue, but I checked the challenge rules carefully which stated: "[you may] include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." After I manipulated the image it became un-recognisable from the original, because the TiltShift effect took over, the bridge becomes a model and looks too fake to look real.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
