No flash was used here. Lighting was hard because I wanted a night sky look to it...as though looking from above...and a sort of comic book look to it since that was the idea behind the challenge topic.
And, ok...seems that one person loves the photography itself but, not the hairy chest! LOL Sorry, wasn't going to get him to go for a chest wax! Too bad people are so intolerant. I'm sure that the hairy chest is pulling down the score.
[Dec. 1st, 2008 11:59:56 AM]
Actually, I really like this shot no matter how well it does score wise. I like the effect I was able to capture without asking my husband to leap off of the roof to capture the idea of flight!LOL And, in looking at some of the other entries....I'd say that biased or not...mine is not at all "bad" enough to be down at the 4.833 mark at this point by comparison. So, those with hairy chest repulsions....life isn't made up of model men with no chest hair! ;))
GUESS THAT WAS THE LEAST OF MY WORRIES, HUH?
Nothing like being "branded" as a bad girl. Kind of like wearing the Scarlet Letter. Oh the shame.
Actually, this was shot on a blue background. Levels and color balance, hue & sat had adjustments made on them to darken it down to a dark blue/black (depending on your monitor). I then, used the dodge tool to lighten up the area around the model. Apparently, that is considered creating something new??? Oh well....it was sitting at a 4.85 last time that I looked at the score, so no big loss. I hate the fact that it's sitting at the bottom of the entries, listed as "disqualified". Just another humiliation in here. ;)
Disqualification Details
You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as a new background context) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
Statistics
Views since voting: 792 Views during voting: 265 Comments: 11 Favorites: 0
You created a patterned background where no pattern existed. It wouldn't have mattered if you'd lightened then burned or darkened then dodged. It's not the technique you used but what you did with it that matters. :)
I know you're allowed to darken a background by using the burn tool, which I have done on several occasions. It removes subtle lights/colors in the background almost entirely and evidently that's ok. What you did was to create light areas in the background that didn't exist in the original. It was a good idea but evidently not acceptable. Next time, use a sky/cloud backdrop, I've seen these things in the craft stores.
I like what you did though, it's very original. Keep up the good work!
I see your point Jo and thank you for the compliment! :)
Actually, though.... the ORIGINAL background was "light". It was a lighter blue with light and dark areas to it due to lighting. What I did was to darken the background by using levels, color balance, H&S, brightness and contrast to the OVERALL shot both in RAW conversion and then again in Photoshop.
The DODGE tool was used to bring back out the ORIGINAL background lightness and color. I did not use the burn tool to darken the background, which could have worked too. Perhaps, had I done it that way, it would have been legal but, I doubt it.
Anyways, it's a moot point now. No need in going over it all again since it was DQ'd and that is that.
I know you're allowed to darken a background by using the burn tool, which I have done on several occasions. It removes subtle lights/colors in the background almost entirely and evidently that's ok. What you did was to create light areas in the background that didn't exist in the original. It was a good idea but evidently not acceptable. Next time, use a sky/cloud backdrop, I've seen these things in the craft stores.
I like what you did though, it's very original. Keep up the good work!
Hi, Jamie. You wrote "this was shot on a blue background. Levels and color balance, hue & sat had adjustments made on them to darken it down to a dark blue/black (depending on your monitor). I then, used the dodge tool to lighten up the area around the model."
If that is true, then this shouldn't have been disqualified!
I totally agree with you...but, SC doesn't agree....even after asking for explanation and appealing the decision. He was on a blue (royal blue) piece of cloth, laying on the floor. I shot this from above him, on a ladder, looking down and had him pose in different poses until I got the look of "flying". I then, darkended down the background and entire shot, using levels, H&S, color balance. Once I got the final look, I used the dodge tool to highlight by dodging around the figure and using some burning in that area as well. I guess they consider it that I "created a shape/cloud" by doing so??? I still don't understand fully, even with that explanation.
Here is the response when asked for clarification:
"The original shows a man lying on a plain backdrop, and it was a unanimous consensus that the editing you did distorted the background context/radically altered the background object and thus could not be validated.
Think about it like this: a typical viewer seeing the original would see a plain blue backdrop."
The background blue was not "plain" in the sense that there were highlighted areas due to the lighting that I had set up. The area around the model's head and hands were lighter and the outside edges darker. I brought those areas back out again???? I think this fell into a gray area and SC decided to put it into Black and White territory. Not going to argue with the point.
Ok, I see a point there in terms of the fact that I legally darkened down the blue background and highlighted it by dodging and burning....but, what about vignettes then? Doesn't that drastically alter the background? What about the tremendous number of skies in which editing brings out barely visible clouds (ie: major filtering and dodge and burn)? Ah well, lesson learned here. Unless you know exactly what you're doing with editing...BEWARE!
ETA: It seems that had I made a separate layer for the model/subject and vignetted the background in a free form style, exactly the shape that the highlighted area is in this final shot....this likely wouldn't have been considered "illegal". I guess that I could have achieved the same look but, by doing it in a different manner/technique, it wouldn't have been DQ'd. :)
Hi, Jamie. You wrote "this was shot on a blue background. Levels and color balance, hue & sat had adjustments made on them to darken it down to a dark blue/black (depending on your monitor). I then, used the dodge tool to lighten up the area around the model."
If that is true, then this shouldn't have been disqualified!
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
