Forums › Forums › Farktography General Chat › This week’s contest › 02-25-09 – Lunacy
- This topic has 67 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
nobigdeal.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 2, 2009 at 12:09 am #20838
bucky_bacon
ParticipantInitially, I thought the Filthy_Farkle shot was a PS cutout. I know, I know… I’ve shooped a lot of whoops in my day, but hear me out. Looking at the top left corner of the moon it’s a very sharp corner from visible to non-visible, and the whole left side is hazy like if you had used a soft eraser tool. Then on the middle right between the moon and the twig there is a bit of a halo that is not consistent with the rest of the clouds. Don’t know why a cloud would wrap up around the curve of the moon like that. Unless these are just remnants of the “enhanced contrast and clarity” work, which it very well could be. I’m certainly not one to be an accuser, but that’s just my .02 since the question was raised.
But at the very least from the facts we know that it’s either a stacked exposure or it was selective editing. So that can be taken fwiw.
March 2, 2009 at 2:18 am #20839
orionidParticipantThe thing that got me the most was the apparent DOF. The branches are in focus, then on the right, you can see some out of focus vegetation, then the moon is sharp again. His flickr page did say he used PS to sharpen around the moon, which to me screamed selective editing. Then I thought about filter layers…. He could have set up a filter layer that only applies above a certain luminosity and it would technically (well, debatable…. semantics) still be applied to the whole image. I do some serious saturation/contrast/curves manipulation from time to time, so I didn’t want to be the first to cry foul, but even I would consider filter layers to be too much of a grey area to tread.
There’s also a possible use of spot/circle mask filters with double exposure and changing the focus between the shots, but that would have left the twig in front of the moon almost non-visible from light bending on the near-infinity focus.
Either way, with the out of focus vegetation on the right, the fact that there was that much recoverable detail in the moon smells of multiple shots at varying focus. I’m still willing to hear his side of the story, beyond his flickr comments, though.
March 2, 2009 at 3:04 am #20840Elsinore
KeymasterWell, remember that selective editing is actually allowed now with the rule changes from August ’08. What definitely isn’t allowed is stacked/combined exposures unless the specific theme allows it (e.g. HDR, the Farkstronomy theme, panorama themes, etc). Sooo yeah, I don’t want legit photos disqualified unless we know for sure, and I’ve seen too many photos that appeared out of bounds at first glance but weren’t in actuality. Wish he’d respond with some clarification.
It’s also worth noting that he isn’t a regular Farktographer; these kinds of issues rarely come up with regular folks cause you guys know the rules and you play fair. It’s almost always the more casual participants who don’t realize and/or read the rules.
March 2, 2009 at 3:26 am #20841U-Man
ParticipantRule changes? Selective editing? August ’08? Huh? What you talkin’ ’bout Raggy?
Seriously. I don’t know what you are referring to.
As far as the Filthy_Farkle post goes, IMO it is almost a certainty that is an unacceptable method. It is two pics stacked. That said, it’s a really nice photo. I think I will do something like it in the near future. As Elsinore points out, he has only participated in 5 themes. I don’t want to chase him away. I am totally comfortable moving on with my life. I’m sure I’ll have my radar up when I look as his pics in the future. If I see something fishy then I’ll wave a red flag sooner.
March 2, 2009 at 3:42 am #20842Participant…he has only participated in 5 themes. I don’t want to chase him away. I am totally comfortable moving on with my life. I’m sure I’ll have my radar up when I look as his pics in the future.
That’s just what I thought too. I mean, we had discussion about it, and you can leave the pic or take it out, but did it really make a difference? Not to me. But I think the discussion is good because a.) we can help to avoid similar issues in the future and/or b.) there is increased talk about techniques and such on how a shot like that may have been created legitimately. So that’s always good for stimulating creativity.
I certainly have no problem with the guy, and looking at his past entries plus his flickr stuff there are a lot of really sweet shots. So by no means do we want to run anybody off, obviously…
/unless they are going to better me in future contests, of course… 😀
March 2, 2009 at 3:57 am #20843KeymasterRe: Rules change, that would be the change that started with this discussion in the Pub:
http://www.farktography.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1380Proposals announced here:
http://www.farktography.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1391Voted on here:
http://www.farktography.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1390And announced on the weekly theme board here:
http://www.farktography.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1406The updated rules have also been up in the boobies post every week since then.
Alas, only 24 people voted, but the discussion went on for awhile. The upshot is that spot editing/image correction (minor retouching for pimples, stray hairs, sensor dust, dodging/burning, etc) is ok, but major spot editing (removing utility poles or people) or combining exposures is not ok. Extreme PSing to the point where the photo no longer looks like a photo or turning up the saturation until the result is cartoonish is also still not ok.
March 2, 2009 at 4:01 pm #20844linguine
ParticipantFrom the comments he made in flickr Im guessing its a stacked image, but with no one being sure and all of his other entries looking legit I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
March 2, 2009 at 4:33 pm #20845nobigdeal
ParticipantToo bad. It’s a great shot but it is a stacked exposure. He says so in the comments on Flickr.
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘02-25-09 – Lunacy’ is closed to new replies.