| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2011 09:13:01 PM · #1 |
I hate to start yet another is this allowed in basic thread, but looks like I am.
Anyway, I was confused by the validation of a photo in the From Above II challenge (I don't want to dispute this just get a handle about whats allowed). It was a tilt shift without a tilt shift lens (in camera effect). I've been a little confused about whats in and out in Basic since it got opened up with TOPAZ etc. I know I can use some in camera effects, but not all, as long as it doesn't violate rules, eg. sepia, but not multiple exposures. Does the allowing of this in camera post processed tilt shift mean I can use the tilt shift in say, topaz lens effect, as like the camera its not spot editing, it applies to the whole picture and its not a layer??
 |
|
|
|
10/03/2011 09:19:12 PM · #2 |
| No, you can't do that in postprocessing. If your camera can do it just like a regular "camera mode", where you set the mode, take the photo, and it's the only photo that's produced, then it's considered a in-camera setting and can be used. It must not be post-processed in. And if your camera produces a normal original and one with the effect, then it's really post-processed or added in. |
|
|
|
10/03/2011 10:57:57 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Neil:
No, you can't do that in postprocessing. If your camera can do it just like a regular "camera mode", where you set the mode, take the photo, and it's the only photo that's produced, then it's considered a in-camera setting and can be used. It must not be post-processed in. And if your camera produces a normal original and one with the effect, then it's really post-processed or added in. |
Thanks for clearing that up.
So by that definition of in-camera, If I select RAW+JPG and I have an effect setting like minature on the NEX I'm breaking the rules because its a post process and I have an original, but if I turn raw off, I'm OK because its not a post process because I chose not to have the camera give me the original?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2011 11:19:59 PM · #4 |
| For now, yeah... pretty much. The idea was that any in-camera filter applied after you take the shot counts as post-processing subject to the editing rules, while any setting made before you click the shutter button is no different from a physical filter screwed onto the lens. So multiple exposures made by combining multiple captures in camera are illegal while a B&W or sepia mode is fine. However, recent camera features such as sweep panorama, auto-HDR and miniature have somewhat outflanked the Basic editing rules as written, and there is no active effort under way to address this. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 02:42:26 AM · #5 |
I've recently had one of these in-camera filters validated in Minimal editing, let alone Basic. That sounds like really pushing the boundaries until you consider things like the 'peripheral illumination correction' setting on a 5D MKII; this adds a compensating brightening vignette by software to compensate for the darkening you get when using wide angle lenses. No one would bat an eyelid at using that In-camera software enhancement on a minimal image, yet the application of such a vignette in postprocessing is illegal in both Minimal and Basic.
Message edited by author 2011-10-04 02:43:28. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 02:42:51 AM · #6 |
FYI the setting is only available in jpeg, you can't take a raw image with this option on
Eta on the Sony nex 5n
Message edited by author 2011-10-04 02:47:55. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 02:46:26 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
FYI the setting is only available in jpeg, you can't take a raw image with this option on |
You can on an Olymous PEN; you get a RAW without the effect and a JPEG with the effect. But the JPEG is just as straight out of the camera as the the RAW, use the JPEG and ignore the RAW is no different to just shooting JPEG. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 09:01:00 AM · #8 |
I'm actually surprised that it's taken this long for an example of an in-camera effect that would be illegal in post to come to light as an entry. It seems to be a big conflict. It's *not* a photographic technique, it's post-processing by the camera. Just because it's automated and within-camera should not automatically make it legal. Just like an automated plug-in for Ps is not automatically legal.
The bottom line is that we as a site have to decide what Basic is all about. If these effects are so common and easy that we'd expect them to be used by many novices, then perhaps they should be made legal under Basic, whether done in-camera or done in post. If Basic really means "get back to the photographic basics" then perhaps not.
In any case, it's high time that the "results-based Basic" project was put back on the front burner. I know it's not an easy topic, but it is one whose time has come. A results-based Basic Rules would mean that something that is legal done one way is always legal, no matter the process, and something that's illegal would always be illegal, no matter the process.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:01:46 PM · #9 |
I completely agree with kirbic and really since the post process has become so common place with photo editing and advanced techniques can be applied so easily, th eline between advanced and basic is getting really blurred.
Why not just get rid of basic editing and have regular editing and expert editing. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:12:22 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
I completely agree with kirbic and really since the post process has become so common place with photo editing and advanced techniques can be applied so easily, th eline between advanced and basic is getting really blurred.
Why not just get rid of basic editing and have regular editing and expert editing. |
I've been advocating that for a couple YEARS now. IMO "basic editing" is based on a myth that it somehow "levels the playing field" and it DOESN'T. It never did. Experienced photoshoppers have MORE of an advantage in basic editing than they do in advanced editing, because it's much easier to get outstanding results legally in advanced. And the entire thrust of the "imaging world" is away from "traditional" photography and into a more digital look, and to the extent that DPC forces registered members to do basic editing, it discourages new members from joining and, eventually, becoming paying members.
I think Langdon has recognized this, and this is why he's running more and more advanced editing challenges for registered members.
So I agree, time to ditch "basic editing" altogether. By all means keep MINIMAL around for some occasional back-to-our-roots stuff, that always makes for an interesting challenge.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-10-04 12:13:27.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:24:46 PM · #11 |
Would that tilt shift have been legal in advanced? I'd guess not... as it creates new image areas and perhaps because the shift gradient didn't follow any natural contour... legal or not do we reckon?
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:38:29 PM · #12 |
Good thoughts. Yes, we should definitely consider whether Basic Editing has outlived its usefulness...
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
IMO "basic editing" is based on a myth that it somehow "levels the playing field" and it DOESN'T. It never did. Experienced photoshoppers have MORE of an advantage in basic editing than they do in advanced editing, because it's much easier to get outstanding results legally in advanced. |
I 100% agree that it does *not* level the playing field. Never has. The challenge history is full of examples where creative editing to get around restrictions imposed by Basic or the older Classic) editing was rewarded with a high score.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...And the entire thrust of the "imaging world" is away from "traditional" photography and into a more digital look, and to the extent that DPC forces registered members to do basic editing, it discourages new members from joining and, eventually, becoming paying members.
I think Langdon has recognized this, and this is why he's running more and more advanced editing challenges for registered members.
So I agree, time to ditch "basic editing" altogether. By all means keep MINIMAL around for some occasional back-to-our-roots stuff, that always makes for an interesting challenge.
R. |
I'll not debate the direction of the "imaging world." IMO there's still a place for photographic purity, whatever the heck that really is. ;-)
What I mean is, there still seems to be a desire for images that at least seem to be true to the original capture. This seems to represent an alternative "purpose" for a more restrictive rule-set. The current Minimal rules are incredibly restrictive. Too restrictive, IMO. Something between the current Minimal and Basic would probably serve very well, and would be potentially easier than Minimal to administrate.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:41:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Would that tilt shift have been legal in advanced? I'd guess not... as it creates new image areas and perhaps because the shift gradient didn't follow any natural contour... legal or not do we reckon? |
The (highly unofficial) answer is "almost definitely yes." It doesn't create any new image area (expansion of canvas) nor does it remove anything that is compositionally significant. Applying gaussian blur, even selectively, has a long-standing history of being legal in Advanced.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:51:58 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Would that tilt shift have been legal in advanced? I'd guess not... as it creates new image areas and perhaps because the shift gradient didn't follow any natural contour... legal or not do we reckon? |
The (highly unofficial) answer is "almost definitely yes." It doesn't create any new image area (expansion of canvas) nor does it remove anything that is compositionally significant. Applying gaussian blur, even selectively, has a long-standing history of being legal in Advanced. |
Kirbic is spot on. In fact, past Tilt Shift challenges prove that. For instance, you can see that this was done in advanced rule set with no special rules in place (no yellow flag): //www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_results.php?CHALLENGE_ID=1132 |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 12:52:51 PM · #15 |
The 'new image area' goes beyond extending the canvas and relates to new discrete areas - like a coloration. I think it helps to borrow radiology terminology here and say that if you've produced a new area of colour that has a 'narrow zone of transition' - i.e. you could draw around the feature with a pencil with a high degree of accuracy then it is a new image area. If it is has a 'wide zone of transition', the change to the 'featured' area is gradual and you couldn't really draw around it - i.e. it is difficult to see exactly where the feature begins then it isn't a new image area.
(All of this applies to 'free-standing' areas, if you make a new feature using existing boundaries between shapes in an image, then you can pretty much do want you want.)
Using this 'definition', the tilt shift effect would definitely be legal in Advanced. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 01:42:33 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
The 'new image area' goes beyond extending the canvas and relates to new discrete areas - like a coloration... |
Originally posted by Advanced Rules:
You May Not:
- use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s). |
They are under the same paragraph, but create new image area specifically refers to new canvas, while the objects or features language refers to creating new things within the bounds of the original canvas.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 01:51:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
The 'new image area' goes beyond extending the canvas and relates to new discrete areas - like a coloration... |
Originally posted by Advanced Rules:
You May Not:
- use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s). |
They are under the same paragraph, but create new image area specifically refers to new canvas, while the objects or features language refers to creating new things within the bounds of the original canvas. |
Ha! You learn something everyday.
So just for clarity, this image:
(Goodness me, that looks like a poor edit now)
Is that a new feature?
Message edited by author 2011-10-04 14:07:45. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 01:58:57 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
So just for clarity, this image:
(Goodness me, that looks like a poor edit now)
Is what a new feature? |
Yep.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 02:22:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Good thoughts. Yes, we should definitely consider whether Basic Editing has outlived its usefulness...
What I mean is, there still seems to be a desire for images that at least seem to be true to the original capture. This seems to represent an alternative "purpose" for a more restrictive rule-set. The current Minimal rules are incredibly restrictive. Too restrictive, IMO. Something between the current Minimal and Basic would probably serve very well, and would be potentially easier than Minimal to administrate. |
I'm truly overwhelmed at this outpouring of volunteers to write a new rule set ... ;-)
The biggest problem I see now is with all of the editing which can be done in-camera, and how to define rules which could apply to all makes and models, and which would make the result look about like what you'd get if using film.
As far as extending the Minimal rule set, I can see something like limiting post-processing to Crop, Rotate, Resize, and Sharpen/Unsharp Mask, placing more of a premium on lighting/exposure and somewhat less on composition than the current version; akin to printing an enlargement. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 02:30:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
So just for clarity, this image:
(Goodness me, that looks like a poor edit now)
Is what a new feature? |
Yep. |
So am I understanding this correct? That if the crayon was a little more to the left, so that the crayon and entire lower lip were in color and the reset desat, it would've been fine? That the issue was only half of the lip was colored? |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 04:10:11 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
So just for clarity, this image:
(Goodness me, that looks like a poor edit now)
Is what a new feature? |
Yep. |
So am I understanding this correct? That if the crayon was a little more to the left, so that the crayon and entire lower lip were in color and the reset desat, it would've been fine? That the issue was only half of the lip was colored? |
Yup.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2011 04:15:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
So just for clarity, this image:
(Goodness me, that looks like a poor edit now)
Is what a new feature? |
Yep. |
So am I understanding this correct? That if the crayon was a little more to the left, so that the crayon and entire lower lip were in color and the reset desat, it would've been fine? That the issue was only half of the lip was colored? |
Even more subtle than that - move the crayon up far enough that is obscured the highest point of the lower lip so that the lip on our right (her left) was red and the other side of the crayon was desaturated then even that would have been fine.
Where I did the de-sat was arbitrary and created a new feature (rather than colouring / desaturating an existing feature).
Apologies - we are rather off the original topic now.
Personally, I enjoy using in-camera software features in Minimal - the added control appeals to my slightly megalomaniac nature.
Message edited by author 2011-10-04 16:16:57. |
|
|
|
10/04/2011 04:22:27 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yup. |
Heh, beat me to it! Seems perverse, doesn't it? These things get some pretty heated debate on the SC side, though, and there is logic behind the interpretation. The objection to allowing this kind of edit is that doing so seems to open the door to someone drawing in a rainbow in a blue sky, for instance. If we are allowed to create an arbitrary shape of any color of our choice, then this is a valid concern.
In this specific case, the color was applied to an existing, defined shape (the portion of her lip to her left of the crayon) and so, IMO it does not violate the rule.
|
|
