DQ'd but not fair... - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/21/2005 04:02:45 PM · #76

Originally posted by bear_music:

I'd tend to put removal of vignetting and removal of dust in the same category, myself.

Well yeah, but dealing with vignetting in RAW is just a matter of photographic integrity whereas dust removal is photographic integrity AND spot editing. I'd love to allow dust removal too, but spot editing is a practical place to draw the line in the Basic rules.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/21/2005 04:10:01 PM · #77

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by bear_music:
I'd tend to put removal of vignetting and removal of dust in the same category, myself.

Well yeah, but dealing with vignetting in RAW is just a matter of photographic integrity whereas dust removal is photographic integrity AND spot editing. I'd love to allow dust removal too, but spot editing is a practical place to draw the line in the Basic rules.

And you don't think using a program to selectively lighten the dark corners of an image qualifies as spot editing? If I did it in PS 7.0, which I easily can do, it sure as hell would be. But apparently, if I upgrade to CS2 I get a RAW converter that's part of Photoshop yet not considered to be part of Photoshop but rather an extension of the camera for the purpose of the rules. This seems strange to me.

I don't have XP, so I'm stuck with a bare-bones basic RAW converter. There's absolutely nothing it does that wouldn't be legal to do with Photoshop in basic editing. The one thing it does exceptionally well that's harder to do in PS is correct the white balance, but it CAN be done...

Robt.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/21/2005 04:21:58 PM · #78

Originally posted by bear_music:

...you don't think using a program to selectively lighten the dark corners of an image qualifies as spot editing? If I did it in PS 7.0, which I easily can do, it sure as hell would be.

If you did it in Photoshop, you'd need to make a selection, but this function in RAW is apparently global and doesn't involve defining a mask. A similar example might be desaturating a red wagon on green grass. If you desaturate the red channel globally, it's legal in Basic. If you use selection tools to mask off the wagon and then desaturate it, then that's NOT legal.

alfresco

Nikon D700

11/21/2005 04:41:49 PM · #79

Originally posted by scalvert:

but this function in RAW is apparently global

I think this assumption needs to be verified. I wonder how it would make this adjustment globally.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

11/21/2005 04:48:57 PM · #80

scalvert, it would be useful for this discussion if you would refer to removing/decreasing vignetting separately from adding/increasing vignetting. One could possibly be seen as enhancing photographic integrity but the other is more like adding a plug-in filter effect.

But it still seems that neither is anywhere close to being "global". Vignetteing is a darkness at the corners of your image. Don't the RAW editors you are talking about decrease/increase this darkness without changing the middle portions of the image? To my way of thinking that's spot editing and/or the addition/subtraction of major elements.

I believe it would be a very foolish mistake for SC to put themselves in a position where they had to make subjective decisions about how much change in brightness at the corners of an image is allowable, and how much goes too far. A much smarter approach would be to consider any changes made in any program used after the image has come from the camera as editing in the sense that term has been used here at dpc. At the very least, for Basic rules challenges, if not for all of them.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/21/2005 04:58:31 PM · #81

Another practical issue arises. How do you distinguish an altered RAW file from an original if the altered is submitted as the original? I'm not aware that you could...

Even more, if it's JPG that is submitted. How could you distinguish a JPG derived from an altered RAW vs. an unaltered one?

11/21/2005 05:19:43 PM · #82

Originally posted by coolhar:

Don't the RAW editors you are talking about decrease/increase this darkness without changing the middle portions of the image?

Yep, but without the user making selections. Levels, Curves and HSL can all be used to modify certain areas without affecting others.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/21/2005 05:22:10 PM · #83

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How do you distinguish an altered RAW file from an original if the altered is submitted as the original? How could you distinguish a JPG derived from an altered RAW vs. an unaltered one?

To my knowledge, you can't "save" in RAW. Any edited file (including JPEGs derived from RAW files) would be rejected as originals- we can tell. ;-)

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

11/21/2005 05:23:28 PM · #84

Until this camera can shoot in RAW mode, nobody should be allowed to shoot in RAW.

:-P

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

11/21/2005 05:24:19 PM · #85

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I may be wrong but my assumption is that the EXIF data would show that the file had been opened (and saved?) even if it did not show what alterations had been done. I am very inexperienced when it comes to RAW.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

11/21/2005 05:35:00 PM · #86

Well, that makes me feel better. I'm a RAW noob.

coolhar

11/21/2005 05:49:22 PM · #87

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by coolhar:
Don't the RAW editors you are talking about decrease/increase this darkness without changing the middle portions of the image?

Yep, but without the user making selections. Levels, Curves and HSL can all be used to modify certain areas without affecting others.

You must have a different kind of levels, curves and HSL than I do. Mine apply equally to an entire image. Perhaps the element you are trying to adjust is not present in every single pixel of the image but if it were it would be adjusted. That is an entirely different thing from a process that is aimed only at the corners of an image. With a tool to increase/decrease vignetteing the intent is to alter only a certain geographic region of an image - the corners; and to specifically not alter the other parts of the image - the center; and specifically not intended to alter all of the image equally. That's spot editing.

BTW, what programs are you refering to when you say RAW editors?

fotomann_forever

11/21/2005 06:22:42 PM · #88

I figured out how to get a vignetting effect in PS and stay "questionably" within Basic Rules. Gradient Fill Layers. A radial gradient can give you the vignetting. The layer contains no actual pixel data. Going from white to black on a raidal gradient fill layer I was able to get the vignetting.

Someone correct me, if I'm pushing the rules a little on that one. But, from what I'm reading, as long as the layer contains no pixel data, it's allowable.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/21/2005 07:05:27 PM · #89

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Someone correct me, if I'm pushing the rules a little on that one. But, from what I'm reading, as long as the layer contains no pixel data, it's allowable.

That 'fill layer' contains a mask, which is the same as selective editing. Which isn't allowed in basic.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/21/2005 07:17:17 PM · #90

Originally posted by coolhar:

With a tool to increase/decrease vignetteing the intent is to alter only a certain geographic region of an image - the corners... That's spot editing.

So is removing redeye- unless it's done in-camera. As I said, editing in RAW has (thus far) been treated as editing in-camera. That may change in the near future. The software used to convert from RAW to other formats are RAW editors.

The Gradient Fill wouldn't work because only Adjustment Layers are allowed in Basic, not fill layers.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/21/2005 07:27:42 PM · #91

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I figured out how to get a vignetting effect in PS and stay "questionably" within Basic Rules. Gradient Fill Layers.

Black and white are pixel data, non? Also:

Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode.

The only way a gradiant black and white doesn't show the white is to be blended using a mode like screen or darken or multiply. Otherwise you get a sort of black and white look over the image - very much unlike what the final pic looked like here.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/21/2005 07:30:55 PM · #92

I would assume an Adjustment Layer with a radial gradient mask is also illegal under basic? Like this:

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/21/2005 07:41:16 PM · #93

Right -- a mask, a selection, and an alpha channel are all the same thing. None are allowed in Basic.

fotomann_forever

11/21/2005 10:58:36 PM · #94

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Someone correct me, if I'm pushing the rules a little on that one. But, from what I'm reading, as long as the layer contains no pixel data, it's allowable.

That 'fill layer' contains a mask, which is the same as selective editing. Which isn't allowed in basic.

Oh well, was trying to find a loophole, that was my last hooorah on that one.

Judi

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/21/2005 11:01:21 PM · #95

Okay on that same subject here is another question that has me curious. In PS CS2 a Photo Filter Adjustment Layer where it is using just a hue....would that be classed as legal in Basic???

11/21/2005 11:03:28 PM · #96

Sure, you can shift hues to your heart's content (you just have to do it to the entire image in Basic).

Judi

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/21/2005 11:05:48 PM · #97

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sure, you can shift hues to your heart's content (you just have to do it to the entire image in Basic).

Great...thanks for that.

fotomann_forever

11/21/2005 11:07:38 PM · #98

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sure, you can shift hues to your heart's content (you just have to do it to the entire image in Basic).

Since you seem to be around scalvert, I have a question. Gradient Map Adjustment Layers... legal? Used to shift or completely reallign color spectrums .

Message edited by author 2005-11-21 23:10:26.