DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Advanced Editing Contest
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 183, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/12/2005 02:13:26 PM · #76
I am in the process of sending out a reconverted image in which I somewhat but not completely expanded the used area of the histogram. In addition, I used DPP instead of RSP which produces softer results that might be easier to noise reduce (if you want to).

Message edited by author 2005-12-12 14:13:50.
 12/12/2005 02:21:25 PM · #77
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Yes, another contest. This one is geared towards giving the participants practice in advanced editing, or at least showing their skills.

The idea and the rules are as follows.

1) A full size picture will be emailed to those who sign up.

2) You are to edit the photo to make it "gallery quality", per the DPC advanced editing rules, but a bit more relaxed on the major elements rule. ...

Originally posted by nshapiro:
I am not sure which of two philosophies for the contest should be then. 1) Make the best of it, like we do in the threads where someone posts an image to improve, or 2) facilitate the advanced editing (e.g., provide the CR2 file) so that people can really strut their stuff and the absolute best image occurs. ...

If you don't mind an observation from the sidelines...

It seems the original idea was to produce 'gallery quality' results -- that is not likely to happen from an unprocessed jpg. And any conversions you make are going to start the participants down a path toward your vision of the image.

I'm not familiar with RAW editing, but are there free (trial) conversion programs available?

David

Message edited by author 2005-12-12 14:23:00.
 12/12/2005 02:29:11 PM · #78
Originally posted by Britannica:
... any conversions you make are going to start the participants down a path toward your vision of the image.

David


That's not really true: he can provide us an 'adjusted' jpg that is exactly the same as it would be if he had set those parameters into the camera and shot in jpg to begin with. And it's perfectly possible to rpoduce "gallery-quality" images from a full-size jpg, which is what he has already sent us. The problem is it's a straight conversion from RAW into jpg, and it's very muddy. Nobody would actually willingly work from such an image, given the choice.

R.
 12/12/2005 02:30:44 PM · #79
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I am in the process of sending out a reconverted image in which I somewhat but not completely expanded the used area of the histogram. In addition, I used DPP instead of RSP which produces softer results that might be easier to noise reduce (if you want to).


If you made us a version with the parameters set so there was full use of the histogram with no clipping at either end, then we'd be able to push/pull it in any direction we wished.

Robt.
 12/12/2005 02:37:31 PM · #80
I would be interested in the next round. It will be fun to see what the first round folks have come up with!
 12/12/2005 02:54:00 PM · #81
I'd like to join in if there's room!
 12/12/2005 03:16:44 PM · #82
I just played with both versions I sent, and I think what you have now, while not as "ideal" as the RAW, should be very workable. So go for it, and have some fun hopefully.
 12/12/2005 03:19:46 PM · #83
It's very workable... Much better than I usually get...
 12/12/2005 03:24:11 PM · #84
When will we start seeing something besides "histograms"?
 12/12/2005 03:30:51 PM · #85
Tuesday, midnight EST, the images go up for voting through Thursday midnight.
 12/12/2005 03:38:01 PM · #86
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Tuesday, midnight EST, the images go up for voting through Thursday midnight.

Thanks Neil. Can't wait to see these.
 12/12/2005 03:48:42 PM · #87
I know that we're following DPC Advanced Editing Rules, but you said the Major Elements portion was more relaxed... Could you please elaborate? Does this mean we can add major elements from another photograph or move elements around in this one? Thanks... :-)
 12/12/2005 03:55:27 PM · #88
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I know that we're following DPC Advanced Editing Rules, but you said the Major Elements portion was more relaxed... Could you please elaborate? Does this mean we can add major elements from another photograph or move elements around in this one? Thanks... :-)


Thanks for asking, I see that causes some confusion. No, don't add from another photo, and don't move things around either.

I meant that if you cloned something out, we weren't going to debate whether it was a major element or not!

We'll see if I regret that statement later ;)

Message edited by author 2005-12-12 15:56:53.
 12/12/2005 04:06:27 PM · #89
Cool - that's kinda what I thought, but just wanted to clarify. I didn't want to only go with what was there and then have everyone else add stuff! ;-) Thanks!
 12/12/2005 04:07:47 PM · #90
pfieuw, I'm working on it right now, but I really think it's a hard one to start with ;)

This is usually not the kind of photo I would shoot, so that's a difficulty level higher!
 12/12/2005 04:09:33 PM · #91
Curse you Neil!
I made that first image the best I could. I went through 3 versions scrapping each one of them and finally (with all I learned) ended up with something passable--not for a gallery mind you--but passable. I have two pages of notes on my processing!

Then, I find this little attachment in my e-mail. Do my processing notes work on it? NO! Of course not! All the futsing I did was to compensate for weird artifacts in the first file!

Ok. I learned a lot about rescuing an un-rescuable file...So that's good.
Now, I have a dilemma:
Choice 1: Start all over with that beautiful little file you sent and forget about all that other work.
Choice 2: Submit what I have being proud that I managed to eke out a passable image from that first file and even learned a thing or two along the way.
Choice 3: Give up my seat to one of the cloying late-comers and ask for a seat at round 2's table.
Choice 4: (With permission) submit both of "my" versions based on separate files and see what the voters think of both. (I know it means an extra file submission on your part, but I sorta want compensation--and I'm loathe to concede to choice 3.)

Direct me.
 12/12/2005 04:21:30 PM · #92
It's all bear_music's fault. ;-)

I don't object to you having two files up as long as no one else does. If so, let them speak.
 12/12/2005 04:56:35 PM · #93
Originally posted by nshapiro:
It's all bear_music's fault. ;-)

I don't object to you having two files up as long as no one else does. If so, let them speak.


I agree, it's bear_music-fault-week! Let's blame him for everything. Kick 'em while they're down! (I thought there was something not right about the file you sent, but didn't have the jutspa to speak up...so, yeah, blame the bear!)
I'll do what I can at this end. I'm battling out an important recent victory in round 3 of the "Gauntlet" with kudzu...so I shouldn't be looking for more to keep me away from that. Still, I think this is a valuable excercise which may end up in my learning something more and being able to share it with others. I will, of course, type up my pages of notes on the edited version I have and share them--regardless the decision(s) made.
 12/12/2005 05:05:15 PM · #94
I'm all in favor of allowing the posting-up of two versions, one from the weak original and another froim the strong original. I have a very "interesting" version of the weak original to share :-)

Robt.
 12/12/2005 05:08:20 PM · #95
I'm up for posting both. And I have to say, thanks for the challenge Neil. This is not my usual type of photo so I'm really having to work at the editing for sure! :-)
 12/12/2005 05:16:47 PM · #96
Maybe I am not awake yet but I have received two versions...but they look identical to me. Now I am confused.
 12/12/2005 05:22:19 PM · #97
Originally posted by Judi:
Maybe I am not awake yet but I have received two versions...but they look identical to me. Now I am confused.


Use the second one. When you go into levels (assuming you're using PhotoShop or the equivalent) it will soon be obvious that version 2 has more to work with.
 12/12/2005 05:23:22 PM · #98
Okies.....I will check it out. Thanks.
 12/12/2005 05:24:29 PM · #99
It's fine with me to allow the 2 postings. And I agree - this is NOT the type of shot I would shoot either. Editing this is a BEAR (pun intended - LOL)! Harumph... No telling what this is going to look like when I'm done - ROFL! Thanks again Neil for the extreme challenge!
 12/12/2005 05:25:47 PM · #100
Originally posted by Judi:
Maybe I am not awake yet but I have received two versions...but they look identical to me. Now I am confused.


It's the exact same photo. This one should be less muddy when you look at it, by default, and may have slightly less artifacts at the detail level.

Explanation: I reprocessed the raw file expanding the histogram a bit with the RAW 16 bit version which is better than doing it in the 8 bit version you originally received. I also used a different program to convert, because the original use RSP, and I don't remember if I turned off "apply sharpening" in the processing box (RSP sharpens even when you leave it set to 0, and that creates some artifacts). Rather than just doing it again in RSP, I took the opportunity to try Canon's DPP, since I hadn't yet tried it (but had it installed).

You can go with your original submission, or redo and resubmit, or you can have two.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 01:50:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 01:50:34 PM EDT.