| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2002 11:45:16 AM · #1 |
The rules at present are described very vaguely. To anyone with a bit of Photoshop background their vagueness open up a host of questions.
I had a question myself in the forum about adding a layer of the same image but setting it at a different blending mode. Learned it was disallowed so I didn't do it. However, some people don't have occasion to read all the threads and within a few days there was a new thread wondering about what things in layers were possible. BTW, anyone with some Photoshop will do levels and curves as Adjustment Layers. That is good Photoshop practice and they accomplish exactly the same thing (and nothing more!) as if one makes those adjustments directly on the image. Hence, adjustment layers for levels and curves are NOT manipulating the image.
I have also read posts where people say that they play with the various channels. In my mind, that shouldn't be allowed then either!
It really would be helpful to a number of us if the rules were described in greater detail. It would avoid confusion and disqualification of great pictures. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 12:39:57 PM · #2 |
I agree with Journey. At present there is a little too much room for misinterpretation. Here is a cut and paste of the rules in question: Post-shot Adjustments may be made to your image in a photo editing program, so long as the modification is applied to the whole image. This includes levels, b&w conversion, hue/saturation, sizing/rotating, cropping etc. However, no filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) maybe be applied to your image with the exception of sharpen and despeckle, the two of which are allowed. Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed; the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited.
My biggest issue is with the term "Whole Image" in the first sentence followed by "etc." at the end of the second sentence. In my opinion this is where the can of worms gets opened, and is therefore the area where a more detailed explanation would be helpful. I have no problem with "Whole Image" by itself, it's when the "etc." is applied in the same paragraph that it presents a problem. I feel this leaves things a bit vague.
Filters other than Despeckle and Sharpen are specifically disallowed. I have a slight issue with this as well. I feel there are a few other filters that could/should be used to help level the playing field with others who dont have more expensive cameras. For instance, lets say I had a cheaper camera that only shot in say a non-adjustable iso range of between 100 and 200. Once I've brought my image into Photoshop, I decide that to get the look I'm after I can adjust the iso using the Film Grain filter to do this...
I don't have a problem with this and think it should be allowed.
Simply because those with the ability to do so could just do it in camera by shooting at a higher iso setting. But not me, my inexpensive camera leaves me standing at the wishing well. The problem with this, of course, is that the Film Grain filter, as such, is not called the same thing in every editing program, and a similar "look" can be achieved other ways with different filters, programs and/or methods.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 12:42:19 PM · #3 |
Blah!!!
Sorry but this belongs to the RANTS section, but here goes:
The effects generated by:
A) Duplicating am image and using blending modes
B) Using layers with ONE color and blending modes
C) adjusting individual channels
can ALL be reproduced using photoshop adjustmant layers!
Just try prove me wrong!
What is against the rules is (to my understanding)
- adding things that where not in the image..
(including noise as a former first place winner just found out!)
- removing things (usually by adding anyway) by any other methods
other than rotating, croping and using non-spot adjustments!
Basicly, I can take a usless photo and turn it into a 5.5 adverage and 99% of you could not tell the differance... BUT I choose to follow the rules... already I have used adjustment layers to fix up / enhance my entries, but poor cropping pulled one down... hence I have learnt a heap about how to better crop my photo's.
---------------------------------------------------
These are my suggested ammendments to the rules:
---------------------------------------------------
Post-shot Adjustments may be made to your image in a photo editing program, so long as the modification is applied to the whole image. This includes levels, b&w conversion, hue/saturation, sizing/rotating, cropping etc.
However, no filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) maybe be applied to your image with the exception of sharpen, unsharp mask and despeckle photoshop filters or equivilant. Noise reduction software / plug-ins are also allowed. (see //www.neatimage.com/)
Layers. Photoshop adjustment layers are allowed. The use of blending modes is restricted to UNMODIFIED aligned* copy's of the original photograph and/or layers of flat color. (gradiants, other images, etc prohibited) Altering Channels is allowed as long as the whole channel is modified.
* copy's must not be moved so that they misalign with the original layer.
Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed; the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited. The introduction of other photographic materials / images into the photo through photoediting is prohibited. The use of cloning and or smart healing tools is also prohibited.
-----------------
My reasons:
unsharp mask - many other software programs allow control over
sharpening, unsharp mask is a controled sharpen filter
nothing more.
Noise reduction software - My camera has built-in "state of the art"
noise reduction software, infact it produces better
long/night exposures than my friends E-10... How can a
$800us camera compete? and my camera does it, his doesnt
so just because I have more up to date camera I get a
function that he could have for free, but isn't allowed
to use.... is this fair?
This also compensates for not being able to blur in LAB
mode, another trick photoshop pros use alot.
blending modes - I quite often use both these techniques to quickly
adjust them. Much faster for exposure compensation and
adding color casts.. eg ND or Color lens filters
and as I have stated reproducable with adjustment
layers. I think it would be cool if you where allowed
to reproduct basic lens filters like sunset filters
and half ND filters... but hard to write/police.. and
where do you draw the line?? just go look at a marumi
filter catalog under special effects.
The last too are there to drive the message home... I sometimes wonder how many people use the healing brush... esp the experianced photoshop users around here, like myself.
It's 4:40am and I going to sleep for an hour :(
... any additions people??
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 12:52:38 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Filters other than Despeckle and Sharpen are specifically disallowed. I feel there are a few other filters that could/should be used to help level the playing field with others who dont have more expensive cameras. For instance, lets say I had a cheaper camera that only shot in say a non-adjustable iso range of between 100 and 200. Once I've brought my image into Photoshop, I decide that to get the look I'm after I can adjust the iso using the Film Grain filter to do this...
Good point.
However how do you regulate resonable amounts of "grain" ?
My camera goes to ISO 800, though I lock it to ISO 100 and only change it up if I really need to... I think there are few situations where grain improves an image and fewer where the photographer intentionally takes a photo with the resulting grain in mind... personal opinion, yes.. but taking the resent disqualification, there entry looked more like a ISO 1600+ and I don't know of any camera capable of that except the fijifilm Super CCD which (to my knowledge) is simlar to ISO 4-800 because of the interpolation software. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:01:36 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jeremya:
However how do you regulate resonable amounts of "grain" ? My camera goes to ISO 800, though I lock it to ISO 100 and only change it up if I really need to... I think there are few situations where grain improves an image and fewer where the photographer intentionally takes a photo with the resulting grain in mind... personal opinion, yes.. but taking the resent disqualification, there entry looked more like a ISO 1600+ and I don't know of any camera capable of that except the fijifilm Super CCD which (to my knowledge) is simlar to ISO 4-800 because of the interpolation software.
This is quite true. I guess we have to draw the line in the sand somwhere. Otherwise participants like konador inadvertently trip over the rules. Which is what I would like to avoid in the future.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 1:03:25 PM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:03:02 PM · #6 |
Hi all,
I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion already active in the Site Council (moderator) forum to discuss rule updates. Among other things we intend to clarify the use of layers and clean up some language on other areas.
All suggestions are welcome, and this is probably the best place to post them.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:19:30 PM · #7 |
It seems to me that D&L, since this is their site!, should lay down the rules but when doing so they should avoid the use of the word etc. It's exactly the "etc." where the problem starts.
Yes, with channels you apply a change to the whole image but only to 33% of the image. Playing with the channels you can do wonderful manipulative things to images but that's not really strict Photography any longer.
I also think the rules should specifically mention that some popular Photoshop filters are NOT allowed. I'm thinking of noise and of Gaussian Blur.
In my mind postprocessing should state that:
Adjustment layers for levels, curves, hue/sat, brightn/contrast allowed.
(they don't really manipulate anything and is just a more flexible way to making those allowed adjustments rather than directly on the picture)
Conversion to sepia/ black and white/duotoning allowed
Sharpen image allowed
Despeckle allowed
Cropping allowed
Transforming to rotate a picture to straighten it allowed
Anything else NOT allowed. i.e. not mucking around with individual channels
Yet again, I have a question:
Hue/Sat is allowed but does that mean adjustment to the Master only or can we also adjust individual colors??? Or is neither allowed and only "Colorize" is permitted?
I really wish Drew would give some input here. The rules, as presently stated, leave room, as Mcmurmura stated, for vast misinterpretations.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 1:22:41 PM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:26:49 PM · #8 |
Clubjuggle, your post got added while I was typing away on mine. It's really good news to hear that this is being addressed.
Since the rules are so important here for dpc submissions, I really hope the do's and don'ts will be spelled out exactly. Have no objection to any of the rules, just to the fact that they are being described so vaguely with etc's. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:34:32 PM · #9 |
Yes, with channels you apply a change to the whole image but only to 33% of the image. Playing with the channels you can do wonderful manipulative things to images but that's not really strict Photography any longer.
Hue/Sat is allowed but does that mean adjustment to the Master only or can we also adjust individual colors??? Or is neither allowed and only "Colorize" is permitted?
My point again that most legal channel editing can be done with adjustment layers...
I don't mind if people adjust indevidual color layers... it's something easily done in a real lab so why not in our digital labs... even for black and white photography we used the color adjusters in the enlargers... I just can't remember why... something todo with tone??
Also there are many (expensive) lens filters and even celophane in front of the lens will achieve simlar effect... Curves has the most effect over an image.... curves is the most powerful adjustment layer... that's even in the Abode Certified Expert exam, I think... |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:36:33 PM · #10 |
Using an adjustment layer with curves allows you to manipulate the colors separately, so it's not that different than modifying the color channels. I use these all the time, and think it's pretty analogous to using color filters on the camera or enlarger.
To allow conversion to grayscale or duotone but to not manipulate the color scheme otherwise seems inconsistent and unnecessary. I think the voters can decide whether a color effect is apprpriate. Here's an example done only with tone curves: before and after.
If we allow unsharp mask, why is it we don't allow gaussian blur? Certainly I could print my traditional negative with the enlarger out of focus if I wanted. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:49:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If we allow unsharp mask, why is it we don't allow gaussian blur? Certainly I could print my traditional negative with the enlarger out of focus if I wanted.
Gaussian Blur is another one of those filters I feel should be allowed.
I mean, if the "soft focus" thing is what your after, why not? Most digital cameras are incapable of doing "soft focus" because their main goal in life is to take sharp photos! They don't have manual focus, and again, it would seem a reasonable thing to allow in order to level the playing field.
That said, Blur is open to the same types of problems as Film Grain... how much is too much, and where do we draw the line?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:54:41 PM · #12 |
| What about Dust & Scratches...It works the best for high ISO noise removal |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:58:12 PM · #13 |
I'm confused. Can you change individual colors(select red and make changes) or not?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:00:46 PM · #14 |
| Personally, I would love Gaussian Blur being allowed but as you said, where to draw the line. That's the big question. Again, I have no problem with whatever rules will be laid down provided they will be clear to all. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:06:40 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by TerryGee:
I'm confused. Can you change individual colors(select red and make changes) or not?
Yes, provided the changes made are all legal changes.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:11:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Journey:
Personally, I would love Gaussian Blur being allowed but as you said, where to draw the line. That's the big question. Again, I have no problem with whatever rules will be laid down provided they will be clear to all.
The strongest argument against Gaussian Blur and Dust & Scratches is to my knowledge they're only available in Photoshop. I think the idea is to make sure most people have access to the same tools.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:12:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by TerryGee:
I'm confused. Can you change individual colors(select red and make changes) or not?
As I understand it, it is currently legal to:
Create an adjustment layer (Curves, Levels, etc.), select one or more of the individual channels (R-G-B) and apply the adjustment. Of course you can apply an adjustment to the composite as well. You can also create more than one such adjustment layer to create additive effects.
It has essentially the same effect as going to one of the actual color channels (e.g. Red) and applying an adjustment, except it is then changed permanently. By using adjustment layers you can make non-destructive edits, and easily toggle combinations on-and-off until you get somemething you like.
If you check the links I posted above, I did that by stacking three layers of tone curves...
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 2:12:49 PM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:12:50 PM · #18 |
| I use fireworks some of the time, and that has gaussian blur... |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:25:28 PM · #19 |
How about....
Some people are much better with Photoshop than others....Now, write a rule for that...Hahahaha
And yes, I'm serious. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:28:45 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by konador:
I use fireworks some of the time, and that has gaussian blur...
Yes, I believe Gaussian Blur is a fairly standard filter across most editing programs.
I think the Film Grain filter in Photoshop goes under many different names, though. In Paint Shop Pro, for instance, I think it can only be done under the Noise filter. But I am not sure about this. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:29:49 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by TerryGee:
[i]I'm confused. Can you change individual colors(select red and make changes) or not?
As I understand it, it is currently legal to:
Create an adjustment layer (Curves, Levels, etc.), select one or more of the individual channels (R-G-B) and apply the adjustment. Of course you can apply an adjustment to the composite as well. You can also create more than one such adjustment layer to create additive effects.
It has essentially the same effect as going to one of the actual color channels (e.g. Red) and applying an adjustment, except it is then changed permanently. By using adjustment layers you can make non-destructive edits, and easily toggle combinations on-and-off until you get somemething you like.
If you check the links I posted above, I did that by stacking three layers of tone curves..[/i]
That's exactly where all the confusion comes in! I know with Photoshopyou can do adjustment layers by channels. You can also do multiple adjustments of say curves or hue/sat and change the blending mode on them. I do that all the time.
Personally, I have, for dpc submissions, only used adj layers conservatively, i.e. rgb only, NO multiple adjustments for the same feature, curves or whathaveyou and changing their blending mode. That, in my mind, was in the SPIRIT OF THE RULES, whatever they may be :) In other words, I have taken the adj layer route only for their non-destructiveness and flexibility but not to expand the range of things one can do with them. Now, if "anything goes" with those adjustment layers then it would be nice to know because I sure would like to use that for dpc submissions!
When a moderator confirmed to me that overlaying the whole image with a different blending mode was against the rules, I also assumed that overlaying with curves adj layers with various blending modes would be against the rules as well.
It's indeed a big can of worms.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 2:36:32 PM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:31:18 PM · #22 |
I'm just curious, but can someone point me to a photo that looks better with a Guassian blur applied to the whole image?
I had thought the strongest points for allowing Unsharp Mask and Despeckle filters was because they help correct problems that are typical to digital photographs in the raw-- namely, they are a little blurry and a little noisy.
The same things goes for levels, curves,saturate, and the other adjustments currently allowed... they help correct color cast,expsosure, and othe issues.
I have no problem with color adjustment layers, even when used on individual channels-- but only when the blending mode is 'normal'.
Anything more than what is currently allowed would suddenly transform this from a primarily photo-taking site into a photo-transformation site.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 2:41:26 PM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:36:53 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Journey:
...It's indeed a big can of worms.
Since it's not possible to police these issues, I'd rather allow them. I think the voters will have their way in any event -- if a highly color-manipulated image is so compelling that it draws the high score -- well, we will all learn something. My prediction is any such image will have a hard time breaking 5 with the voters here... |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:45:31 PM · #24 |
I'm sorry but I feel that allowing playing with individual channels gets into the realm of manipulation.
If the rules say WHOLE IMAGE they should also say ALL CHANNELS ONLY.
The matter of whether you can police it, should not be an issue for allowing it or not. I presume most of us work on the honor system. And if you really want to cheat, say with Photoshop editing, you could get away with it anyway. That's really not that hard to do.
My two cents and I ain't making the rules here :) |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:52:22 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Journey:
I'm sorry but I feel that allowing playing with individual channels gets into the realm of manipulation.
If the rules say WHOLE IMAGE they should also say ALL CHANNELS ONLY.
The matter of whether you can police it, should not be an issue for allowing it or not. I presume most of us work on the honor system. And if you really want to cheat, say with Photoshop editing, you could get away with it anyway. That's really not that hard to do.
My two cents and I ain't making the rules here :)
The flip-side of this is that playing with individual color channels is an effective way to correct an incorrect white balance. And you're correct about the honor system; the whole structure here is based on the implicit assumption that most people follow the rules; it's only when that assumption is questioned that action is taken.
-Terry
|
|
