Warning! Advance Editing Rules - DPChallenge Forums

01/01/2006 09:01:55 PM · #1

Okay, In this post I will tell you what DPC does not tell you about the Advance Editing Rules. These omissions can net you a DQ. The main reason they do not tell you is because they do not want to overwhelm you with rules.

In order to understand them in their entirety we need a minor prelude. New comers pay close attention:

We are not artist rendering unto a white canvas. If this is your intention take up oils, pastels or watercolor.

The object here at DPC is to conserve photographic entegrity. Some will argue that no such definition can be formulated. This is not true. First we eliminate digital interpretations of which the composite is its base.
We then eliminate an array of filters. Any filters that cause a change by distortion are out. This even includes motion blur. Perspective correction is allowed but only to achieve that end. Going past this intent may earn you a dq. Notice that some distortion filters have been allowed, but this is not really in the rules, instead these are valued judgments. I would never use them in competition. Liquify is the worst.

We are now left with the tonal values of an image. Like I said, we are not artist applying paint and effects. Our artistry is reflected in our compositions, set up or selection of subjects along with choosing the best time of day for outside images and the application of artificial light along with concept. We are then allowed a little intervention to help the image speak...not yell.

Keep in mind, that even if you zero in on a main subject, whatever else is in that image may be construed as a major element according to the reasoning abilities of the viewer. Some observers become easily overwhelmed with their emotions and will trump logic. What this means is to think twice before you remove or alter anything in the image. In short, when compared side by side, the end result should be a reasonable representation of the original. If you got too fancy, then you have created something new!

In short, what you are doing is recording and while you have enough artistic freedom in selection and composition, you are limited as to what you can do with this recording. Let us begin with the premise to maintain the tonal values.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are free to select at will whether pixels or objects or part of objects. However, you are very limited as to what you can do with these selections.

We begin with a selected area that you want to apply either curves, levels or any equivalent which will alter the tonal values. Be careful and never horse these controls to obliterate tones and objects ending up in a pure white or pure black absolute value. Example, you have someone standing in a room. Eliminating the clutter and bringing in a final product with a white or black background may earn you a dq.

The only times that you can apply these controls to the extreme is in images where you started with a white or black background and you using these controls to wipe out spilled light. Uniformity is acceptable here. Color backgrounds are also allowed uniformity by using color shifts. Advise is, if you like to wear belt and suspenders and start with the color green, finish up with green and not purple. This will keep you in the safe area. My interpretation with changing background colors is that you can change them provided you are not adding textures but monetheless you are entering a gray area. Only the bold enter here. Most s/c will vote in your favor if you only changed the color of a plain background.

When dealing with dull flat scenic skies you are allowed a light tinting with some delicate tonal variations, but do think twice of replacing it with a vibrant solid blue sky.

The same applies to the gaussean blur: you can not blur to total oblivion. Any filters that alter objects against their true proportions are out.

The next "Big" limitation is the Clone Tool. Use it basically to remove imperfections and objects that are not prominent. The volume of what you remove may come into question so keep the volume to a minimum. Remember, identifying major elements is a rather judgemental practice. Use the clone basically to clean up dirt or minor alterations. There is not much trouble from burning, dodging, sharpenning tool or sponge. Some of these add noise and shift colors, so be careful using them.

Of course, no mention will be made of moving anything in an image. This is a no no. Be careful when you copy and paste that your work is registered. Objects are sometimes pasted and they can easily shift, but then you are playing with layers because you understand them.

*******************************************************************************

A word of advise: maintaining photographic integrity means adhereing to the protection of tonal and color values as present in the original scene or subject. We all realize that the camera merely mimics reality and you are allowed to add tonal and color accents but always be careful. Do not convert a day scene into a night scene. A lot of these manipulations are available but best kept for your personal use rather than for competition in DPC.

PS and many digital editing programs have the tools to maintain photographic integrity and then they have play tool boxes which are used more for artistic renditions. Artistic renditions do not win many ribbons. Aim for in camera effects when seeking these wonders.

Also, keep in mind that any extreme pushing of controls whether color or tonal will bring you into the graphical representation. here tonal values are shrunk and colors burst their envelope leaving you an image that is far from the original and now filled with noise and terrible tonal gradation. The secret is to use all controls with great discretion. Avoid reaching their extremes.

Another consideration is the selection tool up to the pencil. Selection is not a perfected science. In some cases you wind up with unrold artifacts surrounding the perimeter. This is an art and its sloppy use can make your image terrible. Best to practice and perfect before employing for competition. Remember, some images need virtually nothing more than level, curve, hue sat and um. Sharpenning beyond reason will plague your images with halos and will give the final output an amateur look. Remember, no horsing because you are playing with tonal and color values that can shift for the worse. Look at images and place special attention on images that are validated. this will broaden your understanding further.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/01/2006 09:12:28 PM · #2

Not entirely accurate but points for lots of words!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

01/01/2006 09:16:56 PM · #3

Originally posted by mk:

Not entirely accurate but points for lots of words!

************************************************************************

Thank you so much. Please feel free to correct me. I am here to learn.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

01/01/2006 09:23:47 PM · #4

Dan. You are acting like a spoiled brat, imo. This is no more than a temper tantrum, imo.
You usually present your views in a mature manner and this dissappoints me.

Katmystiry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/01/2006 09:27:22 PM · #5

Personally I thought Dan's post was very informative and I was glad to read it.

01/01/2006 09:28:07 PM · #6

"Any filters that cause a change by distortion are out. This even includes motion blur."----NOT TRUE

"think twice before you remove or alter anything in the image. In short, when compared side by side, the end result should be a reasonable representation of the original."---VERY TRUE

"Do not convert a day scene into a night scene." ---NOT TRUE

"This is an art and its sloppy use can make your image terrible."----VERY TRUE

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

01/01/2006 09:29:28 PM · #7

Originally posted by mystopia:

Personally I thought Dan's post was very informative and I was glad to read it.

It is very informative in a PERSONAL OPINION kind of way, and in no way reflects or represents the site rules. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/01/2006 09:30:26 PM · #8

Originally posted by pcody:

Dan. You are acting like a spoiled brat, imo. This is no more than a temper tantrum, imo.
You usually present your views in a mature manner and this dissappoints me.

How/why does this seem "spoiled" to you? Dan's attempting to state his understanding of certain complicated areas. There's nowhere in the rules any sor of statement as to exactly what the rules are designed to encourage and to discourage. Why chew Dan out for attempting to voice his udnerstanding of the motivation behind the rules, the "goal" of them?

R.

zxaar

01/01/2006 09:31:35 PM · #9

Originally posted by HBunch:

in no way reflects or represents the site rules.

i thought it does in many ways.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

01/01/2006 09:36:38 PM · #10

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by HBunch:

in no way reflects or represents the site rules.

i thought it does in many ways.

What I'm saying, is do NOT use this as a guideline for the rules, because there are points that are incorrect, and I'd hate to DQ someone and their response be..."but graphicfunk said it was ok in his Advanced Editing Rules" thread. Also, I would hate for someone to limit their editing because of something that was stated HERE, when in fact, that's not a rule at all.
That's all I'm saying.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

01/01/2006 09:39:02 PM · #11

Isn't there another thread devoted to his views? Didn't most sc try to address his ideas in that thread? This seems to me to be something that is the outgrowth of that thread. But I did say imo. ok?
His views are just that, his views. Some poor noob might read this and think he is the final authority for dq's. He isn't.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

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

01/01/2006 09:39:06 PM · #12

Originally posted by HBunch:

"Any filters that cause a change by distortion are out. This even includes motion blur."----NOT TRUE

"Do not convert a day scene into a night scene." ---NOT TRUE

Can you point out a use of motion blur that's legal? Would it not "add a major element" if the photo was about movement?

How would you legally convert a day scene into a night scene within the rules?

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

01/01/2006 09:41:00 PM · #13

Originally posted by HBunch:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The qualities of the night can not be forced from daylight. There is a bending of lightwaves that can not be rendered. We can make it seem like night but this is creating an illusion. If you want a night image it makes a lot of sense to shoot it in the proper ambience. The tonal values change as the sun sets because the spectrum is affected. We can create anything we want but that does not mean that it has photographic or real integrity.

Distortion filters are judgmental. They distort and why, except to offer an artistic rendition, would they be used. They take away and create a misrepresentation. IF motion blur is not in the original why would anybody employ it? If it is not in the original or in camera why misrepresent. This is misrepresentation and with a straight face can you say that such filters conserve photographic integrity?

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/01/2006 09:41:01 PM · #14

Originally posted by pcody:

Isn't there another thread devoted to his views?

I think the other thread basically ends

GF: "there's a lot of ambiguity."
SC: "not really."

GF: (new thread) "these are the ambiguities - someone correct them or FIX IT."

zxaar

01/01/2006 09:41:44 PM · #15

I think someone should have gumption enough to take the rules stated on the guidelines ,not from what someone says, otherwise what is the point of putting them there for the first place.
but there are some people who might argue as you said.

Originally posted by HBunch:

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by HBunch:

in no way reflects or represents the site rules.

i thought it does in many ways.

What I'm saying, is do NOT use this as a guideline for the rules, because there are points that are incorrect, and I'd hate to DQ someone and their response be..."but graphicfunk said it was ok in his Advanced Editing Rules" thread. Also, I would hate for someone to limit their editing because of something that was stated HERE, when in fact, that's not a rule at all.
That's all I'm saying.

01/01/2006 09:52:40 PM · #16

You show me where anything here can gain you a dq? My opinions here are not at all policy. They reflect my understanding and I post this for those that are not so advanced. I have never suffered a DQ, but many people have.

Just because certain things have been done does not make them legal. They are voted upon depending who is present. Some votes are broken by one vote... Once something is voted it becomes precedent yet not all s/c agree with some decisions.

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

01/01/2006 09:58:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pcody:
Dan. You are acting like a spoiled brat, imo. This is no more than a temper tantrum, imo.
You usually present your views in a mature manner and this dissappoints me.

How/why does this seem "spoiled" to you? Dan's attempting to state his understanding of certain complicated areas. There's nowhere in the rules any sor of statement as to exactly what the rules are designed to encourage and to discourage. Why chew Dan out for attempting to voice his udnerstanding of the motivation behind the rules, the "goal" of them?

R.

GAWD, bearmusic, is this ever a contridiction. If I had posted this thread with my own views, you would have been all over me like white on rice. And NO, it doesn't matter HOW long I have been here. I am still an intelligent human being, be it 3 days here or 3 years, before you bring up that argument. WHAT do you think I was trying to do on the other thread? Just what you said here "Dan's attempting to state his understanding of certain complicated areas." DUHHH. Dan isn't the only member here who has the privledge!

As for opening this thread, I do have to say I "thought" graphicfunk was on council. I just noticed his little guy isn't lit up,..LOL..so I am now of the correct assumption he is not. With that said, I don't think it was an appropriate thread to start. I do respect graphicfunk's views; however, a thread with this kind of subject line and banter is only confusing when a council member comes in and says "no, not entirelyl right".

AND while we are on the subject, "IS" soft focus to a photo allowed in advanced editing? This is the type of thing seen done to wedding photos, and can add a certain dreamy effect to some types of photos, but I haven't used it yet in fear it is against the rules.

Rose

EDITED TO ADD: It was bearmusic that told me once that "there are no guarantees in life and since the system works for the rest of you I should give it a try". My kind of turn off here is not personal, but I am finding that there is some hypocracy here depending on who is doing the speaking, and that was my inference. Bearmusic has tried to be helpful to me in the past, and I hold nothing personal against bearmusic. I am just wanting to make that clear.

Message edited by author 2006-01-01 22:11:16.

01/01/2006 10:00:32 PM · #18

I'm not going to keep saying it over and over, but I was simply saying that this post is NOT what the SC go by and is ONLY an opinion of a member, which you have now also stated, so no big deal.

Now, on that note, the photo I was thinking about with the 'motion blur' is in fact 'radial blur' (simulating motion) and was in fact validated.
The other photo that I remember that made a day photo appear to be taken at night was also validated.
Now, that's not to say that ALL photos that make a day photo look like night are legal, and we can't say that all photos that make a day photo look like night are illegal. It depends on each individual case.
I just don't want someone to see "Do not convert a day scene into a night scene." and automatically think that it's illegal.
That's all.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/01/2006 10:06:55 PM · #19

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pcody:
Dan. You are acting like a spoiled brat, imo. This is no more than a temper tantrum, imo.
You usually present your views in a mature manner and this dissappoints me.

How/why does this seem "spoiled" to you? Dan's attempting to state his understanding of certain complicated areas. There's nowhere in the rules any sor of statement as to exactly what the rules are designed to encourage and to discourage. Why chew Dan out for attempting to voice his udnerstanding of the motivation behind the rules, the "goal" of them?

R.

GAWD, bearmusic, is this ever a contridiction. If I had posted this thread with my own views, you would have been all over me like white on rice. And NO, it doesn't matter HOW long I have been here. I am still an intelligent human being, be it 3 days here or 3 years, before you bring up that argument. WHAT do you think I was trying to do on the other thread? Just what you said here "Dan's attempting to state his understanding of certain complicated areas." DUHHH. Dan isn't the only member here who has the privledge!

As for opening this thread, I do have to say I "thought" graphicfunk was on council. I just noticed his little guy isn't lit up,..LOL..so I am now of the correct assumption he is not. With that said, I don't think it was an appropriate thread to start. I do respect graphicfunk's views; however, a thread with this kind of subject line and banter is only confusing when a council member comes in and says "no, not entirelyl right".

AND while we are on the subject, "IS" soft focus to a photo allowed in advanced editing? This is the type of thing seen done to wedding photos, and can add a certain dreamy effect to some types of photos, but I haven't used it yet in fear it is against the rules.

Rose

***********************************************************************

Rose you make a good point and then you end with a question. You can gaussean blur to soften or use UM to sharpen in either b.e. or a.d. This does not, within reason, compromise the integrity of the image.

We now the sad tale of one member that used levels to make a bg black and the image suffered a dq. This one member has never returned to the site. I jumped and told her that I agreed with s/c because the control was used to obliterate and not to darken.

iamkmaniam

Nikon D200

01/01/2006 10:08:01 PM · #20

I always find these threads amusing. I feel very fortunate to have been involved with photography before photoshop and the digital age. If I wanted the background blured I had to watch my DOF or I could use a panning technique. I also had to make certain I was standing in the right spot to get the shot without anything interfing with the image. Now people think I just photoshop that "pole" out. I usually don't use photoshop for any thing else then I would use in a chemical darkroom. And since I am not a paying member yet all my shots with the exception of a slight crop have no PS in them. I at times even hesitate to crop. I was brought up shooting chromes (slide film) and with those you dont get a chance to get it "wrong"

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

01/01/2006 10:09:55 PM · #21

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Where one arth did that come from? I'm not aware of having tangled with you in any way sufficiently aggressive to deserve this response.

R.

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

01/01/2006 10:14:52 PM · #22

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Rose8699:

GAWD, bearmusic, is this ever a contridiction. If I had posted this thread with my own views, you would have been all over me like white on rice. And NO, it doesn't matter HOW long I have been here. I am still an intelligent human being, be it 3 days here or 3 years, before you bring up that argument. WHAT do you think I was trying to do on the other thread? Just what you said here "Dan's attempting to state his understanding of certain complicated areas." DUHHH. Dan isn't the only member here who has the privledge!
Rose

Where one arth did that come from? I'm not aware of having tangled with you in any way sufficiently aggressive to deserve this response.

R.

I just edited my last post to add a paragraph while you were writing this. I am still a bit sore about that patronizing remark you gave me on "giving the system a try and how it works for us all, and how there are no guarantees in life" when I make similar threads or posts on my views of rules or ideas. Then I noticed how in every thread I have read where graphicfunk was speaking, or some others here at DPC, you are completely in their defense when someone goes against them. I just find that a bit un-nerving. However, it is really nothing personal. You have tried to be helpful in some past posts in which I was involved; but I just find it interesting how some are treated verses others in these threads.

Katmystiry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/01/2006 10:16:25 PM · #23

Originally posted by Rose8699:

I just noticed his little guy isn't lit up

LOL Rose ... I can't help but laugh!!!

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

01/01/2006 10:18:00 PM · #24

Originally posted by iamkmaniam:

LOL..you sound like my uncle. He shot with a 35 mm for years. Did pro photography, weddings, etc. He is now very hestitant to step over to the digital age. He feels if it can't be done and processed in a dark room, then it isn't really photography. Well, finally he is stepping away from the cave. He is saving now for his new digital camera, BUT he made it clear to me it will have certain features that don't overstep boundries he is bound by in loyalty. I admire that!