|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2006 04:41:45 AM · #51 |
| But if people are used to processing .raw files in basic editing and asume that is ok, shouldn't it be made clear somehow that the rules have changed. To DQ an image like this somehow doesn't seem fair, Larus thought he was acting within the bounds of the editing restrictions. If the genaral consensus on what is allowed and what is not changes, this needs to be made clear, not by disqualifying an image but in the description of the rules. Not everyone reads every thread and it may not be sufficiently known by competitors that the rules have changed. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:46:53 AM · #52 |
I really hate it when people say it's too bad that an image was DQ'ed. No matter how good or bad the image was, I think it's a good thing when illegally edited images are discovered and expelled from the competition.
And I find it not at all surprising that some people think that DQ'ed images are good ones. They ought to be. They have had the benefit of editing techniques that all the other (legal) entries did not have.
I applaud the SC for breaking away from the somewhat entrenched position of anything done in a RAW converter is the same as done in camera. That's a step forward any way you look at it.
Does anyone really think that a vignetteing tool, no matter where it resides, applies uniformly to the entire image? No way. It darkens the corners but does nothing to the center of the image. That's spot editing.
And since when is darkening the corners the same as fixing flaws in lens design? Gimme a break. Lightening the corners might be correcting for a flawed lens, but adding vignetteing is for effect.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:55:54 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I really hate it when people say it's too bad that an image was DQ'ed. No matter how good or bad the image was, I think it's a good thing when illegally edited images are discovered and expelled from the competition. |
I think we all agree that it's a good thing to disqualify illegally edited images. What I think people mean when they say "It's too bad that this got DQ'ed" is not so much that it shouldn't have been disqualified for the illegal editing, but that it's a shame that the image was not acheived through legal means.
I certainly don't want to put words in anyones' mouths, but I really don't think anyone believes it would be better for an image that breaks the rules to go unaddressed. It's just a shame when something you think is (and take on faith to be) X turns out to be Y instead.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:02:12 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by indridistefans:
But if people are used to processing .raw files in basic editing and asume that is ok, shouldn't it be made clear somehow that the rules have changed. To DQ an image like this somehow doesn't seem fair, Larus thought he was acting within the bounds of the editing restrictions. If the genaral consensus on what is allowed and what is not changes, this needs to be made clear, not by disqualifying an image but in the description of the rules. Not everyone reads every thread and it may not be sufficiently known by competitors that the rules have changed. |
I'm not sure that applies here; There's no "rule" that says anything you can do with a RAW processor is acceptable. It's just that up until very recently nothing a RAW processor can has been illegal in basic editing, as far as I know.
On the other hand, here's two sections of the current rules for basic editing (boldface added):
****************
â€Â¢ Filters: The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited.
â€Â¢ Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
**************
Key to this issue, in my mind, is that no matter how you look at it vignetting is not "applied uniformly to the entire image". Also, the effect of vignetting is precisely the same as if you used the burning tool very carefully to darken the corners of your image; it's a "controlled burn", so to speak.
For this reason, the way I look at it, the RAW editor issue is a bit of a red herring; sure, we've always allowed RAW editing, but it's always been editing that would otherwise be legal, up until now; just doing after-the-fact what you could have done pre-exposure in the camera. If you look at Larus' image and mentally fill in the portion of the rectangle he cropped off the top, you'll see a rectangular image that is progressively darkened out from the center along every radian; such a thing has NEVER been allowed in basic editing before, so why should we start now just because the tool is cloaked in the guise of a RAW processor?
Just my opinion...
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:12:20 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I really hate it when people say it's too bad that an image was DQ'ed. No matter how good or bad the image was, I think it's a good thing when illegally edited images are discovered and expelled from the competition.
.....
And since when is darkening the corners the same as fixing flaws in lens design? Gimme a break. Lightening the corners might be correcting for a flawed lens, but adding vignetteing is for effect. |
It is a good thing when "illegally edited" edited images are expelled. I think the sympathy, in this case, is not completely misguided, however; Larus was operating under the impression that anything done in a RAW converter is legal in any challenge, and that's an issue that does need to be clarified. Indeed, it's an issue SC is working on clarifying right now; it's just his bad luck that he was caught on the cutting edge of the clarification, as it were.
The second point is interesting; I completely agree with you that adding vignetting is "for effect" where removing it would be a valid "correction", hypothetically speaking. BUT, look at the use of Neat Image; the reason it, and other tools for image smoothing, are specifically allowed in basic editing is to permit the correction of excessive noise, helping to level the playing field between P&S cameras and dtate-of-the-art dSLR cameras, but look at how it is often USED, to vreate an unnaturally smooth, unearthly effect. So there IS precedent for using correction filters to create an effect...
I do agree with your post, though, Harvey. It's just that these are very muddy waters indeed.
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:03:14 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Does anyone really think that a vignetteing tool, no matter where it resides, applies uniformly to the entire image? No way. It darkens the corners but does nothing to the center of the image. That's spot editing.
|
Ummm, yes I think it applies to the "whole image" as it is uniformly applied, in all corners, equally with no control over what is done where. I mean, seriously, this is exactaly the same as shadow/highlights for example. It works on the "whole image" but really it just affects the dark and bright portions of a photo, why is this then allowed in basic editing? The same goes for "replace colour". I mean, how is that not spot editing by your definition, I´d like to hear that...
Originally posted by coolhar:
And since when is darkening the corners the same as fixing flaws in lens design? Gimme a break. Lightening the corners might be correcting for a flawed lens, but adding vignetteing is for effect. |
And yes, no one is denying I did the "negative" vignetting for effect, I think you are missing the point here. Either you CAN or CAN´T use that tool in CS2, the amont it is used for is irrelevant. If that should matter, then what is the allowed amount and what is not? I mean, levels is legal right? But can you expect a DQ if you pull the sliders to make the image just consist of 2 bits so it´s just white and black? What I want to hear from the SC is that is it allowed or not and I want it stated clearly in the rules what can and can´t be done in the raw conversion process, there is no mention of it now and that is what pisses me off, it didn´t even cross my mind that it wasn´t allowed.
Anyway, got nothing but respect for you, just happen to strongly disagree with you...
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 06:03:53. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:07:27 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
****************
â€Â¢ Filters: The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited.
â€Â¢ Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
**************
Key to this issue, in my mind, is that no matter how you look at it vignetting is not "applied uniformly to the entire image". Also, the effect of vignetting is precisely the same as if you used the burning tool very carefully to darken the corners of your image; it's a "controlled burn", so to speak.
|
As always, got nothing but respect for you but my answer to coolhar is pretty much directed at you too. I don´t see how you can make the statement that the tool in the raw converter for wignetting isn´t applied to the whole image? |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:16:17 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Larus:
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
To address the second issue first, almost certainly those low votes show you voters who are unhappy to see what they assume is "illegal editing" in an entry, and ding you accordingly. They're not supposed to, but it happens.
|
Yup, kindof figured that was the case, frankly I am mostly glad though as I feel robbed but now just robbed of a 4th place and not a ribbon :D
Just hard for me to grasp that people would do that, when I see a shot that I think has been illegally altered I just vote as normal and altert the SC whom I still do trust even though I strongly disagree with them this time. Anyway, got that out of my system and doesn´t bother me a bit, how could it, I mean, I still got a 7+ score :D |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:18:45 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Larus:
As always, got nothing but respect for you but my answer to coolhar is pretty much directed at you too. I don´t see how you can make the statement that the tool in the raw converter for wignetting isn´t applied to the whole image? |
The CONTROL may be applied to the whole image, but the EFFECT is applied progressively more the further you get from the center.
Actually, what you said in your reply to Harvey is a pretty good synopsis of an argument against the entire basic-editing ruleset, if you want to look at it that way. If you dig deep enough, that is.
As for this statement: "then what is the allowed amount and what is not? I mean, levels is legal right? But can you expect a DQ if you pull the sliders to make the image just consist of 2 bits so it´s just white and black?", SC has repeatedly said that if you use levels and such to completely obliterate elements of a photograph you will likely run afoul of the major-elements rule; you may remember the photo where an entire couch and room was blown away by using levels and a selection (in advanced editing) in the high-key challenge, and was DQ'd...
Just because a certain tool is allowed doesn't mean you can do absolutely whatever youw ant to with it, basically. Although I'm told that they have TRIED to make basic tool-centric and advanced effects-centric so I don't know... I'm just trying to puzzle out the pros and cons of this on a sleepless night, probably talking too much...
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:42:37 AM · #60 |
But there are lots of "glass filters", used on 35mm film cameras where the filter/control is applied on whole image/lens but the effect is only on selective areas (Gradiant filter for example). I somehow don't feel comfortable not being able to use such "basic" filters in basic editing. Shouldn't such "basic" filters (which emulate glass filters in 35mm protography) be allowed in "basic" editing?
Anyway, I have been into this discussion on another thread also.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:46:40 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Larus:
As always, got nothing but respect for you but my answer to coolhar is pretty much directed at you too. I don´t see how you can make the statement that the tool in the raw converter for wignetting isn´t applied to the whole image? |
The CONTROL may be applied to the whole image, but the EFFECT is applied progressively more the further you get from the center. |
Allrighty, I guess we are just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree then :) MY definition of spot editing is when you use a brush or some form of manual selection of a picture and just apply something to a specific, manually selected area.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As for this statement: "then what is the allowed amount and what is not? I mean, levels is legal right? But can you expect a DQ if you pull the sliders to make the image just consist of 2 bits so it´s just white and black?", SC has repeatedly said that if you use levels and such to completely obliterate elements of a photograph you will likely run afoul of the major-elements rule; you may remember the photo where an entire couch and room was blown away by using levels and a selection (in advanced editing) in the high-key challenge, and was DQ'd...
Just because a certain tool is allowed doesn't mean you can do absolutely whatever youw ant to with it, basically. Although I'm told that they have TRIED to make basic tool-centric and advanced effects-centric so I don't know... I'm just trying to puzzle out the pros and cons of this on a sleepless night, probably talking too much...
R. |
Well I just read the Basic editing rules again, second time today and I can´t see anywhere a mention of a limit of the legal tools in the Basic Editing Rules. However, under the Advanced rules there is mentioned that there should be no "editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph". Hey, but what the hell do I know, I´m no lawyer :) Anyway, I don´t tend to hang out at the forums too much, my interest in this site is mostly aimed at the challenges so I truly had no idea what the SC has said about the use of levels to obliterate elments would lead to a DQ. If I may make a suggestion, it would be to copy paste that line from the advanced rules into the basic rules, can´t hurt anyways and might prevent misunderstandings. Also, no I don´t remember those two shots but would love to see them, I found the high contrast one but can you link to the couch shot?
Respectfully, Larus.
"Edit: I just realized you were just all along talking about one shot, originally I thought you meant your own shot in "high contrast" that got DQ´ed."
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 06:59:19. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:53:21 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Larus:
... I think you are missing the point here. Either you CAN or CAN´T use that tool in CS2, the amont it is used for is irrelevant. If that should matter, then what is the allowed amount and what is not? I mean, levels is legal right? But can you expect a DQ if you pull the sliders to make the image just consist of 2 bits so it´s just white and black? What I want to hear from the SC is that is it allowed or not and I want it stated clearly in the rules what can and can´t be done in the raw conversion process, there is no mention of it now and that is what pisses me off, it didn´t even cross my mind that it wasn´t allowed. ... |
First, any use of any tool in any editing program is subject to the 'major element' clause -- vignetting has been ruled a major element. Doesn't matter how it is done; if you remove it or add it the photo is liable to be DQed.
Second, there are a great many here who are waiting for clear rules that can be understood. Personally, I've stopped waiting for that since coming to the conclussion the rules will only get more and more complex and more and more confusing as long as they are tool-based. Now I wait for the rules to get so complex the SC have no choice but to come to the same conclussion. :P
It has been the case that anything done in RAW was considered 'in-camera' -- but that has changed as they add even more tools to base the rules on. But cameras already have histograms -- how long before they start putting sliders so the basic levels can be adjusted 'in-camera'. They already allow blending of more than one image -- how long before masks or gradients are introduced. How long before 'in-camera' is not so black and white anymore? More and more tools to base the rules on -- and as long as the rules are tool based, they will always be behind the technology curve.
But it can't continue forever like this, constantly getting more and more confusing -- sooner or later it will have to be changed or implode under its own weight. So I wait.
David
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 06:53:39.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:05:26 AM · #63 |
Sorry Lárus that your very good photo got DQ'ed - but look at the bright side, now your photo is even more famous now than it would have been without the DQ since it is quite controversial :) I propose the the changes/clarifications to Basic Editing Rules that this entails be called the "Larus amendment"
It's pointless to criticize you for using the (negative) vignetting tool for the effect, the whole point of editing a photo is indeed for the effect.
I was under the impression, as Larus, that all you did in a RAW converter was pretty much allowed, since it affects the whole image (as the noise and scratches filter) but you had be careful in PS.
I was also under the impression that you could do pretty much what you liked with a legal tool (like levels or curves) - however, you usually get hammered in the voting if you do.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:08:58 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Would removing dust&scratches be basic editing? |
Are you talking about the "Dust & Scratches" filter in Photoshop? If so, then you should notice that it is explicitly listed in the rules.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:23:03 AM · #65 |
It looks like the "corrected" reason Langdon put in for the DQ was (at least in my opinion) still not correct. The key section of the rules is this:
Originally posted by Basic Rules:
Filters: The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited. |
While the vignetting tool is designed to preserve the integrity of an image (by correcting light falloff caused by lower-quality lenses), it was not, in this case, used to do so. As such, we believe this application of the filter violates the above rule and had to disqualify.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:24:42 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Larus:
MY definition of spot editing is when you use a brush or some form of manual selection of a picture and just apply something to a specific, manually selected area. |
As long as we're discussing this in depth, follow along and see what you think of this:
Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that we both agree you can't use the "burn" tool in basic editing to darken the corners of your image progressively.
Let's stipulate also that a skilled photoshop user can work the burn tool at progressive intensities, circling outward from the center, to vignette a photograph. This, after all, is precisely what a good darkroom technician would do in the film darkroom. It's very common.
Now let's look at the vignette tool, either the one you used in RAW, or a similar tool in regular PS filters set; I have one called "ND Burn" in my filters. With "ND Burn" I can set the focal length of the lens and define the intensity of the effect. I can flip it one way so it lightens towards the corners, or the other way so it darkens towards the corners.
So here's a filter in Photoshop 7.0 that I can use to do exactly what your RAW adjustment filter is doing in CS2, but MY filter is absolutely not allowed in basic editing. And I don't even NEED the filter, if I want to take the time to do it crefully by hand; the filter just automates the process.
See the problem? Lord knows I'm not getting on YOUR case, you're just expressing the other side of the debate. My interest, my only interest, is in trying to puzzle out how there can be consistency and a level playing field across the board. It's very muddy waters. If I had a ready solution I'd have long since posted it up as a proposed "revision of the rules" but better minds than mine are working on this as we speak. Hopefully debates like these help them in their work.
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:27:26 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
While the vignetting tool is designed to preserve the integrity of an image (by correcting light falloff caused by lower-quality lenses), it was not, in this case, used to do so. As such, we believe this application of the filter violates the above rule and had to disqualify.
~Terry |
That's an interesting point. So if I ever DO have vignetting in a basic entry, perhaps from using a polarizer on my 10mm lens, I can use my "ND Burn" filter to correct it?
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:47:46 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC has repeatedly said that if you use levels and such to completely obliterate elements of a photograph you will likely run afoul of the major-elements rule; |
The only problem I have with this statement relative to the question is that there is NOT a "major elements" clause in basic editing. The "theoretical" image with only two bits - black and white - is technically legal regardless of whether "major elements" were removed, if it is entered in basic editing.
*Disclaimer - I know there is much disagreement on this issue, so my interpretations, though correct, should not be regarded as final or authoritative.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:50:42 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by David.C:
First, any use of any tool in any editing program is subject to the 'major element' clause -- vignetting has been ruled a major element. Doesn't matter how it is done; if you remove it or add it the photo is liable to be DQed.
David |
Again, you're applying an ADVANCED ruleset clause to BASIC editing, which has no such clause. THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS IMAGE.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:52:06 AM · #70 |
This DQ is the biggest heap of BS I have ever heard.
There is no spot editing if you apply vignetting through camera raw.... It's applied throughout the picture and is no bigger deal then levels or curves.
I say Boo.
Thank you |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 08:21:02 AM · #71 |
I am at a disadvantage to some of the posters here because I do not have PS or it's RAW converter. I have no first hand experience with it's vignetteing tool or the shadow-highlight tool spoken of. However, with all due respect to my fellow photographers, I don't see how anyone could consider a vignetteing tool as applying uniformly to an entire image. It seems to me that by definition and design it is intended to darken corners while leaving the center unchanged. Others tools, such as Neat Image or levels, apply to parts of the image based on the characteristics of those parts, not based on there geography. They are not a good parallel in a discussion of spot editing.
Perhaps my view of the spirit and intent of the editing rules is skewed by the fact that I have been here longer than some others, but I think it more likely comes down to one's approach to the rules. If your intent is to stretch them, to expand the envelope, then you will see them differently than I do. I accept them as written, and incorporate my knowledge of the discussions that went into forming them, and what I know of how the SC strives to enforce them. For me the challenge is to produce an image within the rules that pleases the voters. I know that there are others here that seek to please the voters and expand the rules, sometimes in great leaps, at the same time. And I have seen the SC seduced by/succomb to such attempts. This time I feel our Site Council did the right thing and I repeat my applause for that.
Originally posted by DavidC:
It has been the case that anything done in RAW was considered 'in-camera' -- but that has changed as they add even more tools to base the rules on. But cameras already have histograms -- how long before they start putting sliders so the basic levels can be adjusted 'in-camera'. They already allow blending of more than one image -- how long before masks or gradients are introduced. How long before 'in-camera' is not so black and white anymore? More and more tools to base the rules on -- and as long as the rules are tool based, they will always be behind the technology curve. |
I think in-camera will be easily defined as long as SC can view an original file and be reasonably sure that it has not been tampered with. This may not be totally fair to those who can't afford the latest camera technology ever six months but it may hold up for quite a while.
Originally posted by tejinder:
But there are lots of "glass filters", used on 35mm film cameras where the filter/control is applied on whole image/lens but the effect is only on selective areas (Gradiant filter for example). I somehow don't feel comfortable not being able to use such "basic" filters in basic editing. Shouldn't such "basic" filters (which emulate glass filters in 35mm protography) be allowed in "basic" editing? |
No reason for your discomfort. You can use those filters when producing an image to be entered in a Basic rules challenge. You just can't attempt to replicate there results with an editing program. You have to screw them onto the front of your lens, same as with the film cameras.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 08:56:33 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now let's look at the vignette tool, either the one you used in RAW, or a similar tool in regular PS filters set; I have one called "ND Burn" in my filters. With "ND Burn" I can set the focal length of the lens and define the intensity of the effect. I can flip it one way so it lightens towards the corners, or the other way so it darkens towards the corners.
So here's a filter in Photoshop 7.0 that I can use to do exactly what your RAW adjustment filter is doing in CS2, but MY filter is absolutely not allowed in basic editing. And I don't even NEED the filter, if I want to take the time to do it crefully by hand; the filter just automates the process. |
i think the major source of confusion here is the difference between a vignette tool in photoshop (there are tons of plug-ins that do this) and the fact that somehow or another it's become "learned practice" that everything done in a RAW conversion is legal, as it is technically done before the image is an actual image.
i was under this impression also, and have spent all week arguing this point to relatively little avail.
so let's not get on laurus' case about whether something was applied to the whole photo or not. that's not even the point here. the question is whether or not it should be legal when it was done during the RAW conversion as opposed to adding it in via photoshop.
edit: me no can spel
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 08:57:03.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 09:09:46 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC has repeatedly said that if you use levels and such to completely obliterate elements of a photograph you will likely run afoul of the major-elements rule; |
The only problem I have with this statement relative to the question is that there is NOT a "major elements" clause in basic editing. The "theoretical" image with only two bits - black and white - is technically legal regardless of whether "major elements" were removed, if it is entered in basic editing. |
The reason there's no Major Elements rule in Basic is because global editing supposedly prevented the selection of a single element to remove. However, shifting an image to all-black or all-white WOULD draw a DQ in either rule set because the subject and all details would be lost (unless it was blank to begin with). Likewise, if you had a red object on a green background and shifted the colors to match, the object might disappear completely and warrant a DQ.
While various tools and techniques are specified in the editing rules, the purpose has always been for touchup of your capture, NOT for creating something from nothing (with the possible exception of color shifts). Any legal tool could potentially be used illegally. You could sharpen an image to the point that it's a pixelated mess or blur the whole scene into a giant smudge and you'll be DQ'd- even though you only used the otherwise-legal Unsharp Mask and Gaussian Blur tools. Where validation is concerned, what you did is often more important than how you did it.
Anything done in RAW has traditionally been allowed because the tools in RAW converters are intended to duplicate in-camera functions or correct basic camera flaws. Larus had the dubious honor of being the first DQ for RAW editing because he didn't use the tool to correct flaws, but to create an effect. Created affects aren't allowed in Basic. This may fall under the spirit of the rules rather than anything spelled out, but we ARE actively working on clarifying those rules to reduce future confusion. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 09:42:29 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... so let's not get on laurus' case about whether something was applied to the whole photo or not. that's not even the point here. the question is whether or not it should be legal when it was done during the RAW conversion as opposed to adding it in via photoshop. ... |
Not trying to provoke here but if you think of the situation in those terms I think you, meaning SC, have two separate issues to consider.
The arguement that something is legal just because it was done in RAW conversion goes by the boards as new tools are added to the RAW conversion programs.
The idea that darkening the corners while leaving the center unchanged is spot editing may be more subjective in nature. But, as already pointed out earlier in this thread, it goes against the spirit of editing to improve an image while preserving it's integrity. It is more like adding something to an image than it is like bringing out something that is already there.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 09:44:04.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 09:48:24 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The arguement that something is legal just because it was done in RAW conversion goes by the boards as new tools are added to the RAW conversion programs.
The idea that darkening the corners while leaving the center unchanged is spot editing may be more subjective in nature. But, as already pointed out earlier in this thread, it goes against the spirit of editing to improve an image while preserving it's integrity. It is more like adding something to an image than it is like bringing out something that is already there. |
yes. i agree. my point is that i think we should clarify what is and isn't legal in the RAW conversion.
i think we're all in agreement that adding the vignetting is not legal in basic. the problem exists somewhere in the collision of the "everything done in RAW is legal" and "adding vignetting is illegal" arguments. right now they are mutually exclusive.
and this isn't a new phenomenon with PSCS2. there's a vignetting control in nikon capture too. the entire RAW workflow needs to be analyzed.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 08:51:11 AM  |
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: 08/08/2025 08:51:11 AM EDT.
|
