| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 11:47:12 AM · #76 |
| I am in favor of sensor dust removal in basic editing. I also think we should allow red eye correction in basic editing. For advanced editing, I would allow gaussian blur, but disallow any use of motion blur. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:48:45 AM · #77 |
First, wanted to say thank you for rewriting the rules to make them clearer - hopefully, they will be.
Second, I think basic editing should remain very limited without spot editing (because that let's the cat out of the bag and once you do, you will inevitably end up becoming subjective again).
Third, I'd like to see ALL filters allowed in advanced editing. Pretty much anything goes. There are a lot of tools out there to use, and even if they aren't all allowed, a specific list of what is and is not allowed would be greatly appreciated.
Just my 2 cents - I'm sure I'll be happy with more clarification regardless. :-)
EDIT: I like the idea of 2 versions of advanced editing challenges too - one "normal" advanced and one "anything goes" advanced.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 11:50:05. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:51:24 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I am in favor of sensor dust removal in basic editing. I also think we should allow red eye correction in basic editing. For advanced editing, I would allow gaussian blur, but disallow any use of motion blur. |
If you disallow motion blur then why allow gaussian blur? The principle is the same in that pixels are moved. If you allow one then you must allow the other.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:53:46 AM · #79 |
just a thought on how to word the duotone/sepia problem.
conversion to duotone, tri-tone, quad-tone, sepia, BW mode is acceptable
Leave out any and all refrences to any certian program's tool, methods or whatnot. This way all PS, PSP and gimp and whoever's program could be used in converting the image into desired mode. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:55:44 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
... I also think we should allow red eye correction in basic editing... |
"red eye" is a result of poor technique/lighting and should not be allowed to be removed in basic editing.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:56:32 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I also think we should allow red eye correction in basic editing. |
I'm not trying to single you out here, but quoted you just because you brought it up...
That being said, I don't think red-eye correction should be allowed. Not getting red-eye is something that can be achieved before you even take the picture...it's a photographic technique. If red-eye-correction were allowed, why not allow selective blur to achieve a lower depth of field, or dodging and burning while we're at it to create more 'attention-grabbing' lighting -- because those all can be controlled as the shutter opens.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:57:46 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Dirtypainter:
just a thought on how to word the duotone/sepia problem.
conversion to duotone, tri-tone, quad-tone, sepia, BW mode is acceptable
Leave out any and all refrences to any certian program's tool, methods or whatnot. This way all PS, PSP and gimp and whoever's program could be used in converting the image into desired mode. |
We could do that, but the problem is that PSP does not have a duotone tool, and the "workaround" method suggested for PSP involved several steps, one of which was the user of layers in a non-normal blending mode. Since use of layers in a non-normal blending mode is illegal, that was the deal-breaker.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:00:05 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I am in favor of sensor dust removal in basic editing. I also think we should allow red eye correction in basic editing. For advanced editing, I would allow gaussian blur, but disallow any use of motion blur. |
I think this post taken with the others demonstrates the difficulty of allowing sensor dust removal in Basic--oh, and dead pixels while we're at it....and maybe red-eye correction....too? Well, what about the mole on Aunt Agatha's nose?! To me, these are "minor distracting elements" the same sort you can edit under the Advanced rule-set. Looks like we're opening a can of worms with the sensor-dust cloning alteration--what if there just happened to be an annoying bird near that dusty bit? Make it what you want--just make it really, really clear cut! (please) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:00:39 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
one of which was the user of layers in a non-normal blending mode. Since use of layers in a non-normal blending mode is illegal, that was the deal-breaker.
~Terry |
Why was non-normal blend mode disallowed - just out of interest?
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:11:43 PM · #85 |
I think red eye removal is a basic technique. Some camera's do it automatically, and there are programs where the effect is applied to the whole image. Of course good technique and advanced equipment eliminates the need in most cases. I myself have little need for it, except in the case when I need fill flash outdoors and popup my on camera flash.
As far as blur goes, I think motion blur is much more of a specific effect, much more like a filter, than gaussian blur. I know that some people use gaussian blur on layer masks (I wish I understood what they were doing) and I think that should be legal. To use a motion blur to fake motion is a whole different thing imo. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:22:06 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Why was non-normal blend mode disallowed - just out of interest? |
Probably for the same reason as other things were disallowed - in order to keep thing clear and simple in Basic Editing.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:30:09 PM · #87 |
I suggest you use this as the new rules set... It will do away with the need for disqualificaitons completely and make your job a lot easier.
1. State your objective with the challenges.
2. Ask the voters to decide if those objectives have been met by having them 'vote accordingly'.
Pass the burden of determining if the rules have been broken to the voter and keep things less complicated for the SC.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:31:35 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suggest you use this as the new rules set... It will do away with the need for disqualificaitons completely and make your job a lot easier.
1. State your objective with the challenges.
2. Ask the voters to decide if those objectives have been met by having them 'vote accordingly'.
Pass the burden of determining if the rules have been broken to the voter and keep things less complicated for the SC. |
Best idea yet - I vote for this one.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:31:36 PM · #89 |
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned one obvious gripe yet - allowing photoshopped images on computer monitors to act as major elements in the image.
Either regulate what you can do to images on computer monitors in photoshop if they're going to be in your photo (only basic editing if the contest is basic editing), or ideally just disallow use of such things altogether. Otherwise people can just edit an image how they like as long as they photograph the monitor afterwards with another real element involved in the image.
Obviously i'm referring to contraversial images such as
But allowing only basic editing on monitor images would still let through shots like
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:34:01 PM · #90 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:40:21 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Falc:
and what about this sort of image - no different really. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable in my book and has been for a very long time
 |
Exactly, another perfect example of what i would DISALLOW, although printouts would be slightly harder to enforce. Here is a way of dodging editing rules by simply editing a portion of a shot how you'd like, and incorporating it into your final photograph.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:42:04 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by Falc:
and what about this sort of image - no different really. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable in my book and has been for a very long time
|
Exactly, another perfect example of what i would DISALLOW, although printouts would be slightly harder to enforce. Here is a way of dodging editing rules by simply editing a portion of a shot how you'd like, and incorporating it into your final photograph. |
This type of manipulation is a long establishe LEGAL manipulation and should be continued.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:45:19 PM · #93 |
roit - essentially the background was manipulated to suit the image here -
If you want to disallow background manipulation, that would mean i should not have been allowed to enter  or  because in both causes i manipulated the background to add an effect to the image. I just happened to use paper as my medium rather than a screen. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:50:45 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Dirtypainter:
just a thought on how to word the duotone/sepia problem.
conversion to duotone, tri-tone, quad-tone, sepia, BW mode is acceptable
Leave out any and all refrences to any certian program's tool, methods or whatnot. This way all PS, PSP and gimp and whoever's program could be used in converting the image into desired mode. |
We could do that, but the problem is that PSP does not have a duotone tool, and the "workaround" method suggested for PSP involved several steps, one of which was the user of layers in a non-normal blending mode. Since use of layers in a non-normal blending mode is illegal, that was the deal-breaker.
~Terry |
Well couldn't it be allowed in this instance of doing the conversion to a duotone/sepia but not allowed in all other areas.
Just because some of the programs have thought to include this tool in their package that does it automaticly shouldn't make it not an option for doing it the hard and dirty way in other programs. But then again it would probably open a can of worms with people saying hey they get to use difreent blending modes but I can't. This is a sad fact that not everybody will agree on.
But I do appluade you all for trying to come up with a solution that will help make this community a better place.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:51:00 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by Falc:
and what about this sort of image - no different really. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable in my book and has been for a very long time
|
Exactly, another perfect example of what i would DISALLOW, although printouts would be slightly harder to enforce. Here is a way of dodging editing rules by simply editing a portion of a shot how you'd like, and incorporating it into your final photograph. |
Of course if you're going to disallow the screen shots AND the printouts, I would suppose that backdrops are illegal too if there's any design or pattern.
Or any picture that has even part of another "art" in it?
Like architecture?
Statues?
Maybe we should outlaw creativity too..
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:55:48 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
Of course if you're going to disallow the screen shots AND the printouts, I would suppose that backdrops are illegal too if there's any design or pattern.
Or any picture that has even part of another "art" in it?
Like architecture?
Statues?
Maybe we should outlaw creativity too.. |
Well said - we are getting into the realms of whats allowed to be photographed here, not how its been post-processed. There are no current rules making these sort of images 'controversial', they are ALL perfectly legal in the existing rules. They should remain that way too.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:57:18 PM · #97 |
| Just wanted to put in another vote for allowing the removal of sensor dust/hot pixels in basic. My old camera had a very bad hot pixel. I actually refrained from entering a couple shots because it was so ugly. This site seems to be all about participation and learning, so it seems counter to the intent if people aren't participating because of a rule like that. I do think that this will need to be very carefully worded, perhaps with attention to the size of the cloned area or something like that so that it is indeed limited to sensor dust and hot pixels. I don't think any other cloning should be allowed in basic. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:58:42 PM · #98 |
As for the use of any blur effects ... it seems it's only been mentioned that they are being used for background manipulation or motion blurring. But, I haven't seen it mentioned as to when blur is used for such thing as diffusion, such as in the photo below.
It's obviously used for effect and is quite easy (yet more expensive) to achieve in-camera.
I'm not going to make a suggestion either way. While I hope it remains legal, it should be considered in the issue of (dis)allowing blur filters.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 12:59:24.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:02:03 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Third-party filters and Actions
I would like to see an area pertaining to third-party filters and actions. Listing what is legal, not legal, or maybe legal. Some filters edit pictures where the photographer cannot explain the process and we don't know if any major elements have been moved or removed.
Borders
A clearer understanding on borders such as feathering, triptych, etc. Also if adding to the canvas size to create a border, when legal or not legal. |
I too would like to see what filters are legal and are not. I am having a hard time understanding what I can and cannot use! |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:07:38 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Most importantly, we'd like to solicit your suggestions. If there is anything you would like to see in the new rules, now is the time to voice it! |
Change the rules to consistantly reflect "real" photography today and the emergence of post-processing image editing.
It would be a variation of this concept:
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission"
That change would be to:
"Any modification allowed inside the digital camera itself along with its digital editing equivalent is considered acceptable for challenge submission"
The list of specifically allowed and disallowed capabilities would be defined and maintained by the SC. But the overriding philosophy would be that if it is allowed with the camera and/or traditional "wet" darkroom then it is also allowed with image editing. If it is not allowed in digital editing then it is not allowed in the camera either. There would be one set of allowed capabilities for basic challenges and one set for advanced challenges.
This would remove the inconsistancies from the way rules have evolved.
Commonly accepted camera functions and commonly accepted "wet" darkroom practice would be the fundamental basis for deciding which capabilities would be allowed or disallowed.
This could mean things like:
1-If a radial filter, or any other filter, is allowed with the camera then the equivalent filter is allowed in post processing.
2-If multiple images not allowed in post processing then double exposures are not allowed in the camera either.
3-If borders cannot be created in cameras then they cannot be created in post-processing either.
4-Focusing is used in a traditional "wet" darkroom so focusing is allowed in image editing.
etc, etc.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 13:15:10.
|
|
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: 07/18/2025 06:14:33 AM EDT.
