| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2006 05:38:31 PM · #1 |
Is the
Filter>Distort>lens correction acception under the basic editing rules?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 05:42:40 PM · #2 |
No, it is not legal under Basic, but is legal under advanced if used as a corrective tool, not to intentionally apply gross amounts of distortion.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 05:44:34 PM · #3 |
dduurrrnnn :(
allright... i guess i will suck it up and accept the 1's and 2's for crappy building angles ... sniff sniff
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 05:45:19 PM · #4 |
NO in basic - Yes/Maybe in advanced.
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.
ETA: Kirbic ya beat me to it. :)
Message edited by author 2006-05-08 17:46:13.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 05:47:58 PM · #5 |
well i think one could almost argue that the lens correction "preserves the original integrity".. or wait.. maybe not.. but it could almost be akin to neat image /noise/ and blur
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 05:49:00 PM · #6 |
Woe..I thought we had this discussion before, and the outcome was quite different...
Lemme quote a section of the basic rules:
"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."
It is my understanding that correcting lens distortion is in fact legal in basic because you're preserving the photograhpic integrity of the image. How can you remove dust/scratches or use neat image to remove noise, and not be allowed to correct some distortion caused by your lens (as the rules CLEARLY state that you are allowed to).
Message edited by author 2006-05-08 17:50:00.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 05:56:22 PM · #7 |
David,
There is a subtle, but real, difference. The filters that fall under the "preserve photographic integrity" clause are those filters meant to reduce noise and artifacts in a given image. The lens distortion filter is meant to correct effects of shooting position (perspective) and/or the effects of the optical system (barrel/pincusion and related distortions), which is a different thing entirely. One works with the image as it is, the other deforms it to make it something slightly different.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 06:18:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
David,
There is a subtle, but real, difference. The filters that fall under the "preserve photographic integrity" clause are those filters meant to reduce noise and artifacts in a given image. The lens distortion filter is meant to correct effects of shooting position (perspective) and/or the effects of the optical system (barrel/pincusion and related distortions), which is a different thing entirely. One works with the image as it is, the other deforms it to make it something slightly different. |
In other words, when it comes to optical distortion you need to pay for better glass or suck it up, but when it comes to noise if you can't afford a better body, feel free to use Neat Image? I'm not so much referring to using these tools as a means of correcting perspective as I am to how they can be used to correct DEFECTS which otherwise there is simply no way around. My Nikon 5700 drove me batty with the WA barrel distortion, which rendered horizontal or vertical lines (i.e. horizons, mostly in my case) near the edge of the image noticeably curved.
It doesn't seem to me that removing noise is all that different from removing barrel distortion or pinchshioning, but I accept that using "perspective control" to square-up architectural shots is a different thing altogether.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 07:58:23 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In other words, when it comes to optical distortion you need to pay for better glass or suck it up, but when it comes to noise if you can't afford a better body, feel free to use Neat Image? I'm not so much referring to using these tools as a means of correcting perspective as I am to how they can be used to correct DEFECTS which otherwise there is simply no way around. My Nikon 5700 drove me batty with the WA barrel distortion, which rendered horizontal or vertical lines (i.e. horizons, mostly in my case) near the edge of the image noticeably curved.
It doesn't seem to me that removing noise is all that different from removing barrel distortion or pinchshioning, but I accept that using "perspective control" to square-up architectural shots is a different thing altogether.
R. |
Wow bear, you agreed with me...
Anyway...kirbic, I see what you're saying, but how is correcting distortion from a wide angle lens not preserving photographic integrity? I just honestly don't see it the same way as you. Is this a personal thing, or is this site council's stand on the issue?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 08:06:28 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Is this a personal thing, or is this site council's stand on the issue? |
It's always been the SCs stand on the issue, but your do bring up some good points for us to look at in the upcoming rules revision. |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 08:07:11 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 08:21:41 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by deapee:
lindsay lohan? |
Oh yeah, feel free to use her in ANY photo... she's HOT !
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 08:26:48 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 09:05:48 PM · #14 |
"Photographic integrity" would seem to mean (to me) the most accurate representation of the image which fell on the sensor. That would not include noise (created within the sensor, but would include any distortion effects of the lens/optical system, thus the restriction on "correcting" it in Basic.
Message edited by author 2006-05-08 21:06:03. |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 09:35:13 PM · #15 |
Then technically why are we allowed to sharpen in basic? Because that's how the image fell on the sensor, so why sharpen the pixels? And why are we allowed to remove dust/scratches, if that's how it fell on the sensor? Or adjust levels, or curves?
Because they're all for bringing the photo back to how it was when we saw it -- and certainly barrel distortion or lens distortion wouldn't be visible with the eye...so why not be allowed to correct it? Well, because your eye can't see that wide right? Well I can't exactly zoom in on a bird with my eye that's 50 yards away...of course that's a bit off, but you see my point...the scene wasn't all distorted when it was photographed, only because of the optics which degraded the integrity of the scene as it was recorded.
--
Anyway, why is everyone so against change? I think this would be a very good idea to consider for basic challenges. It's like any time someone comes up with an idea that doesn't directly benefit one person or another, it's not considered. Instead, it's considered of how to re-write the rules to make it clearer that it's not allowed. I don't get that.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 09:40:31 PM · #16 |
As Ben posted, that is just how it has been, since at least mid-2004. This situation does create some inconsistencies, which both David and Robert have pointed out. With the advent of simple tools for correcting things like barrel/pincusion, CA, vignetting, etc., it may be time to reconsider these falling under "preserve photograpic integrity."
I will repoen the SC discussion thread from 2004, with a pointer to this thread.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:15:44 PM · #17 |
My gut is to agree with Deapee regarding correction of barrel and pinchusion distortion. After all, the idea of that is to correct an error in reality introduced by the camera. That seems in keeping with existing DPC basic rules.
However, there is another way to think about it if you consider an analogy from film-based photography... Basic rules are like saying we allow correction for everything introduced during the actual exposing of the negative or afterward. Grain is an artifact of the media the image is recorded on. Colors and contrast are controled by the chemicals we use and how long they are allowed to work. And sharpness is a function of printing using an enlarger. That dove tails with our current basic rules.
But, as in our existing basic rules, we might say we are not allowing anything introduced by camera optics before exposure. In fact, most of the time it is quite the opposite, photographers use perspective and the optical effects and aberations as an important component in their composition. That seems to fit the philosophy of basic rules to.
It is amazing how improvements in software technology force us to periodically review and rethink our core site values, isn't it?
Message edited by author 2006-05-08 22:17:08.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:18:48 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It doesn't seem to me that removing noise is all that different from removing barrel distortion or pinchshioning, but I accept that using "perspective control" to square-up architectural shots is a different thing altogether.
R. |
Why is perspective control different? Do I need to suck it up because I don't have a shift/tilt lens? |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:20:29 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Photographic integrity" would seem to mean (to me) the most accurate representation of the image which fell on the sensor. That would not include noise (created within the sensor, but would include any distortion effects of the lens/optical system, thus the restriction on "correcting" it in Basic. |
Why is something added to the sensor (i.e. noise) different from distortion added by the lens? Neither was part of the scene the camera was pointed at. |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:24:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Photographic integrity" would seem to mean (to me) the most accurate representation of the image which fell on the sensor. That would not include noise (created within the sensor, but would include any distortion effects of the lens/optical system, thus the restriction on "correcting" it in Basic. |
Why is something added to the sensor (i.e. noise) different from distortion added by the lens? Neither was part of the scene the camera was pointed at. |
One is introduced by the sensor itself, the other by the optical system in front of it. One would be changed by developing a piece of film, the other wouldn't. If you don't want barrel distortion on pincushioning, you might need to use a different part of the lens' zoom range.
I've usually used the guideline that if it changes the color of a pixel, it's legal in Basic, but if it moves pixels around in relation to ewach other, it isn't (except Sharpen/Blur). |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:43:35 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It doesn't seem to me that removing noise is all that different from removing barrel distortion or pinchshioning, but I accept that using "perspective control" to square-up architectural shots is a different thing altogether.
R. |
Why is perspective control different? Do I need to suck it up because I don't have a shift/tilt lens? |
An optimized optical system represents all straight lines as straight, basically. All the best lenses do this to a remarkable degree. Less expensive lenses, especially radical zooms on P&S cameras, can't do it. There's an easy fix in CS2 (and in third-party plugins) that allows you to correct for errors in the lens. Which i consider to be as justifiably correctable as "errors" (noise) at the sensor.
Perspective control, on the other hand, is something that in no way deals with optical "errors"; it's a simple matter of perspective, in that when (and only when) the sensor plane is parallel to the plane of the photographed object will the vertical or horizontal lines be parallel. A tilt/shift lens is an expensive tool to deal with this phenomenon, but it's still not an optical "flaw"; it happens any time lens plane and subject plane are not parallel, and that's most of the time.
I work around it by shooting with the 10mm in portrait orientation and cropping the top part of the picture into landscape orientation: essentially, the effect of a shift lens on a smaller sensor. But none of this would do me any good if my 10mm had barrel distortion, I'd still have to correct that out and there would be nothing I could do about it in the framing of the shot except use even LESS of the frame.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:46:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Why is something added to the sensor (i.e. noise) different from distortion added by the lens? Neither was part of the scene the camera was pointed at. |
One is introduced by the sensor itself, the other by the optical system in front of it. One would be changed by developing a piece of film, the other wouldn't. |
Philosophically they are no different. Both were introduced because of equipment limitations and nothing else. The photographic integrity is reduce when those two things were introduced. Removing them would be upholding that integrity.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you don't want barrel distortion on pincushioning, you might need to use a different part of the lens' zoom range. |
And if you don't want noise you might need to use another camera body. Except here the rules allows you to remove that defect. Not only that it allows you to add wow factor to your image that wasn't present in reality (i.e. smoothed water, facial clarity, etc). Neatimage does more to shatter photographic integrity than almost anything else, IMO.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've usually used the guideline that if it changes the color of a pixel, it's legal in Basic, but if it moves pixels around in relation to ewach other, it isn't (except Sharpen/Blur). |
Yes with exceptions that you pointed out. Yet no exceptions are made to fix any common distortion problems which aren't made because of photographer error but rather equipment limitations.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:51:07 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Yes with exceptions that you pointed out. Yet no exceptions are made to fix any common distortion problems which aren't made because of photographer error but rather equipment limitations. |
Well, my camera can't take a shallow DOF picture because of "equipment limitations." So, can I go ahead and selectively blur the foreground and background so I can "correct" my camera's deficiency?
Sometimes, we just have to live with our equipment limitations. |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 10:59:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Yes with exceptions that you pointed out. Yet no exceptions are made to fix any common distortion problems which aren't made because of photographer error but rather equipment limitations. |
Well, my camera can't take a shallow DOF picture because of "equipment limitations." So, can I go ahead and selectively blur the foreground and background so I can "correct" my camera's deficiency?
Sometimes, we just have to live with our equipment limitations. |
You can eliminate all inconsistency by forbidding the use of noise reduction software in basic editing.
Your DOF example is not an optical flaw, but barrel and pincushion distortion are. I don't see any practical reason for considering noise a different sort of flaw than barrel distortion. Neither is avoidable in an inexpensive P&S camera, and both are easily and virtually automatically corrected with the right tool.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2006 11:09:01 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, my camera can't take a shallow DOF picture because of "equipment limitations." So, can I go ahead and selectively blur the foreground and background so I can "correct" my camera's deficiency?
Sometimes, we just have to live with our equipment limitations. |
I get what you're saying but from a rules standpoint isn't it worse to add something than remove? There's not much difference between blurring and smoothing so yes if it was up to me I'd allow you to create that DOF if we already allow Neatimage to be used to create slick and smooth "wow" images.
Message edited by author 2006-05-08 23:10:20. |
|
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: 11/26/2025 10:20:09 AM EST.
