| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2003 05:23:37 PM · #1 |
I have given this quite a bit of thought since making comments in a recent forum thread on the topic. I now think that spot editing should be allowed for the following reasons and under the following conditions. I have experienced issues and I have read many comments regarding problems of digital artifacts, dust spots, chromatic aberations, and other visual problems that all digital cameras can introduce to a photo to some degree. There is also the problem with limited dynamic range under certain lighting situations where the light is very contrasty. Situaltions where even the best film cameras cannot fully resolve. Another problem is lens distortion that can occur from using a wide angle lens. Often this is not noticable or objectionable but there are cases such as a scene containing a clear horizon line that can look quite unnatural if left with an annoying curve to it. The last issue is unwanted elements like trash, lens flares, dust spots, or other undesirable elements that hinder the photo. I want to allow for spot editing and cloning. However, cloning could only be used to remove small unwanted elements that are not primary elements in the scene. It could not be used to add an element to the scene. Dodging and burning and use of selection tools or masking tools could be used to lighten or darken specific areas of a scene. The transform tool or other similar plug in could be used to correct lens distortion. Any other tool such as spot saturating or desaturating such as in cleaning up areas of chromatic aberations should be allowed. Basically I want to allow for the best possible images with the intent of preserving the original photo. This, of course, would be somewhat subjective but it would not be meant to push the boundaries of the rules. The spirit of the rules to create great photos as apposed to creating digital works of art should still be maintained. What do you think? Could this work without it turning into an editing contest?
T
Message edited by author 2003-04-01 17:25:35.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 05:37:25 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Could this work without it turning into an editing contest? |
i THINK this sounds like a good idea. But if it were to be realised, I think you would have to take in the original files from everybody. "simple spot editing" is very simple to turn into "complete airbrushing, which is bad news for a site on photography.
Personally, I think there should be STRICTER rules for editing. I.e only:
- Sharpen
- Crop
- Convert to black and white (using channel mixer or desaturate)
- Correct white balance
The way it works now, you can completely change a picture through using channels, which I hardly believe was the purpose of DPC.
HJ
Message edited by author 2003-04-01 17:40:11. |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 05:40:34 PM · #3 |
i agree tim. i have learned an incredible amount by following the dpc rules thus far, but im not opposed to this change. i do minimal spot editing in many of my ads, but in no way do they look like digital art since i am trying to preserve the photography, since that is what i get hired for! :) but, (especially) with people photography, there are almost always minor enhancements to be made--blotchy skin, enhanced shadows, whatever. i wonder how could this be worded tho, to allow a fair amount of editing but still keep it reasonable?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:09:22 PM · #4 |
My take on the subject:
With the editing we have right now, people can edit out items and even add items, and if they do it well will not be questioned. Right now people can spot edit and will not be questioned because the image looks normal and good and has no evidence of this being done. No one knows for sure who might be spot editing or not with the current rules.
For this reason, I think we should be able to do all editing and let the voters decide what kind of images this site thinks are great images.
I wish there was a better way to monitor the editing and even the dates. But since there isn't, instead of someone possibly sneaking an edited image by everyone (I don't really think DPC'ers would do this) I think it would be fair to allow all editing. Yes, those that are very good at PS would have an advantage. But that might urge more of us to learn PS also. The end product would be a better image.
My hope would be that the voters would keep their taste for the "photographic" images over the digitalized images.
I guess I'm either an all or nothing when it comes to editing, and you can't really monitor no editing or some editing, 100 per cent of the time.
Just my 1 cent.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:16:57 PM · #5 |
There could be a case for allowing one to get rid of hot pixels. So far, I've been able to eliminate them by cropping out the outer right side of my photos.
As far as garbage, I hope you do not mean pieces of trash left lying around - lol ! Pick up the trash BEFORE you take the shot.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:17:33 PM · #6 |
goodtempo has a goodpoint. Currently, if a photo is too obviously saturated with color, for example, it gets knocked as "digital art." In a way, what may end up happening with Tim's idea is a lot of self-policing.
On the other hand, photos that are in the gray area of too much computer work are like wild-cards. Sometimes they do well, and sometimes they don't. The green stop sign in the Green challenge took second place, and that image replaced red with green (unless he found a green stop sign somewhere). Yet many of my favorite photos have not done really well because of "too much" computer work as opposed to camera work.
-David
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:48:13 PM · #7 |
Tim, I support this, as you already know. I'm all for it and I always will be.
I think that if the rules stated that 'you should not edit your photograph in such a way that it no longer resembles a photograph' we would be able to let the voter decide whether too much liberty has been taken with the free editing.
I like digital art, but I don't like it on this site since photography is the main theme here. The 'Cool Factor' of digital art doesn't impress me at all where photography is concerned and I score it accordingly already. I score it in a way that reflects my own opinion of the concept.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:54:18 PM · #8 |
I think it would not work well to include the original image with our entries because of the size requirements and managing them. Maybe we could require the originals from all winning entries and/or a handful of randomly selected photos. However, I am not sure about this either because it is subjective and likely would put to much emphasize and scrutiny on many photos. What I would like to avoid is this: as an example, when we go to see a movie that is known to have special effects in it we are much more likely to criticize scenes that may or may not contain special effects. Likewise with photography. I want to try to avoid situations where someone is sure there is illegal cloning, for instance, just because they know that some cloning is allowed.
Good photo editing does require a learning curve and that's the case with both film and digital. You can correct your color and exposure with your digital prints and produce images that are similar to standard film processing or you can go further with spot editing like what you would still have to do with film if you wanted a truly specialized final image. With both media whether you do the editing yourself or have it done you still need to be aware of what steps you want taken so you still have to know what you are doing.
Even if we were to allow some spot editing that doesn't mean that you have to do it. I still think that the majority of images would only require the kind of editing that is currently allowed.
T
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 07:02:59 PM · #9 |
I want to make clear that I would only support this if we are not allowed to move or remove primary elements that make up the original image but only to remove or cleanup elements that distract from it. Just because the image can still look like a real photo doesn't insure that it still represents the original photo. I just want to make sure that we are only enhancing the original photo and not creating a new one. This way we are still adhering to the spirit of site.
T
Message edited by author 2003-04-01 19:04:26.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 07:14:06 PM · #10 |
I know that in my last entry, "Life Span," I kept telling my wife: "If only I could spot-edit this, I could fix it!" I'm surprised that it won a ribbon, because I think the lighting was a little sloppy. So on the one hand, such editing could actually encourage sloppiness.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 07:14:46 PM · #11 |
I agree with you in spirit, but find the practicality issues overwhelming. The main problem is who is to decide what is "too much" or illegal editing, and who can you possibly tell without the original for comparison.
If you want to institute this on a regular basis, I'd suggest requiring submission of a reduced (e.g. 320x240) but otherwise unedited original with each entry. A DQ request would then prompt a request to verify that the "thumbnail" is the same as the original.
I'd also say throw the issue of over-editing open to the group as well...in addition to the regular numeric vote, have radio buttons for (X)Acceptable Editing ( )Excessive Editing
Maybe require a high threshold to DQ for over-editing 67% or 75% or something... |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 07:19:13 PM · #12 |
hmm, never been a big fan of the DQ myself. i say just let the voters speak for themselves? 'cause we know they will! ;)
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 07:36:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I agree with you in spirit, but find the practicality issues overwhelming. The main problem is who is to decide what is "too much" or illegal editing, and who can you possibly tell without the original for comparison.
If you want to institute this on a regular basis, I'd suggest requiring submission of a reduced (e.g. 320x240) but otherwise unedited original with each entry. A DQ request would then prompt a request to verify that the "thumbnail" is the same as the original.
I'd also say throw the issue of over-editing open to the group as well...in addition to the regular numeric vote, have radio buttons for (X)Acceptable Editing ( )Excessive Editing
Maybe require a high threshold to DQ for over-editing 67% or 75% or something... |
This is exactly the kind of thinking that I would want to avoid. I would hope that the introduction of spot editing wouldn't suddenly create discussions that end up encouraging people to start looking for illegal edits, often where none exists. I think it could only work if it weren't an issue where there could be DQ requests. That would be a big can of worms that would quickly get old. It would simply have to be on the honor system with maybe some checks by the site administrators.
T
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 07:48:18 PM · #14 |
It will not be my can opener, but I'd be willing to bet at least 5 cents that the worms will be there...I'm just saying it'd be better to anticipate the worst and have some kind of mechanism in place for dealing with stuff...I do NOT think it should fall on the admins to determine it -- it's most democratic to force everyone vote with qui tacit consentit (I can't spell so well in Latin) the default condition. Maybe you can conscript ten "volunteers" per challenge to serve jury duty on the DQ requests.
I'd be fine with doing it on the honor system, just would expect to hear a lot of ranting... |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:06:29 AM · #15 |
LOL, this is a tough one... I've thought about the pros/cons to allowing it and not allowing it but keep thinking of major drawbacks on both sides!
My gut feeling says leave it like it is. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:17:22 AM · #16 |
I think I agree with Chris. There have been times when, like others, I have thought, "Man, if I could just get rid of this or that!" etc. I think the pro is that my pictures might look a little better (but probably not much since I am not much better with Paintshop than I am with my camera ). The down side is that I prefer pictures not digital art, and whether the voters spoke or not, that is what we would start seeing.
I think it works well the way it is now. But that is just me. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:34:50 AM · #17 |
its definitely possible, who knows what might really happen, but take a look at the practical joke challenge. now granted it was only 24 hours, but of the small number that submitted, only a tiny number of those were clearly photoshopped--in a challenge that fully allowed unlimited post processing. (i mean as in adding in elements that werent there, etc.) so, looking at it this way, if we actually allowed some spot editing, might the rest of the challenges not follow suit? i guess i saw more examples of digital art in the windows challenge, (i had one!) but would it turn into that? not if we *somehow* continue to limit the amount of post processing--but with a little more leeway into spot editing. but how to present/word it, is my problem. i really cant see a clear cut solution.
poo.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:53:19 AM · #18 |
I wouldn't mind an occasional challenge that was a little more liberal with editing. I shoot a D1X... It's famous for spots. I'd love to be able to crop as I want and not where the spots dictate. I know my work would show better and I want to be able to sell some of them. I want my work looking as good as I can make it. I felt a little odd editing my photo so it might be something of interest to a potential buyer. It's weird to not be happy enough with a winning photo because it has very correctable flaws.
Message edited by author 2003-04-02 02:17:20. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 12:11:06 PM · #19 |
If there were some way to ensure that the challenge remains a photography contest and doesn't become a Photoshop contest, I'd be happy. And boy could I have used a little cloning in this.
I don't think I would though - it would only be to please voters, and I'd never be happy with it myself. I still haven't cleaned up that shot.
I'm pretty certain it wouldn't work though: I think the spectacular would win out over the good photos.
All of which is entirely based on my take on photography, and why I do it: something along the lines of trying to capture elements of the spectacular-ness of the world I see around me.
And I'm a fan of digital art too:
this has been one of my fave sites for years.
I'm not even sure we should allow sharpening etc.
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:05:14 PM · #20 |
| Count me in among those who would love to see the spot editing rules relaxed... I'd love to zap a hot pixel, dust blob, etc., without veering from the spirit of the competition. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:06:19 PM · #21 |
I think I'm with e301 on this one. If you want a great site for digital art and photoshop contests, visit
//www.worth1000.com
I don't participate there (I'm not a photoshopper), but they have amazing stuff to look at. As for here, one of the things that drew me here was the lack of spot editing. I would vote for restricting post-shot processing even more. Brightness and cropping only, I think. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 01:44:53 PM · #22 |
though I see worth1000 has a photography contest with pretty much similar rules to here.
E
|
|
|
|
04/02/2003 02:05:57 PM · #23 |
Steve, I appreciate seeing that link. Thank you. However, you are mistaken if you believe that I and others here have been advocating that level of manipulation. If that were the case than I also would lose interest. In my comments I have tried to make it very clear that spot editing should be allowed ONLY if were used to enhance the original photo by cleaning up unwanted elements and not by adding any elements to the photo. I don't think it is difficult to understand what it means to keep photos in the spirit of the site and I really don't think the gray areas would be that big unless you were a person who really tries to push the limits (I don't mean you, personally). Like someone previously mentioned some people could already be deceiving us by heavily manipulating photos and getting away with it but I honestly don't think so because It's difficult to make it look convincing, it takes a lot of time, and you would be shamed by the members if you were found out. I think in most cases the enhancements would be subtle (which would be the point) and for those people that do a poor job and make it obvious we could help them out and teach them the correct methods. These are normal tools that the pros have available when they are creating their masterpieces so I feel that if we are striving to get to a pro level than it is logical that we have those editing tools available as well.
T
Message edited by author 2003-04-02 14:07:08.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2003 02:42:02 PM · #24 |
Disclaimor, I do like the rules how they are now, but if we allowed minor stuff so be it. I am just wondering how it will be monitored.
The only disagreement I have with what you said in your last post Tim, is about the tools available. Those tools are available to you to use whenever you want, just not in these weekly challenges. Also, not everyone here is an aspiring professional photographer, just fwiw. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 03:22:53 PM · #25 |
Your point is well taken, Karmat but even now we are not requesting to see the original images unless something suspiscious is found so it is quite conceivable that some people are getting away with spot editing. So I don't see that it would be much different. I figure if someone is getting away with cheating than I wouldn't know about it in order to be concerned about it. I believe that this site is foremost about having fun and learning about photography at any level with the challenge and competetive aspects further adding interest and direction to the process. It has become evident that many people want the ability to take their photos further and spot editing would allow them to do that. Those that aren't ready for that level of control certainly would not have to use those tools but when they are ready they can have a place to practice. A lot of people are treating this site like an online classroom so it makes a lot of sense to me to properly teach about all of the editing tools and to allow them to be used and practiced with in this competetive and friendly environment.
T
|
|
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: 08/28/2025 11:30:10 AM EDT.
