| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/25/2006 01:07:36 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Petty arguments, right, but we shouldn't stop people pointing out places where there are better deals or whatever... that's how people get ripped off. |
Well in that case, Express Cameras has the D70 for $499 so don't get ripped off by this thread. :P |
Ripoff would depend on ExpressCamera's reseller rating. |
..which is a whopping 0.91/10 for 6 months... |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:02:18 AM · #327 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Basic editing should be allowed in basic editing challenges. Things like spot removal, dodge and burn (both previously stated), and perspective correction are way too basic to not be allowed. Things like these are taught in first semester high school photography classes. Can't get much more basic than that. |
Comparing our Basic ruleset to a HS photography class is no more valid than comparing it to what could be done in the chemical darkroom. It is aimed at people who are beginners and is intended to make people learn the fundamentals of exposure, composition, lighting etc. without relying on editing tools and techniques.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:10:21 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Comparing our Basic ruleset to a HS photography class is no more valid than comparing it to what could be done in the chemical darkroom. It is aimed at people who are beginners and is intended to make people learn the fundamentals of exposure, composition, lighting etc. without relying on editing tools and techniques. |
I agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:25:57 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Basic editing should be allowed in basic editing challenges. Things like spot removal, dodge and burn (both previously stated), and perspective correction are way too basic to not be allowed. Things like these are taught in first semester high school photography classes. Can't get much more basic than that. |
Comparing our Basic ruleset to a HS photography class is no more valid than comparing it to what could be done in the chemical darkroom. It is aimed at people who are beginners and is intended to make people learn the fundamentals of exposure, composition, lighting etc. without relying on editing tools and techniques. |
I've never looked at the basic editing challenges that way before. If they are for beginners then why do we have them open for everyone? |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:31:55 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I've never looked at the basic editing challenges that way before. If they are for beginners then why do we have them open for everyone? |
How did you look at them? If they were not open to everyone, who should be excluded?
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:32:42 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I've never looked at the basic editing challenges that way before. If they are for beginners then why do we have them open for everyone? |
They fuel the addiction, so users will pay to be members. But members, who are totally addicted by that pont, continue to enter open challenges. :-)
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:36:12 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I've never looked at the basic editing challenges that way before. If they are for beginners then why do we have them open for everyone? |
They fuel the addiction, so users will pay to be members. But members, who are totally addicted by that pont, continue to enter open challenges. :-) |
I know. I wish we had 10 challenges a week (advance and basic). Not only would that make me go out and shoot more it would also make me vote more. As is my voting interest keeps falling with each new challenge with 400-500 entries and the like.
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 02:37:28. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:58:24 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Basic editing should be allowed in basic editing challenges. Things like spot removal, dodge and burn (both previously stated), and perspective correction are way too basic to not be allowed. Things like these are taught in first semester high school photography classes. Can't get much more basic than that. |
Comparing our Basic ruleset to a HS photography class is no more valid than comparing it to what could be done in the chemical darkroom. It is aimed at people who are beginners and is intended to make people learn the fundamentals of exposure, composition, lighting etc. without relying on editing tools and techniques. |
And what do dust spots have to do with "the fundamentals of exposure, composition, lighting etc"?
Any beginner would either:
a) have their photos processed by a lab which would not return prints with dust spots
-or-
b) process their own photos, and thus have the knowledge to remove dust spots.
I have always railed against subjective application of rules, which, in my opinion, is the only valid argument for continuing to prohibit spot editing of any kind, including dust spot removal. But there comes a point, people...
---Andrew, who has 3 dust spots on his sensor right now that are easier to clone out than clean off. :)
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 03:49:19 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by livitup:
I have always railed against subjective application of rules, which, in my opinion, is the only valid argument for continuing to prohibit spot editing of any kind, including dust spot removal. But there comes a point, people...
---Andrew, who has 3 dust spots on his sensor right now that are easier to clone out than clean off. :) |
Learning to clean your camera's sensor is an important part of owning a DSLR. Voters have become used to seeing an occasional dust spot and don't vote down images for it.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 05:05:50 AM · #335 |
I'm definitely one of those that agrees with the "No Spot Editing" rule.
Learn to maintain your camera; it's an essential skill, and I don't think that people should be pandered to in regards to their unwillingness to learn or perform it. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 05:50:17 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by soup:
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by bvoi:
I would like to be able to sharpen on a duplicate, pixel bearing layer in basic. Sharpening on the background layer is just a bad habit to get into in the real world of photo editing. |
What is allowed in the open challenges is not the real world of photo editing. |
by no means is it. there is no harm in allowing this option. it does not - in any way - change the look of the submitted image. |
Change the look of the submitted image? Not at all, but that is not the point.
The act of learning is about the process, not the product. The benefit of not allowing pixel layers is that mistakes are made. That may sound counter-productive, but by making a mistake in applying sharpening or blur or any other distructive effect the photographer must back up and start again. This constant cycling thru the processing steps is what builds the ability to see ahead, visualizing the end product before the processing begins.
The restrictions of the basic rules as they stand, whether intentional or not, serve to concentrate the photographers attention on the process of photography instead of just the end result. They [the rules] are a bit heavy-handed at times and some interpretations don't make much sense (such as allowing Shadow/Highlights because some programmer put a dialog on top of a rather complicated layered equivalent), but over all they do a good job of forcing the photographer to learn to look at the process of photography as a single activity consisting of discreet steps instead of a series of barely related actions, each picking up where the last left off.
David
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 07:07:39 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
I'm definitely one of those that agrees with the "No Spot Editing" rule.
Learn to maintain your camera; it's an essential skill, and I don't think that people should be pandered to in regards to their unwillingness to learn or perform it. |
What he said.
If you can clone dust spots you can clone a slightly larger area and get rid of that twig while you are at it. Then SC has to decide weather you accidently or deliberately removed the twig. This introduces a grey area in the basic rules. I think grey areas in our rules currently generate the most anxiety here. I don't vote harshly against dust spots. I have some now and I know it. I'm too lazy to remove them. I am taking the risk of getting voted down due to these dust spots. I have a choice to remove them or not. Keeping the basic rules basic will cause me to get off my butt and clean my sensor which is what I wish I had done already. Please keep the basic rules nice and simple as they are. I think they are working. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 11:55:51 AM · #338 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Comparing our Basic ruleset to a HS photography class is no more valid than comparing it to what could be done in the chemical darkroom. It is aimed at people who are beginners and is intended to make people learn the fundamentals of exposure, composition, lighting etc. without relying on editing tools and techniques. |
I completely disagree because the HS photography class I mentioned is aimed at people who have limited, if not the more likely prospect, no knowledge of cameras at all. Firmly qualifies them as beginners in my opinion. Going back to my first HS photography class, a one semester elective, over half of the people in the class didn't own cameras before the class and a full quarter had never held a camera. As far as fundamentals go, it's unreasonable to separate exposure, composition, and lighting from darkroom work (digital or chemical) and producing the final product (be it a digital image or print). They are all interrelated. I further don't see basic rules making people learn the fundamentals as you describe them, merely existing as a means of leveling the playing field. The playing field would still be level if we allowed a complete set of what are normally considered basic skills to be utilized. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 11:57:57 AM · #339 |
Originally posted by owen:
If you can clone dust spots you can clone a slightly larger area and get rid of that twig while you are at it. Then SC has to decide weather you accidently or deliberately removed the twig. This introduces a grey area in the basic rules. |
Not at all. Deliberate or not makes no difference just like with the date on your camera being set wrong. Clone a dust spot, good to go. Clone a twig, you're disqualified. Pretty cut and dry. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:05:05 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Change the look of the submitted image? Not at all, but that is not the point.
The act of learning is about the process, not the product. The benefit of not allowing pixel layers is that mistakes are made. That may sound counter-productive, but by making a mistake in applying sharpening or blur or any other distructive effect the photographer must back up and start again. This constant cycling thru the processing steps is what builds the ability to see ahead, visualizing the end product before the processing begins.
David |
Since you can use adjustment layers in Basic, can't you do non-destructive editing by working on the layers? Am I missing something?
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 13:05:41.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:23:18 PM · #341 |
I think that many of us are happy with the Basic rules the way they are now, but if it is decided that they need a re-write, I think it would be a good idea to prohibit all layers of any type.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:30:10 PM · #342 |
| Specs, dust, motes, blemishes and hot pixels would be nice to deal with. Not making edits to the background is something to encourage not penalize. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:34:06 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Clone a dust spot, good to go. Clone a twig, you're disqualified. |
What he said. We're pretty familar with sensor dust spots, so it wouldn't be hard to figure out if someone cloned out more. Sensor dust cloning (or hot pixels) would be fine, "real" dust cloning or removing a twig would be a DQ. Simple.
Note that sensor dust is unique to DSLRs and not entirely avoidable. I could clean my sensor tonight and still have dust tomorrow if I have to change lenses in a bad environment. As a result, I could do everything correctly in terms of composition, camera settings, lighting and post-processing and still have flaws due to a quirk of technology. How does that foster education? |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:37:01 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Falc:
2. The original single exposure MUST only be converted from RAW once. It may not be processed multiple times using different parameters and combined at a later stage of post processing. |
I could buy this in basic but in advanced, I think this is something that would be a good learning experience to allow. |
You can already combine different exposures from the same RAW original in Advanced Editing. That's legal. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:42:46 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by dahved:
Since you can use adjustment layers in Basic, can't you do non-destructive editing by working on the layers? Am I missing something? |
No; the processes being discussed require modification of pixels (sharpening and blurring) and adjustment layers, by definition, contain no pixels.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 08:59:16 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by dahved:
Originally posted by David.C:
Change the look of the submitted image? Not at all, but that is not the point.
The act of learning is about the process, not the product. The benefit of not allowing pixel layers is that mistakes are made. That may sound counter-productive, but by making a mistake in applying sharpening or blur or any other distructive effect the photographer must back up and start again. This constant cycling thru the processing steps is what builds the ability to see ahead, visualizing the end product before the processing begins.
David |
Since you can use adjustment layers in Basic, can't you do non-destructive editing by working on the layers? Am I missing something? |
Yes to both.
Adjustment layers contain, as their name implies, adjustments to the pixel values of the underlying pixel layer -- they contain no pixel data themselves. Pixel data is the RGB value, is editing in the RGB color space. So, yes non-destructive editing is possible with adjustment layers. But adjustment layers are limited in how they work. An adjustment layer does not know or care what the neighboring pixels are, it just adjusts the pixel.
For things just as sharpening, bluring and such the pixel values of the neighboring pixels is important. Once sharpened or blurred or whatever, it is not possible to adjust the amount because the neighboring pixels have changed. This is what makes them destructive. The only way to combat this is to create a duplicate pixel layer, apply the destructive editing to the pixels on that layer, and then blend it with the original if wished.
David
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 09:06:31 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by David.C:
An adjustment layer does not know or care what the neighboring pixels are, it just adjusts the pixel.
For things just as sharpening, bluring and such the pixel values of the neighboring pixels is important. |
I think you've just isolated the essential difference between an "adjustment" and a "filter" .... |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 09:57:27 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David.C:
An adjustment layer does not know or care what the neighboring pixels are, it just adjusts the pixel.
For things just as sharpening, bluring and such the pixel values of the neighboring pixels is important. |
I think you've just isolated the essential difference between an "adjustment" and a "filter" .... |
:) -- Hope it helps make the rewrite more clear. -- :)
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 12:29:30 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David.C:
An adjustment layer does not know or care what the neighboring pixels are, it just adjusts the pixel.
For things just as sharpening, bluring and such the pixel values of the neighboring pixels is important. |
I think you've just isolated the essential difference between an "adjustment" and a "filter" .... |
:) -- Hope it helps make the rewrite more clear. -- :) |
Your original point was about making mistakes and having to start over for the benefit of learning...so, in Basic Editing, you can't do destructive editing (blurring, sharpening, etc.) on a duplicate of the background and then blend it with the original?
Message edited by author 2006-06-26 12:31:08.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 12:36:38 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by dahved:
...so, in Basic Editing, you can't do destructive editing (blurring, sharpening, etc.) on a duplicate of the background and then blend it with the original? |
Not under the current rules. You could possibly work on a duplicate of the background layer, but not "blend" it with the existing BG layer, which means it's just like saving a copy to a new document and starting from scratch. |
|
