| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2006 12:28:48 AM · #126 |
Personally I think the resizing thing is a non-issue. There is no "default" resizing setting. Bicubic? why not bilinear? Bicubic Sharper? Bicubic Smoother?
I wouldn't let the name fool you. All resizing software is going to crunch numbers to come up with an image that looks the same but is smaller. What if you resize in some non-PS program? Who knows what happens. Who really knows what happens in PS either? |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 12:34:26 AM · #127 |
| I'd really like to know if I can rotate 90 or not. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:13:36 AM · #128 |
| Only if you turn your head sideways before releasing the shutter... |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:16:44 AM · #129 |
Brother Larus won't be joining us on the challenge, the digital gods are shining their pixel rays down onto we mear fleglings.
Stop by Larus and give us at take on our work when you get a chance. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:18:37 AM · #130 |
one tiny SC voice.
Resizing -- just resize/resample it. not a big issue here. take your picture, then, without cropping, get it to 640 on the largest side.
Rotating -- Out of camera, no.
Again, these are not official SC statements, but rather my own. Right now, I only see hbunch online, so it would be difficult to get a consensus right now.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:28:57 AM · #131 |
This is a pain in my butt...
I can't resize my shot w/o the resample thingy....when I uncheck the resample box, I can only change the "page size" the resolution stays 2000 x 3000 and when I go to save for web...the file is still massive.
Can someone help?
Thanks,
Kenskid |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:35:32 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I think the resizing thing is a non-issue. There is no "default" resizing setting. Bicubic? why not bilinear? Bicubic Sharper? Bicubic Smoother?
I wouldn't let the name fool you. All resizing software is going to crunch numbers to come up with an image that looks the same but is smaller. What if you resize in some non-PS program? Who knows what happens. Who really knows what happens in PS either? |
I don't think that bicubic resizing or bilinear resizing are any problem, those are normal resizing tools, although I have learned that bicubic was for up-sizing, and bilinear is for down-sizing. Bicubic Sharper and Bicubic Smoother should be considered illegal for this challenge. They are more than a resizing tool, they are a resizing and sharpening tool, or resizing and smoothing tool.
Just my two cents.
Message edited by author 2006-07-02 01:35:53.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:40:09 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
This is a pain in my butt...
I can't resize my shot w/o the resample thingy....when I uncheck the resample box, I can only change the "page size" the resolution stays 2000 x 3000 and when I go to save for web...the file is still massive.
Can someone help?
Thanks,
Kenskid |
Of COURSE you are resampling. You CAN'T take a 4000-pixel original down to a 640-pixel entry without resampling. The issue, if indeed it IS an issue, is whether "bicubic sharpen" is an acceptable way to resample, or whether it constitutes "sharpening". If it's an option for you, you can avoid the issue by not selecting it.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:41:14 AM · #134 |
i'm slightly medicated and confused.
when is the deadline, i know it sas jul 2 but... time of day?
sorry i'm really out of it right now. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:53:58 AM · #135 |
Thanks Bear but what do I use? "nearest neighbor" "biliner" etc...
Thanks,
Ks
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kenskid:
This is a pain in my butt...
I can't resize my shot w/o the resample thingy....when I uncheck the resample box, I can only change the "page size" the resolution stays 2000 x 3000 and when I go to save for web...the file is still massive.
Can someone help?
Thanks,
Kenskid |
Of COURSE you are resampling. You CAN'T take a 4000-pixel original down to a 640-pixel entry without resampling. The issue, if indeed it IS an issue, is whether "bicubic sharpen" is an acceptable way to resample, or whether it constitutes "sharpening". If it's an option for you, you can avoid the issue by not selecting it.
R. |
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 01:58:24 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by kerouzach:
i'm slightly medicated and confused.
when is the deadline, i know it sas jul 2 but... time of day?
sorry i'm really out of it right now. |
The challenge ends at the end of the day -- server time (located at the bottom of every page.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 04:23:05 AM · #137 |
| Well, I'm in... though I KNOW I'll be sorry... |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 04:27:10 AM · #138 |
Irfanview's resampling with the Lanczos algoritm is best imo for downsizing while keeping the most of the sharpness of the big version.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 07:14:48 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Speed challenges are gennerally a bit below regular challenges in overall image quality, and - well, .. no editing speaks for itself. But I think many of us are going to have a new respect for our camera's capabilities after it's all over. Good Luck to all! |
For me at least, speed challenges are of lesser quality if only because I usually spend 5 days thinking about a challenge before entering. Can't do that now - have to go with what's available.
I did learn something about my camera - that it can edit - but its not something I'm likely to use again unless I'm in a position where I can't edit them myself. I don't believe this is a no editing challenge; this is a let the camera do the editing for you challenge. I do the same steps the camera does when I do basic editing - sharpness, contrast, white balance, saturation, hue adjustment. The images the camera edits look NOTHING like the RAW file which is what I consider unedited.
Essentially, this is a basic editing challenge where everyone must let their camera do the editing. I don't think it levels out the playing field much except for those who haven't learned photoshop. The best photographers will still do well and those with cameras with many editing features have an advantage. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 07:59:16 AM · #140 |
I don't know that I have anything I'll submit yet, but I did learn that the RAW+jpeg feature is pretty darn nifty. In fact, using the small jpeg would probably work just fine for DPC if one doesn't wish to do a lot of editing, espeically for basic challenges.
I did notice that while I was shooting in other than "Standard" a lot, Adobe Bridge calls them all "Standard" - anyone else see this? |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 08:15:00 AM · #141 |
| Well I didnt do any incamera editing (not really sure what it can do). And the pic I have isnt groundbreaking but it made me smile. And I get to watch 3 pics this week. Whooh Hooh!!! Two mediocre to crappy ones and one hopeful ribbon winner. Shoudl be a good week. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 08:27:29 AM · #142 |
I've read this thread and it makes me laugh a bit the way people try to turn and twist the rules. It's just what I expected would happen. It seems to me that a lot of 'photographers' don't know anymore how to shoot a straight photo and seem totally dependable (if that's the right word) on PS or any other program.
It's like being scared to go out without putting your 'face' on.
Don't know yet if I will enter, but I think it will be a lot of fun to see the results, which I think can well be surprising.
Message edited by author 2006-07-02 08:31:24.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 08:29:55 AM · #143 |
I've got mine in (quite a while ago, actually) - be prepared to be amazed.
Thankyou. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 10:44:52 AM · #144 |
| had to tape my fingers up........ arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 10:58:47 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Essentially, this is a basic editing challenge where everyone must let their camera do the editing. I don't think it levels out the playing field much except for those who haven't learned photoshop. The best photographers will still do well and those with cameras with many editing features have an advantage. |
Fair enough, except there's an added twist: NO CROPPING. No leveling of horizons either. That's the interesting part, for me...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 11:18:38 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Fair enough, except there's an added twist: NO CROPPING. No leveling of horizons either. That's the interesting part, for me...
R. |
I went out for a short time yesterday and shot about 80 frames for this speed challenge. And from them I have about dozen that I'm considering for entering. The "NO CROPPING" that Bear has noted is going to be my big thing in my head when I shoot some more today. I didn't realize how my shooting habits had relaxed while sub-consciously relying on cropping to make the final decision about exactly what is, and is not, in my pictures, and I consider that a bad thing. A good thing to balance it out is that it takes hardly any time at all to get the images to the ready-to-submit stage, and thus I can do more of them and have lots to choose from. I like that.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 11:18:57 AM · #147 |
Mines in... I think it's awesome!! lol its a lovely shot that prolly doesnt even need editing
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 11:55:10 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
the DSLRS will be easy to spot -
3:2 vs 4:3 wars are upon us ...
submitted mine ;) |
Your fogetting about Olympus DSLRs, which are 4:3. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 11:55:53 AM · #149 |
I have a couple options, but nothing really "WOW"...
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 12:12:48 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Fair enough, except there's an added twist: NO CROPPING. No leveling of horizons either. That's the interesting part, for me...
R. |
I agree, it's the cropping that's getting me!
|
|
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: 07/29/2025 06:57:02 PM EDT.
