| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2002 10:41:32 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by sohr:
Good job, Terry.
Just a few comments:
1) We need a minimum size (perhaps 240 or 320 on each side?). In my opinion, my photo this week looks better in the thumbnail size than it does when you see the whole image. Of course, it also obscures a lot of the problems with my photo. Can we really provide quality feedback on a 120 by 120 photo? I know somebody said that artwork can be postage-sized as well... but does anyone actually know of a famous photo that really was postage-stamp sized that looked _better_ at that size?
I'm generally against limited artistic decisions too much. I can see instances (rare ones, but they exist) where a 640x100 crop might be desirable. Why prevent that?
2) Please, no noise, no guassion blur! I can see all sorts of comments "you've got a little bit of noise there!", or "your focus is a bit too soft", and then come the rants on the forums: "But I meant it to be noisy!". Besides, there are photographic and other post-processing techniques that you can use to achieve the same effect if you really want it.
Again, the noise and Gaussian blur are intended to level the playing field. The feeling is that since many users can create the effect in-camera, it should be made available to those who cannot. There are cases where noise is desirable, for example, Konador's excellent Portchester Castle entry that won the Something Old challenge before being disqualified for application of the noise filter. If an artist adds noise or blur and it doesn't go over well, so be it. Also, in reference to the methods to simulate these, can you give examples of those techniques? Assume that I'm using a point-and-shoot camera.
3) Can the rules about CMYK, RGB, and Lab modes be clarified? (For instance, as someone asked earlier... can you convert RGB to CMYK to do your processing, then convert back?), etc... How about running legal filters or adjustments on just a single channel?
Good questions re: per-channel adjustments. How does everyone feel about this?
5) I love the new allowance of filters to "clean up" noise only. This will really allow those with lower-end camera to have a fighting chance week in and week out.
Thanks. That was the intention with most of the changes.
6) Maybe instead of being able to add a border, how about an option when you submit your photo have it displayed in a pre-fabricated border (with only several color options available for the user to choose from... say black, white, or grey). This is easily done using HTML tables.
This accomplished several things. First of all: the photo itself no longer has the border. There are no discussions as to what constitues a "solid-colored" border. It won't reveal the owner of a photographer during a challenge by their choice of border color. It's trivially easier for even new users to have their photos displayed in a border on DPChallenge than it is for them to try to add one themselves in Photoshop, et al. And finally, it standardizes the borders so that the emphasis is still on the photo and not how it is bordered.
The borders/padding rule was removed in part because of the number of disqualifications we've had for accidental violations. Our feeling was that with the size restrictions removed, padding becomes irrelevant. This is a very interesting alternative, though.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:18:41 AM · #27 |
I'm generally against limited artistic decisions too much. I can see instances (rare ones, but they exist) where a 640x100 crop might be desirable. Why prevent that?
I agree. I don't have a problem with a 640x100 crop. I do have a problem with a 100x100 crop. I just envision too many comments, too man complaints about how its unfair to lower the vote on a photo for it being too small. Maybe at least one side must be 240 or 320?
Again, the noise and Gaussian blur are intended to level the playing field. The feeling is that since many users can create the effect in-camera, it should be made available to those who cannot.
That's a noble goal, and I'd like to see us get as close to there as possible. However, I feel that allowing gaussian blur and add noise filters would benefit those who already have expensive cameras just as much (if not more) than those who have simple point-and-shoots. For example...
There are cases where noise is desirable, for example, Konador's excellent Portchester Castle entry that won the Something Old challenge before being disqualified for application of the noise filter.
Konador's PortChester Castle was taken using a FujiFilm Finepix 4700z-- quite a nice camera, and it does have ISO adjustments.
We'll never be able to truly equalize the playing field-- but I agree we should try. It's just that there are too many users who have things like fisheye lenses, infrared filters, etc... Should we allow use the "Spherize" filter to compensate, for instance?
Can you give examples of those techniques? Assume that I'm using a point-and-shoot camera.
Simply dim the lighting. You'll get a longer exposure, and more "noise".
For black and whites, use the Channel Mixer in Photoshop. Click on the "Monochrome" box at the bottom, and adjust the red, green, and blue channels to their extremes. Usually two colors set at "+80%" and the third color set at "-100%" produces a good, old-newspaper photo type grain.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 11:17:40 AM. |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:29:02 AM · #28 |
Yes. Your point being? Doding and Burning is a large part of printing in the dark room. It doesn't make sense to me that we would make a contest where we use digital instead of film and then put a restriction on ourselves to not dodge and burn. If we can't dodge and burn and we want to be purists then we shouldn't allow any cropping at all. Going half way is just bullshit.
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
Wouldn't dodging and burning be spot editing?
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 12:03:32 PM. |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:33:03 AM · #29 |
Read my reply to Karen.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by chariot:
[i]I think its almost perfect. There is only one addition I'd like to make to the rules. Allow dodging and burning.
Sorry I missed this one on my original comments.
I don't think this addition is very likely, condidering this would essentially be selective/spot-editing. This would place too much emphasis on the Photoshop aspects for many people's taste. That said, after the updated site goes live and people settle in I may once again push for a separate "darkroom challenge" for people who wish to pursue more advanced Photoshop techniques.
[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 12:03:58 PM. |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:37:03 AM · #30 |
Yes, I know dodging and burning is a large part of the traditional darkroom... I worked in one doing B&W's and using these techniques for nearly 10 years.
I am saying that on this site, the rules are "to the entire image"... dodging and burning is usually a singled out area, e.g. dogding to allow the granules in nuclei in an electron micrograph to appear so that a doctor can make diagnosis, or other photographers burning in an area to bring it out while covering the rest of the image.
You are not the only one who has petitioned for the allowance of "traditional methods" translated into digital. I appreciate this. My comment was made in reference to the rules on this site.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:38:25 AM · #31 |
Just because dodging and burning can be accomplished in the darkroom why on earth should that be allowed here? I can perform wonders in the darkroom -- colour changes, masking, multiple exposures, etc etc. Why pick on dodging and burning?
Makes no sense to me on a site where the "no spot editing" rule is primary.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:49:55 AM · #32 |
But this thread isn't in reference to the rules on the site. It was a request for comments on a draft of new rules. So my comment is, its bullshit. To me, this is like telling a painter he's not allowed to use the color blue.
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
Yes, I know dodging and burning is a large part of the traditional darkroom... I worked in one doing B&W's and using these techniques for nearly 10 years.
I am saying that on this site, the rules are "to the entire image"... dodging and burning is usually a singled out area, e.g. dogding to allow the granules in nuclei in an electron micrograph to appear so that a doctor can make diagnosis, or other photographers burning in an area to bring it out while covering the rest of the image.
You are not the only one who has petitioned for the allowance of "traditional methods" translated into digital. I appreciate this. My comment was made in reference to the rules on this site.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 12:04:21 PM. |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:54:19 AM · #33 |
lisae HELP - My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary does not explain "gaussian blur" nor "raster pattern". I am really struggling hard to deal with new-to-me Photoshop, etc.. I can cope with taking a photograph but the computer manipulation is a whole new ballgame. Will appreciate assistance.
John Masquelier |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 11:58:50 AM · #34 |
First of all, these aren't THE rules. This is just a draft for which comments have been requested.
It doesn't make sense to me that we allow rules such as adding noise, blurring, sharpening, color balance to make the digital camera more like a film camera and then not allow burning and dodging. I see we either be purists and force people to post the picture as it came out of the camera with a resize or we allow ourselves to use all the traditional editing tools.
But you know what... I'm not posting any more in this thread. You guys win, leave the no dodging and burning rule in. What the hell do I know.
Originally posted by jakking:
Just because dodging and burning can be accomplished in the darkroom why on earth should that be allowed here? I can perform wonders in the darkroom -- colour changes, masking, multiple exposures, etc etc. Why pick on dodging and burning?
Makes no sense to me on a site where the "no spot editing" rule is primary.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 12:03:02 PM. |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 12:19:01 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by chariot:
But this thread isn't in reference to the rules on the site. It was a request for comments on a draft of new rules. So my comment is, its bullshit. To me, this is like telling a painter he's not allowed to use the color blue.
Chariot,
I see your point-- why in the world are we limiiting what we can do in the digital realm when we can do so much more in a real darkroom? But the fact of the matter is that we absolutely have to have some line in the sand with digital modifications-- and this is for obvious reasons; namely, this should be a digital photography-oriented site and not a digital design site. You implicitly can't go "all the way"!
The only other alternative you suggest is no modifications at all. And perhaps we should have a challenge or two where this is the case. But I fail to see why it necessarily has to be one or the other.
Once it was decided that we must have some limits... I'm guessing they probably figured the simplest way to prevent this from becoming a graphics design site was that any modifications of an image must be applied to the whole image (i.e. no spot editing).
Unfortunately, it's true that this rule breaks away from what you can do in a real darkroom, but in a real darkroom you can also composite images, mask areas or blemishes, add items that weren't in the original photo,etc-- which I think most of us can agree we wouldn't want to see these sort of effects being used on DPChallenge.
The no-spot editing rule is simple, specific, and it works.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 12:24:28 PM · #36 |
Chariot:
There is no reason to become angry or defensive about this issue.
Isn't is possible to have an adult discussion and share opinions?
I hope you at least read this post...
I am not arguing with you.. I am simply pointing out that what this proposes is stopping the site as it is, and revising it to be a completely different site. I'm not sure I agree with some of the newly allowed blurs, etc, either, but have not made up my mind without trying them. Those filters, however, are applied to the whole image.
You take nice photographs, so maybe you do know. That's great.. But this is a site set apart from the rest.
It's not about "winning" a discussion.. it is merely conversation.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 12:23:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 12:32:20 PM · #37 |
A few weeks back when we had the poll on what types of edits to allow, 55% of those who responded asked to keep the editing rules as they are now. 10% asked for more restrictive editing rules. The remaining 35% were split fairly evenly between the other options...
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 12:34:38 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by sohr:
I agree. I don't have a problem with a 640x100 crop. I do have a problem with a 100x100 crop. I just envision too many comments, too man complaints about how its unfair to lower the vote on a photo for it being too small. Maybe at least one side must be 240 or 320?
Good point. Something like requiring the longest side to be between 320 and 640 pixels? Is anyone against this?
That's a noble goal, and I'd like to see us get as close to there as possible. However, I feel that allowing gaussian blur and add noise filters would benefit those who already have expensive cameras just as much (if not more) than those who have simple point-and-shoots. For example...
There are cases where noise is desirable, for example, Konador's excellent [i]Portchester Castle entry that won the Something Old challenge before being disqualified for application of the noise filter.
Konador's PortChester Castle was taken using a FujiFilm Finepix 4700z-- quite a nice camera, and it does have ISO adjustments.
We'll never be able to truly equalize the playing field-- but I agree we should try. It's just that there are too many users who have things like fisheye lenses, infrared filters, etc... Should we allow use the "Spherize" filter to compensate, for instance?[/i]
My point was that the shot could just as easily have been taken with a low-end camera, in which case adding noise would be the only way to accomplish this effect.
Can you give examples of those techniques? Assume that I'm using a point-and-shoot camera.
Simply dim the lighting. You'll get a longer exposure, and more "noise".
And for outdoor/candid/non-setup shots? Also this will amplify hot pixels more than general noise.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 12:36:37 PM · #39 |
I just don't want to have to adjust the resolution of my monitor to be able to see details in small photos...
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 12:38:07 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by chariot:
Yes. Your point being? Doding and Burning is a large part of printing in the dark room. It doesn't make sense to me that we would make a contest where we use digital instead of film and then put a restriction on ourselves to not dodge and burn. If we can't dodge and burn and we want to be purists then we shouldn't allow any cropping at all. Going half way is just bullshit.
Yes it is park of the darkroom process. So is spot-editing. The challenge isn't really about the darkroom process, though. The few modifications that are allowed are there to level the playing field rather than to allow entensive post-processing.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/27/2002 01:02:34 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
My point was that the shot could just as easily have been taken with a low-end camera, in which case adding noise would be the only way to accomplish this effect.
I understand... my point was just that this doesn't really "level" the playing field, as the noise produces by the Noise filter is certainly much better looking and more "natural" looking than the noise produced by raising the ISO on your digial camera.
And for outdoor/candid/non-setup shots? Also this will amplify hot pixels more than general noise.
Ok, you've got me here! :-)
I guess I'm resigned to the fact that noise will be allowed-- not a big deal. I just think it's "adding" something to the photo, and since almost noone uses a higher ISO to achieve a grainy look on the digital camera here (and I can't blame them... it doesn't look that good) I figured it doesn't level the playing feel that much, either.
But hey... if I don't like, I just won't use it! :-)
Thanks again, Terry, for being open to feedback in such a public way.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/27/2002 1:01:15 PM. |
|
|
|
09/27/2002 01:04:14 PM · #42 |
i also am not totally convinced with the border option and liked the suggestion i read above of having predefined borders and colors available to pick while the photo is uploaded. failing that, i would like to see the borders restricted to a maximum of 5 (or whatever number is picked) pixels and the colors white, black and 18% gray.
as for the variable picture size, i would like to see a minimum, as well. e.g. 500, which would be a good size for square submissions.
terry - great work with the rules! :)
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 11:31:08 AM · #43 |
One thing I did not see mentioned is something that plagues almost every single digital camera out there.
Warm, stuck and dead pixels are a part of digital photography, some newer cameras allow for pixel mapping so that those pixels are not there anymore, but so many others do not. With different challenges and different techniques these warm pixels are going to be there and I think the
No spot editing rule should be bent a little bit to be more like
No spot editing with the exception of warm, hot, dead pixel removal, cloning out items that were present at the scene is strictly prohibited
Of course I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who are doing it right now.
The point of that is not to punish people who's cameras developed a 4 pixel hot-spot in some obvious part of the photograph which is present at every exposure and they can't fix it because their camera is out of warranty.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/29/2002 11:48:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 11:37:34 AM · #44 |
I've had good luck removing hot pixels with Dust & Scratches... are you aware of cases where this wouldnt work?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 11:45:15 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by psychephylax:
One thing I did not see mentioned is something that plagues almost every single digital camera out there.
Warm, stuck and dead pixels are a part of digital photography, some newer cameras allow for pixel mapping so that those pixels are not there anymore, but so many others do not. With different challenges and different techniques these warm pixels are going to be there and I think the
<b>No spot editing rule</b> should be bent a little bit to be more like
<b>No spot editing with the exception of warm, hot, dead pixel removal, cloning out items that were present at the scene is strictly prohibited</b>
Of course I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who are doing it right now.
The point of that is not to punish people who's cameras developed a 4 pixel hot-spot in some obvious part of the photograph which is present at every exposure and they can't fix it because their camera is out of warranty.
This is a great idea! Right now I have to compose to a corner of my view finder and crop in order to avoid my two killer pixels... Until I can afford to upgrade (another 2 months at least) I've been seriously considering juat sitting it out. Dust & Scratch filter applied to the whole image is completely unacceptable since it kills even the sharpest focus.
Any chance of this?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 11:53:05 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I've had good luck removing hot pixels with Dust & Scratches... are you aware of cases where this wouldnt work?
-Terry
If the warm pixel is large in size like several pixels in size
And, if you don't want to mess up the rest of the photo since dust & scratches is applied to the whole image
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 12:26:02 PM · #47 |
I tried the low pixel / high threshold suggestion I got from ClubJuggle in the chat room, and while it worked nice on some shots, most shots were seriously degraded before the pixel would vanish. I don't know how wide spread the hot-pixel problem is, but if this is common to low/mid range cameras, then maybe allowing extremely limited spot edits (strictly to remove hot-pix) would level the playing field. Of course I also understand it could open floodgates of abuse...
Wiser minds then mine will need to decide :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/29/2002 12:27:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 03:20:15 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Good point. Something like requiring the longest side to be between 320 and 640 pixels? Is anyone against this?
Not against it per sé but as long as padding and borders are allowed it would be very easy to circumvent this rule and submit a 100x100 picture with lots of padding to the left/right.
Personally I favour leaving the rule as you wrote it - ie Max size only. No minimum.
My feedback on your new rules - GREAT. When do we start?
John |
|
|
|
09/29/2002 03:29:37 PM · #49 |
I also have a camera which saves only limited EXIF data. The key field it doesn't save is the date of exposure - the weird thing is a date does show when I upload to pbase (the only way I know of reading my EXIF data) - I think maybe it's the date the camera's EXIF software was coded or something. Perhaps the rules could note that the implementation of this rule would take into account the limitations on those camera which do not record full EXIF data.
On image size, I don't agree with minimum size restrictions. If someone wants to enter a picture of 640 x 100 pixels or of 100 x 100 pixels that should surely be their choice - if they score low with the voters, that's their lookout. Same as now, when BW photos generally don't do as well as colour, it's a decision taken by the photographer to enter anyway and leave the voters to vote as they see fit.
Re spot editting, I am in two minds. This site does operate on an honour system - unless a photo looks obviously editted it isn't ever going to be questioned by the mods anyway so anyone who wanted to cheat could probably do so safe in the knowledge that for an ordinary looking picture no one would ever know. So why not allow removal of hot pixels -= if the photo is reviewed by mods they could easily tell whether or not it had been illegally spot editted or not?
ooh i just had a thought.
If we are worrying about abuse of rules why not initiate a random check system - 10 randomly selected entries each week will be reviewed fully by mods to guard against abuse of rules. This way even ordinary looking pics would be liable to fall into the random checks?
Just an idea off the top of my head...
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 06:50:47 PM · #50 |
i have Adobe Image Ready which does not save Exif information on the picture when i resize it to 640 x 480 for example. is resizing could be Violation to rules. otherwise any recommendation with a software that can do so.
thanks |
|
