| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2003 12:17:58 PM · #26 |
| If I do a "despeckle" before I resize and sharpen, it helps. But "Dust N Scratches" is too strong at any setting that makes a difference... if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:19:57 PM · #27 |
I know space concerns would probably make this non-feasible, but.....
How about submitting the original image (maybe downsized, still containing valid exif data) along with the challenge entry image. This could be used for 'legalizing' the winning photos, as well as those that might be called into question.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:30:24 PM · #28 |
I think that I'd reconsider being a member of DPC if the rules were changed to this, or anything similar.
YES, if you photo has blown out highlights, you CAN fix it by editing. No, you can't stop people from cheating. Some people are good enough that we'd never know.
I saw on psig the other day where a guy made an image of a solar eclipse where the moon was covering 1/2 the sun. Great image. One flaw. The front side of the moon was lit. Can't happen. Nothing on the front side of the moon to light it. The sun was behind the moon. Anyway, edits CAN be done where no one would ever know. I'm sure they are being done now, but why promote it?
I vote, and will always vote for the rules currently being used. If I want to edit, I'll go to Worth1000.com.
~Heather~ |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:30:40 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
I know space concerns would probably make this non-feasible, but.....
How about submitting the original image (maybe downsized, still containing valid exif data) along with the challenge entry image. This could be used for 'legalizing' the winning photos, as well as those that might be called into question. |
Not sure what that would do to their servers, having that much info, but I think this would be fascinating! It would also serve as a kind of "how'd they do that" for a lot of images that are cropped to be made more interesting. Boy, would I enjoy this, not just from a "legalization" standpoint but for my own curiosity that is sparked every single week by some of these awesome images! |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:31:54 PM · #30 |
If you want to see what digital editing can do, try //www.retouchpro.com/
//www.retouchpro.com/gallery/index.php?cat=505 (this is the forum for most of their challenges, a poorly laid out site)
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 12:33:56.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:08:49 PM · #31 |
It's obvious to me that my intentions are not understood... my objective is not what some believe it is...
for instance:
you have a beautiful sunset photo... perfect shot except for a small jet trail in the sky...
you have a beautiful home interior photo, but there is a small stain on the sofa or carpet...
you have a beautiful portrait of a model, but there is a mole on her cheek...
With digital photography, we can salvage these. Why shouldn't we be allowed to?
I'm not promoting the idea of fantasy digital art. I don't care for that either because it's not about photography to me.
I just fume at the idea that we can't use a great photo because of some idiotic issue like the ones i listed... they certainly are easily fixable. They have absolutely nothing to do wtih 'making a good photo from the beginning.' It's about being able to fix some very minor issue that voters will certainly score you down for...
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:10:23 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by carolee:
WHY those are the rules is not important -- it's their site, they can make whatever rules they want. I came to this site to try to create the best response to THEIR challenge each week, not to find a way to make their challenge fit what I wanted to do or break whichever rules I felt were inconvenient. |
Beautifully stated and I agree with every word.
PS: This was posted at the same time as Setz's post and is not a direct response.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 13:15:20.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:21:54 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
i've always thought we should be allowed some minor spot editing to "clean up" our photos. darkroom photographers have done this for ages. i don't think minor spot editing will turn into a digital art free-for-all. removing hot pixels, cleaning up background spots, dodging and burning...all parts of traditional photographic processing. it should be here, too. |
I always felt that that leveled the playing field. Not all of us have (or can afford to own) Photoshop. Not all of us have *any tool at all* to do spot editing, or the months it would take to use it properly. The no-spot-editing rule not only makes you be more aware of what you're shooting into your picture, but leaves folks like me a tiny bit less far behind.
I think PS's widespread availablity has made us all perfection sluts, really. A picture has to be numinous and without any flaw at all or we pick it to shreds. If Primary Colors (the one with the glasses and the three bars) had had a dust-speck on one of the glasses, would you have graded it drastically lower? It was still a kick-ass shot.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 13:28:37.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:23:16 PM · #34 |
| Eloise, any image editing software will let you do the edits i'm speaking of... even what came with your camera... |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:29:47 PM · #35 |
I have been going back and forth on the editing issue. I love Photoshop and digital art but don't feel that dpc is the place for that. The rules as they stand right now leave anyone plenty of room to be creative. The proposed rules are very vague and we all know the debates (used euphemistically) that ensue every week about the (deliberately) vague challenge wordings :) We don't need more of those types of threads.
As to the hot pixel, etc, that's just too bad. If it's an image you care about, why not edit the hot pixel, offensive road sign, etc, and put the edited version in your portfolio.
With my old camera i used to do a lot of PS editing (never for dpchallenges though) to Gaussian blur the background because my old camera couldn't handle dof very well except in macro mode, etc, etc, etc. With my new camera my goal is to get the image out of the camera and just do the basic digital darkroom and no more. I also try to just resize without any cropping (when i have to crop, i consider that a 'failure'). Rather than edit out the offending road sign, that in PS only takes seconds, i see whether there's a chance to take the shot again under different light so that i can angle the shot differently and keep the road sign, or whatever it is, out of the shot. Much more work than editing in PS but i learn more about photography this way.
To all oldtimers, remember the awfully restrictive days when the image only could be 640x480 or 480x640??? :) That was hell! So, we have come a long way since then and have a lot more freedom. Let's leave it as is. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:30:10 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Eloise, any image editing software will let you do the edits i'm speaking of... even what came with your camera... |
My camera came with software for making slide shows, JMSetzler. I use ACDSee, which cannot select a subset of the image to do anything with. When I need to insert text or wash a background, I use MSPaint, because that is what I have. And I'm really not greatly interested in spending six weeks getting good with new software just to be able to paint out a popcan. I'm interested in taking photos, and spending most of my time doing *other hobbies*.
Which is why I'm not likely to ever ribbon, though I'm fine with that. :->
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:30:27 PM · #37 |
I too would advocate less restrictive editing rules that aim to encourage and enable excellent digital photography.
This is not a vote for allowing digital art. It would be a vote that would at least allow the basics that have been used by film photographers throughout the last 100 or so years.
We do have this discussion every now and then and there seem to be at least 3 strawmen arguments thrown up that just don't make sense
1/ the rules are already set
A/ we've changed them several times before.
2/ I don't have photoshop/ its too expensive
A/ There are a variety of free tools available, for PC/Mac/Linux that have all the features that are required to compentently finish a digital photo
3/ I don't want to see digital art/ composites/ lots of filters
A/ This is not about doing that, it is about finishing the picture correctly, in a similar way to master printers work with film photography |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:34:52 PM · #38 |
| Made my post before having read Setzler's latest post. I agree that streak of jet trail in the sky is annoying as can be and so are the other examples you listed. Again, edit it out, and put it in your PORTFOLIO. For the challenges, i like the rules as they are. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:36:02 PM · #39 |
I tend to agree that no spot editing rules out photos you'd like to use otherwise and that the kind of spot editing John is talking about is the kind of editing you'd apply to any digital photo you want to make better if you know the right techniques to do it.
But the range of expertise just taking photos (forget about post-processing) and the range of cameras from low-end to high-end could make it very discouraging or intimidating for beginners who want to participate in the website as a learning experience.
I'm thinking that rather than the "Member" and "Open" challenges, there might be 2 different levels of challenges -- a basic and more advanced one.
The rules for the basic challenge stay the same as they are now -- equal playing field for all.
People who enter the more advanced challenge can do whatever post-processing they want or need to do, but one of the rules would be that they have to tell what they did in the details when submitting (and possible explain further how they did it in e-mails, forums, etc.). No explanation and the entry is not accepted.
That way, all of us can learn more about post-processing (which I think would really be a terrific weekly plus on this website), but photographers who have basic or non-existent post-processing experience can still participate in a challenge where people who are good at PS don't have an advantage.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:39:00 PM · #40 |
| I find it funny how on the one hand people will so loosely enterpret the challenge descriptions and then turn around and are so rigid and against enterpretation of the rules...... just an observation..... |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:43:49 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I too would advocate less restrictive editing rules that aim to encourage and enable excellent digital photography.
This is not a vote for allowing digital art. It would be a vote that would at least allow the basics that have been used by film photographers throughout the last 100 or so years.
We do have this discussion every now and then and there seem to be at least 3 strawmen arguments thrown up that just don't make sense
1/ the rules are already set
A/ we've changed them several times before.
2/ I don't have photoshop/ its too expensive
A/ There are a variety of free tools available, for PC/Mac/Linux that have all the features that are required to compentently finish a digital photo
3/ I don't want to see digital art/ composites/ lots of filters
A/ This is not about doing that, it is about finishing the picture correctly, in a similar way to master printers work with film photography |
Being allowed to do 'minor editing' to photos would be super, but I think the difficulty lies in regulating it's extent. How or who would determine it?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:46:12 PM · #42 |
eloise, or anyone else looking for basic editing software can download photoshop elements for free.
Photoshop Elements |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:53:18 PM · #43 |
[quote=casualguy
Being allowed to do 'minor editing' to photos would be super, but I think the difficulty lies in regulating it's extent. How or who would determine it?[/quote]
That's exactly why i feel we should not liberate the editing rules because it is pretty much impossible to determine what constitutes 'minor' editing and what goes beyond that. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 01:57:21 PM · #44 |
I like the idea and new rules John has suggested but only in its own challenge. There are some of us who don't want to or have the time to spend learning these new technics. I don't care to download more programs on my already slow running computer. I can't even do much in my psp8 because of lack of ram. I would love to see a new challenge every week for those who want to learn how to fix photos.
It is all about taking the best photo, not about who does the best psp editing.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 02:00:24 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I would love to see a new challenge every week for those who want to learn how to fix photos. |
That's along the lines of retouchpro.com
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 02:01:02 PM · #46 |
As much as I would like to be able to fix "minor" problems, I am afraid my definition of minor could be a lot different from another. I wouldn't mind being able to fix a hot/dead pixel, but erasing a jet trail in the sky could be major (imagine a lot of jets or something). Maybe I am just a pessimist. I have some software to work with, and I would probably go with the flow, but for now, as odd as it sounds to say it :-), I think I agree with Journey.
edited to add -- in my liquid shot, I could have chosen between a couple of different compositions. I went with the weaker (compositionally and technically) one because there was some stuff in the better one that made it look bad. With spot editing, I could have fixed it. BUT, if I hadn't been lazy, I could have taken a few extra minutes and cleaned it up before I shot again. I think trying to get as strong a picture as possible BEFORE post processing is critical.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 14:04:06.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 02:16:29 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's obvious to me that my intentions are not understood... my objective is not what some believe it is...
for instance:
you have a beautiful sunset photo... perfect shot except for a small jet trail in the sky...
you have a beautiful home interior photo, but there is a small stain on the sofa or carpet...
you have a beautiful portrait of a model, but there is a mole on her cheek...
With digital photography, we can salvage these. Why shouldn't we be allowed to?
I'm not promoting the idea of fantasy digital art. I don't care for that either because it's not about photography to me.
I just fume at the idea that we can't use a great photo because of some idiotic issue like the ones i listed... they certainly are easily fixable. They have absolutely nothing to do wtih 'making a good photo from the beginning.' It's about being able to fix some very minor issue that voters will certainly score you down for... |
i hear you john. as i find myself doing more and more photography outside of dpc, i dont really go too much above the dpc standards of editing. for the most part, the dpc method of editing has taught me an immense amount of this control. it is not only more fulfilling, but also more practical to be aware of the lighting, setting, composition, etc., before i click the shutter than to go back and try to salvage a mediocre pic. like most people, i take a huge amount of pics with the goal of using just a few--the best of the bunch. the less time i have to spend post processing, the better. I do, however, use a click of the clone tool here and there to edit out a minor flaw, or dodge and burn periodically for enhancement--but only enhancement--not to make my photo look like something else. i get paid for my photographs--not digital art--so im expected to produce a realistic photograph--not some crazy manipulation. interestingly to me, a photo that i consider to be probably one of my all time greatest altered photos--in that it hardly looks like the original set up--is my abstract martini shot that placed 5th here on dpc! no crazy filters or massive digital altering--just plain old fashioned dpc-legal levels adjustments.
i have seen some incredible shots here that were achieved with virtually no editing--and i really dont think that opening the rules up a tad are going to change that. as always--the voters are in control!
one last thought--i do understand the leveling the playing field for beginners--and i agree with ruthiek--so, maybe it would be cool to allow the members those couple of rule changes. i personally dont forsee a lot of changes in the actaully photography, but even if at the beginning some people do go to extremes--and we have seen it happen before (borders, etc.)--the voters will be quick to keep everyone in line! :) |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 02:27:03 PM · #48 |
I think someone's idea of a 3rd type of weekly challenge that would allow editing would be cool & another creative way to participate at DPC. Of course, it will probably be hard to continually try to come up with 3 ideas for challenges per week.
I also agree with others who don't think this is the place for Digital artwork. Don't get me wrong, there are some really cool digital artwork peices out there, but I'm not interested in having them be a part of this site.
IMO. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 02:43:54 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by davisjl:
I also agree with others who don't think this is the place for Digital artwork. Don't get me wrong, there are some really cool digital artwork peices out there, but I'm not interested in having them be a part of this site.
IMO. |
i completely agree with you about the digital artwork--and so does everyone else who likes to toy with the idea of relaxing the editing rules just a tish (perhaps for members)--but it seems to me that anytime someone says *anything* to that regard--all most people hear is--Allow Slightly More Editing===Digital Art. sigh.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 02:44:57 PM · #50 |
Unless the rules are written so that it's absolutely clear (not like those above, and I don't have better suggestions yet) then people will constantly push those rules as well and we WILL have digital art. I say screw it, let everything be done - let the will of the voters decide dig art's fate here.
|
|
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: 05/23/2025 07:36:08 AM EDT.
