| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2003 05:38:02 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by hey toast:
Wow. Since when did DPC become a digital photography standard as to what is and isn't ethical in digital photography? Why are people acting like editing is an after thought or isn't done in digital or film photography? WAKE UP. Obviously there's no point. |
It has nothing to do with ethics -- it has only to do with having an ENFORCABLE rule. It is just how these challenges are run, like having a limit of 640 pixels for any dimension ... almost nobody is really saying that a rule allowing a little editing like John and Gordon are talking about would be "bad," just impossible and time-consuming in its administration. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 05:40:21 PM · #102 |
Something I wrote a few weeks ago on how to do this
=====================================================
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.- Ansel Adams
Dodging and burning are well-established darkroom techniques used to enhance the tonal range of prints to give a better exposed and more pleasing final result. I’m assuming you know how to use curves/ levels and so on to get an image into a basically complete state – this topic should help you take your images to the next level.
(If not //www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/instant_photoshop.shtml is a great introduction to Photoshop adjustments and also has a link to a curves primer too) All of these techniques are available in other tools such as Paint Shop Pro and The Gimp, they just have slightly different nuances – if you have problems ask!
Some definitions first:
Burning
A technique for selective lightening of an area of a print by giving it additional exposure. This is accomplished usually by blocking the projected image during exposure using the printer's hands, creating a small opening with them to let the light fall only on the selected image area. Because the hands cast a soft-edged shadow, this limits the ability to burn in small areas accurately. Sometimes this can be worked around by cutting an appropriately shaped hole in a piece of thin cardboard to wave over the picture.
Dodging
Holding back an area of an image during exposure to darken it. Done with the hands or a dodging tool, usually a thin piece of wire with a rough edged round shape on one end that casts a diffuse edged shadow on the paper.
You might now understand why in Photoshop the icons are a small hand and a little disk on the end of a piece of wire. The aim is to explore several ways of achieving a final image using the tools in Photoshop, although the dodge/burn tools are probably the simplest and worst approach to take (!).
This article gives an overview of the traditional film approaches and the lengths some people go to:
//www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/2001/bond.so-01/bond.htm
To try this out, take any image you like, that has a wide contrast – sunset shots are good for this as they typically have very light and very dark areas. Try using the dodge tool to darken areas and the burn tool to lighten areas. You’ll probably find pretty quickly that you mess up the image pretty badly – I know I do! So here is a better approach.
//www.usefilm.com/showarticle.php?id=42
The 50% grey overlay layer does nothing until you start painting black/white on to it with the brush – then it selectively brightens or darkens regions of your image. With practice you can make good pictures amazing. While editing the overlay layer you can also use the selection tools and I found that applying a Gaussian blur to the final overlay helps to smooth out any rough transitions or poor brushwork. This sort of editing is obviously hugely simpler with a graphics tablet, but is still certainly possible with a mouse. Just use a really transparent brush and work slowly – building up areas. Of course if you go too far you can just press ‘X’ and paint it white instead of grey or vice-versa to undo any excess.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 17:40:56. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 05:48:58 PM · #103 |
Let us submit slide scans while your changing the rules. :)
Tim |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 05:51:28 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Something I wrote a few weeks ago on how to do this |
Only one thing to say about this ... hands?!? Woah.
Oh, and of course - thank you.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 05:54:04 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Alecia:
i dunno, a bad pic is still a bad pic regardless of the editing. i knew more about photoshop than cameras before i started here and i bet you anything had i been allowed to use those skills--it still would shown in the voting cause i didnt know how to really use a camera! :) |
True, but the temptation to concentrate on editing rather than nailing the basics would be there.
|
i havent read ahead yet--im just commenting on this while its still fresh in my head but--i see your point totally but we as a whole cannot expect to remain static because others cant control themselves! :) i mean, look at college--you are under the honor system not to cheat--but we all know people who couldnt be bothered with learning and wanted to *skip past* the basics to the good grades, i.e., ribbons on dpc. thats their deal and im sure it eventually came back to haunt them. same with camera and editing. you have to learn the basics of the camera first or it *will* show. and anyway, another school reference (can you tell dpc is a learning place for me?) :) can you imagine if schools kept everyone at the same level out of fairness or what have you......? |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 05:57:44 PM · #106 |
Dodging and Burning -- I (and Photoshop) seem to have it backwards? As I understood it:
The Dodge tool (disk on a wire) holds back light from the PRINT, lightening the area (less silver turns black).
The Burn tool shines extra light on part of the print, darkening that area as more silver reacts.
This seems to be the way the PS tools behave...
And I admit to not knowing (gasp) -- nor experimenting to find out -- what the Sponge tool does. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:02:01 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And I admit to not knowing (gasp) -- nor experimenting to find out -- what the Sponge tool does. |
plays with saturation - just the same as sponging chemicals off the print would I guess. Never done any of this film stuff - well one roll so far.
As to your d/b question - I guess it might differ depending on if you are working from a negative or positive image (slide?)
I don't know enough to comment beyond that though.
Edit: yup I have it backwards, burn darkens, dodge lightens in Photoshop.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 18:04:32. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:02:30 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Dodging and Burning -- I (and Photoshop) seem to have it backwards? As I understood it:
The Dodge tool (disk on a wire) holds back light from the PRINT, lightening the area (less silver turns black).
The Burn tool shines extra light on part of the print, darkening that area as more silver reacts.
This seems to be the way the PS tools behave...
And I admit to not knowing (gasp) -- nor experimenting to find out -- what the Sponge tool does. |
Yes, I think Gordon accidently had it backwards. Dodging effectively lightens and burning effectively darkens.
The spounge tool is a great tool. With it you can desaturate or saturate a particular area. I only wish I could use it to desaturate or saturate a particular color channel. Then I could easily go along edges that display small amounts of color abberations like red or blue. I have workarounds for this but they just take a little longer.
T
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:07:12 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Yes, I think Gordon accidently had it backwards. Dodging effectively lightens and burning effectively darkens.
The spounge tool is a great tool. With it you can desaturate or saturate a particular area. I only wish I could use it to desaturate or saturate a particular color channel. Then I could easily go along edges that display small amounts of color abberations like red or blue. I have workarounds for this but they just take a little longer.
T |
Yup - I had it backwards. For the sponge, can you not switch off the other colour channels and just apply it to one channel ? I haven't tried this so don't know if it works. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:14:57 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
For the sponge, can you not switch off the other colour channels and just apply it to one channel ? I haven't tried this so don't know if it works. |
I think it should work just like any other tool if you're in that channel ... thanks for the tips -- I'll try it out! |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:29:15 PM · #111 |
I understand what you are saying about only working in a particular color channel but that wouldn't help that much because I need to see the results relative to all the other channels. I've explored this pretty extensively and could not find a way to simple desaturate red, for example, with the spounge tool while you are still working on the full color image. My workaround is to create actions for desaturating the seaprate channels and then I use the lasso tool to select a small area and then hit the appropriate action to desaturate whatever color I want. It does the job but it is a little clunky.
T
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:35:44 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Rule 3: Your photograph must not appear to be digitally manipulated in any way. It should look like a photograph.
|
As has been mentioned already, this opens up a can of worms (of varying size depending on your fence position) due to the subjectivity of what "should look like a photograph".
I'd say that with a rule like this one should submit the photograph, but also submit the original as well. How this is presented during voting is an interface design issue (e.g.side-by-side, smaller original thumbnail below, or a "view original" link), but being able to compare puts the voter in the best position to decide if the edits were in the spirit of the new rule.
I think a rule like this can only help anyone really appreciate the effort that goes into making a great photograph.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:37:15 PM · #113 |
(I made a similar suggestion earlier in this discussion)
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:38:52 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
(I made a similar suggestion earlier in this discussion)
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference? |
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited...
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:42:19 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Rule 3: Your photograph must not appear to be digitally manipulated in any way. It should look like a photograph.
|
As has been mentioned already, this opens up a can of worms (of varying size depending on your fence position) due to the subjectivity of what "should look like a photograph".
|
Before -- After
100% DPC-legal (by the OLD rules!) if not an esthetic or popular success.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 18:43:49. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:44:50 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
Actually I would if given the opportunity ... if it was one I liked anyway.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 18:45:05. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:47:21 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by casualguy:
(I made a similar suggestion earlier in this discussion)
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference? |
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited...
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
If I do ANYTHING, even resize, to a pic, the EXIF data goes *poof*
Okay, I'm wishy washy. I have gone from one side to the fence. If I thought it would end at minor spot editing and DB, etc. I might go over, but just don't know!!
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:53:10 PM · #118 |
Simply speaking, we should allow spot editing for several purposes...
1 - removal of hot pixels and items that otherwise can't be taken out of the photo with the camera. Spots... dust specs... other miscellaneous crap that is impossible or nearly impossible to deal with otherwise... Cloning, paintbrush, and other selection/manipulation tools fall into this category.
2 - dodge/burn to adjust exposures that are not adjustable with the camera.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:54:52 PM · #119 |
Comment:
Just as a note, in MOST cases I can do without these options. But, it would be nice to have in situations where the issues can't be dealt with.
I think its ashame that a great challenge photo opportunity has to be tossed aside for something very minor...
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 06:58:43 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by karmat:
If I do ANYTHING, even resize, to a pic, the EXIF data goes *poof* |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...
*poof*®,
Note: *poof* is a registered trademark ® of Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia).
-Terry |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:01:47 PM · #121 |
I think requesting the original for all images is way overkill and overly complicating the issue. If we do anything then I think maybe just some random requests to see some originals. I think most people would be pretty honest anyway plus the fact that maybe your photo would be selected for scrutiny would be enough to curtail any exceesive cheating. I honest don't really care that much if some peaople might be cheating. I wish that they wouldn't but it really has no affect on what I get from this site. In most cases if someone were to cheat they wouldn't be caught so I wouldn't even know about it in order to be concerned about it. I don't usually worry about what might be going on without my knowledge. Maybe my photo would go up a place or two if a cheater didn't submit or didn't do as well if they were honest. Not a very big issue in the big scheme of things.
T
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:04:01 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited...
|
And you run into voters anyway who don't like it because it contains a flag, a flower, a pet, a pound of flesh, a small jpeg artifact, dust, a border, or any number of things.
Of course, I agree it's a problematic issue, as it seems you fear voters will spend too much time focusing on the edits, rather than the final photograph. I think this can be partly addressed through the interface by simply having a "view original" link and having the original only available as a thumbnail.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
Uhh, this is a really bad analogy. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:04:35 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
Yes, as often as possible. This is a standard part of textual analysis for literary critics.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:12:49 PM · #124 |
I would have liked to use the dodge/burn on my winning picture this week on the little girls face. I would have liked to lighten it around her nose and lips. I think it would be a great idea if it wasn't abused.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:21:19 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by eloise:
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. :-> |
I understand what you are saying here about your own personal needs and resources, however, I think other's are afraid of the same thing... not having or not being good with Photoshop. I started out with a different program called Ulead Photoexpress. This and other titles are readily available, and, like John said, most cameras and computers come with basic imaging software. |
|
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: 08/03/2025 03:45:33 PM EDT.
