| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2003 03:34:52 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i have a compromise type solution to propose.
altho i wonder if anyone will read this ......
how about changing the rules to allow/include selection ONLY as it pertains to localized changes in tonality, i.e. dodging and burning, which only means lightening and darking selected areas of the photos ...
BUT CONTINUE TO RULE OUT any manipulations that involve MOVING a pixel from it's original place, or painting over it with another pixel?
That would at least give the people who want more flexibility something new to play with AND would satisfy those that worry that it's going to turn into a photoshop challenge, because it's much more objective to define.
Just locally selectable levels adjustments. That seems like a decent compromise. |
Seems sensible. Could be used to fix hot/dead pixels too by changing them to match surrounding pixel levels |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 03:35:48 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Based on these threads, I doubt there is enough support for the idea to warrant a new poll. There aren't many people willing to try new things... |
Interesting... If you were to ask my perspective on the sentiment in these threads (I haven't even started looking at the third thread - don't know if I will...), I would say that it's either pretty evenly split, or even leaning in the direction of allowing *some* spot editing. I think if you just offered some alternatives to your original suggestions that were either more specific or objective, or maybe more incremental, there might be some common ground to be found... |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 03:36:41 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
altho i wonder if anyone will read this ......
|
I know the feeling... |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 03:53:24 PM · #154 |
well, i just did :) so i guess it's a done deal now, woohooo!
:)
Originally posted by ScottK:
I think if you just offered some alternatives to your original suggestions that were either more specific or objective, or maybe more incremental, there might be some common ground to be found... |
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 05:13:23 PM · #155 |
| This is now becoming annoying. It might be helpful to lock all threads on this topic. Start a new one and give a list of specific options. Request people in their short response to limit themselves to stating which options they would prefer, i.e. Yes: a, d, f, No: e, g. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 05:31:42 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
well, i just did :) so i guess it's a done deal now, woohooo!
:)
|
We both posted similar ideas at about almost the same time. Great minds... (At least yours got some notice.) |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 06:53:06 PM · #157 |
true , but the fundamental difference between my suggestion and all the others is that mine has nothing to do with moving pixels around.
i am purely for the ability to make localized TONAL corrections, nothing more, nothing less (not that i wouldnt mind cloning, but this at least would allow a greater degree of latitude and control than we already have, yet would be easier to define the extent to which it could go than any rules that also cover cloning).
but as you say, very similar and great minds think alike :) ...
:)
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
well, i just did :) so i guess it's a done deal now, woohooo!
:)
|
We both posted similar ideas at about almost the same time. Great minds... (At least yours got some notice.) |
Message edited by author 2003-06-05 18:54:27.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 09:06:29 PM · #158 |
|
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: 09/18/2025 07:08:06 PM EDT.
