| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2003 03:02:25 AM · #76 |
I think that's a good clarification...you can only derive your final image from pixels which are already inside the photo. You can dodge, burn, clone, soften, sharpen etc. but the photo still has to contain elements which originated within the week of the challenge, and within the photo in qestion. You can't go adding dramatic clouds from an image library, or make a montage of two photos taken at different times (even if both are taken during the challenge period). Should there be any doubt, a submission of the original will be required. Yes, EXIF data can be faked, but the DQs will be under the discretion of the moderators and all rulings final. This moderation style has worked thus far, so I don't think it will be an issue.
This will make us better photographers! |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 03:11:10 AM · #77 |
I can't make up my mind about this, as I don't have any experience with these tools. Can someone point me in the direction of some tutorials that deal with SUBTLE effects you can achieve with these tools on real photos and not flat 2 dimensional illustrations? I'm interested in the real-world photographic aplications of this...
Cheers,
Bob |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 03:14:42 AM · #78 |
NO...Against it.
So what if it is a normal practise in film photography? we are DPC and dont forget D means Digital. Why are we so hung up on film? :) Lets move with the times. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 03:34:16 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Can someone point me in the direction of some tutorials that deal with SUBTLE effects you can achieve with these tools on real photos and not flat 2 dimensional illustrations? |
This might be helpful in showing what you can do.
For the record, I'll pretend these votes mean something and vote yes for the dodge/burn change.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 04:39:53 AM · #80 |
So what's the difference between allowing D&B and something like clone tools for removing dust/scratches/hot&cold pixels? Both are fundamentally spot-editing techniques that mirror stuff you can do in a darkroom - and as somebody else has already pointed out there's a whole bunch of other stuff you can do in a darkroom too...
Up till now the rules allow for things which apply to the whole picture and are (mostly) pointed at levelling the playing field between people with low-end cameras with no features and those with the higher end kit that does all this sort of stuff in-camera.
My worry is that it will disadvantage people who either can't afford the luxury of Photoshop (or PSP) and/or lack the technical skill or knowhow to get the best out of image editing software.
I guess the question is : are the challenges about taking great photographs, or taking good photographs and making them great in Photoshop...?
So it's a no from me on it's own, because it's inconsistent to allow D&B and not other spot editing - and a tentative no anyway on spot editing in general :-) |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 04:58:35 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by ganders:
are the challenges about taking great photographs, or taking good photographs and making them great in Photoshop...? |
What's the difference?
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 05:16:25 AM · #82 |
The difference is that the first one requires a greater photographic skill and the latter requires a greater photoshop skill. I'm not really trying to make a point, it's a genuine question - is the site about photography or photoshopping?
Had another thought, why not make spot editing optional and provide a tickbox on the entry form. Then you can have an overall winner (to keep the spot editors happy) and an "unadulterated" winner (to keep the purists happy). Keep the spot-edit flag hidden during voting so it doesn't influence the voting. If nothing else it would be interesting to see the results! |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 05:32:02 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by ganders:
The difference is that the first one requires a greater photographic skill and the latter requires a greater photoshop skill. |
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but when you say "photographic skill," to me that includes post-processing.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 05:49:03 AM · #84 |
I'm not trying to be difficult either :-)
I suspect that's where the dividing line is - the people who include post-processing in their definition of photographic skill are in favour and those who think photographic skill ends when the image leaves the camera are not.
I have the benefit of having little skill either in camera or in photoshop so it won't make much odds to me - I'll still restrict myself to cropping, autolevels and possibly the odd NeatImage but that's more through impatience than any philosophical opposition to more complex work! |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 06:04:04 AM · #85 |
I say yes to D&B. Why? Just because.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 06:11:11 AM · #86 |
| NO Against it. Why all this just about one DQ photo!,stick to the roots go ahead with the naturally. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 06:29:38 AM · #87 |
This might be a tad off topic and probably said before: Can we have a totally separate weekly challenge to cater to the yes camp? If you don't want to paticipate in the challenge it's your choice. You still have the traditional challenges (which is what you paid for - keeping in mind the rule change stipulations) which you can enter. By doing so you keep the purists and the image edit gurus happy. If it came down to it, being a bandwidth issue and all, I might even vote yes to doing it with the Open challenge. Afterall, when I was a registered user, that didn't cost me a cent. So why should I complain about something that's free?
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 06:34:38 AM · #88 |
Current Vote:
Yes - 33
No - 13
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 06:57:41 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I think that's a good clarification...you can only derive your final image from pixels which are already inside the photo. You can dodge, burn, clone, soften, sharpen etc. .....
.... Yes, EXIF data can be faked, but the DQs will be under the discretion of the moderators and all rulings final. This moderation style has worked thus far, so I don't think it will be an issue.
This will make us better photographers! |
I was originally dead set against John's proposal because I was afraid that it might open the flood gates, but after thinking about it last night, I believe this might be a golden middleway. If the rules are changed, saying that spot editing was allowed as long as the techniques used did not entail importing pixels from outside of the original photograph, it would seriously limit the amount of editing options available, and would (in my opinion anyway) allow for photo finishing, but not image manipulation.
edit
Oops I forgot to add. There is nothing stopping EXIF data being forged now. I wonder how many carefully spot edited photos have slipped through unnoticed. If someone was as masterful at spot editing as some of the people here seem to fear, they could just as easily use illegal techniques now, and have an even greater advantage than they would have if all of us were allowed to use these techniques.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 07:03:33.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 06:58:00 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Current Vote:
Yes - 33
No - 13 |
I have suggested in another thread that this be put to an email vote. Looks like you're getting what you want so why not make it official? And please respond to my last post. It's a suggestion in the spirit of compromise. ;)
Owen
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:12:34 AM · #91 |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:12:44 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Current Vote:
Yes - 33
No - 13 |
I have suggested in another thread that this be put to an email vote. Looks like you're getting what you want so why not make it official? And please respond to my last post. It's a suggestion in the spirit of compromise. ;)
Owen |
Owen I don't think it is a good idea to change only the open challenges. There are just as many (if not more) registered users who do not want the spot editing rules changed. If only one of the challenges is changed, I believe it should be the members challenge. The members have a choice of which challenge they want to submit to, a luxury the registered users do not have. Besides, I believe the members challenges are usually much less troublesome than the open challenges (less entries, less DQ's, people adhere to challenge guidelines etc.). I think it would be easier to moderate the members challenge than the open challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:20:45 AM · #93 |
YES YES YES indeed.
I also agree that the link posted was a poor example of how dodging and burning is used in photo editing.
I also agree that the clone tool should be next!
Originally posted by shadow:
So what if it is a normal practise in film photography? we are DPC and dont forget D means Digital. Why are we so hung up on film? :) Lets move with the times. |
No offense but that might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard (or read in this case). Without postprocessing digital is still far behind film in terms of quality. These techniques are used to make photos BETTER. The digital age is all about image manipulation and the relative ease of it when compared to dark room techniques. In my opinion anyone who really wants to be able to get high-end images out of their digital camera (no matter what price that camera is) will NEED to do post processing and touch-ups, even more so than with a film camera. It is of course more noticable with lower end cameras. Without levels, for instance, my camera takes photos of the same caliber as a disposable camera I could pick up for 7 bucks at K-Mart. The difference is that there is no film and I can easily upload my picture to my computer and adjust it. That is what digital is all about. That's why it was made. Get with it.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 07:22:30. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:41:02 AM · #94 |
As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between D/B and clone.
D/B just allows selective lightening and darkening. Perfect for when you got the shot but the main subject was backlit, or your sky was dark but your ground was light. That's ALL it is.
Clone, OTOH, is all about moving and replacing pixels with other pixels, which allows much more radical alterations to the reality and verisimilitude of the image.
Big, big difference :).
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:55:09 AM · #95 |
magnetic. that's true about the clone tool being different, but I don't think anyone would really change much of their image with the clone tool. the only thing i ever really use it for is to get rid of a few annoying specks or telephone poles, etc, stuff you couldn't do with any other tool. People can make their images much more unrealistic by using the dodge and burn tool. Actually, the things that are allowed on here, such as levels, curves, color channels, etc, can change pictures far more than I ever would with the clone tool alone. If there is one tool that is soley for spot editing and touch ups it is the clone tool. I think that we should be able to use all of the tools but stress the fact that it can only be one picture and pixels can be taken out of the image but not added.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 07:56:34. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:56:22 AM · #96 |
Dodge and Burn would make a great addition to the rules, and it's not at all hard to learn.
Here is an example I did a few weeks ago, during the fauna challenge. It was the first time I'd ever attempted to use dodge/burn and the results are far better than the original image. Think what you could do with a little practice :)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:57:54 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by orussell:
This might be a tad off topic and probably said before: Can we have a totally separate weekly challenge to cater to the yes camp? If you don't want to paticipate in the challenge it's your choice. You still have the traditional challenges (which is what you paid for - keeping in mind the rule change stipulations) which you can enter. By doing so you keep the purists and the image edit gurus happy. If it came down to it, being a bandwidth issue and all, I might even vote yes to doing it with the Open challenge. Afterall, when I was a registered user, that didn't cost me a cent. So why should I complain about something that's free? |
I don't believe that an extra challenge for updated editing practices would be accepted by the site administrators. If this comes to a site poll and the majority would accept the change, it would most likely be implemented in the member challenge on a trial basis. I don't know any details yet. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 07:59:09 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Current Vote:
Yes - 33
No - 13 |
I have suggested in another thread that this be put to an email vote. Looks like you're getting what you want so why not make it official? And please respond to my last post. It's a suggestion in the spirit of compromise. ;)
Owen |
I don't have the authority to make it official. It will be voted on by everyone on the site via a site poll. Those results would ultimately help Drew and Langdon decide if they want to implement the change request. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 08:18:40 AM · #99 |
Lets just stay with the current rule. So I say NO. Yes, it is a very useful tool and a lot of people are very interested in learning it. Just add a tutorial or something that can help them offline.
In the apple example, the final output is better. But I still prefer the idea of modification of images that is applied to the whole image rather that spot editing like D&B. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 08:20:58 AM · #100 |
Just for the record -- although I think the die is already cast -- No.
|
|
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: 07/17/2025 02:04:34 PM EDT.
