DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Surely if Photomatix has been deemed `legal`....
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 98, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/03/2007 05:37:19 PM · #26
Originally posted by Cutter:
Tonemapping shouldn't even be close to legal...it is a joke.


I agree. Definitely not in basic, single image or not. I'm shocked to see this and shocked to see SC defending the decision.

I'm also pretty doggone certain that VP was deemed illegal when it was originally discovered by DPC. Kirbic, can you point me to a specific time when those discussions / decisions were officially overturned and an announcement made publicly regarding such?

Thanks.
 01/03/2007 05:38:52 PM · #27
Curiously what's the "logic" you are using when you think tone mapping shouldn't be allowed and say Hue/Saturation should be? Or do you think neither should be?

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 17:39:06.
 01/03/2007 05:42:02 PM · #28
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:

Is there a place to see what tools have been explicity rules legal and not legal? ie: which VP tasks are not legal?


It would be good to see this for Photoshop, Paint Shot, Paint.net, GIMP, etc. These things are discussed in the forums frequently and are contained within the rules, but it would be nice to have a table or something that shows specific tools, filters, etc for the different editing programs and their legality for different challenges.


I agree, some kind of table would really help us all. Forget long text passages!! Cheers


Yes, a table of SC rulings would be a very handy reference
 01/03/2007 05:44:01 PM · #29
Originally posted by yanko:
Now this is interesting if they are discussing whether or not tone mapping should remain legal in basic then that opens up for discussion a lot of other techniques currently legal in basic. Most things done in basic editing is similar to tone mapping in that "certain areas" are focused on while being applied to the whole. Curves for example. I can adjust just the white point leaving the blacks untouched. Another example is Hue/Saturation. I could go on and on. If tone mapping is deemed illegal it will be VERY interesting as to the reasoning.


And there`s channel swapping which i use for infrared photos. This also is not evenly applied to the whole image, so should be left for advanced challenges.
Basic editing should be more basic, it might give new photographers more chance in the challenges.
 01/03/2007 05:44:55 PM · #30
Originally posted by Nuzzer:

Yes, a table of SC rulings would be a very handy reference


I dont think that would happen as that would mean setting precidents and actually sticking to them. Those change with the mood/moon/whatever of the SC who do the voting from what I have seen. What is legal one time doesnt mean its legal the next time. Many threads and examples to prove this.

MattO
 01/03/2007 05:45:38 PM · #31
Originally posted by yanko:
Curiously what's the "logic" you are using when you think tone mapping shouldn't be allowed and say Hue/Saturation should be? Or do you think neither should be?


The difference between hue/sat and tonemapping is night and day. My beef is threefold: automation, abuse, visual results. But ultimately, it is an instinctual photography thing. Anyone with eyes can see a tonemapped image (recent winner) and say, "No way, that isn't even close to photography". The purpose of editing, especially with basic, is to make the image as truthful as possible. Or to edit in a tasteful way that enriches the viewing experience, not changing it (example: sepia toned or color balancing the whole image). A general curve-sat-usm post is used bring the photograph back to center...not put it on another planet like tonemapping can.

But see that is why I have decided that "expert" is totally cool. Leave the artistic variations there. Not in basic, where I believe the goal is minimal interference. Make sense?
 01/03/2007 05:50:24 PM · #32
Wow - I popped in here expecting to find a brouhaha and instead, all I see is kerfuffle.
I guess I'll just head to the fridge for a brew haha! :)
 01/03/2007 05:52:15 PM · #33
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Cutter:
Tonemapping shouldn't even be close to legal...it is a joke.


I agree. Definitely not in basic, single image or not. I'm shocked to see this and shocked to see SC defending the decision.

I'm also pretty doggone certain that VP was deemed illegal when it was originally discovered by DPC. Kirbic, can you point me to a specific time when those discussions / decisions were officially overturned and an announcement made publicly regarding such?

Thanks.


Um, no.
The last time VP was discussed was exactly one year ago. There has been no significan intervening discussion, and no public announcements that i can find.
At the time of last discussion, the feeling was that VP was not legal. I'm don't believe that anything was ever pubically announced, though, and in the intervening time, there has been a *ton* of discussion on color and tone adjustments, and how to tell whether a result was achieved "manually" or one with a plug-in that yields the same results (it's not possible). I'm not sure a discussion on VP today would have the same outcome, and I'm sure that we've allowed some portions of VP to be used, e.g. the color filters.
The upshot of all this is that we've become more accepting of things that can be reproduced with the standard toolset. Evidence the ruling that Shadow/highlight is legal. The effect can be closely replicated using curves/levels, but it's a bit of work.
Also, we should all bear in mind that *some* adjustments that can be considered selective have *always* been legal in Basic, so this cannot be used as a test for legality of new techniques. By example, Hue/saturation can radically change just one color to something else entirely, as can "replace color." Both are legal. Curves adjustments (or levels, for that matter) can affect only a limited tonal range. Contrast in the dark tones can be increased, for instance, without affecting the mid-tones, or highlights. Finally, try applying USM at large radius (25, 50, or even 100px) and watch what happens. Is this legal? Is it selective?
What I am trying to get across here is that it is more complicated than just saying "hey, it looks to be selective, so it's illegal."
 01/03/2007 05:53:27 PM · #34
Originally posted by Cutter:
The difference between hue/sat and tonemapping is night and day. My beef is threefold: automation, abuse, visual results. But ultimately, it is an instinctual photography thing. Anyone with eyes can see a tonemapped image (recent winner) and say, "No way, that isn't even close to photography". The purpose of editing, especially with basic, is to make the image as truthful as possible. Or to edit in a tasteful way that enriches the viewing experience, not changing it (example: sepia toned or color balancing the whole image). A general curve-sat-usm post is used bring the photograph back to center...not put it on another planet like tonemapping can.


But instances of abuse should be punished through voting, not through elimination. Every legal tool in Basic has been thoroughly abused and used to create images that could only exist on other planets. But DPC loves excess. That's apparent in the super obvious tonemapped recent winners and in the hyper-saturated, need-sunglasses-to-prevent-blindness past winners. That sort of over-the-topness is rewarded. It's the function of the tool or filter that should be considered when ruling legalities, not that it can't be used with discretion.
 01/03/2007 05:55:10 PM · #35
Originally posted by marbo:
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
Originally posted by marbo:
I was under the impression that a filter had to be applied evenly over the whole image in basic editing.
There is no way that tonemapping with one image with photomatic is even over the whole photo. It makes darks lighter and lights darker nothing even about that.
Maybe it should be left for advance editing only.


Doesn't shadow/highlight affect similar areas too?


Yes, i`m sure it does. So as the rules read thay are illegal.


There has been concensus for years that Photoshop's Shadow/Higlight and Nikon Capture's Digital DEE / D-Lighting is legal. Shadow/Highlights is not technically a filter btw.

I can do things in curves that only affect certain darks and/or certain lights without touching other tones in the photo and without making selections. By the above logic even curves or at least a zillion variations of custom curves would be illegal. You could argue that selecting certain points on the curve line is making a tone selection, but we can argue about that until the only thing allowed will be a straight from the camera file.

01/03/2007 05:59:41 PM · #36
Originally posted by Cutter:
...Anyone with eyes can see a tonemapped image (recent winner) and say, "No way, that isn't even close to photography". The purpose of editing, especially with basic, is to make the image as truthful as possible...


With due respect, no. Basic Editing has always allowed quite a large variety of artistic expression, some of which takes a photo far from "center." Your personal view may be that entries should always strive for realism, but that is not everyone's view; the intent of Basic Rules has never been to limit artistic expression.
BTW, I challenge how you can conclude that a tonemapped image is "not photography." This smacks of opinion which cannot be supported with fact.
 01/03/2007 06:00:21 PM · #37
Originally posted by mk:

But instances of abuse should be punished through voting, not through elimination. Every legal tool in Basic has been thoroughly abused and used to create images that could only exist on other planets. But DPC loves excess. That's apparent in the super obvious tonemapped recent winners and in the hyper-saturated, need-sunglasses-to-prevent-blindness past winners. That sort of over-the-topness is rewarded. It's the function of the tool or filter that should be considered when ruling legalities, not that it can't be used with discretion.


You are absolutely right. That is why I included that as only one of many "reasons". However, the look achieved thru tonemapping is wholly a beast in itself that should be destroyed henceforth. Wait, backup, tonemapping is not a beast entirely. It is, just in my very reasonable opinion, a beast that should be approached with an advanced, daresay expert approach.
 01/03/2007 06:00:48 PM · #38
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by yanko:
Curiously what's the "logic" you are using when you think tone mapping shouldn't be allowed and say Hue/Saturation should be? Or do you think neither should be?


The difference between hue/sat and tonemapping is night and day. My beef is threefold: automation, abuse, visual results. But ultimately, it is an instinctual photography thing. Anyone with eyes can see a tonemapped image (recent winner) and say, "No way, that isn't even close to photography". The purpose of editing, especially with basic, is to make the image as truthful as possible. Or to edit in a tasteful way that enriches the viewing experience, not changing it (example: sepia toned or color balancing the whole image). A general curve-sat-usm post is used bring the photograph back to center...not put it on another planet like tonemapping can.

But see that is why I have decided that "expert" is totally cool. Leave the artistic variations there. Not in basic, where I believe the goal is minimal interference. Make sense?


Your threefold beef is more about personal tastes than anything. However, I do agree with you we need a true "basic" editing rule set as the one we have had has been anything but. Removing tone mapping from it isn't a good fix IMO because then you start having to defend why other techniques that work in the same way remain legal. It becomes too arbitrary besides people have been abusing curves, hue/sats, etc, in basic long before tone mapping arrived.

If it were me I would simply create a new rule set that is more basic than basic so that the purists can have their fun too. Besides, I'm still working on trying to win a ribbon in basic under the current format as the best I have done under it is those three honorable mentions I have.

Edited to add: Boy am I slow. About 50 people responded before I had a chance.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 18:03:01.
 01/03/2007 06:10:40 PM · #39
Originally posted by kirbic:

With due respect, no. Basic Editing has always allowed quite a large variety of artistic expression, some of which takes a photo far from "center." Your personal view may be that entries should always strive for realism, but that is not everyone's view; the intent of Basic Rules has never been to limit artistic expression.
BTW, I challenge how you can conclude that a tonemapped image is "not photography." This smacks of opinion which cannot be supported with fact.


Now, kirbic, don't take my words out of context. But yanko and you are right. I am supporting my argument not necesarily with technical facts, but with more reason. If that is not as satisfactory an argument, than that is another arguement unto itself. I believe it is very obvious when an image is tonemapped. And I believe it should be an advance technique at best.

But my "truthfulness" comment is not limited to "what did I see when I was there" because then b/w is out of the picture. I am talking about raising the original to a height that only software and more precicesly, advanced knowledge of that software and how to apply it, makes the original something new entirely. I agree with marbo and on a similar sidenote about new photographer's fitting in.

Believe me. I am not arguing for my sake. One, it doesn't affect me personally for my entries or my chances of ribboning. I am getting along just fine and enjoy the diversity DPC bring to my photographic life. Two, I really didn't want to continue the debating here. I am really just trying to look out for the enrichment of the users on the whole and new ones.

So in conclusion, take my opinion as that. And hopefully my words are seen as positive and helpful and not digressive.
 01/03/2007 06:15:41 PM · #40
I see now :)
Maybe the "Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image." should be taken out of the rules as we can ignore it sometimes.
If i were a newbie here and read the basic rules i would think i couldn`t use lots of tools that you can.
I don`t think having to be in the know about all these filters helps newcomers to the site.
I hope site council get paid well :)

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 18:23:27.
 01/03/2007 06:18:30 PM · #41
Originally posted by Cutter:
It is, just in my very reasonable opinion, a beast that should be approached with an advanced, daresay expert approach.


Originally posted by Cutter:
I am talking about raising the original to a height that only software and more precicesly, advanced knowledge of that software and how to apply it, makes the original something new entirely.


If "advanced" and "expert" meant anything more than "I paid my $25," I might be inclined to agree with you. I do appreciate that you consider your opinion to be very reasonable, though. ;)
 01/03/2007 06:26:30 PM · #42
Originally posted by mk:

If "advanced" and "expert" meant anything more than "I paid my $25," I might be inclined to agree with you. I do appreciate that you consider your opinion to be very reasonable, though. ;)


mk, since you are an old cat on this site you might not remember. But I have been actively here nearly three years less than you so my memory is a little bit more fresh. Anyway, I remember when I didn't know what aperture was and I was editing for basic, open challenges, I didn't know curves from levels. My point is I do believe basic does naturally appeal to newcomers and when they fork over the $25, it means they are ready for a bit more. And I would argue that usually means they are a bit more proficient with the editing. So advanced/expert does mean at least a little more than the membership.

There are many subjective rules and regulations on this site. And I believe that is great. It is not all technical reasoning. So I think tonemapping should go to advanced. Simple as that, subjective as it may be.


01/03/2007 06:56:22 PM · #43
Make basic simple. Allow only size, crop, rotate, sharp, brightness, shadows, exposure, sauration, highlights ... and nothing else. Most basic programs have these. Then there is no argument. Anything beyond this is advanced.
 01/03/2007 07:04:28 PM · #44
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Make basic simple. Allow only size, crop, rotate, sharp, brightness, shadows, exposure, sauration, highlights ... and nothing else. Most basic programs have these. Then there is no argument. Anything beyond this is advanced.


See the initial post in the thread announcing the Expert Rules. There most likely will, at some point, be a more restrictive rule set.
 01/03/2007 07:05:10 PM · #45
Why not just create a new rule set allowing only straight from the camera shots. If you are using RAW then you are allowed the same "editing" that your camera does to jpgs in-camera. For example, if your camera allows for adjustments in sharpening, contrast, saturation and white balance only then you can do those adjustments in photoshop. That will eliminate all these other filters from being used including neatimage, tone mapping, virtual photographer plugins, etc.

Edited to add: Resize is a given since the site requires it for upload.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:06:23.
 01/03/2007 07:25:24 PM · #46
Hi Kirbic,
in the help file of Photomatix it says..

"Another trick is to derive several exposures from the RAW file and combine them with the Exposure Blending method Highlight & Shadows - Auto. (Please note that deriving "fake" exposures from a single RAW is not suited to the creation of an HDR image -- you can directly convert your RAW file into a pseudo-HDR image by simply opening it in Photomatix)."

So basically they are saying, you can create a `pseudo HDR` image from making 3 `exposures` from a single RAW, then combining them in photomatix to create the image.. However, the last line is basically saying you can open the RAW file directly in Photomatix and that is doing the donkey work of the 3 exposures for you.. in other words, 3 images, or another way of putting it, illegal in Basic Editing.

Also, I am sure you are not trying to convince us, or yourself for that matter, that some pretty clever blending algorithms are not going on under the bonnet when tonemapping an image, blending methods that if native in Photoshop, would be completely illegal in Basic editing..

Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by marksimms:
Photomatix, whilst it can create a Pseudo HDR image from a single JPG, internally it create 3 images from that one image to get the varying exposures needed to create the image.. So basically it is creating 3 layers, then uses certain blending algorithms to create the final image. Its exactly the same as using Virtual Photographer, in fact, I would say VP is more `legal` in basic than Photomatix. If SC deem VP illegal but Photomatix legal then its another blow to common sense.

Tonemapping is definitely illegal in basic editing.


Mark,
I've got a couple specific quesions:
1.) You compare Photomatix with Virtual Photographer. I have played with the VP plug-in, and it has some effects, like blur, soften, various film-look color/contrast adjustments, color filters, B+W options, and a few more things, but it is a completely different animal than Photomatix, IMO. Can you point out which feature(s) of VP you are comparing to the Photomatix tonemapping?
2.) You have repeatedly referred to the inner working s of Photomatix as "internally creating three images." From what published reference are you getting this exactly, or how have you determined this?


Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:27:39.
 01/03/2007 07:30:02 PM · #47
Originally posted by marksimms:
Hi Kirbic,
in the help file of Photomatix it says..

"Another trick is to derive several exposures from the RAW file and combine them with the Exposure Blending method Highlight & Shadows - Auto. (Please note that deriving "fake" exposures from a single RAW is not suited to the creation of an HDR image -- you can directly convert your RAW file into a pseudo-HDR image by simply opening it in Photomatix)."

So basically they are saying, you can create a `pseudo HDR` image from making 3 `exposures` from a single RAW, then combining them in photomatix to create the image.. However, the last line is basically saying you can open the RAW file directly in Photomatix and that is doing the donkey work of the 3 exposures for you.. in other words, 3 images, or another way of putting it, illegal in Basic Editing.

Also, I am sure you are not trying to convince us, or yourself for that matter, that some pretty clever blending algorithms are going on under the bonnet when tonemapping an image, blending methods that if native in Photoshop, would be completely illegal in Basic editing..

Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by marksimms:
Photomatix, whilst it can create a Pseudo HDR image from a single JPG, internally it create 3 images from that one image to get the varying exposures needed to create the image.. So basically it is creating 3 layers, then uses certain blending algorithms to create the final image. Its exactly the same as using Virtual Photographer, in fact, I would say VP is more `legal` in basic than Photomatix. If SC deem VP illegal but Photomatix legal then its another blow to common sense.

Tonemapping is definitely illegal in basic editing.


Mark,
I've got a couple specific quesions:
1.) You compare Photomatix with Virtual Photographer. I have played with the VP plug-in, and it has some effects, like blur, soften, various film-look color/contrast adjustments, color filters, B+W options, and a few more things, but it is a completely different animal than Photomatix, IMO. Can you point out which feature(s) of VP you are comparing to the Photomatix tonemapping?
2.) You have repeatedly referred to the inner working s of Photomatix as "internally creating three images." From what published reference are you getting this exactly, or how have you determined this?


With Photomatix you also get a photoshop plugin which allows you to simply go to Filter/Photomatix/Tone Mapping which will open up a window with sliders you can move back and forth just like any other PS window. Once you hit ok it applies the "effect" to the whole image and does this while you're in photoshop. It works just like shadow/highlights adjustment in photoshop.

But you're right. "Exposure blending" isn't legal in basic and frankly never has. Only in advance.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:31:25.
 01/03/2007 07:31:34 PM · #48
Originally posted by marksimms:
Hi Kirbic,
in the help file of Photomatix it says..

"Another trick is to derive several exposures from the RAW file and combine them with the Exposure Blending method Highlight & Shadows - Auto. (Please note that deriving "fake" exposures from a single RAW is not suited to the creation of an HDR image -- you can directly convert your RAW file into a pseudo-HDR image by simply opening it in Photomatix)."

So basically they are saying, you can create a `pseudo HDR` image from making 3 `exposures` from a single RAW, then combining them in photomatix to create the image.. However, the last line is basically saying you can open the RAW file directly in Photomatix and that is doing the donkey work of the 3 exposures for you.. in other words, 3 images, or another way of putting it, illegal in Basic Editing.


Ah, I see now.
Yes, it does indicate that you can start with a single RAW file (or 16-bit TIFF for that matter) and gain some benefit (sometimes very substantial I might add) through tonemapping. It doesn't follow, though, that the program actually creates different exposures and blends. It definitely does the equivalent of selectively boosting or supressing certain tonal ranges, but then again so can curves.
I agree that this is substantially different from curves or levels, though, as is Shadow/Highlight. As goes one of these, so goes, the other in my personal opinion. Their future in Basic is defintiely not assured, but I feel there still will be much discussion on the matter.
 01/03/2007 07:35:00 PM · #49
The thing to remember is "tone mapping" is just ONE way of many to "process" an HDR image and is not HDR itself. Creating an HDR image has never been allowed in basic. I think there is some confusion here as to what is really being asked by "is Photomatix legal?" Photomatix does many things most of which is illegal in basic and has always been. Just not the tone mapping aspect up to this point anyway...

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:37:30.
 01/03/2007 07:37:05 PM · #50
Regarding the creation of 3 internal images, sometimes common-sense only need be applied. There is no way you could get anything near the style of tonemapped imagery achievable with photomatix (hereby know as PTMX as I get fed up typing it) with curves/shadow/highlight etc on a single image.

You can put as much spin on it as you like, I think we all know how PTMX tonemapping achieves its effect... sheesh.

Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by marksimms:
Hi Kirbic,
in the help file of Photomatix it says..

"Another trick is to derive several exposures from the RAW file and combine them with the Exposure Blending method Highlight & Shadows - Auto. (Please note that deriving "fake" exposures from a single RAW is not suited to the creation of an HDR image -- you can directly convert your RAW file into a pseudo-HDR image by simply opening it in Photomatix)."

So basically they are saying, you can create a `pseudo HDR` image from making 3 `exposures` from a single RAW, then combining them in photomatix to create the image.. However, the last line is basically saying you can open the RAW file directly in Photomatix and that is doing the donkey work of the 3 exposures for you.. in other words, 3 images, or another way of putting it, illegal in Basic Editing.


Ah, I see now.
Yes, it does indicate that you can start with a single RAW file (or 16-bit TIFF for that matter) and gain some benefit (sometimes very substantial I might add) through tonemapping. It doesn't follow, though, that the program actually creates different exposures and blends. It definitely does the equivalent of selectively boosting or supressing certain tonal ranges, but then again so can curves.
I agree that this is substantially different from curves or levels, though, as is Shadow/Highlight. As goes one of these, so goes, the other in my personal opinion. Their future in Basic is defintiely not assured, but I feel there still will be much discussion on the matter.


Message edited by author 2007-01-03 20:56:14.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 03:50:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 03:50:22 PM EDT.