| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2003 10:36:52 AM · #26 |
| I don't think there is a way to allow the use of the tool to remove a hot pixel without having it used to remove other unwanted elements of photos as well. That said, I think we should allow the use of the clone tool to remove hot pixels. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:42:07 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by tjuneau13:
I don't think there is a way to allow the use of the tool to remove a hot pixel without having it used to remove other unwanted elements of photos as well. That said, I think we should allow the use of the clone tool to remove hot pixels. |
This seems contradictory... did you mean NOT allow use of the clone tool? |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:44:28 AM · #28 |
| she's just saying that people probably wouldn't draw that line between using the clone tool to fix hot pixels and using it to fix other elements that could be fixed with the tool. i agree with her. i think you can be for something, with caution, as in this case |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:46:21 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by autool:
John,
...
On a side note, if some new editing rules are made, do you think it might be a good idea for the photographer to disclose what he did when they enter their picture? How would voters vote knowing that a picture had a lot of work done, verses one that was great out of the camera?
....
|
As someone once said about one of my pictures - it's not the process, it's the final product. Mine appeared to be "too processed" and thus received a lower score from that person, even though it was essentially unchanged from the camera.
Does the picture gain any more inherent value whether it came out gorgeous straight from the camera, or it took many hours in the lab/photoeditor to achieve?
-Matt |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:51:13 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
If you are going to make cloning acceptable to remove hot pixels why not include other things such as sunspots. There have been some fantastic photos in the past here that were hurt cause sunspots couldn't be edited out of them. |
What do you mean when you are talking about sunspots ? Do you mean flare ? I'm assuming you don't really mean sunspots in the normal usage of that word. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:51:38 AM · #31 |
| I agree with matt... I don't wanna consider what it took to get what I see... I wanna vote on what I see. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:57:16 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by achiral:
she's just saying that people probably wouldn't draw that line between using the clone tool to fix hot pixels and using it to fix other elements that could be fixed with the tool. i agree with her. i think you can be for something, with caution, as in this case |
Yes - that is what I am saying. I think it will be a fine line - but I think we should allow the use of the tool because it allows us to fix a limitation of the camera - not our photography skills.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:27:08 AM · #33 |
i'm leaning towards allowing the clone too for this use. We already have access to alot of tools that can pretty much destroy a photograph, (my latest portolio addition is a case i used to demonstrate it).. Yes, people CAN abuse it, but i dont think ti would be to their advantage.. badly edited photos are noticable and dont get very high votes. People would learn to use the tool in moderation, as is the original intent. I'd personally vote pretty low any photo where there are visible manipulations from use of the clone tool.. good editing though, should not be visible.. i'm going to post a before and after of the clone tool if i can find the link to my pic..
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:34:53 AM · #34 |
ok, here they are.. i used the clone tool alot.. i might have gone a bit too far when you see the comparison.. but can you really tell i used it?
original:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=23027
edited:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=23999
now, again, some people will like the original better, some wont.. it's all subjective really.. but i'd like to have the choice..i just couldn't tell the cat to stay there while i cleaned the window :)
though now that i write this, i realised it's not about hot pixels.. but just imagien those dust spots were hot pixels for a second :)
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 11:35:06.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 12:11:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Refracted:
ok, here they are.. i used the clone tool alot.. i might have gone a bit too far when you see the comparison.. but can you really tell i used it?
|
This illustrates something quite nicely, because it did so well. Do you think it would have scored or placed any differently if you could have entered the edited version? I have entered shots with dust, scratches and glass flaws in and have never felt my score suffered for them. Luckily I tend not to suffer from hotpixels but I really don't believe the argument that the voters are so picky that they vote down for minor flaws.
This leaves me very confused.
On one hand there's no need to change the rule because it won't effect anyones score/position anyway.
On the other hand, people want to submit the best possible finished article, and if it's not going to give them a huge score boost for being good with an editor, what does it matter?
Aargh!
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 12:19:30 PM · #36 |
I say NO to the clone tool.
Although I use it sometimes for my pics, I feel is takes away from the photography aspect. If something is bothering you in your frame, get rid of it as you are taking the picture. Take the time to reframe your shot to not include the offensive item. Don't alter reality afterwards.
As for hotpixel, etc, I have never voted down a picture because of one of these. This is a flaw in the particular camera and I would never penalize the photographer for his equipment.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 01:45:08 PM · #37 |
My cheap camera will start to cough up quite a bit of hot pix when Im shooting in low light. In fact, the full size original is sometimes so bad I initially think it unusable. After sizing down to 640px, a good majority of them are 'squeezed' out. In my most recent submission, which was an especially dark photo, I simply sized down the photo a bit more until all were visibly gone.
Just wanted to mention this as an option, that still works within current rules, I hadn't heard discussed yet.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:06:29 PM · #38 |
I have very mixed feelings about allowing the use of the clone tool. On the one hand I agree with Mariomel below; I like the idea of being "forced" to compose my pictures better, not to rely so much on post-processing. On the other hand, I think post-processing can be quite effective without taking away from the photography process.
I still think though that in general it's not the processing but the picture that does it. If I start with a bad picture, no matter how much post-processing, it likely will remain mediocre at best. A good picture can be improved, and that's wonderful. And since we're dealing with digital pictures, it would be worth it to learn how to use well all the tools available for digital processing. It's the same in regular photography, you learn to use all the tools available.
So, in case you're wondering, I come down on the side of YES.
(So many words just to say "YES"!)
Ursula |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:16:02 PM · #39 |
I have yet to vote down for a hot pixel -- in fact, I handed out a 10 to someone with a noticeable one, just mentioned it in comments on the theory the photographer could edit it out post-challenge and might want to do so. By the same token, it wouldn't bother me if it were permissible to clean up hot pixels by any method the photographer deemed best, simply because they're so tiny a flaw that the photographer couldn't do anything about pre-photograph. (Note that we're talking single pixels here, or maybe a 2-3 pixel area. There's no way in my mind to confuse that with noticeable lens glare, which is significantly larger.) In other words, I would go with the rule addressing hot pixel cleanup and not any particular tool, with an explanation of what's typically considered a hot pixel.
As far as dust goes, though, I don't think you should be able to clean it up digitally... clean the glass, for heaven's sake. Or deal with people's reactions to it. Whether or not I would vote down for it would depend. A lot of noticeable sprinkles of dust on a dark reflective surface in a dark shot, probably yes. That little sprinkle of dust on the cat photo posted earlier? No. It's not distracting/eye-drawing enough to bother me.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 14:17:39. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:18:14 PM · #40 |
The effects of hotpixel is MINIMIZED if you resize to 640-480, given most people have 3megapixels and above, this isn't issue. Same goes for dusts. I can see dusts that I shot @ F22 (F16 or lower i typically don't see them), actually, on the 10D it's the SHADOW of the dusts, but after the resize i won't see any dusts at all. And if you still do see dusts after resizing from 6 megapixels down to 1 megapixels (640x480), then i think you should probably clean the sensor :)
Unless of course, the person crops. I'd say that if you're going to crop down to that resolution, you probably didn't do the shot well enough to begin with. And given the problems with cloning tools being misused, i'd vote NO for it.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Since the thread on dodge/burn is going smoothly, I would like to start discussion on another topic of interest.
"Hot Pixels" are an issue with a lot of cameras. Some cameras have them all the time and others have them on longer exposures... some don't have them at all. This particular topic does not affect everyone, but it does affect a lot of people.
A 'hot pixel' in a digital photograph is some pixel that shows up in the image as a brighter color than it's surroundings. I don't know all the technical jargon associated with them but I do know they are a problem for many people.
I would like to use this thread to discuss possible ways to allow hot pixels to be legally removed from photographs. There are two options that come to mind immediately.... the clone tool and the paintbrush tool. The problem with allowing use of either of these tools is that they can certainly be overused to make rather extreme modificaitons to photographs.
This is a problem... How could we define some acceptable rule to allow removal of hot pixels from photographs?
Simply put, we could word a rule that says "you may use any method you deem necessary to remove hot pixels from your photograph." This would leave the method up to the photographer. It would also be up to the photographer to use that method for the sole purpose of removing hot pixels. Sorta like the honor system...
Why do I think this problem should be addressed?
Well, I believe that hot pixels resulting from problems with the camera are unavoidable without purchasing a new camera. Purchasing a new camera won't always fix the problem either.
Let's open this discussion... keep in mind that this discussion is not proposing anythign specific... just asking for your ideas on how hot pixel removal could be allowed... |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:21:03 PM · #41 |
Yes to the Clone tool. I'm in favor of using any of the tools at our disposal but I would recommend fixing a bad spot with the Clone tool over the Paint Brush because the Paint Brush paints in a solid smooth color that can stand out against a color, such as a blue sky, that actually is made up of many hues including red in some cases. Using the Clone tool allows you to keep the proper texture and values at the spot that was fixed.
As a side note. We are on the honor system now. Anyone that is an expert at editing can create a photo that is far different from the original and if it doesn't cause any red flags nobody will aske to see the original. If it does happen it is probably just for someones amusement and I don't really care that much. I honestly do not thing that cheating happens very much. It is impossible to exactly word the rules so that there is no room for deviation but that's where the spirit of the rules come in to play. If people ae honestly trying to follow the spirit of the rules, which I think most people do, than I don't think there will be a problem. (The Jury can disregard this last paragraph that does not pertain to the original question)))))
T
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 14:22:39.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:21:31 PM · #42 |
Here's another way of looking at the question of allowing the clone tool in a limited capacity, and the potential for it's misuse:
Right now, today, people can (not are allowed to, but can) submit pictures on which they have used the clone tool. They might have used it to remove dead/hot pixels, dust, or an ugly fly sitting right in the middle of their pretty flower picture. If they get caught (by whatever means), they will be DQed.
With this proposed rule change, people can submit pictures on which they have used the clone tool to remove dead/hot pixels, dust, the fly, etc. The difference is, if they are caught, and the only thing they used it for was to remove hot spots (just to keep focused on what John proposed), they won't be DQed. If they used it for any other reason, then they will be.
That said, I fortunately haven't had to deal with hot spots - maybe I'm still to ignorant to recognize them - so I don't have any input on the best way to deal with them. But I think it's a reasonable request to be able to deal with them somehow, and/or allow exceptions to the spot-editing limitations for that purpose.
On the cat picture, my initial inclination is that, yes, I *might* have scored the cleaned-up picture a point higher, only seeing one or the other. Seeing both makes me lean toward the original, since it better conveys the "locked out" sentiment of the title. The point being, I do believe that, take to an extreme, these changes could effect voting.
But now, I'm following all the tangents.... Sorry.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 14:26:38. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:21:37 PM · #43 |
BTW, if you do have a camera that has a hotpixel and it's still under warranty, you can DEFINITELY RETURN It and get another camera. :) just a thought.... i personally wouldn't want to clone all hot pixels away if i do have hot pixels, because if i were to shot 400 photos, that will take a lot of work to remove them. A camera should not have hot pixels. Dusts on the other hand is an issue for some cameras, and less so for others.
Hot pixel in your sensor = MANUFACTURERING DEFECT. Return the camera! |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:24:37 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by qachyk:
As far as dust goes, though, I don't think you should be able to clean it up digitally... clean the glass, for heaven's sake. |
That's not always as easy as it sounds... DSLRs are easily prone to getting specks of dust on the CCD, and this is not always an easy thing to remedy. I have a couple spots on my D100 that I've been dealing with for a few months, and it appears that the only solution is a fairly costly cleaning... |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:26:58 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by paganini:
BTW, if you do have a camera that has a hotpixel and it's still under warranty, you can DEFINITELY RETURN It and get another camera. :) just a thought.... i personally wouldn't want to clone all hot pixels away if i do have hot pixels, because if i were to shot 400 photos, that will take a lot of work to remove them. A camera should not have hot pixels. Dusts on the other hand is an issue for some cameras, and less so for others.
Hot pixel in your sensor = MANUFACTURERING DEFECT. Return the camera! |
While its true to a certain extent, you are almost certain to get another camera in return that has hot pixels.
It depends when they manifest themselves - if they are in every shot, yes I'd complain, but if they only show up on 30s or longer exposures, or high ISO settings, you probably need to just accept the fact. I've got one that starts appearing after 40s exposures and is only really noticeable against really dark conditions.
The sensor is an analog device, with all the associated tolerences an inaccuracies. Hot pixels are just a manifestation of charge leakage at different rates. It'll be worse at higher ISO values, due to the increased gain across the sensor, it'll be worse at higher temperature due to the substrate changes, but they are just a reality of the sensor.
If it appears at shorter exposure times, under 'normal' conditions then it is probably outside of the acceptable tolerances and should get fixed/ replaced but all CCD sensors will report charge, even in total darkness, given a long enough exposure.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 14:31:30. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:32:10 PM · #46 |
Well.... then that's different. I am talking about normal conditions. I think most cameras will have hot pixels @ long exposures. But, on DPC, when you RESIZE down, you shouldn't see the hot pixel anyway. I know my dusts are all gone when i resize down.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
BTW, if you do have a camera that has a hotpixel and it's still under warranty, you can DEFINITELY RETURN It and get another camera. :) just a thought.... i personally wouldn't want to clone all hot pixels away if i do have hot pixels, because if i were to shot 400 photos, that will take a lot of work to remove them. A camera should not have hot pixels. Dusts on the other hand is an issue for some cameras, and less so for others.
Hot pixel in your sensor = MANUFACTURERING DEFECT. Return the camera! |
While its true to a certain extent, you are almost certain to get another camera in return that has hot pixels.
It depends when they manifest themselves - if they are in every shot, yes I'd complain, but if they only show up on 30s or longer exposures, or high ISO settings, you probably need to just accept the fact. I've got one that starts appearing after 40s exposures and is only really noticeable against really dark conditions |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:44:30 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Well.... then that's different. I am talking about normal conditions. I think most cameras will have hot pixels @ long exposures. But, on DPC, when you RESIZE down, you shouldn't see the hot pixel anyway. I know my dusts are all gone when i resize down.
|
another large 'it depends'. Hot pixels defects tend to cluster, which actually works to preserve the defect during resizing.
Also, depends on the quality of the resizing algorithm used and the random placement of the defect, some algorithms work harder to preserve high frequency information during the decimation process.
For simpler algorithms (e.g., just straight decimation, if the hot pixel happened to be on a sample line, resizing would preserve and promote it, compared to surrounding info.
Nearest neighbour/ bilinear algorithms would probably mitigate the hot pixel, and bicubic algorithms would work to preserve the noise, just due to the algorithm design. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:46:00 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Well.... then that's different. I am talking about normal conditions. I think most cameras will have hot pixels @ long exposures. But, on DPC, when you RESIZE down, you shouldn't see the hot pixel anyway. I know my dusts are all gone when i resize down.
|
Just wanted to clarify so that people didn't have unrealistic expectations or so that you didn't start a mass recall for normal operation results.
I didn't notice in the original statement that you said you were talking about normal conditions only. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:51:54 PM · #49 |
| With all this talk about allowing various editing, would it be wise to have a few challenges which allow absolutely any editing and see how things go from there? |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:58:29 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by lordrich:
With all this talk about allowing various editing, would it be wise to have a few challenges which allow absolutely any editing and see how things go from there? |
Been done already |
|
