Author | Thread |
|
01/19/2007 12:00:42 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by davyaldy: Flame me if you will, but it seems to me that those with advanced editing options in the camera will do best at this. Of course, we have to pick our shots carefully but minimal software editing, again as it seems to me, still allows camera editing. |
To a point, but most P&S cameras have more in-camera editing than dSLRs.
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:01:16 AM · #77 |
When using Save for Web, you choose a sharpening algorithm. I believe the only ones are in the bicubic family. Are these allowed or should we be using save as and some other sharpening algorithm? |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:01:27 AM · #78 |
Obviously there's a silent partner funding the site who is a d200 owner.
Message edited by author 2007-01-19 00:01:38. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:02:13 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by davyaldy: Flame me if you will, but it seems to me that those with advanced editing options in the camera will do best at this. Of course, we have to pick our shots carefully but minimal software editing, again as it seems to me, still allows camera editing. |
I don't agree. The rules say that "You may... use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry." They do not say that you may use features of your camera to edit your entry after-the-fact.
~Terry
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:02:37 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti: When using Save for Web, you choose a sharpening algorithm. I believe the only ones are in the bicubic family. Are these allowed or should we be using save as and some other sharpening algorithm? |
You're actually choosing a resampling algorithm; one of therm happens to be "bicubic sharper"...
R.
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:04:21 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by routerguy666: Obviously there's a silent partner funding the site who is a d200 owner. |
Most multiple exposures shots look like crap. The photog really does have to know what he/she is doing to utilize those functions. I really don't see why everyone thinks it's an advantage.
It's really just another rope to which to hang yourself.
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:04:24 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: If the "spirit" of these rules is to minimize post-processing, then I'm surprised that any form of sharpening is allowed. I mean, if you're going to get all "purist", then why not do it all the way? Why allow any sharpening? |
Because most digital cameras have anti-aliasing filters above the sensors, whose only function is to *blur* the image created by the lens. Sharpening is an essential part of digital photography. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:05:50 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: Originally posted by cpanaioti: When using Save for Web, you choose a sharpening algorithm. I believe the only ones are in the bicubic family. Are these allowed or should we be using save as and some other sharpening algorithm? |
You're actually choosing a resampling algorithm; one of therm happens to be "bicubic sharper"...
R. |
So, since that one is doing sharpening, is it allowed? |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:07:22 AM · #84 |
So post a frigging challenge already and let's see who takes pictures and who makes them in photoshop. Bring it on! Bring it! |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:07:48 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle: Originally posted by davyaldy: Flame me if you will, but it seems to me that those with advanced editing options in the camera will do best at this. Of course, we have to pick our shots carefully but minimal software editing, again as it seems to me, still allows camera editing. |
I don't agree. The rules say that "You may... use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry." They do not say that you may use features of your camera to edit your entry after-the-fact.
~Terry |
I agree with you Terry, however the rules do not state that you may not use those features. Though it would be a violation of the spirit of the rules, it would not be a violation of the letter of the rules. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:13:26 AM · #86 |
ITS ABOUT TIME!!! This is one of the main reasons I havent submitted in such a long time. I felt this site had become too dependent on photoshop and dodge and burn.
Lets take it back to the beginning.. au naturel |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:19:56 AM · #87 |
Seems stupid. I see no need for that kind of challenge. Basic was limiting enough.
Image straight from the camera is the interpretation of the world according to camera's firmware which is programmed by engeneers. Basic editing alows you to to enhance and modify that interpretation to be closer to what you had in mind.
Minimal must go!!!
Nick |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:21:53 AM · #88 |
Yeah - Sounds like fun :-) I always shoot RAW but easy enough to swap to RAW+JPG, so works for me. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:22:20 AM · #89 |
I think, like the expert editing, it's fine once in a while. Processing has always been part of photography and always will be.
However, knowing all your camera's functionality is a good thing. Who's to say when/if you'll be in a situation where you'll have no opportunity to post process.
Message edited by author 2007-01-19 00:22:30. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:22:26 AM · #90 |
I like the spirit of the rule set, I don't like the exclusion of RAW shooters.
I think that minimal editing should consist of:
- No cropping (the most important part)
- No spot editing of any kind (no dodge/burn, etc.)
- No Gaussian blur
- Allow sharpening and brightness/contrast correction
- Allow any B&W conversion technique, as long as it's applied uniformly
- Allow shooting in RAW
Let's compare this set to basic shooting with film film, as much as possible.
- Any film photographer can choose various kinds of film, with different dynamic ranges and known different colour and tonal responses. A digital shooter is stuck with only one sensor, which has, more or less, linear responses, and the imperfect JPEG format, if RAW is disallowed.
- Any film photographer has a choice of B&W film, with non-linear characteristics. The "desaturate"/"convert to grayscale" functions, available to digital shooters, don't even come close to mimicking B&W film.
- Any film photographer can compensate for small metering mistakes in the darkroom at the printing stage, but this rule set robs a digital shooter of this ability. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:24:38 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by agenkin: Any film photographer can compensate for small metering mistakes in the darkroom at the printing stage, but this rule set robs a digital shooter of this ability. |
This rule set is more analogous to a competition for color slides. Does that help? I think it's pretty cool, myself :-)
R.
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:28:44 AM · #92 |
Slight glitch in the ruleset:
Under "You may", the last line reads:
"include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
I don't think this is meant to be in the "You may" part. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:28:58 AM · #93 |
hahaha! That's hysterical! They give us our first Minimal editing challenge, and it's a 720-pixel, 200Kb challenge :-) Way to show the dust spots to advantage, guys!
R.
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:30:29 AM · #94 |
I like it! Especially as my editing skills are non existant :-)
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:30:34 AM · #95 |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:30:38 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: This rule set is more analogous to a competition for color slides. |
I guess... You still get to pick among an array of slide film with different characteristics for slide photography, though. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:30:40 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024: Seems stupid. I see no need for that kind of challenge. Basic was limiting enough.
Image straight from the camera is the interpretation of the world according to camera's firmware which is programmed by engeneers. Basic editing alows you to to enhance and modify that interpretation to be closer to what you had in mind.
Minimal must go!!!
Nick |
You don't have to enter.
You don't have to vote. |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:31:07 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Melethia: Slight glitch in the ruleset:
Under "You may", the last line reads:
"include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
I don't think this is meant to be in the "You may" part. |
Why not? This is a rule regarding allowable content, and it is the same in advanced and basic; the minimal rules are rules regarding allowable editing, they haven't changed any of the content rules that I can see.
R.
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:31:12 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Shakalaka: Originally posted by davyaldy: Flame me if you will, but it seems to me that those with advanced editing options in the camera will do best at this. Of course, we have to pick our shots carefully but minimal software editing, again as it seems to me, still allows camera editing. |
To a point, but most P&S cameras have more in-camera editing than dSLRs. |
Quite right :D
I have a high performance digital compact and I can do all sorts of neat things before I take my pic ;)
Jojo |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:32:13 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by agenkin: Originally posted by Bear_Music: This rule set is more analogous to a competition for color slides. |
I guess... You still get to pick among an array of slide film with different characteristics for slide photography, though. |
So can you in this rule set; YOU choose the contrast level, the saturation level, and the sharpness on all but the most basic cameras.
R.
|
|
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 08:26:38 AM EDT.