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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> LucisArts, Photomatix and Virtual Photographer (Deprecated - see first post
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 177, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/15/2007 11:17:41 PM · #51
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by L2:

The choices are: apparent inconsistencies or artistic freedom. What's more important to the userbase?

--EviL2


No third choice? I was hoping for free equipment. :(


I got your Freebies right here, babeh.
 10/15/2007 11:23:35 PM · #52
Reading all this is making my hair hurt. Maybe there should be only "Minimal" and "Unlimited" rules, with perhaps a "Wild Card" challenge once in a while. In the "Wild Card" challenges, the images could be tweaked with only 1, 2, or 3 adjustment "tools" of the photog's choice from any software. That would allow freedom to pick the tools used, but would eliminate the question about what is legal PP "tools" in the challenges.
edit to say PP "tools"

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 23:25:20.
 10/15/2007 11:33:34 PM · #53
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by L2:

The choices are: apparent inconsistencies or artistic freedom. What's more important to the userbase?

--EviL2


No third choice? I was hoping for free equipment. :(


I got your Freebies right here, babeh.


Ha. I participated in that thread a long time ago. I had forgotted about it. Nobody is offering a free 5D though. :/
 10/15/2007 11:35:41 PM · #54
Suggestion - Not everyone who participates in challenges reads the forums - maybe you can include a short bit in the challenge description for Basic challenges that states what is no longer allowed. At least for a month or so to make sure everyone gets the message.
 10/15/2007 11:41:24 PM · #55
Originally posted by Melethia:
Suggestion - Not everyone who participates in challenges reads the forums - maybe you can include a short bit in the challenge description for Basic challenges that states what is no longer allowed. At least for a month or so to make sure everyone gets the message.


Agreed.
 10/15/2007 11:51:39 PM · #56
Originally posted by ursula:
You just wait. I think our next move will be to outlaw cameras ...

I'm ready for ya ... ;-)
 10/15/2007 11:52:35 PM · #57
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
You just wait. I think our next move will be to outlaw cameras ...

I'm ready for ya ... ;-)


OK, that rocks!
10/15/2007 11:53:58 PM · #58
lmfao... I was under the impression that no plug-ins were allowed in basic or advanced editing. Maybe that's because I subscribe to the "when in doubt don't use it" mind set. Might have to actually start using some of them now lol.
 10/16/2007 09:15:45 AM · #59
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by frisca:
... LucisArts, Photomatix and Virtual Photographer are NOT PERMITTED to be used under the basic rule set.

...

Our apologies for any confusion this has caused and may cause. We hope this change will allow for a clearer understanding of the rules.

Ummm...is the Basic ruleset going to be actually updated sometime soon? Still reads the same.

Guess it will be updated for tomorrow's new Open Challenge's (assuming they're run under Basic editing rules)?
 10/16/2007 09:35:35 AM · #60
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Marjo:
Ok, I'm confused now. I always thought in basic you weren't allowed to use highlight/shadows adjustments.


It has been traditionally allowed as a "global" adjustment. [remainder of my personal opinion removed]


I would STRONGLY agree, that these GLOBAL adjustments using Photoshop Creative Suites' highlight/shadows adjustments should be allowed as is currently instated.

All the Photoshop books and many tutorials do introduce this as a remedy for adjustments to photos. I don't think these were advanced topics, in many writings.

This seems as basic as exposure, color, shadows adjustments in converting a RAW file. They are BOTH done overall and are probably taught as basic procedures in the academic scene.

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 10:25:31.
 10/16/2007 09:54:46 AM · #61
Wine, wine, wine. Bitch, bitch, bitch. Stop complaining and shoot something (with your camera).

BTW, can these types of decisions be posted on the rules page (//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=11). I'll never remember these things, but I'm always going to the rules page to see what's legal.
 10/16/2007 10:04:38 AM · #62
Originally posted by Nullix:
can these types of decisions be posted on the rules page...


"You may...use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."

That's the general guideline. The problem with listing forbidden tools is that there are hundreds or potentially thousands of plugins, actions and standalone utilities. Why list only three?
 10/16/2007 10:13:21 AM · #63
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's the general guideline. The problem with listing forbidden tools is that there are hundreds or potentially thousands of plugins, actions and standalone utilities. Why list only three?


In general, I agree with this statement. But given that people obviously thought it was legal and were using it, shouldn't something be posted for people who read the rules but may not see this thread?
 10/16/2007 10:18:26 AM · #64
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
can these types of decisions be posted on the rules page...


"You may...use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."

That's the general guideline. The problem with listing forbidden tools is that there are hundreds or potentially thousands of plugins, actions and standalone utilities. Why list only three?


Come on, Shannon. The SC just changed something, and your response is "the rules don't need to change, despite things that have been legal now being illegal"? What about people who don't read this thread, but know they've been validated when using these tools in the past?

Unless it's going to be SC policy that the first infraction will always be allowed for each individual person, and you're going to track that, how can you not change the rules to reflect this decision?

Instead of rejecting all changes, why not invite people to suggest language?
 10/16/2007 10:39:06 AM · #65
Originally posted by eqsite:
But given that people obviously thought it was legal and were using it, shouldn't something be posted for people who read the rules but may not see this thread?


From what I've seen, more people assumed they were illegal until opinions were posted in threads even less prominent than this one. I'd like to see at least a note in the Site News box on the front page, but any proposals for including this in the rules are always welcome.
 10/16/2007 10:45:14 AM · #66
I agree with this ruling, but...
What is SO UNFAIR, Correct me if this isn't TRUE.

If it is why doesn't someone address the situation?

If I happen to MISS this thread because I'm at work.
And I don't read the RULES EVERY WEEK.

Basically I'm S-O-L if I happen to UNINTENTIONALLY abuse a new rule that suddennly appears.

ALL I ask is post in red-letters on the LEFT-MARGIN for one-week, under "Site News", such as "NOTICE: Basic Editing Last-Updated 10/16/2007"

When I joined this website, this UNINTENTIOINAL "trick" of not posting something rule-changes in the "Site News" area almost got me a DQ.

I'm quoting myself above.
Three cheers for for some Exciting and Insiteful, "Sight News" posting, I just sighted.
Rah, raw, raw!

T H A N K S!

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 12:49:42.
 10/16/2007 10:52:19 AM · #67
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'd like to see at least a note in the Site News box on the front page, but any proposals for including this in the rules are always welcome.


Site news is certainly a good idea. But I'm thinking about newcomers as well (after it has left site news). Maybe a section separate from the rules that SC rulings of this type could be archived outside of the forums with a link in the rules. I think it would suffice to have something simple like this:

10/15/07 - SC ruled that LucisArts, Photomatix and Virtual Photographer were no longer legal under the Basic Editing ruleset.

10/16/2007 10:56:05 AM · #68
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
can these types of decisions be posted on the rules page...

"You may...use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."

That's the general guideline. The problem with listing forbidden tools is that there are hundreds or potentially thousands of plugins, actions and standalone utilities. Why list only three?

Shannon, are you saying that Photomatix, LucisArts, and Virtual Photographer would fall under the "effects filters" part of the quoted rule section? I don't know about the other two, but Photomatix is a stand-alone application that I wouldn't have considered as falling under "effects filters".

I can certainly see this new ruling tripping up some people if it's not highlighted someplace for awhile. Can't a thread be "pinned" to the top of the forum area? That might be useful...pin this thread to the top for a week or two.
 10/16/2007 10:56:44 AM · #69
Originally posted by eqsite:
Maybe a section separate from the rules that SC rulings of this type could be archived outside of the forums with a link in the rules.


That'd be great, and has already been recently discussed in SC threads. Let's just say we're working on it. ;-)
 10/16/2007 10:57:41 AM · #70
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Maybe a section separate from the rules that SC rulings of this type could be archived outside of the forums with a link in the rules.


That'd be great, and has already been recently discussed in SC threads. Let's just say we're working on it. ;-)


OK -- so great minds think alike... and fools rarely differ :)
 10/16/2007 11:08:51 AM · #71
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Shannon, are you saying that Photomatix, LucisArts, and Virtual Photographer would fall under the "effects filters" part of the quoted rule section? I don't know about the other two, but Photomatix is a stand-alone application that I wouldn't have considered as falling under "effects filters".


There are actually several problems with PM in Basic. First, it is designed to create an HDR look, which is arguably not corrective in nature nor quite the spirit of a "basic" edit. Second, it can change two areas with identical pixels readings to very different values (not a global edit). Third, it often IS used as a special effect-



Personally, I'd like to allow "corrective" use of the tools (bringing out a little shadow detail with PM, for example), but we get enough complaints about subjective decisions as it is.
 10/16/2007 11:17:02 AM · #72
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Maybe a section separate from the rules that SC rulings of this type could be archived outside of the forums with a link in the rules.


That'd be great, and has already been recently discussed in SC threads. Let's just say we're working on it. ;-)


OK -- so great minds think alike... and fools rarely differ :)


Just FWIW
I mentioned and complained about this almost a YEAR ago in some thread. I might even have sent a notice to SC. From these past experiences I would conjecture it will just get lost in this thread as well.

Now that's ironic...

I'm only asking to eliminate this unintentional Trap, to be fair to NEW USERS here.
 10/16/2007 11:20:08 AM · #73
Originally posted by justamistere:
Just FWIW
I mentioned and complained about this almost a YEAR ago in some thread. I might even have sent a notice to SC. From these past experiences I would conjecture it will just get lost in this thread as well.

Now that's ironic...

I'm only asking to eliminate this unintentional Trap, to be fair to NEW USERS here.


Well, when Shannon says:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Let's just say we're working on it. ;-)

I gotta believe him.
10/16/2007 11:25:19 AM · #74
Originally posted by justamistere:
I'm only asking to eliminate this unintentional Trap, to be fair to NEW USERS here.


That's the goal, hence the announcement here and, if we can pin down Langdon, a potential Site News note and/or edit in the rules text. One encouraging note is that most of the few people I've seen use these tools have already posted in this thread.
 10/16/2007 11:32:29 AM · #75
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Shannon, are you saying that Photomatix, LucisArts, and Virtual Photographer would fall under the "effects filters" part of the quoted rule section? I don't know about the other two, but Photomatix is a stand-alone application that I wouldn't have considered as falling under "effects filters".


There are actually several problems with PM in Basic. First, it is designed to create an HDR look, which is arguably not corrective in nature nor quite the spirit of a "basic" edit. Second, it can change two areas with identical pixels readings to very different values (not a global edit). Third, it often IS used as a special effect-



Personally, I'd like to allow "corrective" use of the tools (bringing out a little shadow detail with PM, for example), but we get enough complaints about subjective decisions as it is.

Ok. I can see your point. Where I was coming from mostly was the wording. When I think of "effects filters" I think of making a choice from a selection menu within an application (PSP, PS, etc...). I wouldn't apply the term "effects filter" to another stand-alone app like PM.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:40:48 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: 08/02/2025 12:40:48 PM EDT.