| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2007 04:19:59 PM · #51 |
| The longer I spend here, the more confused I get.....Was the illegal filter in camera or in post? |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 04:26:19 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by JeffDay:
The longer I spend here, the more confused I get.....Was the illegal filter in camera or in post? |
You think you are confused, I have been like that for 3 years! The filter was in post, not in camera, which is illegal. In camera is okay, I think? |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 04:27:43 PM · #53 |
| In her notes, it says it was 'in camera' |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 04:30:24 PM · #54 |
It was added in camera. Her camera (and others) allows to do some post-processing in camera. In the case of soft-focus filter, it doesn't matter whether the filter (post-processing) is added to the image in camera, using the on camera computer, or later on the regular computer - it is post-processing.
As it is, you can use in camera filters that are OK in Basic Editing (for example, B/W, sepia, other colour filters), but you can't use in camera filters that are not allowed in the Basic Editing Rules (digital soft-focus filters for example). You can use a regular soft-focus filter and put it on the lens, or use vaseline, panty-hose, or whatever you want to create a soft-focus effect, but you can't add it to the image in post-processing.
I hope (probably in vain) that this clears it up a little :)
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 16:42:29. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 04:59:42 PM · #55 |
that's how it should be.
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by soup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for a basic challenge. a black and white conversion could be done either in camera - or on the computer. but a soft focus effect would have to be acheived using a lens filter or the like. the in camera feature would not be legal.
Are you saying that this is how it is or are you saying that this is how it should be?
If you're saying that this is how it is I think you're mistaken. If you added a soft focus effect in camera AFTER you press the shutter then it would be illegal in basic. If there is/was a way to do it in camera before pressing the shutter it would be legal. |
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 17:00:28.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 05:02:56 PM · #56 |
Did SC goof, or just take a reeeeaally long time to come to this decision?
When Puckzzz's score was riding high and she mentioned she was going away on holiday, I suggested she request validation before she left. She said she already had (it's in the challenge score thread). |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 05:10:02 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Did SC goof, or just take a reeeeaally long time to come to this decision?
When Puckzzz's score was riding high and she mentioned she was going away on holiday, I suggested she request validation before she left. She said she already had (it's in the challenge score thread). |
:) It takes time to discuss issues. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 05:16:12 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Did SC goof, or just take a reeeeaally long time to come to this decision?
When Puckzzz's score was riding high and she mentioned she was going away on holiday, I suggested she request validation before she left. She said she already had (it's in the challenge score thread). |
:) It takes time to discuss issues. |
Just look at the tonemapping issue (10+ months)
Hi Ursula.. :) |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 05:18:09 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by JeffDay:
The longer I spend here, the more confused I get.....Was the illegal filter in camera or in post? |
The answer is both Jeff. It's a lot easier to see the clarity in this if we start looking at it as editing after the actual shutter was released rather than just "in camera". While some things are done in camera, they're still considered post processing. If you choose your settings then release the shutter, most everything is legal right now (other than ursula's multis). If you press the shutter then start working on the product before moving it outside the camera, then the touches you do are subject to the ruleset of the particular challenge. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 05:48:31 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Certain processes during RAW conversion are not allowed in the Basic Editing Rules. For example: an image can not be converted using Photomatix, and you can't add vignettes during RAW conversion. |
I can tone map without using RAW: I can convert a jpg in photoshop to 16-bit TIFF, tone map that, and go on from there in PS. Is this legal? ;-)
R. |
Are you talking about tone mapping emulation? Is so, yes, that's legal as it stands. |
No. That's what bugs me. I can tone map a 16-bit TIFF in Photomatix, except now SC says that is illegal in basic. But I can do the 32-16 conversion in CS2, and legally tone map that way? And, need i add, the CS2 version is a LOT less attractive,,,
R.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 05:53:13 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by JeffDay:
The longer I spend here, the more confused I get.....Was the illegal filter in camera or in post? |
The answer is both Jeff. It's a lot easier to see the clarity in this if we start looking at it as editing after the actual shutter was released rather than just "in camera". While some things are done in camera, they're still considered post processing. If you choose your settings then release the shutter, most everything is legal right now (other than ursula's multis). If you press the shutter then start working on the product before moving it outside the camera, then the touches you do are subject to the ruleset of the particular challenge. |
That's not what they are saying. Even IF you "apply" the filter in-camera by selecting it from a menu before shooting (which is how I assume it happens) they are saying it is illegal because the same thing cannot be done legally in PP on the computer.
Which is why the banning of Photomatix confuses me in basic, because I can tone map a single, tiff (not RAW) exposure and get a "tone mapping emulation" via photomatix, and they say that's not legal. Yet the "tone mapping emulation" that is native to CS2 is considered basic-legal, and I don't know why.
Of course, the tone mapping issue has nothing to do with in-camera issues, but it was mentioned earlier in this thread.
Of course, in the end I just do what they tell me I can do, which is why I keep nagging at this, to make sure it is clear to me, but the inconsistencies drive me batty. That's just how I am :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 17:54:21.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:02:55 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's not what they are saying. Even IF you "apply" the filter in-camera by selecting it from a menu before shooting (which is how I assume it happens) they are saying it is illegal because the same thing cannot be done legally in PP on the computer. |
Nope,  dudephil had it right. If whatever you are doing is present as a camera setting before you click the shutter, you are all set.
When you do it afterwards, it is post-processing, and it doesn't matter if it's in-camera or not. If you have a camera that can do these fancy effects, you must apply the settings before so that they are applied "while photographing your entry." If you wait until later, generally, a new file number is created, which alters the EXIF thus invalidating the original.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:21:11 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No. That's what bugs me. I can tone map a 16-bit TIFF in Photomatix, except now SC says that is illegal in basic. But I can do the 32-16 conversion in CS2, and legally tone map that way? And, need i add, the CS2 version is a LOT less attractive,,, |
so maybe you'll stop doing it. :P
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:22:54 PM · #64 |
multi's are totally legal up until the point you press the shutter the second time.
long story short, as soon as the FIRST SINGLE image is recorded to the card, everything done afterward is "post." because it's "post" shutter actuation.
i agree that the "in camera" language might need to be revised, but hopefully you guys understand the distinction we're making.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:23:09 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Certain processes during RAW conversion are not allowed in the Basic Editing Rules. For example: an image can not be converted using Photomatix, and you can't add vignettes during RAW conversion. |
I can tone map without using RAW: I can convert a jpg in photoshop to 16-bit TIFF, tone map that, and go on from there in PS. Is this legal? ;-)
R. |
Are you talking about tone mapping emulation? Is so, yes, that's legal as it stands. |
No. That's what bugs me. I can tone map a 16-bit TIFF in Photomatix, except now SC says that is illegal in basic. But I can do the 32-16 conversion in CS2, and legally tone map that way? And, need i add, the CS2 version is a LOT less attractive,,,
R. |
Ah, I see :) Yes, you're right, you don't need a RAW file to tonemap, but, tonemapping using Photomatix is now illegal in Basic - it's illegal to use Photomatix for anything, and you will be sent to virtual jail if you do it, especially if you do it more than once in 25 tries. And yes, you can continue to do the 32-16 tonemapping emulation in CS2/3, in Basic. And no, you don't need to add anything about what's more attractive or less attractive (actually, you can do all sorts of awful things with pretty much any tool, including some very basic ones).
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:24:25 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by ursula:
And no, you don't need to add anything about what's more attractive or less attractive (actually, you can do all sorts of awful things with pretty much any tool, including some very basic ones). |
then i must be awesome because i can make photos that look totally crappy even without software.
today i am a god!
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 18:24:48.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:29:25 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
- soft focus via gaussian blur in photoshop - OK
- soft focus via camera setting - OK
- soft focus via camera setting after shutter trips - DQ
Just curious, which SC analyzed what Puckzzz camera does with that soft focus effect and discovered that it is not making global changes to the image? That it is not a faded gaussian blur? Is it documented somewhere that it is selectively editing pixels? Link please. |
Out of curiosity on my part, why do you want to know which SC analyzed this? What different does it make "who" analyzed this? |
It makes no difference. I'm not one to be spoon fed information I can easily obtain myself. I just called the manufacturer of the camera and spoke to the head of product software engineering. They say the in-camera effect is a licensed copy of gaussian blur from PS7, faded based on characteristics of the image.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:31:02 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
multi's are totally legal up until the point you press the shutter the second time.
long story short, as soon as the FIRST SINGLE image is recorded to the card, everything done afterward is "post." because it's "post" shutter actuation.
i agree that the "in camera" language might need to be revised, but hopefully you guys understand the distinction we're making. |
Sorry - I flew off the handle here.
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 23:34:21. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:31:06 PM · #69 |
why should a filter be legal when done in camera, when the same thing is illegal off camera?
makes no sense to me...
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:32:05 PM · #70 |
Sorry again.
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 23:34:44. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:49:55 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
I mis-typed when I said basic. I did mean minimal...
I always shoot in raw and use BreezeBrowser to convert. I rarely change anything during conversion unless I have it correct color balance as part of the conversion.
I really understand what people say when they complain about the rules. I would never have considered that raw wouldn't be allowed in any of the challenges.
Mike |
But it says so in the rules.
I understand though as I never would've thought it either. I guess this could be a good reminder for me to take some time and go over the rules every now and then. |
I've never looked at the Minimal Rules. They are new rules that have taken effect since I joined and went over the other rules. And I'd not heard it come up before reading it here. Which is why I asked about it. Every time I think I have a good idea about the rules, someone gets a DQ for some misunderstanding of how it's written. Since I have a tendency of reading things at face value rather than trying to understand all the in-between lines and "what we meant and not what we said" interpretations, it just doesn't seem worth the effort. People that enter the challenges should be able to concentrate on creating the best image they can for the challenge... not worring about if some twist of the rules is going to trip them up and get a DQ. Besides, from what I seen posted, if all of the SC can't decide and it takes days and longer to come to a dicission, how do they expect an individual that doesn't have all of that brain power that the SC council does to get it right? And since it's only those that get challenged and the top 3? 10? whatever that get validated, there very well could be a whole lot more that would be DQ'ed because they didn't understand the rules either.
I don't know. I guess if it was easy, more people would do it.
Mike
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:50:27 PM · #72 |
Drawing the line at the shutter event makes a lot of sense to me. It is where post processing begins that is what was originally captured by the sensor begins to be altered. Whether that's done by the camera or by you it shouldn't matter.
I don't know if anybody has brought this up but wasn't the multiple exposure feature on the Nikons banned for this very reason? That is it is an effect created after the shutter has been clicked and after the individual images have been captured by the sensor and not before.
ETA: I just saw multi were mentioned. Nevermind.
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 18:56:03.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 07:43:39 PM · #73 |
so a soft filter effect applied by the cameras' computer is OK.
but a simulated effect applied after download is not OK?
let the camera do some post processing that i am not allowed to do after the shutter is pressed...
Originally posted by yanko:
Drawing the line at the shutter event makes a lot of sense to me. It is where post processing begins that is what was originally captured by the sensor begins to be altered. Whether that's done by the camera or by you it shouldn't matter.
|
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 19:46:46.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 08:04:02 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
I've never looked at the Minimal Rules. They are new rules that have taken effect since I joined and went over the other rules. And I'd not heard it come up before reading it here. Which is why I asked about it. Every time I think I have a good idea about the rules, someone gets a DQ for some misunderstanding of how it's written. Since I have a tendency of reading things at face value rather than trying to understand all the in-between lines and "what we meant and not what we said" interpretations, it just doesn't seem worth the effort. People that enter the challenges should be able to concentrate on creating the best image they can for the challenge... not worring about if some twist of the rules is going to trip them up and get a DQ. Besides, from what I seen posted, if all of the SC can't decide and it takes days and longer to come to a dicission, how do they expect an individual that doesn't have all of that brain power that the SC council does to get it right? And since it's only those that get challenged and the top 3? 10? whatever that get validated, there very well could be a whole lot more that would be DQ'ed because they didn't understand the rules either.
I don't know. I guess if it was easy, more people would do it.
Mike |
Actually, I like these rules that are written out and easy to follow if you read them. To me it doesn't matter what they should be, once were, or may be down the road - at least they're posted in black and white.......or black and blue/gray. It's the rules that are enforced when you cross an unwritten line that get me. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 08:31:54 PM · #75 |
When it takes this much discussion week after week after week to try and understand the rules it should be a signal that there are too many rules and too many types of challenges.
How about......
Type 1: Any inside the camera editing entries. If your camera can do it, great. If not, tough.
Type 2: Any and all editing is acceptable.
|
|
