| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2012 07:34:04 AM · #1 |
Yes its a challenge suggestion. A suggestion for all challenges.
we desperately need an update to the rules. I know this has been discussed many, many, many times before but it needs to continue to be discussed until it happens.
I propose three editing styles:
Minimal (combine minimal and basic, see below)
Standard (use advanced rule-set, but rename)
Enhanced (use expert rule-set but rename)
I think this will do three things:
one, rename the rule-sets. this is important, the choice of names now casts a bad stigma on the expert editing rule-set, calling it "enhanced" removes the notion that one needs to be an expert in order feel as if they are capable to enter and renaming advanced to "standard" editing as reinforces it as the defacto editing of choice and ability.
two, removes the mish mash of allowances in basic editing and combine its with minimal editing. The new rule-set will i think will appease to both critics and fans of minimal editing. It will force one to consider composition (no cropping) while allowing one to perform minor tweaks to color, tone and exposure and sharpness in post process as opposed to trial and error in the camera.
three, all editing styles will allow postprocessing software to remove and deficiencies to our equipment, such as distortions, chromatic aberration, dust, hot pixels, etc.
Again i really think this needs to be explored. Please express any opinions you have on the changes i proposed.
The major points of the new minimal rule-set are (underlined for emphasis):
Minimal Editing
You may:
use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry, with the exception of combining multiple captures in-camera.
rotate and resize your entry.
use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent). An Adjustment Layer is a special type of layer containing no image data that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments without permanently modifying the pixels. Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode.
saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry, but no selections are allowed.
use RAW conversion software as long as the changes are made globally to a single file on one layer and do not create new features or effects in the process (such as over or under applying clarity).
include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.
remove lens distortion and chromatic aberration.
You may not:
Crop your image
add a border to the outside edge of your entry.
use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). No “effects” filters may be applied to your image.
use plug-ins or stand alone utilities such as Topaz and SilverEffects Pro.
spot-edit your entry, except to remove sensor dust or hot pixels.
use any selection tool, including but not limited to the marquee, lasso, layer masks, quick masks, or any similar tool to select a portion of your image for any reason other than cropping or creating a border.
use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as vignettes, lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture.
add graphics, clip art, computer-rendered images or parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing.
add text to your entry or its border during editing. This includes copyright statements.
distort or stretch your image in any way, with the exception of lens distortion correction.
submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 09:06:15. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 07:48:01 AM · #2 |
Makes sense to me. I've long thought that basic has become kind of redundant.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 08:21:01. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 08:08:11 AM · #3 |
I'm no opposed.
One. Correction to:
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.
This paragraph is on the May Not section, so the highlighted phrase should be removed. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 08:18:21 AM · #4 |
Sounds good to me too, no opposition here, basic is a bit weird at the moment.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 08:21:22 AM · #5 |
| I'd like to get rid of the old basic, I'd keep the minimal as it is now, with the exception of rotation and crop. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 08:29:42 AM · #6 |
My first reaction is... this sort of guts the concept of a "straight-from-the-camera" test of camera skills. I don't care about the deletion of the Basic ruleset, but the new Minimal ruleset allows a lot of postprocessing (compared to the previous Minimal ruleset). I teach field seminars in landscape photography and it concerns me greatly when someone shows up with dirty equipment with the idea they can just fix it in Photoshop later. In general, new photographers have become lazy and sloppy. This new suggestion for Minimal will shift the emphasis from getting it right at the moment of exposure to fixing mistakes later. So, before I've had my morning coffee, I'll oppose the dilution of Minimal.
eta: strongly oppose adding borders to a Minimal editing image. Come on, man!
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 08:32:21. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 08:55:07 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I'd like to get rid of the old basic, I'd keep the minimal as it is now, with the exception of rotation and crop. |
+1
Renaming the rules for advance and expert is also a good idea. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:01:14 AM · #8 |
| I like everything but I think we should do away with basic not minimal. I like the challenge of a minimal challenge every once and awhile. The current Basic rule set is a joke, you can do almost as much as advanced as long as it's global, but only those who really know there way around photoshop can take advantage of it. I know people say basic levels the playing field but they are just kidding themselves. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:02:56 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
My first reaction is... this sort of guts the concept of a "straight-from-the-camera" test of camera skills. I don't care about the deletion of the Basic ruleset, but the new Minimal ruleset allows a lot of postprocessing (compared to the previous Minimal ruleset). I teach field seminars in landscape photography and it concerns me greatly when someone shows up with dirty equipment with the idea they can just fix it in Photoshop later. In general, new photographers have become lazy and sloppy. This new suggestion for Minimal will shift the emphasis from getting it right at the moment of exposure to fixing mistakes later. So, before I've had my morning coffee, I'll oppose the dilution of Minimal.
eta: strongly oppose adding borders to a Minimal editing image. Come on, man! |
i agree with the borders, honestly, since i dont use them i overlooked the inclusion. i and im sure others wouldn't be opposed to removing it.
this is the kind of feedback i was looking for. i'd like to see the basic editing pulled waaaay back, more toward minimal, but i also think we should allow "some" editing after the fact, and since the camera can set exposure, tones, contrast, sharpening, why not allow that in post.
while i can appreciate the will to get it all right in camera, postprocessing is almost a requirement to digital photography. you are just doing it instead of setting your camera to do it for you.
i really dont like to hear how new photographers have become lazy and sloppy, postprocessing is anything but lazy. there may be a shift in concerning oneself with fundamental settings, but when using certain settings has become obsolete, is it really laziness?
i admit i never concern myself with something like wb in the field, why should i? i dont need to. i can shoot a gray card and adjust it in post exactly to what it should be, how is that being lazy or sloppy?
if the focus is getting every setting perfect in the camera than minimal ought to die by the wayside, if the focus however is going to be on a minimally processed image where more emphasis is placed on lighting and setup then i am all for it. we cant keep holding onto the past when we dont need, technology allows us to focus on the more important aspects and we should embrace that.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 09:03:53. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:03:28 AM · #10 |
When I saw your post title, my first reaction was "here we go again", but I think your suggestion is reasonable. There has never been a time when photographers could not make those minor corrections in the darkroom, so I think allowing those adjustments is fine. There will still be a fuzzy line that can be pushed by people who know what they are doing. I do agree with Richard that borders don't belong in the minimal ruleset.
The renaming of advanced and expert sounds good as well. I've seen more than one person opt out of an expert editing challenge because they felt they were not an "expert". BTW, a former coworker once told me he is not an expert. An ex is a has-been and a spurt(spert)is a drip under pressure.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:11:09 AM · #11 |
I like  Hahn23 and  sjhuls's ideas of leaving minimal alone and if doing anything drop basic. I would just say if this happened I would hope for more minimal challenges. It seems like they're extremely rare right now. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:23:35 AM · #12 |
| The original idea in this post for me. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:26:08 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
I like Hahn23 and sjhuls's ideas of leaving minimal alone and if doing anything drop basic. I would just say if this happened I would hope for more minimal challenges. It seems like they're extremely rare right now. |
Agree.
My only proposed change to minimum is that we can shoot in RAW and convert to JPEG later. Last night wasted a lot of time after I realized the first session I wasn't shooting JPEG initially. Had to go back and wait for the opportune moment again.
CS |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:26:51 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by hahn23:
My first reaction is... this sort of guts the concept of a "straight-from-the-camera" test of camera skills. I don't care about the deletion of the Basic ruleset, but the new Minimal ruleset allows a lot of postprocessing (compared to the previous Minimal ruleset). I teach field seminars in landscape photography and it concerns me greatly when someone shows up with dirty equipment with the idea they can just fix it in Photoshop later. In general, new photographers have become lazy and sloppy. This new suggestion for Minimal will shift the emphasis from getting it right at the moment of exposure to fixing mistakes later. So, before I've had my morning coffee, I'll oppose the dilution of Minimal.
eta: strongly oppose adding borders to a Minimal editing image. Come on, man! |
i agree with the borders, honestly, since i dont use them i overlooked the inclusion. i and im sure others wouldn't be opposed to removing it.
this is the kind of feedback i was looking for. i'd like to see the basic editing pulled waaaay back, more toward minimal, but i also think we should allow "some" editing after the fact, and since the camera can set exposure, tones, contrast, sharpening, why not allow that in post.
while i can appreciate the will to get it all right in camera, postprocessing is almost a requirement to digital photography. you are just doing it instead of setting your camera to do it for you.
i really dont like to hear how new photographers have become lazy and sloppy, postprocessing is anything but lazy. there may be a shift in concerning oneself with fundamental settings, but when using certain settings has become obsolete, is it really laziness?
i admit i never concern myself with something like wb in the field, why should i? i dont need to. i can shoot a gray card and adjust it in post exactly to what it should be, how is that being lazy or sloppy?
if the focus is getting every setting perfect in the camera than minimal ought to die by the wayside, if the focus however is going to be on a minimally processed image where more emphasis is placed on lighting and setup then i am all for it. we cant keep holding onto the past when we dont need, technology allows us to focus on the more important aspects and we should embrace that. |
I'm not a big fan of capturing images in JPG format. Capturing in RAW and processing on a capable computer offers big advantages. I don't know anyone who is disputing this anymore. But, it's a valuable exercise to be required to shoot in JPG (Minimal ruleset) once in a while to be reminded why WB matters, or why it's a good thing to clean sensor, or minimize electronic noise, or why it's better to get the horizon level or what's required to avoid losing detail in blocked up shadows and blown out highlights. mike_311, you might think of the current Minimal ruleset as such a spartan exercise it generates appreciation for the benefits of postprocessing in the more advanced rulesets. I'm old now. I'm mostly an observer in a world where everyone has a digital camera and most think they are marvelous photographers. However, there is a troubling mindset in place. Too many think they can ignore the fundamentals of photography in the field and create their masterpieces on their computer screens.... correcting and repairing and cloning and masking their way to digital art. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:30:25 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by chazoe:
I like Hahn23 and sjhuls's ideas of leaving minimal alone and if doing anything drop basic. I would just say if this happened I would hope for more minimal challenges. It seems like they're extremely rare right now. |
CS |
they dont allow it since raw is just what your sensor captures and the jpg conversion is settings your camera applies to that raw file. if you were able to convert to jpg after the fact, they wouldn't know what settings you applied yourself in post.
so its either allow raw processing and the ability to change the settings in post, or not allow it at all.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:33:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
they dont allow it since raw is just what your sensor captures and the jpg conversion is settings your camera applies to that raw file. if you were able to convert to jpg after the fact, they wouldn't know what settings you applied yourself in post.
so its either allow raw processing and the ability to change the settings in post, or not allow it at all. |
Thanks, now I understand. Makes sense to keep minimal the way it is then.
CS |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:45:01 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by chazoe:
I like Hahn23 and sjhuls's ideas of leaving minimal alone and if doing anything drop basic. I would just say if this happened I would hope for more minimal challenges. It seems like they're extremely rare right now. |
Agree.
My only proposed change to minimum is that we can shoot in RAW and convert to JPEG later. Last night wasted a lot of time after I realized the first session I wasn't shooting JPEG initially. Had to go back and wait for the opportune moment again.
CS |
The thing I always forget in minimal is WB. Just can't ever seem to remember to check that out. I'm so used to just adjusting it in RAW.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 09:54:04 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
The thing I always forget in minimal is WB. Just can't ever seem to remember to check that out. I'm so used to just adjusting it in RAW. |
I've found over time that my 50D does such a good job of judging WB, that I just leave it in auto WB, even when shooting for a minimal challenge. Unless the lighting is something difficult, such as night or mixed artificial lights, my own choice of WB adjustment usually ends up very close to what the camera picked.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:03:34 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I'm not a big fan of capturing images in JPG format. Capturing in RAW and processing on a capable computer offers big advantages. I don't know anyone who is disputing this anymore. But, it's a valuable exercise to be required to shoot in JPG (Minimal ruleset) once in a while to be reminded why WB matters, or why it's a good thing to clean sensor, or minimize electronic noise, or why it's better to get the horizon level or what's required to avoid losing detail in blocked up shadows and blown out highlights. mike_311, you might think of the current Minimal ruleset as such a spartan exercise it generates appreciation for the benefits of postprocessing in the more advanced rulesets. I'm old now. I'm mostly an observer in a world where everyone has a digital camera and most think they are marvelous photographers. However, there is a troubling mindset in place. Too many think they can ignore the fundamentals of photography in the field and create their masterpieces on their computer screens.... correcting and repairing and cloning and masking their way to digital art. |
trying to hit all your pints:
i agree wb matters but it is more accurate applied in post. there is no need to even worry about it when shooting.
cleaning senors is scary to do yourself and expensive, do we really want to penalize those that dont do it?
we can ban noise removal.
the no crop and we can limit rotation to 90 degree to accommodate the level horizon.
i dont get the point about blown highlights and bocked up shadows, you cant correct that in post, if the detail is not there, you cant create it.
i agree to your idea of what minimal should be and i think we can come to am agreement on a ruleset that inst so restricting yet reinforces the fundamentals of sound photography technique.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 10:04:02. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:07:33 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i dont get the point about blown highlights and bocked up shadows, you cant correct that in post, if the detail is not there, you cant create it |
Well, yes and no. If you shoot JPEG, there will be nothing in blown highlights or dark shadows, and it takes some care to ensure proper exposure of important elements. If you shoot in RAW, there is a ton of image detail that can be pulled back in with a slider.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:14:35 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by mike_311:
i dont get the point about blown highlights and bocked up shadows, you cant correct that in post, if the detail is not there, you cant create it |
Well, yes and no. If you shoot JPEG, there will be nothing in blown highlights or dark shadows, and it takes some care to ensure proper exposure of important elements. If you shoot in RAW, there is a ton of image detail that can be pulled back in with a slider. |
and why is that? because the camera takes the raw data and applies its setting to it, it will discard any data that exceeds or is below a certain threshold essentially making it white or black. then it creates the jpg and discards the raw.
it still captured that data, it just discards its becuase it doesn't need it any longer.
essentially you are doing the same thing yourself in post, however YOU are controlling it.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 10:15:08. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:26:15 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by hahn23:
I'm not a big fan of capturing images in JPG format. Capturing in RAW and processing on a capable computer offers big advantages. I don't know anyone who is disputing this anymore. But, it's a valuable exercise to be required to shoot in JPG (Minimal ruleset) once in a while to be reminded why WB matters, or why it's a good thing to clean sensor, or minimize electronic noise, or why it's better to get the horizon level or what's required to avoid losing detail in blocked up shadows and blown out highlights. mike_311, you might think of the current Minimal ruleset as such a spartan exercise it generates appreciation for the benefits of postprocessing in the more advanced rulesets. I'm old now. I'm mostly an observer in a world where everyone has a digital camera and most think they are marvelous photographers. However, there is a troubling mindset in place. Too many think they can ignore the fundamentals of photography in the field and create their masterpieces on their computer screens.... correcting and repairing and cloning and masking their way to digital art. |
trying to hit all your pints:
i agree wb matters but it is more accurate applied in post. there is no need to even worry about it when shooting.
cleaning senors is scary to do yourself and expensive, do we really want to penalize those that dont do it?
we can ban noise removal.
the no crop and we can limit rotation to 90 degree to accommodate the level horizon.
i dont get the point about blown highlights and bocked up shadows, you cant correct that in post, if the detail is not there, you cant create it.
i agree to your idea of what minimal should be and i think we can come to am agreement on a ruleset that inst so restricting yet reinforces the fundamentals of sound photography technique. |
Most cameras do a great job of AWB.
Many photographers (owners of DSLR w/ interchangeable lenses) do not clean their own sensors. I don't understand. It's easy and very inexpensive to do it yourself, unless one is a clumsy oaf. The oafs may justifiably opt to spend time cloning/repairing dust spots and or money having someone do it for them. After all, it's a free country.
Regarding highlights and shadows....with RAW processing software, I can recover an amazing amount of detail in shadows and highlights for a single image. With HDR software, it's a piece of cake to blend exposures AND retain a natural look. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes me a bit sloppy sometimes. However, one loses a little with postprocessing recovery of details in the tails of the histogram. It's a good exercise in field techniques to choose light situations and ND filters (for example) to control over- and under-exposure.
Otherwise, your effort to improve the rulesets is worth consideration. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:34:40 AM · #23 |
Most cameras do a great job of AWB. again so why bother?
Many photographers (owners of DSLR w/ interchangeable lenses) do not clean their own sensors. I don't understand. It's easy and very inexpensive to do it yourself, unless one is a clumsy oaf. The oafs may justifiably opt to spend time cloning/repairing dust spots and or money having someone do it for them. After all, it's a free country. so why not leave it a choice?
Regarding highlights and shadows....with RAW processing software, I can recover an amazing amount of detail in shadows and highlights for a single image. With HDR software, it's a piece of cake to blend exposures AND retain a natural look. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes me a bit sloppy sometimes. However, one loses a little with postprocessing recovery of details in the tails of the histogram. It's a good exercise in field techniques to choose light situations and ND filters (for example) to control over- and under-exposure. The proposed ruleset doesn't allow the use of hdr software, you mainly need to get it right in the camera. the dynamic range of the camera is limited, so in any editing less than advanced or expert, taking a high dynamic range shot without the use of a filter wouldn't really work anyway, sure raw helps but its not a savior and without the use of selective edits or masking, maybe shooting in raw will allow one to not consider it initially but they will be fooled.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 10:35:59. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:42:29 AM · #24 |
My three cents....
I like minimal the way it is. It makes me think.
Put basic and advanced together into one.
Expert is it's own ballgame. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:47:25 AM · #25 |
I'm for leaving minimal as is -- with the exception of allowing cropping. Wildlife photographers are at a definite disadvantage with the lack of cropping -- unless their subjects are very tame, or you have very long lenses. With the exception of squirrels, 99% of my wildlife shots are cropped because I just don't have the lens reach. When you're shooting portraits, flowers, studio, almost every genre, you can just move it or move out to get your shot composed in camera. Rare in wildlife shots.
Leave minimal as is -- but please allow cropping! I tend to avoid my favorite subject in minimal challenges -- and it's such a shame... :(
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 10:48:03.
|
|
