| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2014 08:57:30 AM · #1 |
we need editing rules i get that :P so...
I propose the following changes to the advanced editing ruleset not as an effort to allow to give any ability an advantage or to encourage or dissuade any particular type of images but merely as a means to allow us to do certain things to our images to enhance them or make up for the fact that some of us dont have the proper equipment to capture the shot or to allow us to remove imperfections that are unavoidable.
1. stitching together panoramas - not everyone has a wide angle lens to accommodate a sweeping composition.
2. removing prominent imperfections with cloning and other tools - for instance, removing tourists from landscape views (even if they are prominent) trash cans, signs, cars, houses or removing wrinkles from clothing or other imperfections. Lets face it, we cant control all aspects of our environment unless you shoot in a studio and even then its not perfect. SC would have to use judgement on this one but i'd prefer to see it a very liberal use of removing objects allowed.
3. extending a background if it doesn't cover the frame, if its in the interest of it being a background and not the subject - for instance setting up a black backdrop and still having the wall show on the sides because it isn't wide enough, instead of cropping tight we should be able to extend the background to cover the frame. this would apply go to natural environments, for instance, walls, forests, flower fields, etc.
4. minor painting provided they enhance an existing feature or one the viewer would expect to be natural- tricky one to consistently enforce but enhancing makeup (see Samantha's recent DQ, or her other where see burned the ends of stitches to make it look real), adding catch lights are some examples, very limited use.
5. liberal use of blur or selective blur - not everyone can shoot at f1.8, if you can fake it it should be allowed.
i don't think any of these are earth shattering or will destroy the sacred pillars or photography. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 10:17:48 AM · #2 |
#5 is already allowed, as long as the blurring is not so extreme as to totally obliterate whatever's being blurred, and as long as the blur's not adding a feature, such as motion blur or radial blur.
The rest of these are eminently rational suggestions. Now that we have 1200px limits, I'd expect that panoramas will come into play very soon. I'm personally in favor of much more liberal rules on cloning and major element rules, and BG extension as you describe it. "minor painting" as in the case of the Samantha entry would also be nice, but it considerably widens a gray area and we tend to shy away from that, so it's more problematical. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 10:48:12 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
#5 is already allowed, as long as the blurring is not so extreme as to totally obliterate whatever's being blurred, and as long as the blur's not adding a feature, such as motion blur or radial blur.
The rest of these are eminently rational suggestions. Now that we have 1200px limits, I'd expect that panoramas will come into play very soon. I'm personally in favor of much more liberal rules on cloning and major element rules, and BG extension as you describe it. "minor painting" as in the case of the Samantha entry would also be nice, but it considerably widens a gray area and we tend to shy away from that, so it's more problematical. |
based upon this response, you shot too low Mike! |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 03:40:40 PM · #4 |
| As far as panoramas go, also allow the panoramic sweep which can be done in camera with some models. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 03:48:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jomari:
As far as panoramas go, also allow the panoramic sweep which can be done in camera with some models. |
I could be wrong, but I think this is already allowed since it's done in-camera and results in a single output image file. Perhaps Bear or someone else can further clarify... |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 03:57:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by ShutterRev:
Originally posted by jomari:
As far as panoramas go, also allow the panoramic sweep which can be done in camera with some models. |
I could be wrong, but I think this is already allowed since it's done in-camera and results in a single output image file. Perhaps Bear or someone else can further clarify... |
Technically, it's not allowed, because in-camera processing that's not legal otherwise, isn't considered legal just because the camera did it. Case in point being, we DON'T allow in-camera double exposures. So the sweep panorama (which my Sony does and which I love) is not currently legal. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 03:59:30 PM · #7 |
| I would love to be able to extend the background. But it does seem like it should be a limited amount... |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 04:08:06 PM · #8 |
| I'd be up for any of those, as long as the advanced rules set stops photos from resembling like cartoons, we still have expert for that. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 04:13:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ShutterRev:
Originally posted by jomari:
As far as panoramas go, also allow the panoramic sweep which can be done in camera with some models. |
I could be wrong, but I think this is already allowed since it's done in-camera and results in a single output image file. Perhaps Bear or someone else can further clarify... |
Technically, it's not allowed, because in-camera processing that's not legal otherwise, isn't considered legal just because the camera did it. Case in point being, we DON'T allow in-camera double exposures. So the sweep panorama (which my Sony does and which I love) is not currently legal. |
Good to know, thanks for the information Bear. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 04:35:19 PM · #10 |
I'd love to see some of the changes that Mike proposes. I'd really like to see:
- Allowance for panoramas. With 1200px, there seems no reason to continue to disallow it
- Allowance for creative use of long exposures, e.g. to create a "synthetic" exposure longer than what is normally possible in daylight:
Single Frame: 10-Frame Stack:
- Creative use of multiple exposures, e.g. to clear an area of people
|
|
|
|
12/19/2014 04:36:52 PM · #11 |
Good god, Mike!!! Are you actually making reasonable suggestions? ???
*runs outside to see if sky is falling*
Y'all might think all SC does is hang around the lounge eating cookies while we wait for our checks to be delivered.... (oops, TMI, Bear?)
But we are actively working on this sort of thing even as I type. I find almost all of your recommendations quite reasonable. But concur with Robert that the painting may be problematic from a rule enforcement perspective. Especially where "makeup" is concerned. Besides, are there any women that would pose for an image who do not own makeup :) |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 04:49:42 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'd love to see some of the changes that Mike proposes. I'd really like to see:
- Allowance for panoramas. With 1200px, there seems no reason to continue to disallow it
- Allowance for creative use of long exposures, e.g. to create a "synthetic" exposure longer than what is normally possible in daylight:
Single Frame: 10-Frame Stack:
- Creative use of multiple exposures, e.g. to clear an area of people |
What software did you use to merge the images? |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 05:27:11 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would love to be able to extend the background. But it does seem like it should be a limited amount... |
I find myself wishing for this when a rotation results in having to crop where normally (not shooting for a dpchallenge), I might just fill in. Not talking about a major 45 degree rotation, just the kind of thing that results from normal straightening. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 05:51:27 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by nam:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would love to be able to extend the background. But it does seem like it should be a limited amount... |
I find myself wishing for this when a rotation results in having to crop where normally (not shooting for a dpchallenge), I might just fill in. Not talking about a major 45 degree rotation, just the kind of thing that results from normal straightening. |
Huge +1000000!! I crop too tight in the camera and I can't rotate. My husband keeps telling me not to crop in camera, but do I listen?? (what's that you say?) :) |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 07:53:41 PM · #15 |
Sounds good to me I'm willing to try.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 12:09:18 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
What software did you use to merge the images? |
Actually, it is dead simple in Ps:
1.) File > Scripts > Load Files Into Stack. Select files and load 'em
2.) Edit > Auto-Align Layers (optional if needed, and can also be done during loading by checking the box in the dialog)
3.) Now starting with the bottom layer on the stack and working upward, if the bottom layer is layer number 1, the next one up is number 2, etc., set opacity on each layer to 1/n where n is the layer number. So, layer 1 is 1/1 = 100%, layer 2 is 1/2 = 50% and so on.
And you are done!
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 12:25:11 PM · #17 |
I'm fine with any rules change, I don't much care what the rules are for any given ruleset. I just hate to preface it by saying something like "not everyone has a wide angle lens" or "not everyone can shoot at 1.8" Like it's somehow unfair that someone else has a lens or some kind of gear that you don't. How many ribbons did  jjbeguin win using a point and shoot? |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 12:52:07 PM · #18 |
I don't get it. We already have all of this in Expert. If you want to add scenery or delete people, you want Expert.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 12:57:40 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't get it. We already have all of this in Expert. If you want to add scenery or delete people, you want Expert. |
Nope, I think you misinterpret the objective. Expert allows pretty much wholesale "scene creation." What we are talking about here are relatively simple techniques for imaging a single, real scene in creative ways.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 01:03:20 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't get it. We already have all of this in Expert. If you want to add scenery or delete people, you want Expert. |
Nope, I think you misinterpret the objective. Expert allows pretty much wholesale "scene creation." What we are talking about here are relatively simple techniques for imaging a single, real scene in creative ways. |
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. Maybe we need something between Advanced and Expert. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 02:01:29 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't get it. We already have all of this in Expert. If you want to add scenery or delete people, you want Expert. |
Nope, I think you misinterpret the objective. Expert allows pretty much wholesale "scene creation." What we are talking about here are relatively simple techniques for imaging a single, real scene in creative ways. |
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. Maybe we need something between Advanced and Expert. |
I think the idea is to manipulate an image anyway you see fit but don't combine multiple photographs. Sort of expert editing without using more than one image. Clone stamp, heal, burn, dodge, etc... all you want. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 02:09:08 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by insteps:
I think the idea is to manipulate an image anyway you see fit but don't combine multiple photographs. Sort of expert editing without using more than one image. Clone stamp, heal, burn, dodge, etc... all you want. |
Yeah, we has a case a long time ago where someone assembled a bunch of "components" and took a picture of the array, then cut and pasted and cloned them into a single "scene." |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 02:28:23 PM · #23 |
DQ for in-camera pano. I would be happy if the rules changed to allow this. It is combining multiple different images into one, which is why it got the DQ. It is OK to combine multiple images if they are all the same image, though, for focus stacking & HDR.
Message edited by author 2014-12-20 14:31:44. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 02:53:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. Maybe we need something between Advanced and Expert. |
I think we have a disconnect in terminology. I agree that the effect on an image of a busy intersection of removing all the traffic is very dramatic, but the technique itself is very simple.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 03:29:27 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't get it. We already have all of this in Expert. If you want to add scenery or delete people, you want Expert. |
Nope, I think you misinterpret the objective. Expert allows pretty much wholesale "scene creation." What we are talking about here are relatively simple techniques for imaging a single, real scene in creative ways. |
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. Maybe we need something between Advanced and Expert. |
i cant count the number of times i've done a shoot in a public place only have a great shot ruined by a pedestrian, luckily Photoshop can get rid of them. I try to wait for them to move but sometimes its futile. the same goes for background stuff. trashcans , fire hydrants, street signs. sometime the image is about something else and all that extraneous stuff clutters the image and steal the focus.
i recently went to Washington DC and i got a great shot of the Washington monument on the pool but there were these stupid tourists all over the place you may like the imperfections, but the image i took and had in my head wasn't about the tourists it was about the composition of the monuments and all the lines. luckily with Photoshop I can remove them :P.
Message edited by author 2014-12-21 09:53:47. |
|
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: 07/23/2025 09:17:53 AM EDT.
