| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2026 04:02:21 PM · #1 |
We have made some edits to the common editing rules as follow (bold text designates new additions):
You must ... retain your original, unedited file (exactly as recorded by your camera), and provide it to the Site Council along with a list of your editing steps within 48 hours of any validation request. Said list must include sufficient detail such that we can substantially re-create* the entry from the original. This notice with instructions will be sent to your listed email address, and will also appear on the left side of your DPChallenge home page when you are logged in. Files that have been saved or altered with any editing or transfer software are NOT originals.
*For example, we might not need the exact values used in a Tone Curve, but the use of a Tone Curve should be listed.
You may not ... include AI-generated or AI-created content, where the software synthesizes or creates new imagery not found in the original file(s).
So basically, the rules have not changed but hopefully this will help us make decisions on validations regarding some uses of AI. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 05:05:44 PM · #2 |
So question:
I have used generative fill in smaller areas instead of the remove tool.
We are allowed to clone out/remove items. The remove tool already fills in what would have been there and gives very similar results.
I would posit that using generative fill to clone out a small item is the same as using the remove tool, the patch tool, or selective cloning.
If it were generating new items, that wouldn't be allowed. But if it is basically doing the same thing as the remove tool, could that be used for removing an item? The remove tool you are just highlighting the item. The generative fill you are simply selecting the item. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 07:12:53 PM · #3 |
The idea is if you take something out you replace it with what was "behind" it -- what you would have seen if the removed object wasn't there in the first place. I think any of the clone-like tools should be OK for that.
But you can't (for example) remove a lamp and replace it with a potted plant which "could have" been there but wasn't. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 07:31:08 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The idea is if you take something out you replace it with what was "behind" it -- what you would have seen if the removed object wasn't there in the first place. I think any of the clone-like tools should be OK for that.
But you can't (for example) remove a lamp and replace it with a potted plant which "could have" been there but wasn't. |
That's what I thought. Thank you |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 10:28:25 PM · #5 |
> Said list must include sufficient detail such that we can substantially re-create* the entry from the original.
I have suggested this before and will suggest this again. Please provide example templates of what you expect for editing steps and place them on the site for reference. Otherwise, I fear you will continue to be disappointed at times with the editing steps that are provided, especially from those new to the front page. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 10:40:20 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
> Said list must include sufficient detail such that we can substantially re-create* the entry from the original.
I have suggested this before and will suggest this again. Please provide example templates of what you expect for editing steps and place them on the site for reference. Otherwise, I fear you will continue to be disappointed at times with the editing steps that are provided, especially from those new to the front page. |
Not trying to be confrontational here, but is it really that difficult to list what steps were taken in your editing flow? Seems to me it would be more restrictive to try and fit your process into a templated expectation. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 10:59:07 PM · #7 |
|
I suggested this some time ago, I use Lightroom for editing, could I just save my edit as a Lightroom Preset and provide it instead of writing the steps? I find the repetitious list very tedious as I use most of Lightroom features. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 11:06:31 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
We have made some edits to the common editing rules as follow (bold text designates new additions):
You must ... retain your original, unedited file (exactly as recorded by your camera), and provide it to the Site Council along with a list of your editing steps within 48 hours of any validation request. Said list must include sufficient detail such that we can substantially re-create* the entry from the original. This notice with instructions will be sent to your listed email address, and will also appear on the left side of your DPChallenge home page when you are logged in. Files that have been saved or altered with any editing or transfer software are NOT originals.
*For example, we might not need the exact values used in a Tone Curve, but the use of a Tone Curve should be listed.
You may not ... include AI-generated or AI-created content, where the software synthesizes or creates new imagery not found in the original file(s).
So basically, the rules have not changed but hopefully this will help us make decisions on validations regarding some uses of AI. |
Thank you SC for clarification. Not using AI at DPC does not mean that the site is retrograde and not adapted to the new times. Esteemed photo sites do not permit the use of AI. But there are plenty of places where people interested in AI could participate. It seems that there are people who still enjoy photography or writing, painting, drawings or composing music without the help of AI as there are still people who still like to read printed books or use a pen and writing a letter without the use of chatGTP
It doesn't mean that not adapting to the incredible speed of technology we are primitive.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2026 11:24:49 PM · #9 |
|
Devils advocate here - I use Topaz AI De-Noise & Sharpening - are those a no go now? I understand better clarification regarding AI products is needed but many of PsCc and other software have AI in their titles - how do we choose??? |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 11:31:29 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Devils advocate here - I use Topaz AI De-Noise & Sharpening - are those a no go now? I understand better clarification regarding AI products is needed but many of PsCc and other software have AI in their titles - how do we choose??? |
Yes, you can continue to use those. The rule changes are really concerned with AI generation of new things that didn't exist in the original photo file.
You may not ... include AI-generated or AI-created content, where the software synthesizes or creates new imagery not found in the original file(s). |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 11:34:35 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
I suggested this some time ago, I use Lightroom for editing, could I just save my edit as a Lightroom Preset and provide it instead of writing the steps? I find the repetitious list very tedious as I use most of Lightroom features. |
Not quite sure what you mean by saving as a preset, but if you can simply export the edit flow/processes into a text file and copy/paste into the validation text box for your editing steps, I'd think that would work for us. |
|
|
|
07/28/2026 11:36:12 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Devils advocate here - I use Topaz AI De-Noise & Sharpening - are those a no go now? I understand better clarification regarding AI products is needed but many of PsCc and other software have AI in their titles - how do we choose??? |
Yes, you can continue to use those. The rule changes are really concerned with AI generation of new things that didn't exist in the original photo file.
You may not ... include AI-generated or AI-created content, where the software synthesizes or creates new imagery not found in the original file(s). |
Phew!!! |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 12:22:26 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
...Esteemed photo sites do not permit the use of AI. ... |
How do they enforce it? I was falsely accused of AI on 1x and stopped participating there. |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 09:01:31 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
> Said list must include sufficient detail such that we can substantially re-create* the entry from the original.
I have suggested this before and will suggest this again. Please provide example templates of what you expect for editing steps and place them on the site for reference. Otherwise, I fear you will continue to be disappointed at times with the editing steps that are provided, especially from those new to the front page. |
Not trying to be confrontational here, but is it really that difficult to list what steps were taken in your editing flow? Seems to me it would be more restrictive to try and fit your process into a templated expectation. |
I get it, I really do. Herding cats is hard, I spent ~40 years doing it. :) But as the SC you are not getting what you want and need often enough, apparently. So you can either ask again for what you need by placing additional text in the rules (which were already quite clear) or come up with a few simple templates and point people to those when their editing steps do not meet the minimum. Seems to me this would make your lives easier, hence my suggesting it. But you guys are in the trenches doing the good work, so I will leave it at that. Thanks. |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 09:41:50 AM · #15 |
|
I am terribly lazy in explaining my editing steps - guilty as charged. So could we perhaps take a screen shot (s) of our PS layer panel and send you those? So much easier for the author (not sure how difficult that would make your life) |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 01:40:13 PM · #16 |
Here's an example of how I used to do it before I got tired of looking at images where all the photographer's note said was "N/A" ... :-(
 |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:09:27 PM · #17 |
My two twelve cents (adjusted for inflation) FWIW: I'm a member who enters, votes, plays the forum games, and if the proof burden goes past a certain point I'll stop entering or just accept DQs. Most often, my editing is chaos. I can summarize the major steps, but even then I could never provide layer opacity, curve or level values or things like that. History panel would be no help because I constantly use the history brush to partially undo something I applied. That said, I'm not seeing anything officially established yet that would discourage me. I appreciate the job the SC does trying to define these rules and balance maintaining the integrity of the challenges with the inconvenience of the members and the validation workload. The priority, IMO, should be that any changes in the rulesets should be geared toward increasing participation, or at a minimum, NOT decreasing it. I'm fine with the most basic validation procedures even if it meant the occasional ill-gotten ribbons.
I personally think some people here take this site way too seriously for what it really is, but I'm sure I am exponentially outnumbered by those that think that I don't take it seriously enough (because I don't). TBH, my priorities with regard to my participation here are: having fun, developing friendships, social interactions, and improving my photography and editing skills - in that order. Probably the reverse of many people here, but that's fine - I love the diversity of personalities, cultures and lifestyles represented in this group.
Good luck. 🙂 |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:18:17 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Not trying to be confrontational here, but is it really that difficult to list what steps were taken in your editing flow? |
It is if you have never figured out how to select editing history such that it embeds in the EXIF data 'cause you're a computer/software moron.
Fortunately my skills are so rudimentary and my editing so basic I've never had an issue.
*NO* idea how to attach editing info to an image file in Elements 2024, or any of the ten or so versions I have had in the past....LOL!
|
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:18:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
I suggested this some time ago, I use Lightroom for editing, could I just save my edit as a Lightroom Preset and provide it instead of writing the steps? I find the repetitious list very tedious as I use most of Lightroom features. |
Not quite sure what you mean by saving as a preset, but if you can simply export the edit flow/processes into a text file and copy/paste into the validation text box for your editing steps, I'd think that would work for us. |
I think the question is just how granular do you want our editing steps to be? FE, for my composite entry, there were hundreds of steps.... |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:19:41 PM · #20 |
I'm not really specific regarding where I set sliders, etc., but here's one of my recent entry's processing description (starting from a RAW file):
PP - opened in LR, cropped, increased clarity, brightened, reduced noise, resized, opened in PSE, levels, unsharp mask
That was a pretty simple edit, but I think I provided sufficient editing detail for validation purposes.
I usually include my PP details with my entry when I submit, because I'd be very unlikely to remember them all later 😁
Here's a slightly more complicated edit (my Composite, still starting from RAW files):
PP - on the big cow: opened in LR, adjusted shadows and highlights, opened in PSE, cloned out a million flies, cloned out some OOF foreground grass; on the herd: opened in LR, cloned out some branches, adjusted shadows and highlights, cropped a bit, opened in PSE, pasted on top of big cow and erased extraneous bits, flattened image, resized, unsharp mask
Edited for typo
Message edited by author 2026-07-29 14:22:08. |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:20:12 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
> Said list must include sufficient detail such that we can substantially re-create* the entry from the original.
I have suggested this before and will suggest this again. Please provide example templates of what you expect for editing steps and place them on the site for reference. Otherwise, I fear you will continue to be disappointed at times with the editing steps that are provided, especially from those new to the front page. |
Not trying to be confrontational here, but is it really that difficult to list what steps were taken in your editing flow? Seems to me it would be more restrictive to try and fit your process into a templated expectation. |
We're not trying to be confrontational either. I think the SC and the people asking are truly trying to understand each other. I have also been very lazy in my editing steps, because it seems like so much of it is obvious, and it would take a very long time to type in all of the steps if you work on an image for an extended length of time.
It actually would be very helpful to have a template. What level of detail are you looking for?
I'm opening a new file and editing it so I have something about which we can discuss.
This is the steps I did on the file, but this was basically just 3 minutes of editing.
RAW editor
exposure +.15
contrast +10
highlights -3
shadows +20
Whites +25
Blacks -5
Color
temp +3
vibrance +6
saturation +3
effects
texture +10
clarity +7
Dehaze +3
Curve
lights +20
darks -4
shadows +3
Straighten
crop
radial mask: with exposure + 10, whites +10, highlights -20
duplicate radial mask and invert, exposure -20
In the past, I would just put:
RAW edits
Because all I did on this example was the equivalent of pressing Auto in the raw editor, and then making some adjustments and creating my own vignette. Which seemed like it was pretty much a given that people would play with those standard options, and that the vignette seemed like it was obvious.
So we are not trying to cause problems in asking what level you would like. We do want to make things easier for you, but we also want to make it doable for ourselves. A week later, I can tell that I used CEfex on an image, because I have that layer in my photoshop file. But I may not remember that in fact, in CEfex, I did darken/lighten center, pro contrast, contrast/color range, cross processing, curves, and tonal contrast.
But I was assuming that, if the photo looked the same as the RAW file, except it was lighter or darker in places, and the colors were different, that it was still simple changes that were made. Even if it were all of those steps in cefex
So normally, what I would include in my validation notes were things that weren't as obvious, like cloning out particular things. Because that would make it possible for it to have been another similar original.
So I am curious as to the level of detail you need. If you need all the steps that were done in CEfex, or is it enough to say Cefex edits.
Because I honestly don't know how to track what I've done in Color Efex. I have a tendency to go into the RAW editor or Cefex many many times, exploring different options. I tend to obsess on the files and spend about 45-60 minutes working on an image. But mostly because I'm never quite happy with it. So I go into both options probably about 10 different times, trying different things, so I have no idea what worked in the final image.
But really, it's pretty much making things lighter, darker, sharpening and changing colors. But through many different options.
So please give some input on what level you need. We want to make your job easier -- because it benefits us greatly that someone is validating these images. But we also need to find a way to make it doable. (Think  gyaban, and how many steps he would do on an image!!)
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:30:55 PM · #22 |
after writing the long, not very great post....
What about if we send in our photoshop file with all the layers? Wouldn't it be easier being able to look layer by layer and see what changed and if it was reasonable?
Hmmm... not sure what people would do for lightroom and other programs, but might be easier way of checking the photoshopped submissions? |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:31:48 PM · #23 |
Wendy - I think that's way more detail than we need. I'd consolidate to:
Increased exposure/contrast/shadows/whites, decreased highlights and blacks, adjusted color, increased texture and clarity and dehazed, curves, straightened, cropped |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 02:34:09 PM · #24 |
|
And no, I don't think we want your Photoshop file. We'll, I don't. I use Photoshop Elements, and I'm betting you can do things in the full package that PSE can't understand. |
|
|
|
07/29/2026 03:06:56 PM · #25 |
|
I use Paint Shop Pro. No Adobe. :-) |
|
