| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2004 03:58:42 PM · #1 |
Is there any reason that I shouldn't ask another member who might have the neat image plug in for Photoshop to NI part of a shot for a member challenge? Is this an acceptable practice? If it is NOT, please feel free to hide this thread! If it IS an acceptable practice, please rename the thread 'Can some one with Neat Image plug in help?'
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:15:37 PM · #2 |
That is an interesting question. And one I don't know the answer to. sorry.
My personal opinion is that it is not against the rules, per se, but when will it cross the line from being your photograph to their art.
Since you can get a demo of NI free, why wouldn't you do that? Or, there is another one that was mentioned in a thread earlier.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:20:20 PM · #3 |
the NI demo never expires either & the profiles for 300D (as I recently learnt from a thread I started about gettting rid of grain) are also free for NI demo.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:20:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Since you can get a demo of NI free, why wouldn't you do that? Or, there is another one that was mentioned in a thread earlier. |
I have the demo, problem is I wish to apply it using a mask on a seperate layer. Something you need the pro version for and I don't have the funds right now...
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:29:12 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by karmat:
Since you can get a demo of NI free, why wouldn't you do that? Or, there is another one that was mentioned in a thread earlier. |
I have the demo, problem is I wish to apply it using a mask on a seperate layer. Something you need the pro version for and I don't have the funds right now... |
why cant you just take the original image in one layer, and put the neatimaged version in the above layer, make it a layer mask, and then cut away the parts you dont want to have noise reduction? slower than using the neat image photoshop tool but should have the same effect right?
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:33:29 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Is there any reason that I shouldn't ask another member who might have the neat image plug in for Photoshop to NI part of a shot for a member challenge? Is this an acceptable practice? If it is NOT, please feel free to hide this thread! If it IS an acceptable practice, please rename the thread 'Can some one with Neat Image plug in help?'
Thanks in advance! |
I think it crosses the line and I wouldn't recommend it. Can you find another noise reduction program that will (free or cheap) let you do what you want to do?
Also, I have my doubts about the alternative method suggested by longlivnyhc (though it is a very creative solution!)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:52:53 PM · #7 |
Actually I think the workaround posted by longlivenyhc is doable. you would need to run the NI either after size reduction (which isn't optimal) or at an intermediate point so that you could do a screen capture to get the result back to your editor. You don't want to save from the free version, because the compression locked at a very high level, and so the output quality is poor.
I am not at all advocating the screen capture workaround as a ongoing solution; if you are going to keep using the NI program you should of course pay for it.
I think having someone else run NI for you is breach confidentiality of your shot, and also if they are making the choices as to the reduction levels, it then has their artistic fingerprints on it, as karmat suggested.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 05:19:10 PM · #8 |
I am one of those not too talented with editing and I would love to have someone more skilled than myself do my NeatImage for me. It really is a skill. But since half of the digital photo equation these days is your ability to post-process, I would feel it is a bit unfair - but it is an entirely personal question since no one will ever know except you and the person helping you. Some folks can't afford the editing software they would like, also, or the camera. We're all kind of limited by something, I think.
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 17:30:23.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 05:26:15 PM · #9 |
| If you're really in a pinch, you could try ImageMagick's Studio. The Effects tab suports noise reduction, but the results may not be to your liking. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 05:37:35 PM · #10 |
The day I paid for NI was a good day for me, and it isn't expensive :) The ability to be able to selectively remove noise is worth its weight in gold.
I take it your are submitting to a members challenge? forget about using another member to finish your shot off, I guess you are trying to remove noise on the bg? if so why not try a light gausian blur or ps noise reduction and the history brush.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 05:50:12 PM · #11 |
| My only beef with the neat image demo is that you can only save as jpg... and not a very well compressed one imho. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 06:45:50 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Actually I think the workaround posted by longlivenyhc is doable. you would need to run the NI either after size reduction (which isn't optimal) or at an intermediate point so that you could do a screen capture to get the result back to your editor. You don't want to save from the free version, because the compression locked at a very high level, and so the output quality is poor.
I am not at all advocating the screen capture workaround as a ongoing solution; if you are going to keep using the NI program you should of course pay for it.
I think having someone else run NI for you is breach confidentiality of your shot, and also if they are making the choices as to the reduction levels, it then has their artistic fingerprints on it, as karmat suggested. |
It is not uncommon for people to show their potential entry (privately) to another member ... the confidentiality/anonymity rules are not the kind for which an image gets DQ'd. Personally, I think as long as you describe to the person what you want the processed image to look like, they are in effect acting as a technician at your instruction -- it should be OK, but then, my opinion is often in the minority.
I sometimes work the cropping and Curve controls for Isaac, but let him say when it's the way he wants it to look. This is also similar to a question we got where the photographer wanted to know if s/he could set up the shot, and then have someone else trip the shutter (en lieu of using a remote -- which didn't exist for that camera). I thought we decided that would be all right as long as the photographer was the one making the framing and exposure decisions. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 06:48:54 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I sometimes work the cropping and Curve controls for Isaac, but let him say when it's the way he wants it to look. This is also similar to a question we got where the photographer wanted to know if s/he could set up the shot, and then have someone else trip the shutter (en lieu of using a remote -- which didn't exist for that camera). I thought we decided that would be all right as long as the photographer was the one making the framing and exposure decisions. |
But a camera "button" only works one way each time; up and down. To me, NeatImage, and all software for that matter, takes some skill and learning, and some of us are better than others at it. I always thought that was part of the challenge and creation.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 07:02:55 PM · #14 |
OK -- here's a legal workaround.
Find a member with NI who is willing to cooperate. Both of you download remote control software, such as Timbuktu from Netopia (30-day full-featured trial).
By email (or whatever), communicate the info/settings you need in order to transfer the image file. The "Client" can then either observe the "Host" machine (where NI is installed) and instruct the operator in how to adjust the photo, or the client can (host owner willing) actually operate the remote computer and do the adjustment themselves.
Timbuktu is a great piece of teaching software ... works on PC or Mac (you can control one from the other too) ... I already have it if anyone needs help using it. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 07:09:28 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Find a member with NI who is willing to cooperate. Both of you download remote control software, such as Timbuktu from Netopia (30-day full-featured trial). |
Of course, VNC (google it) is free. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 08:13:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I am not at all advocating the screen capture workaround as a ongoing solution; if you are going to keep using the NI program you should of course pay for it. |
Of course I do plan on paying for it. Otherwise, I could simply look for crackz to make the demo fully functional. I don't wish to do this though...
Originally posted by kirbic:
I think having someone else run NI for you is breach confidentiality of your shot |
I don't understand where this should be an issue. Don't some members have 'mentors' that help them with their work? Wouldn't this be as big a confidentiality issue? I have watched and helped my son do shots for challenges and then we simply don't vote on the others shots. I currently am helping Taterbug the same way. I just don't vote on the shot in question and would ask anyone that helped me this way to not vote on my image...
Originally posted by kirbic:
also if they are making the choices as to the reduction levels, it then has their artistic fingerprints on it, as karmat suggested. |
This is the issue that sparked my original post!
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is not uncommon for people to show their potential entry (privately) to another member ... the confidentiality/anonymity rules are not the kind for which an image gets DQ'd. Personally, I think as long as you describe to the person what you want the processed image to look like, they are in effect acting as a technician at your instruction -- it should be OK, but then, my opinion is often in the minority. |
I see the General has answered the second point above for me better than I did, and understood better what I had in mind with my original question.
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 20:14:57.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 08:17:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I am not at all advocating the screen capture workaround as a ongoing solution; if you are going to keep using the NI program you should of course pay for it. |
Of course I do plan on paying for it. Otherwise, I could simply look for crackz to make the demo fully functional. I don't wish to do this though...
Originally posted by kirbic:
I think having someone else run NI for you is breach confidentiality of your shot |
I don't understand where this should be an issue. Don't some members have 'mentors' that help them with their work? Wouldn't this be as big a confidentiality issue? I have watched and helped my son do shots for challenges and then we simply don't vote on the others shots. I currently am helping Taterbug the same way. I just don't vote on the shot in question and would ask anyone that helped me this way to not vote on my image...
Originally posted by kirbic:
also if they are making the choices as to the reduction levels, it then has their artistic fingerprints on it, as karmat suggested. |
This is the issue that sparked my original post!
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is not uncommon for people to show their potential entry (privately) to another member ... the confidentiality/anonymity rules are not the kind for which an image gets DQ'd. Personally, I think as long as you describe to the person what you want the processed image to look like, they are in effect acting as a technician at your instruction -- it should be OK, but then, my opinion is often in the minority. |
I see the General has answered the second point above for me better than I did... |
TooCool - I would be interested in hearing what you thought of my posts on this. I really felt that this would have been something encroaching on "not doing your own creation", but obviously not everyone is taking it that way. I am not challenging you, but instead, am honestly curious. What would keep one from having a really good PS person do the whole editing process for them as long as it was to their "specifications"? To me, it takes a lot of work and talent to do editng (which I do not have!), and I would feel like I had only done one part of the "photo" presented.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 09:00:26 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
TooCool - I would be interested in hearing what you thought of my posts on this. I really felt that this would have been something encroaching on "not doing your own creation", but obviously not everyone is taking it that way. I am not challenging you, but instead, am honestly curious. What would keep one from having a really good PS person do the whole editing process for them as long as it was to their "specifications"? To me, it takes a lot of work and talent to do editng (which I do not have!), and I would feel like I had only done one part of the "photo" presented. |
I understood that some would feel the way that you do about this subject, hence the original question! I do not want to do anything that would appear to be unethical! I'm not a democrat after all... (just a joke liberals, I love you guys too!) My intent also was to do all the editing except for a very small detail that I can envision, but that I can't do because I don't have the resources currently to purchase the product...
Edited to add: It's kind of like some people can afford a 'better' camera and some only a point and shoot. Some can afford Photoshop and some only free or lesser expensive products. Are they being penalized for lack of funds?
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 21:02:39.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 09:09:34 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Kylie:
TooCool - I would be interested in hearing what you thought of my posts on this. I really felt that this would have been something encroaching on "not doing your own creation", but obviously not everyone is taking it that way. I am not challenging you, but instead, am honestly curious. What would keep one from having a really good PS person do the whole editing process for them as long as it was to their "specifications"? To me, it takes a lot of work and talent to do editng (which I do not have!), and I would feel like I had only done one part of the "photo" presented. |
I understood that some would feel the way that you do about this subject, hence the original question! I do not want to do anything that would appear to be unethical! I'm not a democrat after all... (just a joke liberals, I love you guys too!) My intent also was to do all the editing except for a very small detail that I can envision, but that I can't do because I don't have the resources currently to purchase the product...
Edited to add: It's kind of like some people can afford a 'better' camera and some only a point and shoot. Some can afford Photoshop and some only free or lesser expensive products. Are they being penalized for lack of funds? |
The lack of funds - well, I guess it is just that we have a choice to be here or not and use what we do have. I am probably particularly bent on this because NeatIamge isn't simple to me. I find it takes a pretty good learning curve to use correctly (which I haven't done yet), so to me it is skill, not money. And we do have to stand on on "own two feet", and whatever resources we do or don't have. I know that you wouldn't do anything you felt was unethical, so I am glad you didn't take my post as any kind of attack.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 10:14:49 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Edited to add: It's kind of like some people can afford a 'better' camera and some only a point and shoot. Some can afford Photoshop and some only free or lesser expensive products. Are they being penalized for lack of funds? |
I think this is a bad example for your case. If you used this as an analogy, then the you would be asking the person with the high end camera to take the photo for you. This, is of course, illegal. YOU must have taken the photo yourself.
So, in my opinion, to be asking the person with the higher end software to do the editing for you, would not be cool.
This is just my opinion or course. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 10:25:32 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Edited to add: It's kind of like some people can afford a 'better' camera and some only a point and shoot. Some can afford Photoshop and some only free or lesser expensive products. Are they being penalized for lack of funds? |
I think this is a bad example for your case. If you used this as an analogy, then the you would be asking the person with the high end camera to take the photo for you. This, is of course, illegal. YOU must have taken the photo yourself.
So, in my opinion, to be asking the person with the higher end software to do the editing for you, would not be cool.
This is just my opinion or course. |
This also was not part of my original question. I was trying to illustrate a point (poorly) to Kylie, who I believe got it. And once again, I do NOT wish to do anything that would even have an appearance of impropriety, hence the original post.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:13:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
... What would keep one from having a really good PS person do the whole editing process for them as long as it was to their "specifications"? |
Some poeple have no hands, but do have an artistic vision. They would propbably have to have someone operate Photoshop to their specifications, given the current state/cost of thought- or voice-controlled technology.
I think as long as there is a reasonable attempt to have the final photo represent the artist's original vision it should be OK. This is not the same as having someone else cut and paste a fancy composite image together. Like many subjective judgements, there's a big fat hazy line in this one, so in some ways I'd rather we didn't allow it, but ... : ) |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:39:31 PM · #23 |
I have to agree with Kylie on this one. If you were asking someone to simply resize your photo or something else that required absolutely no artistic vision/skill, I could see that. But unless you're providing exact values for Neat Image, I think having another person do it makes it a collaborative effort and not something we really encourage (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen).
Sure, some people have no hands but do have an artistic vision. Some people have no photography skills but do have an artistic vision... |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 12:04:02 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by mk:
Sure, some people have no hands but do have an artistic vision. Some people have no photography skills but do have an artistic vision... |
Thank you. You said it well.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 12:15:20 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by mk:
Sure, some people have no hands but do have an artistic vision. Some people have no photography skills but do have an artistic vision... |
... and join DPC to gain some. I just don't think it's that big a deal. If I ask Isaac if I should crop it "here" or "there" and then take his advice, should that DQ my shot because it's a collaborative effort?
I also found your answer just a little flippant. I was serious, that there are people who have a functioning estheic sense, but lack the physical capability to handle a camera or computer mouse. I don't think we should say they "can't" be photographers, merely because they use assistants.
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 00:18:29. |
|
