Back to Basics (what's allowed in Basic Editing)

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

05/18/2010 11:05:50 AM · #1

I remember very recently reading that Topaz Adjust and 'Photomatix' (HDR) were now allowed 'in' the 'Basic' Editing rules, but when I refer to those same rules now, I see no mention of it apart from - "No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."

Have I missed something or have the above restrictions been lifted?

What about newcomers who didn't read the announcement about Topaz and 'Photomatix' being allowed?

(Feel free to slap me if I've missed something obvious.)

glad2badad

Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro M.Zuiko Digital ED

05/18/2010 11:09:23 AM · #2

Forum thread under Administrator Announcements --> Here.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

05/18/2010 01:21:28 PM · #3

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Forum thread under Administrator Announcements --> Here.

I think I've just about read all of that thread now, but there's no reference to it when reading the 'Basic' editing rules - that's going to leave newcomers (and anybody who hasn't read that thread) feeling mystified.

glad2badad

Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro M.Zuiko Digital ED

05/18/2010 01:33:06 PM · #4

Originally posted by hesitant:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Forum thread under Administrator Announcements --> Here.

I think I've just about read all of that thread now, but there's no reference to it when reading the 'Basic' editing rules - that's going to leave newcomers (and anybody who hasn't read that thread) feeling mystified.

I agree. At one point I suggested having a link to that thread, at a minimum, from the 'basic' ruleset.

05/18/2010 02:15:38 PM · #5

Originally posted by hesitant:

To be fair, what 'in' the 'Basic' rules would suggest to a newcomer that such tools AREN'T 'legal'? The rules themselves haven't really changed— we just sort of relaxed the interpretation of what constitutes an "effect." We don't like to name specific applications as 'legal' or illegal 'in' the rules because it gives the false impression that anything done with that tool is 'legal' (or not). You can still be disqualified for using any of them if layers, selections or other illegal methods are employed (Nik software is particularly dangerous), but we don't automatically DQ just because an "effects filter" was used since many of these tools can be used for non-effects purposes, too (exposure, color tone, B&W conversion, etc.).

Message edited by author 2010-05-18 14:18:44.

05/18/2010 02:48:23 PM · #6

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hesitant:
I think I've just about read all of that thread now, but there's no reference to it when reading the 'Basic' editing rules - that's going to leave newcomers (and anybody who hasn't read that thread) feeling mystified.

To be fair, what 'in' the 'Basic' rules would suggest to a newcomer that such tools AREN'T 'legal'? The rules themselves haven't really changed— we just sort of relaxed the interpretation of what constitutes an "effect." We don't like to name specific applications as 'legal' or illegal 'in' the rules because it gives the false impression that anything done with that tool is 'legal' (or not). You can still be disqualified for using any of them if layers, selections or other illegal methods are employed (Nik software is particularly dangerous), but we don't automatically DQ just because an "effects filter" was used since many of these tools can be used for non-effects purposes, too (exposure, color tone, B&W conversion, etc.).

I would think that to a newcomer this quote: "No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur." might make them think that no other effect filters would be 'legal'.
Also, speaking of the use of layers, what is 'Photomatix' if not the merging of multiple layers all containing information...? A rose by any other name etc.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

05/18/2010 02:51:07 PM · #7

Originally posted by hesitant:

Many people don't regard 'Photomatix' or Topaz adjust as effects filters, but tools to adjust exposure or color.

Originally posted by hesitant:

Also, speaking of the use of layers, what is 'Photomatix' if not the merging of multiple layers all containing information...? A rose by any other name etc.

'Photomatix' can be used to tonemap from a single RAW file. If you use multiple layers (even from the same original), you WILL be disqualified 'in' 'Basic'.

glockguy

Canon EOS-7D

05/18/2010 02:57:10 PM · #8

So then, by extension, the tone mapping feature found 'in' CS5 would also be 'legal' 'in' 'Basic'??

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/18/2010 03:00:01 PM · #9

Originally posted by glockguy:

So then, by extension, the tone mapping feature found 'in' CS5 would also be 'legal' 'in' 'Basic'??

As long as no selections or data layers are used, sure.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/18/2010 03:17:04 PM · #10

It would be sooooo good if we could get to results-based 'Basic' at some point ;-)

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

05/18/2010 03:31:42 PM · #11

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hesitant:
I would think that to a newcomer this quote: "No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur." might make them think that no other effect filters would be 'legal'.

Many people don't regard 'Photomatix' or Topaz adjust as effects filters, but tools to adjust exposure or color.

Originally posted by hesitant:
Also, speaking of the use of layers, what is 'Photomatix' if not the merging of multiple layers all containing information...? A rose by any other name etc.

'Photomatix' can be used to tonemap from a single RAW file. If you use multiple layers (even from the same original), you WILL be disqualified 'in' 'Basic'.

The way I see it, to create a tone mapped image, even from a single raw file, you first have to produce copies at different exposure values [effectively these are layers] and then stack them 'in' 'Photomatix', which then blends them 'in' anything but 'normal' mode.

glad2badad

Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro M.Zuiko Digital ED

05/18/2010 03:35:48 PM · #12

Originally posted by hesitant:

Have you tried it? You CAN tone map an image from a SINGLE file - no doubt about it. :-)

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

05/18/2010 03:45:24 PM · #13

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by hesitant:
The way I see it, to create a tone mapped image, even from a single raw file, you first have to produce copies at different exposure values [effectively these are layers] and then stack them 'in' 'Photomatix', which then blends them 'in' anything but 'normal' mode.

Have you tried it? You CAN tone map an image from a SINGLE file - no doubt about it. :-)

Yes, I tried, (but maybe I need to update). I referred to the tutorial before posting the above.

Bear_Music

Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS

05/18/2010 03:49:32 PM · #14

Originally posted by hesitant:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by hesitant:
The way I see it, to create a tone mapped image, even from a single raw file, you first have to produce copies at different exposure values [effectively these are layers] and then stack them 'in' 'Photomatix', which then blends them 'in' anything but 'normal' mode.

Have you tried it? You CAN tone map an image from a SINGLE file - no doubt about it. :-)

Yes, I tried, (but maybe I need to update). I referred to the tutorial before posting the above.

You can take a RAW file, a TIFF file, or a JPG file and open it 'in' 'Photomatix'. You can then apply tone mapping to that file. You always have been able to do this 'in' 'Photomatix', and for a while it was the only simple way, really, to do certain things 'in' processing. Now, with Shadow/Highlight 'in' Photoshop, or plugins like Topaz, there are many other ways to accomplish this look.

Give it a try :-)

R.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

05/18/2010 04:01:35 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by hesitant:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by hesitant:
The way I see it, to create a tone mapped image, even from a single raw file, you first have to produce copies at different exposure values [effectively these are layers] and then stack them 'in' 'Photomatix', which then blends them 'in' anything but 'normal' mode.

Have you tried it? You CAN tone map an image from a SINGLE file - no doubt about it. :-)

Yes, I tried, (but maybe I need to update). I referred to the tutorial before posting the above.

You can take a RAW file, a TIFF file, or a JPG file and open it 'in' 'Photomatix'. You can then apply tone mapping to that file. You always have been able to do this 'in' 'Photomatix', and for a while it was the only simple way, really, to do certain things 'in' processing. Now, with Shadow/Highlight 'in' Photoshop, or plugins like Topaz, there are many other ways to accomplish this look.

Give it a try :-)

R.

You can also get the Photoshop plug-'in' for 'Photomatix' and apply it from the filter menu directly 'in' Photoshop.

nutzito

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/18/2010 04:14:04 PM · #16

Originally posted by scalvert:

You can still be disqualified for using any of them if layers, selections or other illegal methods are employed (Nik software is particularly dangerous), but we don't automatically DQ just because an "effects filter" was used since many of these tools can be used for non-effects purposes, too (exposure, color tone, B&W conversion, etc.).

Shannon. Would the Nikon NX2 "control point" tool be 'legal' 'in' 'basic' provided you select a radius that covers the whole image?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

05/18/2010 04:47:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

It would be sooooo good if we could get to results-based 'Basic' at some point ;-)

I agree. The ruleset is a joke. It says not to use effect filters but every tool can be used as an effect filter so the only way to properly validate would be to consider the end result and not the tools used. If you can tell 'photomatix' was used then it was used as an effect filter and should be DQed. Instead that's allowed and the end result is some of the most gaudy looking digital art creations ever conceived where halos are free to roam and tones shift more than Elvis' hips ever did. If that is what we want (i.e. digital art) then allow all effect filters and allow them to be properly applied 'in' the first place. If I suspect we don't want digital art under 'basic' editing then the only recourse is to move to a results-based system.

05/18/2010 04:47:56 PM · #18

Originally posted by nutzito:

Would the Nikon NX2 "control point" tool be 'legal' 'in' 'basic' provided you select a radius that covers the whole image?

I don't think so. Any sort of selection is not 'legal' 'in' 'Basic'. Control Points were specifically mentioned 'in' the other thread as DQable.

05/18/2010 04:49:52 PM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

It would be sooooo good if we could get to results-based 'Basic' at some point ;-)

Don't make me smack you. ;-P

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/18/2010 04:57:54 PM · #20

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by kirbic:
It would be sooooo good if we could get to results-based 'Basic' at some point ;-)

I agree. The ruleset is a joke. It says not to use effect filters but every tool can be used as an effect filter so the only way to properly validate would be to consider the end result and not the tools used. If you can tell 'photomatix' was used then it was used as an effect filter and should be DQed. Instead that's allowed and the end result is some of the most gaudy looking digital art creations ever conceived where halos are free to roam and tones shift more than Elvis' hips ever did. If that is what we want (i.e. digital art) then allow all effect filters and allow them to be properly applied 'in' the first place. If I suspect we don't want digital art under 'basic' editing then the only recourse is to move to a results-based system.

Thanks for adding weight to the point I was trying to make.

nutzito

Nikon D3s

05/18/2010 05:27:22 PM · #21

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nutzito:
Would the Nikon NX2 "control point" tool be 'legal' 'in' 'basic' provided you select a radius that covers the whole image?

I don't think so. Any sort of selection is not 'legal' 'in' 'Basic'. Control Points were specifically mentioned 'in' the other thread as DQable.

Thanks for the answer Shannon. Could you please clarify:
1. What other thread?
2. Yes the Control Points tool could be used and it's commonly used selectively, so it does affect to only part of the image. BUT the tool has a slider that provides control on how big is the radius of the part that contains the color to be adjusted. If you select a large enough radius to affect that particular color 'in' the whole image, then you should be within the 'basic' rules boundaries, don't you think? why not?

nutzito

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/18/2010 05:38:45 PM · #22

Originally posted by yanko:

....... If you can tell 'photomatix' was used then it was used as an effect filter and should be DQed. Instead that's allowed and the end result is some of the most gaudy looking digital art creations ever conceived where halos are free to roam and tones shift more than Elvis' hips ever did. If that is what we want (i.e. digital art) then allow all effect filters and allow them to be properly applied 'in' the first place. If I suspect we don't want digital art under 'basic' editing then the only recourse is to move to a results-based system.

Agreed 100%.

Message edited by author 2010-05-18 17:41:36.