| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2002 02:07:05 PM · #1 |
| Before I submit for this texture challenge, I need to find out if Photoshop's Gradient Map is legal. It remaps the colors in a photo, but it does it in a global way like changing a color picture to B/W by using Channel Mixer or Selective Color. Just thought I'd check so that when people start screaming at me I can scream back:) |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 03:29:24 PM · #2 |
| You should probably email drew. |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 03:37:22 PM · #3 |
I don't know the answer to this either... but, if it's a global change to the photo, I would assume that it's ok.
I would think that this particular edit would be legal since it is ok to adjust hue and saturation on specific color channels.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 10:36:05 AM · #4 |
| I really think that the rules should be changed to allow any modifications in Photoshop that would normally be allowed in a dark room. |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 10:52:44 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by chariot:
I really think that the rules should be changed to allow any modifications in Photoshop that would normally be allowed in a dark room.
Do you mean burning and dodging also? |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:08:22 AM · #6 |
The hard part is in deciding what is normally allowed in a darkroom. All of the transform commands? You can do the same thing in the darkroom by printing on tilted paper. Airbrush, or paint tools? Those are used for spot touching both negatives and prints? Cropping one photo into another? Done all the time to give one photo with a boring sky a more interesting one.
Beyond that, many people on here don't have more than a basic image editing program. So if they can't transform, and I can, is it just too bad for them?
As I said in another thread, I think we already have too much freedom in Photoshop and its equivalents. I think it's great we can adjust hue/saturation levels, if for no other reason than to give us access to "toning", but I think when we start adjusting individual channels we're taking it too far. Actually, in my mind, that isn't even making changes to the entire photo -- it's tweaking 1/3 of it (if we're talking RGB). Ahhh -- people are getting tired of reading me. Break from the forums time. |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:17:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Patella:
The hard part is in deciding what is normally allowed in a darkroom. All of the transform commands? You can do the same thing in the darkroom by printing on tilted paper. Airbrush, or paint tools? Those are used for spot touching both negatives and prints? Cropping one photo into another? Done all the time to give one photo with a boring sky a more interesting one.
Beyond that, many people on here don''t have more than a basic image editing program. So if they can''t transform, and I can, is it just too bad for them?
As I said in another thread, I think we already have too much freedom in Photoshop and its equivalents. I think it''s great we can adjust hue/saturation levels, if for no other reason than to give us access to "toning", but I think when we start adjusting individual channels we''re taking it too far. Actually, in my mind, that isn''t even making changes to the entire photo -- it''s tweaking 1/3 of it (if we''re talking RGB). Ahhh -- people are getting tired of reading me. Break from the forums time.
Your right--Photoshop gives us more freedom to manipulate and we use it so often we don''t think about it.The rules as they are should stand,only global changes should be allowed. My 2cents.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/22/2002 11:17:58 AM. |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:17:55 AM · #8 |
| I think you make a lot of sense. (patella) |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:38:16 AM · #9 |
| Make a lot of sense because I said people are getting tired of reading what I have to say? ;-) |
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:44:25 AM · #10 |
I think the limits are currently just right. We have enough freedom to ruin a perfectly good photo as it is :)
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:50:21 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think the limits are currently just right. We have enough freedom to ruin a perfectly good photo as it is :)
And what the hell would you know about ruining a photo, Mr. Anthing-Below-A-6-Is-A-Bad-Score? ;-)
-Terry
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/22/2002 11:50:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:52:52 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]I think the limits are currently just right. We have enough freedom to ruin a perfectly good photo as it is :)
And what the hell would you know about ruining a photo, Mr. Anthing-Below-A-6-Is-A-Bad-Score? ;-)
-Terry[/i]
I just have goals of my own :) I never said anything below 6 is bad. I just like to keep my own scores above 6 :)
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 11:53:16 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by sheyingshi88:
Before I submit for this texture challenge, I need to find out if Photoshop's Gradient Map is legal. It remaps the colors in a photo, but it does it in a global way like changing a color picture to B/W by using Channel Mixer or Selective Color. Just thought I'd check so that when people start screaming at me I can scream back:)
Well, this is a real Pandora's Box of possibilities isn't it? I personally don't have a problem with the use of gradient map, but it does cross over into the "artsy" manipulation arena. However, since it's my understanding this is supposed to be a "straight" photo challenge, I likely won't score "as high" for such images. The better scores will be given to photos that are truer to the original. If that seems to be a contridiction, consider the method I have adopted to grade photos in this challenge (it was modified from another participants method). It's quite simple.
Two scores: One for "Aesthetics" and another for "Meets Challenge," are averaged into an Overall score. Any photo, no matter how "artsy" or far off the challenge, can score well with "Aesthetics." But, if it doesn't match "my idea" of what "Meets Challenge" means, then the Overall score would be lower. "Aesthetics" wraps up whether or not the photo "does it" for me in some way. It does not detract from ailing technical elements per se, unless it just doesn't work for me. Basically, do I like it? Meets Challenge sums up the whole of what I feel the challenge to mean. How well does the photo meet the current challenge? Is it a "straight" image or has it been manipulated in such a manner that it no longer looks so much like a "regular" photo?
But thats just me.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2002 12:02:46 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Patella:
Make a lot of sense because I said people are getting tired of reading what I have to say? ;-)
YOU know what I mean!!!! lol ;-) |
|
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: 08/27/2025 03:52:32 PM EDT.
