| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2003 09:26:34 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think a simple single rule that says:
1. your photograph should contain no visible edits
|
I do like this idea, however I think rules based on this idea will have to be less focused on disqualification and more on functioning as guidelines, since the rules will have more room for subjective interpretation. I think we would primarily have to rely on voters voting down images that trend more towards digital art than photography.
In addition to that, we have to consider the fact that some images have "visible edits" that aren't really edits at all. Like these two shots from the matrix challenge:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=22043
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=21837
So would those shots be illegal under new rules? It would be a difficult task to distinguish between something like those and something clearly edited.
I don't think composite images would really be a problem, as an original image with exif could easily prove or disprove any accusation.
Anyway, really, I'm all for the change, but I think the enforcement will have to be the responsiblity of the voters more than of the admins.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 21:31:04. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:27:20 PM · #27 |
the rules look clear enough to me...really dont see any reason to change them
Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission.
Post-shot Adjustments may be made to your image in a photo editing program, so long as the modification is applied to the whole image. This includes levels, b&w conversion, hue/saturation, sizing/rotating, curves and cropping (or their non-Photoshop equivalents). The use of certain editing and adjustment tools is restricted or prohibited as outlined below.
Filters: The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian blur, the two of which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of the filter is prohibited.
Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/bluring tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
Text: No text may be added to your submission. This includes copyright statements.
Layers: Only adjustment layers may be used, and the layer must be applied in normal mode. All other types of layers and all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited. Layers may not be used to apply a prohibited effect to an image.
Borders: Your submission may include a border, but the border may not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork. text
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 21:29:49.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:50:41 PM · #28 |
To just say that the edits shouldn't be visible doesn't really cover it very well to me. That still allows for a user to do just about anything to their photos as long as it is convincing and that drastically changes the spirit of maintaining the photographic integrity of the original unaltered photo. I would not like to start down that path because then it truly could become an editing challenge. I would much rather see the rules stated something like this: "All editing tools are allowed so long as the original photographic integrity of all primary elements of the photo are maintained. No visual elements can be added and only non important elements can be removed. Examples are the removal of dust spots, bad pixels, or small unwanted debri that is distracting from the main elements in the photo. Remember this is about photography and not digital art. A photograph that appears too severely edited is strongly discouraged."
T
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:09:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by timj351:
To just say that the edits shouldn't be visible doesn't really cover it very well to me. That still allows for a user to do just about anything to their photos as long as it is convincing and that drastically changes the spirit of maintaining the photographic integrity of the original unaltered photo. I would not like to start down that path because then it truly could become an editing challenge. I would much rather see the rules stated something like this: "All editing tools are allowed so long as the original photographic integrity of all primary elements of the photo are maintained. No visual elements can be added and only non important elements can be removed. Examples are the removal of dust spots, bad pixels, or small unwanted debri that is distracting from the main elements in the photo. Remember this is about photography and not digital art. A photograph that appears too severely edited is strongly discouraged."
T |
I have to say that I would agree to something like this. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:28:58 PM · #30 |
HELP!! Quick, all you anti-change-no-spot-editing people post counterarguments! I am sliding off of the fence on the opposite from whence i began!
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:40:08 PM · #31 |
Not sure which thread this should go in, but some people asked for before/ after shots. Each of this is a link to a larger version:
Straight from the camera:
DPCLegal edits only
Open editing, the way I understand it [ many changes that are not dpclegal]
and a second example
Straight from the camera:
DPCLegal:
Final version [ even more none dpclegal changes]
I'm all for people saying these could be done better - that's the point, I want to learn how to make my pictures the best they can be. It would be nice to do that while enjoying the challenge environment I've enjoyed up until now at dpc too. There aren't many places like this on the web, even though I keep hearing that there are - without any pointers to these other vibrant, friendly communities.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 22:47:23. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:42:56 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
[quote=jmsetzler]
6. Not everyone can afford photoshop
7. Beginners would not get a good learning experience
I'd have to have to agreee with these reasons for not changing the rules to some extent...
I have a trial version of photoshop and after using PSP for so long I find photoshop extermely slow and won't spend the money for it...PSP does almost the same things, however tutorials created here on how to do things with Photoshop are worthless to me.
|
You do realise you totally missed John's point about photoshop didn't you ? He was saying that there are plenty of free and equivalently powerful tools available.
The majority of the additional features in photoshop relate to professional printing requirements, which are not the sort of things we are dealing with here. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:54:17 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
[quote=jmsetzler]
6. Not everyone can afford photoshop
7. Beginners would not get a good learning experience
I'd have to have to agreee with these reasons for not changing the rules to some extent...
I have a trial version of photoshop and after using PSP for so long I find photoshop extermely slow and won't spend the money for it...PSP does almost the same things, however tutorials created here on how to do things with Photoshop are worthless to me.
|
You do realise you totally missed John's point about photoshop didn't you ? He was saying that there are plenty of free and equivalently powerful tools available.
The majority of the additional features in photoshop relate to professional printing requirements, which are not the sort of things we are dealing with here. |
I didn't miss John's point I was adding another point. The tutorials are here to learn from and those who use Photoshop would have an advantage over those who use other programs. So if I didn't know how to do sepia tones with PSP would the tutorial showing me how to do it with Photoshop do me any good? NOPE! I was adding the fact that if you don't have photoshop how can you learn from the tutorials that are here. It's another advantage to editing if you are using Photoshop you have a lot of support around here learning how to us it, if you are using some other program you are completely out there on your own. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:54:43 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by karmat:
HELP!! Quick, all you anti-change-no-spot-editing people post counterarguments! I am sliding off of the fence on the opposite from whence i began! |
reread my post at the top....the rules here at DPC allow for PLENTY of editing and image manipulation, no need to go any further more more allowable modifications to the images....also it may help for some to go to the rules of the challenge and read them again....
but part of the editing I don't like is for example in the green challenge this image Stop sign was edited with perfectly legal methods...how ever the challenge was to PHOTOGRAPH some thing green, not another color and EDIT it green....I did not score this image with a high mark because it did not fit the challenge im my eyes
I could go for more allowable edits if cash prizes were at stake, but since at DPC all you get is a warm fuzzy for doing good and bragging rights for a week, whats the point of doing invisible or undetected edits???
James
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 22:55:53.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:57:16 PM · #35 |
I have not read all of the posts in this threads but I think that I'm on John's side...
Things that don't change die.
v. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:59:51 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
[quote=jmsetzler]
6. Not everyone can afford photoshop
7. Beginners would not get a good learning experience
I'd have to have to agreee with these reasons for not changing the rules to some extent...
I have a trial version of photoshop and after using PSP for so long I find photoshop extermely slow and won't spend the money for it...PSP does almost the same things, however tutorials created here on how to do things with Photoshop are worthless to me.
|
You do realise you totally missed John's point about photoshop didn't you ? He was saying that there are plenty of free and equivalently powerful tools available.
The majority of the additional features in photoshop relate to professional printing requirements, which are not the sort of things we are dealing with here. |
I didn't miss John's point I was adding another point. The tutorials are here to learn from and those who use Photoshop would have an advantage over those who use other programs. So if I didn't know how to do sepia tones with PSP would the tutorial showing me how to do it with Photoshop do me any good? NOPE! I was adding the fact that if you don't have photoshop how can you learn from the tutorials that are here. It's another advantage to editing if you are using Photoshop you have a lot of support around here learning how to us it, if you are using some other program you are completely out there on your own. |
I'd disagree - the techniques are the same, its just the particular things you click on that change. Half an hour with the manual/ help pages is more than enough to learn how to replicate a technique in any tool. Editing skills aren't photoshop specific, in much the same way that the majority of word processing skills aren't MS Office Word 97 specific. Most of the forum posts recently seem to relate to doing things in PSP - any of which I've been able to replicate without a lot of difficulty using photoshop and similarly I've been able to replicate the majority of editing I use in photoshop using the gimp in linux. It might require some thought but they all provide pretty much the same set of features. (for the sorts of editing we are considering here)
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 23:01:33. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:00:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by jab119:
I could go for more allowable edits if cash prizes were at stake, but since at DPC all you get is a warm fuzzy for doing good and bragging rights for a week, whats the point of doing invisible or undetected edits???
James |
To get better ? To produce better final results ? To improve as a photographer ? |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:05:35 PM · #38 |
A note about PSP. I use it and I have found that even tutorials that use Photoshop examples can point me in the right direction. They may not be exact, but generally I can find it. The biggest difference I have seen is the aspect ratio thingy, but I have found a workaround for that (thoughbeit a long one), adn the "names" of the different functions, though I can't think of any off hte top of my head.
Granted, I am not a PSP guru, and I know diddlysquat about PS, so your mileage may vary with this one.
thanks for the reminder, jab, but it only helped me slide back a little. Still leaning. Others??
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:09:04 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I didn't miss John's point I was adding another point. The tutorials are here to learn from and those who use Photoshop would have an advantage over those who use other programs. So if I didn't know how to do sepia tones with PSP would the tutorial showing me how to do it with Photoshop do me any good? NOPE! I was adding the fact that if you don't have photoshop how can you learn from the tutorials that are here. It's another advantage to editing if you are using Photoshop you have a lot of support around here learning how to us it, if you are using some other program you are completely out there on your own. |
Uh oh! Clearly there is something about PSP which impairs people's ability to write tutorials.
As both an IT and medical professional, I suggest you all stop using PSP immediately until the cause of this bizarre syndrome -- perhaps the first computer/human cross-species virus? -- is isolated and identified. We can apply for research grants from both NIH and NEA, and maybe DOE since computers, the internet, and national security may be at stake. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:10:36 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by jab119:
. . . whats the point of doing invisible or undetected edits???
James |
because there are sometimes unavoidable elements in a photo that could be removed or otherwise edited to make a scene, or person, or whatever more photographically pleasing.
the motion here is not to rearrange items to make the composition better (or worse for that matter), or to completely change a scene. It is instead intended to have more liberty to enhance what is already there. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:13:53 PM · #41 |
For those suffering from lack of PSP tutorials/ photo editing support in paint shop pro, might I suggest this page
JASC Software PSP Photoediting tutorials
There are 61 tutorials, all for PSP, all for photographic editing. I'm not saying they are all dpclegal but they certainly cover the majority of the basic, intermediate and advanced stuff you'll see around here.
There are another 3000 PSP tutorials here.
Edit: I'm sorry - that's 4,000 PSP tutorials, I apologise for my mistake.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 23:15:01. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:15:34 PM · #42 |
OMG, these 2 threads are HOT HOT HOT! I can't keep up with them! I basically agree with John also on his push to change things, after reading about 2/3 of the posts....
But I think the change (if it occurs) should take place by not completely changing the rules, but instead use the existing rules, and add ONE new rule to the EXISTING rules:
New Rule: "You may use the "Clone Tool" to fix small inperfections in your photograph, as long as those edits do not add or remove SUBJECT material from the photo."
That means, you can't clone in another person (which is "subject material") into your photo. In addition, you can't clone a person OUT of your photo either. Maybe someone can word this new rule better to make the "thin line" a little clearer.
I think this is the answer. Who agrees!!
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:19:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I didn't miss John's point I was adding another point. The tutorials are here to learn from and those who use Photoshop would have an advantage over those who use other programs. So if I didn't know how to do sepia tones with PSP would the tutorial showing me how to do it with Photoshop do me any good? NOPE! I was adding the fact that if you don't have photoshop how can you learn from the tutorials that are here. It's another advantage to editing if you are using Photoshop you have a lot of support around here learning how to us it, if you are using some other program you are completely out there on your own. |
Uh oh! Clearly there is something about PSP which impairs people's ability to write tutorials.
As both an IT and medical professional, I suggest you all stop using PSP immediately until the cause of this bizarre syndrome -- perhaps the first computer/human cross-species virus? -- is isolated and identified. We can apply for research grants from both NIH and NEA, and maybe DOE since computers, the internet, and national security may be at stake. |
Hahaha I have written a few tutorials on PSP for graphics use but to date there are very few tutorials out there to learn from on photo enhancement. I could write one for creating sepia tones in psp but why spend the time when doing sepia tones in psp is as simple as saying set the coloration to hue 18 saturation 21 once doing that you will adjust your brightness and contrast to make it eye appealing.
But there are a lot of things shown how to do in Photoshop that I have went out and searched for tutorials in PSP and they just aren't there. PSP seems to have 2 million tutorials on how to create tubes and add them to your image but maybe 2 tutorials on photo correction and enhancement, and those 2 tutorials are locked away on some website that you have to have the 25 diget password to access. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:23:28 PM · #44 |
I've visited that site before and it is designed for use with PSP 8.0 which is very slow and still only in beta testing...I'm patiently waiting for the final version..I've tried 8.0 and it is fantastic other than being SLOW! However till the finalize version comes out most are stuck with PSP 7 and those tutorials are worthless with PSP 7. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:27:10 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jab119:
I could go for more allowable edits if cash prizes were at stake, but since at DPC all you get is a warm fuzzy for doing good and bragging rights for a week, whats the point of doing invisible or undetected edits???
James |
To get better ? To produce better final results ? To improve as a photographer ? |
How does editing an image make me improve my photography skills?
Sure I can put the camera on full auto mode and shoot in RAW mode then just edit it until the image looks better for better final results, but that only make me better at image manipulation not a better photographer.
I still say the current rules on image editing are just fine and there is a lot you can do with those rules...
James
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:28:22 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I've visited that site before and it is designed for use with PSP 8.0 which is very slow and still only in beta testing...I'm patiently waiting for the final version..I've tried 8.0 and it is fantastic other than being SLOW! However till the finalize version comes out most are stuck with PSP 7 and those tutorials are worthless with PSP 7. |
Wow, so they've entirely changed everything so nothing works the same ? That's going to be tough on upgrading users I guess.
How about all of these PSP7 tutorials I linked to ? There seemed to be a few hundred relevant ones for image adjustment/ editing in PSP 7 too.
in particular these image adjustment ones or at the top of the page these general and introductory tutorials. The few I clicked on all seem there and free.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 23:35:07. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:30:51 PM · #47 |
I want to follow up on my suggestion....
The new rule I propose won't dramatically effect the appeal of a submission unless the person abuses the rule. And if they do, a lot of users will be able to tell. Example: two trees instead of one, it's going to be easy to tell they were cloned. And, anything that's harder to tell, just by looking at the picture, will not dramatically effect the appeal of it....
...But what the new rule DOES do is "empower" the user a little more, by giving them the ability and freedom to add the "finishing touches" to their submission. This is important I think. It's satisfying to be able to give your photo that finishing touch and a lot of users would like to be able to do this.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:35:58 PM · #48 |
A paragraph from The Negative by Ansel Adams:
"It is impossible for a photographic print to duplicate the range of brightnesses (luminances) of most subjects, and thus photographs are to some degree interpretations of the original subject values. Much of the creativity of photography lies in the infinite range of choices open to the photographer between attempting a nearly literal representation of the subject and freely interpreting it in a highly subjective 'departures from reality.' My work, for example, is frequently regarded as 'realistic,' while in fact the value relationships within most of my photographs are far from a literal transcription of actuality. I employ numerous photographic controls to create an image that represents 'the equivalent of what I saw and felt...' If I succeed, the viewer accepts the image as its own fact, and responds emotionally and aesthetically to it."
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:38:46 PM · #49 |
ok now .. i've skimmed through and here's my quick two cents ... what ever the change is .. if any to the rules ... a photo straight out of the camera with slight enhancements to the whole image would still be legal .. and if you are happy with the rules now .. why bother even argueing ... just continue to do what you are doing .. all it may do then is just make you work even a little bit harder to compete for the 1st place spot if you know that others who want to have a little more post processing to achieve a higher mark are working on the same challenge as you are ... it's not like people are saying "YOU HAVE TO" use a photo editing program ... they are just suggesting an idea that maybe there should be some challenges where you have more flexibility to do so "IF YOU WANT" :)
ok .. i'm done ... :) .. thanks for reading
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:39:27 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by greenem2:
A paragraph from The Negative by Ansel Adams:
"It is impossible for a photographic print to duplicate the range of brightnesses (luminances) of most subjects, and thus photographs are to some degree interpretations of the original subject values. ... If I succeed, the viewer accepts the image as its own fact, and responds emotionally and aesthetically to it." |
I'll never be as good as Ansel with his B&W landscapes - but wouldn't you like to try ? |
|
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: 06/21/2025 09:10:11 PM EDT.
