| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2003 11:42:05 PM · #51 |
My two cents worth,
Why limit digital darkroom editing at all? If the final image is too outlandish the community will vote it down anyway. Using selection tools, various layer operations, dodging, burning, etc. should be considered skills all digital photographers should possess. I have found since I started here at DPC the more skillful I become with my digital darkroom techniques (legal techniques) the better photographs I produce. Since I spend considerable time trying to create competitive images it seems quite limiting and frustrating at times not being able to exercise all the tools available to me. The "seeing" or composition of a photograph is important to begin with but the digital darkroom takes it to the next level. It is an oxymoron to me to try to enforce any post processing editing rules when the DPC community decides what images they like and what images they don't like regardless of how it was created. To DQ a good image because good but DPC illegal darkroom techniques were used seems to be counterproductive to us becoming better photographers.
I'll get off of my soapbox now.
Bob
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:42:42 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by qachyk:
There's a phrase in writing critiques: Show, don't tell. That's all I'm asking for here. Someone. Anyone. Restating again what you're talking about doesn't help, because it HASN'T YET. I'm asking for visual clarification on what type of thing you're talking about. |
DPC Legal Version
Finished Version |
Thank you.
I could live with this level of spot editing. There are minor imperfections that sometimes real-world circumstances don't allow for changes, and the finished product is only noticeably different to a stop-and-compare. This is what I hoped you were after, but I needed a visual to be sure.
I am leary of allowing for things like the eliding of power lines or jet trails, but I would put up with it if done well; there have been enough times when something like that is the ONLY flaw in a picture, and there would be no way to get the photo real-world without it.
Beyond that I'd be against it if I were aware of it. A sufficiently talented photo editor would be able to alter an image substantially further without my being aware of it, unfortunately, which is why I'm leary at all
about the proposal. I did kind of like the idea of a 'before' thumbnail but I suppose that's more overhead than people want to deal with.
So, I'm tentatively in favor of at least trying it. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:44:05 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by GordonWow, 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.
[url=//www.putertutor.net/paint/general7.htm#image:
in particular these image adjustment ones[/url] or at the top of the page these general and introductory tutorials. The few I clicked on all seem there and free. |
I haven't had the chance to check out those yet...there is little editing ablity on PSP 7, it was the first version of PSP to actually have photo enhancing tools included, and when 8.0 came out in beta I tired it and love it just got to wait for the finalized version to come out now, but it has a whole selection of photo enhancing tools including a one step photo fix that corrects everything imaginable like white balance, saturation, brightness, sharpness, its wonderful what it does...now I am starting to sound like an ad for PSP. But to this day I haven't found a tutorial that shows how to desaturate certain colors, best I have found is doing it via spot editing, |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:44:54 PM · #54 |
Errmmm., I haven't tried PSP8, but my understanding was that though there were some minor difference, it wasn't earthshattering.
My point is -- even though most stuff here is for PS, with a little ingenuity and common sense, it can be applied in PSP7, I think.
I don't know if this is what you mean by desaturating certain colors, but  this shot was done with PSP7.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 23:48:58.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:50:35 PM · #55 |
edited to try and quit repeating myself.
:0
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 23:52:43.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:51:44 PM · #56 |
UGh, sorry about that link.
THIS SHOT
Not exactly a stellar model for composition or technique, but it does show desaturation.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:52:26 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Errmmm., I haven't tried PSP8, but my understanding was that though there were some minor difference, it wasn't earthshattering.
My point is -- even though most stuff here is for PS, with a little ingenuity and common sense, it can be applied in PSP7, I think. |
PSP 8 has a lot of photo editing tools that PSP 7 didn't have.
As for a little ingenuity, I got a trail version of PS so I could try and figure out some of the difference and truthfully PSP 8 when it is finished will be almost identical to PS 7 with the differences being names of the functions and about $400 in price, that is going with the price that Staples has the two programs listed for here locally. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 12:15:20 AM · #58 |
So, back to the original topic.
Are there any comments, negative or positive, to this issue? Are there any comments on the examples that were called for which Gordon responded to? |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 12:20:37 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by karmat:
UGh, sorry about that link.
THIS SHOT
Not exactly a stellar model for composition or technique, but it does show desaturation. |
Yeah that was what I was talking about I have played a little but have never had any sucess with it. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 12:25:47 AM · #60 |
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 ? |
** exactly, gordon.
[quote]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 [/quote]
this is the perfect response to another point i mentioned earlier--the fate of our pictures are already in the hands of the voters--within the current rule guidelines. allowing an evolved editing format will not change that at all, so i'm not sure what the big deal is. the pro-editing people do NOT want digital art. we want the knowledge and the experience that comes with learning every aspect of your trade or hobby. i merely see a broader editing range as the natural evolution for us.
Message edited by author 2003-06-05 00:28:03. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 12:34:02 AM · #61 |
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 |
The same point of anything you do and want to do well...to make your shot the best it can be.
I said this in the other thread and I'll say it here...I can't tell you how many great shots I've taken that I could never have used here on DPC because I later had to go in and edit out a tiny white spot (from the black curtain I used to use as a backdrop that has cat claw holes in it), or I saw an unfortunate cat hair too far into the shot to crop out.
Folks who take pics with film and take that film to a processor or can process it themselves will "edit" out of the negative these types of problems without changing either the integrity of the photo or impugning the skill of the photographer. Let's face it...I have four cats and a dog (and sometimes watch a friend's dog for long periods)...there is going to be fur in some of my pics...why shouldn't I be able to use a dropper to pick up color and a brush to cover the hair?
Shari
Message edited by author 2003-06-05 00:48:19.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 01:07:50 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
PSP 8 has a lot of photo editing tools that PSP 7 didn't have.
As for a little ingenuity, I got a trail version of PS so I could try and figure out some of the difference and truthfully PSP 8 when it is finished will be almost identical to PS 7 with the differences being names of the functions and about $400 in price, that is going with the price that Staples has the two programs listed for here locally. |
So I guess I'm confused again. Earlier I thought you were saying it was unfair that people used photoshop because there were more tutorials and it had more features. Now you are saying that basically PSP does everything and more than you could want and is basically identical ? Other than the beta being a bit slow, whats the issue ?
I used PSP 5 and 6 many years ago and it had more photo editing features than I normally use in photoshop - I don't see the issue. The same with all the free equivalent packages. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 01:11:10 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by jab119:
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 think if you believe that is true, that you are mistaken.
Photographic skills are those that you use to produce the best possible final image or print. This isn't some arbitrary idea I've just come up with on my own, but is based on the entire history of fine art photography. It doesn't stop when you click the shutter. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 01:18:40 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by RLS:
My two cents worth,
Why limit digital darkroom editing at all? If the final image is too outlandish the community will vote it down anyway. Using selection tools, various layer operations, dodging, burning, etc. should be considered skills all digital photographers should possess. I have found since I started here at DPC the more skillful I become with my digital darkroom techniques (legal techniques) the better photographs I produce. Since I spend considerable time trying to create competitive images it seems quite limiting and frustrating at times not being able to exercise all the tools available to me. The "seeing" or composition of a photograph is important to begin with but the digital darkroom takes it to the next level. It is an oxymoron to me to try to enforce any post processing editing rules when the DPC community decides what images they like and what images they don't like regardless of how it was created. To DQ a good image because good but DPC illegal darkroom techniques were used seems to be counterproductive to us becoming better photographers.
I'll get off of my soapbox now.
Bob |
What does anyone else think about this?
Bob
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 01:39:31 AM · #65 |
For the record, I've got a couple pennies' worth to throw in.
I don't personally *care* what the rules are. I will follow them, whatever they are. If they are prohibiting spot editing, then I'll work harder to shoot "clean" in the first place. If they allow spot editing, then I'll do touch-ups and learn when cloning goes too far.
Throw it at me, and I'll do my best. But WHAT y'all throw at me is up to you. What I do with it is up to me. The end, goodnight. :) |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 01:55:41 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by carolee:
For the record, I've got a couple pennies' worth to throw in.
I don't personally *care* what the rules are. I will follow them, whatever they are. If they are prohibiting spot editing, then I'll work harder to shoot "clean" in the first place. If they allow spot editing, then I'll do touch-ups and learn when cloning goes too far.
Throw it at me, and I'll do my best. But WHAT y'all throw at me is up to you. What I do with it is up to me. The end, goodnight. :) |
Well said.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 02:26:27 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I learned to play chess by getting beat constantly. I didn't learn by playing with people on my own level. |
When you learned how to play chess you didn't have to compete with somebody using a $2000 chess set capable of predicting the next ten moves you were going to make, while you were stuck using old carved wooden pieces.
The free software available out there cannot compete with photoshop. If it could, it wouldn't be free. I use a software package which cost me $100, and that can't even compete with photoshop when doing the DPC legal stuff. My camera is limited in what it can do compared to some of the others here, but I do my best to keep up. If I was to be dealt another handicap, by not being able to afford photoshop, I think I would leave rather than staying and getting creamed each week.
I am all for allowing very limited spot editing to remove small, unwanted elements in a photo, but I don't see how you'd be able to keep control.
Edit
Ok, after posting I thought of something. All of us are here to have fun, right? Some of us are more serious than others. In general the more serious DPC'ers fork out thousands for expensive cameras and software, and become members. If only the rules of the member's challenge were relaxed, members would still be able to choose whether they wanted to submit to the member's challenges (with spot editing) or the open challenges (without spot editing).
This way nobody is held back, those of us who are very serious have the opportunity to grow. For the rest of us, who do this for fun, it's business as usual. This could also encourage more people to become members once they felt they were ready to move on to bigger, better things.
Message edited by author 2003-06-05 02:53:58.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 05:23:55 AM · #68 |
I just thought I would show These photos as another example of what I would like to be able to do. This is a little more extreme than I normally do on my own but I think it still illustrates our point. I wanted to take this particular view of this ship because of the foreground and background elements as well as the better lighting. As I viewed it today I thought that it could have made an interesting entry into the Primary Colors challenge, well, except for that nasty shadow, which may have been enough to prevent me from submitting it. What do you think? The shadow definitely is not a main element and it is distracting.
T
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 05:54:20 AM · #69 |
After 4 ****ing hours of reading, I'm caught up! (Don't know if that's good or bad, since I've probably forgotten 90% of the comments I thought of along the way...) Like Karmat, I started out in the against changes camp, but I'm now a fence-sitter. So I guess the easiest thing to do at this point is go back to the start of this thread and try to pick back up on John's redirection:
1. Rules are vague and subjective
I don't know if you intentionally left out "the" at the beginning, but I assume you don't mean rules in general. On that assumption, yes I think this is probably the biggest issue. Maybe the most productive thing for you to try at this point, John, would be to maybe rewrite your original 3 rules in a way you think might fix this. I think Tim made a real good attempt at this, though it still has some subjective elements, primarily "only non important elements can be removed" - who decides what's non-important? I don't know what the rules would be that would satisfy everyone, but I do think they'll have to either be wide open (which is trouble for reasons I'll try to get to), or very specifically defined.
2. Afraid it turns into composite images (even though this was against the rule proposal)
I don't recall that this was really raised, just assumed at some point...
3. It would keep people from learning to use their cameras to the fullest extent
Hmmm... Maybe, maybe not. I could argue (and maybe hurt a lot of feelings) that there are folks who've been participating here a long time who still haven't learned to use their cameras well, so I think anyone who really wants to get better, will explore all aspects of the process. My fear would be that newcomers with "mad" photoshop skills would potentially dominate the challenges based on those skills instead of photographic skills. But there's no way to support or refute that possibility.
4. Too much editing takes away from the photo
I didn't really notice too much of this arguement, maybe I lost something in the translation...
5. Don̢۪t want it to become a digital art/manipulation contest
Nobody does - we're all agreed on that. The question is, when does it cross the line between digital darkroom and manipulation? It's the classic pornography dilema: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." More in a moment...
6. Not everyone can afford photoshop
Irrelevent. Sorry OneSweetSin, but whether their as good, whether you can learn them, alternatives are still out there....
7. Beginners would not get a good learning experience
Everyone gets the learning experience they want.
8. Don̢۪t wanna spend time to learn the techniques
For me personally, I don't *have* the time to learn, though I definitely want to. Arguably, this rule change would prompt me to learn to do things I've wanted to do before.... Again, everyone learns what they want.
So there are some thoughts on the list. So for my money, the only two really significant issues on that list are aspects of 1 and 6. So here are my top concerns with the change:
1. Finding an agreeable list of allowable edits will be difficult; if a limited list is adopted, they'll need to be very specific.
2. If an intentionally open, vague or ambiguous rule or rules are adopted, and especially if there are just enough specific to even imply a limitation, war will break out in the forums unlike anything we've seen so far over simple interpretations of the descriptions.
3. In either case, policing will become a nightmare for the council, or whoever it is that's responsible for that.
... I think there may be more, but I'm tired, and I forget....
So, now here are some questions that are on topic, but not related to this list:
I think I interpret from the pro-change side that a primary basis for allowing spot editing is that it allows for enhancements/processes/manipulations that have been traditionally used by film photographers for years. I have very little experience with film developing, and what I do have is really dated. So I ask this in relative ignorance: Can the kind of cleanup that John suggested really be done to the extent it can digitally in the film world? Specifically, the four examples John listed - could you really remove a jet contrail? Or, from the original thread in the results forum that led to this whole proposal: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=18242. Could you really remove that peice of trash with traditional darkroom techniques, and (I think this is relevent) to the same degree you could with cloning or other digital techniques? If not then (just for the sake of arguement) why should it be allowed here?
Ah, crap, I forget the other question! Oh well, maybe that's just as well. Going to be. I'm sure I'll have lots of reading to catch up on tomorrow!
Message edited by author 2003-06-05 05:58:05. |
|
|
|
06/05/2003 06:41:48 AM · #70 |
I had something I wanted to say but after reading all this thread I've forgotten what it was.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 06:43:26 AM · #71 |
Oh I remember... I'd like the possible new rules to cover the fixing of barrel distortion, not only the removal of hot pixels etc. I think its very important that straight lines actually look straight in a photo, as they do in real life.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 06:53:31 AM · #72 |
I know it was done before, and has been discussed somewhere before too, but since these threads seem to pop up from time to time and never lead to anything, why not have a new opinion poll where everybody can cast their vote on the issue.
If memory serves me right, the last poll held on this matter, decided with no small margin, in favour of not changing the rules. Why not re-do the poll now that everybody has both had time to think about it, and have heard both sides of the argument.
I say strike now while the iron is hot. We've all heard the arguments, let's do what we do best. Let's vote!
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 07:36:56 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
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. |
Here are 7 pages that deal with just photo retouching in PSP. Hope this helps. PSP Photo Tips
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 07:38:54 AM · #74 |
1. Don't like the proposal because it encourages laziness while photographing - the 'fix it later' mentality.
2. I don't have a good reason for that being a bad thing - it just grates for me.
3. Of course 'darkroom' skills are a valid part of photography. I don't get the link to 'we used to do that all the time with film' argument. So what? There is no film ...
4. I think i'd come down on the side of allowing dodge, burn, clone stamp and minor flaw corrections. We're already allowed to use certain filters and not others, anyhow. Neatimage for example.
5. Don't go with the 'we'll get really awful processed images' argument: we get enough really awful photographs anyway, what would a few more bits of wierdness detract?
6. There's an argument that says 'just go ahead and do it' - which can be partly justified on these lines: if you do it well enough, no-one's going to request a DQ for your image. If you can't do it well enough, they will. So there's a limiting factor there. Trouble with this is there are too amny honest people here :-) LOL
7. Availability of image editing software that's good enough: PSP5 is readily given away with magazine cover CD's over here, and will be more so when PSP8 is released - it has enough features for most spot-editing tasks. PSP itself is no more expensive than most other software, and pales by comparison with 95% of the cameras in use here - and no amount of software is going to fix the problems with the really cheap cameras anyway. I'm sure there are others, and indeed Elements 2 is also cheap, I just haven't needed to look anywhere else.
8. Er, that's it, for now.
Ed
|
|
|
|
06/05/2003 07:58:24 AM · #75 |
| Based on these threads, I doubt there is enough support for the idea to warrant a new poll. There aren't many people willing to try new things... |
|
