DQ'd but not fair... - DPChallenge Forums

11/21/2005 11:28:00 AM · #52

I would only worry about recording exact steps if you are doing something which is "advanced" for basic editing. If there is an effect in your picture which others may not know about, then you need to be detailed.

I've validated pictures with a simple, "the usual adjustment layers". I felt this was fine because there wouldn't be any "suspicious" spots on my pic. But if you somehow found a way to come up with an effect like here then I'd for sure be detailed.

11/21/2005 11:29:59 AM · #53

Originally posted by deapee:

...it doesn't say "If you do not have the exact editing steps, you will be disqualified". Maybe that section in the rules can be re-written then, because obviously he didn't understand.

We DON'T require exact editing steps. What we do require is enough information to make the end result reasonably achievable from your original. If you say you used Levels to lighten the image and it looks pretty close when we try it, then that's fine. If there's a huge dust spot in your original background that disappears on a Basic Editing challenge entry, then that's probably going to result in a DQ unless you can provide some specific insight into how you achieved such magic legally.

patrinus

Canon EOS-30D

11/21/2005 11:36:17 AM · #54

Well I can think of something that might save this one... if this was a RAW shot, perhaps he did use some Vigneting (wich is allowed on Basic Editing) thus the darker side to the right...

I hope Im not saving an image that will defeat mine hehe ;)

11/21/2005 11:43:04 AM · #55

Originally posted by patrinus:

I hope Im not saving an image that will defeat mine hehe ;)

I think you're safe. The original was a JPEG. ;-)

patrinus

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/21/2005 11:50:14 AM · #56

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think you're safe. The original was a JPEG. ;-)

wheeeewwww!!!! ;-) I can rest now... only a day till it's all over... pleeaasseeee my ribbooonnnnnn haha ;-)

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/21/2005 11:55:43 AM · #57

Originally posted by patrinus:

...use some Vigneting (wich is allowed on Basic Editing) thus the darker side to the right...

That's legal in basic?! A special filter effect in Photoshop I take it?

hollisterGq

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/21/2005 12:17:15 PM · #58

o well.. guess I'll just move on to the next challenge... any ideas for odd???

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/21/2005 12:21:41 PM · #59

so did you dodge and burn or do any spot editing then?

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

11/21/2005 12:21:53 PM · #60

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by patrinus:
...use some Vigneting (wich is allowed on Basic Editing) thus the darker side to the right...

That's legal in basic?! A special filter effect in Photoshop I take it?

As far as I know, Vigneting is not allowed in basic editing.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/21/2005 12:23:41 PM · #61

I think he was referring to a function of certain RAW editors that would normally be used to correct vignetting or other lens distortions. I'm pretty sure those would be legal.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/21/2005 12:28:13 PM · #62

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think he was referring to a function of certain RAW editors that would normally be used to correct vignetting or other lens distortions. I'm pretty sure those would be legal.

Correcting a distortion ("to maintain photographic integrity") would be legal; introducing a distortion as an "effect" should not ... this would seem similar to running the "fisheye" filter or something.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/21/2005 12:30:58 PM · #63

I'm not familiar with RAW editing (yet ) - but how would that be legal even then? To correct vignetting (adding to, or removing) would still be an advanced manipulation of the original image - yes/no?

Lens distortion corrections would fall into the same group - for example, using the perspective correction tool for a basic challenge isn't legal - right?

Now, if the above items were obtainable in-camera, then I guess it would fly.

Not trying to get fired up on you here or anything...just trying to understand. Thanks. ;^)

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think he was referring to a function of certain RAW editors that would normally be used to correct vignetting or other lens distortions. I'm pretty sure those would be legal.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

11/21/2005 12:33:31 PM · #64

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think he was referring to a function of certain RAW editors that would normally be used to correct vignetting or other lens distortions. I'm pretty sure those would be legal.

I didn't think it was at this time.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

11/21/2005 12:40:26 PM · #65

I believe RAW editing has traditionally been treated as if it were in-camera, and anything done in-camera is legal per the rules. For example, many newer P&S cameras can remove redeye in-camera, and that certainly wouldn't be allowed for a Basic challenge if you did the same thing in Photoshop.

As RAW editors become more advanced this premise will probably have to change.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/21/2005 12:44:45 PM · #66

Ok...understand now. Very interesting. Need to learn more about this RAW stuff. Maybe I'll get lucky for Christmas .

Thanks for the response. ;^)

Originally posted by scalvert:

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

11/21/2005 12:45:34 PM · #67

Originally posted by scalvert:

OK, you're right.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

11/21/2005 01:32:14 PM · #68

Originally posted by scalvert:

Would have been nice if the members had been made aware of this policy, that apparently has been in effect for some time. Have I got that right - anything that you can do in a RAW editor is legal in Basic? Is a RAW editor the same as a RAW conversion program? If you can add vignetteing, as in darkening the corners, isn't that the same as adding a major element? I think we need some explanation here.

mesmeraj

11/21/2005 01:46:22 PM · #69

i'm with coohar. If that is the case i would be inclined to start shooting my basic entries in RAW because theres a lot i can do in RAW that if i did in ps i would be breaking editting rules.

patrinus

Canon EOS-30D

11/21/2005 01:50:23 PM · #70

Originally posted by coolhar:

I think we need some explanation here.

Oh nooo!!!! sorry for bringing this topic, now the battle starts. I should say coolhar that basically anything done in the camera and in the RAW format (RAW converter or RAW editor) is considered to be an in-camera adjustment.

For example if you have PS CS and open your RAW image, you will see that you can control a number of parameters like:
Exposure
Shadows
Light Temperature
Contrast
Brightness
Saturation
Vignetting
Sharpness
hue and saturation per channel
etc.
etc.

Whenever you make adjustments there, its legal. If you open that image into PS for later processing then there are some restrictions.

I agree with some here, as RAW editors get better, we will have to clarify rules for Basic Editing, but so far this is it. I imagine PS CS4 or CS5 that might some day edit everything from RAW to preserve quality in the picture... what will happen then?. Right now I think those who have more powerful RAW editors are likely to get better results than those who don't but... aaahh!!! this is life, ins't it?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/21/2005 01:50:39 PM · #71

I believe Scalvert was saying that you can REMOVE vignetting in an RAW editor but said nothing about adding it. There seems to be a fundamental difference. The first is to correct a photo, the second is to enhance a photo.

I'd have trouble accepting a policy which said you can do whatever the hell you want in a RAW editor. As the technology advanced, I think the rules need to advance as well.

11/21/2005 02:01:16 PM · #72

Originally posted by coolhar:

...anything that you can do in a RAW editor is legal in Basic?

Well, mostly... RAW allows you more flexibility because you can correct white balance, sharpness and (to some extent) exposure as if you had changed those settings in-camera. Since they're all global edits that basically adjust camera settings after the fact, editing in RAW has been allowed pretty much without restriction (other SC can correct me if that's not the case). Some people have used the exposure flexibility to combine dark and light copies of the same image to increase dynamic range, but this is only legal for advanced because you're dealing with multiple data layers outside the RAW editor.

Vignetting and other lens corrections are a new wrinkle introduced by recent RAW editors. Since these fall within the realm of maintaining photographic integrity, they're probably OK, too. I don't expect this to be the case forever, though. Increasingly sophisticated editors like Apple's Aperture may include functions that go well beyond photographic integrity, and we'll have to deal with that.