| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2006 01:28:52 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
If it helps to clear things up regarding my DQ, let me say that I recommended my own entry for disqualification. I made a mistake follwing (or not following) the rules.
The following is my comment on my image since it was disqualified:
Being new to challenges, I didn't pay attention to the fact that this challenge was a basic editing challenge. I just went to work, habitually post processing without thought to the differences in rules. I even listed dodging and burning in the Photographer's Comments when I submitted this entry (duh?).
I apologize to everybody for disrupting (however slight it was) the challenge. I have certainly learned my lesson and will carefully consider the criteria for future submissions. |
Your picture was beautiful. I'm sorry it was DQed. It's hard to keep everything straight all the time :)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:29:51 AM · #27 |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:30:12 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by hotpasta:
are you saying that removing sensor dust is not acceptable? |
Right. |
Not in Basic Editing, with photoshop or any other program. You are, of course, free to clean the dust off your sensor at any time before you shoot :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:30:48 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by hotpasta:
are you saying that removing sensor dust is not acceptable? |
Right. |
Not in Basic Editing, with photoshop or any other program. You are, of course, free to clean the dust off your sensor at any time before you shoot :-)
R. |
:) Bear, go to sleep!
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:35:11 AM · #30 |
clean my gear?!?!? No way!! that bad luck ;-)
I think basic editing should be shot in jepg mode only with ZERO PS or Alternative editing program. Make the shooters learn to use light correctly without bumping contrast or saturation. Ohh...wait..nevermind..if we did that Id be screwed!!!...
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 01:35:46. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:37:26 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by hotpasta:
are you saying that removing sensor dust is not acceptable? |
Right. |
Not in Basic Editing, with photoshop or any other program. You are, of course, free to clean the dust off your sensor at any time before you shoot :-)
R. |
:) Bear, go to sleep! |
Bear doesn't sleep Ursula. Karma does but he's always wide awake ;) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:43:42 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by hotpasta:
are you saying that removing sensor dust is not acceptable? |
Right. |
Not in Basic Editing, with photoshop or any other program. You are, of course, free to clean the dust off your sensor at any time before you shoot :-)
R. |
:) Bear, go to sleep! |
LMAO... awww come on Ursula... don't send him to bed, that was funny! ;) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:50:55 AM · #33 |
| What the!!! I just woke up to find my entry disqualified and as far as I am concerned I did NOT cheat!!! I did VERY little editing, most of it was done with the .raw converter in Photoshop CS2 and I wake up to this, accused of using SPOT editing??? Everything I did I put in the "photographers comments" and I think I spent less than 2 minutes editing this. Where exactly is my supposed "spot editing"??? |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:53:05 AM · #34 |
| Hi Larus. I don't think people were accusing you of Spot Editing. SC was discussing this a while ago and they said that it will be explained. But apparently, vignetting is not allowed. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:12:01 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by ursula:
:) Bear, go to sleep! |
Uh, I think you're speaking to Papa Bear, not Baby Bear ... besides, I would think someone named Ursula would be more likely to suggest hibernation ...
//www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?LimerickId=9347
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 02:17:38. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:24:51 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Hi Larus. I don't think people were accusing you of Spot Editing. SC was discussing this a while ago and they said that it will be explained. But apparently, vignetting is not allowed. |
Umm, I kind of see it that way, since the reason it was DQ´ed says "no spot editing". Anyway, I have not seen any discussion the SC has done about this, you got some inside information? |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:26:39 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Originally posted by Rikki:
Hi Larus. I don't think people were accusing you of Spot Editing. SC was discussing this a while ago and they said that it will be explained. But apparently, vignetting is not allowed. |
Umm, I kind of see it that way, since the reason it was DQ´ed says "no spot editing". Anyway, I have not seen any discussion the SC has done about this, you got some inside information? |
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=337272
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:27:37 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Yes, 4th place was DQed because of vignetting in RAW to add darkening to sections of the image. Remember that this was a basic editing challenge.
SC is working on an official position on the use of vignetting in RAW in basic challenges. Please be patient, these things are not easy sometimes to put into words, and it is often difficult to make decisions when the lines aren't clear cut (and never will be).
I'd like to add - it is unfortunate that the image wasn't dQed before the challenge ended, it would have been better that way, but SC was discussing the issue and time flew by. I hope you all understand. |
See this thread
FWIW, it's still a beautiful image. Like I mentioned in my comment during the challenge, I would like to find out how that is accomplished. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:33:29 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Originally posted by ursula:
Yes, 4th place was DQed because of vignetting in RAW to add darkening to sections of the image. Remember that this was a basic editing challenge.
SC is working on an official position on the use of vignetting in RAW in basic challenges. Please be patient, these things are not easy sometimes to put into words, and it is often difficult to make decisions when the lines aren't clear cut (and never will be).
I'd like to add - it is unfortunate that the image wasn't dQed before the challenge ended, it would have been better that way, but SC was discussing the issue and time flew by. I hope you all understand. |
See this thread
FWIW, it's still a beautiful image. Like I mentioned in my comment during the challenge, I would like to find out how that is accomplished. |
Thanx, well it´s just pretty easy, just being at the right place with the right light and do those editing steps I mentioned, that´s all :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:48:21 AM · #40 |
I just have to say that I am quite upset now and don´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think it´s utterly preposterous that you can´t "fix" flaws in lens design in the raw development stage of a shot. Yes, I admit I used it to the extremes for an effect but what has that got to do with anything? So it´s just completely illegal to fix wignetting and chromatic abberations in basic editing in the raw stage? I seem to remember a thread when I first joined this site that anything done in .raw conversion was legal since they are all corrections that are made to the whole image before it even pretty much becomes an image but I can´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I can´t believe I am the only one that feels this way about edits done within the .raw stage of editing though.
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:51:59 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
have you ever thought about blind-voters. These are people who give ones and twos without even looking at the image. So their 1s are pretty random and even the ribboners can get some 1s. Its all part of the game. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:52:40 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Larus:
I just have to say that I am quite upset now and don´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think it´s utterly preposterous that you can´t "fix" flaws in lens design in the raw development stage of a shot. Yes, I admit I used it to the extremes for an effect but what has that got to do with anything? So it´s just completely illegal to fix wignetting and chromatic abberations in basic editing in the raw stage? I seem to remember a thread when I first joined this site that anything done in .raw conversion was legal since they are all corrections that are made to the whole image before it even pretty much becomes an image but I can´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I can´t believe I am the only one that feels this way about edits done within the .raw stage of editing though.
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
From what I've heard, I think that the primary reason most people consider it to be a DQable action (at this stage, things could change in the future.. this is a very new thing), is the fact that it is an action *only* available in Photoshop CS2's RAW converter.. (at least, this is my understanding). As not everyone has, or can afford, PS CS2, it effectively renders it a unique and unfair advantage, and thus, at this stage, illegal.
However, I'm not the authority on such matters, but it makes a lot of sense if it's true. As I read, SC is still discussing this matter and what to do with it specifically for the rules and whatnot, as it *IS* a brand new and unique problem. Congratulations though.. you're the first to have it come up! |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:00:13 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Larus:
I just have to say that I am quite upset now and don´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think it´s utterly preposterous that you can´t "fix" flaws in lens design in the raw development stage of a shot. Yes, I admit I used it to the extremes for an effect but what has that got to do with anything? So it´s just completely illegal to fix wignetting and chromatic abberations in basic editing in the raw stage? I seem to remember a thread when I first joined this site that anything done in .raw conversion was legal since they are all corrections that are made to the whole image before it even pretty much becomes an image but I can´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I can´t believe I am the only one that feels this way about edits done within the .raw stage of editing though.
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
To address the second issue first, almost certainly those low votes show you voters who are unhappy to see what they assume is "illegal editing" in an entry, and ding you accordingly. They're not supposed to, but it happens.
The first issue is fuzzier; it USED to be that RAW converters were just that, "converters"; all you could do with them was adjust after-exposure the same things you'd adjust pre-exposure with in-camera settings. The RAW converter I use still only does those things, nothing else.
But now they are getting stronger and stronger, and CS2 has integrated the converter into photoshop so it's getting harder and harder to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. There have been several threads discussing this in recent months, and SC has told us they are discussing the issue and trying to figure where to draw the line.
In this particular case, you attained an "effect" that cannot be legally done in basic editing with photoshop alone; it just happens that the tool to attain the effect is udner the RAW section of your program. I can't run CS2 (need to upgrade operating system and can't afford to) so I'm basically shut out. If adding a vignette in post-processing is illegal in basic editing, then arguably it whould be illegal regardless of whether you do it your way or my way. This is where the line has to be drawn, so the thinking goes.
A similar issue is evolving around CS2's shadow/highlight tool, which is being used in basic editing but is simply an automation of a contrast-masking workflow that I can use in PS 7.0 but is not legal because it uses pixel layers.
You've run afoul of some very thorny issues, and I'm sorry to see it happen because it's a wonderful image, but... Something WAS added that wasn't there, so that's pretty much spot-editing by definition in my eyes.
Of course I'm just a bear with an opinion, not an SC..
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:00:24 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Larus:
I just have to say that I am quite upset now and don´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think it´s utterly preposterous that you can´t "fix" flaws in lens design in the raw development stage of a shot. Yes, I admit I used it to the extremes for an effect but what has that got to do with anything? So it´s just completely illegal to fix wignetting and chromatic abberations in basic editing in the raw stage? I seem to remember a thread when I first joined this site that anything done in .raw conversion was legal since they are all corrections that are made to the whole image before it even pretty much becomes an image but I can´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I can´t believe I am the only one that feels this way about edits done within the .raw stage of editing though.
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
From what I've heard, I think that the primary reason most people consider it to be a DQable action (at this stage, things could change in the future.. this is a very new thing), is the fact that it is an action *only* available in Photoshop CS2's RAW converter.. (at least, this is my understanding). As not everyone has, or can afford, PS CS2, it effectively renders it a unique and unfair advantage, and thus, at this stage, illegal.
|
If this was true, then you shouldn't have DSLR competing with P&S's since not everyone can afford one.
That is the lamest reason I've heard on here. IF you applied your effect to the whole shot without spot editing it's no different than any other filter being used in photoshop and shouldn't be DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:02:07 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Larus:
I just have to say that I am quite upset now and don´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think it´s utterly preposterous that you can´t "fix" flaws in lens design in the raw development stage of a shot. Yes, I admit I used it to the extremes for an effect but what has that got to do with anything? So it´s just completely illegal to fix wignetting and chromatic abberations in basic editing in the raw stage? I seem to remember a thread when I first joined this site that anything done in .raw conversion was legal since they are all corrections that are made to the whole image before it even pretty much becomes an image but I can´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I can´t believe I am the only one that feels this way about edits done within the .raw stage of editing though.
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
From what I've heard, I think that the primary reason most people consider it to be a DQable action (at this stage, things could change in the future.. this is a very new thing), is the fact that it is an action *only* available in Photoshop CS2's RAW converter.. (at least, this is my understanding). As not everyone has, or can afford, PS CS2, it effectively renders it a unique and unfair advantage, and thus, at this stage, illegal.
|
If this was true, then you shouldn't have DSLR competing with P&S's since not everyone can afford one.
That is the lamest reason I've heard on here. IF you applied your effect to the whole shot without spot editing it's no different than any other filter being used in photoshop and shouldn't be DQ'd. |
*shrug* I didn't make up the reason, and it *may* not be true.
Anyway, Bear_Music explained things much more accurately than I did. lol
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 03:03:16. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:03:16 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Larus:
I just have to say that I am quite upset now and don´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think it´s utterly preposterous that you can´t "fix" flaws in lens design in the raw development stage of a shot. Yes, I admit I used it to the extremes for an effect but what has that got to do with anything? So it´s just completely illegal to fix wignetting and chromatic abberations in basic editing in the raw stage? I seem to remember a thread when I first joined this site that anything done in .raw conversion was legal since they are all corrections that are made to the whole image before it even pretty much becomes an image but I can´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I can´t believe I am the only one that feels this way about edits done within the .raw stage of editing though.
Oh and on a side note, does anywone have any theories why my shot got 9 ones and 6 two´s? I went so far back as the top 20 and there is the image in 6th place that got a couple of ones too but no other shot even comes close. Just to be clear, I am not ranting about this, this I am completely calm about but I just don´t get it since a 1 to me means "DNMC" and I did not get any comments like that at all. |
From what I've heard, I think that the primary reason most people consider it to be a DQable action (at this stage, things could change in the future.. this is a very new thing), is the fact that it is an action *only* available in Photoshop CS2's RAW converter.. (at least, this is my understanding). As not everyone has, or can afford, PS CS2, it effectively renders it a unique and unfair advantage, and thus, at this stage, illegal.
|
If this was true, then you shouldn't have DSLR competing with P&S's since not everyone can afford one.
That is the lamest reason I've heard on here. IF you applied your effect to the whole shot without spot editing it's no different than any other filter being used in photoshop and shouldn't be DQ'd. |
*shrug* I didn't make up the reason, and it *may* not be true. |
Oh, I'm not bashing you. I've heard stuff like this before from a lot of different people around here.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:06:21 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
IF you applied your effect to the whole shot without spot editing it's no different than any other filter being used in photoshop and shouldn't be DQ'd. |
The use of a gradient has NEVER been allowed in basic editing, and that's what a vignette is. It's functionally no different from burning in the corners, and you can't use the dodge and burn tools in basic editing.
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:12:20 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
IF you applied your effect to the whole shot without spot editing it's no different than any other filter being used in photoshop and shouldn't be DQ'd. |
The use of a gradient has NEVER been allowed in basic editing, and that's what a vignette is. It's functionally no different from burning in the corners, and you can't use the dodge and burn tools in basic editing.
R. |
SO I guess I have the advantage when I use my 85 1.2 wide open and it vignettes like this. :D
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:16:26 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
IF you applied your effect to the whole shot without spot editing it's no different than any other filter being used in photoshop and shouldn't be DQ'd. |
The use of a gradient has NEVER been allowed in basic editing, and that's what a vignette is. It's functionally no different from burning in the corners, and you can't use the dodge and burn tools in basic editing.
R. |
SO I guess I have the advantage when I use my 85 1.2 wide open and it vignettes like this. :D |
Well, clever people can also use some form of physical structure to cause vignetting too.. long live cleverness!
Or.. something. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:17:53 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
SO I guess I have the advantage when I use my 85 1.2 wide open and it vignettes like this. :D |
You betcha. And if you want a legal vignette in basic editing you can stack filters on a WA lens too. You can make a snoot out of a blackened paper-towel tube. You can do whatever you want with the camera. The rules only limit what you can do while processing the file the camera has made.
Up until now RAW conversion has been considered an extension of the camera, as explained a few posts ago. But that is rapidly changing now that you can work on RAW in much more sophisticated ways. Some lines are going to have to be drawn. IMO of course.
R. |
|
