"Road" results recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

01/25/2006 10:28:02 AM · #78

Originally posted by soup:

...I would consider creating a vignette outside the camera an 'effect', whether it is done in RAW or any other application.

Yes, as I noted earlier. It wasn't the tool that was illegal, but what it was used for.

Prof_Fate

01/25/2006 10:51:01 AM · #79

Before I shot RAW it was a mystery to me. When I first started using it I just converted the RAW to TOF or JPG and did the editing in PS. Then the RAW tools got improved - a lot. Now comes Aperture, which I believe can be an all-RAW workflow! I can view the CRW files on my computer just as easily as JPGs or any other format. The lines are not blurring, they have blurred.

The rules need to change - there should be no distinction between file types - whether you edit in RAW, JPG DNG or something else, the effect is the effect.

It has been judged legal in basic to convert a raw file at two different exposures and recombine them into a single image to enhance dynamic range but you cannot do this if you shoot in JPG. To me this is some aberration in the rules some lobbyist snuck in before lunch break. This is just one example where there is two sets of rules and it should be eliminated.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

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

01/25/2006 10:54:30 AM · #80

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

It has been judged legal in basic to convert a raw file at two different exposures and recombine them into a single image to enhance dynamic range but you cannot do this if you shoot in JPG.

It's legal in Advanced, but not Basic (layers with data are illegal in Basic). You can do the same thing in JPEG by darkening a copy on one layer and lightening a copy on another layer, but it's MUCH more effective in RAW.

Message edited by author 2006-01-25 10:55:21.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/25/2006 10:57:05 AM · #81

Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning 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.
Isn't the winner photo selective burned/dodged?

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

01/25/2006 11:03:33 AM · #82

Originally posted by GeneralE:

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

:)))

PhantomEWO

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/25/2006 11:19:46 AM · #83

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 donÂ´t think I have been this angry in a while, I think itÂ´s utterly preposterous that you canÂ´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 itÂ´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 canÂ´t find that thread now, must have been more than a year since I saw it. I canÂ´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 twoÂ´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 donÂ´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.

So true, the rules need to be looked at revised taking all examples and similarities to PS out of it. There may indeed be a dozen or more programs used. Just because PS is a mainstay it has so many things (especially CS2) that others do not have. The rules need to be simplified and use generic terms on what is allowed and what is not. Those without PS or PS CS2 have no idea on what the rules really mean anymore. Even use the PS Vs CS2 example of USM versus Smart Sharp. Technology has changed in software and a more simple list of do and don't is needed, far to many people especially the new folks don't understand the difference between RAW Vs JPG Vs TIFF Vs etc etc and the processing involved.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/25/2006 11:26:12 AM · #84

Rules are simple!
For basic challenge: light ,hue,saturation,levels, crop and post.

No touch ups,no layers,no burning ,no dodging ....

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/25/2006 11:43:02 AM · #85

Originally posted by scalvert:

The reason there's no Major Elements rule in Basic is because global editing supposedly prevented the selection of a single element to remove. However, shifting an image to all-black or all-white WOULD draw a DQ in either rule set because the subject and all details would be lost (unless it was blank to begin with). Likewise, if you had a red object on a green background and shifted the colors to match, the object might disappear completely and warrant a DQ.

While various tools and techniques are specified in the editing rules, the purpose has always been for touchup of your capture, NOT for creating something from nothing (with the possible exception of color shifts). Any legal tool could potentially be used illegally. You could sharpen an image to the point that it's a pixelated mess or blur the whole scene into a giant smudge and you'll be DQ'd- even though you only used the otherwise-legal Unsharp Mask and Gaussian Blur tools. Where validation is concerned, what you did is often more important than how you did it.

Anything done in RAW has traditionally been allowed because the tools in RAW converters are intended to duplicate in-camera functions or correct basic camera flaws. Larus had the dubious honor of being the first DQ for RAW editing because he didn't use the tool to correct flaws, but to create an effect. Created affects aren't allowed in Basic. This may fall under the spirit of the rules rather than anything spelled out, but we ARE actively working on clarifying those rules to reduce future confusion.

At the risk of causing a lot of trouble, I challenge this entire post as being wrong. Sorry, scalvert, but I totally disagree. You are making some pretty broad statements here, and I think you are wrong. We'll discuss via PM. Thank you.

Message edited by author 2006-01-25 11:46:41.

Beetle

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/25/2006 11:52:31 AM · #86

Larus, I am not at all picking on you, just trying to understand something here:

Apart from the vignetting issue, in your notes you said you: "....used selective colour to bring back a little colour to her face ...."

Isn't THAT spot editing which isn't allowed in basic?

Apple iPhone 5

01/25/2006 11:59:16 AM · #87

Originally posted by Beetle:

Apart from the vignetting issue, in your notes you said you: "....used selective colour to bring back a little colour to her face ...."

The 'Selective Color' adjustment layer in PS lets you select colour ranges like 'Red', and then change the balance for that colour. It applies it to that colour across the whole image.

Since there's not much red/yellow apart from in the girl's face, I would assume that's how he did it.

Beetle

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

01/25/2006 12:02:47 PM · #88

Originally posted by jhonan:

Since there's not much red/yellow apart from in the girl's face, I would assume that's how he did it.

I assume you could be right in that assumption :-)

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

01/25/2006 12:05:04 PM · #89

NOTE:

The results in "Roads" have been recalculated (again). The image in 1st place was disqualified due to a date violation.

Congratulations to Rikki for making it to the front page, to mattmac for 5th place, chafer for 10th, and stare_at_the_sun for really making it to 18th place :)

Message edited by frisca - making the announcement easier to see.

ace flyman

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/25/2006 12:23:32 PM · #90

3 Top ten shots DQ...Wow

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/25/2006 12:23:35 PM · #91

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now let's look at the vignette tool, either the one you used in RAW, or a similar tool in regular PS filters set; I have one called "ND Burn" in my filters. With "ND Burn" I can set the focal length of the lens and define the intensity of the effect. I can flip it one way so it lightens towards the corners, or the other way so it darkens towards the corners.

So here's a filter in Photoshop 7.0 that I can use to do exactly what your RAW adjustment filter is doing in CS2, but MY filter is absolutely not allowed in basic editing. And I don't even NEED the filter, if I want to take the time to do it crefully by hand; the filter just automates the process.

i think the major source of confusion here is the difference between a vignette tool in photoshop (there are tons of plug-ins that do this) and the fact that somehow or another it's become "learned practice" that everything done in a RAW conversion is legal, as it is technically done before the image is an actual image.

i was under this impression also, and have spent all week arguing this point to relatively little avail.

so let's not get on laurus' case about whether something was applied to the whole photo or not. that's not even the point here. the question is whether or not it should be legal when it was done during the RAW conversion as opposed to adding it in via photoshop.

edit: me no can spel

I agree. I think his effect wasn't as much as adding an effect, as enhanceing what was already there. If it's doen in raw, it should be allowed.

I mean, why not just make basic challenges no post processing at all. That would be fair. OR how about a DPC handicap system. The more you win, the more points you have subtracted from your score to even the playing field.

Canon EOS-20D

01/25/2006 12:25:20 PM · #92

Why should things in RAW be legal when they are illegal elsewhere? Just curious.

01/25/2006 12:27:21 PM · #93

Originally posted by mk:

Why should things in RAW be legal when they are illegal elsewhere? Just curious.

Because it's applied to the whole image. So that would make it legal.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/25/2006 12:27:30 PM · #94

Not to open up another can of worms here, but I have trouble understanding how this would be allowed in advanced when the Seagull shot from Best of 2005 with the background blur was not. Larus' title was "Out of Nowhere"...it seems to me that without that vignetting the picture falls apart. Therefore, as was declared with the Seagull, the effect itself is a major element.

This is why I'm asking for more clarity.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/25/2006 12:32:17 PM · #95

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That was another BS call. If that shot was DQ'd all other shots including that same effect should be DQ'd. Like Joey's shot that was posted as an example.

Adding a major element is just that adding something that is not there to begin with (example, I added a bird into the sky). Distorting the pixels that are there to begin with is not adding anything, it changes the existing information.

fadedbeauty

Nikon D300

01/25/2006 12:36:03 PM · #96

Originally posted by ursula:

NOTE:

The results in "Roads" have been recalculated (again). The image in 1st place was disqualified due to a date violation.

I have always wondered how many people try to do this. Good to see they didn't get away with it as that is totally unfair. Take a challenge like the current wildlife. It would hardly be fair if someone that used some old shot they had one even if it was the best shot. It is just the principal that the other people actually went out that week and got whatever they could get . If the weather or subject wasn't cooperating that is just something they have to deal with.

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/25/2006 12:36:24 PM · #97

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by mk:
Why should things in RAW be legal when they are illegal elsewhere? Just curious.

Because it's applied to the whole image. So that would make it legal.

Not all filters, even when applied to the whole image, are legal in basic.

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

01/25/2006 12:38:11 PM · #98

Not to open up another can of worms here, but I have trouble understanding how this would be allowed in advanced when the Seagull shot from Best of 2005 with the background blur was not. Larus' title was "Out of Nowhere"...it seems to me that without that vignetting the picture falls apart. Therefore, as was declared with the Seagull, the effect itself is a major element.

Both should have been allowed...in Advanced, but not in Basic.

Message edited by author 2006-01-25 12:43:57.

Kivet

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

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

01/25/2006 12:41:24 PM · #99

Originally posted by fadedbeauty:

its not always their fault. IVe used my camera for days before and then happened to look at the date on the photo and its totally off. Dont ask my how I just know it was. So there is sometimes a logical reason, not just someone trying to pull the wool over our eyes as it may be. But who knows maybe it was taken last summer or something.