| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2006 12:44:31 PM · #101 |
| I am getting really confused as to what is allowed and what is not. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 12:51:54 PM · #102 |
Stop arguing and go take some pictures. There is nothing wrong with the rules.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:20:16 PM · #103 |
Regarding the blue ribbon DQ:
The blue ribbon in this challenge was disqualified due to deliberate EXIF tampering. Not only was the photo taken many many months ago, but the exif was doctored in a deliberate attempt to avoid detection of this fact. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:38:52 PM · #104 |
that's plan rude, and should result in more than a disqualification.
if he wants to enter old photos - he can do so over at betterphoto.com
Originally posted by frisca:
Regarding the blue ribbon DQ:
The blue ribbon in this challenge was disqualified due to deliberate EXIF tampering. Not only was the photo taken many many months ago, but the exif was doctored in a deliberate attempt to avoid detection of this fact. |
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 13:39:11.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:41:40 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Regarding the blue ribbon DQ:
The blue ribbon in this challenge was disqualified due to deliberate EXIF tampering. Not only was the photo taken many many months ago, but the exif was doctored in a deliberate attempt to avoid detection of this fact. |
Ohhhhh.... not good.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:43:23 PM · #106 |
Agree and the site council folks are doing a great job!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Stop arguing and go take some pictures. There is nothing wrong with the rules. |
text |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:21:57 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... I think his effect wasn't as much as adding an effect, as enhanceing what was already there. |
I don't see how you can say that without seeing the original file. Have you seen the original file?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... If it's doen in raw, it should be allowed. |
Why? How do you arrive at this conclusion?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:34:42 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by frisca:
Regarding the blue ribbon DQ:
The blue ribbon in this challenge was disqualified due to deliberate EXIF tampering. Not only was the photo taken many many months ago, but the exif was doctored in a deliberate attempt to avoid detection of this fact. |
Ohhhhh.... not good. |
Amateur!
(j/k) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:35:56 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... If it's doen in raw, it should be allowed. |
Why? How do you arrive at this conclusion? |
Agreed: the point here is that we are fast approaching the point where ALL editing can be done in RAW. The problem is (or has been) that adjustments to RAW files do not tag as "file modified xx/yy/2006" and this is a huge stumbling point for enforcement. Unless I'm completely mistaken. I know that my own RAW files, adjusted in the RAW converter, do NOT show a modification date. I am assuming this is true even of the more versatile converters such as CS2 but I might be wrong.
R.
edit to clarify: "agree" that not all adjustments in RAW should be basic-legal.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 14:38:07. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:42:31 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Regarding the blue ribbon DQ:
The blue ribbon in this challenge was disqualified due to deliberate EXIF tampering. Not only was the photo taken many many months ago, but the exif was doctored in a deliberate attempt to avoid detection of this fact. |
How do you do that anyway?
Just curious :P |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:43:38 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... If it's doen in raw, it should be allowed. |
Why? How do you arrive at this conclusion? |
Agreed: the point here is that we are fast approaching the point where ALL editing can be done in RAW. The problem is (or has been) that adjustments to RAW files do not tag as "file modified xx/yy/2006" and this is a huge stumbling point for enforcement. Unless I'm completely mistaken. I know that my own RAW files, adjusted in the RAW converter, do NOT show a modification date. I am assuming this is true even of the more versatile converters such as CS2 but I might be wrong.
R.
edit to clarify: "agree" that not all adjustments in RAW should be basic-legal. |
The RAW files themselves do not actually get modified. If you were to open the RAW file on a new PC you would see it with no changes from the original. The RAW editor normally saves the changes you've made in a cache or something istr.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:47:08 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... If it's doen in raw, it should be allowed. |
Why? How do you arrive at this conclusion? |
Agreed: the point here is that we are fast approaching the point where ALL editing can be done in RAW. The problem is (or has been) that adjustments to RAW files do not tag as "file modified xx/yy/2006" and this is a huge stumbling point for enforcement. Unless I'm completely mistaken. I know that my own RAW files, adjusted in the RAW converter, do NOT show a modification date. I am assuming this is true even of the more versatile converters such as CS2 but I might be wrong.
R.
edit to clarify: "agree" that not all adjustments in RAW should be basic-legal. |
The RAW files themselves do not actually get modified. If you were to open the RAW file on a new PC you would see it with no changes from the original. The RAW editor normally saves the changes you've made in a cache or something istr. |
AHHHHH! Thanks!
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:54:38 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
It looks like the "corrected" reason Langdon put in for the DQ was (at least in my opinion) still not correct. The key section of the rules is this:
Originally posted by Basic Rules:
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, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited. |
While the vignetting tool is designed to preserve the integrity of an image (by correcting light falloff caused by lower-quality lenses), it was not, in this case, used to do so. As such, we believe this application of the filter violates the above rule and had to disqualify.
~Terry |
Ok, if that was how the majority of the SC came to the conclution that it should be DQ´ed then so be it, I still don´t agree and I never will and as far as I am concerned that yellow ribbon is mine but I will respect your decision. I spent the better part of the day outside, walking around with my baby girl in a stroller and I am in a considerably better mood now, on to the next challenge I guess :)
I would appreciate it though if you could change the DQ reason from spot editing to something more appropriate though since it makes no sense now, shouldn´t it say that it was DQ´ed for use of filters? |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:01:04 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Larus:
MY definition of spot editing is when you use a brush or some form of manual selection of a picture and just apply something to a specific, manually selected area. |
As long as we're discussing this in depth, follow along and see what you think of this:
Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that we both agree you can't use the "burn" tool in basic editing to darken the corners of your image progressively.
Let's stipulate also that a skilled photoshop user can work the burn tool at progressive intensities, circling outward from the center, to vignette a photograph. This, after all, is precisely what a good darkroom technician would do in the film darkroom. It's very common.
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.
See the problem? Lord knows I'm not getting on YOUR case, you're just expressing the other side of the debate. My interest, my only interest, is in trying to puzzle out how there can be consistency and a level playing field across the board. It's very muddy waters. If I had a ready solution I'd have long since posted it up as a proposed "revision of the rules" but better minds than mine are working on this as we speak. Hopefully debates like these help them in their work.
R. |
Haha Robert, don´t even begin to think that I am taking anything you say personally, of course I don´t see you as getting on my case. We are simply debating, that is all :) You have a point but where you see the end result as being the same, I see a different method of getting that result. What I am trying to say is that I think using the Burn tool is very manual and the use of your ND filter or the vignetting tool in the .raw converter is very automated and therefore I categorize the burn tool as a spot editing tool as you have (or can have) absolute manual control over the outcome whereas the other two are automated and affect the whole image equally. Ahhh... hope you get my drift, I have never been known to be very eloquent and my heart isn´t really in this debate any more... Anyway, respect :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:09:44 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Yay, maybe a dubious honour but an still an honour, I´ll take what I can get :)
But on more serious notes, my vote goes for a clarification on the rules, I admit, before today I hadn´t read them since early last year when the last changed but it didn´t even cross my mind that I was doing anything anyone would consider illegal editing when I submitted that shot, mainly because WHERE I added the vignetting as I thought everything .raw was a green light. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:11:45 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Larus:
But on more serious notes, my vote goes for a clarification on the rules... |
We are definitely working on this, quite fervently.
Congrats on an outstanding image, regardless of its DPC status. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:14:53 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
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. |
Yup, that is exactly how I used that tool, if I remember correctly I set the reds to a -30 to cyan and about -5 to magenta. And on that note, I´ll sign off from this thread, I wanna spend my energy on the next challenge, my personal goal for 2006 is to get one more ribbon than I did last year, wish me luck :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:45:52 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... my point is that i think we should clarify what is and isn't legal in the RAW conversion.
|
Seems like a similar standard to the existing "in camera" rule should be allowed for RAW image adjustments.
That is, if the desired RAW image adjustment is available "in camera" then it should be allowed. If it is not then it should not be allowed. Changes like white balance and exposure are internal camera functions and should be allowed.
Raw adjustments should not be allowed for external filters. After all, if the photographer owned the filter to produce the effect then they should have used it in the first place and a RAW adjustment would be unnecessary. That would be just like the existing restrictions on filter use within Photoshop.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 15:46:38.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:50:10 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
That is, if the desired RAW image adjustment is available "in camera" then it should be allowed. If it is not then it should not be allowed. Changes like white balance and exposure are internal camera functions and should be allowed. |
I like this. Simple and easy to understand.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Raw adjustments should not be allowed for external filters. After all, if the photographer owned the filter to produce the effect then they should have used it in the first place and a RAW adjustment would be unnecessary. |
Not too sure about this one though (if I had the ability to change the white balance, then I should have gotten it right the first time). Your first statement eliminates the need for the second part anyway. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:59:27 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... (if I had the ability to change the white balance, then I should have gotten it right the first time)... |
Agree with the sentiment of this statement, but we all make mistakes and forget to change settings. :)
Nice to have recoverability now.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:08:04 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... (if I had the ability to change the white balance, then I should have gotten it right the first time)... |
Agree with the sentiment of this statement, but we all make mistakes and forget to change settings. :)
Nice to have recoverability now. |
Or you decide after the fact that you like the look of a different white balance.
Taking away options to enhance your photograph that have been available for 75+ years in the darkroom seems very silly for a digital photography site that wants to learn as much as it can about digital photography. ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:23:44 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
That is, if the desired RAW image adjustment is available "in camera" then it should be allowed. If it is not then it should not be allowed. Changes like white balance and exposure are internal camera functions and should be allowed. |
I like this. Simple and easy to understand.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Raw adjustments should not be allowed for external filters. After all, if the photographer owned the filter to produce the effect then they should have used it in the first place and a RAW adjustment would be unnecessary. |
Not too sure about this one though (if I had the ability to change the white balance, then I should have gotten it right the first time). Your first statement eliminates the need for the second part anyway. |
Danger, Danger, Will Robinson....
This is a dangerous direction. There are lots of important and innoccuous things you can do in RAW that are not available in camera, yet are available and legal in PS, but are STILL BETTER to do in RAW.
Levels, curves, and reduction of CA to name a few. There's also exposure compensation, noise reduction, highlight recovery and fill light. All of these can be done in PS legally in basic, and if you were to say "only what can be done in camera" during conversion, you'd lose those.
Perhaps more controversial, but still important: Automatic correction of lens distortion is another reason why people shoot RAW. (Though it's not clear that this latter feature is allowed, even as is, it should be!) This one falls closer to the vignetting correction in controversy.
I thought it was covered well by simply saying that these features can be used to correct anomalies, not add them!
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:28:14 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I thought it was covered well by simply saying that these features can be used to correct anomalies, not add them! |
Also true. Exposure compensation, noise reduction and the like ARE generally available in-camera, but you're right... the purpose of any tool should be to fix imperfections, not to create new features. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:38:59 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I thought it was covered well by simply saying that these features can be used to correct anomalies, not add them! |
Also true. Exposure compensation, noise reduction and the like ARE generally available in-camera, but you're right... the purpose of any tool should be to fix imperfections, not to create new features. |
Not true. Vignetting is a tried and true artistic photographic technique. Who cares If I want to enhance CA instead of removing it? OR enhance the lens vignetting? OR enhance the perspective?
Why is this site so intent on putting creativity in a BOX?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:47:47 PM · #125 |
Some photographers have expensive cameras, lenses, filters and equipment that gives them an inherent advantage over others. (Their ability to use it is another question. :) )
We are seeing that same thing in image editing software now. Differing capabilities in software should be allowed just like differing camera capapbilities currently are. The precedent has already been set in the rules by allowing products like NeatImage. Some people have it and some do not.
Photoshop CS2 has "highlight/shadow", "smart sharpen", "optical lense correction", "vanishing point" and other features that PS7 and other image editors do not have. It could very well be that some of those allowed features could only be duplicated in older software by with things that specificallt are NOT allowed, just like you are allowed to use filters on a camera but not allowed to apply them using software only.
The rules will continue to blur (or should I say "smart blur") as technology evolves.
|
|
