| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2006 04:57:34 PM · #126 |
| Dodging and burning is a tried and true artistic photographic technique, but it's not allowed in Basic. Combining multiple exposures in the darkroom is a tried and true artistic photographic technique, but it's not allowed in Advanced. It was my understanding that the editing rules were for fixing imperfections. If creating new features were allowed in post-processing, then the actual photography would become far less important IMO. Even straight-from-the-camera photography provides ample room for creativity... you just have to apply it before you press the shutter. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:12:04 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why is this site so intent on putting creativity in a BOX? |
Actually, I think the purpose here is keeping the creativity out of the computer by encouraging it to be in the camera. That's not boxing it at all, just directing it.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 17:12:33. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:15:50 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
then the actual photography would become far less important IMO. |
Your only seeing the tip of the iceberg of photography.
Dodging & burning are basic techniques in the darkroom.
Combining multiple exposures to achieve a High Dynamic Range is one of the great advantages to digital, but a very advanced darkroom technique.
And whether your fixing or enhanceing the imperfections is up to the photographic artist's creative vision.
None of these takes away from the photography or make it less important. If this sites main goal is keep post processing out of challenges then a name change is in order.
How about SPC? Slide Photography Challenge.
We could just mail in our slides every week for the challenges, then in your opinion, photography wouldn't become less important. ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:30:30 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
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. |
So getting rid of vignetting with PT-lens, Nikon Capture Vignette Control or DXO optics pro is ok under basic editing? I never did it because I feared DQ. Besides that, I don't see what the difference is between sliding my Vignette Control Slider to plus or minus. The action taken is the same, the effect is just different.
And what about PT-lens distortion correction?
What if you do the full conversion with the DXO raw converter (with build in distortion, vignetting, lens softness and CA correction)?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:34:37 PM · #130 |
IMHO: Get rid of basic editing and make it all advanced.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 17:58:07.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:46:13 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO: Get rid of basic editing and make it all advanced. |
Something along the lines of:
"You may not remove major elements from your image except by cropping. You may not add any elements to your image. You may not combine two or more separate images. Different exposures of the same shot are not considered to be separate images. 'Element' is defined as zzzz. 'Major Element' is defined as xxxx."
Of course, "zzz" and "xxx" is the hard part. Remove the distinction between RAW processing and jpg/tiff processing altogether. This is just a sketch of an approach, but basically, since we are trapped in a weave of increasing complexity, in terms of post-production possibilities, it would arguably be best to step outside the tapestry altogether, completely disregard tool-centric approaches, and become entirely results-oriented.
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:49:34 PM · #132 |
Something like that yes.
This site should be about the complete (camera skill, photography skill and presentation/editing skills) art of photography. We do not limit a portrait photographer in the use of his $10k studio light system -and you need some lighting skills to use it properly- yet we are freaking uptight about the use of editing tools. Editing is an integral part of photography, you need to learn it just as well as lighting and exposure. No it isn't easy, no you will not be as good as the "pro's" right away, yes it might require an investment is software (altough there are a lot of cheap and free programs as well). You watch, you learn, you get better.
Why there is a different rule set for open and member challenges is beyond me. (I've been active in the discussions to even get to advanced rules, so I am aware of the reasons. I just don't see the point and we can argue but nobody will convince me)
(edit 2) Oh and before someone comes with the 'pure art of film photography': I have a nice book with 120 tricks to edit your b&w film and prints.... Even my amateur dad did that in his closet darkroom.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 18:10:57.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:53:14 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Larus:
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? |
I agree that should be changed; I'll go ahead and take care of that if someone hasn't beaten me to it.
On a more personal note, I still think this is an excellent photograph, and the disqualification does not in any way change that.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:01:37 PM · #134 |
I wonder which will happen first:
1) The DPC rule book crosses the 500 page mark.
2) The site council become full-time employees and number into the hundreds.
3) No members will be allowed to enter a challenge without legal representation.
4) The ribbons get replaced by a $1,000 prize to justify the new rule book & employee costs.
5) All editing will be done using only Irfanview.
6) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it.
Something is bound to break soon. Hang on tight.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:07:03 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I wonder which will happen first:
1) The DPC rule book crosses the 500 page mark.
2) The site council become full-time employees and number into the hundreds.
3) No members will be allowed to enter a challenge without legal representation.
4) The ribbons get replaced by a $1,000 prize to justify the new rule book & employee costs.
5) All editing will be done using only Irfanview.
6) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it.
Something is bound to break soon. Hang on tight. |
I think, Brad, that 1 through 5 are highly unlikely...
:-( |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:09:19 PM · #136 |
i wouldn't worry. though if i ever get a DQ - SC better be prepared to speak with my lawyer ;}
Originally posted by BradP:
I wonder which will happen first:
1) The DPC rule book crosses the 500 page mark.
2) The site council become full-time employees and number into the hundreds.
3) No members will be allowed to enter a challenge without legal representation.
4) The ribbons get replaced by a $1,000 prize to justify the new rule book & employee costs.
5) All editing will be done using only Irfanview.
6) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it.
Something is bound to break soon. Hang on tight. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:10:43 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO: Get rid of basic editing and make it all advanced. |
Something along the lines of:
"You may not remove major elements from your image except by cropping. You may not add any elements to your image. You may not combine two or more separate images. Different exposures of the same shot are not considered to be separate images. 'Element' is defined as zzzz. 'Major Element' is defined as xxxx."
Of course, "zzz" and "xxx" is the hard part. Remove the distinction between RAW processing and jpg/tiff processing altogether. This is just a sketch of an approach, but basically, since we are trapped in a weave of increasing complexity, in terms of post-production possibilities, it would arguably be best to step outside the tapestry altogether, completely disregard tool-centric approaches, and become entirely results-oriented.
R. |
I just want to ask some questions here to demonstrate the difficulty in creating clear and understandable rules, or in trying to improve the wording of the rule set we have. The questions below are presented not to pick apart Robert's work here but to demonstrate some of the complexities involved. Robert, I trust you'll read these questions in that spirit and not take them personally.
- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal?
- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:21:59 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal?
- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?
|
With the second question do you mean that you crop, add empty canvas and clone from the remaining image into the empty canvas? Rule: You are only allowed to work in the original canvas or the cropped remainder of that canvas.
The first one is difficult because I am uncertain what position I have on cloning of major elements.
Example: I want to photograph and old monument in a beautiful scene and my aim is to get a timeless photo. Unfortunately the is a big sign in front of it with 'Bus parking behind the castle'. That sign ruins my 'timeless intention' and it is out of place in the scene. So I clone it out.
Was it really that wrong to do that? Frome a rule point of view it might be, but from a photography point of view it is not.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:23:40 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO: Get rid of basic editing and make it all advanced. |
Something along the lines of:
"You may not remove major elements from your image except by cropping. You may not add any elements to your image. You may not combine two or more separate images. Different exposures of the same shot are not considered to be separate images. 'Element' is defined as zzzz. 'Major Element' is defined as xxxx."
Of course, "zzz" and "xxx" is the hard part. Remove the distinction between RAW processing and jpg/tiff processing altogether. This is just a sketch of an approach, but basically, since we are trapped in a weave of increasing complexity, in terms of post-production possibilities, it would arguably be best to step outside the tapestry altogether, completely disregard tool-centric approaches, and become entirely results-oriented.
R. |
I just want to ask some questions here to demonstrate the difficulty in creating clear and understandable rules, or in trying to improve the wording of the rule set we have. The questions below are presented not to pick apart Robert's work here but to demonstrate some of the complexities involved. Robert, I trust you'll read these questions in that spirit and not take them personally.
- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal? Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
was it currently in the photo to begin with? Then no, it wouldn't be adding anything that wasn't there to begin with. Damn chicken & the egg... |
- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why couldn't you? Are you saying it's illegal to crop for composition? |
~Terry |
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 18:24:16.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:27:44 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal?
- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?
|
With the second question do you mean that you crop, add empty canvas and clone from the remaining image into the empty canvas? Rule: You are only allowed to work in the original canvas or the cropped remainder of that canvas.
The first one is difficult because I am uncertain what position I have on cloning of major elements.
Example: I want to photograph and old monument in a beautiful scene and my aim is to get a timeless photo. Unfortunately the is a big sign in front of it with 'Bus parking behind the castle'. That sign ruins my 'timeless intention' and it is out of place in the scene. So I clone it out.
Was it really that wrong to do that? Frome a rule point of view it might be, but from a photography point of view it is not. |
This is where people get confused, and I don't know why. This website isn't the end all and be all of photography, and people need to stop looking at it in that way. You're absolutely right. Cloning out that sign as an artistic and photographic choice is almost integral in the large picture.. (and heck, depending on the size of the sign, might not even be illegal on DPC).. but on DPC, it's an SC call, and if you go by the rules, it's probably better to find a different way to approach it.
There are ways we can remove elements in our environments that we don't want before we ever get them to the processing stage.. if we take that time. Not so much on candids, say.. but setting up for that shot of the castle? Bring an old blanket with you, and drape it over the sign. Done right, and it won't really stand out anymore...
Anyway, just a thought thrown out there. I think sometimes people think "Well, it's not allowed on DPC, and therefore must be frowned upon in photography altogether", which is just downright silly. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:28:00 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal?
- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?
|
With the second question do you mean that you crop, add empty canvas and clone from the remaining image into the empty canvas? Rule: You are only allowed to work in the original canvas or the cropped remainder of that canvas.
The first one is difficult because I am uncertain what position I have on cloning of major elements.
Example: I want to photograph and old monument in a beautiful scene and my aim is to get a timeless photo. Unfortunately the is a big sign in front of it with 'Bus parking behind the castle'. That sign ruins my 'timeless intention' and it is out of place in the scene. So I clone it out.
Was it really that wrong to do that? Frome a rule point of view it might be, but from a photography point of view it is not. |
I think this place gets way to nit picky on the major element. Take Dr. Jones DQ. Who in the world includes the soft box as a major element? Sometimes the right spot for the light to light the subject is in the shot. THAT"S WHY WE SHOOT DIGITAL, so when can clone it out. I would of had to spot the neg and hand brush the empty space back in on the print before taking so much time and effort.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:40:55 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Who in the world includes the soft box as a major element? Sometimes the right spot for the light to light the subject is in the shot. THAT"S WHY WE SHOOT DIGITAL, so when can clone it out. |
In the "real" world of photography, only the end result matters and that's fine. On DPC it's important that the content of the capture and the entry "match" so that the photos really do represent the captured scenes rather than something made up after the shutter was pressed. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:41:36 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I think this place gets way to nit picky on the major element. Take Dr. Jones DQ. Who in the world includes the soft box as a major element? |
That was like a Bull in a China shop if you ask me...
I'll give you this though...that was a very special case, that the softbox was placed there with the direct intent of its removal. It was a very smart digital play but they called his hand. Maybe they should draft a loose rule encompassing such a technique.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 18:51:07.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:50:55 PM · #144 |
In my total ignorence I prefer the basic editing.
Maybe we could have 3 categories; basic for the free membership(as is), advanced as is for the paid members and a $100/year membership for those who wants a weekly 'free for all brawl'(FFAB's).
Obviously if the FFABs want to participate in the primitive sphere of the amateurs and ignorent like me, they will have to follow the rules of that challenge as it is and accept the total and only decision of a SC that are doing a great job. The FFABs then do not have to accept the decision of the SC as there will be no DQs.
Wow, what a great idea from the basic member who came to learn, and are learning and improving under the stus quo. be sure I will not join the FFABs. ;-)
edited for mi spelings
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 18:53:07. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:52:54 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I just want to ask some questions here to demonstrate the difficulty in creating clear and understandable rules, or in trying to improve the wording of the rule set we have. The questions below are presented not to pick apart Robert's work here but to demonstrate some of the complexities involved. Robert, I trust you'll read these questions in that spirit and not take them personally.
- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal?
- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?
~Terry |
I take nothing in this discussion personally, and I too am trying to figure out the simplest way to eliminate as much complexity as possible.
In the first case, I'd say "completely legal": that's exactly what we do now with cloning out of minor elements. The water is what would be there if the rock were physically removed from the lake; you borrowed surrounfing water to fill in the "hole".
In the second case, I'd say "not legal"; you cropped out a major element then borrowed something to re-expand the image and replace the major element.
The issue remains "major element" vs "minor element". Where it gets difficult is in making the distinction between the two. In the later-mentioned example of the old castle with a new sign in front of it, does the sign fall under the "major element" rule? That's the difficult issue to resolve. What about if you're photographing a ruin, and you want to show it as it was before it fell into disrepair? You can spend hours and hours working meticulously to rebuild that wall, but this is digital art as much as it is photography. But what if it's a modern house with perfect light & clouds, and because the storm has just passed a section of gutter is hanging loose? You can't go back to shoot it after the gutter is fixed, because the clouds will never be that perfect again. How "major" is the gutter? It's definitely a "flaw", an "imperfection in the image" that cries to be fixed.
I grant you straight off the bat, this is difficult to regulate. But I submit that the rules as they stand are even more complex than that. These issues currently exist in the ruleset; but the hypothetically proposed major streamliming of the rules into several sentences eliminates a host of other ambiguities.
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:06:34 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
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. |
You can get Neat Image for free. CS costs six hundred bucks. Not a very good comparison.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:07:09 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I grant you straight off the bat, this is difficult to regulate. But I submit that the rules as they stand are even more complex than that. These issues currently exist in the ruleset; but the hypothetically proposed major streamliming of the rules into several sentences eliminates a host of other ambiguities. |
For what it's worth, I want to add my own two cents to the growing pile of copper here.
I think that grey areas will always be present in any ruleset. Take the legal system of any country - Britain is a good example, because their common law has been built upon for many centuries - and you will see that no matter how well developed, ambiguities persist.
I believe it will never be possible to completely mechanize the ruleset for Basic or Advanced, and no amount of hairsplitting in the forums or on paper will bring full resolution. (This is not to say that the discussion is not worthwhile; to the contrary, banal as it may be for me to say so, I think it's ideal.)
The impossibility of creating a hard-and-fast ruleset, from which any dispute could be resolved simply by referring to the appropriate section of the rules, is the very reason we have judges (in states' legal systems) and SC voting (here on DPC). No matter what, we the members will have to put faith in the Site Council for their good judgment when it comes to determining the hard cases.
And that's fine with me.
Damon |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:14:23 PM · #148 |
How many already submit to Better Photos? That is completely Advanced editing, do anything you want. DPC does not have to be like that completely, that's what makes it different.
Three simple changes:
1> stop explaining things in terms of PhotoShop. To many version of that and too many other programs. You cannot expect people with different versions or different programs to try to figure out what actions are in Photoshop and try to apply them to other programs.
2> Basic. Make a very short list of actions that can be used. It really doesn't matter is it's RAW or JPG to start. i.e. no selection tools of any kind other than crop, only contrast, lighten, shadows, noise removal, sharpness, brightness, PERIOD. Basic is basic, stop making it advanced basic. Basic should be something that a person with the most simple and easiest drawing program can use and really doesn't need anything more than that.
3> Advanced. A single frame single exposure, have fun and show us how good of an artist you are. This way there is no conflict as to what PS actions correspond to other versions or other programs.
Give these simple rules a try for the month of Feb and lets see if the confusion and belly aching goes away and we can all be friends again.
Make some of the member challenges basic, a good photog should at least start out with a good basic photo. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:15:02 PM · #149 |
If a new case presents itself and the SC determines it's rules violation, but it's never came up before, the entry should be grandfathered in and all entries after it be DQ'd.
This DQing things that everybody thought was okay and there was no way of knowing that it wasn't allowed should be stopped.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:17:17 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If a new case presents itself and the SC determines it's rules violation, but it's never came up before, the entry should be grandfathered in and all entries after it be DQ'd.
This DQing things that everybody thought was okay and there was no way of knowing that it wasn't allowed should be stopped. |
That isn't the case here; vignetting has NEVER been allowed in basic editing. The rules make NO mention of RAW processing. Larus made an assumption and it was wrong.
R. |
|
