| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2006 10:55:10 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I thought the rules would be announced on the 6th (and were released on the 5th), and would be in effect for the challenges announced on the 6th and tonight.
so the dust bunny stays, i think. |
I'd think so too, as people were submitting from the 1st of November.
But that's one SC says new rules and one that says old rules and the links on the challenge say old and new at the same time.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 22:56:00.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:04:22 PM · #277 |
| I think Kirbic only saw the part about challenges BEGINNING tonight (those announced, not those going into voting). Reflections and Neon are under the old rules, so no dust cloning! |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:05:11 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think Kirbic only saw the part about challenges BEGINNING tonight (those announced, not those going into voting). Reflections and Neon are under the old rules, so no dust cloning! |
Fair enough. So the its just the rules numbering that's out of whack ?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:06:16 PM · #279 |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:26:35 PM · #280 |
| Basic Editing IV ARE the old rules, so I don't see anything out of whack. Are the new ones listed somewhere else? |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:28:18 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Basic Editing IV ARE the old rules, so I don't see anything out of whack. Are the new ones listed somewhere else? |
It's probably just the first post in this thread that's wrong then. Or there never were any Basic Editing Rules III and you just went from 2 to 4
Edit: The old rules have been renamed "Advanced Editing IV" and "Basic Editing III" for archival purposes.
Or this list:
Older Challenge Rules
* Advanced Editing I (Jan. 23rd, 2004)
* Advanced Editing II (Apr. 25th, 2004)
* Advanced Editing III (Dec. 12th, 2004)
* Advanced Editing IV (Jan. 2nd, 2006)
* Basic Editing I (Jul. 29th, 2004)
* Basic Editing II (Dec. 14th, 2004)
* Basic Editing IV (Nov. 24th, 2005)
* Classic Editing (Jun. 4th, 2003)
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 23:29:42.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:32:26 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Or there never were any Basic Editing Rules III and you just went from 2 to 4
|
works for software manufacturers
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:24:55 AM · #283 |
I know that the rules aren't going to be changed, but I couldn't stop thinking about them and how they might be made a bit more accessible still. I have suggested an alternative format and some further amendments here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=495660&page=1#3013054
I hope that this is helpful.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:49:27 AM · #284 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I'm still waiting for someone to help us out on the wording of a rule that will prevent the viewer from being cheated, but still allow basic "art" things. |
If you wanted to create the rule, then you could have the rule:
"You MAY NOT:
change the hue or color of part of an image except to adjust the shade or intensity of the existing color."
This would mean that all selective color shifting would be prohibited. If smoke cannot be hue shifted, then I don't see why a yellow acrobat should be allowed to become pink, or why a green pepper should become blue.
However, my preference would be (given that they relate to advanced editing competitions) to allow all these things.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:51:26 AM · #285 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by karmat:
I'm still waiting for someone to help us out on the wording of a rule that will prevent the viewer from being cheated, but still allow basic "art" things. |
If you wanted to create the rule, then you could have the rule:
"You MAY NOT:
change the hue or color of part of an image except to adjust the shade or intensity of the existing color."
This would mean that all selective color shifting would be prohibited. If smoke cannot be hue shifted, then I don't see why a yellow acrobat should be allowed to become pink, or why a green pepper should become blue.
However, my preference would be (given that they relate to advanced editing competitions) to allow all these things. |
No good. This wording would also prohibit selective desaturation, and also prohibit converting a full-color image to black and white, sepia or duo/quadtone.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:52:45 AM · #286 |
I don't see what is wrong with the techniques used in RGB Smoke - why do you want to rule it out?
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:58:08 AM · #287 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
No good. This wording would also prohibit selective desaturation, and also prohibit converting a full-color image to black and white, sepia or duo/quadtone.
~Terry |
Why? My wording prohibits shifting hue, not reducing saturation. It is also limited to changing hue for part of the image, not the whole image (as required for changed tone images).
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 06:58:27 AM · #288 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I don't see what is wrong with the techniques used in RGB Smoke - why do you want to rule it out? |
I agree - though others do not.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 08:41:29 AM · #289 |
changing an image to sepia tone would constitute a hue shift.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
No good. This wording would also prohibit selective desaturation, and also prohibit converting a full-color image to black and white, sepia or duo/quadtone.
~Terry |
Why? My wording prohibits shifting hue, not reducing saturation. It is also limited to changing hue for part of the image, not the whole image (as required for changed tone images). |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 08:42:31 AM · #290 |
| Toned B&W would be DQ'd as well. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 08:56:43 AM · #291 |
Okay - to make it more clear:
"You MAY NOT:
change the hue of a selected part of an image except to adjust the shade or intensity of the existing color. This does not prevent you from applying a single change of hue to the whole image (e.g. to create a duotone, toned black & white, or sepia effect) or desaturating all or part of the image (e.g. to create black & white images or to achieve selective desaturation effects)."
As I said, I don't agree with the amendment, but it is possible to draft something that would prevent hue adjustment of selected parts of an image.
Edit to add: I think that you should make an amendment one way or the other: say that people can change the colour of "some or all" of any part of an existing object; or say that a single colour shift must be applied to a whole existing object; or say that it cannot be applied selectively. At the moment (as witnessed by the discussion in this thread) the drafting is unclear.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 09:04:14.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:01:20 AM · #292 |
Still no good. I shifted the hue on the Play Doh color (the eye ridges) in this image to get a better match . It wasn't at all deceptive, but this rule would prevent such tweaks.
This might also prevent certain white balance corrections. :-/
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 09:01:53. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:07:34 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Still no good. I shifted the hue on the Play Doh color (the eye ridges) in this image to get a better match . It wasn't at all deceptive, but this rule would prevent such tweaks.
This might also prevent certain white balance corrections. :-/ |
I suggested an exception allowing people "to adjust the shade or intensity of the existing color" - this should allow people to, say, create a consistent yellow. WB corrections would have to be applied to the whole image (and therefore would not fall foul of the prohibition).
Again - I think that the rule could work, if you wanted it to.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:18:18 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I suggested an exception allowing people "to adjust the shade or intensity of the existing color" |
Still no worky. The HUE of the Play Doh was shifted to match the squash. Not all White Balance is corrected with a global color shift either. This one had bluish light from the window and reddish light inside. Without the ability to selectively adjust HUE, it's not fixable:
 |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:37:24 AM · #295 |
I'm confused. (gee, are you surprised?)
So you can still do a selective color adjustment in basic? I've done that a zillion times. As long as it's the whole image, right?
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:40:14 AM · #296 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Still no worky. The HUE of the Play Doh was shifted to match the squash. Not all White Balance is corrected with a global color shift either. This one had bluish light from the window and reddish light inside. Without the ability to selectively adjust HUE, it's not fixable: |
A further alternative:
"You MAY NOT:
change the hue of a selected part of your image except to adjust the shade or intensity of the existing color, or to correct white balance.
[This does not prevent you from applying a single change of hue to the whole image (e.g. to create a duotone, toned black & white, or sepia effect) or desaturating all or part of the image (e.g. to create black & white images or to achieve selective desaturation effects).]"
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:40:43 AM · #297 |
I think the word "selective" may be causing the confusion.
You can do a "selective" color adjustment in basic, if by selection you mean the red channel, or the blue channel, or the green channel, etc.
If you mean you select "x" number of pixels and change them, then no, that is not allowed in basic. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:43:13 AM · #298 |
YOU MAY: saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry, but no selections are allowed.
Make it a zillion and one Jutilda- If your still confused post back.
Originally posted by Jutilda:
I'm confused. (gee, are you surprised?)
So you can still do a selective color adjustment in basic? I've done that a zillion times. As long as it's the whole image, right? |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 09:48:17 AM · #299 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
A further alternative... |
That still doesn't allow me to match the Play Doh on the image I posted. It also wouldn't allow me to change the color of the glowing eye or bow on these in Advanced (even though the color itself is not deceptive and does not create the impact of the image)-
 
...and it would kill the green stop sign posted earlier, even though the voters accepted the obvious edit to the point of second place. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 10:18:26 AM · #300 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That still doesn't allow me to match the Play Doh on the image I posted. It also wouldn't allow me to change the color of the glowing eye or bow on these in Advanced (even though the color itself is not deceptive and does not create the impact of the image)-
...and it would kill the green stop sign posted earlier, even though the voters accepted the obvious edit to the point of second place. |
Your changes in those cases would be prohibited. You would have to use a similar shade of Play Doh and perfect it in post. You would have to use a green LED light, and tie the correct colour ribbon on the horse before taking the photo. And colour smoke would have to be created using exotic chemicals or filters. This is what some people appear to regard as preserving photographic integrity.
Because we are working digitally, I think that all colour shifting should be permitted - it is a valid procedure, and mimics what could be done with filters or airbrushing in any case.
I personally cannot identify (let alone distinguish) what makes, say, RGB smoke objectionable from any of the other cases, other than (perhaps) degree of boldness and subtlety. Not factors that could or should be legislated for in the rules.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 10:18:55.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:56:57 AM EDT.
