Introducing the New Rules - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/08/2006 10:29:33 AM · #301

I'm sorry but i still don't see how any of this is worth this much effort or really matters. so what if the photographer did something in post to fool you. no matter what processing rules you make those that are smart and dedicated can do most things before taking the photo. RGB smoke would have been easy with more set up time using gels and such.

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

11/08/2006 11:06:02 AM · #302

How about this wording:

You MAY change the colour, hue, tone of any part or all of your image.

Now stop trying to bollox up the advanced editing. I want to be able to do these things!!!!

Elvis_L

11/08/2006 11:17:57 AM · #303

Originally posted by Falc:

How about this wording:

You MAY change the colour, hue, tone of any part or all of your image.

Now stop trying to bollox up the advanced editing. I want to be able to do these things!!!!

YEA

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/08/2006 11:26:45 AM · #304

Originally posted by Falc:

How about this wording:

You MAY change the colour, hue, tone of any part or all of your image.

Now stop trying to bollox up the advanced editing. I want to be able to do these things!!!!

I agree - I was merely pointing out that you could draft to prevent colour shifting, if it was so problematic.

elsapo

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

11/08/2006 11:30:07 AM · #305

I think with the new advanced rules we will be seeing some more disqualifications in the next weeks as people try to figure out what is acceptable. I don't understand why you would regress on the rules, thatâ��s just going to confuse people more. (I do however like the basic editing changes lol)

muckpond

Nikon D200

11/08/2006 12:58:40 PM · #306

the whole point of the new advanced rules is to TRY to delineate what's acceptable more clearly while still leaving enough creative freedom for everyone to have fun.

the issue we kept running into was "how much is too much?" meaning, "at what point in time does the image become more about the effect that was applied than the original capture?" there are times when it is OK to add in a bit of motion blur to make your already-motion-blurred image work better. there have been plenty of cases where this has been validated. however, there have been a number of cases where users completely changed their shots with the use of an effect or filter.

cases in point:

extremes such as these were really more about the effect applied in post-processing than any effort put into the original photograph, so we started with that as a baseline for the new ruleset.

we have also heard a LOT about the ambiguity of the former "major elements" clause:

Originally posted by Old Advanced Rules:

However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.

honestly, there was ambiguity within the SC as well. i, for one, always interpreted "major element" to mean something descriptive ABOUT the photo, whereas the conventional wisdom was that a "major element" was a physical object WITHIN the photo. i think we can all agree that "major element" was a crappy, generic phrase that was far too subjective for everyone's tastes and too amorphous for non-native-English speakers to grasp (as well as some of us native speakers, lol).

so, we tried to make it more specific for everyone:

Originally posted by New Advanced Rules:

You may not:
...
use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
...
use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.

finally, the discussion that centered around color essentially mirrored that which you have read here. we'd keep making suggestions and then someone would show why it wouldn't work. someone else would tweak it, and we'd find another reason why it wouldn't work. and on and on and on. so it was decided to exclude color as a descriptive feature/element of the images for the purposes of allowing some color play (as simple as shifting white balance all the way up to changing a red stop sign to green) and let the VOTERS decide "how much is too much."

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 12:59:14.

11/08/2006 01:14:17 PM · #307

What Muck said. We don't claim that these rules are perfect, but they've been discussed and tweaked for a long time (imagine the exact same discussion you see in this thread continuing on for many months). We really do appreciate and invite suggestions for improvement, but just bear in mind that we've already debated to death some of the issues brought up here.

FWIW, someone pointed out that using my own images as examples in this thread might make it look like I'm trying to keep "my" editing legal. I hope not. I really don't care if things like deceptive color shifts or artwork backgrounds are allowed or not. I'm just using my images for reference because I'm most familiar with them and know the editing steps. That doesn't mean I'm strongly in favor or opposed to allowing similar techniques in the future.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

11/08/2006 01:28:03 PM · #308

Originally posted by scalvert:

someone pointed out that using my own images as examples in this thread might make it look like I'm trying to keep "my" editing legal. I hope not. I really don't care if things like deceptive color shifts or artwork backgrounds are allowed or not.

liar ... cheater ... jerk

:)

11/08/2006 01:38:35 PM · #309

Y'all excuse me while I go look for a subjective "added feature" on Hopper's entry... ;-)

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

11/08/2006 02:09:01 PM · #310

Originally posted by scalvert:

Y'all excuse me while I go look for a subjective "added feature" on Hopper's entry... ;-)

PurpleFire

Canon EOS-7D

11/10/2006 07:37:22 AM · #311

Does that mean using blur to add DOF is a no, no too? I want to slightly blur a background for a DPC entry - not by much of course.

I would guess from my take on the rules this is ok in advanced but not ok in basic.

PurpleFire

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/10/2006 08:52:23 AM · #312

Originally posted by PurpleFire:

BUMP

silverfoxx

Canon EOS-5D

11/10/2006 09:00:51 AM · #313

could someone please tell me:
if I don't have lens flare effect on my photo for an advanced editing challenge is it allowed to "create" it in PH?
and if I "create" lens flare or any other small details using dodge tool is it allowed?
thank you so much!

Svetlana - silverfoxx

11/10/2006 09:03:19 AM · #314

Originally posted by PurpleFire:

I would guess from my take on the rules this is ok in advanced but not ok in basic.

Correct. Sharpening and blur are allowed even in Basic, and the "degree of sharpness" wouldn't be considered a feature (unless you totally obliterate your background), but you wouldn't be able to select just the background in Basic. Note that adding motion blur to a shot that had none WOULD be considered a new feature.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/10/2006 09:05:05 AM · #315

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

if I don't have lens flare effect on my photo for an advanced editing challenge is it allowed to "create" it in PH?

No, you can't. Lens flares and "star" effects would be considered new shapes that weren't in your original capture regardless of what tool you used to create them.

David.C

11/10/2006 01:59:24 PM · #316

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by silverfoxx:
if I don't have lens flare effect on my photo for an advanced editing challenge is it allowed to "create" it in PH?

No, you can't. Lens flares and "star" effects would be considered new shapes that weren't in your original capture regardless of what tool you used to create them.

Does this extent to catchlights? I seem to recall that being passable at one point (advanced only, of course) -- but could be mistaken.

David

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/10/2006 03:25:59 PM · #317

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sounds like the EXIF data would be altered on any images edited in the camera, which would then make those invalid as originals.

Though: 'You may: use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.'

Was also playing around with my cameraphone over lunch today. It has features to do multi-shot mosaic compositions, with picture in picture within different shapes (hearts, stars, cutouts etc) and also to overlay a variety of 'frames' on the shot, money, film effects, hearts & flowers, puppies etc.

The end result is a single image with valid and appropriate EXIF info. Is that allowable in basic (cheesy and tacky though it might be?) Seems like it is going to be more common in the next year or so.

This kind of thing:

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/10/2006 03:30:37 PM · #318

If you can do it in-camera and the EXIF data is valid, it's legal in Basic and Advanced (for now).

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/10/2006 03:35:43 PM · #319

What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/10/2006 03:37:36 PM · #320

;-P

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 15:37:42.

hanneke

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/10/2006 03:38:52 PM · #321

Originally posted by kirbic:

What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this.

please do ;)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/10/2006 03:41:29 PM · #322

Originally posted by kirbic:

What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this.

Here's my Portrait in Landscape Orientation outtake then ;)

EXIF appears to be valid (at least PBase reads it)
Luckily the resolution seems to be limited in camera to a little under 240x180 for the cheesy features, even though it shoots up to
1280x1024 in 'normal' shots.

Though this is quite a low end camera phone these days (with really bad lighting for this shot :) )

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 15:42:07.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/10/2006 03:46:48 PM · #323

gordon, you've never looked better.