| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2007 02:31:50 PM · #1 |
Surely if Photomatix has been deemed `legal`in basic editing then the Virtual Photographer plugin for Photoshop must be legal as well, as essentially it works on the same principle.
Or is this another case of double standards?? I have sent an email to SC asking about it, but met with a stony silence, so posting in here to see what you all think.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:44:33 PM · #2 |
| When did this get approved for basic? |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:47:41 PM · #3 |
I'm pretty sure Tone Mapping is allowed in Basic, which is a funtion of Photomatix.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:51:02 PM · #4 |
My guess is whether the same effect can be achieved by legal means in Photoshop. I don't have it installed here, but I think some of the effects would require more than normal blending of adjustment layers in Photoshop. It's certainly a fun and free program. Virtual Photographer
After grabbing the link, I noticed the "additional settings". Are you referring to one of those replicating Photomatix? If not, which exact setting?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:51:12 PM · #5 |
You're NOT being ignored. We are still discussing it. (Tonemapping as well).
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 14:51:31. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:10:57 PM · #6 |
I am curious about photomatix and basic editing rules as well.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:19:13 PM · #7 |
Is there also any word on using control points in Nikon's Capture NX raw conversion program?
The white, black and neutral control points basically do the same as the eyedroppers in PS'Curves.
The color control point is a bit tricky, sometimes it works on the whole photo, sometimes not. They can also be graduated selections. But you don't have to do anything but putting the point somewhere. When you use more control points it makes more local selections. And you can influence to what extent they select and probably even to the extent that you select the whole photo in which case is should be legal.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 04:52:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by karmat:
You're NOT being ignored. We are still discussing it. (Tonemapping as well). |
OK, just seemed I had no reply from you guys so I thought maybe I was being ignored.
On the other hand I cant see what there is to discuss. Photomatix takes an image, splits it into 3 variations ( -1Ev, ev & +1ev) then blends the parts that are `mid range` (a simplified description), then composites them into a single image. Virtual Photographer does exactly the same but has always been deemed illegal in basic editing.
Obviously I hope both Photomatix AND Virtual Photographer are allowed in Basic as I would love to enter some pseudo HRD image in basic challenges (and watch the kerfuffle on the forums afterwards). |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 04:59:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
...I hope both Photomatix AND Virtual Photographer are allowed in Basic as I would love to enter some pseudo HRD image in basic challenges (and watch the kerfuffle on the forums afterwards). |
You'd be far from the first to enter pseudo-HDR into a Basic Challenge. There are quite a few shots over the past few months where Photomatix's tonemapping has been used. It was ruled legal early on. Most of Virtual Photographer has also been previously ruled legal, but there are if I recall correctly, a couple thngs in VP that would not be legal.
For the record, we *are* discussing the ongoing legality of some of these techniques in Basic. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:00:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
... Photomatix takes an image, splits it into 3 variations ( -1Ev, ev & +1ev) then blends the parts that are `mid range` (a simplified description), then composites them into a single image. Virtual Photographer does exactly the same but has always been deemed illegal in basic editing. ... |
Actually, can't you 'Tonemap' using Photomatix with a single image? I think that's how it's allowed in the Basic ruleset. I wasn't aware that it was, but it makes sense - applied to the entire image.
To generate a HDR image you use 3 variants of the same image (+/- ev), or you can use 3 separate exposures (unallowed in basic and advanced).
I'll have to double-check the 'Tonemapping' in Photomatix with 1 image when I get home (unless someone else can confirm now).
edit to add...
Rechecked the Basic ruleset and the rule that would apply is this I think:
You may: "use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No "effects" filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."
Guess it falls under the color correction part of that? I can see where it could be read two different ways.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 17:02:43.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:01:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Originally posted by karmat:
You're NOT being ignored. We are still discussing it. (Tonemapping as well). |
OK, just seemed I had no reply from you guys so I thought maybe I was being ignored.
On the other hand I cant see what there is to discuss. Photomatix takes an image, splits it into 3 variations ( -1Ev, ev & +1ev) then blends the parts that are `mid range` (a simplified description), then composites them into a single image. Virtual Photographer does exactly the same but has always been deemed illegal in basic editing.
Obviously I hope both Photomatix AND Virtual Photographer are allowed in Basic as I would love to enter some pseudo HRD image in basic challenges (and watch the kerfuffle on the forums afterwards). |
kerfuffle?
I don't know what that means, but I like saying it!
kerfuffle, kerfuffle, kerfuffle, kerfuffle
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:04:00 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
kerfuffle?
I don't know what that means, but I like saying it!
kerfuffle, kerfuffle, kerfuffle, kerfuffle |
It's kinda like a brouhaha ;-) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:04:35 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
kerfuffle?
I don't know what that means, but I like saying it!
kerfuffle, kerfuffle, kerfuffle, kerfuffle |
Yup he said kerfuffle alright.
Main Entry: ker·fuf·fle
Pronunciation: k&r-'f&-f&l
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of carfuffle, from Scots car- (probably from Scottish Gaelic cearr wrong, awkward) + fuffle to become disheveled
chiefly British : DISTURBANCE, FUSS |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:08:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Photomatix takes an image, splits it into 3 variations ( -1Ev, ev & +1ev) then blends the parts that are `mid range` (a simplified description), then composites them into a single image. Virtual Photographer does exactly the same but has always been deemed illegal in basic editing. |
That's true only if you use "Generate HDRI image" in Photomatix. You can take a single, 16-bit (or RAW) image and tone map it in photomatix without doing all that. The results aren't as smooth, but it is doable. CS2's "shadow/highlight" feature is the Photoshop equivalent; it was designed for the purpose of tone mapping HDRI composites, but it can also be used on a single exposure. It has always been legal in basic, so by extension so must be Photomatix tone mapping.
SHOULD these tools be legal in basic editing? I tend to think not. But they currently are.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:08:04 PM · #15 |
Photomatix, whilst it can create a Pseudo HDR image from a single JPG, internally it create 3 images from that one image to get the varying exposures needed to create the image.. So basically it is creating 3 layers, then uses certain blending algorithms to create the final image. Its exactly the same as using Virtual Photographer, in fact, I would say VP is more `legal` in basic than Photomatix. If SC deem VP illegal but Photomatix legal then its another blow to common sense.
Tonemapping is definitely illegal in basic editing.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by marksimms:
... Photomatix takes an image, splits it into 3 variations ( -1Ev, ev & +1ev) then blends the parts that are `mid range` (a simplified description), then composites them into a single image. Virtual Photographer does exactly the same but has always been deemed illegal in basic editing. ... |
Actually, can't you 'Tonemap' using Photomatix with a single image? I think that's how it's allowed in the Basic ruleset. I wasn't aware that it was, but it makes sense - applied to the entire image.
To generate a HDR image you use 3 variants of the same image (+/- ev), or you can use 3 separate exposures (unallowed in basic and advanced).
I'll have to double-check the 'Tonemapping' in Photomatix with 1 image when I get home (unless someone else can confirm now).
edit to add...
Rechecked the Basic ruleset and the rule that would apply is this I think:
You may: "use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No "effects" filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur."
Guess it falls under the color correction part of that? I can see where it could be read two different ways. |
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 17:09:48. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:10:18 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'll have to double-check the 'Tonemapping' in Photomatix with 1 image when I get home (unless someone else can confirm now). |
Yes, you can tonemap from a single image. Photomatix has a plugin for photoshop that makes it easy.
Originally posted by kirbic:
There are quite a few shots over the past few months where Photomatix's tonemapping has been used. It was ruled legal early on. Most of Virtual Photographer has also been previously ruled legal, but there are if I recall correctly, a couple thngs in VP that would not be legal. |
Is there a place to see what tools have been explicity rules legal and not legal? ie: which VP tasks are not legal? |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:13:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Photomatix, whilst it can create a Pseudo HDR image from a single JPG, internally ...
Tonemapping is definitely illegal in basic editing. |
HDR and Tonemapping are two different things. You're lumping them together.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:22:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Is there a place to see what tools have been explicity rules legal and not legal? ie: which VP tasks are not legal? |
It would be good to see this for Photoshop, Paint Shop, Paint.net, GIMP, etc. These things are discussed in the forums frequently and are contained within the rules, but it would be nice to have a table or something that shows specific tools, filters, etc for the different editing programs and their legality for different challenges.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 17:40:44.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:24:14 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Is there a place to see what tools have been explicity rules legal and not legal? ie: which VP tasks are not legal? |
It would be good to see this for Photoshop, Paint Shot, Paint.net, GIMP, etc. These things are discussed in the forums frequently and are contained within the rules, but it would be nice to have a table or something that shows specific tools, filters, etc for the different editing programs and their legality for different challenges. |
I agree, some kind of table would really help us all. Forget long text passages!! Cheers
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:24:19 PM · #20 |
I was under the impression that a filter had to be applied evenly over the whole image in basic editing.
There is no way that tonemapping with one image with photomatic is even over the whole photo. It makes darks lighter and lights darker nothing even about that.
Maybe it should be left for advance editing only. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:25:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by marbo:
I was under the impression that a filter had to be applied evenly over the whole image in basic editing.
There is no way that tonemapping with one image with photomatic is even over the whole photo. It makes darks lighter and lights darker nothing even about that.
Maybe it should be left for advance editing only. |
Doesn't shadow/highlight affect similar areas too?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:25:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Photomatix, whilst it can create a Pseudo HDR image from a single JPG, internally it create 3 images from that one image to get the varying exposures needed to create the image.. So basically it is creating 3 layers, then uses certain blending algorithms to create the final image. Its exactly the same as using Virtual Photographer, in fact, I would say VP is more `legal` in basic than Photomatix. If SC deem VP illegal but Photomatix legal then its another blow to common sense.
Tonemapping is definitely illegal in basic editing. |
Mark,
I've got a couple specific quesions:
1.) You compare Photomatix with Virtual Photographer. I have played with the VP plug-in, and it has some effects, like blur, soften, various film-look color/contrast adjustments, color filters, B+W options, and a few more things, but it is a completely different animal than Photomatix, IMO. Can you point out which feature(s) of VP you are comparing to the Photomatix tonemapping?
2.) You have repeatedly referred to the inner working s of Photomatix as "internally creating three images." From what published reference are you getting this exactly, or how have you determined this? |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:26:54 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
Originally posted by marbo:
I was under the impression that a filter had to be applied evenly over the whole image in basic editing.
There is no way that tonemapping with one image with photomatic is even over the whole photo. It makes darks lighter and lights darker nothing even about that.
Maybe it should be left for advance editing only. |
Doesn't shadow/highlight affect similar areas too? |
Yes, i`m sure it does. So as the rules read thay are illegal. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:33:15 PM · #24 |
Tonemapping shouldn't even be close to legal...it is a joke.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:36:15 PM · #25 |
Now this is interesting if they are discussing whether or not tone mapping should remain legal in basic then that opens up for discussion a lot of other techniques currently legal in basic. Most things done in basic editing is similar to tone mapping in that "certain areas" are focused on while being applied to the whole. Curves for example. I can adjust just the white point leaving the blacks untouched. Another example is Hue/Saturation. I could go on and on. If tone mapping is deemed illegal it will be VERY interesting as to the reasoning.
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 07:47:51 AM EDT.
