Basic editing question - DPChallenge Forums

04/23/2007 03:21:52 PM · #1

When we updated the basic editing rules, did we change from a tools based approach to an effect based approach?

Let's say I've come up with a tools legal way to add a vignette in Photoshop. If the tools do not select things and I'm not using a filter, is it legit? Or is the fact that I have added an effect come into play?

I'm a bit confused about the possible change in approach the new rules caused.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/25/2007 03:03:33 PM · #2

How did nobody answer this?

An example...the vignette was added via basic legal tools

Message edited by author 2007-04-25 15:05:30.

KarenNfld

04/25/2007 03:06:11 PM · #3

Ha, probably no one knows, we're all as confused as you are. I would guess SC are the only ones who can answer this.

freakin_hilarious

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

04/25/2007 03:09:00 PM · #4

I'll throw in my guess. Based on what I've seen in the ol' forums in the recent past and the following line from the rules, I'd say that however you did it, it is not legal.

You May Not:
- use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didnâ��t already exist in your original capture.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/25/2007 03:28:09 PM · #5

AFAIK, there has been no shift at all toward a results-based system for Basic (it's still methods-based). You can create selective effects in Basic, using USM, Shadow/highlight, or other globally-applied techniques. I've never seen a vignette successfully applied, though.
My personal opinion would be that if you used a Basic-legal editing workflow, it should be OK. If yoiu want to be *sure,* it's probably best to open a ticket and get the entire group's opinion.

04/25/2007 03:39:40 PM · #6

Well, right now it's a "trade secret", but perhaps I'll do a little investigating.

It IS tools legal, I'm 98% sure of that. It is done in PS and not any other third party application.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/25/2007 03:43:41 PM · #7

I believe reading a while back that creating a vignette in your RAW converter is not allowed in basic. Technically you are not creating any selection when you do it either.

Message edited by author 2007-04-25 15:43:59.

freakin_hilarious

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

04/25/2007 03:51:12 PM · #8

Looking back, I found this thread - RAW vignette adjust - Still legal in Basic?. It is one of example of what I meant when I said "Based on what I've seen in the ol' forums in the recent past" above.

That thread deals with RAW vignette additions specifically, but I don't see why it would matter if added during RAW conversion vs. PS. It seems that the SC that posted in that thread gave the vignette addition a universal thumbs down in basic, but it wasn't clear to me whether it was a "using an illegal tool" or "creating a new feature" opinion. I am certainly interested in knowing how this plays out!

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/25/2007 06:03:16 PM · #9

I think you're pushing your luck.

"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."

"You may... use RAW conversion software as long as the changes are made globally to a single file on one layer and do not create new features or effects in the process."

I'd certainly recommend contacting SC with specifics before rolling the dice on this.

~Terry

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

04/25/2007 06:58:02 PM · #10

OK, I submitted a ticket. If SC could keep my process under wraps while they argue and after it would be cool... ;)

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

04/25/2007 07:01:23 PM · #11

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Does that mean that this one,

which was validated at the time, would no longer be legal under basic rules? The effect was created using shadows/highlights.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

04/25/2007 07:04:42 PM · #12

And yet, I do remember some entries that had been deliberately oversharpened to create big halos have been dq'd in the past.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2007 07:15:16 PM · #13

Originally posted by skewsme:

And yet, I do remember some entries that had been deliberately oversharpened to create big halos have been dq'd in the past.

Can you find an example?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/25/2007 07:15:56 PM · #14

Originally posted by skewsme:

And yet, I do remember some entries that had been deliberately oversharpened to create big halos have been dq'd in the past.

Message edited by author 2007-04-25 19:31:20.

aliqui

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

04/25/2007 07:17:13 PM · #15

Originally posted by skewsme:

And yet, I do remember some entries that had been deliberately oversharpened to create big halos have been dq'd in the past.

I did that with one of my first entries last year. I didn't get DQ'd though. I still can't believe that image has 2 favorites. I love it.. I just can't believe anyone else would, heh.

The holiest of holy shopping carts.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2007 07:20:12 PM · #16

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

I think as this is phrased it is a marked departure from past practice. Previously, Sharpen/Unsharp Mask, Gaussian Blur, and color modification adjustments were simply "allowed," and only "specialized" filters or software like NeatImage and Dust&Scratches were specifically constrained by the "maintain image integity" injunction.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/25/2007 07:23:26 PM · #17

Currently, I see no trend that indicates a halo introduced via USM or Shadow/highlight is a DQable offense. We've pretty regularly validated them, and they are relatively common (there's one in validation now).

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

04/26/2007 12:02:41 AM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

OK, I submitted a ticket. If SC could keep my process under wraps while they argue and after it would be cool... ;)

I have you submitted a patent yet?

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/26/2007 12:06:34 AM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

since you're validating one now, please be fair :)

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

04/26/2007 12:09:35 AM · #20

Thanks, Crayon. It was your image I was about to go try to find. I look forward to hearing the scoop.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

04/26/2007 12:21:51 AM · #21

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Currently, I see no trend that indicates a halo introduced via USM or Shadow/highlight is a DQable offense. We've pretty regularly validated them, and they are relatively common (there's one in validation now).

since you're validating one now, please be fair :)

So you're saying you didn't spot edit the photo like the DQ states?

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

04/26/2007 12:25:58 AM · #22

Originally posted by yanko:

So you're saying you didn't spot edit the photo like the DQ states?

Didja read Crayon's comments on the pic, Yanko? He says it was just USM.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

04/26/2007 12:42:51 AM · #23

Oh crayon, thank you for posting! You really saved me some brain-wracking.