| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2007 04:26:31 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by levyj413:
As a point of discussion not directly relevant to whether these tools should be legal, the overarching principle doesn't seem to really rule the roost, esp. when it comes to color changes. I've definitely taken advantage of extreme color shifts in basic and been validated. I'm not arguing that should now be illegal, but rather using it to demonstrate that correcting "basic imperfections" hasn't been a meaningful limit in Basic for a long, long time.
Here's an example from my entries:
 became  , was tagged for validation during the challenge, and was validated. |
while this isn't totally relevant to this thread, i'd like to address it.
we've gone around and around and around trying to come up with language that restricts extreme color shifts (like your example) and failed. we've not found a way to clarify color shifts without impacting the effects of bw/sepia/duotone conversion and selective desaturation.
while, personally, i'd like to see such extreme color shifts ruled out, there's not an easy way to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. therefore, those significant shifts have remained legal. |
It wouldn't simply fall under the major elements rule? It certainly changes the average viewer's description of the image. |
No, because then we've defined "colour" as a major element and we fall into the same problem already described!
You see how hard this? |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:30:07 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by levyj413:
As a point of discussion not directly relevant to whether these tools should be legal, the overarching principle doesn't seem to really rule the roost, esp. when it comes to color changes. I've definitely taken advantage of extreme color shifts in basic and been validated. I'm not arguing that should now be illegal, but rather using it to demonstrate that correcting "basic imperfections" hasn't been a meaningful limit in Basic for a long, long time.
Here's an example from my entries:
became , was tagged for validation during the challenge, and was validated. |
while this isn't totally relevant to this thread, i'd like to address it.
we've gone around and around and around trying to come up with language that restricts extreme color shifts (like your example) and failed. we've not found a way to clarify color shifts without impacting the effects of bw/sepia/duotone conversion and selective desaturation.
while, personally, i'd like to see such extreme color shifts ruled out, there's not an easy way to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. therefore, those significant shifts have remained legal. |
It wouldn't simply fall under the major elements rule? It certainly changes the average viewer's description of the image. |
The major elements language applies to advanced editing, not basic. This image was entered in basic. Colour shift are allowed in basic, and that is how this image was validated - it's a bunch of colour shifts. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:16:16 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
It wouldn't simply fall under the major elements rule? It certainly changes the average viewer's description of the image. |
The major elements language applies to advanced editing, not basic. |
In addition, changing the typical viewer's description (and the earlier major elements rule) only applies when you "move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph." Otherwise, ANY significant edit would change a viewer's description. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:23:00 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
It wouldn't simply fall under the major elements rule? It certainly changes the average viewer's description of the image. |
The major elements language applies to advanced editing, not basic. |
In addition, changing the typical viewer's description (and the earlier major elements rule) only applies when you "move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph." Otherwise, ANY significant edit would change a viewer's description. |
Isn't cropping removing major elements? :)
please dont even bite.. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:24:32 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Isn't cropping removing major elements? :)
please dont even bite.. |
Damn!!
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:39:19 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by levyj413:
As a point of discussion not directly relevant to whether these tools should be legal, the overarching principle doesn't seem to really rule the roost, esp. when it comes to color changes. I've definitely taken advantage of extreme color shifts in basic and been validated. I'm not arguing that should now be illegal, but rather using it to demonstrate that correcting "basic imperfections" hasn't been a meaningful limit in Basic for a long, long time.
Here's an example from my entries:
became , was tagged for validation during the challenge, and was validated. |
while this isn't totally relevant to this thread, i'd like to address it.
we've gone around and around and around trying to come up with language that restricts extreme color shifts (like your example) and failed. we've not found a way to clarify color shifts without impacting the effects of bw/sepia/duotone conversion and selective desaturation.
while, personally, i'd like to see such extreme color shifts ruled out, there's not an easy way to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. therefore, those significant shifts have remained legal. |
It wouldn't simply fall under the major elements rule? It certainly changes the average viewer's description of the image. |
No, because then we've defined "colour" as a major element and we fall into the same problem already described!
You see how hard this? |
I'm at a loss as to why this is even an issue. Is it because you don't like color changes period? Just don't like color changes made in post? You don't mind color changes but this passes your personal threshold on what you find acceptable? I don't particularly care for IR photos which is one of the most drastic color modifications one can do in photography. Such photos bear little resemblance to what was actually in front of the camera but let me guess you guys weren't thinking of including it as part of banning drastic color changes?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:43:44 PM · #132 |
yanko -- we're not considering banning colour changes. Its a non-issue! We're just advising everyone that we've thought about it and discussed it and had no decent alternative to the status quo.
If you're looking for a fight, muckpond went ---> that way. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:44:38 PM · #133 |
I hate tonemapping, so I'm not crying over this and I'm glad about the ruling. After seeing upwards of 150 tone-mapped entries every single Basic Editing challenge, this was obviously an issue that deserved attention.
edit:
Tee up the Girls Kissing Girls challenge now. At 720px entry limits. Now. Don't take a year to get to it either, just go do it. Now.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 17:46:27. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:49:04 PM · #134 |
I̢۪ve not read the complete thread but enough to know that my brain hurts now. I not taking sides (if I did no one would care) but has the SC and/or Admin̢۪s considered that making such restrictions could cause a drastic drop in entries, registered users, and possible members for fear of being DQ̢۪ed because they may not be PS or other software savvy.
I use PS CS2 and all this talk is putting me in a position where I wonder if I want to renew my membership or not. Not because I don̢۪t like the changes but because I don̢۪t know if I understand all the changes. I̢۪ve been here almost four years so I̢۪m sure it will reframe the new user from entering.
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 05:59:37 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
I̢۪ve not read the complete thread but enough to know that my brain hurts now. I not taking sides (if I did no one would care) but has the SC and/or Admin̢۪s considered that making such restrictions could cause a drastic drop in entries, registered users, and possible members for fear of being DQ̢۪ed because they may not be PS or other software savvy.
I use PS CS2 and all this talk is putting me in a position where I wonder if I want to renew my membership or not. Not because I don̢۪t like the changes but because I don̢۪t know if I understand all the changes. I̢۪ve been here almost four years so I̢۪m sure it will reframe the new user from entering.
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography.
Just my 2 cents. |
Scott, IMHO, our announcement makes things EASIER for the new user becasue they don't have to be proficient or even know about all these plug-ins and software because they are not allowed anyway. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:00:45 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography. |
That's pretty much the way it's been as long as I've been here. That's pretty much the way PHOTOGRAPHY is for that matter. Not 100% of the time, of course; the best processing doesn't always win, there are other factors. But nevertheless, once you reach a certain level of competence in the "act of photography", that's a plateau. If you want to reach a higher plateau, you do it with creativity & imagination, or you do it with better PP, or both.
Pretty much without exception, as long as I've been here, the winners demonstrate a high level of post processing skill. I have seen LOTS of images that would have done better if the creator were better at PP; they had imagination/creativity, the camera skills were there, but the final realization of the image was lacking.
And in the "real" world of photography (as opposed tot he DPC microcosm), with the notable exception of work done as transparencies, your success is at least as much dependent on your ability to translate negative into print as it is on your vision/camera skills, which are pretty much a given part of the equation as you climb the ladder towards success. That is to say, people with great technical competence can survive even if they lack creativity, but wildly creative people with no technical skills in printmaking etc don't fare as well, unless they hook up with a lab that can cover that base for them.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:01:08 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i didn't say that we had to limit ourselves to what you can do in the darkroom. i did imply that the focus of the entries here should be on what you can do with the camera instead of the tools used to output the final image.
you can do a lot of crazy stuff in the darkroom that takes photos out of the realm of "photography" and into other kinds of artwork. and you can do that with your software tools too.
but the main focus of this site is the capture and not the post-processing. advanced gives you more leeway with the editing, but the end result should still be a photograph.
for the purposes of this site, the "digital darkroom" should be used for improving on the original capture, and not for producing purely digital art. |
Perfect words, I fully support them. I'm a newbie and I can tell you that I like this site because the focus here is on Photography and not on post processing or Digital Art.
I think that both basic and an advanced editing should still be focused on Photography improvement.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:04:59 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by frisca:
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography.
Just my 2 cents. |
Scott, IMHO, our announcement makes things EASIER for the new user becasue they don't have to be proficient or even know about all these plug-ins and software because they are not allowed anyway. [/quote]
Aww, c'mon Frisca! All you've done is ban one approach to tone mapping, photomatix, while leaving the other (shadow/highlight) available to anyone that has recent elements or photoshop versions. Anyone that can figure out shadow/highlight and make it work well for them can figure out tone mapping, they are very parallel in how they are used. You haven't "simplified" anything; to do that you'd have to ban shadow/highlight as well.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:05:49 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by frisca:
yanko -- we're not considering banning colour changes. Its a non-issue! We're just advising everyone that we've thought about it and discussed it and had no decent alternative to the status quo.
If you're looking for a fight, muckpond went ---> that way. |
LOL. Sorry. I just quoted the last post I saw on the subject. Ok, I'll get my bat and head for muckpond's direction. :P
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:06:33 PM · #140 |
| All this talk about PS7, CS2 and CS3 and possibly not allowing the Shadow/Highlight tool for Basic Editing. Well what about PaintShop Pro and it's Clarify Tool? This is another tool that can alter an image even more than the Shadow/Highlight tool and this would still be allowed? There are many photo editing software programs out there with different tools, some that PS doesn't have, you'd have to include them all in the new Basic Editing Rules to be fair. Just my opinion ;) |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:30:03 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Simms:
One upon a time there was a poll about increasing image size to 720pixels, the first time around everyone voted that they didnt want to see it increased. The SC said, since the opinion was that the majority of people didnt want an increase, it would stay the same. Fair enough, voter power worked. hurrah for democracy (yes, before anyone says it, I know that DPC has never been, or pretended to be, a democracy).
Fast forward to the poll the second time around, technology had moved on, people had faster net connections and higher resolution monitors, the opinion was that people DID want to see an increase in the maximum size for images.. but lo and behold.. nothing happened. You run the poll, you gauged the opinion of the users and still nothing. |
Your "point" is based on the mistaken assumption that the threshold for instituting this change was 50% of voters -- it was not. Not all democracies (even if this was one) work on a simple majority basis. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:47:40 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. Sorry. I just quoted the last post I saw on the subject. Ok, I'll get my bat and head for muckpond's direction. :P |
bring it. i'm still not happy with you about this: 
:P
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:56:49 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. Sorry. I just quoted the last post I saw on the subject. Ok, I'll get my bat and head for muckpond's direction. :P |
bring it. i'm still not happy with you about this:
:P |
Ha. I bet you've muttered to yourself, no way he beats me in basic with that! :P Speaking of which, an interesting challenge suggestion would be to take a photo you did well in advance or expert and do it under basic or minimal.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 07:00:06 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography.
Just my 2 cents. |
Post work is part of photography but you're right it does have a big advantage in the challenge for those who can pull it off. Funny, I feel the same way about those who use nothing but the best equipment and have super models with huge blue/green eyes on speed dial. You can't tell me that's not a huge advantage and you pretty much get that advantage right out of the box unlike photoshop which doesn't have the easiest learning curve.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 07:00:21 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. Sorry. I just quoted the last post I saw on the subject. Ok, I'll get my bat and head for muckpond's direction. :P |
bring it. i'm still not happy with you about this:
:P |
Ha. I bet you've muttered to yourself, no way he beats me in basic with that! :P Speaking of which, an interesting challenge suggestion would be to take a photo you did well in advance or expert and do it under basic or minimal. |
Originally posted by frisca:
thanks to everyone who's been respectful of this topic so far. Anyone who wishes to discuss Shadow/Highlight  muckpond vs  yanko in the context of this announcement is invited to do so in a separate thread. Hopefully we can keep this thread on topic as well. |
Edits by me obviously, awaiting battle! :P |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 07:08:03 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Edits by me obviously, awaiting battle! :P |
Come to think of it someone with horns on their head might need more than a bat to defeat. :P
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 07:22:34 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by swhiddon:
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography.
Just my 2 cents. |
Post work is part of photography but you're right it does have a big advantage in the challenge for those who can pull it off. Funny, I feel the same way about those who use nothing but the best equipment and have super models with huge blue/green eyes on speed dial. You can't tell me that's not a huge advantage and you pretty much get that advantage right out of the box unlike photoshop which doesn't have the easiest learning curve. |
Couldn't agree more. You can not separate digital photography from digital post processing skills any more than you can separate film photography and darkroom skills.
To me the Minimal editing rule is the equivalent of taking film to Wal-Mart for processing and entering the 4X6 you get in the envelope.
Basic and advanced are the digital equivalent of different levels of darkroom abilities.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 07:24:09 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by swhiddon:
It̢۪s going to become a contest of who knows the most about editing, not about photography.
Just my 2 cents. |
Post work is part of photography but you're right it does have a big advantage in the challenge for those who can pull it off. Funny, I feel the same way about those who use nothing but the best equipment and have super models with huge blue/green eyes on speed dial. You can't tell me that's not a huge advantage and you pretty much get that advantage right out of the box unlike photoshop which doesn't have the easiest learning curve. |
Couldn't agree more. You can not separate digital photography from digital post processing skills any more than you can separate film photography and darkroom skills.
To me the Minimal editing rule is the equivalent of taking film to Wal-Mart for processing and entering the 4X6 you get in the envelope.
Basic and advanced are the digital equivalent of different levels of darkroom abilities. |
Also, a lot of the times photographic talent doesnt come naturally to some people, they then rely on the skills they can learn to improve the final quality of their images... like I do :-)
So post-processing actually helps out a lot of the `lesser` photographers out there.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 19:24:36. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 10:47:53 PM · #149 |
Surprisingly, I agree with these new rules. It's too easy to turn lucisart or photomatix into an effects filter by overusing.
S/H and recovery are solely designed for maintaining image integrity, of course, so they cannot be illegal, now or in the future, without rewording the basic editing rules. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 11:54:34 PM · #150 |
Could someone please put a link to the thread discussion on Shadow/Highlight adjustment as it relates to basic editing. I would like to comment but understand you would like to keep this thread on topic.
Thank you
|
|
