Flora II Challenge Results Recalculated

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

10/20/2007 02:17:52 PM · #26

Originally posted by ursula:

I'm OK with the rule that doesn't allow for multis. It's the rules here, and it's OK. I shouldn't have brought it up here :)

EDIT. I need to rethink a minute.

Message edited by author 2007-10-20 14:19:57.

10/20/2007 02:20:38 PM · #27

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by ursula:

I'm OK with the rule that doesn't allow for multis. It's the rules here, and it's OK. I shouldn't have brought it up here :)

Me too. I never understood why it was allowed to begin with but I'm glad it's gone now.

I think it was allowed originally by default, that is, digital cameras didn't do that (multis). Once we caught on, it was outlawed.

Look, there are valid arguments both for allowing and not allowing multis (mind you, "multis", not "overlays", they are different). As it is, they're not allowed. C'est la vie. Life goes on, I can do multis elsewhere.

It's not the topic of this thread though. We're talking here about in camera "filters", and their legality in basic editing.

Message edited by author 2007-10-20 14:24:15.

10/20/2007 02:32:21 PM · #28

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Some cameras can apply an effect during the capture, which are legal.

But HOW do you make this distinction?

Effects applied after the capture result in altered EXIF data. The original file required for validation would not have the effect, so it's really not that hard to figure out that something was applied in post processing. An example of a legal in-camera effect might be something like an orange filter in B&W mode.

So this takes me back to what I was asking before: if the soft focus filter can be specified in camera menu to be applied to THIS particular JPG when I shoot it, then it would have been legal in the Flora challenge example?

R.

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

10/20/2007 02:35:14 PM · #29

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Some cameras can apply an effect during the capture, which are legal.

But HOW do you make this distinction?

Effects applied after the capture result in altered EXIF data. The original file required for validation would not have the effect, so it's really not that hard to figure out that something was applied in post processing. An example of a legal in-camera effect might be something like an orange filter in B&W mode.

So this takes me back to what I was asking before: if the soft focus filter can be specified in camera menu to be applied to THIS particular JPG when I shoot it, then it would have been legal in the Flora challenge example?

R.

Definitely. Just like you could apply a soft focus filter to your lens to get the same result.

10/20/2007 02:46:38 PM · #30

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[
So this takes me back to what I was asking before: if the soft focus filter can be specified in camera menu to be applied to THIS particular JPG when I shoot it, then it would have been legal in the Flora challenge example?

R.

Definitely. Just like you could apply a soft focus filter to your lens to get the same result.

So, assuming this is true, here's an interesting anomaly:

1. We all agree that ANY sort of filter used ON the camera (that is, over the lens) is ALWAYS legal in ALL challenges.

2. Basic editing does not allow blur (except gaussian) and glow effects in PP.

3. A hypothetical camera has a built-in, software-based "glow" filter.

4. If you shoot JPG and specify the glow filter prior to exposure it is legal.

5. If you shoot RAW and apply the glow filter in RAW processing (where it shows up since it is part of the camera menu) then that is NOT legal.

In other words, if you want to use these in-camera effects, you are restricted to JPG shooting?

R.

10/20/2007 02:50:04 PM · #31

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[
So this takes me back to what I was asking before: if the soft focus filter can be specified in camera menu to be applied to THIS particular JPG when I shoot it, then it would have been legal in the Flora challenge example?

R.

Definitely. Just like you could apply a soft focus filter to your lens to get the same result.

So, assuming this is true, here's an interesting anomaly:

1. We all agree that ANY sort of filter used ON the camera (that is, over the lens) is ALWAYS legal in ALL challenges.

2. Basic editing does not allow blur (except gaussian) and glow effects in PP.

3. A hypothetical camera has a built-in, software-based "glow" filter.

4. If you shoot JPG and specify the glow filter prior to exposure it is legal.

5. If you shoot RAW and apply the glow filter in RAW processing (where it shows up since it is part of the camera menu) then that is NOT legal.

In other words, if you want to use these in-camera effects, you are restricted to JPG shooting?

R.

There are anomalies in the basic rules as they are. It's the way it is, and we live with it.

10/20/2007 02:51:00 PM · #32

Originally posted by ursula:

There are anomalies in the basic rules as they are. It's the way it is, and we live with it.

Yes, I understand that. I am just being sure I have it right, not arguing the interpretation :-)

R.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/20/2007 02:54:34 PM · #33

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by ursula:

There are anomalies in the basic rules as they are. It's the way it is, and we live with it.

Yes, I understand that. I am just being sure I have it right, not arguing the interpretation :-)

R.

As the basic editing rules are right now, you have it right. :)
However, the final conclusion, that you're restricted to shooting JPG, may be wrong - if such an hypothetical camera process were available, it likely would be available in RAW. (For example, multis are RAW images.)

Message edited by author 2007-10-20 14:57:38.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

10/20/2007 02:55:14 PM · #34

maybe what is allowed for the post processing process in the basic rules should apply to the features you are allowed to use in your camera.

for instance. adding a soft filter effect in photoshop is not legal in basic editing. therefore - even if your camera has a soft focus option it would be illegal to use it for an entry into a basic editing challenge.

10/20/2007 02:57:52 PM · #35

Originally posted by soup:

I thought that was the precedent they had established when they struck down the legality of in-camera multiple exposures. That's why I have been bulldogging this issue; I'd have thought the precedent applied here. Apparently it doesn't :-(

R.

10/20/2007 03:01:40 PM · #36

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by soup:
maybe what is allowed for the post processing process in the basic rules should apply to the features you are allowed to use in your camera.

for instance. adding a soft filter effect in photoshop is not legal in basic editing. therefore - even if your camera has a soft focus option it would be illegal to use it for an entry into a basic editing challenge.

I thought that was the precedent they had established when they struck down the legality of in-camera multiple exposures. That's why I have been bulldogging this issue; I'd have thought the precedent applied here. Apparently it doesn't :-(

R.

I don't think that was the reason multis were disallowed. By the current definition of what is an image here at DPC, an image is one shutter actuation. Multis use more than one shutter actuation. That is the reason multis were disallowed.

Overlays have always been disallowed because they allow the entrants to bypass the date restrictions in challenges.

Applying filters in camera, whether done after the image was made (as it is now) or while the image is being made (theoretical scenario), is one shutter actuation in both cases.

We're talking about different things here, and it's not worth it to mix up "filters" with "multis". Disallowing multis is not a precedent for anything to do with in camera filters.

Message edited by author 2007-10-20 15:06:18.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/20/2007 03:09:27 PM · #37

Originally posted by ursula:

We're talking about different things here, and it's not worth it to mix up "filters" with "multis". Disallowing multis is not a precedent for anything to do with in camera filters.

OK :-)

R

soup

Canon EOS-30D

10/20/2007 03:11:10 PM · #38

i'm talking filters. if you can't use the filter available in your editing software for a given ruleset. you can't use it in your camera either.

if it is allowed to be done with editing software ' after capture ' - it is also allowed to be done in camera, if your camera supports it.

for a basic challenge. a black and white conversion could be done either in camera - or on the computer. but a soft focus effect would have to be acheived using a lens filter or the like. the in camera feature would not be legal.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

10/20/2007 03:11:56 PM · #39

- soft focus via gaussian blur in photoshop - OK
- soft focus via camera setting - OK
- soft focus via camera setting after shutter trips - DQ

Just curious, which SC analyzed what Puckzzz camera does with that soft focus effect and discovered that it is not making global changes to the image? That it is not a faded gaussian blur? Is it documented somewhere that it is selectively editing pixels? Link please.

Message edited by author 2007-10-20 15:12:19.

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

10/20/2007 03:15:20 PM · #40

Originally posted by soup:

for a basic challenge. a black and white conversion could be done either in camera - or on the computer. but a soft focus effect would have to be acheived using a lens filter or the like. the in camera feature would not be legal.

Are you saying that this is how it is or are you saying that this is how it should be?

If you're saying that this is how it is I think you're mistaken. If you added a soft focus effect in camera AFTER you press the shutter then it would be illegal in basic. If there is/was a way to do it in camera before pressing the shutter it would be legal.

10/20/2007 03:21:11 PM · #41

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Out of curiosity on my part, why do you want to know which SC analyzed this? What different does it make "who" analyzed this?

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/20/2007 03:29:33 PM · #42

Originally posted by L2:

RAW images are eligible for Basic Editing challenges, not for Minimal Editing challenges.

RAW conversions are not the same as applying an effects filter.

You are saying that in Basic Editing that Raw can't be used? And if a image is shot in Raw and converted with conversion software that it would cause it to be DQed?

Mike

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

10/20/2007 03:32:34 PM · #43

Originally posted by MikeJ:

Originally posted by L2:
RAW images are eligible for Basic Editing challenges, not for Minimal Editing challenges.

RAW conversions are not the same as applying an effects filter.

You are saying that in Basic Editing that Raw can't be used? And if a image is shot in Raw and converted with conversion software that it would cause it to be DQed?

Mike

She said:

Originally posted by L2:

RAW images are eligible for Basic Editing challenges, not for Minimal Editing challenges.

10/20/2007 03:32:40 PM · #44

Originally posted by MikeJ:

No, RAW images are allowed in Basic. They are not allowed in Minimal.

Certain processes during RAW conversion are not allowed in the Basic Editing Rules. For example: an image can not be converted using Photomatix, and you can't add vignettes during RAW conversion.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/20/2007 03:44:28 PM · #45

I mis-typed when I said basic. I did mean minimal...

I always shoot in raw and use BreezeBrowser to convert. I rarely change anything during conversion unless I have it correct color balance as part of the conversion.

I really understand what people say when they complain about the rules. I would never have considered that raw wouldn't be allowed in any of the challenges.

Mike

d56ranger

Canon EOS-20D

10/20/2007 03:59:04 PM · #46

Hmmmmm! It must be fall, it is probably raining, 'tis the weekend too. A lot of bored people here.

10/20/2007 04:03:39 PM · #47

Originally posted by ursula:

Certain processes during RAW conversion are not allowed in the Basic Editing Rules. For example: an image can not be converted using Photomatix, and you can't add vignettes during RAW conversion.

I can tone map without using RAW: I can convert a jpg in photoshop to 16-bit TIFF, tone map that, and go on from there in PS. Is this legal? ;-)

R.

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

10/20/2007 04:06:20 PM · #48

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by ursula:
Certain processes during RAW conversion are not allowed in the Basic Editing Rules. For example: an image can not be converted using Photomatix, and you can't add vignettes during RAW conversion.

I can tone map without using RAW: I can convert a jpg in photoshop to 16-bit TIFF, tone map that, and go on from there in PS. Is this legal? ;-)

R.

Would you be using Photomatix for the tonemapping?

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

10/20/2007 04:08:20 PM · #49

Originally posted by MikeJ:

But it says so in the rules.

I understand though as I never would've thought it either. I guess this could be a good reminder for me to take some time and go over the rules every now and then.