| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/03/2008 04:32:26 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No it's not. "No sort of selective desaturation allowed!" Otherwise, it's Advanced Editing business-as-usual. |
Is it safe to assume I can desaturate or saturate the entire image as long as I don't isolate one portion or color? For example, I am allowed to up the saturation in my RAW conversion tool as long as the whole image is affected. |
I have a feeling you can't desaturate at all. Black and white would not be considered valid. I think you can saturate the entire image, though, as long as you don't select any one color channel. For instance, if you have a two color image, you can adjust hue and sat to make it more brilliant. I don't think you can mute it down, however. That is my take, at least. I think, though, that it would be okay to use a magic wand to select an area of the photo, then adjust that area only. So if you want to bring out a red more, select the red with magic wand to create an extracted layer, then go to your levels or b&C or hue and sat and adjust it to be more contrasty or brighter or more saturated. At least I think this is okay.
I for one would not be touching any of the hue and sat layer at all. I would use levels and b&c for an extracted layer, but not a color adjustment,unless it is to remove a color cast to correct the white balance. That is if I was a member, which I am not. But that is subject to change this week with this challenge.
Message edited by author 2008-07-03 04:37:03. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 07:41:17 AM · #77 |
| Scalvert, Iâm not trying to skirt the rules in any way, but I do have one question. My family and I are planning a road trip and the possibility of a nice landscape is more than likely. Do to several fires in the west our air is smoky leaving the horizon hazy. During PP I often use the burn tool to âcut threw the fogâ. The effect of this would enhance the color of say a green hill by removing the haze. Would this be construed as a illegal step? |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 08:19:57 AM · #78 |
The net result of this process would be a non-uniform change to a selected color, which is "sort of" selected desaturation.
Originally posted by alans_world:
Scalvert, Iâm not trying to skirt the rules in any way, but I do have one question. My family and I are planning a road trip and the possibility of a nice landscape is more than likely. Do to several fires in the west our air is smoky leaving the horizon hazy. During PP I often use the burn tool to âcut threw the fogâ. The effect of this would enhance the color of say a green hill by removing the haze. Would this be construed as a illegal step? |
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 08:32:43 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by hopper:
The net result of this process would be a non-uniform change to a selected color, which is "sort of" selected desaturation.
Originally posted by alans_world:
... During PP I often use the burn tool to âcut threw the fogâ. The effect of this would enhance the color of say a green hill by removing the haze. Would this be construed as a illegal step? |
|
He's not using a tool related to saturation/desat whatsoever, AND, he mentions that he's enhancing the green, not deemphasizing (desat) it.
This should be totally legal without question.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 08:53:17 AM · #80 |
advanced editing challenges do not deal with tools used ... only the net affect on the image (i'm pretty sure you know that)
also, surely you can understand that boosting the color in one area has the affect of desaturating everything else
I feel like you just feel like arguing on this one ... it's pretty clear
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
The net result of this process would be a non-uniform change to a selected color, which is "sort of" selected desaturation.
Originally posted by alans_world:
... During PP I often use the burn tool to âcut threw the fogâ. The effect of this would enhance the color of say a green hill by removing the haze. Would this be construed as a illegal step? |
|
He's not using a tool related to saturation/desat whatsoever, AND, he mentions that he's enhancing the green, not deemphasizing (desat) it.
This should be totally legal without question. |
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:13:59 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by hopper:
... surely you can understand that boosting the color in one area has the affect of desaturating everything else
I feel like you just feel like arguing on this one ... it's pretty clear |
No, I do not see it that way...boosting color is not the same as applying desat (which is the only thing that is not allowed in the "special rules" - besides normal Advanced Editing rules).
As for whether it's "clear" or not...I'm not the only one who's questioned the wording of the special rules on this challenge. It should be pretty clear; no use of any desaturation tool. Unfortunately that simplicity has been muddied by other "what-if" scenarios. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:22:50 AM · #82 |
i notice you didn't quote the first line of what i said
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
... surely you can understand that boosting the color in one area has the affect of desaturating everything else
I feel like you just feel like arguing on this one ... it's pretty clear |
No, I do not see it that way...boosting color is not the same as applying desat (which is the only thing that is not allowed in the "special rules" - besides normal Advanced Editing rules).
As for whether it's "clear" or not...I'm not the only one who's questioned the wording of the special rules on this challenge. It should be pretty clear; no use of any desaturation tool. Unfortunately that simplicity has been muddied by other "what-if" scenarios. |
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:24:41 AM · #83 |
You guys are overthinking this. The special rule was put in place so you can't use Photoshop (or other post processing) to meet the challenge. If it had been an Orange challenge, it would be akin to saying you can't change some other color to orange. This topic is Point of Color, and the goal of the special rule was to prevent people from emphasizing a particular color with editing to meet the challenge. Whenever we DON'T do that in a technical challenge, we get complaints. Can't please everyone, I guess.
So... if you want to make your entire entry B&W, go right ahead (I predict any such entry will score below 4). I don't see any reason why you couldn't make typical adjustments to White Balance, Levels, or even Saturation, but if you use saturation/desaturation to selectively emphasize a particular color, I'll be voting DQ.
For example, if you used dodge and burn to bring out detail in a shot, I have no problem with that, but if you dodged everything around some colorful object to emphasize it for the challenge topic, or filled the surrounding area with 50% white, then I would consider those a form of selective desaturation. Likewise, if you desaturated every color channel but red to highlight a cardinal in foliage (normally legal even in Basic), I would vote DQ. Bear in mind that I'm only one vote, and it would be peachy keen if some other SC members would chime in. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:32:23 AM · #84 |
I think the arguments are totally legitimate.
And I'm not try to change the topic.
So what do you think of my previously mentioned ideas?
repeated below..
Has anybody thought of using a very popular thing called LIGHT?
Just Point it and Shoot it.
Lights of all types Flash/Strobe/Snoot/Laser/Flashlight/Candle/Sunlight, shined even through colored gels and films. Or bing out some colored lights. The placement of light can add interesting effects, too.
Just make a pinhole (or any shape) in some cardboard (or other translucent material) and shine a light through it.
No need to get boggled down by the vagueries of rule interpretation. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:34:11 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by hopper:
i notice you didn't quote the first line of what i said ... |
Just reducing clutter...you know, for simplicity. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:36:24 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... it would be peachy keen if some other SC members would chime in. |
LOL! Haven't heard that phrase in a while. :-)
...and, thanks for the detailed clarification of your point. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 09:44:50 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You guys are overthinking this. The special rule was put in place so you can't use Photoshop (or other post processing) to meet the challenge. If it had been an Orange challenge, it would be akin to saying you can't change some other color to orange. This topic is Point of Color, and the goal of the special rule was to prevent people from emphasizing a particular color with editing to meet the challenge. Whenever we DON'T do that in a technical challenge, we get complaints. Can't please everyone, I guess.
So... if you want to make your entire entry B&W, go right ahead (I predict any such entry will score below 4). I don't see any reason why you couldn't make typical adjustments to White Balance, Levels, or even Saturation, but if you use saturation/desaturation to selectively emphasize a particular color, I'll be voting DQ.
For example, if you used dodge and burn to bring out detail in a shot, I have no problem with that, but if you dodged everything around some colorful object to emphasize it for the challenge topic, or filled the surrounding area with 50% white, then I would consider those a form of selective desaturation. Likewise, if you desaturated every color channel but red to highlight a cardinal in foliage (normally legal even in Basic), I would vote DQ. Bear in mind that I'm only one vote, and it would be peachy keen if some other SC members would chime in. |
Thank you Shannon for sticking in with use fools and answering our questions. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 10:38:45 AM · #88 |
With all due respect, all this talk about DQ-ing an image because it violates the âSpirit of the Challengeâ sounds like sour grapes to me.
There have been at least a few occasions where I perceived a violation of the âSpiritâ in photos that were not DQâd by the SC and scored quite well. When rules are not explicit, they are open to interpretation.
I say that as long as your entry was not PPâd with SELECTIVE DESATURATION, your photo SHOULD NOT BE DQâd.
As we celebrate Independence Day this week, Iâm reminded about the greatness of our legal system, in that we let a jury of our peers decide whatâs right and whatâs not within the bounds of the explicit laws. It should not be based upon the interpretation of one or two judges who have an axe to grind.
I say let the people (voting) determine the outcome!
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 10:45:00 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by essay:
I say that as long as your entry was not PPâd with SELECTIVE DESATURATION, your photo SHOULD NOT BE DQâd. |
Where is the selective desaturation tool in photoshop? I can't seem to find it.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 10:49:42 AM · #90 |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 10:59:26 AM · #91 |
| Wow. This thread makes my head hurt, and I feel slightly dizzy. :-) |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 11:12:31 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by essay:
it should not be based upon the interpretation of one or two judges who have an axe to grind.
I say that as long as your entry was not PPâd with SELECTIVE DESATURATION, your photo SHOULD NOT BE DQâd. |
Ironic, and more than a little bizarre. What axe to grind? We'd rather not DQ anybody.
Originally posted by essay:
I say let the people (voting) determine the outcome! |
That's what happens in technical challenges without special rules. With no original to compare, the voters don't know what was done in post processing. and they break out the torches and pitchforks later. The 4-5am and 2 Second challenges spring to mind. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 12:01:58 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by essay:
I say let the people (voting) determine the outcome! |
That's what happens in technical challenges without special rules. With no original to compare, the voters don't know what was done in post processing. and they break out the torches and pitchforks later. The 4-5am and 2 Second challenges spring to mind. |
Yeah, but THOSE challenges could have had special rules verifiable by EXIF data, no gray area involved.
THIS set of special rules is obviously confusing/perturbing some people, agreed? It's not cut-and-dried, it's scary. What freaks me out is, this would have been a perfect challenge for the Minimal ruleset, no special rules even needed...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 12:05:55 PM · #94 |
Using my simpleton perspective of post processing, I was taking the challenge description to mean I should not do this:
Gonna kind of stick with that thought and go from there. :)
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 12:40:19 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What freaks me out is, this would have been a perfect challenge for the Minimal ruleset, no special rules even needed... |
What freaks me out is that people can't read, "Selective desaturation in post-processing is not allowed" and just go with it. We get posts like, "Well if I did this and this, I could still get selective desaturation in Post Processing" (witness your example of shooting with muted colors and selectively "re-saturating"). I can't just declare that dodge and burn or all levels adjustments are OK because, as sure as I'm sitting here typing this, some nimnut will adjust the bejeezus out of everything surrounding a colored object so it stands out like a neon-colored lighthouse in the fog... and then claim that SC said it was OK. Just shoot a point of color without making it up in PS and you won't have to worry about it. :-/
Message edited by author 2008-07-03 12:41:01. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 12:57:01 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just shoot a point of color without making it up in PS and you won't have to worry about it. :-/ |
That's what I plan to do, but as Bear keeps pointing out, there's a risk that if the color point is accentuated beyond the capture some will think it should be DQ'd. The question is how much is too much, and that's a slippery slope that ain't gonna (and probably can't) be answered until we see what people do.
What I take from all this is that I can adjust the color channel sliders on my image, but I best be very judicious and cautious in doing so as to not cross over that invisible line.
Message edited by author 2008-07-03 12:57:59. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 01:03:19 PM · #97 |
Why not accentuate your point of color with lighting, composition and POV? Then you have an image that's ready to go with little or no processing whatsoever. I don't understand the line of thinking that says "i need to accentuate in processing".
|
|
|
|
07/03/2008 01:11:43 PM · #98 |
What I find interesting is that quite a few people seem to think the best way to do this challenge is by the entire b&w/muted with something popping idea. What's not to say the survivor shirt wouldn't be just as impactful if everyone else was wearing yellow shirts. Wouldn't the purple, by default, be a point of color, and then be the subject? Viola, no PP.
Perhaps it is my minimal lack of knowledge, but I still maintain that the idea of this challenge is to shoot something that is a POINT OF COLOR.
Something that already exists, NOT something that has to be "created" or even enhanced.
This is obviously a challenge for the sheer technique of using a camera and your eye, not how creative you can be with a mouse.
This is something that will separate the photographer with some computer experience from the graphic/digital person with some camera experience.
I don't envy SC with this one. There will probably be many validation requests and a lot of discussion on the back-side about what is legal and what isn't.
I look forward to what I might see when rollover happens. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 01:23:29 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
there's a risk that if the color point is accentuated beyond the capture some will think it should be DQ'd. |
Not really... you'd pretty much have to be trying to achieve selective desat to cause a problem IMO. If your capture is "normal," but your entry is all muted/monoolor except for one area, then that's no accident and I don't really care what tools were used. Again, that might only be my interpretation. To his credit, Langdon DID ask if there might be a problem with the special rules wording before the challenge was announced, and I did suggest running it under Minimal. It was a brief, last-minute discussion and only a few of us were around, but we're not oblivious to this stuff. A little common sense will go a long way on this one. |
|
|
|
07/03/2008 01:26:41 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What freaks me out is, this would have been a perfect challenge for the Minimal ruleset, no special rules even needed... |
What freaks me out is that people can't read, "Selective desaturation in post-processing is not allowed" and just go with it. |
Shannon, it's not that simple. It's like you are DELIBERATELY trying to marginalize some very real concerns. Many, if not most, of us regularly, in our perfectly ordinary, normal processing routine use hue/sat to "balance" the colors in our images. That's just a fact of life.
And according to what we are reading, going into hue/sat and bumping the saturation of, say, yellow by 10 ticks (a small adjustment) MAY qualify as "selective desaturation", even if it doesn't do anything enhance the effect of the subject color that this rule is all about.
So the way we're seeing it, ANY tampering with relative value of colors may be a DQ. Why do you dismiss this legitimate concern at the ambiguity of the wording out-of-hand? It's not like we WANT to "find a way around" the special rule; we just don't want to break it.
And I repeat: if y'all had run this under minimal editing rules THIS WOULDN'T EVEN BE AN ISSUE. This is a perfect topic for minimal editing, and a poor one for advanced editing, IMHO.
So don't go around marginalizing me and a few others for freaking SAYING so, OK?
(signed) disgruntled bear
ETA: It's good to see that you suggested Minimal Editing, and a pity the suggestion was not heeded, again IMO
Message edited by author 2008-07-03 13:27:51.
|
|
