PhotoShop Freebasing - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2004 03:28:02 PM · #1

With the discussion that has evolved from John Setzler's decision to pull his tutorials, and the pictures placing high in the challenges that have had extensive post editing, I have come up with a suggestion for the site.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of it, but would it be feasible to have the photographer submit both the original (compressed) and their finished entry for the challenge at the same time. The images could be viewed together, and the voters could evaluate each of the images and the modifications could be easily observed. The voter could at that time decide if they approved of the changes or if they felt that the photographer had gone too far with editing. If an image had only the basic editing done to it then the original would not need to be can give input through comments directly to the photographer or in a post forum specific to the challenge initially submitted.

This would also give the voter the opportunity to not only observe and compare the results of advanced editing, but it would also give him or her a pseudo tutorial. It would help to train the beginners' eye to the subtle changes that editing can provide, and the advanced photographer.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/19/2004 03:43:35 PM · #2

I like this idea, it also ensures an unedited (perhaps resized) original is always available in case it's needed.

It'll chew up more server space, though...

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/19/2004 03:44:01 PM · #3

Richard,

One problem with this is the enormous size requirements this would place on DPC. Original images out of the DSLRs are 5MB or larger. I'm betting the average filesize would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3MB. Multiply that by 200+ entries and you would need somewhere around a half a gigabyte to be uploaded and stored for each challenge. This would also work against some people who don't have a lot of bandwidth or high-speed connections.
I do like the idea of the training. Subtle differences can sometimes best be taught through seeing a slightly modified image right beside the original (or perhaps a resized version of the original).
Kev

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/19/2004 03:46:06 PM · #4

you could always submit a 50kb 200x pixel thumbnail of the original image.

Yes people could cheat - but then, people already cheat. and they get kicked out for it when they are caught.

peecee

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/19/2004 03:48:27 PM · #5

I am sure no photographer would submit there original file for anyone to download and use as their own!

04/19/2004 03:57:13 PM · #6

Doesn't "compressed" mean smaller file. I was thinking that the original could be resized or compressed to a file size of 150kb or less.
Thanks for the comments!
Dick

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

04/19/2004 04:47:26 PM · #7

An original file is no longer an original file once you do something like resizing or compressing to it.

I once proposed that, along with requesting originals from the winners, that we put in place a method to randomly select users to submit their original files. This certainly wouldn't cover everyone but anyone could be selected. Apparently my idea wasn't well thought of or it got forgotten in all of the threads.

T

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/19/2004 04:58:15 PM · #8

Its also probably not even that easy to define it

both of the shots below are what I'd consider the 'originals' of my shot, straight from the RAW converter.

Neither have had any photoshop work done to the and are what I'd consider the 'original' file as shot in camera - converted to a viewable format and resized.

Just different RAW converter settings.

04/19/2004 09:08:07 PM · #9

Originally posted by timj351:

An original file is no longer an original file once you do something like resizing or compressing to it.

T

I know that, and so does everyone else here. If I download an image from my camera to the computer, open it in PhotoShop, then simply crop it at 640 X 480 and 72 dpi, I don't think I have done anything to enhance it or to visually change it's appearance. All I was suggesting is for people to do something like that so the voter could get a look at an image as near to what the original looked like as possible. This way they could compare it to the finished image.
I appologise for not being able to write as literally as some people read and react.

04/19/2004 09:12:24 PM · #10

Originally posted by Gordon:

Which of those "looks" the most like a SHQ jpeg? You are a talented man and could provide an honest smaller (150kb)image that would give the novice voter an opportunity to compare it with one that you had reworked with your post processing program, couldn't you? That is all I was suggesting. Does it have to be this complicated?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/19/2004 10:22:21 PM · #11

Originally posted by autool:

They both look exactly like the straight from the camera SHQ jpeg, depending on what white balance was applied.

They are both the first time either version became a 'normally' viewable image - neither hit photoshop. Neither were edited. Both are what 'straight from the camera' means to me - as in my workflow, the converter in the 'from the camera' aspect just so happens to sit on my PC and get done later.

Which white balance is the one it was shot with ? Frankly - meaningless as I didn't set a white balance because I knew I would do it later.

I'm not trying to make it difficult, just pointing out the reality.