| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2009 03:52:47 AM · #1 |
I might be entirely wrong but to me a number of entries in the "Trains and Railroads" challenge look like they have had some tonemapping or HDR'ish type of treatment. Since it's a basic challenge those methods of editing are apparently not allowed I thought.
Of course maybe they used some other method to get that type of effect. If so I would love to know the method of processing to get that look within the boundaries of the basic editing rules. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:55:56 AM · #2 |
| polarize filter on camera? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:56:36 AM · #3 |
| Shadows/highlights is legal in basic and depending on the tonality of the original, can yeild an "HDR-like" effect. Playing with the saturation (in some cases, decreasing it) will add to this as well. Play around with it a bit and see what you can do - 'tis a good exercise! :-) |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 05:42:23 AM · #4 |
Look at this DPC tutorial.....
Tone Mapping Emulation
I've been using this technique for a while.....
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 06:14:47 AM · #5 |
| I'm starting to think that some people maybe giving low scores because they assume that illegal editing has been carried out rather than assuming it is legal and waiting for SC to decide |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 07:16:57 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I'm starting to think that some people maybe giving low scores because they assume that illegal editing has been carried out rather than assuming it is legal and waiting for SC to decide |
One thing I see wrong with DPC |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 07:21:31 AM · #7 |
Plus the Clarify tool in Paint Shop Pro and clarity control in lightroom can give the same effect, and as far as I know are legal.
Edit for rubbish typing.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 12:11:20. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 07:52:58 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Look at this DPC tutorial.....
Tone Mapping Emulation
I've been using this technique for a while..... |
Hi NikonJeb,
Thanks for posting that. That is very interesting especially as it says it is legal and acceptable for basic editing here on DPC.
Now that leads me to the next question which is that if it is legal to do the processing as you describe to get what is basicly a "Pseudo HDR" image from a single capture then is it also legal to do the same type of thing from a single capture in Photomatix?
I ask this because this confuses me a little. In the past I asked something similar and was told that processing or emulating a "pseudo HDR" from a single capture in Photomatix has been ruled not permissable under DPC rules for basic editing.
Now the process you describe for a single image (emulating) with Photoshop's HDR function is essentially the same process as can be done with Photomatix with a single image and the result is also very much the same. then imo the same single capture process done by Photomatix should also be legal as it is basicly the same process involving a single capture.
Soulman mentions a similar effect obtainable with Lightroom and that is also legal for basic here on DPC. I tried that function before on a trail version of Lightroom and it indeed is basicly the same thing as doing the single image with Photomatix.
I dont own Photoshop or Lightroom but if those single capture HDR like images processed by either of those two software programs are considered legal for basic editing here on DPC then imo the same single capture process done by Photomatix should also be legal as it is basicly the same process involving a single capture.
Ps. Thanks for your tip too Melethia :)
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 08:26:39. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:07:13 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Look at this DPC tutorial.....
Tone Mapping Emulation
I've been using this technique for a while..... |
Hi NikonJeb,
Thanks for posting that. That is very interesting especially as it says it is legal and acceptable for basic editing here on DPC.
Now that leads me to the next question which is that if it is legal to do the processing as you describe to get what is basicly a "Pseudo HDR" image from a single capture then is it is also legal to do the same type of thing from a single capture in Photomatix?
I ask this because this confuses me a little. In the past I asked something similar and was told that processing or emulating a "pseudo HDR" from a single capture in Photomatix has been ruled not permissable under DPC rules for basic editing.
Now the process you describe for a single image (emulating) with Photoshop's HDR function is essentially the same process as can be done with Photomatix with a single image and the result is also very much the same. |
Here's the simple truth - who ever designed the "rules" has painted themselves into a corner because there are many ways to achieve effects within the rules that match or equal more advanced functions available in both camera processing or post processing.
As soon as somebody figures that out, you will see a more open entry system in which you enter an image without processing and one that has been processed. The insistence on producing images that emulate Instamatic film images in Basic, considering what digital cameras and software processing is capable of, is silly. :>)
Then again, it's not my store, so take it for what it's worth. And I'm feeling ornery this morning, so I better shut up unless I get myself in trouble. :>)
Later,
Tom |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:46:36 AM · #10 |
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:52:18 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
Not quite sure how to interpret your comment. What do you mean with " Have truly lost understand of the concept?" What concept?
No..it's not my goal to achieve an "HDR" effect under basic editing but yes there might be an occasion once in a while where I might want to employ such a technique if it is legal to do so.
No I don't expect anything from Site Council at all. Yes I am still rather new here I guess.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 08:58:23. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:57:03 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
Not quite sure how to interpret your comment.
No..it's not my goal to achieve an "HDR" effect under basic editing but yes there might be an occasion once in a while where I might want to employ such a technique if it is legal to do so.
No I don't expect anything from Site Council at all. Yes I am still rather new here I guess. |
It certain software that's been deemed not legal under basic editing. Not technique. Lucis, photomatix, and virtual photographer have been deemed not legal in basic. If you can acheive the same "looks" in photoshop using a legal technique, then go for it. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:00:46 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
Not quite sure how to interpret your comment.
No..it's not my goal to achieve an "HDR" effect under basic editing but yes there might be an occasion once in a while where I might want to employ such a technique if it is legal to do so.
No I don't expect anything from Site Council at all. Yes I am still rather new here I guess. |
It certain software that's been deemed not legal under basic editing. Not technique. Lucis, photomatix, and virtual photographer have been deemed not legal in basic. If you can acheive the same "looks" in photoshop using a legal technique, then go for it. |
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. Well I guess Artifacts already supplied that answer when he said "if you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie"
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 09:05:06. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:06:09 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. |
Because, according to Site Council (I don't have this information myself) the *way* photomatix works, the underlying "moves" its making to the image behind the scenes, is/are in and of themselves illegal. And apparently this is not true of shadow/highlight, which "works" differently.
I don't understand it myself, but I pushed this issue hard a while ago and that's what I was told.
Remember that Basic editing is tool-based, whereas advanced editing is result-based.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:09:24 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. |
Because, according to Site Council (I don't have this information myself) the *way* photomatix works, the underlying "moves" its making to the image behind the scenes, is/are in and of themselves illegal. And apparently this is not true of shadow/highlight, which "works" differently.
I don't understand it myself, but I pushed this issue hard a while ago and that's what I was told.
Remember that Basic editing is tool-based, whereas advanced editing is result-based.
R. |
Thanks Bear-music. So I guess that site council must have a very good in-depth understanding of exactly how Photomatix works behind the scenes to achieve that effect.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 09:09:54. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:23:43 AM · #16 |
And I didn't mean for you to take that personally. The version of photoshop that I have is older (CS) and that hdr technique is not available in it. I also don't have photomatix.
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
Not quite sure how to interpret your comment.
No..it's not my goal to achieve an "HDR" effect under basic editing but yes there might be an occasion once in a while where I might want to employ such a technique if it is legal to do so.
No I don't expect anything from Site Council at all. Yes I am still rather new here I guess. |
It certain software that's been deemed not legal under basic editing. Not technique. Lucis, photomatix, and virtual photographer have been deemed not legal in basic. If you can acheive the same "looks" in photoshop using a legal technique, then go for it. |
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. Well I guess Artifacts already supplied that answer when he said "if you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie" |
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:26:51 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
And I didn't mean for you to take that personally. The version of photoshop that I have is older (CS) and that hdr technique is not available in it. I also don't have photomatix.
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
Not quite sure how to interpret your comment.
No..it's not my goal to achieve an "HDR" effect under basic editing but yes there might be an occasion once in a while where I might want to employ such a technique if it is legal to do so.
No I don't expect anything from Site Council at all. Yes I am still rather new here I guess. |
It certain software that's been deemed not legal under basic editing. Not technique. Lucis, photomatix, and virtual photographer have been deemed not legal in basic. If you can acheive the same "looks" in photoshop using a legal technique, then go for it. |
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. Well I guess Artifacts already supplied that answer when he said "if you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie" |
|
I never took it personally. Whatever made you think I did? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:37:05 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Kelli:
And I didn't mean for you to take that personally. The version of photoshop that I have is older (CS) and that hdr technique is not available in it. I also don't have photomatix.
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
If your goal is to achieve an "HDR effect" using basic legal techniques on a single image then you truly have lost understand of the concept.
If you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie. |
Not quite sure how to interpret your comment.
No..it's not my goal to achieve an "HDR" effect under basic editing but yes there might be an occasion once in a while where I might want to employ such a technique if it is legal to do so.
No I don't expect anything from Site Council at all. Yes I am still rather new here I guess. |
It certain software that's been deemed not legal under basic editing. Not technique. Lucis, photomatix, and virtual photographer have been deemed not legal in basic. If you can acheive the same "looks" in photoshop using a legal technique, then go for it. |
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. Well I guess Artifacts already supplied that answer when he said "if you expect Site Council rules and decisions to always be consistent, logical and correct then you most certainly are a DPC newbie" |
|
I never took it personally. Whatever made you think I did? |
LOL! I didn't mean personally, personally. ;) I was just explaining that it was a software issue. Whether you have certain software is irrelevant is all I meant. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:49:06 AM · #19 |
| No probs. It's cool Kelli :) |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 04:43:06 AM · #20 |
Hmmm. So as I use neither PS nor PM I can't get this pseudo-HDR effect (unless it's hidden in GIMP 2 somewhere?).
If we're getting around the 'No HDR' rule with pseudo HDR, why don't we just allow HDR in basic and be done with it? |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 07:01:54 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I'm starting to think that some people maybe giving low scores because they assume that illegal editing has been carried out rather than assuming it is legal and waiting for SC to decide |
Maybe they just happen to think the tone-mapping "look" royally sucks? Just thinking out loud...
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 07:08:01 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I'm starting to think that some people maybe giving low scores because they assume that illegal editing has been carried out rather than assuming it is legal and waiting for SC to decide |
Maybe they just happen to think the tone-mapping "look" royally sucks? Just thinking out loud... |
You could well be correct there lol |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 07:12:33 AM · #23 |
| One of my comments asked if my photo was HDR. It is not, due to Basic Editing rules, but I achieved a similar look (somewhat accidentally) using the Shadows/Highlights and Saturation functions in Photoshop Elements 6. I wasn't necessarily after a tone-mapped look, but my image had a lot of contrast due to overcast sky and dark subject. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 07:25:03 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by dswann:
One of my comments asked if my photo was HDR. It is not, due to Basic Editing rules, but I achieved a similar look (somewhat accidentally) using the Shadows/Highlights and Saturation functions in Photoshop Elements 6. I wasn't necessarily after a tone-mapped look, but my image had a lot of contrast due to overcast sky and dark subject. |
I don't think you're the only one suffering due to taking pics on an over cast day and then trying to make the best of it with a bit of post processing.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 07:26:16. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 08:54:35 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Sure but I don't have Photoshop. I do have Photomatix. Would just like to understand why the one is allowed and the other not when essentially the same processing is employed from a single image by both. |
Because, according to Site Council (I don't have this information myself) the *way* photomatix works, the underlying "moves" its making to the image behind the scenes, is/are in and of themselves illegal. And apparently this is not true of shadow/highlight, which "works" differently.
I don't understand it myself, but I pushed this issue hard a while ago and that's what I was told.
Remember that Basic editing is tool-based, whereas advanced editing is result-based.
R. |
More along the lines of this conversation in this Administrator Announcement thread. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:11:25 AM EDT.
