| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2009 12:09:30 PM · #1 |
I think a link to this thread should be put on the Challenge Rules - Basic Editing page.
I've been here since late 2004, read forums quite regularly, and still had to hunt/search the forums for this topic because I couldn't remember exactly what was said about Tone Mapping for the Basic Ruleset challenges.
Thanks.
Originally posted by frisca:
Dear community,
Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion and confusion about the legality of certain plug-ins and stand-alone post-processing softwares.
After lengthy debate and research, we announce the following:
LucisArts, Photomatix and Virtual Photographer are NOT PERMITTED to be used under the basic rule set.
We recognize that we have allowed the use of some or all of these in various circumstances in the past. We were trying to find a way to allow the legal use of some of the parts of these plug-ins, and allowed their use to try to understand them better. In the end, we could not find a consistent basis on which to allow the use of these tools, and so must disallow them because they can do a host of "illegal" things, along with some legal ones.
Our apologies for any confusion this has caused and may cause. We hope this change will allow for a clearer understanding of the rules. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 09:33:25 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Photomom1981:
... but I don't understand what I can and Cant do to photos. |
Read these and see if that helps.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 09:33:10 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Photomom1981:
Okay to someone who enjoys photography and messes with it a bit, but has no clue what the "photo editing language" is.. what can or can't you do in editing? i use adobe, but I don't know what all the big words you use are so can we brake it down to laymen's terms for me? I mean like I know what cloning, and hue and things like that are but to someone who isn't a 'professional" can you explain? I am new to the site and would like to participate and learn from this but I don't understand what I can and Cant do to photos. |
What else would you like to know?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 09:32:50 PM · #4 |
Tone Mapping
Tone Mapping, as used in this tutorial, is the process of manipulating a digital image so that a greater range of tonal detail is displayed. Tone mapping is used to approximate the appearance of high dynamic range images in media with a more limited dynamic range, such as print-outs, CRT or LCD monitors.
Tone Mapping is carried out in a 32-bit image mode so as to allow Photoshop to take advantage of these extra bits to produce a relatively open-ended brightness scale, which can be fine-tuned to individual images.
Taken from the tutorial of  AperturePriority
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 09:30:32 PM · #5 |
| Okay to someone who enjoys photography and messes with it a bit, but has no clue what the "photo editing language" is.. what can or can't you do in editing? i use adobe, but I don't know what all the big words you use are so can we brake it down to laymen's terms for me? I mean like I know what cloning, and hue and things like that are but to someone who isn't a 'professional" can you explain? I am new to the site and would like to participate and learn from this but I don't understand what I can and Cant do to photos. |
|
|
|
11/03/2007 03:18:08 AM · #6 |
Wow...all this talk in this thread about my Tone Mapping Emulation tutorial has really helped the ratings for that tutorial. Thanks all! :-)
From what I understand, and as of this writing, it is still legal in the Basic Editing ruleset.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 08:21:32 PM · #7 |
Sorry, all...gotta bump. SC: 16-32-16 tonemapping emulation...still good to go?
edit: muck, make sure you get a pic. Might make a good FS entry. I'll give you an 8 right now.
Message edited by author 2007-10-25 20:26:18.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 07:04:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
simms, if you bump this thread ever again i'm going to end up clawing at my face until it ends up like your profile pic. |
ok
doh!! |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:10:41 PM · #9 |
simms, if you bump this thread ever again i'm going to end up clawing at my face until it ends up like your profile pic.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 03:51:45 PM · #10 |
| OK, if we can make the current freestudy 1200px x 600px then I'll let the tonemapping thing go.. not that I have an awesome killer 1200x600 image or anything. ;) |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:28:30 PM · #11 |
| Last I heard was that basic is about sc good cop/bad cop attempting to obtain invisible information regarding software key strokes. Journalism established standards fits so perfectly with the idea of photographic integrity Basic editing espouses, whether it is employed as journalism or not. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:13:52 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I just don't think it's right to DQ a legally-edited photo for failing to meet the indefinable aesthetic standard of a small group. |
So stop doing it! :p |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:12:56 PM · #13 |
Last I heard this site was about learning about all kinds of photography, not a course in photojournalism.
Even there, unless you know what the photographer left out of the frame, you have no idea as to whether the photo has any "integrity" anyhow -- it can be completely unedited and still lie about the scene.
I'm simply saying that for a combined contest/learning site, I believe rules which are tool-based are simpler to administrate and for the contestants to understand, and ultimately fairer for everyone.
To me, ending up with "digital art" may fail to meet the part of the challenge of being "photographic in nature" -- but we normally do not DQ for not meeting the challenge, that's what the votes are for. I just don't think it's right to DQ a legally-edited photo for failing to meet the indefinable aesthetic standard of a small group. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:11:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept... |
Don't news photographers have standards defining exactly that (and in terms that newly-hired photographers can understand)? |
An excellent idea, journalism standards for basic challenges is an ideal model. |
Does that mean we would be able to use Dodge & Burn in Basic? |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 11:41:12 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept... |
Don't news photographers have standards defining exactly that (and in terms that newly-hired photographers can understand)? |
An excellent idea, journalism standards for basic challenges is an ideal model. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 11:25:12 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm only disputing the assertion that there's no way to objectively define photographic integrity. Whether or not the concept is employed here, it most certainly IS possible. |
Yes, but you don't want us plebs to think there's dissent amongst the SC ranks. |
Then the image integrity clause must be removed. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 10:03:17 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm only disputing the assertion that there's no way to objectively define photographic integrity. Whether or not the concept is employed here, it most certainly IS possible. |
Yes, but you don't want us plebs to think there's dissent amongst the SC ranks. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 09:32:25 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept... |
Don't news photographers have standards defining exactly that? |
not the place. not the place. not the place. |
I'm only disputing the assertion that there's no way to objectively define photographic integrity. Whether or not the concept is employed here, it most certainly IS possible. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 09:29:47 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept... |
Don't news photographers have standards defining exactly that? |
not the place. not the place. not the place.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 09:29:16 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept... |
Don't news photographers have standards defining exactly that (and in terms that newly-hired photographers can understand)?
Message edited by author 2007-10-17 09:30:24. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 04:44:49 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Basic rules, in short, should be results based, not tools based. New tools are developed every day. I think Adobe is happy with that. However, rules based on results will be unchanging no matter what tools come along. |
See, now I feel exactly the opposite -- if the rules are results-based, images will always be at the mercy of the subjective decision of a small group, whereas I think it should be the voters who ultimately rate a photo's artistic and aesthetic worthiness.
The SC's role should only be to answer the question of whether or not the tools and processes used were legal -- if someone makes "digital art" with legal tools, so be it; you can trash it with your vote, but if they made it using the legal tools, it should be allowed to remain in the competition.
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept; to me it's a useless criterion, since the dividing line between legal/not legal will constantly move depending on who's doing the voting.
The Basic rules need to be clear and understandable to site newcomers, and only a tool-based rule set will do that; "you can use this and this but not that" is clear; "you can use this, but not too much" is not. |
I must admit that is a damn good argument.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:51:01 AM · #22 |
so dose this mean that the brightness/contrast is now not allowed? because, except for the cloning i did on This Photo it was done by doing brightness/contrast on select areas. and nevermind, i just answered my question, cause it is on select areas and not applied equally to the whole photo:P basic only allows equaly, geniouse! i really dont need to post this, but why waste a good post
Message edited by author 2007-10-17 01:51:39. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:34:58 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Basic rules, in short, should be results based, not tools based. New tools are developed every day. I think Adobe is happy with that. However, rules based on results will be unchanging no matter what tools come along. |
See, now I feel exactly the opposite -- if the rules are results-based, images will always be at the mercy of the subjective decision of a small group, whereas I think it should be the voters who ultimately rate a photo's artistic and aesthetic worthiness.
The SC's role should only be to answer the question of whether or not the tools and processes used were legal -- if someone makes "digital art" with legal tools, so be it; you can trash it with your vote, but if they made it using the legal tools, it should be allowed to remain in the competition.
There is no way to objectively define "photographic integrity" or any of the other euphemisms we've used for that concept; to me it's a useless criterion, since the dividing line between legal/not legal will constantly move depending on who's doing the voting.
The Basic rules need to be clear and understandable to site newcomers, and only a tool-based rule set will do that; "you can use this and this but not that" is clear; "you can use this, but not too much" is not. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:26:38 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by hywind:
For the site council, IMHO basic editing needs to be kept basic with only the use of the adjustment layers, and edit in normal mode, I do not believe any type of application, that allows changes in bit depth or other forms of pixel change should be allowed, in this editing rule we need to take a photo and produce it as basic as possible without going to minimal editing, I believe tone mapping should be removed from basic editing completely or basic and advanced are being brought to close in the editing rules. |
You know, I've gotten damn good with a curves adjustment layer. So much that I can at will do some wild editing with the curves layer alone. So, I'd be careful in blaming any particular tool or technique.
Basic rules, in short, should be results based, not tools based. New tools are developed every day. I think Adobe is happy with that. However, rules based on results will be unchanging no matter what tools come along.
I hope SC is considering that the hole in the basic rules isn't gonna be plugged by pulling three filters from the list. If so, there will continue to be a lot of plugging on a sinking ship and ever growing confusion. The S/H adjustment layer and RAW conversion being at the forefront right now. |
I hear and understand what you are saying, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, or we will be forever asking is it legal, if too many tool parameters allowed. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:01:12 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by hywind:
For the site council, IMHO basic editing needs to be kept basic with only the use of the adjustment layers, and edit in normal mode, I do not believe any type of application, that allows changes in bit depth or other forms of pixel change should be allowed, in this editing rule we need to take a photo and produce it as basic as possible without going to minimal editing, I believe tone mapping should be removed from basic editing completely or basic and advanced are being brought to close in the editing rules. |
You know, I've gotten damn good with a curves adjustment layer. So much that I can at will do some wild editing with the curves layer alone. So, I'd be careful in blaming any particular tool or technique.
Basic rules, in short, should be results based, not tools based. New tools are developed every day. I think Adobe is happy with that. However, rules based on results will be unchanging no matter what tools come along.
I hope SC is considering that the hole in the basic rules isn't gonna be plugged by pulling three filters from the list. If so, there will continue to be a lot of plugging on a sinking ship and ever growing confusion. The S/H adjustment layer and RAW conversion being at the forefront right now.
Message edited by author 2007-10-17 01:02:36.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 09:43:25 AM EDT.
