DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> TEXTURES Now Allowed in Advanced Editing
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 71, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/08/2014 09:37:04 AM · #26
Thanks! "D
09/08/2014 10:07:03 AM · #27
The textures in snap seed and programs like that, are they allowed ?
09/08/2014 10:21:45 AM · #28
Originally posted by jagar:
The textures in snap seed and programs like that, are they allowed ?


i think that's the point. to turn DPC into instagram.
 09/08/2014 11:54:32 AM · #29
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
The textures in snap seed and programs like that, are they allowed ?


i think that's the point. to turn DPC into instagram.


hopefully they won't stop there and they will allow other obvious things that everybody in the real world is doing, like blacking out backgrounds.
 09/08/2014 11:56:25 AM · #30
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5

and nothing with writing right? Only in expert???

- 6
- 7
- 8

Are these defined borders legal - obviously nothing with a logo/watermark (I don't think any of mine have the logo/watermark)

- 9
- 10
- 11

09/08/2014 12:05:24 PM · #31
Correct Ja-9, however the well defined shapes in #4 could be dicey, and #5 has that border issue. Bear in mind that I'm just one opinion, although I think you and most others intuitively know what we're allowing for: overall grunge, grain, streaks, etc.
 09/08/2014 12:06:56 PM · #32
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, those are added features. They fall more under the category of "double exposure". Still not acceptable.

that's a shame.


Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
The textures in snap seed and programs like that, are they allowed ?

i think that's the point. to turn DPC into instagram.


I like how you implied that we didn't go far enough and went too far in back-to-back posts.
 09/08/2014 12:10:39 PM · #33
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
The textures in snap seed and programs like that, are they allowed ?


i think that's the point. to turn DPC into instagram.

hopefully they won't stop there and they will allow other obvious things that everybody in the real world is doing, like blacking out backgrounds.

Hopefully :-) One step at a time...
 09/08/2014 12:12:20 PM · #34
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Would any of these be DQd?

The last two would definitely be DQ'd... for the icons at lower right. Otherwise, only the last one would be a problem IMO. That frame is getting into image overlay territory.

I concur with Shannon, except I'm not so convinced the last one's border is that big a problem.
 09/08/2014 12:15:42 PM · #35
Originally posted by scalvert:
Correct Ja-9, however the well defined shapes in #4 could be dicey, and #5 has that border issue. Bear in mind that I'm just one opinion, although I think you and most others intuitively know what we're allowing for: overall grunge, grain, streaks, etc.

Again, I concur, except I'm inclined to accept the border in 5.
 09/08/2014 12:24:41 PM · #36
So what do you think about analog efex and the wet plate settings in particular?
 09/08/2014 12:53:17 PM · #37
Originally posted by vawendy:
So what do you think about analog efex and the wet plate settings in particular?

Haven't really played with 'em yet, but I remember thinking to myself when I LOOKED at them that there's a LOT of stuff in there that would only be allowed in expert. I'll go take a look now.

Actually, I take that back. Analog Efex is a VERY useful "old film look" and texturizing tool. Thedre are some of the textures you'd have to run at less than 100%, but in general it's gonna be a good tool to work with.

The one that was raising red flags with me was Topaz Lens Effects: there are all sorts of blurs and light leaks and such in there that still won't be legal in Advanced Editing right now.

NOW I'm looking at the full range of what's available in Analog Efex Pro and there are definitely some modules to watch out for there, especially the blur modules, the multi-lens module, etc. The Wet Plate modules are pretty much OK, but they CAN be tweaked to the point of absurdity. Just use common sense, people :-) If it LOOKS like it's going too far, it probably is.

Message edited by author 2014-09-08 13:06:38.
 09/08/2014 01:18:48 PM · #38
Originally posted by vawendy:
This one, I thought, really made the picture. It was boring without it, but I thought incredibly beautiful after applied.



So, while I love the textures, I'm wondering if we're getting away with stuff that enhances a not so good picture. Can't tell you how many times my expert editing shots were boring, and textures helped.


For what it might be worth, & while I will agree that no amount of PP can 'fix' a not-so-good photo, I am not so sure it is that easy to either for-sure pick a not-so-good photo or totally give up on any photo. There was a reason for clicking the shutter. Maybe the photo, when viewed later, is not living up to its potential. Maybe some of what caught the photographer's eye in the first place was too fragile to survive the photographic process. Sometimes the right texture, applied with artistry, can bring out storytelling or emotional elements of the photo that would otherwise be overlooked.

The fundamentalist photographer will insist on pure journalistic/documentary photography. That means the photographer should strive to be a disinterested, uninvolved bystander. Catch the moment without mercy & without getting involved. No editing, for the act of editing involves personal judgement. For this aesthetic, there is nothing beyond accurately capturing exactly what was there, with perfect technicals.

I hope someday this site will have room for both points of view, with respect.
 09/08/2014 01:21:49 PM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, those are added features. They fall more under the category of "double exposure". Still not acceptable.

that's a shame.


Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
The textures in snap seed and programs like that, are they allowed ?

i think that's the point. to turn DPC into instagram.


I like how you implied that we didn't go far enough and went too far in back-to-back posts.


the first comment, i just feel that if you are allowing textures you should allow light leaks to since they serve the same purpose.

the second, Langdon stated: This helps to bring our rules in alignment with the way many people are actually creating images these days, particularly those who use their iPhones and Androids for photography. ie. instagram...

09/08/2014 01:25:58 PM · #40
Originally posted by Mike:
the first comment, i just feel that if you are allowing textures you should allow light leaks to since they serve the same purpose.

Actually, they don't. Light leaks are dramatic, attention-grabbing overlays that constitute an overt feature in the image. Textures, as we'll be allowing them, are more muted and serve as a background FOR the image, basically.

Originally posted by Mike:
the second, Langdon stated: This helps to bring our rules in alignment with the way many people are actually creating images these days, particularly those who use their iPhones and Androids for photography. ie. instagram...

Making the site friendly to instagram-style imagery doesn't mean turning the site INTO instagram. You're being ridiculous.
 09/08/2014 01:30:53 PM · #41
Originally posted by pixelpig:


I hope someday this site will have room for both points of view, with respect.


I think there's room... but we might need a shoehorn ;-)

FWIW, I applaud the initiative behind this change. I do hope that as part of the change, the SC "recalibrates the texture gauge" to allow a little more artistic leeway. I've felt for a long time that we were applying that rule too narrowly.
 09/08/2014 01:49:22 PM · #42
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, I applaud the initiative behind this change. I do hope that as part of the change, the SC "recalibrates the texture gauge" to allow a little more artistic leeway. I've felt for a long time that we were applying that rule too narrowly.

You can count on it :-)
 09/08/2014 01:51:41 PM · #43
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Making the site friendly to instagram-style imagery doesn't mean turning the site INTO instagram. You're being ridiculous.


of course i'm being ridiculous. Now if langdon replaces the voting scale with likes... :P
 09/08/2014 03:17:55 PM · #44
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by vawendy:
This one, I thought, really made the picture. It was boring without it, but I thought incredibly beautiful after applied.


For what it might be worth, & while I will agree that no amount of PP can 'fix' a not-so-good photo, I am not so sure it is that easy to either for-sure pick a not-so-good photo or totally give up on any photo. There was a reason for clicking the shutter. Maybe the photo, when viewed later, is not living up to its potential. Maybe some of what caught the photographer's eye in the first place was too fragile to survive the photographic process.

Nothing to do with added textures, but I think I have a few examples of "imperfect" pictures taken under challenging conditions -- usually from a moving train or vehicle, with no opportunity to re-shoot -- which have been "fixed" (at least to my satisfaction), and with pretty basic editing techniques. As you say, there was usually a reason for pressing the shutter, and while it may never produce a work of art you could sell to a magazine, it may be perfectly adequate for almost any other purpose ...

Before/After comparisons (gallery) ... River Bend -- complete step-by-step (article)

However, if anyone thinks any of these would benefit from an added texture let me know ... :-)

Message edited by author 2014-09-08 15:19:38.
 09/08/2014 04:12:02 PM · #45
I had to google Instagram, must get out more.
 09/08/2014 04:26:30 PM · #46
GeneralE - Thanks for the examples and editing steps, those are very helpful. Also reminds me how much I want to go up to the pacific northwest sometime.
 09/09/2014 12:50:54 AM · #47
I take it we are allowed to shoot our own textures?
 09/09/2014 08:35:22 AM · #48
Originally posted by jomari:
I take it we are allowed to shoot our own textures?

You betcha!
 09/09/2014 08:52:04 AM · #49
This sounds great and will increase the vision before the photo, so the learning with this new rule might be quite a lot.

How about an open challenge to celebrate this rule change? Free study with texture, advanced editing. Then by that there will be plenty images as examples for what is allowed. It will also perhaps help SC gauge the workload with this new rule. (ETA: let me know if I should add that to the challenge suggestions). ETA again: maybe the DQ's in that challenge wouldn't count to the DQ tally for the user if the texture is out of bounds.

Message edited by author 2014-09-09 08:54:08.
 09/09/2014 11:33:38 AM · #50
One more is this gonna be legal question.... The back ground in the original shot is trees, but in this the background is texture.... So My Main subject is still the prominent point, does that make this illegal, and if I had left some of the (icky) background showing would that have made this legal??? Is the 20% texture a good rule of thumb??? Thanks


Message edited by author 2014-09-09 11:34:12.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:13:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/19/2024 09:13:29 AM EDT.