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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Post processing effects in Advance editing
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/18/2019 04:37:37 PM · #1
In Standard Editing, say if I use third party softwares like Luminar or On1 Or Topaz lab etc. is that consider valid? one example could be Topaz lens effect that changes how the look of photograph is.There are many other features around many other post processing software thats adds stuff another example would be the solar flare added in post processing.

I here I am not referring to PNG add but software driven changes in a photograph.

Message edited by author 2019-09-18 16:38:28.
09/18/2019 05:10:47 PM · #2
Would in fact be interesting to get an SC interpretation of the legality of adding, say, a prominent lens flare. Reviewing the Standard Editing Rules, I confirmed that there is no specific prohibition on adding an object to a scene.
09/18/2019 05:29:51 PM · #3
No comment on lens flare, though if considered a "selective color adjustment" it should be "legal" -- whether it's "ethical" is for everyone to judge for themselves.

One thing which bothers me lately is the overwhelming proliferation of "N/A" in the notes section when I look at a picture after the voting. I think if you're going to do anything other than crop, color/tone adjust and sharpen, it is only fair (and educational -- remember the purpose of this site) to the viewer to explain what you did.

I believe in the past we allowed "correction" of lens effects/distortion, but not to introduce them into a "normal" image; likewise the rules used to prohibit any distortion other than perspective "correction" ... these days?
09/18/2019 05:56:18 PM · #4
ohh yaa the editing rules are there, question I had is more about these days softwares/plugins are all coming out left and right and they do all in just one click. There are case when I as a user doesn't even know what they do but I see only output and that makes the input and output look different so when it comes for me as a user, not sure what I should submit when I am submitting for image review as the post processing is all happening behind the scene and stuffs got added in.
09/18/2019 06:28:09 PM · #5
Under the current Standard editing rules almost all of that stuff should be OK -- if you ever have to submit for validation you just send in the original RAW or JPEG and list whatever you used.

Many of those plug-ins are just very complex macros (or "actions" as they're called in PhotoShop) which describe a series of steps for PS to perform -- you can create your own. If you're not using PS you'll have to check for the equivalent function (if any) in your software.
09/18/2019 09:27:18 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:

Would in fact be interesting to get an SC interpretation of the legality of adding, say, a prominent lens flare. Reviewing the Standard Editing Rules, I confirmed that there is no specific prohibition on adding an object to a scene.


This is a misleading phrase. You cannot add just any object to a scene - i.e. adding more trees to make a forest look thicker, or more people in a scene. That would be compositing, which not allowed in Standard editing.
09/18/2019 09:52:09 PM · #7
Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Would in fact be interesting to get an SC interpretation of the legality of adding, say, a prominent lens flare. Reviewing the Standard Editing Rules, I confirmed that there is no specific prohibition on adding an object to a scene.


This is a misleading phrase. You cannot add just any object to a scene - i.e. adding more trees to make a forest look thicker, or more people in a scene. That would be compositing, which not allowed in Standard editing.


I'm just reading the rules agnostically, and noting that it never specifically says we can't do that. I would guess that the argument against would be that the language under "You Must..." requiring multiple shots to be of a scene whose "general composition" does not change is what would be invoked to preclude this. In the case of a lens flare, if it was wholly created, not part of the original scene, there's no violation of that.
09/18/2019 11:12:26 PM · #8
A light flare isn't a "thing", it's an "effect". It *used* to be that "effects" were considered "things" for the purpose of the rules (think painterly effects with filters and such) but that obviously became unwieldy and unrealistic after the plug-in universe began to expand at warp speed. So Tanguera's right, Kirbic's right, in the sense that you can't just take objects in the image and move them or clone/repeat them at will because that is "changing the scene". Adding light flares, texture overlays, painterly effects and so on are adding an artistic effect to a scene, and that's allowed.

Message edited by author 2019-09-18 23:13:05.
09/20/2019 01:06:31 AM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:

One thing which bothers me lately is the overwhelming proliferation of "N/A" in the notes section when I look at a picture after the voting. I think if you're going to do anything other than crop, color/tone adjust and sharpen, it is only fair (and educational -- remember the purpose of this site) to the viewer to explain what you did.


one thing i would LOVE is if people would include their camera info .. ie.. the camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture and iso and if a flash or some sort of external light source is used ..
we learn a lot from how a photo is edited .. but with the actual taking of the photo .. thats another place we could learn stuff ..
sorry if this is slightly off topic .. but explaining what we have done includes how the photo was taken as well .. :)
09/20/2019 05:16:38 AM · #10
Originally posted by roz:


one thing i would LOVE is if people would include their camera info .. ie.. the camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture and iso and if a flash or some sort of external light source is used ..
we learn a lot from how a photo is edited .. but with the actual taking of the photo .. thats another place we could learn stuff ..
sorry if this is slightly off topic .. but explaining what we have done includes how the photo was taken as well .. :)


I agree, but sometimes that's not as simple as it seems.

I've always included whatever info is in the photo's metadata. As I've been shooting with vintage lenses a lot lately, however, the camera often doesn't record lens data and sometimes I can't even remember which lens I used, let alone what aperture.
09/20/2019 03:02:52 PM · #11
I think when you do save for Web, photoshop removes the EXIF to reduce the file size and in lightroom when export there default selection is that export copyright only option so not all the time you will get to see EXIF.

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by roz:


one thing i would LOVE is if people would include their camera info .. ie.. the camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture and iso and if a flash or some sort of external light source is used ..
we learn a lot from how a photo is edited .. but with the actual taking of the photo .. thats another place we could learn stuff ..
sorry if this is slightly off topic .. but explaining what we have done includes how the photo was taken as well .. :)


I agree, but sometimes that's not as simple as it seems.

I've always included whatever info is in the photo's metadata. As I've been shooting with vintage lenses a lot lately, however, the camera often doesn't record lens data and sometimes I can't even remember which lens I used, let alone what aperture.
09/20/2019 05:16:49 PM · #12
I don't think any JPEG files retain the EXIF metadata, and what the site (sometimes) parses is the IPTC info (where you enter captions, copyright, etc.). But I'm talking about entering the processing steps (if any) in the notes section, not just the exposure data.
09/20/2019 05:45:42 PM · #13
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I don't think any JPEG files retain the EXIF metadata, and what the site (sometimes) parses is the IPTC info (where you enter captions, copyright, etc.). But I'm talking about entering the processing steps (if any) in the notes section, not just the exposure data.


Unedited JPG files and those saved normally do retain metadata - well at least they do in CS5. I'm not sure what older versions of Photoshop do. And if I use wifi to upload photos to my phone, then to DPC from my phone, the metadata is always there.
09/21/2019 03:13:22 PM · #14
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I don't think any JPEG files retain the EXIF metadata, and what the site (sometimes) parses is the IPTC info (where you enter captions, copyright, etc.). But I'm talking about entering the processing steps (if any) in the notes section, not just the exposure data.

EXIF data definitely is coded into original JPGs. That's how we validate entries shot as JPGs. It is true that if one uses the save-for-web feature in PS the EXIF gets stripped from the actual, 1200px entry, but the original still retains EXIF. When the site is parsing exposure data from the entry into the data fields on the entry form, it is able to do that only when the actual entry has been saved-as a JPG instead of saved-for-web, and the data have not been stripped.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/21/2019 11:49:05 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 © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/21/2019 11:49:05 AM EDT.