Rule Change Discussion: How to remove Hot Pixels

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/06/2003 09:14:17 AM · #1

Since the thread on dodge/burn is going smoothly, I would like to start discussion on another topic of interest.

"Hot Pixels" are an issue with a lot of cameras. Some cameras have them all the time and others have them on longer exposures... some don't have them at all. This particular topic does not affect everyone, but it does affect a lot of people.

A 'hot pixel' in a digital photograph is some pixel that shows up in the image as a brighter color than it's surroundings. I don't know all the technical jargon associated with them but I do know they are a problem for many people.

I would like to use this thread to discuss possible ways to allow hot pixels to be legally removed from photographs. There are two options that come to mind immediately.... the clone tool and the paintbrush tool. The problem with allowing use of either of these tools is that they can certainly be overused to make rather extreme modificaitons to photographs.

This is a problem... How could we define some acceptable rule to allow removal of hot pixels from photographs?

Simply put, we could word a rule that says "you may use any method you deem necessary to remove hot pixels from your photograph." This would leave the method up to the photographer. It would also be up to the photographer to use that method for the sole purpose of removing hot pixels. Sorta like the honor system...

Why do I think this problem should be addressed?

Well, I believe that hot pixels resulting from problems with the camera are unavoidable without purchasing a new camera. Purchasing a new camera won't always fix the problem either.

Let's open this discussion... keep in mind that this discussion is not proposing anythign specific... just asking for your ideas on how hot pixel removal could be allowed...

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/06/2003 09:16:16 AM · #2

maybe allow clone use unless gross duplication of photo elements occurs

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

06/06/2003 09:17:32 AM · #3

on the other hand this could be handled on the voter education side of things by telling people to try not to be so picky about things like hot pixels or random dust and look at the shot's concept and execution instead.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/06/2003 09:18:43 AM · #4

Given the potential damage that introducing the clone tool could provide, maybe we should just put up with hot pixels for the challenges. What's the big deal? ANY challenge entry can be prettied up for sale or display later.

I posted this same time as Mag who better said what I wanted.

Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:19:23.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

06/06/2003 09:19:40 AM · #5

Personally I don't like the idea of a rule that allows general use of the clone or paint brush tools.

Given a straight vote I'd vote against allowing them. "Gross duplication" is too subjective to pin down accurately, IMO.

If hot pixels are enough of an issue that just ignoring them is not possible then I would support John's suggestion of a rule worded expressly to allow removal of hot pixels/ dust/ hair spots and nothing else.

Kavey

Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:20:37.

basia03

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

06/06/2003 09:21:54 AM · #6

[quote=jmsetzler]...simply put, we could word a rule that says "you may use any method you deem necessary to remove hot pixels from your photograph."

this sounds just fine!

Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:22:53.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/06/2003 09:27:53 AM · #7

I'm all for cloning out "hot pixels." But we must establish a cap on the number of pixels. Otherwise you'll get people claiming to clone out blown-out spots which are actually other objects. Give an inch.....

Owen

mbardeen

Canon PowerShot G3

06/06/2003 09:32:55 AM · #8

I'd have to vote no on this. While hot pixels are annoying, I don't think they harm voting too much. I also think that allowing hot pixels to be removed by cloning has much potential to be abused.
If another method was used, I would be much more comfortable with it.

Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:33:44.

jab119

Canon EOS-70D

06/06/2003 09:33:46 AM · #9

most of the hot pixels I have or the annoying piece of dust that is stuck inside one of my lenses usually are not noticeable once the image is resized to meet the image size requirements for the challenge or its in an area that gets cropped out.

James

alanfreed

Nikon D6

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/06/2003 09:42:12 AM · #10

Much like my reply to the dodge-burn issue, my response is YES! I would love to get rid of pesky things like that. I absolutely hate posting things that have dust specks, etc., and it takes less than 10 seconds to patch them perfectly. And it is done without making any significant change to the "integrity" of the original image. I don't see the harm.

And since the actual question posed in this thread is "what method would you choose..." I suggest the use of the clone tool. It seems to be the absolute best way of taking care of these imperfections.

Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:44:59.

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

06/06/2003 09:51:40 AM · #11

No, unless you are going to alone cloning to remove sunspots as well.

06/06/2003 09:53:56 AM · #12

This thread is not a yes/no vote. it is for the purpose of discussing ways to remove hot pixels that would be acceptable.

06/06/2003 09:58:10 AM · #13

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

No, unless you are going to alone cloning to remove sunspots as well.

If you're referring to "blooming" that was one of the things that I was thinking when I suggested a cap be put on the number of pixels. Also that can be avoided by taking the picture at a different time of the day.

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

06/06/2003 09:59:58 AM · #14

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

This thread is not a yes/no vote. it is for the purpose of discussing ways to remove hot pixels that would be acceptable.

If you are going to make cloning acceptable to remove hot pixels why not include other things such as sunspots. There have been some fantastic photos in the past here that were hurt cause sunspots couldn't be edited out of them.

06/06/2003 10:00:18 AM · #15

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

This thread is not a yes/no vote. it is for the purpose of discussing ways to remove hot pixels that would be acceptable.

Well for the record, as stated before, the cloning only method. TY

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

06/06/2003 10:01:07 AM · #16

The early consensus in this thread seems to be that anything we allow for the removal of hot pixels will be abused beyond its intent.

This is the problem with something like this. If we allow it, we have to expect that everyone would use it within the limits we set. We can certainly theorize and assume that some will abuse it. We already have abuse on other current rules that depend on the honor system such as date the photograph must be taken.

I would love to be able to think that a majority of participants would not abuse the rules. I don't think that's too optimisitc.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

06/06/2003 10:04:46 AM · #17

That's how we operatate now - on an honour system that assumes that people will work within the rules as set - and, in the most part, it works. Most (discovered cases) of rule breaking have been accidental not deliberate I believe.

I personally do not worry about the threat of cheating - people can and will do so if they want regardless of what the rules say.

I think the issue for me is whether anynew rule is easily definable and easy to make judgements on for site council in terms of whether a given example image is within the rules or not.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/06/2003 10:09:04 AM · #18

i personally would like to see the clone tool before the d/b tool, as i think that is a more usable tool on pretty much every type of photo

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/06/2003 10:10:45 AM · #19

Originally posted by Kavey:

I think the issue for me is whether anynew rule is easily definable and easy to make judgements on for site council in terms of whether a given example image is within the rules or not.

i think the rules now are as much open to interpretation as the ones being proposed.

06/06/2003 10:12:09 AM · #20

Originally posted by achiral:

i personally would like to see the clone tool before the d/b tool, as i think that is a more usable tool on pretty much every type of photo

The question at hand is whether or not the clone tool could be allowed for the sole purpose of removing hot pixels... nothing else...

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/06/2003 10:14:45 AM · #21

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Let's be frank here John. The reality is that human nature is at play here. And just as in all facets of society there is a certain percentage that is honest and a certain percentage that is dishonest. We'd be fools to think that some here in the past have not used all the tools at their disposal. Nobody, including myself, would go as far as to accuse any one person, unless you could prove it. But therein lies the fundamental problem with this site, how do you prove the abuse? With or without rules certain individuals will do it. You're right in saying we have to depend on the honor system, it's not perfect but it's all we have.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

06/06/2003 10:15:54 AM · #22

but since no money or concrete prizes are at stake , AND we have 2 brand new challenges every single week, it doesn't make sense to sweat blood about it :)

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/06/2003 10:16:43 AM · #23

i would love to be able to clone (or similar tool) out hot pixels, specks of dust, etc.