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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> "On The Beach" DQ. Why?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 83, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/31/2006 10:23:14 PM · #26
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Clarify" does not sound like an "adjustment," but more like a filter, and may involve "hidden" selections.

A complete description of how this command works would be necessary to make a judgement, and I don't have that.


Me again, ask Ursula, she is on SC and uses it often on her photos.
 07/31/2006 10:24:43 PM · #27
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whether the effect can be achieved "legally" under Basic rules is largely an academic exercise if the actual techniques used turned out to be illegal.


I don't believe clarify can be use illegally. It's just one button, you click it and choose a strength from 1 to 5. No other options. How can that be illegal?
 07/31/2006 10:24:44 PM · #28
Originally posted by btuck:
This one that ribboned by Ursula was done by using the clarify tool.

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=301378

From the steps listed, it sounds illegal to me -- I wasn't involved in voting on either that one or the current one so I don't know what the voters' reasoning was. Perhaps you should submit a ticket asking why it's legal ...
 07/31/2006 10:26:52 PM · #29
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whether the effect can be achieved "legally" under Basic rules is largely an academic exercise if the actual techniques used turned out to be illegal.


I don't believe clarify can be use illegally. It's just one button, you click it and choose a strength from 1 to 5. No other options. How can that be illegal?

Some "tools" actually run a script of steps in the background, automatically, of which you are not aware and over which you have no control, but which still perform steps which are illegal under Basic. I don't know about this one ... the people who voted to DQ that picture (not me) will have to answer more specifically.
 07/31/2006 10:27:23 PM · #30
btuck, fyi you can link to images on this site with "[_thumb] number [_/thumb]" tags without the underscores of course.
 07/31/2006 10:28:28 PM · #31
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by btuck:
This one that ribboned by Ursula was done by using the clarify tool.

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=301378

From the steps listed, it sounds illegal to me -- I wasn't involved in voting on either that one or the current one so I don't know what the voters' reasoning was. Perhaps you should submit a ticket asking why it's legal ...


In that case this one of hers would be illegal too? I find it hard to believe that 2 of her ribbon shots used illegal processing yet still passed inspection. (sorry, Ursula, not picking on you, it's just that not many people use PSP and the clarify tool and win ribbons!)

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=263362
 07/31/2006 10:28:33 PM · #32
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whether the effect can be achieved "legally" under Basic rules is largely an academic exercise if the actual techniques used turned out to be illegal.


Well how about I grab my laptop, hop in the car and meet Karen (she's the closest member to me) at a Tim Hortons? I can easily recreate the image again in less than 5 minutes. All perfectly legal under DP rules. I know I'm being silly, but how else can I prove it?

Brian

PS: Tim Horton's is a coffee/donut shop. :)
 07/31/2006 10:30:45 PM · #33
Originally posted by btuck:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whether the effect can be achieved "legally" under Basic rules is largely an academic exercise if the actual techniques used turned out to be illegal.


Well how about I grab my laptop, hop in the car and meet Karen (she's the closest member to me) at a Tim Hortons? I can easily recreate the image again in less than 5 minutes. All perfectly legal under DP rules. I know I'm being silly, but how else can I prove it?

Brian

PS: Tim Horton's is a coffee/donut shop. :)

the SC will try to recreate the image as per the instructions you give.
 07/31/2006 10:30:45 PM · #34
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
In that case this one of hers would be illegal too?

Uh, no ... I'm going on the basis that the Clarify "filter" (as she calls it) is legal for the moment. I saw something else I didn't like about the first one.

PS: You can send me a donut : )

Message edited by author 2006-07-31 22:31:53.
 07/31/2006 10:32:17 PM · #35
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
In that case this one of hers would be illegal too?

Uh, no ... I'm going on the basis that the Clarify "filter" (as she calls it) is legal for the moment. I saw something else I didn't like about the first one.;


OK, just want to make sure that all of a sudden "clarify" doesn't become illegal in basic.

Seems to me there are very few people using PSP, what can be done legally in PSP can't always be done legally in PS and vice versa.
 07/31/2006 10:32:58 PM · #36
Originally posted by kyebosh:

the SC will try to recreate the image as per the instructions you give.


Let's hope they use PSP and not photoshop
 07/31/2006 10:33:32 PM · #37
Originally posted by GeneralE:
PS: You can send me a donut : )


Their cookies are better. :)
 07/31/2006 10:35:31 PM · #38
I will never object to a cookie either ... are theirs exotic or just good?
 07/31/2006 10:35:39 PM · #39
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
In that case this one of hers would be illegal too?

Uh, no ... I'm going on the basis that the Clarify "filter" (as she calls it) is legal for the moment. I saw something else I didn't like about the first one.;


OK, just want to make sure that all of a sudden "clarify" doesn't become illegal in basic.

Seems to me there are very few people using PSP, what can be done legally in PSP can't always be done legally in PS and vice versa.


I totally Agree Karen, seems PSP is kinda a question mark for alot of stuff which would be totally legal in Basic. Lets hope this gets straightened out. I now usually use PS just because for this site...
 07/31/2006 10:36:32 PM · #40
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I will never object to a cookie either ... are theirs exotic or just good?


Well, is Canadian exotic enough for you?
 07/31/2006 10:37:46 PM · #41
My guess is that there has already been an SC "clarifying" discussion in which I didn't participate.
 07/31/2006 10:38:55 PM · #42
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I will never object to a cookie either ... are theirs exotic or just good?


Well, is Canadian exotic enough for you?

I might draw the line at pemmican chips ... otherwise I've always had a great time when in Canada.
 07/31/2006 10:43:11 PM · #43
Clarify has been in PSP for a long time, not just in PSPX, but way before. As far as I know it is a combination of brightness/contrast/sharpness adjustment, and it can be applied in steps (1-5 through PSP9, 1-20 in PSPX).

I used to use it more when I was shooting JPG, but now, with RAW, I hardly ever use it anymore. I work on brighness/contrast directly in RAW, and my editing past RAW is way down.

As far as I know, it has always been legal in basic.

BTW, you can apply it selectively to portions of the image, if you first select that portion of an image.

It is not listed as a "filter" but as an adjustment, under "Brightness/Contrast".

Message edited by author 2006-07-31 22:44:20.
 07/31/2006 10:43:38 PM · #44
After some goofing in CS2 (not PSP) I think the crux of the situation is going to be to desat the background moss or foilage while keeping the girl's shirt nice and green. There is no color in the background (sample 47,47,47) while her shirt is colored.

Another example is the yellow of the rock behind. Selecting a sample portion of the part that remains in color, you have to have a color range as low as about 30 to have a fairly similar selection light up as remains. How are you getting such a small range of colors left with such a blunt tool as hue/desat?
 07/31/2006 10:43:38 PM · #45
Followed Brian steps using PSPX and managed to produce a similar result. The playing around with hues to get the colour out of the background involves adjusting it on various channels, not just the master channel, all applied to the whole image, no selections.


07/31/2006 10:45:15 PM · #46
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
After some goofing in CS2 (not PSP) I think the crux of the situation is going to be to desat the background moss or foilage while keeping the girl's shirt nice and green. There is no color in the background (sample 47,47,47) while her shirt is colored.

Another example is the yellow of the rock behind. Selecting a sample portion of the part that remains in color, you have to have a color range as low as about 30 to have a fairly similar selection light up as remains. How are you getting such a small range of colors left with such a blunt tool as hue/desat?


That's exactly it.

I would appreciate clarification on how this was done.
 07/31/2006 10:47:21 PM · #47
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whether the effect can be achieved "legally" under Basic rules is largely an academic exercise if the actual techniques used turned out to be illegal.


I don't believe clarify can be use illegally. It's just one button, you click it and choose a strength from 1 to 5. No other options. How can that be illegal?


For what it's worth, there re all sorts of filters in PS that require a single click and a specification for strength of effect that are not legal in basic editing. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is the way it is.

That effect that's coming off of "clarify" is fantastic, and I cannot legally duplicate it in basic editing with photoshop. Does this mean (and I've beaten this horse before, sorry) that my best bet for DPC editing is to invest in several different editing programs and choose the one that "automates" best for the particular image? This is already a problem with PS CS2 shadow/highlight tool, which is basically an automation of PS 7's contrast masking key commands, but shadow/highlight is "legal" in basic and currently contrast masking is not.

There are a lot of inconsistencies like this.

Regardless, it's a nicely processed image and I don't personally think it violates the spirit of the editing rules at all, so good luck with it. It's nice to see one of the "other" editors stealing a march on PS :-)

R.
 07/31/2006 10:48:36 PM · #48
Originally posted by Prism:
Followed Brian steps using PSPX and managed to produce a similar result. The playing around with hues to get the colour out of the background involves adjusting it on various channels, not just the master channel, all applied to the whole image, no selections.



I don't know. Comparing your picture to the challenge entry, in yours, the girl's shirt is a lot less green and you have some yellow moss left on the rock face. The entry doesn't have the yellow moss on the rock face, and the girl's shirt is much greener.

I would really appreciate getting more precise steps, if nothing illegal was done, and I'd be more than happy to try and reproduce the final result again.

07/31/2006 10:52:43 PM · #49
Originally posted by Prism:
Followed Brian steps using PSPX and managed to produce a similar result. The playing around with hues to get the colour out of the background involves adjusting it on various channels, not just the master channel, all applied to the whole image, no selections.



Ursula beat me to it, this exposes the problems I pointed out. The rock has yellow and the shirt has very little green.
 07/31/2006 10:53:51 PM · #50
Originally posted by Prism:
Followed Brian steps using PSPX and managed to produce a similar result. The playing around with hues to get the colour out of the background involves adjusting it on various channels, not just the master channel, all applied to the whole image, no selections.



It seems that he has increased the yellow and reduced the red more in his image than in your result...but basically along the same lines.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:17:26 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: 04/16/2024 12:17:26 AM EDT.