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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Keep Shadow/Highlights legal in Basic
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 78, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/15/2007 08:12:14 PM · #1
Moved from This thread.

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by jdannels:

CS's shadows/highlights adjustment is ok still in Basic?


Actually, we're still debating about Shadow/Highlight. it SHOULD be illegal, but isn't right now because its been such an institution in the basic rules for so long. We'll let you know with a LOT of warning and many forgivenesses if we outlaw S/H.


Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

IMO S/H should remain legal. That is unless SC is planning to also disallow about half the ACR exposure controls, especially brightness, fill light and recovery.


for once, I agree with Leroy - The fill light and recovery tool in Lightroom do pretty much the same thing. are they banned as well? If so I will probably be dropping the basic editing challenges. whats the point of banning what are fast becoming basic tools in the photographers toolbox? DPC certainly have a policy of being stuck 5 years behind the current trends in basic editing.

What will theyban next? cropping? since it affects only the edges of the image?

Funny thing is, more and more of the SC do not enter challenges anymore? are they losing touch with the common users?


Message edited by author 2007-10-15 20:18:39.
10/15/2007 08:12:56 PM · #2
WORD!
10/15/2007 08:13:29 PM · #3
Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by frisca:

basic editing is a teaser. Its not really meant to encourage perfect workflow, but its designed to allow some basic adjustments, with LIMITS. Its the best you can do with boundaries.

And I disagree that fill light and recovery are "basic" tools the same way the "basic rules" use the word "basic". They drastically alter the look of a photo in a way that isn't really the same as what can be done in a traditional darkroom.

Basic editing rules are meant to be the start, not the end. We must place limits or there is no difference between basic rules and advanced, or the trial rules under expert.

I don't enter challenges because I don't have time. I spend too much of it doing admin for the site.


I dont disagree that you are busy with the site, but thats exactly what I mean when I say the SC seem to be losing touch with the common DPCer, most of them came to this site for their love of photography, then one year or so down the line, the photography part has gone and they are 100% admin.

But we are not in a `traditional` darkroom, this is digital photography, its modern, its fresh and the goalposts are moving daily. If we all wish to remain purist, then lets all get back to drawing stick men and woolly mammoths on cave walls. things change, techniques change. To hold it back because it isnt `traditional` is just so much BS. DPC needs to change with the times. A bit of latitude needs to be granted.

10/15/2007 08:31:08 PM · #4
OK, so, whats going on in here then?

:)
10/15/2007 08:33:28 PM · #5
Originally posted by Simms:

OK, so, whats going on in here then?

:)


Make your arguments, tiger! :)
10/15/2007 08:40:00 PM · #6
It was asked in the announcement thread whether fill/recovery in lightroom is still legal in basic. Like S/H, its legal, and under discussion. If anyone has anything to add to how this tool fits or doesn't fit with the basic rules given our announcement about LA, PM and VP, and given our history with the basic rules, pleas share because we value your input!
10/15/2007 08:43:57 PM · #7
Originally posted by frisca:

It was asked in the announcement thread whether fill/recovery in lightroom is still legal in basic. Like S/H, its legal, and under discussion. If anyone has anything to add to how this tool fits or doesn't fit with the basic rules given our announcement about LA, PM and VP, and given our history with the basic rules, pleas share because we value your input!


LOL, even mine? Going to bed now, its late (about 01:44) so will be sleeping on this one.

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 20:45:04.
10/15/2007 08:49:33 PM · #8
I don't care about shadows/highlights as I've never seen a photograph it couldn't make look worse.

But the recovery slider? I hope it stays legal because you can get the same effect with curves but it makes it a hell of a lot easier and less time consuming.

Actually I suppose you could make the same argument for S/H.
10/15/2007 08:53:29 PM · #9
I think DPC should create its own photo-editing software and everyone should be forced to use it.
10/15/2007 09:00:05 PM · #10
You can accomplish virtually the same results with exposure, levels and/or curves. It may take a bit more muddling but they essentially perform the same function though through slightly different interfaces. I guess if it is so necessary to maintain purity through the post-editing process, we should have a look at color balance as it has the same relative effect on coloration as the aforementioned tools have upon tones. Let's face it, digital photography is significantly different than film. Yes, they both capture images but why the need to use film as a baseline when in all truth, it is a completely different process? It appears we measure what is acceptable by standards that are really antiquated.

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 21:01:47.
10/15/2007 09:08:22 PM · #11
The arguments for it seem to be:
1) Technically you are not making any specific selections and it can in theory be done with curves adjustments alone.
2) It has been a DPC staple in Basic Editing for a long time
3) Gimmee gimmee I need I need!

The arguments against:
1) In reality I don't know if you can get the same results with curves, maybe.
2) When overused it can be seen as its own effect, which I think can be said for almost all adjustments.
3)Atleast in CS2 from what I know it is the only adjustment besides sharpening techniques, gaussian blur, NI/Noise ninja that needs to work with the actual pixels to gets an effect.

Just points about the software
Someone more knowledgeable than I may know if how it works and explain if it actually uses selections.
It seems similar to dodging, which is a darkroom technique from film.
Thats all I got right now...
When I use it, I use it as much for controlling contrast through the pixel radius, tonal width and midtone contrast slider for shadows and highlights then just shadow recovery.

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 21:09:09.
10/15/2007 10:13:50 PM · #12
Well if those other tools are ban this should definitely be banned as well along with the new features in Lightroom and ACR. While we are at it ban anything that alters your exposure which would include ND filters and such. Of course that'll never happen. We like our own little cheats.

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 22:15:05.
10/15/2007 10:59:55 PM · #13
I currently use iPhoto (Mac, iLIfe 8 version) which has the H/S sliders, so I am watching to see if they will be included in the end product of this discussion/thread. I am guessing that they do the same as in the other PP software already mentioned.
They do only actually have an effect on parts of the image respectively above and below a certain exposure level, so I feel that it is going to be a definition call about how this discussion ends.

Desat affects only parts of an image too, as well as making an image B&W, which may take out all of two colors to get the desired effect. I/E B&W from only the green channel. That is another subject though, which may lead to another thread. This about B&W was not to derail the thread, but to point out similarity between the two techniques, H/S, and B&W.
Maybe DPC should only have "Minimal" and "Unlimited" PP challenges to end all the confusion, but I do like the several levels of challenge rules now in use.
10/15/2007 11:43:43 PM · #14
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

Desat affects only parts of an image too, as well as making an image B&W, which may take out all of two colors to get the desired effect. I/E B&W from only the green channel.


Err ... it seems the concern is that two pixels with identical RGB values get treated differently. In hue/sat adjustments, though, all pixels with identical RGB values are treated the same.

So it's not just about affecting some pixels vs. others.

As for me, I happen to like H/S for recovering shadows and highlights, but it won't kill me if it goes away. It's just a DPC ruleset, after all. As long as it's evenhanded, I'll work within whatever rules exist.

I mean, we can still edit for other uses however we like.
10/15/2007 11:50:00 PM · #15
I believe that S/H should be legal for basic, as long as it's used for corrective purposes and not to create an effect. Isn't that the spirit of that rulesset, if not often bent?
10/16/2007 10:30:49 AM · #16
I'm reposting my strong opinion FOR S/H adjustments, a natural process, similar to basic adjustments like exposure/color-balance.

FROM: LucisArts, Photomatix and Virtual Photographer
I would STRONGLY agree, that these GLOBAL adjustments using Photoshop Creative Suites' highlight/shadows adjustments should be allowed as is currently instated.

All the Photoshop books and many tutorials do introduce this as a remedy for adjustments to photos. I don't think these were advanced topics, in many writings.

This seems as basic as exposure, color, shadows adjustments in converting a RAW file. They are BOTH done overall and are probably taught as basic procedures in the academic scene.
10/16/2007 01:42:22 PM · #17
Back when I was stuck with PS7, which has no shadow/highlight adjustment, The built-in method for "recovering" extremes of contrast was "contrast masking", via the cntrl-alt-tilde/new layer/layer mode technique. I communicated with SC complaining that if S/H was legal in basic, then contrast masking should be also, because S/H is basically just an automation of contrast masking with extra bells and whistles attached.

SC's response, understandably, was that they wouldn't open this can of worms because if they allowed an exception to "no-pixel-layers-in-basic" then we'd be sliding down the slippery slope. So I began researching third-party alternatives and found Photomatix pro, whose tone mapping function accomplishes basically what S/H does in Photoshop. It can do MORE, of course, but at the basic level that's how it functions.

It seems to me that as long as S/H is allowed and tone mapping is NOT, we basically have DPC saying "if you want to use global contrast recovery in basic editing, you need to spend $600+ to buy Photoshop CS or above; it's the approved software for the thinking photographer."

So, on that basis alone, to be consistent you need to disallow S/H in basic editing.

But on a more abstract level, we need to decide what is the PURPOSE of basic editing rules, anyway. I say this because many of these things that are banned in basic editing have the result of making basic editing challenges MORE difficult for the average photographer. I say this because to a large extent you can find workarounds for most of these problems IF you are a skilled and experienced photoshop user; yet, by definition (apparently) "basic editing" is meant to somehow level the playing field so less skilled photoshoppers have a chance.

Let me be clear on that; as the rules are written now, and especially if S/H is disallowed, basic editing is actually a more difficult challenge than advanced editing. This is because a great many of the tools/filters allowed in advanced (but not in basic) represent automations of repetitive tasks, and if you are skilled enough in Photoshop you can get acceptable results without the automations, but it takes a lot of time and experience.

For what it's worth, IMO the basic ruleset should be replaced with the minimal ruleset, so the open challenges would be minimal editing (that's a real field-leveler) and the members challenges would remain in advanced editing.

This splitting hairs and denying access to certain processes to those who do not have the currently "approved" software is, IMO, a very bad idea. I simply can't see any real justification for banning Photomatix tone mapping, a non-photoshop, stand-alone program that's a lot cheaper than CS3, while allowing S/H, which fulfills the same role in the Photoshop HDR workflow as tone mapping does in the Photomatix HDR workflow. Either can be "abused", but so what? ANY "legal" adjustment can be abused to make an image no longer resemble its original capture state.

If your goal in basic editing is to promote images that "look like actual out-of-the-camera photos", then replace it with minimal editing and get exactly that with no arguments.

R.


10/16/2007 01:51:47 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... the open challenges would be minimal editing (that's a real field-leveler) ...

If your goal in basic editing is to promote images that "look like actual out-of-the-camera photos", then replace it with minimal editing and get exactly that with no arguments.

R.

My camera is better than your camera. I can apply in-camera special effects, I can...etc, etc...

Limit the software, then hmmm, limit the cameras?

BTW Robert - I agree with your points overall. Just playing devil's advocate. :P
10/16/2007 01:55:15 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It seems to me that as long as S/H is allowed and tone mapping is NOT, we basically have DPC saying "if you want to use global contrast recovery in basic editing, you need to spend $600+ to buy Photoshop CS or above; it's the approved software for the thinking photographer."


FWIW, Elements has S/H (although I have no idea if it's as robust as what's in CS+). I use it all the time.

And also, FWIW, there's at least one other tool (Fade) that is in CS2+ that is currently basic legal that you can't get anywhere else.
10/16/2007 01:55:34 PM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:



If your goal in basic editing is to promote images that "look like actual out-of-the-camera photos", then replace it with minimal editing and get exactly that with no arguments.

R.


I agree that this is the most logical course of action. I can see it being greeted with much uproar. I like it :-)
10/16/2007 01:58:48 PM · #21
Originally posted by levyj413:

As long as it's evenhanded, I'll work within whatever rules exist.



I agree, and (therefore) I think discussions like these are an utter waste of time. Whenever the rules change, I addept. That's the challenge.

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 14:01:40.
10/16/2007 02:01:11 PM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:



It seems to me that as long as S/H is allowed and tone mapping is NOT, we basically have DPC saying "if you want to use global contrast recovery in basic editing, you need to spend $600+ to buy Photoshop CS or above; it's the approved software for the thinking photographer."

So, on that basis alone, to be consistent you need to disallow S/H in basic editing.



I thought a read earlier in the thread (or maybe it was the other one) that S/H is a feature of PhotoShop Elements. It is also a feature in the latest version of iPhoto for the Mac. PS Elelmets comes with many P&S cameras and can be purchased for les than $100, about the same price as PhotoMatix.

Not that I disagree with the post, but there is an alternative for less than $600 mentioned above.

For the record, I am all for keeping S/H and PhotoMatix in Basic.

10/16/2007 02:48:48 PM · #23


You're absolutely right - Shadow / Highlight is available in Photoshop elements at a fraction the price of CS2 or 3.

In fact the very fact that it is now available in Elements would suggest to me that it isn't some fancy tool, but rather is seen as a fairly everyday tool - and a useful one at that :- )

edit to add - in case there's any doubt I would like to see the functionality stay in basic.



Message edited by author 2007-10-16 15:00:09.
10/16/2007 03:11:30 PM · #24
Originally posted by Jedusi:

You're absolutely right - Shadow / Highlight is available in Photoshop elements at a fraction the price of CS2 or 3.

In fact the very fact that it is now available in Elements would suggest to me that it isn't some fancy tool, but rather is seen as a fairly everyday tool - and a useful one at that :- )


Oh, I agree with that part of it: m,y point is that tone mapping to a single base image in Photomatix is basically the same thing as S/H; I don't see the consistency in banning one but not the other, especially because some people just don't WANT to be using Photoshop OR Elements...

R.
10/16/2007 03:20:43 PM · #25
Ahhh, all the action is in here, I am still ranting over in the other thread.. might stick around here now.

Agree with Bear and ScrBrd.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/23/2019 09:15:49 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: 08/23/2019 09:15:49 AM EDT.