| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2007 05:52:21 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by ursula:
Somewhere somebody said that this whole thing is a choice between artistic freedom and consistent enforcement. I guess it could be looked at that way, and in that case I would choose artistic freedom. But I don't think it needs to be that way -- to my mind there is no conflict between artistic freedom and consistent enforcement. Oh well. |
Don't you think that the basic ruleset (not to mention minimal) inheritly discourages artistic freedom at it's core? And by that I mean artistic freedom in post processing. Although with the owl pic getting DQed it seems like artistic freedom and creativity is getting discouraged in-camera as well. However, that anomaly aside, the essense of the ruleset as I've understood it is to get the photo right, period. Basic allows you to finish getting it "right" in post and Minimal demands that you get it right completely in-camera. "Right" meaning how you saw it through the viewfinder and not in your mind's eye so to speak. That seems to be what is at the core each time we make revisions and chisel away at the sculpture that is the basic and minimal rulesets. It's not exactly my cup of tea and doesn't seem to be yours either but that seems to be what the idea of these rulests are about. In any rate it's not to promote artistic freedom but rather to encourage just camera skills and pre-processing/setup abilities. |
One could say that the ability to be creative in a limited rule set requires more creative talents than allowing an "anything goes" type of rule set.
Just a thought. |
Artistic freedom and creativity are not the same thing. I probably shouldn't have used the word creativity in that one sentence but it was used in regards to that owl pic. I wasn't trying to imply that creativity is being limited just that artistic freedom is.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:19:11 PM · #52 |
 Bear_Music's first post in this thread makes the most sense to me. Admittedly a non-postprocessor, I would love to see more minimal editing challenges. I also think the issue is not so much a question of affording the latest tech, or even being experienced in using it, because people will always find a way, but of choosing or not choosing to do so.
(Gotta run, the dishes are piling up - no dishwasher, by choice). |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 06:59:34 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hell, I wanna be able to clone out zits, since landscape photogs can clone out dust ;-) |
When your camera reaches puberty and starts getting zits, we will revisit this particular scenario. :) |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:22:41 AM · #54 |
Bump, and, What's the score at this point? Can we use shipping and handling or not in basic editing?
It looks to me like S/H is ok for now, but not the other items under discussion.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:42:25 AM · #55 |
Being a newbie and actually having no idea what tone mapping is...or how to do it...I would hate to see the shadow/highlight restriction in basic editing. I can't hope to compete with the advanced photographers here that can work magic with their photography skills, equipment and processing. BUT...though the help and advice of some great people here...I have been able to improve my editing skills quite a bit. Before joining DPC in June I didn't even use editing software. What I shot was what I got.
Please don't take this away in basic editing.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:12:54 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hell, I wanna be able to clone out zits, since landscape photogs can clone out dust ;-) |
When your camera reaches puberty and starts getting zits, we will revisit this particular scenario. :) |
I'm waiting for it to grow something that rhymes with zits.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:23:13 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hell, I wanna be able to clone out zits, since landscape photogs can clone out dust ;-) |
When your camera reaches puberty and starts getting zits, we will revisit this particular scenario. :) |
I'm waiting for it to grow something that rhymes with zits. |
Cameras are female? Weird! |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:41:54 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
There are two ways of getting the same result. |
Tonemapping and Shadow/Highlight do NOT yield the same results. You might think so, but they don't. S/H, Curves, Fill Light, Recovery and Levels all adjust tones globally- all pixels of the same value get the same shift throughout the image. Photomatix takes local area contrast into account, so pixels of the same value are treated differently depending upon where they fall within the image. I don't consider that a global adjustment (the only kind allowed in Basic).
Furthermore, I don't consider tonemapping a corrective edit. The other tools are designed and normally used to bring out detail whereas tonemapping is designed and normally used to impart a distinctive, "special effect" look. |
\
Unsharp mask is legal in basic. and if you set it right, you'll affect some pixels differently than others (try amount 500%, radius 50, threshold 50 to start) |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:42:29 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hell, I wanna be able to clone out zits, since landscape photogs can clone out dust ;-) |
You need to get models who are past puberty. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 05:03:03 PM · #60 |
DPC is a competition/social site more so than a teaching and learning site. That is why there are SC decisions that don't make sense.
(Example: It is OK in basic to apply gaussian blur with fade on a single layer but not OK to duplicate a layer, apply gaussian blur to that layer and then decrease the opacity of the layer even though the later is standard workflow practice and the result is EXACTLY the same)
Being a competition site RULES and CONCEPTS matter more than reason and results.
Basic rules are so-called "tools based" and must be applied equally across the whole image - whatever that means. Tools are in a constant period of flux and almost no image adjustment applied globally is applied 'equally' across the whole image, assuming that 'equally' means linearly against each and ever pixel as has been said many times before when a DQ decision has been made. Where did that erroneous thought come from?
In other words, the core concepts that guide the basic rules set are antiquated and probably fundamentally wrong.
But this is a competition site. As such, you can expect illogical decisions to continue to be made to satiate those obsessed with "cheating". And all will be in the interest of competitive "fair play". ;)
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 05:10:40 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hell, I wanna be able to clone out zits, since landscape photogs can clone out dust ;-) |
When your camera reaches puberty and starts getting zits, we will revisit this particular scenario. :) |
I'm waiting for it to grow something that rhymes with zits. |
Cameras are female? Weird! |
Mine are :-)
|
|
|
|
10/22/2007 08:28:22 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
S/H is global. Photomatix is selective. Why would they both be allowed? |
So the radius slider in S/H ist just there for show?
this is the difference of same image with the same settings except for radius in two different runs with S/H.
Then increased contrast. Yopu can clearly see how the borders between contrasting areas get halo effects.
And here is another example where I used extreme setting to show the very obvious halo that you get as S/H tool affects nearby pixels on a pixel basis.
I.e. S/H does affect pixels different EVEN if they have the same RGB values!!! So its NOT a "global" adjustment!!!
To bad I love the little thing, but it actually does something very close to tonemapping.
Message edited by author 2007-10-22 08:30:43. |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:35:51 PM · #63 |
| I have basically stopped entering basic editing challenges anyway because I like the availability of all the tools. Also I look at the winning entries of the basic editing challenges and for the life of me I fail to comprehend how the results were achieved under the basic editing rules. Also, if the same results can be achieved using "legal" and "illegal" methods, with the "illegal" ones just being easier, then how can the validity of the entires be verified anyway? |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:45:58 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by PeterPic:
Also, if the same results can be achieved using "legal" and "illegal" methods, with the "illegal" ones just being easier, then how can the validity of the entires be verified anyway? |
By assuming people are telling the truth, basically.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:49:39 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by merheim:
I.e. S/H does affect pixels different EVEN if they have the same RGB values!!! So its NOT a "global" adjustment!! |
In that case, USM is illegal as well. Push these sliders to the max and see what halos you can get. |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:51:28 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by merheim:
I.e. S/H does affect pixels different EVEN if they have the same RGB values!!! So its NOT a "global" adjustment!! |
In that case, USM is illegal as well. Push these sliders to the max and see what halos you can get. |
Good point.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:53:00 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by merheim:
I.e. S/H does affect pixels different EVEN if they have the same RGB values!!! So its NOT a "global" adjustment!! |
In that case, USM is illegal as well. Push these sliders to the max and see what halos you can get. |
Good point. |
By that reasoning, USM is illegal in basic also right?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:54:30 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by merheim:
I.e. S/H does affect pixels different EVEN if they have the same RGB values!!! So its NOT a "global" adjustment!! |
In that case, USM is illegal as well. Push these sliders to the max and see what halos you can get. |
Good point. |
By that reasoning, USM is illegal in basic also right?
R. |
And smart sharpen, definitely should be :-)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:56:31 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by merheim:
I.e. S/H does affect pixels different EVEN if they have the same RGB values!!! So its NOT a "global" adjustment!! |
In that case, USM is illegal as well. Push these sliders to the max and see what halos you can get. |
Good point. |
By that reasoning, USM is illegal in basic also right?
R. |
As would any tool whose filter used a radius in its equation. |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:58:02 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
And smart sharpen, definitely should be :-) |
Might be simpler just to have the basic rules say this:
"If your image looks "weird" it is illegal, unless your unaltered original shows it looked weird from the get-go..."
R.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:58:34 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
And smart sharpen, definitely should be :-) |
Might be simpler just to have the basic rules say this:
"If your image looks "weird" it is illegal, unless your unaltered original shows it looked weird from the get-go..."
R. |
LOL :-D |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:59:03 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
And smart sharpen, definitely should be :-) |
Might be simpler just to have the basic rules say this:
"If your image looks "weird" it is illegal, unless your unaltered original shows it looked weird from the get-go..."
R. |
LMAO... works for me Robert :-D
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 12:59:41 PM · #73 |
Nonsense. This is like saying hue/sat does not affect all pixels equally because moving the green slider only effects green hue pixels.
The radius setting just determines the width of the sharpening effect. If any argument could be made it would be on the use of the threshold level because that is certainly isolating the effect to certain pixels only, however the calculation is applied across the image globally (same as hue/sat adjustments), you are not manually selecting portions of the image.
If the rules need to be re-worded (they don't) perhaps the wording should be "you may not manually select portions of the photo" - of course then all those soft focus effects would be back in the game...
Message edited by author 2007-11-01 13:01:53. |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:03:46 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
however the calculation is applied across the image globally (same as hue/sat adjustments), you are not manually selecting portions of the image. |
But isn't that also the case with the recently banned filters (Photomatrix et al.)?
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:06:13 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
however the calculation is applied across the image globally (same as hue/sat adjustments), you are not manually selecting portions of the image. |
But isn't that also the case with the recently banned filters (Photomatrix et al.)? |
Probably. Trying to say the rules are inconsistent? Nice attitude. Go read Frisca's post and work on the 'gratitude' part. |
|
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: 04/25/2024 11:46:57 AM EDT.
