Important Changes to the Basic Editing rules

07/16/2009 12:10:10 PM · #126

Originally posted by muckpond:

... i was referring to the tools themselves...not the extent to which they are used.

Well, with the allowed "tools" being opened up, the options are certainly greater than they were before. Some of the "tools", even when used in default settings, can make an image more appealing - the question then becomes if a new feature was added I guess.

For example (again), I'd LOVE to be able to do this legally in Basic, even to a lesser degree than some of the related filters I mentioned earlier apply.

- Original,

- with Virtual Photographer: Glamour filter

I can't believe I'm the only one beating this drum. Perhaps after a few DQ's in the near future after the next round of Basic Editing challenges it will be chatted up a little more. I can hear it now "Well, I used and the updated rules said I could". ;^P

07/16/2009 12:10:51 PM · #127

Originally posted by frisca:

i think it was bear_music in one of the rules discussion threads who said that we are all pretty sure where the line is, and its when we approach that line that we risk DQ. Like Muckpond said, its about image integrity and not creating digital art.

Define digital art. :-)

Edit to add a smiley. Not trying to be troublesome.

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 12:12:56.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

07/16/2009 12:13:59 PM · #128

Originally posted by muckpond:

when we started analyzing the tools that people were asking questions about, we realized that the TRUE can of worms was coming up with a list of what you could and could not use. :/ talk about an administrative nightmare.

Would it really have been such an administrative nightmare to have a page that is built gradually over time for basic editing? For example, throw up a blank page titled "List of Software Tools Banned from Basic Editing" and the next time a photo is DQed for using say Topaz Adjust then you simply add Topaz Adjust to the list. It only becomes an adminstrative nightmare if you make it more complicated than that. Personally, I'd love to see a page where all DQ rulings are listed along with the photo in question, the ruleset it applied to and any software used that led to the DQ ruling. Now that would be your nightmare. :)

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 12:15:17.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

07/16/2009 12:14:25 PM · #129

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by SDW:
Maybe the rules should be written like this to make things clearer. Of course the rules can be adjusted to fit DPC.

For the most part, that's all I ever do.

I assumed that was the idea being basic editing -- add unsharp mask to it, and that's it.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/16/2009 12:14:29 PM · #130

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by frisca:
i think it was bear_music in one of the rules discussion threads who said that we are all pretty sure where the line is, and its when we approach that line that we risk DQ. Like Muckpond said, its about image integrity and not creating digital art.

Define digital art. :-)

Edit to add a smiley. Not trying to be troublesome.

Doesn't sound like anything I remember saying, offhand. But to answer your question (with a wink), "I know it when I see it."

(Bonus points to anyone who can identify the antecedent of that statement, jejeje)

R.

07/16/2009 12:18:05 PM · #131

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I can hear it now "Well, I used and the updated rules said I could". ;^P

The response would be, "Then read the rest of the rules, where it says you can use the tool, but in a way that preserves image integrity and doesn't create effects or features." This is Basic Editing. B-A-S-I-C. "These rules are intended to allow you to fine tune your entry and correct basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc." A Glamour filter or strong HDR look might make the image more appealing to you, but that is NOT correcting basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc.

07/16/2009 12:27:01 PM · #132

Originally posted by yanko:

...the next time a photo is DQed for using say Topaz Adjust then you simply add Topaz Adjust to the list.

On what basis? One person uses a light application of the filter to help define the exposure and the next uses a heavier setting to create an unrealistic, illustrated appearance, so we ban Topaz? Note that the journalism rules that SDW brought up do not mention ANY specific software- they only try to define the limits of enhancement.

07/16/2009 12:30:06 PM · #133

Originally posted by scalvert:

... A Glamour filter or strong HDR look might make the image more appealing to you, but that is NOT correcting basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc.

Can you show me a filter in Virtual Photographer (or Photomatix) that does any "correction of basic imperfections"?

I'm not familiar with Topaz to ask about that one.

ETA - sorry, guess I'm just missing the point.

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 12:33:26.

Emerkaza

Canon EOS-50D

07/16/2009 12:30:10 PM · #134

Thank you so much for allowing the use of Topaz in basic editing! (I do realize that this change will not affect my footwear entry.) I am still learning how to use my DSLR and sometimes I need the little extras that Photoshop can provide to improve my images.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

07/16/2009 12:33:14 PM · #135

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... A Glamour filter or strong HDR look might make the image more appealing to you, but that is NOT correcting basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc.

Can you show me a filter in Virtual Photographer (or Photomatix) that does any "correction of basic imperfections"?

I'm not familiar with Topaz to ask about that one.

VP is a fantastic b&w converter. I much prefer to convert with that than photoshop.

ETA: If you've had it for a while, you should check for the update. It's so much better now.

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 12:34:29.

07/16/2009 12:34:43 PM · #136

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... A Glamour filter or strong HDR look might make the image more appealing to you, but that is NOT correcting basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc.

Can you show me a filter in Virtual Photographer (or Photomatix) that does any "correction of basic imperfections"?

I'm not familiar with Topaz to ask about that one.

VP is a fantastic b&w converter. I much prefer to convert with that than photoshop.

Me too for sure! One of the strengths of that software. However, in basic terms, how does the use of this effects filter "correct basic imperfections"?

07/16/2009 12:36:00 PM · #137

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Can you show me a filter in Virtual Photographer (or Photomatix) that does any "correction of basic imperfections"?

I'm not familiar with Topaz to ask about that one.

Virtual Photographer
Photomatix
Topaz Adjust

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

07/16/2009 12:40:43 PM · #138

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... A Glamour filter or strong HDR look might make the image more appealing to you, but that is NOT correcting basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc.

Can you show me a filter in Virtual Photographer (or Photomatix) that does any "correction of basic imperfections"?

I'm not familiar with Topaz to ask about that one.

VP is a fantastic b&w converter. I much prefer to convert with that than photoshop.

Me too for sure! One of the strengths of that software. However, in basic terms, how does the use of this effects filter "correct basic imperfections"?

It doesn't. I think the point is to use it for stuff such as converting because it doesn't add an effect and doesn't compromise the image integrity. Why make things harder for people forcing them to convert with photoshop or psp when it would look so much better if done with VP? Sure there are ones that do add an effect, but just don't use those for basic edits. Same with Topaz. Sure, you can get garish effects, or you could simply boost your overall contrast with the click of a button. It's always your choice how far you push the things you use.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

07/16/2009 12:40:45 PM · #139

Ok. I've bounced around in here enough I guess. I still think there's going to be some issues regarding where the line is on what's too much or what creates a new feature based on the new allowed tools. Thanks for the links Shannon.

BTW - I'd still like to hear frisca's definition of "digital art". :-)

muckpond

Nikon D200

07/16/2009 12:44:15 PM · #140

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Kelli:
VP is a fantastic b&w converter. I much prefer to convert with that than photoshop.

Me too for sure! One of the strengths of that software. However, in basic terms, how does the use of this effects filter "correct basic imperfections"?

it's legal to use it if you're just using it to convert to black and white. that doesn't have anything to do with correcting basic imperfections. but rather than saying "Virtual Photographer is OK to use for but not for ," we are putting the decision-making in YOUR hands.

we're allowing you to use whatever tool you want within the bounds of the rest of the rules. allowing the tool doesn't mean you have to or are allowed to use every single feature of it.

just because your filter can add sparkles and rainbows and ponies and unicorns to your photos doesn't mean you should. :P

07/16/2009 12:45:45 PM · #141

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
...the next time a photo is DQed for using say Topaz Adjust then you simply add Topaz Adjust to the list.

On what basis? One person uses a light application of the filter to help define the exposure and the next uses a heavier setting to create an unrealistic, illustrated appearance, so we ban Topaz? Note that the journalism rules that SDW brought up do not mention ANY specific software- they only try to define the limits of enhancement.

I was referring to the old way of doing it, which was to either allow the tool or not. Muckpond said it was too much work to list the tools that are banned and that is what I was responding to.

As for the link SDW supplied, is that even applicable to what we do here? I'd imagine ALL of the examples glad2badad posted earlier would easily fail those journalistic rules as they are all effects not preserving image integrity. What you refer to as light application of a filter such as Topaz, Lucis Arts, etc would have to be so light as to not even appear it was used. Few people on this site buy these programs so that it produces no effect. IMO, only Photomatix could be argued as preserving image integrity or more accurately a tool to reproduce what was seen in front of the camera. Everything else that I've seen discussed so far produces a tangible effect and would run afoul of the clause of preserving image integrity.

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 12:47:46.

07/16/2009 12:46:37 PM · #142

Originally posted by muckpond:

just because your filter can add sparkles and rainbows and ponies and unicorns to your photos doesn't mean you should. :P

:-(

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

07/16/2009 12:51:22 PM · #143

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by muckpond:
just because your filter can add sparkles and rainbows and ponies and unicorns to your photos doesn't mean you should. :P

:-(

ROFL!

07/16/2009 12:52:23 PM · #144

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by muckpond:
just because your filter can add sparkles and rainbows and ponies and unicorns to your photos doesn't mean you should. :P

:-(

ROFL!

He doesn't need the filter because he has little elves to build him that stuff. :P

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 12:53:01.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

07/16/2009 12:52:45 PM · #145

Originally posted by yanko:

What you refer to as light application of a filter such as Topaz, Lucis Arts, etc would have to be so light as to not even appear it was used.

Not ---> necessarily.

Originally posted by yanko:

Few people on this site buy these programs so that it produces no effect.

Then use those parts for Advanced.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

07/16/2009 12:55:59 PM · #146

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

What? Am I missing something?

R.

Bad joke... I decided to run the Basic Rules through Topaz. :)

muckpond

Nikon D200

07/16/2009 12:56:35 PM · #147

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by muckpond:
just because your filter can add sparkles and rainbows and ponies and unicorns to your photos doesn't mean you should. :P

:-(

the open challenges are Advanced this week, Shannon, so your SparkleRainbowUnicornPigeon is just fine.

07/16/2009 01:00:57 PM · #148

Originally posted by scalvert:

[quote=yanko]What you refer to as light application of a filter such as Topaz, Lucis Arts, etc would have to be so light as to not even appear it was used.

Not ---> necessarily.

That doesn't look noticeable so sure that should be ok as it just fixes a bad exposure. Now would this be ok in basic?

Would you consider this rendering an effect or preserving image integrity? What about the alternative photo windale posted? I assume you've seen the original to the first one since it ribboned.

Message edited by author 2009-07-16 13:01:34.

07/16/2009 01:01:05 PM · #149

Originally posted by muckpond:

the open challenges are Advanced this week, Shannon, so your SparkleRainbowUnicornPigeon is just fine.