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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Perspective III Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 112, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/20/2006 06:39:12 AM · #1
The image formerly in 5th place has been disqualified for the use of image distortion tools, which is not permitted in Basic. Congrats to our new 5th place!
 07/20/2006 06:42:40 AM · #2
What's *defish* just out of interest?
 07/20/2006 06:44:01 AM · #3
Originally posted by amber:
What's *defish* just out of interest?

Defishing is the distorting of an image to correct the distortions created by using a fisheye lens, ie making it look like a normal image.
 07/20/2006 06:55:03 AM · #4
Man that sucks. That means that the Mag 7 won first week, this is so not how I wanted to beat the pentax team :( Well hopefully both teams will make it to the finals like last time so they´ll get a chance for a rematch.

Just to clarify, defishing is legal in advanced editing, just for future reference?
 07/20/2006 07:00:10 AM · #5
Originally posted by Larus:
Just to clarify, defishing is legal in advanced editing, just for future reference?

Yes, in general, as long as it's preserving image integrity (ie correcting an image). However, if it's used to create a new effect, such as by overdistorting, then it would be classed as a major element change, and thus not legal.

Of course, if you're not certain what you're considering doing is legal, submit an example via the 'help->contact' page and the SC will be able to give you a more specific answer.
 07/20/2006 07:02:31 AM · #6
Hey thats my image!

What how can a filter to adjust the complete image be considered Spot editing?
If i interpret the rules correctly i have not done any spot editing, I used a filet, the integrity of the image was the same before or after, if we are talking of pixels we could say that neat image is the same then?

oh man i am bummed out !

Spot Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.

Filters: The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited.

07/20/2006 07:08:37 AM · #7
I, too, was wondering how one could interpret from the rules as written that applying a correction to the WHOLE image is not allowed.

This really gives me cause for concern. I don't want to feel like I have to "submit an example via the 'help->contact' page" every time I adjust a pic using a process that I haven't used before.
 07/20/2006 07:12:40 AM · #8
some filters, while applied to the entire image, do not act evenly on the entire image.

Wasn't there a DQ (on a beautiful image I might add) for the use of vignetting in RAW? While RAW works with the entire image, the tool really emphasized its work on the edges.

edit for crappy spelling

Message edited by author 2006-07-20 07:13:10.
 07/20/2006 07:15:24 AM · #9
Originally posted by dahkota:
some filters, while applied to the entire image, do not act evenly on the entire image.

Wasn't there a DQ (on a beautiful image I might add) for the use of vignetting in RAW? While RAW works with the entire image, the tool really emphasized its work on the edges.

edit for crappy spelling


Yes, that was on Larus' photo I think. The effect was not applied evenly to the whole image therefor it was deemed not legal under basic editing.
 07/20/2006 07:19:21 AM · #10
It seems unfair, that by using a lens correction filters which works on the whole image i would get disqualified for SPOT editing..
It is an image correction tool after all

I know the council has made their decision and that all my arguments will not make them change their mind, but please clarify this on the rules to avoid user disappointments

07/20/2006 07:19:22 AM · #11
Apologies, the image should have been DQ under the 'filters' rule, not the 'spot editing' one. I've updated this to the correct one. To reiterate, the only filters allowed in Basic Editing are Gaussian Blur and noise-reducing tools (dust & scratches, neatimage, etc).
 07/20/2006 08:01:18 AM · #12
So, are we saying that any use whatsoever of lens correction tools in basic is NOT allowed?
 07/20/2006 08:02:06 AM · #13
Originally posted by Manic:
Apologies, the image should have been DQ under the 'filters' rule, not the 'spot editing' one. I've updated this to the correct one. To reiterate, the only filters allowed in Basic Editing are Gaussian Blur and noise-reducing tools (dust & scratches, neatimage, etc).


There was a discussion about seven months to a year ago where we talked about distortion correction being ok in basic and it was confirmed. Technically, all the filter is doing is preserving the integrity of the image, which is considered legal in basic editing...

EDIT: It doesn't seem fair...some people can't help that their camera gives unwanted distortion. Ever looked with your eye and saw an ocean with that sloped down on the two sides? Well, why would you want your picture to show that? You wouldn't, you'd want to preserve the integrity of the photograph to (as closely) resemble the original image as possible by the use of correcting that distortion, correct?

Message edited by author 2006-07-20 08:03:51.
 07/20/2006 08:16:06 AM · #14
At first I too thought that lens correction should be allowed.

However, a filter such as this can be used creatively to add lens distortion or over correct for existing distortion. And since you can enforce the use only for lens correction, I agree it must be barred in basic editing.

I would like to see some sort of spot editing allowed to remove sensor dust, but I think the same therory applies.

Message edited by author 2006-07-20 08:56:13.
 07/20/2006 08:48:14 AM · #15
Originally posted by deapee:
EDIT: It doesn't seem fair...some people can't help that their camera gives unwanted distortion. Ever looked with your eye and saw an ocean with that sloped down on the two sides? Well, why would you want your picture to show that? You wouldn't, you'd want to preserve the integrity of the photograph to (as closely) resemble the original image as possible by the use of correcting that distortion, correct?


I don't want to argue about general lens distortion. In this case the photog used a fisheye lens. That is a deliberate choice to use a lens that is designed to show distortion. The lens worked exactly as desired. Why should Basic Editing allow the photographer to drastically change the effect of a functioning lens?
 07/20/2006 08:55:00 AM · #16
Originally posted by sacker:
In this case the photog used a fisheye lens. That is a deliberate choice to use a lens that is designed to show distortion. The lens worked exactly as desired. Why should Basic Editing allow the photographer to drastically change the effect of a functioning lens?


What he said. This was no more a lens correction than introducing a fisheye effect on a normal lens.
 07/20/2006 09:04:16 AM · #17
Originally posted by Manic:
...the only filters allowed in Basic Editing are Gaussian Blur and noise-reducing tools (dust & scratches, neatimage, etc).


Then this should be explicitly stated in the rules in plain English, just as you have stated it above. As it is, the rules are vague, and confusingly worded. The rules do not explicitly state that the only filters allowed in Basic Editing are Gaussian Blur and noise-reducing tools.
 07/20/2006 09:19:50 AM · #18
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by Manic:
...the only filters allowed in Basic Editing are Gaussian Blur and noise-reducing tools (dust & scratches, neatimage, etc).


Then this should be explicitly stated in the rules in plain English, just as you have stated it above. As it is, the rules are vague, and confusingly worded. The rules do not explicitly state that the only filters allowed in Basic Editing are Gaussian Blur and noise-reducing tools.


You have identified the problems and the strength of the rules as they stand.

The rules are partly purposive: eg you cannot make changes that substantially add or detract from major elements of a photo.

They are partly strict: eg you must take your photo in the challenge time frame.

This approach is intended (IMO) to give the rules a good balance between certainty and flexibility to deal with novel situations.

If you had rules that were entirely prescriptive (ie stated explicitly that you can use X but not Y), they would be extremely long, unwieldy(and almost certainly incomplete given the number of editing programs and filters available), with the consequence that people could find loopholes, or be hung on unintended technicalities.

If you had rules that were entirely purposive, then their application would be highly subjective and unpredictable.

The best approach is to maintain a balance between the two, allowing a reasonable degree of certainty, but making their application subject to human judgment where a rule cannot efficiently be drafted to deal with the matter comprehensively.

I think that parts of the rules could be drafted more clearly, but I think that the existing balance between strict and purposive rules is pretty good (and the SC is pretty good at applying the rules consistently).
 07/20/2006 09:21:31 AM · #19
Originally posted by Basic Editing Rules:
...no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed.


That's pretty clear IMO. While lens correction might be considered "preserving image integrity," it's an effects filter unrelated to noise and blur/sharpen, and SC has consistently voted against it in Basic. Future rules may allow limited lens corrections (to fix defects), but in this case the distortion was applied to change the intended design of the lens, so it's a moot point.
 07/20/2006 09:24:37 AM · #20
Originally posted by Larus:
...this is so not how I wanted to beat the pentax team :(


I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, I knew it...

GO PENTAX...

LONG LIVE PANO... \/

YEAH...

Message edited by author 2006-07-20 09:25:53.
 07/20/2006 09:28:19 AM · #21
Before I upset people, this is just my own view and not intended to garner death threats. I take basic editing to mean you can barely touch your image except for the normal adjustments, gaussian blur and neat image. So that's all I do ( as my attempts show). Is it really worth the effort to try and push every boundary? To push every rule? To try and find loop-holes or get-out clauses?

Message edited by author 2006-07-20 09:29:50.
 07/20/2006 09:35:44 AM · #22
Originally posted by amber:
Before I upset people, this is just my own view and not intended to garner death threats. I take basic editing to mean you can barely touch your image except for the normal adjustments, gaussian blur and neat image. So that's all I do ( as my attempts show). Is it really worth the effort to try and push every boundary? To push every rule? To try and find loop-holes or get-out clauses?


Unfortunately, for some it is. I'm not talking about anyone inparticular but I have seen in some challenges, people pushing or shoving the envelope. I feel the rules are a bit vague especially in the basic editing. I don't think it has to be a long drawn out description but just list what we can do and everything else is not up for grabs. That's why I like the advance editing challenges, it allows me to flick the stupid sensor dust that always seems to show up on my good photos...lol!! This will be an ongoing battle of the "rules".

g
 07/20/2006 09:36:16 AM · #23
Originally posted by amber:
Before I upset people, this is just my own view and not intended to garner death threats. I take basic editing to mean you can barely touch your image except for the normal adjustments, gaussian blur and neat image. So that's all I do ( as my attempts show). Is it really worth the effort to try and push every boundary? To push every rule? To try and find loop-holes or get-out clauses?


Death to you! ;-) Just wanted to be first with the death threat.

I agree completely. I find it much more challenging to be creative within the boundries than trying to find a way to push the rules' envelope.

What I don't quite understand is if all other filters are not allowed in Basic, why is it that DPC allows Gaussian Blur and Neat Image? Particularly, Gaussian Blur?
 07/20/2006 09:36:28 AM · #24
Originally posted by amber:
Before I upset people, this is just my own view and not intended to garner death threats. I take basic editing to mean you can barely touch your image except for the normal adjustments, gaussian blur and neat image. So that's all I do ( as my attempts show). Is it really worth the effort to try and push every boundary? To push every rule? To try and find loop-holes or get-out clauses?


If you are not adjusting things like color and contrast then you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.
 07/20/2006 09:38:19 AM · #25
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by amber:
Before I upset people, this is just my own view and not intended to garner death threats. I take basic editing to mean you can barely touch your image except for the normal adjustments, gaussian blur and neat image. So that's all I do ( as my attempts show). Is it really worth the effort to try and push every boundary? To push every rule? To try and find loop-holes or get-out clauses?


Death to you! ;-) Just wanted to be first with the death threat.

I agree completely. I find it much more challenging to be creative within the boundries than trying to find a way to push the rules' envelope.

What I don't quite understand is if all other filters are not allowed in Basic, why is it that DPC allows Gaussian Blur and Neat Image? Particularly, Gaussian Blur?


Hey you have a good point there...I wouldn't want my entire photo to have a gaussian blur. You'd have to select certain areas for that. Hmmm...something to ponder.

g
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:25:41 PM

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: 04/18/2024 07:25:41 PM EDT.