| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2006 03:53:37 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
lens vignetting corrections are exactly the same as dodging or burning the edges of the image with a controllable diameter, soft edged oval mask. |
But the latter is a manual spot edit, which is forbidden in Basic. This falls under tools "designed to preserve image integrity." Introducing a vignette by darkening the edges isn't the same as correcting an optical defect. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:18:36 PM · #102 |
As Shannon posted, remember that while the Advanced Rules are "results-based" the Basic Rules are "process-based," because that is by far the easiest way to convey what's legal and not legal under these more restrictive rules.
The upshot of this is that it's often legal to do something one way, but illegal to do it another way. Such is the case with the vignetting correction: legal if done in RAW conversion or with a plug-in that offers such correction, illegal if done manually (requires use of selection tools).
It won't be long before someone points out that this favors full-frame DSLRs ;-)
FWIW, a vignetted effect can of course be easily manufactured in-camera using a snoot or mask on the end of the lens, thus circumventing the limitations of equipment. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:49:01 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, a vignetted effect can of course be easily manufactured in-camera using a snoot or mask on the end of the lens, thus circumventing the limitations of equipment. |
Or just stack several UV filters on the end of your lens... (assuming you're not going telephoto) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:13:22 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
As Shannon posted, remember that while the Advanced Rules are "results-based" the Basic Rules are "process-based," because that is by far the easiest way to convey what's legal and not legal under these more restrictive rules.
The upshot of this is that it's often legal to do something one way, but illegal to do it another way. Such is the case with the vignetting correction: legal if done in RAW conversion or with a plug-in that offers such correction, illegal if done manually (requires use of selection tools).
It won't be long before someone points out that this favors full-frame DSLRs ;-)
FWIW, a vignetted effect can of course be easily manufactured in-camera using a snoot or mask on the end of the lens, thus circumventing the limitations of equipment. |
Right - but if the basic rules are 'process-based' then why are you discussing the results used to decide if a process is valid ?
If the basic rules are process based, and you say I can use the process to fix a lens vignette - why is the validity of the process predicated on the result ?
This is why I'm suggesting that just saying no is a clearer message. Rather than what you did say, which is currently : you can use it, as long as it is only to selectively remove a feature/lens artifact, rather than to add one.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:17:29 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
lens vignetting corrections are exactly the same as dodging or burning the edges of the image with a controllable diameter, soft edged oval mask. |
But the latter is a manual spot edit, which is forbidden in Basic. This falls under tools "designed to preserve image integrity." Introducing a vignette by darkening the edges isn't the same as correcting an optical defect. |
Of course it is. The 'integrity' of the original image is that it has a vignette. Removing it by selectively lightening the corners doesn't preserve image integrity, any more than selectively darkening the corners doesn't preserve it.
If the rules are process based, then the process should be allowed or not allowed. It shouldn't depend on how much you adjust the slider on the global affect, or in which direction you adjust it. That's about as sensible as saying you can only adjust exposure in the positive direction for some arbitrary reason.
FWIW, I'm just trying to get something clear. Rather than 'you can do it, but only so much' where so much is TBD.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:20:27 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
if the basic rules are 'process-based' then why are you discussing the results used to decide if a process is valid? |
In a nutshell, we're just being nice. Sensor dust and lens defects are easily corrected errors and often beyond the photographer's control. Fixing those errors still maintains photographic integrity, while adding vignettes and selective editing are "luxury" edits reserved for Advanced. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:22:59 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The 'integrity' of the original image is that it has a vignette. Removing it by selectively lightening the corners doesn't preserve image integrity, any more than selectively darkening the corners doesn't preserve it. |
The scene you captured did not have a vignette. It's a defect introduced by the optics. Removing what was never in the scene still maintains integrity, but ADDING something that was never there does not. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. It's just like sensor dust: it was an error introduced by the camera, so removing it is a corrective measure and truer to the original scene. You couldn't clone IN a dist speck and call that integrity. :-/
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 17:27:25. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:27:13 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
if the basic rules are 'process-based' then why are you discussing the results used to decide if a process is valid? |
In a nutshell, we're just being nice. Sensor dust and lens defects are easily corrected errors and often beyond the photographer's control. Fixing those errors still maintains photographic integrity, while adding vignettes and selective editing are "luxury" edits reserved for Advanced. ;-) |
Fair enough ;)
Btw, under advanced, would the infamous RGB smoke be valid or invalid ?
From what I can see, it at least breaks 'apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.' as there are 3 smoke shapes created by the colour shift, when before there was one smoke shape. But I'm curious to know what the ruling would be.
Might be instructive to apply it to various other controversial DQs or non-DQs to show how they'd now be judged. Just to quickly establish the new precedence on those past images that stretched the last set(s) of rules.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:41:16 PM · #109 |
funny you should mention testing out the rules on controversial images...that's how we developed the more difficult parts of the rules!
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:48:04 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by frisca:
funny you should mention testing out the rules on controversial images...that's how we developed the more difficult parts of the rules! |
I meant 'instructive' to the photo entering public, if you could share those decisions though.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:56:19 PM · #111 |
Speaking to this particular image, note that the new rules specifically address color adjustments. From the New Advanced Rules:
You May:
- saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it.
You May Not:
- use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop),
The upshot is that it's quite OK to change colors on existing objects, but *not* OK to create an object using color, for example creating a rainbow in a sky that was originally uniform in color
As frisca posted, we did in fact use cases like RGB Smoke to assess the workability of the new rules. We'll need to assess performance over the upcoming challenges, and I highly doubt we will be found to have been 100% on target. I do think we're >95% on target though. :-) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:02:34 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
if the basic rules are 'process-based' then why are you discussing the results used to decide if a process is valid? |
In a nutshell, we're just being nice. Sensor dust and lens defects are easily corrected errors and often beyond the photographer's control. Fixing those errors still maintains photographic integrity, while adding vignettes and selective editing are "luxury" edits reserved for Advanced. ;-) |
Fair enough ;)
Btw, under advanced, would the infamous RGB smoke be valid or invalid ?
From what I can see, it at least breaks 'apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.' as there are 3 smoke shapes created by the colour shift, when before there was one smoke shape. But I'm curious to know what the ruling would be.
Might be instructive to apply it to various other controversial DQs or non-DQs to show how they'd now be judged. Just to quickly establish the new precedence on those past images that stretched the last set(s) of rules. |
I'd say that would get validated since throughtout this discussion they have said all color shits are legal. Earlier I mentioned about darkening an afternoon sky so that it looked night and Scalvert said that would be fine. Dodging and burning is also fine in the advance editing rules as well. It doesn't seem a bit inconsistent that you can use color shifts to "create" things but you can't do the same with other filters and such. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:07:28 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd say that would get validated since throughtout this discussion they have said all color shits are legal... |
Hahahaha, he said "color shits!"
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 18:07:35. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:13:03 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd say that would get validated since throughtout this discussion they have said all color shits are legal... |
Hahahaha, he said "color shits!" |
what the hell were you eating:P |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:13:38 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Speaking to this particular image, note that the new rules specifically address color adjustments. From the New Advanced Rules:
You May:
- saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it.
You May Not:
- use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop),
The upshot is that it's quite OK to change colors on existing objects, but *not* OK to create an object using color, for example creating a rainbow in a sky that was originally uniform in color
As frisca posted, we did in fact use cases like RGB Smoke to assess the workability of the new rules. We'll need to assess performance over the upcoming challenges, and I highly doubt we will be found to have been 100% on target. I do think we're >95% on target though. :-) |
So - just to be clear then, you are saying the RGB smoke wouldn't be allowed under the new rules ? (given that essentially its the same as creating a rainbow from what was originally uniformly coloured smoke) and also that it would significantly change the typical viewer's description of the image from a cloud of smoke to clouds of different coloured smoke ?
Otherwise, if it is valid, I could just shoot a cloudy sky and paint the rainbow onto the clouds ?
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 18:18:00.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:14:29 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Speaking to this particular image, note that the new rules specifically address color adjustments. From the New Advanced Rules:
You May:
- saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it.
You May Not:
- use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop),
The upshot is that it's quite OK to change colors on existing objects, but *not* OK to create an object using color, for example creating a rainbow in a sky that was originally uniform in color
As frisca posted, we did in fact use cases like RGB Smoke to assess the workability of the new rules. We'll need to assess performance over the upcoming challenges, and I highly doubt we will be found to have been 100% on target. I do think we're >95% on target though. :-) |
So - just to be clear then, you are saying the RGB smoke wouldn't be allowed under the new rules ? (given that essentially its the same as creating a rainbow from what was originally uniformly coloured smoke) |
Let's DQ RGB SMOKE. I wouldn't mind ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:16:34 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd say that would get validated since throughtout this discussion they have said all color shits are legal... |
Hahahaha, he said "color shits!" |
Shit! :P |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:54:52 PM · #118 |
Good work!
I have a couple of minor comments (so far!).
Advanced editing:
"Advanced Editing allows more freedom than Basic Editing to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. "
The Basic and Advanced rules could easily be referred to on a single page - split out rules (where they differ under different rules) at the nd of each section. This would avoid a lot of repetition, plus the differences between basic and advanced editing would be very clear.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 18:55:06.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 07:51:08 PM · #119 |
| Would the adjustments equalize and posterize be legal in basic editing? |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 07:59:42 PM · #120 |
A long, long time ago, I warned that the selection tool can be used to select objects or just plain pixels. To further confuse one can argue that one selected pixels rather than objects when we did the other.
Gordon's point is brought into play here regarding RGB smoke. You have one object, a mass of smoke and through selection you divide it into three and then manipulate and then burn out any info not wanted, like to help create the separation between the three blobs of smoke.
This can be viewed in two ways: we took one object and made three accented then with color or we merely selected pixels creating our own form which end up as three separate bodies.
So you see, the selection tool will always contain loopholes because even when you select an object you are indeed selecting pixels. By this I mean if you have an image with objects you can select any object or you can select part of a neutral background to darken the corners. This selection is selecting part of an object but the selection bears no object. This type of selection is used more as blanket selection, that is it may include all or part of the objects or no objects at all.
Returning to RGB smoke, we can simply create three wavy pattern and the apply levels and the selected color and we have made three objects out of one mass. The argument can be made that we selected in order to divide! And here is the problem. The question is: did we indeed create three out of one? And if we did what objects have we really added except a visual play of tonal and color treatment? And that is the rub as this will spill over into other manipulations, but will they be understood?
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 23:13:40. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:01:09 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Good work!
I have a couple of minor comments (so far!).
Advanced editing:
"Advanced Editing allows more freedom than Basic Editing to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. "
The Basic and Advanced rules could easily be referred to on a single page - split out rules (where they differ under different rules) at the nd of each section. This would avoid a lot of repetition, plus the differences between basic and advanced editing would be very clear. |
We actually did considered this. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:11:21 PM · #122 |
| I know this has come up before but why not put together a list of filters that are legal, illegal and those listed undeer "use with caution"? Obviously there are lots out there but it's not like it has to be a complete list. Hell, it could just start out with stuff used in the next round of DQ validations and grow the list from there. Then when the list is a bit more comprehensive post it. I'm sure you guys on the SC already have a "cheatsheet" like that to help you validate more quickly so why not make that a community resource? It doesn't even have to be official just a guide to avoiding DQs. I think most people here would find such a list invaluable. Anyway, just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:22:12 PM · #123 |
Actually, we don't have a list like that.
To try and list each and every filter, effect, and plugin (hereforth know as filter) out there would be rather unwieldy I would think.
Also, it is possible that a filter *could* be "legal," but used in such a manner as to be illegal.
It is legal to dodge and burn in advanced editing. BUT, if I use the legal dodge and burn tool to completely annihilate everything but the starbucks sign in DrAchoo's post earlier (I think it was this thread), then I have just used a legal tool, illegally.
So, basically we would have three lists, like you suggest, legal/illegal/and use with caution, but under the UWC would be all the legal ones. So, we have two lists, illegal and use with caution. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:38:18 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd say that would get validated since throughtout this discussion they have said all color shits are legal... |
Hahahaha, he said "color shits!" |
ROFLMAO!! |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:46:29 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So - just to be clear then, you are saying the RGB smoke wouldn't be allowed under the new rules ? (given that essentially its the same as creating a rainbow from what was originally uniformly coloured smoke) and also that it would significantly change the typical viewer's description of the image from a cloud of smoke to clouds of different coloured smoke ?
Otherwise, if it is valid, I could just shoot a cloudy sky and paint the rainbow onto the clouds ? |
Actually, I'm saying that RGB smoke is legal. If someone were asked to describe the shot, they might say something like "it's a photo of three smoldering matches, one with red smoke, one with green smoke and one with blue smoke." I don't think anyone would name the tricolored smoke as being a distinct object that was not present prior to the editing. The color would be considered an attribute of a preexisting object, the smoke, in other words.
There are surely some possible scenarios which might straddle the line and make this test difficult to apply, however this does seem the most robust test we have been able to apply in these situations. It does the job of disallowing the complete manufacture of shapes and objects, while allowing maximum artistic license.
Edit:
If Eddy had created red & white barber pole stripes on the matches, I'm sure that anyone asked to describe the photo would include the barber stripes as a concrete feature. Subtle difference? Yes. Terribly difficult to assess? No.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 21:00:44. |
|
