| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2002 06:01:44 AM · #26 |
All I know is that I really like this site. Conforming to rules is what makes it challenging. If everyone keeps questioning the admins they are likely to say "screw it, this isn't what I had in mind" and simply shut it down. Let's go easy on them. Besides, there are plenty of other sites that WILL let you enhance your photos.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 06:08:16 AM · #27 |
A real challenging concept would be NO edits allowed period...
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 06:37:37 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Gordon, you'll be receiving your 'most posts in one night' award in the mail shortly. ;)
heh, I'd stopped and gone to bed by that point - my wife complains if I spend too much of my life ranting at people who don't deserve it :)
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 06:38:25 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
The IDEA (not finalized until we agree on something) is...
Any adjustment may be made to the image so long as it is done to the whole image -- with the exception of filters, of which only sharpening may be done.
That make sense?
sounds great to me.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 06:41:41 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
A real challenging concept would be NO edits allowed period...
I think this probably is the root of the problem, and leads to a long philosophical discussion about what people actually think photography is. (so should probably get its own thread if people want to followup on this)
I don't think photography starts, or ends when you press the shutter. That's just one part of the whole process that is 'photography'.
Finding a good subject, selecting the right view of it etc, can take hours before the shutter is pressed. Making your initial pre-visualisation a reality can take a while afterwards too in the darkroom, traditional or computer controlled.
I've moved this topic/ thread to
here
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/11/2002 7:25:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 07:20:11 AM · #31 |
"Any adjustment may be made to the image so long as it is done to the whole image -- with the exception of filters, of which only sharpening may be done."
totally agree with this.
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/11/2002 7:20:41 AM. |
|
|
|
04/11/2002 07:46:13 AM · #32 |
I think it would have been nice if you had allowed the guy to digitally remove the pubic hair from the toilet bowl. Surly he didn't want it there.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 07:49:48 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I think it would have been nice if you had allowed the guy to digitally remove the pubic hair from the toilet bowl. Surly he didn't want it there.
yeah, some things should always be allowed :)
That picture had a certain charm, at least whoever took it had thought about it. I'm sure it was just mean't to upset some people. I'd have rated it higher if it had been taken well, technically. I just worry for the person's health, given that the rest of the seat was so filthy. My guess is it was a guy, who lives at college : prove me wrong :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/11/2002 8:05:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 10:29:31 AM · #34 |
| If it were up to me we would be able to have unlimited digital darkroom manipulation freedom, because I love to dink around in Photoshop. But I understand the need for a level playing field and actually find new energy in the challenge of limited post exposure manipulation. It makes me work harder in the camera. Still I would like to have more room to do at least the digital equivalant of what I would do in a tradtional darkroom; adjust contrast, dodge and burn, and even masking for greater separation. The proposed solution, as I understand it would not allow dodging and burning, nor masking because those techniques are not "full photograph alterations". Is this right? If we are going to allow digital darkroom work, shouldn't we allow, at a minimum, the same degree of manipulation available to 19th century photographers? |
|
|
|
04/11/2002 10:48:31 AM · #35 |
Sorry for being naive, but I just went into photoshop for the first time yesterday to try out all of the alterations in your list, and I do not consider curves to be a "full photo alteration". Curves makes local changes based on the original pixel value, does it not?
Originally posted by Mousie:
Personally I like it, but I worry that a rule as general as this might lead to as much angst as the very specific rules we're already working under. For example, is 'Rotate Arbitrary' a 'full photograph alteration'? Posterize? Invert? If we're going to go this route, I suggest you clearly define *exactly* which full photograph alterations you can use.
Here's my list:
Crop
Mode - Grayscale
Levels (Auto Levels)
Curves
Color Balance
Bightness & Contrast (Auto Contrast)
Hue & Saturation (including Colorize)
Desaturate
Rotate (90, 180, Arbitrary)
Variations (useless newbie stuff)
Despeckle (why anyone would use it is beyond me!)
Sharpen
Anything more than this should not be necessary!
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 11:26:06 AM · #36 |
texttextAny adjustment may be made to the image so long as it is done to the whole image -- with the exception of filters, of which only sharpening may be done.
In total agreement with Drew's suggestion above - whole image only.
Vin
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 11:26:25 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
Sorry for being naive, but I just went into photoshop for the first time yesterday to try out all of the alterations in your list, and I do not consider curves to be a "full photo alteration". Curves makes local changes based on the original pixel value, does it not?
No, it applies the colour transform to the whole image, (unless you used masks/ selections) It is just that for some curves, the transform is one to one, whereas for other parts of the curve you are changing values.
Transforming something into itself is still a transform, it just
doesn't show up - consider multiplying a number by 1, or adding 0.
Another way of saying the same thing, if you use the curves command and change the colour of a pixel that is blue, then all the pixels that are blue are changed, not just a particular one you wanted to target. It is a change that applies to the whole image.
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/11/2002 11:27:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 01:18:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by David Ey:
[i]I think it would have been nice if you had allowed the guy to digitally remove the pubic hair from the toilet bowl. Surly he didn't want it there.
yeah, some things should always be allowed :)
That picture had a certain charm, at least whoever took it had thought about it. I'm sure it was just mean't to upset some people. I'd have rated it higher if it had been taken well, technically. I just worry for the person's health, given that the rest of the seat was so filthy. My guess is it was a guy, who lives at college : prove me wrong :)
[/i]
I can just imagine the photographer crouching by his toilet, carefully arranging a freshly plucked pubic hair until it is *just so*, then snapping a 100 pictures of it at slightly different angles. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 01:23:40 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
[I can just imagine the photographer crouching by his toilet, carefully arranging a freshly plucked pubic hair until it is *just so*, then snapping a 100 pictures of it at slightly different angles. I hope I'm wrong.
[/i]
Now I'm going to have that image in my mind all day long. Yuck!!!!
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 01:59:12 PM · #40 |
I just don't consider something global when you can pick out particular objects and change them. If my subject is one color/brightness, and the background is different, then I can use curves to adjust only the subject without making any selections, right? Again, excuse the naivete if I am only misunderstanding how curves/levels/etc work.
From my understanding of what levels does, it can be done in curves as a rotation of the line and then curved not to look like an S or any of the many other things you can do by picking out specific input values in curves, but as an power law (like gamma). It's the picking out of whatever input values you like and changing the output values that I don't consider "global" even though it's applied to all pixels with that input value (since those pixels are likely to be very localized, not global).
All that said, I really don't care if curves is allowed or not. I'm just not convinced it's rightly called global.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Another way of saying the same thing, if you use the curves command and change the colour of a pixel that is blue, then all the pixels that are blue are changed, not just a particular one you wanted to target. It is a change that applies to the whole image.
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/11/2002 2:02:26 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/11/2002 2:09:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 02:53:25 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by shortredneck:
Originally posted by Mousie:
[I can just imagine the photographer crouching by his toilet, carefully arranging a freshly plucked pubic hair until it is *just so*, then snapping a 100 pictures of it at slightly different angles. I hope I'm wrong.
Now I'm going to have that image in my mind all day long. Yuck!!!!
[/i]
subject matter aside, i just didnt think it was a very well shot pic. and definitely didnt look as if someone tried 100 shots! more like they were just 'sitting' there with their camera, wracking their brain for something to shoot! my impression ...
|
|
|
|
04/11/2002 03:37:38 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
I just don't consider something global when you can pick out particular objects and change them. If my subject is one color/brightness, and the background is different, then I can use curves to adjust only the subject without making any selections, right? Again, excuse the naivete if I am only misunderstanding how curves/levels/etc work.
From my understanding of what levels does, it can be done in curves as a rotation of the line and then curved not to look like an S or any of the many other things you can do by picking out specific input values in curves, but as an power law (like gamma). It's the picking out of whatever input values you like and changing the output values that I don't consider "global" even though it's applied to all pixels with that input value (since those pixels are likely to be very localized, not global).
All that said, I really don't care if curves is allowed or not. I'm just not convinced it's rightly called global.
but the transform is applied to every pixel - you can't pick them out like you describe, unless you masked out the rest of the image.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2002 12:53:53 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
The IDEA (not finalized until we agree on something) is...
Any adjustment may be made to the image so long as it is done to the whole image -- with the exception of filters, of which only sharpening may be done.
That make sense?
yep'n i agree with it |
|
|
|
04/12/2002 01:15:17 PM · #44 |
| I'm against mode changes (to grayscale) but I'll shut up about it :) |
|
|
|
04/12/2002 02:10:06 PM · #45 |
| Whatever alterations are made. It would be good for the photographer to state so in his/her comments. And make the photographer's comments available to voters as they vote. |
|
|
|
04/12/2002 02:33:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by lecook:
Originally posted by drewmedia:
The IDEA (not finalized until we agree on something) is...
Any adjustment may be made to the image so long as it is done to the whole image -- with the exception of filters, of which only sharpening may be done.
I find this to be a very clear and concise rule. Sure, there will always be room for interpreting any statement in a variety of ways which were not necessarily orignially intended. But lets leave that to the lawyers. For the purposes of this site, I think the aforementioned rule is more than sufficient.
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/12/2002 2:34:38 PM. |
|
|
|
04/12/2002 02:34:12 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Reign:
I'm against mode changes (to grayscale) but I'll shut up about it :)
That's fine with me, as long as there isn't a "black and white" challenge.......unless the task was to find black and white objects and take the picture in COLOR, now that'd be a cool challenge (could verify that the shot was taken in color by including for instance, the sky or something like that)
|
|
|
|
04/12/2002 03:31:06 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
The IDEA (not finalized until we agree on something) is...
Any adjustment may be made to the image so long as it is done to the whole image -- with the exception of filters, of which only sharpening may be done.
That make sense?
Yes, definately, I'm all for this.
By the way, I'll also comment that as online communities go, this one is showing it's true colors by having what is a pretty contentious debate in polite, friendly, and intelligent terms. Even the more angry posts in some other threads in other forums are being handled with more aplomb than I've seen just about anywhere else. I'm damn proud to be a part of this site.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2002 09:31:48 PM · #49 |
| Why not leave it the way it is? I have a moderate price camera and photo editing but what about the people that have less or more? Maybe once a month or so have it open to any editing and filters to see what we come up with. As with most of us luck is the key in having excellent image. Yes there is skill and experimentation to come up with the perfect shot but to have everyone creative on the same level there needs to be handicaps on the better equipment and software used. |
|
|
|
04/12/2002 10:08:04 PM · #50 |
I suggest you buy us all the same camera, then. :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:16:56 AM EDT.
