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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Important Changes to the Basic Editing rules
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 206, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/15/2009 04:16:30 PM · #51
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.

No Jeb, we call that a personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it thankyouverymuch. The images that voters immediately recognize as Topaz, LucisArts, Photomatix or others that produce a similarly illustrated appearance are not my cup of tea. That said, the rules are not determined by what *I* like, and I think it should be left to the voters to decide what looks are appropriate. I know darn well that even the most obnoxious filter could be used subtly for enhancement, but then we're back to judging 'how much is too much' for a DQ, which I'd REALLY rather avoid whenever possible.


I had always assumed that Topaz adjust was not legal under basic, because it separates the image into zones, so it's selectively editing the image. I'm surprised that the others are legal, however--don't they do pretty much the same thing? If we aren't allowed to selectively edit, allowing programs that are based on selective editing seems kind of silly. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding lucisArts and Photomatix.


What zones? What do you mean? Where do you see that?

If a filter is applied to only part of an image as selected by the user, that's SELECTIVE EDITING. Control points, masks, etc. are all not permitted.

However, many filters are somewhat "selective" about what part of the picture they affect (e.g., they sharpen areas of high contrast, decrease areas of high brightness, etc.). That's not the same thing as selective editing for our purposes.
07/15/2009 04:20:34 PM · #52
this is going to end up as a nightmare
07/15/2009 04:23:30 PM · #53
I would prefer ALL filters were illegal in basic editing.
07/15/2009 04:24:59 PM · #54
Originally posted by JulietNN:

this is going to end up as a nightmare


I'm not sure why it should. Photomatix and Topaz Adjust *used* to be legal in basic, and relatively recently they passed a ruling saying they no longer would be, but quite a few folks thought that was silly and inconsistent. Be that as it may, it wasn't a nightmare when they WERE allowed, so why should it be a nightmare now?

R.

Message edited by author 2009-07-15 16:25:08.
07/15/2009 04:27:53 PM · #55
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.

No Jeb, we call that a personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it thankyouverymuch. The images that voters immediately recognize as Topaz, LucisArts, Photomatix or others that produce a similarly illustrated appearance are not my cup of tea. That said, the rules are not determined by what *I* like, and I think it should be left to the voters to decide what looks are appropriate. I know darn well that even the most obnoxious filter could be used subtly for enhancement, but then we're back to judging 'how much is too much' for a DQ, which I'd REALLY rather avoid whenever possible.


I had always assumed that Topaz adjust was not legal under basic, because it separates the image into zones, so it's selectively editing the image. I'm surprised that the others are legal, however--don't they do pretty much the same thing? If we aren't allowed to selectively edit, allowing programs that are based on selective editing seems kind of silly. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding lucisArts and Photomatix.


What zones? What do you mean? Where do you see that?

If a filter is applied to only part of an image as selected by the user, that's SELECTIVE EDITING. Control points, masks, etc. are all not permitted.

However, many filters are somewhat "selective" about what part of the picture they affect (e.g., they sharpen areas of high contrast, decrease areas of high brightness, etc.). That's not the same thing as selective editing for our purposes.


Right... they affect ALL areas of high contrast, high brightness, shadows, highlights, etc. equally.

User selection would mean that the user limits them to high contrast ONLY on the car.

No different than desaturating by color channel.
07/15/2009 04:34:41 PM · #56
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.

No Jeb, we call that a personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it thankyouverymuch. The images that voters immediately recognize as Topaz, LucisArts, Photomatix or others that produce a similarly illustrated appearance are not my cup of tea. That said, the rules are not determined by what *I* like, and I think it should be left to the voters to decide what looks are appropriate. I know darn well that even the most obnoxious filter could be used subtly for enhancement, but then we're back to judging 'how much is too much' for a DQ, which I'd REALLY rather avoid whenever possible.


I had always assumed that Topaz adjust was not legal under basic, because it separates the image into zones, so it's selectively editing the image. I'm surprised that the others are legal, however--don't they do pretty much the same thing? If we aren't allowed to selectively edit, allowing programs that are based on selective editing seems kind of silly. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding lucisArts and Photomatix.


What zones? What do you mean? Where do you see that?

If a filter is applied to only part of an image as selected by the user, that's SELECTIVE EDITING. Control points, masks, etc. are all not permitted.

However, many filters are somewhat "selective" about what part of the picture they affect (e.g., they sharpen areas of high contrast, decrease areas of high brightness, etc.). That's not the same thing as selective editing for our purposes.


Right... they affect ALL areas of high contrast, high brightness, shadows, highlights, etc. equally.

User selection would mean that the user limits them to high contrast ONLY on the car.

No different than desaturating by color channel.


The TOPAZ adjust site say that it works by breaking the image down into different zones and working with those zones. That's why you get a different output if you change the number of zones. If it was applied evenly, it wouldn't matter how many zones it broke it into.
07/15/2009 04:36:57 PM · #57
Originally posted by vawendy:

The TOPAZ adjust site say that it works by breaking the image down into different zones and working with those zones. That's why you get a different output if you change the number of zones. If it was applied evenly, it wouldn't matter how many zones it broke it into.

The zones are still areas of similar value. It's like using a posterize filter with a setting of 4 levels or 8: all areas of similar tone get the same treatment across the entire image.
07/15/2009 04:40:52 PM · #58
How about some examples of legal and not legal photo's? Before and after. I'm a visual person when it comes to this type stuff.
07/15/2009 04:47:31 PM · #59
what about SilverEfexPro?

is that kosher?
07/15/2009 04:55:24 PM · #60
I'm also interested in finding out about Silver Efex Pro. I stay away from all the Nik Software filters in Basic Editing, because I don't know which ones would be legal.
07/15/2009 05:09:40 PM · #61
I think the point of the new revisions is to not have to have a huge list of which filters/plugins are legal and which aren't. Every tool in the universe (except Topaz Adjust) is legal as long as you follow all of the other rules while using it.
07/15/2009 05:27:01 PM · #62
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by yanko:

Maybe I am reading this wrong. Are you guys saying Photomatix and Lucis Arts are now legal in Basic Editing?


Yup, seems like what they're saying...


As long as they are not used to "create an effect"; another highly subjective call to be made...

R.


Originally posted by nshapiro:



If a filter is applied to only part of an image as selected by the user, that's SELECTIVE EDITING. Control points, masks, etc. are all not permitted.

However, many filters are somewhat "selective" about what part of the picture they affect (e.g., they sharpen areas of high contrast, decrease areas of high brightness, etc.). That's not the same thing as selective editing for our purposes.


i think it is those two points that stuck in my mind, who is to say , 'too much sharpening" too much of this filter' To me it just seems that teh SC is going to be in quandary over this and a lot of arguments are going to come about with this

07/15/2009 06:54:15 PM · #63
Originally posted by Emerkaza:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Emerkaza:

I just received a validation request for my footwear entry. It's probably going to receive a DQ because I used Topaz Adjust (photo pop) for an overall effect. =(

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1061/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_804432.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1061/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_804432.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Rule changes are not applied retro-actively.


Yes, I am aware of that.


Is that not exactly why this might be DQ'd? Because it was before the rule changes....so Topaz was NOT legal at the time. (and yes I realize it is still not legal in basic, but it was certainly completely banned in basic before this....)
07/15/2009 06:56:51 PM · #64
My suggestion would be that we have our present "advanced" ruleset, then for basic we should allow all those things discussed, including topaz...but allow no selections to be made and no layer modes, simply layer opacity may be changed. However out of the two weekly open challenges have one as basic and one under minimal...and make minimal like the "old" basic? So those that do not agree with the use of filter effects can chose to continue as it was, but those that like them can use them in the "new" basic as long as there are no selections or layer modes used?
07/15/2009 06:57:49 PM · #65
So, how does this thing work again? ... just click on "Report this post as spam" under ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/2170.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/2170.gif', '/') + 1) . ' muckpond, is that it?
07/15/2009 07:12:41 PM · #66
I agree with those protesting the Topaz. It can easily be used just as enhancement without overprocessing. Clarity, Exposure adjustment, Photo pop, Enhance contrast, all of those are very minor adjustments and they are presets. Just chiming in my 2 cents. I can't afford Lucis or Photomatix.
07/15/2009 08:04:52 PM · #67
I will either be ignored or chastised in this post....I'm prepared for either.

1. Photomatix is allowed.
2. Using layers that contain image data is not allowed.
3. The equivalent effect of photomatix can be accomplished using layers that contain image data.
4. The equivalent effect of photomatix can not (generally) be accomplished using curves adjustments alone.

I conclude therefore that if the equivalent effect of photomatix is accomplished outside of the basic rule set, photomatix is thus more than a basic effect filter and should not be allowed. Stated as such merely due to the unfolding discussion around Lucis/Photomatix and Topaz.
07/15/2009 08:12:03 PM · #68
Now listen. I don’t want anybody throwing rocks at me…. I love Photomatix and not the evil side of it, but the beautiful even exposure side of it. However, can Photomatix be legal when it uses three exposures? The basic rules still states
“You Must: Create your entry from a single capture”

One can argue that through the use of the RAW converter one image can be “Exposure” tweaked. But if you do that and combine them into one allowable image then you were doing it to get the “Photomatix Effect” Without doing a normal (REAL?) HDR. Isn’t that an effect filter then?

However… Since its being used in “Basic” already and all the time by many DPCers I would like it to be legal.

So can we use three exposures???
07/15/2009 08:19:30 PM · #69
Originally posted by thatsanicepicture:

Now listen. I don’t want anybody throwing rocks at me…. I love Photomatix and not the evil side of it, but the beautiful even exposure side of it. However, can Photomatix be legal when it uses three exposures? The basic rules still states
“You Must: Create your entry from a single capture”

One can argue that through the use of the RAW converter one image can be “Exposure” tweaked. But if you do that and combine them into one allowable image then you were doing it to get the “Photomatix Effect” Without doing a normal (REAL?) HDR. Isn’t that an effect filter then?

However… Since its being used in “Basic” already and all the time by many DPCers I would like it to be legal.

So can we use three exposures???


No we can't use 3 exposures in basic. Photomatix has a "tone mapper" that can be applied to a single exposure. Photoshop has a rough equivalent called "shadow/highlight". Another rough equivalent is Topaz Adjust. That oine, however, is apparently still illegal...

R.
07/15/2009 08:30:06 PM · #70
I should probably stay out of this thread, 'cause I'm probably getting to be a bit of a thorn.

Still, I bought Photomatrix and threw it out because I couldn't get it to do anything but Garish. I couldn't afford Lucas/Lucis Arts. Topaz can be used EASILY to do slight tweaks to give the finishing touch to an image. Or it can be just awful (just like the other two). So, I would be on the side of those who ask the Site Council to reconsider this decision to eliminate Topaz Adjust from the new rule-set. Oh, yes, since only Topaz Adjust is specifically eliminated, how about Topaz: "Clean" and "Simplify" and "deNoise"?

Could we have a ruling on those please?
07/15/2009 08:30:56 PM · #71
I think it is a good time to take a little break from the action in basic until this whole rules thing gets worked out. Too many unanswered questions about what programs might and might not be allowed.

Have fun folks...I will be watching.
07/15/2009 08:35:37 PM · #72
Perhaps then, basic should be replaced with minimal editing? :)

Originally posted by bassbone:

I think it is a good time to take a little break from the action in basic until this whole rules thing gets worked out. Too many unanswered questions about what programs might and might not be allowed.

Have fun folks...I will be watching.
07/15/2009 08:38:26 PM · #73
Originally posted by PGerst:

Perhaps then, basic should be replaced with minimal editing? :)

Originally posted by bassbone:

I think it is a good time to take a little break from the action in basic until this whole rules thing gets worked out. Too many unanswered questions about what programs might and might not be allowed.

Have fun folks...I will be watching.


Ummm....did you read my post about 10 or so down?
07/15/2009 08:40:34 PM · #74
Admittedly, I didn't :( But now, I'm glad to see at least one other had the same idea. :)

Originally posted by basssman7:


Ummm....did you read my post about 10 or so down?
07/15/2009 08:46:23 PM · #75
Originally posted by PGerst:

Admittedly, I didn't :( But now, I'm glad to see at least one other had the same idea. :)

Originally posted by basssman7:


Ummm....did you read my post about 10 or so down?


No problem. :) Hopefully some good will come out of this discussion.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 12:00:43 AM

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 © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 12:00:43 AM EST.