| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/16/2009 01:09:37 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
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. |
Personally, I'd say it's fine. The fog existed, and it's pretty much just color and exposure adjustments (you could do the same thing with Curves and HSL). The alternate version appears to be spot edited, so no. |
So you wouldn't see that as an effect (ex. the soft focus, cool tone, etc) just as preserving image integrity?
Message edited by author 2009-07-16 13:10:29.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:16:36 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So you wouldn't see that as an effect (ex. the soft focus, cool tone, etc) just as preserving image integrity? |
More accurately, I don't see enough of an effect or feature to warrant a DQ vote. The soft focus is minor and color/tone aren't really restricted by the rules. Of course that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:19:26 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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". :-) |
You're troublesome and I will remember this next time you want some nudes flagged! ;) What I was referring to was what we have been talking about here == "going too far". Like the glamourized image you posted; that is too far. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:25:17 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
So you wouldn't see that as an effect (ex. the soft focus, cool tone, etc) just as preserving image integrity? |
More accurately, I don't see enough of an effect or feature to warrant a DQ vote. The soft focus is minor and color/tone aren't really restricted by the rules. Of course that's just my opinion. |
Fair enough. I'm just trying to gauge where you guys are drawing a line, albeit one SC's line. The main issue I have is the part of the rules that speak of preserving image integrity. Those edits clearly weren't made to preserve image integrity but rather to enhance, make prettier for effect.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:26:45 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by frisca:
You're troublesome ... |
Uh-oh! :-D |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:28:25 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... The main issue I have is the part of the rules that speak of preserving image integrity. Those edits clearly weren't made to preserve image integrity but rather to enhance, make prettier for effect. |
Same here. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 01:53:24 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
... The main issue I have is the part of the rules that speak of preserving image integrity. Those edits clearly weren't made to preserve image integrity but rather to enhance... |
Same here. |
Heyyyy... isn't this like saying "it's about not creating digital art?" Define image integrity! ;-P While you're at it, remember the rest of the intent: "Basic Editing permits overall adjustments to help polish your captured image..." |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:06:30 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
... The main issue I have is the part of the rules that speak of preserving image integrity. Those edits clearly weren't made to preserve image integrity but rather to enhance... |
Same here. |
Heyyyy... isn't this like saying "it's about not creating digital art?" Define image integrity! ;-P While you're at it, remember the rest of the intent: "Basic Editing permits overall adjustments to help polish your captured image..." |
He-he. There's too many dang words in that ruleset! Preserve, polish....bah! |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:17:12 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
When does it (VP, Photomatix, Topaz, etc...) go beyond "preserv(ing) image integrity", or when does "their use become a feature"? |
Whenever a majority of the SC says so. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:20:14 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I assumed that was the idea being basic editing -- add unsharp mask to it, and that's it. |
Nope -- that's what we refer to as the Minimal Editing rule set. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:37:29 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
When does it (VP, Photomatix, Topaz, etc...) go beyond "preserv(ing) image integrity", or when does "their use become a feature"? |
Whenever a majority of the SC says so. |
That is going to come back and bite ya in the arse!!! |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:39:58 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
When does it (VP, Photomatix, Topaz, etc...) go beyond "preserv(ing) image integrity", or when does "their use become a feature"? |
Whenever a majority of the SC says so. |
That is going to come back and bite ya in the arse!!! |
What, again? However, it's a simple statement of fact. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:40:34 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whenever a majority of the SC says so. |
That is going to come back and bite ya in the arse!!! |
It already did. Twice. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 02:42:16 PM · #164 |
| Hah! For a change I can type faster than Shannon ... |
|
|
|
07/17/2009 09:48:52 AM · #165 |
*bump* for anyone who missed it yesterday or Wednesday.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2009 01:46:36 PM · #166 |
| Requesting that NIK Efex Pro 3 be added to the allowed list.....pretty please? |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 01:51:22 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Balko:
Requesting that NIK Efex Pro 3 be added to the allowed list.....pretty please? |
There is no "allowed list." Read the original post. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 02:04:18 PM · #168 |
OK :)
quoting:
Third party software including raw converters, filters and actions are subject to the same restrictions as Photoshop: spot editing, selections (including "control points"), brushes and layers containing data are forbidden.
That's right! YOU get to choose what software you use to edit your images for Basic challenges. HOWEVER, the "filters must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature" clause is still in effect. If you go overboard with any editing tool to the point that new features are created, your image could still be disqualified.
Unclear as to what "new features" are. Would that include color shifts, saturation changes (I would not think so).
No text and such that was not in the original - got that.
Anything else? |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 02:27:00 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Balko:
Unclear as to what "new features" are. Would that include color shifts, saturation changes (I would not think so).
No text and such that was not in the original - got that.
Anything else? |
Anything that wasn't in the original (a vignette, lens flare, brushstrokes, texture, etc.) would count as a new feature. As for effects, if the "highlight" of your entry is its processed appearance, then you're probably on thin ice. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 02:54:59 PM · #170 |
| Then 'Go Easy' on whatever you do is probably a good motto :) |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 09:38:24 PM · #171 |
Ok, I remember this thread, but it is extremely long, and I'm not seeing what I was looking for.
What was the verdict? Is Topaz now legal in basic editing (within reason, of course)? |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 09:46:00 PM · #172 |
See the first line of the original post.
Originally posted by muckpond:
Editor's Note: due to popular demand, we have removed the restriction about Topaz Adjust. I have crossed this out of the original post (below) and will follow up in the thread. Topaz Adjust is legal for Basic Rules, subject to the rest of the ruleset. |
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:42:48 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
See the first line of the original post.
Originally posted by muckpond:
Editor's Note: due to popular demand, we have removed the restriction about Topaz Adjust. I have crossed this out of the original post (below) and will follow up in the thread. Topaz Adjust is legal for Basic Rules, subject to the rest of the ruleset. |
|
Lol! I actually looked there. You should place it in a more obvious place. You really expect people to read the first line? I always start from the second :D (I'll ignore the part that it was down a little farther, since I'll claim that it was crossed out, so I didn't need to read it. :o)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2009 10:45:02 PM · #174 |
| First let me say I love your website. I get so many ideas about what makes a great photo. But, I want to request a contest category for novice photographers who use cameras such a Canon A590 but don't have all the editing software to make photos that are "winners". It's so obvious the winners are heavily edited and I believe that's unfair to the rest of us amateurs. |
|
|
|
08/13/2009 10:57:20 PM · #175 |
| there are a lot of editing software that are free for you to use. PIcassa is one that I know off, a free trial of various programs, there are plenty out there. If you look around you will find many! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 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: 01/21/2021 09:41:59 AM EST.
