Permissible level changes in PSP

04/10/2002 03:08:31 PM · #26

Originally posted by vin rigby:
Irae, I don't know how 'auto level' works but the rules state;
'Levels Adjustment (Levels, Auto-Levels)' are 'acceptable post-shot modifications' - Drew has clarified that these levels are only to be used against the whole image which I fully agree with. If another spanner is to be thrown into the 'works'what about the high end cameras that allow colour adjustment 'in-camera'?
Is your B&W issue about allowing post-shot changes from colour to B&W -
Don't see any problem with that. presume you are awaiting an answer from admin?

Vin

Not to add further fuel to this fire, but the link below is to a picture I took, of a white sheet of paper, with some paperclips on it.

Paperclips

I did no levels, curves, auto-levels or any other adjustments. I sharpened it, resized and uploaded. I didn't even do any adjustments
in camera, other than setting the white balance.

Would a red equivalent have been allowed for the 'red' challenge ?

Often these problems come up because people ill-define rules that should be just left to the opinion of the voters.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

04/10/2002 03:11:32 PM · #27

The words "just 'what comes out of the camera'" reminded me of an article by Stephen Livick. The gist is that photographic "vision" is something more than presenting some scene or object (he refers to the cameras of pre-visionary photographers as photocopiers). Even using proper technique does not ensure that the image accurately shows what you saw in the subject. Not that proper Photoshop technique does, either, but I think that's why photographers at a certain stage feel so hobbled by restrictions on processing. Once you start searching for and refining your vision, and how to get it across, it's hard to settle for less. Guess that's a challenge, in a way. [url=//www.livick.com/method/vision/pg1.htm ]Here [/url] is Mr. Livick's article.
[/i]

That was certainly an interesting article, and highlights a few of the things being discussed in this thread.

Surely it is what the photographer can do with a digital imaging workflow that is interesting, not what Canon cameras can do compared to Nikon ?

That workflow involves the entire photographic process. Ansel Adams who often got accused of being a 'realist' photographer manipulated his images in hundreds of ways currently excluded by the rules here. Was he not doing photography ?

I think I'm just in a garrulous mood tonight, but this stuff interests me, and its my job too.

vin rigby

Panasonic DMC-FZ30

04/10/2002 03:29:01 PM · #28

Gordon, it is not my intention to ill-define rules, it is my intention to clarify the rules.

Corey

Nikon D300s

04/10/2002 03:40:13 PM · #29

With all the talk of levels, curves, and seperate color channels anyone who dosen't do this all the time can and will get confused. To make this simple I think that it should be set up where anything that you want to do color or sharpness is permissible as long as it applies to the entire picture. Example - anything you want to do to curves, levels or individual channels would be permissible as long as the colors effects the entire picture, but not changing the color of a particular object in your picture like making a presons blue coat red. I belive it is fair to say that if it can be done in a darkroom it should be allowed here. I would draw the line on things like using filters in photoshop, using the clone stamp to take out distracting items in the background, or the use of layers to place one object over another. I just think that we should be able to do what we could in a traditional dark room.

04/10/2002 03:59:19 PM · #30

Originally posted by Corey:
With all the talk of levels, curves, and seperate color channels anyone who dosen't do this all the time can and will get confused. To make this simple I think that it should be set up where anything that you want to do color or sharpness is permissible as long as it applies to the entire picture. Example - anything you want to do to curves, levels or individual channels would be permissible as long as the colors effects the entire picture, but not changing the color of a particular object in your picture like making a presons blue coat red. I belive it is fair to say that if it can be done in a darkroom it should be allowed here. I would draw the line on things like using filters in photoshop, using the clone stamp to take out distracting items in the background, or the use of layers to place one object over another. I just think that we should be able to do what we could in a traditional dark room.

People do all of the things you said at the end in the traditional darkroom. Most, if not all of the photoshop filters are based on traditional darkroom ideas.

Scratch removal is done, things are cloned out, mutiple exposures (ala layers) are done. Unsharp mask as a 'filter' is actually a traditional darkroom technique, where you make two exposures, one not as well focused as the other, overlap them and expose again.

But in general, I agree with what you are saying. All the hue, saturation or lightness adjustments are done via chemistry in the traditional darkroom, you can change colour casts with gels, shift colours with varied development times etc.

Maybe a better set of rules would avoid all of this all together.
State that the site is about realistic digital photography. The goal is for realism, not computer modified results. That's it then, let the
voters decide what is 'too much'

The funny thing about this is that I didn't even do levels or auto-level adjustments to my previous two entries, and people think they've been 'fixed' or modified a whole lot.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/10/2002 04:02:57 PM · #31

Originally posted by vin rigby:
Gordon, it is not my intention to ill-define rules, it is my intention to clarify the rules.

That's all I'm trying to do too, Vin.

Another example - think of a very strong, dark red, and a very pale, pastle pink.

Same colour ? Nope.

Same hue ? very probably.

Different saturation ? Yup.

What people think of as colour is actually often just hue, but it is only one part of what a colour is.

So can we change colours or not ?
Can we change hue or not ?
Can we change saturation or not ?
Can we change lightness or not ?

Answer any of the last 3 questions yes, and then you've answered the first one yes, and recursively, all of the answers yes.

Colour defines a point in a 3-d space. RGB uses different co-ordinates to hue/saturation/lightness. You change one of any of the 6 co-ordinates, you change 3 in the other co-ordinate system.

As I said before, colour isn't something you can just boil down to two or three rules. I'd suggest going the 'aim for realism' route, rather than furthering the madness of trying to define this.

As your sig says, it's good to talk.

langdon

Canon EOS-20D

04/10/2002 04:04:26 PM · #32

Please refer to the following thread.

* This message has been edited by the author on 4/10/2002 8:05:10 PM.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/10/2002 04:07:28 PM · #33

Hell, people thought I Photoshopped a bunch of 1's and 0's into my Self Portrait entry. Do you know how hard it would be to do that well? I'd have an easier time finding a big rock with 1's and 0's on it!