Who is afraid of Photoshop? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

09/27/2003 02:12:57 PM · #26

Originally posted by cykhansen:

One disadvantage of allowing spot editing is the example of a shot in which everything is in focus when it would look much better with soft focus behind the main object/animal/person. I can do this in Photoshop but I believe I should be concentrating on getting the focusing right in the first place via my camera. (Though it's tough, given the limitations of the G1 compared to later models.)

I may have to think a little more on this regarding blurring parts of an image but my initial reaction is that it changes the integrity of the original image by visually altering a significant part of the image. So I don't think I would be in favor of this. To me, this kind of manipulation would take the image into the digital art realm. As far as altering the image at the pixel level I am only in favor of removing small insignificant elements, lightening or darkening specific areas, cleaning up noise, correcting barrel and pincushion distortion, color enhancements, and some other tools which should only improve the photo, in the photographer's eyes, while maintaining the integrity or essence of the original photo. It just seems to me that blurring a significant part of the image with the intent to change the depth of field is not maintaining the integrity of the original image but rather creating a new photo with an entirely different "look" to it.

T

coolhar

09/27/2003 02:15:33 PM · #27

I am not afraid of Photoshop, or any other software for that matter.

The limitations on editing of entries makes this site distinct in a large field of photo sites. If that causes it to appeal more to beginners than to the advanced image editors, so be it.

Making the member only challenges different than the open ones will discourage some (hopefully only temporarily) from paying.

My impression is that the allowed level of editing is, and should be, set to where it is most easily patrolled and enforced. Those who do the work should be free to change it to some other level if that would make enforcement more accurate and/or manageable.

There are lots of sites that allow unlimited editing. I don't know of any others that push you to develope your picture-taking skills before your image-manipulation skills. I have a lot to learn in both areas and I really appreciate the opportunity that DPC gives me to compete in challenges while I am learning, IMHO, the most important part first.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/27/2003 02:24:41 PM · #28

Originally posted by timj351:

How is this different than Mag using his f2 DoF when my cam won't do it? Maybe it's just a software fix for a hardware plm? Maybe it's what the photog saw, s/he just couldn't accomplish it.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/27/2003 02:26:34 PM · #29

Originally posted by cykhansen:

Actually this is a fine reason to open up the editing, as it provides a more level playing field between different cameras. On the flip side, I'd love to be able to layer multiple exposures to get depth of field approaching that of a G2 type small sensor digicam for my macro entries.

Message edited by author 2003-09-27 18:27:49.

09/27/2003 02:30:16 PM · #30

It's true that when you can do any kind of editing to a photo that can encourage laziness to some degree, particularily for lazy people. For those that are very serious about this craft they will make very careful decisions at the time of image capture regarding what things they should get right in-camera and what they can best do later in their image editor. For example, making the decision to take two photos of the same scene with different exposure settings with the intent of merging them together to get a single image with greater dynamic range as apposed to taking a single image using a split neutral density filter may actually be the best decision because of the greater control you will have over the image rather than a decision based on laziness.

T

09/27/2003 02:40:09 PM · #31

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by timj351:
I may have to think a little more on this regarding blurring parts of an image but my initial reaction is that it changes the integrity of the original image by visually altering a significant part of the image. So I don't think I would be in favor of this. To me, this kind of manipulation would take the image into the digital art realm. As far as altering the image at the pixel level I am only in favor of removing small insignificant elements, lightening or darkening specific areas, cleaning up noise, correcting barrel and pincushion distortion, color enhancements, and some other tools which should only improve the photo, in the photographer's eyes, while maintaining the integrity or essence of the original photo. It just seems to me that blurring a significant part of the image with the intent to change the depth of field is not maintaining the integrity of the original image but rather creating a new photo with an entirely different "look" to it.

T

How is this different than Mag using his f2 DoF when my cam won't do it? Maybe it's just a software fix for a hardware plm? Maybe it's what the photog saw, s/he just couldn't accomplish it.

It is my initial reaction that may change after some thought. You make a good point but that kind of image altering may be too difficult to set a limit to and many people would likely screw up the use of this technique, seriously altering their original photo. I was just trying to state what I think would be apropriate boundaries for open-editing and I feel that blurring a significant part of your image might take it too far.

T

glimpses

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

09/27/2003 02:44:18 PM · #32

Originally posted by timj351:

It's true that when you can do any kind of editing to a photo that can encourage laziness to some degree, particularily for lazy people.

Believe me.. that is only apparently true..

If you have to edit a lot, the steps to do are many.. they may even be hundred or thousands (depending on how precise you want to be and how much messed up is the photo).

With the camera, instead, the step is just one: Click!

Being a very lazy person, I have no doubt on which phase would get more attention in order to avoid lot (or any) editing work.

dwoolridge

09/27/2003 03:33:14 PM · #33

Originally posted by Gordon:

On the flip side, I'd love to be able to layer multiple exposures to get depth of field approaching that of a G2 type small sensor digicam for my macro entries.

Gordon, have you actually tried doing this? Do you have any examples of such work? This might also be a great way to get around diffraction issues at smaller apertures.

Btw, which macro lens are you using?

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

09/27/2003 04:23:29 PM · #34

i've seen some good examples on photosig. maybe, if i'm motivated, i'll try to find them for you :)

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

[quote=Gordon]On the flip side, I'd love to be able to layer multiple exposures to get depth of field approaching that of a G2 type small sensor digicam for my macro entries.

I disagree. it's a lot more work to edit stuff in software than to just take the picture the way you want it. i've gotten to the point where i take so many pics that I want to drastically minimize my photoshop time. so i try to get the pics as good and finished as possible in the camera.

but if you look at my entries for 'multi-image composition' or 'windows and doors', you will get a feel for how many hours i spent.

Originally posted by timj351:

It's true that when you can do any kind of editing to a photo that can encourage laziness to some degree, particularily for lazy people.

09/27/2003 04:42:40 PM · #35

One more thing to throw in the mix: ban Neat Image (or equivalent) until this editing stuff is resolved.
Three reasons:
1. many comments include criticisms of noisiness and it puts NI users at an advantage
2. some people can't afford it
3. it's not available for Mac - yet! ;)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

09/27/2003 05:39:35 PM · #36

I had a comment earlier on this shot - about a distracting telephone pole. This is how I'd like to be able to use Photoshop mostly:

Summer Rain old

Summer Rain retouched

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/27/2003 06:20:11 PM · #37

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

Originally posted by Gordon:
On the flip side, I'd love to be able to layer multiple exposures to get depth of field approaching that of a G2 type small sensor digicam for my macro entries.

Gordon, have you actually tried doing this? Do you have any examples of such work? This might also be a great way to get around diffraction issues at smaller apertures.

Btw, which macro lens are you using?

Here is an example by Mark Plonsky, using a Canon G1 and layering two exposures to get better DoF.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

09/27/2003 06:24:19 PM · #38

I didn't even read the thread. Why not? I've read about 20 threads like these in the past 6 months. I've come to the conclustion that we'll never be able to define where we will draw the line. Define "the line" in a way that will be accpetable to most, and I'm in. Discussig this topic to death, count me out.

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/27/2003 06:43:38 PM · #39

jon lucas
I am not familiar with neat image, but have you tried pixel enhance (freeware) and or graphic converter? And of course I photo, which is of course more limiting than either of these. Both are great, much easier than PS and can do many some sort of things, and of course mac compatable.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

09/27/2003 06:56:39 PM · #40

i once listed a bunch of noise reduction softwares for mac

look for it on google
it's easy to find lots of options

matt betea

Nikon D100

09/27/2003 07:01:00 PM · #41

"It's true that when you can do any kind of editing to a photo that can encourage laziness to some degree, particularily for lazy people. For those that are very serious about this craft they will make very careful decisions at the time of image capture regarding what things they should get right in-camera and what they can best do later in their image editor. For example, making the decision to take two photos of the same scene with different exposure settings with the intent of merging them together to get a single image with greater dynamic range as apposed to taking a single image using a split neutral density filter may actually be the best decision because of the greater control you will have over the image rather than a decision based on laziness."

Out of all the "discussions" that have gone on about this topic, this is the best statement out of all of them. People think using an image editor is going to suddenly make everyone lazy. Sorry, there are some people that pride themselves on doing an excellent job both capturing the image and fine tuning it to get the absolute most out of it. And what might come as a shock to some folks, but it doesn't come in 2 mins a 3 clicks of the mouse and you have an outstanding photo. Editing on the computer, to whatever extent it takes to make the photographer's vision show, is just as much part of digital photography as a traditional darkroom is to film. If you don't think so go take a couple classes and/or read a couple books.

lionelm

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/27/2003 07:15:30 PM · #42

Originally posted by Jacko:

You saved me of typing that Jacko :D

tarique

Nikon Coolpix 5700

09/27/2003 08:04:39 PM · #43

Originally posted by lionelm:

Originally posted by Jacko:
I didn't even read the thread. Why not? I've read about 20 threads like these in the past 6 months. I've come to the conclustion that we'll never be able to define where we will draw the line. Define "the line" in a way that will be accpetable to most, and I'm in. Discussig this topic to death, count me out.

You saved me of typing that Jacko :D

Ditto

09/27/2003 08:21:54 PM · #44

Originally posted by tarique:

Originally posted by lionelm:
Originally posted by Jacko:
I didn't even read the thread. Why not? I've read about 20 threads like these in the past 6 months. I've come to the conclustion that we'll never be able to define where we will draw the line. Define "the line" in a way that will be accpetable to most, and I'm in. Discussig this topic to death, count me out.

You saved me of typing that Jacko :D

Ditto

Yet you're here all the same :-)

T

sunflower

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

09/27/2003 10:52:05 PM · #45

I think open editing is what distinguishes digital photography as one of the higher art forms and I would embrace it fully since it can only add to the range of possibilities that we as artists can work with.

09/28/2003 12:24:14 AM · #46

Originally posted by Jacko:

That's a great point, Jacko and echoes my feelings too, so here's my suggestion of 'The Line'.

1. No new pixel data to be added:
- no adding of new colours
- only pixel data from the original can be cloned or replicated
- no pure airbrushing (except on masks)
- no cloning to add new structures or key features (but can be used to fix missing elements, etc.)

2. No Photoshop FX filters or third party filtering (such as Kai's Power Tools or Alien Skin)

3. No Layer Styles, such as drop shadow, bevel/emboss, glow, etc.

4. Adjustment layers are acceptable

5. Duplicated layers and layer masks are acceptable (spot selection OK)

6. Layer blending (all modes) is acceptable

7. Image clean-up is permitted using tools such as Neat Image, Pixel Nhance, etc.

8. No displacement maps or structural alteration such as Liquify or Warping

This line prevents digital art from unbalancing the emphasis of creative photography on the site. The integrity of the image is maintained because nothing 'unnatural' to the shot's origin is taking place.

The key is to not introduce any new image information other than the picture's original composition, tones, hues and textures.

I don't see anything here that may not be happening already at times and the results, however altered, will still entirely depend on how good an original shot was in the first instance.
---

Ellamay (and Mag) - thanks, I'm aware of those apps but Neat Image does seem to wipe the floor with them!

Message edited by author 2003-09-28 06:31:25.

glimpses

09/28/2003 01:55:52 AM · #47

Originally posted by Jon Lucas:

here's my suggestion of 'The Line'.

I think that an even more "complicated" line than the current one would increase requests for DQed and quarrels.

Also, with this "line" you would not be able to remove the distracting telephone pole in the excellent example that you did just before.

I agree with Jacko.. we cannot define a "line" formally without incurring in lots and lots of issues.

That's why my suggestion whose about freely allowing spot editing because, after all, the line will be defined by voters automatically.

DPC's community is very much into Photography and much less into "Art and Design" (as it has to be in the case of a Digital Photography website), therefore pictures with excessive alterations producing artwork or unnatural views would certainly be "punished" by the voting process.

And it would happen automatically.. there is no need to avoid Spot Editing (apart from popularity considerations, an important issue raised earlier in the thread) and to keep stressing each other really..

Message edited by author 2003-09-28 05:57:02.

09/28/2003 02:31:08 AM · #48

Glimpses, you need to read more carefully!

1. No new pixel data to be added:
- no adding of new colours
- only pixel data from the original can be cloned or replicated
- no pure airbrushing (except on masks)
- no cloning to add new structures or key features (but can be used to fix missing elements, etc.)

The wording may need to be clarified (perhaps with some simple examples) but I think these rules cover everything necessary to permit proficient, comprehensive editing.

glimpses

09/28/2003 02:36:48 AM · #49

Originally posted by Jon Lucas:

only pixel data from the original can be cloned or replicated

Sorry, I missed that one.

Yes, it would probably allow anything or most of what a digital photographer needs in a sort of "digital" dark room but I am still afraid that it would raise even more issues in defining what should be DQed or not.

I am also concerned about the administrative burden that a too complicated set of rules would generate.

However, I would very welcome your rules as a replacement of the current ones.

Message edited by author 2003-09-28 06:38:07.