| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2009 02:38:52 PM · #51 |
I understand the skepticism here, but flipping between the original and entry, I could swear that I still see slight reminants of the particles in the entry. If they were spot-edited, I would think they would be fully cleaned out. I haven't tried to scale the two to the exact dimensions, but I think these are the same spots.
Nice photo either way.
Updated:
Now that I have layered the two and flipped between them, the spots I see are not the ones in question. I see no evidence of the large one at all.
Message edited by author 2009-06-18 18:55:39. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 02:56:08 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
I understand the skepticism here, but flipping between the original and entry, I could swear that I still see slight reminants of the particles in the entry. If they were spot-edited, I would think they would be fully cleaned out. I haven't tried to scale the two to the exact dimensions, but I think these are the same spots.
Nice photo either way. |
You know, I come up with the opposite conclusion. When I apply a harsh levels layer to expose things on the monitor I see two small specks present. In the original there are three small specks there with the one missing being the most obvious and largest and brightest. One would speculate that the largest and brightest speck would be the hardest to remove with basic editing. So one needs to ask how the process could not remove the smaller specks completely but totally make the larger one invisible? I can't seen ANY remnant of that one. (the long horizontal line speck.) |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 02:57:24 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Nobody:
I understand the skepticism here, but flipping between the original and entry, I could swear that I still see slight reminants of the particles in the entry. If they were spot-edited, I would think they would be fully cleaned out. I haven't tried to scale the two to the exact dimensions, but I think these are the same spots.
Nice photo either way. |
You know, I come up with the opposite conclusion. When I apply a harsh levels layer to expose things on the monitor I see two small specks present. In the original there are three small specks there with the one missing being the most obvious and largest and brightest. One would speculate that the largest and brightest speck would be the hardest to remove with basic editing. So one needs to ask how the process could not remove the smaller specks completely but totally make the larger one invisible? I can't seen ANY remnant of that one. (the long horizontal line speck.) |
Hope you saw my edit - I am in agreement with you now. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 03:03:28 PM · #54 |
| You know, this could have something to do with the way the Capture NX RAW engine processes horizontal lines. I did some comparison of RAW processors last year and at the pixel level noticed there were small differences between how NX processes RAW, and how Lightroom (for example) processes RAW. Quite strange effects, for example red pixels 'bleeding' onto the adjacent pixels slightly. Nothing you'd notice unless you were examining the image at the pixel level, and *might* have something to do with this disappearing line. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 03:14:59 PM · #55 |
Message edited by author 2009-06-19 14:13:48. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 03:27:33 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I can get rid of the make by simply going to levels and do the following:
1. Go to Red channel and drop the middle marker down to .40
2. Go to Green channel and drop the middle marker down to .40
3. Go to Blue channel and drop the middle marker down to .40
4. Go back to the Green Channel and under "Output Levels" move the left bar to 7
That removes the mark but I don't know what can be done after that. I know it's darker but I'm almost sure with some tweaking and other legal steps it can be done. But what do I know.
Here the example using the picture that has the red Circle indicating the spot.
 |
Applying a harsh levels layer can make the spot reappear though. The magic now is to get the spot to disappear and never reappear when you put the picture through the gears.
My guess is it was cloned without even thinking about it and now Lutchenko can't recall doing it. In other words, we are so used to cloning things that sometimes we do it as second nature and have to consciously tell ourselves, hey this is basic I can't do this.
Message edited by author 2009-06-18 19:29:34. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 03:30:37 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Ok...
Open the RAW file in Capture NX
Exposure -83
Contrast 33
Saturation 5
And adjust curves manually
Save as a jpeg and the mark has gone and the remainder of the file is intact.
The remaining tiny marks disapear during normal PS processing |
Has anybody tried what he posted earlier?
|
|
|
|
06/18/2009 03:39:07 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My guess is it was cloned without even thinking about it and now Lutchenko can't recall doing it. In other words, we are so used to cloning things that sometimes we do it as second nature and have to consciously tell ourselves, hey this is basic I can't do this. |
If he used NX to clone it, then he'd see the cloning tool circle appear on the image if he re-opens the RAW in NX. (afaik)
|
|
|
|
06/18/2009 04:40:03 PM · #59 |
| This sure seems like an awful lot of hoopla to DQ an entry for a spec or two four weeks after. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 04:53:36 PM · #60 |
Standing as next in line for the Blue Ribbon if this image remains DQ'd, *grin* ... Yet still I was able to get the spot totally gone with only Replace Color (on the whole image, of course) twice and Shadow/Highlight:
 |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:09:17 PM · #61 |
| Love this site, but SC needs to stand down on some of this. A bit overzealous in my opinion. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:14:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Love this site, but SC needs to stand down on some of this. A bit overzealous in my opinion. |
the rules are clear about spot editing in basic. if you're willing to let some slip, how much is too much? |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:16:29 PM · #63 |
| this has gone on this long and nobody has photoshopped godzilla in there? really? wow |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:43:39 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:46:05 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
 |
ah yes, i can see the problem now. |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 05:47:27 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
|
What were your editing steps? just levels, contrast and a desat? LMAO
Love the title by the way, DQzilla... priceless... |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 06:21:07 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Love this site, but SC needs to stand down on some of this. A bit overzealous in my opinion. |
the rules are clear about spot editing in basic. if you're willing to let some slip, how much is too much? |
yeap, the rule is very clear, dont make it complicated |
|
|
|
06/18/2009 06:49:36 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
|
OH, now this I'm just suuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrreee he'll appreciate... :-) |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 06:36:44 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
|
Excellent... this cheered me up lol |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:06:51 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
the rules are clear about spot editing in basic. if you're willing to let some slip, how much is too much? |
Yep. But it appears as there have been many examples with this photo that the spots could have been removed legally. When are you willing to let it go and admit it was possible and let the man keep his ribbon? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:20:19 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the rules are clear about spot editing in basic. if you're willing to let some slip, how much is too much? |
Yep. But it appears as there have been many examples with this photo that the spots could have been removed legally. When are you willing to let it go and admit it was possible and let the man keep his ribbon? |
Agreed. Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, etc. etc.
edit to add: Right to a speedy trial. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-06-19 20:20:58. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:38:40 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Agreed. Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, etc. etc.
edit to add: Right to a speedy trial. ;-) |
Art for SC! ;) |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:43:22 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Agreed. Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, etc. etc.
edit to add: Right to a speedy trial. ;-) |
Art for SC! ;) |
...and to balance Art's lenience and compassion, Slippy..... BANISH THEM ALL!
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 05:49:46 PM · #74 |
Thanks for the tip.
I've tried and I can get the speck to go away, but for the life of me I can't get that red circle to go away. :)
In all seriousness. Great image! Hope you can get the ribbon back!
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Thought it might be good to post this link in here:
Saving Editing steps to a Text file
This site has instructions on how to get photoshop to save your editing history to a text file, or to the metadata on the photo itself. Whenever I have had to validate an image, I have referred to the text file for the history, and in some cases, I have simply cut an pasted the info from the text file.
 Lutchenko, I wish you luck in getting reinstated. I know from my own editing that sometimes spots seem to disappear without spot editing.
edit to add:
Just noticed this forum has been created:Saving PP steps in EXIF |
Message edited by author 2009-06-19 21:55:26. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 06:20:39 PM · #75 |
You don't have any chance to get that ribbon back. I think that even if you show them that your "process" removed the lint w/o spot editing they can still DQ. If I understand the rules, you can NOT use any process to "delete" something from the picture.
I don't agree with it as far as a tiny spot is concerned..but that's that.
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
After 4 weeks SC have decided to DQ my Blue ribbon entry in "I Quit" on the grounds of spot editing.
Well I'll leave it up to you to decide
Here is the entry
And here is the original converted to jpg
There is the tiniest mark on the right hand side that disappeared during the processing but NOT through spot editing |
|
|
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: 04/17/2025 07:32:29 AM EDT.
