Followed Brian steps using PSPX and managed to produce a similar result. The playing around with hues to get the colour out of the background involves adjusting it on various channels, not just the master channel, all applied to the whole image, no selections.
I don't know. Comparing your picture to the challenge entry, in yours, the girl's shirt is a lot less green and you have some yellow moss left on the rock face. The entry doesn't have the yellow moss on the rock face, and the girl's shirt is much greener.
I would really appreciate getting more precise steps, if nothing illegal was done, and I'd be more than happy to try and reproduce the final result again.
Ursula,
I assure you, nothing was done selectively to a single portion of the photo whatsoever. It was a rather quick editing job using the steps I provided. It's not even a matter of me wondering if i broke any rules, I know I didn't. Ricky almost got the same result as me only she didn't quite nail the hue adjustments. I'll redo the image best I can and note the exact hue adjustment numbers now.
Whether the effect can be achieved "legally" under Basic rules is largely an academic exercise if the actual techniques used turned out to be illegal.
I don't believe clarify can be use illegally. It's just one button, you click it and choose a strength from 1 to 5. No other options. How can that be illegal?
For what it's worth, there re all sorts of filters in PS that require a single click and a specification for strength of effect that are not legal in basic editing. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is the way it is.
That effect that's coming off of "clarify" is fantastic, and I cannot legally duplicate it in basic editing with photoshop. Does this mean (and I've beaten this horse before, sorry) that my best bet for DPC editing is to invest in several different editing programs and choose the one that "automates" best for the particular image? This is already a problem with PS CS2 shadow/highlight tool, which is basically an automation of PS 7's contrast masking key commands, but shadow/highlight is "legal" in basic and currently contrast masking is not.
There are a lot of inconsistencies like this.
Regardless, it's a nicely processed image and I don't personally think it violates the spirit of the editing rules at all, so good luck with it. It's nice to see one of the "other" editors stealing a march on PS :-)
R.
I've gotten very similar results using clarify in PSP and levels in PSCS.
It it true (IMO) that different software is good at different things. For example, using levels in PSCS is a lot easier and better than in PSP. Same with USM. The highlight/shadow tool doesn't even exist as such in PSP. On the other hand, when it comes to colours I usually prefer to work in PSP, I think their colour adjustment tools are better. But I think a lot of that is opinion and what you're used to doing.
Followed Brian steps using PSPX and managed to produce a similar result. The playing around with hues to get the colour out of the background involves adjusting it on various channels, not just the master channel, all applied to the whole image, no selections.
I don't know. Comparing your picture to the challenge entry, in yours, the girl's shirt is a lot less green and you have some yellow moss left on the rock face. The entry doesn't have the yellow moss on the rock face, and the girl's shirt is much greener.
I would really appreciate getting more precise steps, if nothing illegal was done, and I'd be more than happy to try and reproduce the final result again.
Ursula,
I assure you, nothing was done selectively to a single portion of the photo whatsoever. It was a rather quick editing job using the steps I provided. It's not even a matter of me wondering if i broke any rules, I know I didn't. Ricky almost got the same result as me only she didn't quite nail the hue adjustments. I'll redo the image best I can and note the exact hue adjustment numbers now.
Brian
Would you please try to recreate what you did and send exact steps? I will un-DQ your image pending further review.
OK I just recreated it. Those of you with Corel Paint Shop Pro X can validate doing the same if you wish:
Open _MG_0826.JPG with Corel Pait Shop Pro X
Resize to 50%
Adjust/One Step Noise Removal
Brightness/Contrast/Clarify (set at 5.0) [I can't recall what number I originally used here]
Color/Fade Correction (set at 16) [I can't recall if I even used this originally, but I usually do so I'll apply here as well]
Hue & Saturation - Hue/Saturation/Lightness..
- Reds - Hue 9, Saturation 8, Lightness 0
- Yellows - Hue 15, Saturation -6, Lightness 13
- Greens - Hue 0, Saturation -21, Lightness 0
- Cyans - Hue 0, Saturation -13, Lightness 0
- Blues - Hue 0, Saturation -13, Lightness 0
- Magentas - Hue 0, Saturation 0, Lightness 0
Brightness/Contrast/Clarify (set at 3.0) [I can't recall what number I originally used here]
Curves - Channel RGB, Input 0, Output 0. I made a slight downward bend in the bottom left had square of the graph. [forgot I even used curves - my apologies]
Resize to 640 x 427 pixels
Adjust, Sharpness, Sharpen
File, Save As _MG_0826b.JPG
View my result here: //www.hardbread.com/_MG_0826b.jpg
OK I just recreated it. Those of you with Corel Paint Shop Pro X can validate doing the same if you wish:
Open _MG_0826.JPG with Corel Pait Shop Pro X
Resize to 50%
Adjust/One Step Noise Removal
Brightness/Contrast/Clarify (set at 5.0) [I can't recall what number I originally used here]
Color/Fade Correction (set at 16) [I can't recall if I even used this originally, but I usually do so I'll apply here as well]
Hue & Saturation - Hue/Saturation/Lightness..
- Reds - Hue 9, Saturation 8, Lightness 0
- Yellows - Hue 15, Saturation -6, Lightness 13
- Greens - Hue 0, Saturation -21, Lightness 0
- Cyans - Hue 0, Saturation -13, Lightness 0
- Blues - Hue 0, Saturation -13, Lightness 0
- Magentas - Hue 0, Saturation 0, Lightness 0
Brightness/Contrast/Clarify (set at 3.0) [I can't recall what number I originally used here]
Curves - Channel RGB, Input 0, Output 0. I made a slight downward bend in the bottom left had square of the graph. [forgot I even used curves - my apologies]
Resize to 640 x 427 pixels
Adjust, Sharpness, Sharpen
File, Save As _MG_0826b.JPG
View my result here: //www.hardbread.com/_MG_0826b.jpg
(Not exact but pretty close)
Brian
Sorry guys the link should be //www.hardbread.com/_MG_0826b.JPG
I can understand why the image was questioned, it looks a lot like selective desaturation at first glance. But I have often achieved similar results when I am not doing any selecting.
As for clarify, I beleive that it is definitely a Basic legal tool. I have had images validated where it was used in Basic. In fact, I use it in most of my editing as a last step before I resize. There was a forum discussion some time ago where someone asked what it did, and kirbic replied that it was sort of a combination of sharpening and contrast. I don't think it is possible to use it in a selective way, it's a whole image tool, AFAIK.
Following your steps exactly in PSPX, I still can't get the same results as your challenge entry. I think we should keep this discussion private though, and work it out using the validation/ticket system.
Following your steps exactly in PSPX, I still can't get the same results as your challenge entry. I think we should keep this discussion private though, and work it out using the validation/ticket system.
Looks like it was un dq'd. Congrats...was one of my favorites in the challenge.
Thanks. It is un-DQ'd pending further review, which is all I really hoped to accomplish here. If nothing else I needed some clarification for further challenges. I appreciate all the work and concern you guys and the members of the SC have done for me on this matter tonight - regardless of the outcome.
Following your steps exactly in PSPX, I still can't get the same results as your challenge entry. I think we should keep this discussion private though, and work it out using the validation/ticket system.
lets hire Art Roflmao as a part-time council for "advanced" post-editing cases - we all know what he can do with his editing! :p
Following your steps exactly in PSPX, I still can't get the same results as your challenge entry. I think we should keep this discussion private though, and work it out using the validation/ticket system.
lets hire Art Roflmao as a part-time council for "advanced" post-editing cases - we all know what he can do with his editing! :p
Yeah, he could fix this in no time :)
I'm so glad Brian is patient and didn't "go ballistic" over the disqualification.
btuck, you have alot more patence than I. If it was my image in question and I followed the rules to the T and got DQ... Im outta here man, thats the final straw, I was convicted without a crime. I hate cheaters, and would never cheat. But if I was convicted like you were without cheating... Im done with it Man.... Fairness works both ways...
btuck, you have alot more patence than I. If it was my image in question and I followed the rules to the T and got DQ... Im outta here man, thats the final straw, I was convicted without a crime. I hate cheaters, and would never cheat. But if I was convicted like you were without cheating... Im done with it Man.... Fairness works both ways...
I have to be honest, there is a little bit of anger/confusion about me on the matter, but the truth is DPChallenge is the best hobby I have right now. I'd be lost without it. I'm hoping the SC can reproduce my image with the steps I've given them and all will be forgotten.
This exact reason is way I never use PSP X on this site. Sadly its kinda a red headed step child in instances such as this. I remeber freaking out about my tribute entry getting DQ even though it was advanced challenge I used PSP X. Ended up Ok, I could have made it totally acceptible even in Basic. I switched to PS right after that, I don't need that kinda wonder or worry.
Are people who only have knowledge and expertise in one photo editing program qualified to serve on SC?
While I think SC's qualification is not really a point here,
I think it would be important that there should be someone trust-able that can be consulted to help with validation of editing steps (post processing) especially, since that is one of the main reason that would result in disqualification of entries, and this site being digital and post-editing being a huge factor - that makes it even more important.
Are people who only have knowledge and expertise in one photo editing program qualified to serve on SC?
While I think SC's qualification is not really a point here,
I think it would be important that there should be someone trust-able that can be consulted to help with validation of editing steps (post processing) especially, regardless of which editing program the entering photog has used since that is one of the main reason that would result in disqualification of entries, and this site being digital and post-editing being a huge factor - that makes it even more important.
I'd like to agree with what you said crayon, but I added the words in bold to it. Can you go along with them?
