>> vote for challenge 31 theme <<

Andy

please vote for the topic for challenge 31.

lynnma

andy wrote:

please vote for the topic for challenge 31.

I took the plunge and voted for emotions no photoshop.. oh dear, what have I done... no photoshop..hmmm

Andy

please vote

blackwaterstudio

andy wrote:

please vote

It appears we have a few that are running neck and neck

DoctorIt

that was a tough choice for me, I love the challenge of fire (tried unsuccessfully this weekend at that... VERY unsuccessful, man it's hard!), but the no-photoshop caveat in color cinched it.

I think we all know I'm a sucker for no-photoshop... wasn't it me that cried about it till we finally got one?

muddyknees

I propose we do the odd one out til we can make up our minds!

jdsphotography wrote:

It appears we have a few that are running neck and neck

snapapple

muddyknees wrote:

I propose we do the odd one out til we can make up our minds!

It's the "no photoshop" part that holds me back. Of course, it would be hard to correct an overexposure with fire, even with photoshop. So, I gritted my teeth and went with color.

Roger

Almost no Photoshop???
It just crossed my mind that whoever shoots RAW like myself always has to do some adjustments with Camera Raw... so, how can we set the boundaries?

Roger

DoctorIt

Roger wrote:

It just crossed my mind that whoever shoots RAW like myself always has to do some adjustments with Camera Raw... so, how can we set the boundaries?

Roger

there is a thread somewhere that explains what "no photoshop" means. Actually, it's right in the rules thread, no?

Obviously, RAW is ok. No photoshop refers to cloning, heavy use of layers, and so on. RAW is just developing, not "altering".

DoctorIt

taken from the last "no photoshop" challenge, #26:

this challenge is a "no photoshop" challenge. only basic editing is allowed. this includes minor adjustments in color, contrast, exposure, sharpness. black and white conversion is allowed (including toning for same). that's it - no cloning, filters, special effects, etc.

your entry must be a photograph taken inside of your house, apartment, flat, tipi, tent, igloo, or cave.


***
Hey Andy, you think maybe you could edit your sticky for "dgrin photo challenges" to include an asterisk that has this explanation for anytime we have a no-photoshop challenge?

Andy

done.

DoctorIt wrote:

taken from the last "no photoshop" challenge, #26:

this challenge is a "no photoshop" challenge. only basic editing is allowed. this includes minor adjustments in color, contrast, exposure, sharpness. black and white conversion is allowed (including toning for same). that's it - no cloning, filters, special effects, etc.

your entry must be a photograph taken inside of your house, apartment, flat, tipi, tent, igloo, or cave.


***
Hey Andy, you think maybe you could edit your sticky for "dgrin photo challenges" to include an asterisk that has this explanation for anytime we have a no-photoshop challenge?

ginger_55

Just a thought, it annoys me when something is no photoshop and this gets ok and that gets ok.

what if we put it on and took it off for the Challenge. Or what about that suggestion of before and after.

ginger

Roger

DoctorIt wrote:

taken from the last "no photoshop" challenge, #26:

this challenge is a "no photoshop" challenge. only basic editing is allowed. this includes minor adjustments in color, contrast, exposure, sharpness. black and white conversion is allowed (including toning for same). that's it - no cloning, filters, special effects, etc.

your entry must be a photograph taken inside of your house, apartment, flat, tipi, tent, igloo, or cave.


***
Hey Andy, you think maybe you could edit your sticky for "dgrin photo challenges" to include an asterisk that has this explanation for anytime we have a no-photoshop challenge?

Thanks much, Erik!
You see, I am a newbie and have not read every thread around here... yet

ginger_55 wrote:

Just a thought, it annoys me when something is no photoshop and this gets ok and that gets ok.

what if we put it on and took it off for the Challenge. Or what about that suggestion of before and after.

ginger

Ginger, with RAW developping it is impossible not to have a bit of this and a bit of that, as purely converted RAW files are just a disaster (wrong colours, bad contrast and lightness, no sharpness at all and so on).

Besides, even with classic transparencies (negative/positive) photography, there are always minor corrections applied at the lab when printing...

Roger

ginger_55

RAW bird and bird ready for triptych
This is bird straight from RAW, started to change the exposure in RAW, then I put that back, too. So it is straight out of the camera, not that things always go this way, but some people excel at ps and some don't. g







It is not a big deal with me, I am used to it, and some might remember when I really wanted something of mine that had been burned a bit, I wanted it to come in, and it did. But sometimes it seems like the only things not allowed are the ones I can't pronounce.

Sorry, friends? I just wanted to show an example of something that was not that bad with no ps even though it was a RAW file.

ginger:D

Roger

ginger_55 wrote:

This is bird straight from RAW, started to change the exposure in RAW, then I put that back, too. So it is straight out of the camera, not that things always go this way, but some people excel at ps and some don't. g







It is not a big deal with me, I am used to it, and some might remember when I really wanted something of mine that had been burned a bit, I wanted it to come in, and it did. But sometimes it seems like the only things not allowed are the ones I can't pronounce.

Sorry, friends? I just wanted to show an example of something that was not that bad with no ps even though it was a RAW file.

ginger:D

If we carefully look at the details, we see that the RAW one is completely dull, Ginger

Here is a clearer example (pure RAW in the first place, of course):



smile6

Roger

DoctorIt

Roger wrote:

If we carefully look at the details, we see that the RAW one is completely dull, Ginger


smile6

Roger

Sorry, Ginger and Roger, but I feel like you guys don't really understand RAW files. By stating "pure RAW"... just seems like you're missing a couple details. If I'm interpreting it correctly, both Roger's images above are "RAW". One, you simply clicked OK when the plug-in box came up, the other had a few tweaks in the parameters (you can change the defaults on those BTW, so then what is "pure RAW"... see what I mean???) There's threads on it, check it out.

The point is, everything you do in the RAW plug-in box is OK, because all you are doing is setting the processing factors that will convert the entire file from RAW to JPG - shadows, contrast, saturation, etc. So all your parameters affect the whole image. Photoshopping, as we're calling it for challenges, comes in when you start masking selected parts of the image, or cloning away a few pixels, and so on.

I feel like I'm hijacking this thread. I'll see if I can dig up some previous discussions on RAW and no-photoshopping.

Roger

DoctorIt wrote:

Sorry, Ginger and Roger, but I feel like you guys don't really understand RAW files. By stating "pure RAW"... just seems like you're missing a couple details. If I'm interpreting it correctly, both Roger's images above are "RAW". One, you simply clicked OK when the plug-in box came up, the other had a few tweaks in the parameters (you can change the defaults on those BTW, so then what is "pure RAW"... see what I mean???) There's threads on it, check it out.

The point is, everything you do in the RAW plug-in box is OK, because all you are doing is setting the processing factors that will convert the entire file from RAW to JPG - shadows, contrast, saturation, etc. So all your parameters affect the whole image. Photoshopping, as we're calling it for challenges, comes in when you start masking selected parts of the image, or cloning away a few pixels, and so on.

I feel like I'm hijacking this thread. I'll see if I can dig up some previous discussions on RAW and no-photoshopping.

Here is really what I did: I set ALL parameters to 0 value before the OK. The only one which cannot be reset that way is white balance which I set to "As shot" to get the closest to what we get out of the camera. So we can call it almost "pure" while the other has the usual adjustments to bring the pic to real life.

I see what you mean, was just trying to give a good example where Ginger might get the point of RAW not being useable "as is".

Roger

ginger_55

I don't know how to set parameters, don't really want to get into this. I think RAW against RAW set any way we wanted would be valuable, but everyone doesn't have RAW, so that is out.

The problem with the way it is now is that we are basically allowed in a no PS Challenge to do about everything I can do anyway.

Well, that is good, it brings the rest of you down to my level.:roll . I guess what annoys me is when something is allowed that is beyond my level.

ginger

wxwax

Go, color, go!

I need to edumacate my eye to look for color. And being a fundamentally undisciplined individual, I need a challenge to make me do it.

Eric&amp;Susan

So since the poll is closed has anyone picked the next topic yet? Not sure who has the final say so.


eric

lynnma

Eric&Susan wrote:

So since the poll is closed has anyone picked the next topic yet? Not sure who has the final say so.


eric

I'm assuming it's Fire and matches etc.. it won the vote. Maybe cos it was so close again we'll do all three in a row.. what say Andrew.