Rules Clarification

[Saldo1981]

On the rules page it has “the following modifications and filters when applied evenly to the entire image are allowed” . I’m trying out something that I learned from a professional photographer I know. The output is supposed to look like the photo was taken with infrared film. Would this be too much use of photoshop or am I okay as long as I’m applying to the whole image? If an example of pre and post process is needed I can post that too.

[Elsinore]

Hmm the rules also state “Sepia (or adding a similar monochrome tone to an image)” is allowed…I’d think an IR filter would be similar, and allowable if applied to the entire image evenly. But maybe pre/post examples would be good to post. I’ve got a set of b/w plugins for GIMP and they include IR simulation. It works well for some images, but not as well on others. I’m interested in the technique you’ve learned if you’d care to share it 🙂

[Saldo1981]

Here is the before and after shot when trying to simulate IR film.

I use the channel mixer in photoshop to boost the green to 200% and then the red and blues to make a total of 100% so the red and blue are in the negative which is usually red -20 blue -80 Click the monochrome button add some noise and you’re done. I’ve seen a very very similar shot done on IR film and it’s pretty close but the leaves aren’t as crisp white as they are on the IR film.

[Elsinore]

Oh interesting! Yeah, they don’t *quite* look as ghostly, but not bad at all. Since you’re essentially just using the channel mixer to create a b/w image, I don’t see why that would be against the rules. I know lots of people who use channel mixer exclusively to create their b/w’s. Course I’m just one person–anyone else see a problem with this?

[monkeybort]

nope, i think it’s fine. i use channel mixer to make my b/w as well – i like being able to fine tune the results.

[Tibbs]

monkeybort wrote:

nope, i think it…

🙄 What about diffuse glow? I love the softness it gives. I don’t see why that would hurt anything. For that matter, I don’t see why any effects or filter would hurt anything. Creativity is creativity. =) In fact, it seems to me, that the more you do with something sometimes, the neater it can be. 😉

[monkeybort]

Tibbs wrote:

nope, i think it…

🙄 What about diffuse glow? I love the softness it gives. I don’t see why that would hurt anything. For that matter, I don’t see why any effects or filter would hurt anything. Creativity is creativity. =) In fact, it seems to me, that the more you do with something sometimes, the neater it can be. 😉

well, we’re trying to keep it a photography contest and not a photoshop contest. a good rule of thumb is that if you can do it with film, it would probably be ok but ask if you’re not sure.

[Curious]

is this where i jump in and rant (once more) about only submitting images that have been manipulated in camera?

you want to enter B/W fine, set your camera to B/W if it’s digital or buy some tri-x if you’re shooting film.

regular readers of my rants will remember that i don’t even like being able to use PS to crop. learn to compose your darned shots. in the digital age there is very little extra expense to shooting butt loads of exposures. bracketing with digital is easy (well on higher end cameras) and moving around or using the zoom to compose costs you nothing. THINK about what your picture will look like when viewed.

and no, more often than not my images don’t seem to have that level of thought or care given to them. but i know when they are taken that i haven’t given them the attention that a good photo should get. i’m lazy and know it. but neither i nor anyone else should be able to “fix” a poorly executed shot in PS.

/rant

[monkeybort]

is this where i jump in and rant (once more) about only submitting images that have been manipulated in camera?

you want to enter B/W fine, set your camera to B/W if it’s digital or buy some tri-x if you’re shooting film.

regular readers of my rants will remember that i don’t even like being able to use PS to crop. learn to compose your darned shots. in the digital age there is very little extra expense to shooting butt loads of exposures. bracketing with digital is easy (well on higher end cameras) and moving around or using the zoom to compose costs you nothing. THINK about what your picture will look like when viewed.

and no, more often than not my images don’t seem to have that level of thought or care given to them. but i know when they are taken that i haven’t given them the attention that a good photo should get. i’m lazy and know it. but neither i nor anyone else should be able to “fix” a poorly executed shot in PS.

/rant

i agree with the ‘not fixing a bad shot’ part of it, but i think some darkroom type effects are ok.

the crop vs. no crop is a big thing in film too – some people will only print full frame while others crop for the best composition. i’m a mix of both – i’d prefer to get the composition right via multiple shots and careful attention, but sometimes it just doesn’t work that way and you see a good crop after the shoot is over and you’re processing.

[linguine]

using the computer to crop is also much cheaper than getting a lens that I can take a picture of something small and still have it be a large part of the picture

[Curious]

ok you guys have good points on cropping. and when i was doing darkroom work seldom used the full frame myself. and i really don’t have too much of a problem with the PS on the entire image. ok i do but i can understand why folks want it and have used it myself on infrequent occasions.

to me what Saldo1981 did to the example is PS. grabbing a slider in hue or saturation isn’t. most everybody now days has some simple image enhancing app and has to use it to resize if nothing else. let’s try to limit what can be done to that entry level otherwise those with PS (or Gimp) and time get an (unfair) advantage.

[Tibbs]

I had forgotten about the cropping to make the picture you want, sort of thing, but I have done it to get rid of bystanders, objects not needed in the shot, that was in the way. That sort of thing.

I have been a professional photographer, so I put my pictures together with as much precision as possible. I have been taking pictures for 25 years. When I found photoshop a few years ago, I was thrilled because of the time it saved, plus new and neat features. So, that is all I was saying about that and creativity. I understand that we want it to be a photography deal. I would agree with that as well and am well able to produce a nice picture. I have tons to share. =)

monkeypants, what you said about if I could do it with film, it would be ok? Well, I have some neat filters from the 80s (Cokin filters), one of which is cut glass, that make a multiple subject effect, and I have one where you can put people or other subjects in the picture several times, in different places in the picture, by holding down the winder button, and advancing the film. Now it can be done with photoshop. But here, would that be acceptable for submission? Film effects vs. photoshop.

Just wondering, because I like to be respectful of people’s site rules. =)

[schnee]

I had forgotten about the cropping to make the picture you want, sort of thing, but I have done it to get rid of bystanders, objects not needed in the shot, that was in the way. That sort of thing.

I have been a professional photographer, so I put my pictures together with as much precision as possible. I have been taking pictures for 25 years. When I found photoshop a few years ago, I was thrilled because of the time it saved, plus new and neat features. So, that is all I was saying about that and creativity. I understand that we want it to be a photography deal. I would agree with that as well and am well able to produce a nice picture. I have tons to share. =)

monkeypants, what you said about if I could do it with film, it would be ok? Well, I have some neat filters from the 80s (Cokin filters), one of which is cut glass, that make a multiple subject effect, and I have one where you can put people or other subjects in the picture several times, in different places in the picture, by holding down the winder button, and advancing the film. Now it can be done with photoshop. But here, would that be acceptable for submission? Film effects vs. photoshop.

Just wondering, because I like to be respectful of people’s site rules. =)

Hi Tibbs! Pleased to meet you. I look forward to you sharing your experience with the group; one of our “missions” is to learn from each other.

Regarding what can be done in camera and in PhotoShop, Farktography is a photography contest, not a photo manipulation contest. As you point out, PhotoShop allows people to more easily do many things that could be done with multiple exposures and fancy filters. And it allows folks to take an image much farther (or, at least, much farther much easier) than in a wet darkroom. It is a bit of a fuzzy line, the distinction between “in camera” and “in computer”, but Farktography is much more forgiving of “in camera” techniques than digital ones, even if they amount to the same end.

So, to answer your question, if you did all you suggest in camera, I’d say that is within the rules, but if you did it in PhotoShop, well, that would violate the rules. I want to see what sort of a photographer you are, not what sort of a digital artist you are. And yes, these days, that’s getting to be a fuzzy distinction.

[Elsinore]

to me what Saldo1981 did to the example is PS. grabbing a slider in hue or saturation isn’t. most everybody now days has some simple image enhancing app and has to use it to resize if nothing else. let’s try to limit what can be done to that entry level otherwise those with PS (or Gimp) and time get an (unfair) advantage.

Actually, the channel mixer’s a pretty low level tool. All it does is mix the colors across the entire photo to the level you specify, much like hue and saturation tool. It isn’t a spot treatment, and it makes changes across the entire picture as the rules mention, so it’s within the bounds of the rules as currently written to my understanding.

As to the darkroom vs PhotoShop thing, like monkeybort said, that’s a good starting point, but typically a physical filter on a lens like a soft focus filter or star filter or even an actual multiple exposure done in-camera would be considered “legal” whereas adding the filter effect or combining exposures after the fact in PS or GIMP (or other photo editor of your choice) would typically be considered an unacceptable modification.

There are some gray areas, though, and there’s been some discussion about clarifying the wording of the rules. It’s a tough balance to strike, though, between allowing some pretty minor/typical editing which still lets the photography stand on its own vs allowing more “creative” elements to be added which certainly may be artistic but blur the line between photography and photomanipulation.

[Elsinore]

haha schnee and I were typing at the same time and said many of the same things 😉

[Author]

Posts