[SilverStag]

ROFL swampa2! I did! I did!

[SilverStag]

60 entries in 6 minutes? Yipes!

[SilverStag]

I think Elsinore is right on about combining and shrinking the acceptable modifications lists, to the point of Draconian pruning. It’s better to simply state what’s *not* allowed, without a huge list in the posted rules. We can have an exhaustive list here on the site in the full rules section, if push comes to shove, but I don’t want to scare away the casual Farktographers.

[SilverStag]

With great power comes great responsibility 🙂 Use it wisely 🙂

[SilverStag]

Best thing is to get TotalFark and post early

I know it’s only $5/month, but there are months when I don’t have $5 left to my name by the end of it.

/starving college student

I remember that. Enjoy a month on me.

[SilverStag]

Yes, I agree, Congrats are always a good thing 🙂

[SilverStag]

So, I was thinking that reasonable rules re: Image editing programs might be something like:

Thou shalt not:

1. Combine images unless specifically allowed in an individual contest.

2. remove or add objects or textures via cloning or copy.

Thou may:

1. remove sensor dust, scratches, and other camera/film artifacts.

2. sharpen using any reasonable method.

3. Dodge(by any method), burn(by any method), and use curves.

I don’t intend to upset the applecart, and I’d really like to see some other peoples proposed rules or ideas.

I think self-examination is a healthy thing, and I’m glad we are doing this.

[SilverStag]

I think we should be competing on the basis of the finished product, not how we got there.

This. Thanks for your kind words, soosh. It means a lot coming from someone as good as you are.

It’s the 21st century, and I don’t think we should artificially limit the tools available. I really don’t think what kind of camera one uses or what film or software one uses makes that big of a difference- cute kids or a funny idea can outweigh a $5000.00 camera and $1500.00 worth of software in any given contest.

I want to put my best image forward when I enter a contest as much as anyone else, and I’ve deliberately not used images that I thought were terrific because we are on our honor here, (and that means something to me, and I suspect to many other folks as well) and I felt that something I had done to the image was a bit outside the rules.

So, I have chafed at the rules from time to time, and thought there was a little bit of a luddite flair to them. To accomplish the same things I did in the darkroom 30 years ago as well as I used to do them almost requires some ‘banned’ operations.

I agree that cloning out anything in the frame is bad juju, and kitschy effects (like the selective color business) are right out.

Someone earlier mentioned Jerry Uelsmann: I saw an exhibition of his stuff in maybe 1988 or so, and was blown away. Utter amazement now, when you realize he had no Photoshop or digital files….

[SilverStag]

Sorry it took me so long- I had to actually go to work for a bit.

I thought it might help if I took an image through a series of steps, and delineate some methods, and have a discussion about the rules with respect to Photoshop. Here’s the image straight from the camera, nothing whatsoever done to it:

I went back to the camera raw file and turned up the color temperature to warm the image a little, and then used Lens correction in Photoshop to tweak things a little and take some of the wideangle-induced ‘lean’ out of the booth to the left:

I changed the image to LAB mode and sharpened it using the lightness channel only, then added an A-and-B channel only curves adjustment layer to boost the color about 14%:

Here’s where it gets tricky- I made a duplicate layer of the background and changed the blending to screen mode, which has the effect of lightening the whole image. I then added a black layer mask (essentially hiding the entire new layer) and painted (dodged, if you will) with a soft white brush the areas I wanted to lighten. This method does not wash out the colors like using the dodge tool in Photoshop, plus it has the advantage of being easily reversible if you screw up, plus you can lower the opacity of the layer to vary the effect:

After flattening the previous image, I decided I’d like a tad more contrast. I made a duplicate background layer, and set the blend mode to soft light, then reduced the opacity to about 15%. This lets you add a little contrast without messing with the highlights:

SO where does this workflow cross the line, if in fact it does, in your opinion? For Farktography, I usually stop at the LAB sharpening & color step. I picked this photo simply because I thought it would be a good one to illustrate the various concepts. Fire away!

[SilverStag]

Stay tuned- I’m working on a series of images to illustrate some points, I hope.

[SilverStag]

200k or thereabouts is the limit. Try resaving is as a lover quality jpg in Photoshop, or whatever you use. Complex images with lots of detail are the hardest to shrink.

[SilverStag]

Yes and Yes, ma’am!

[SilverStag]

6.8 huh? Glad to hear you’re OK. What was it like?

[SilverStag]

eep, haven’t been here, just got back home.. and I see I’ve had a lot of questions about the no sky. If the main subject is blue and is sky, including cloudy sky, I’d say it breaks the no sky limit. But incidental sky, or sky other colors that is not the main focus should be ok. I’ve got no problems with the Mr. Blue pic because you don’t even notice the sky unless you look at it for a bit.

How about my fake sky from page 1 of this thread, Teffy?

[SilverStag]

No, leave me out. I’d sit the camera on the shelf and forget about it 🙂

[Author]

Posts