Editing

I have not been in here for a while now, but straight away I have noticed something of which I am very surprised. No basic editing is now allowed for the comps.

The subject of photo editing in this digital age is massive.

To some it conjures up thoughts of someone splicing multiple images together, attempting to make a final image that is so awesomely wonderful that we all bow down at his/her feet muttering "we are not worthy" whilst the perpetrator shrieks "Muhahahaha"

To others, editing is simply a way to display photographs making best use of the equipment they possess

There are of course many levels in between.

I'm very curious as to why very basic editing by the user, is no longer permitted.

Steve...

 

There are photographic skills and editing skills.....

 

And then there are Blondes...

 

I think it's to encourage as many members as possible to 'have a go', and not be put off by the prospect of being up against those with £1,000's of kit, who then use 'expensive' editing software requiring a major input to become proficient in.

Having said that, GC rules may actually favour those who have expensive cameras where much of what others may think of as 'editing' can be programmed in and included in the 'as taken' shots.

But I'm guessing that many new to photography may view editing software as a way of correcting 'mistakes'.


P.S. I recall that one competition was won with an image taken on a camera phone and was pleased to see Yvonne achieve that.

 

I was just typing out a response to your whole posting and thought better of it as in the past it has got me into trouble.

Woo, I'm fairly sure you are aware of RAW format in photographs used to achieve higher quality photographs and avoid the failings of camera sensors that can never hope to record what the eye can see.

That is the format I use and as the format has to be converted in software before I can use it, (the same thing that happens "in camera" to produce JPEGS used in the comps.), I would be considered to be editing the photo rather than the camera doing it for me.

I cannot see how the two methods are different.

Regards.

Steve...

 

Ok, I will give a little info here as I do not wish to tarnish the comps.

All cameras take their photos in RAW mode but many cameras are programmed to save that photo to the card, as a JPEG. Saving as a JPEG compresses the size of the file, it does this mostly by discarding information, so you take a photograph that inspired you to lift your camera and take the shot, then a lot of it is just thrown away.

Years ago now we as photographers starting asking camera manufacturers for access to this RAW mode as we did not want our photos discarded, so we started to get access to the RAW mode of the photo, which is the whole photo as you saw it and lifted your camera to shoot, within the capabilities of what the camera could see and record. Great even better quality photos!

But it is a RAW mode photo, totally unuseable in that state except in a software where you can convert it to jpeg, the same as many cameras already do now straight away, but we the camera user get to choose how that jpeg is saved and what information is discarded in the process. But the end result is the same, both are a jpeg.

Or are they?

No, they are not! Not even close.

A Canon user, a Nikon User and a Fuji user all line up to shoot the same photograph and output as a jpeg, you would not believe the difference as you will have three different jpegs.

The Nikon shot will have richer colours and "feel" warmer in comparison to the blander looking Canon shot, and the fuji shot will look different again. This is because back at the factory when the camera was manufactured certain editing techniques where preset into the cameras software, it tells the camera what to do with the photograph, how to do it and by how much. The jpeg straight out of your camera is already edited, and partly disposed of and you have no control over that, or very little.

So with the words from my last posting, by trying to get the best from my camera in quality and coverting it to JPEG for use, I would be deemed to be editing and that is dissallowed, yet a jpeg straight out of camera is exactly that. But both methods are the same but one I make the choices and two those choices are made by a technician in a factory.

Steve...

 

No worries Woo.

Steve...

 

That's not entirely accurate.

The jpeg standard and algorithm is the result of a huge amount of research by experts in many fields, including experts in how the human visual cortex works (which is very clever - it has to be because our eyes are actually among the most rubbish among the 'higher' lifeforms ).

Jpeg does indeed discard information, but depending on the compression level, it only discards information that can be deduced with a high degree of accuracy and therefore put back ALMOST but admittedly not quite exactly as it was.

For example, the expert group realised that sudden, sharp colour changes are very rare in nature. It is far more typical to have a gradual change from one colour to another. So they figured that if they can sample and keep anchor points along such gradients, then they can discard all points in between and just store the anchor points and a code for the curve type.

You will notice if you take a pic of something very natural, and then a pic at the same resolution of something with lots of very sharp colour changes, the latter results in a larger jpeg than the former when compressed by the same number of iterations. That's because the picture with lots of sharp edges has to keep more reference points, because there are more sudden changes that can't be encoded as a gradient.

There is nothing in the jpeg algorithm that gives preference to any colour, and the jpeg algorithm is an industry standard. Therefore any variation between one jpeg and another from the same raw data can only happen if whatever is converting to jpeg is also doing some non-jpeg related processing.

Jpeg aside, I know cameras do have built in image processing. Even my phone does it. I'm not sure that really qualifies as editing though? I personally think of editing as an intentional effort to alter the image to shift the focus or influence the interpretation of the picture, while any built in processing is intended merely to represent the captured image as accurately as possible, compensating for the limitations of the hardware.

 

Its accurate enough for the purpose of my posting with the emphasis on a less than technical reply, I know from past experience that posting in a technical format sends people off to sleep or confuses or just plain bores them. I could of made the post 5 times the length contained all info but no one will have read it..

And yes cameras do edit, by applying tone curves or levels changes, saturation and warming filters etc etc All have different settings.

Yes, that is why I shoot in RAW mode as it goes some way to making up the lost detail from a recorded photo, what our eyes can see, what the camera can see and record, then save.

This is why HDR photography was created, again that uses editing and multiple shots using different camera settings (automatically, after set by the user). This is done on high contrast scenes where the camera sensor cannot possibly record the dynamic range the eye can see, but multiple shots at different settings, combined in the software can produce what the eye saw and therefore made us lift our cameras to take the photo.

If only our cameras had sensors more akin to our eyes sight and could record what we did see without omitting the detail, but I guess in time...they will be developed.

Steve...

 

The point is was trying to make is that in my opinion, there is a difference between editing and built in processing that's meant merely to work with available hardware and software in a standards compliant way.

How far do you take it? On my phone I can simply take aim and take the pic. Or I can adjust the exposure or various other settings. The ccd still gathers the same data, but the output will differ depending on the settings I choose. Is that editing? If I take a pic on my phone with default settings, it comes out too big to post on here, so I can shrink it. Is that editing?

I'm not disputing what you say by the way. Merely expressing an opinion in a very grey area.

 

I think in fairness, what we are trying to achieve, is not so much an edited picture but to not allow a manipulated picture
Not very good at explaining as I am still a beginner

A Miss X takes a picture of her daughter, and posts it up GOOD

B Mr Y takes a picture of his daughter, removes the Acne from her face, removes the telegraph pole growing out of her head, gives her rich Red hair not Ginger, makes the background rich in colour and posts it up BAD

 

...... .

Your explanation worked for me!