Talk:Digital image editing
Moved article[edit]
I moved this article from editing digital images (a poor name for an article). Someone needs to go through and change all the redirects to direct links to this article (usually I take care of this myself, but don't have time right now). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Problems with article[edit]
The sections on Special Effects and Change Colour Depth need editing, as they don't seem to make sense at present - possible vandalism? Jon Rob 09:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- no, just an old man i think :) aside from this, i think the words "algorithm" and "image editor" have been used far too often in this article, and make for rather awkward reading. It would be nice if someone could rectify this too. I am making a few other improvements in the interim. 80.177.20.202 04:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Imagined Reality????[edit]
I'm not sure about the purpose of that section. Not very high quality content, and the term is not standard, is it? What about deleting the section? Mlewan 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I support deleting the section if a standard of quality is not met or if the section doesn't fit. But first it would be helpful to spell out what the shortfalls are of the section and/or imagery. The section purpose is to illustrate how digital editing can be used to render a constructed reality. "Imagined reality" is a common creative arts term. However the computer graphics term "virtual reality" could easily be substituted. Wikipedia's Commons likely has more creative or technically better-rendered images, but I am not sure how to search. (Fishdecoy)
- My problem is not as much that I see this or that problem, but more that I do not see the benefit. I never heard of the term "imagined reality", even though I have read quite a few books about image editing, but I may simply have read the wrong books. Google has more than 20 million matches on "virtual reality" (which is something different) and just 34,000 on "imagined reality". And then the concepts in the paragraph are not fundamentally different from the other sections, I think. Merging of images is covered just above and special effects below. Besides there is a section with colour modifications of a car even higher up. I cannot really tell what the "imagined reality" section adds. I think the pictures are fun, especially the one to the left, but unfortunately I do not see the benefit of them in this context. If the section stays, I think you need to develop on what is so special about it, and preferably add references to someone else who has written about it. Mlewan 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Now that's good advice -- find others who have written about invented reality and digital editing. Fishdecoy 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- My problem is not as much that I see this or that problem, but more that I do not see the benefit. I never heard of the term "imagined reality", even though I have read quite a few books about image editing, but I may simply have read the wrong books. Google has more than 20 million matches on "virtual reality" (which is something different) and just 34,000 on "imagined reality". And then the concepts in the paragraph are not fundamentally different from the other sections, I think. Merging of images is covered just above and special effects below. Besides there is a section with colour modifications of a car even higher up. I cannot really tell what the "imagined reality" section adds. I think the pictures are fun, especially the one to the left, but unfortunately I do not see the benefit of them in this context. If the section stays, I think you need to develop on what is so special about it, and preferably add references to someone else who has written about it. Mlewan 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the section is getting better and better and more and more interesting, but... I am still not sure that text should be in this article. The other headers in this article are at a more specific level than Invented Reality (only 22,700 Google matches). I think the section might fit better in Photomontage or Surrealist_techniques. I am not going to remove anything, but, please, think about it. Mlewan 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Moved Invented Reality section to Photomontage. Thanks for the peer review and guidance. Fishdecoy 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
NO mention of Camera RAW editing?[edit]
Has Camera RAW editing been proposed before, and discouraged, or is this an area of the article that needs some developing (pardon the pun)? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you have anything to add, be bold and add it! But then I do not know what should be added about editing RAW images in particular. Some things could probably be added to the RAW article. I also see that RAW extensions are ommitted from the articles Graphics file format summary and Comparison of graphics file formats. Mlewan 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Started cleanup[edit]
I added the Printing section in Image editor features, and cleaned up the page formatting. As I have time, I will tackle other issues that have been suggested above. Hylerlink | Talk February 18, 2007