| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2007 02:03:56 PM · #1 |
i've posted a photo for soft focus.. but it was disqualified! this is the reason:
You may use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent). An Adjustment Layer is a special type of layer containing no image data that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments without permanently modifying the pixels. Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode.
it seems because i've duplicated the backgroup layer and applied a gaussian blur filter and than faded it.. reading here i understand this was out of rules! but i saw the other 2 soft focus challenges to understand how to make this technique and how won has said he have used this technique: ..a bit of selective color, a very strong application of USM and then gaussian blur faded down to about 65%. ..
where did i misunderstood? |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:05:48 PM · #2 |
Basic editing is what bit you in the rear. I dont think you can use any layering in basic editing :(
Sorry to hear that. I think the fading and combining of the two layers is what gotcha. :(
Bleh that sux. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:09:17 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by shoggy:
i've posted a photo for soft focus.. but it was disqualified! this is the reason:
You may use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent). An Adjustment Layer is a special type of layer containing no image data that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments without permanently modifying the pixels. Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode. |
This has nothing to do with your image, since you duplicated the background layer (which is different from an adjustment layer).
Originally posted by shoggy:
it seems because i've duplicated the backgroup layer and applied a gaussian blur filter and than faded it.. reading here i understand this was out of rules! but i saw the other 2 soft focus challenges to understand how to make this technique and how won has said he have used this technique: ..a bit of selective color, a very strong application of USM and then gaussian blur faded down to about 65%. ..
where did i misunderstood? |
Had you not duplicated the background layer-and instead worked on the background itself-you probably would have been fine.
This thread looks pertinent. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:11:53 PM · #4 |
You can't use layers, but you can achieve the same goal without them.
Gaussian blur ... Edit > Fade Gaussian Blur.
It's kind of a rule where honesty gets ya DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:17:42 PM · #5 |
When looking back at old challenges you MUST take in account the editing rules. The first two soft focus challenges were "classic editing and basic editing IV". The soft focus challenge you entered is based on basic editing rules amended in February 2007 and changes were made.
I can understand how one could make such an unintentional mistake but when we go back to old challenges we have to take in to account rule revisions between the challenges we compare.
Hope that helps
SDW
Message edited by author 2007-10-01 14:21:03. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:25:19 PM · #6 |
| If it's any consolation, you were far from being alone in getting DQ'd for this. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:26:14 PM · #7 |
This is one that I don't agree with ... it's often said in justifying a DQ for using a filter that's ordinarily permitted that the rules are "results" oriented rather than "process" oriented. But here the process is the only thing that matters.
In Photoshop Elements (which I and many others use), there is no way to "fade" gaussian blur, because Elements does not have an Edit>Fade choice like the full version of Photoshop does. The only way to do the same thing in Elements is to do what the OP did -- and what I did in my original entry, which I unsubmitted on the last day after realizing (from another thread) that it violated the rules.
Can someone explain to me how the result differs when you: (1) apply guassian blur then fade it in photoshop or (2) duplicate layer, add gaussian blur, then fade it through an opacity adjustment in normal mode in Elements?
If the result is the same, it seems to me both techniques should be legal, otherwise we're just penalizing people who haven't bought the full Photoshop version for no good reason. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:32:17 PM · #8 |
 kirbic explained some of the rationale for this approach in this thread. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:34:06 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
Can someone explain to me how the result differs when you: (1) apply guassian blur then fade it in photoshop or (2) duplicate layer, add gaussian blur, then fade it through an opacity adjustment in normal mode in Elements?
If the result is the same, it seems to me both techniques should be legal, otherwise we're just penalizing people who haven't bought the full Photoshop version for no good reason. |
I feel your pain on this one. However, while this would have made little difference in tis instance, duplicating and reducing opacity will have very different results when using other techniques. I use these when making grundgy pictures, which would look and be illegal in basic.
Kev |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:37:53 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
Can someone explain to me how the result differs when you: (1) apply guassian blur then fade it in photoshop or (2) duplicate layer, add gaussian blur, then fade it through an opacity adjustment in normal mode in Elements?
If the result is the same, it seems to me both techniques should be legal, otherwise we're just penalizing people who haven't bought the full Photoshop version for no good reason. |
You are correct that, in this case, the results do not differ. But, as has often been stated, the basic rules are tool-oriented and there's a reason for that. While in this case equity would suggest the DQ is "unfair", it's unfortunately true that if duplicate layers adjusted and then faded were allowed in basic editing this would open the door to specific effects that cannot be obtained any other way.
Although it's tempting to say that any result that can be legally obtained by any program in basic editing should be allowed regardless of how the result is actually obtained, this would pretty much spell the end of the basic editing rules.
Personally, I think that might be a good idea: replace them with the minimal editing rules and jump directly from minimal to advanced, but that's another thread...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:38:03 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
The first two soft focus challenges were "classic editing and basic editing IV". |
Non-adjustment layers weren't legal under those rules either, and there was at least one DQ in the last Soft Focus challenge for doing exactly the same thing. USM, Gaussian Blur, Fade is fine, but you have to keep everything on the background layer in Basic. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 02:56:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Gaussian blur ... Edit > Fade Gaussian Blur.
|
thank you.. i really didn't know that this was possible in ps.. i learn a bitter lesson on my skin.. i'm sad because i really loved that pics :(
and seems that also other liked it too.. it was about 6.7..
this is the accused one:
this one
Message edited by ursula - Please post larger images as links or thumbnails. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:03:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
If it's any consolation, you were far from being alone in getting DQ'd for this. |
Sooooo ... once AGAIN, the lack of clarity in the rules bites people.
What's so wrong about putting "don't" things in the "you may not" category instead of backing into it in the "you may" category.
Yes, I'm back beating this drum again because it keeps coming up.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:12:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
Can someone explain to me how the result differs when you: (1) apply guassian blur then fade it in photoshop or (2) duplicate layer, add gaussian blur, then fade it through an opacity adjustment in normal mode in Elements?
|
In most cases, in normal mode there is no difference. But rules be rules.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:15:46 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Although it's tempting to say that any result that can be legally obtained by any program in basic editing should be allowed regardless of how the result is actually obtained, this would pretty much spell the end of the basic editing rules. |
I agree with you here, but perhaps a special rule permitting the use of the OPs technique might have made sense for the soft focus challenge. (Then again, that does kind of open a can of worms -- how many special exceptions do you need for different editing programs). Going the other way, maybe Edit>Fade shouldn't be legal in Basic?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally, I think that might be a good idea: replace them with the minimal editing rules and jump directly from minimal to advanced, but that's another thread... |
Now there's an idea I could get behind. ;>P
*** runs, hides and covers head *** |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:22:21 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
I agree with you here, but perhaps a special rule permitting the use of the OPs technique might have made sense for the soft focus challenge. (Then again, that does kind of open a can of worms -- how many special exceptions do you need for different editing programs). Going the other way, maybe Edit>Fade shouldn't be legal in Basic? |
The bottom line is that "edit/fade" is just a handy shortcut. You can always apply the "correct" amount of whatever adjustment it is right off the bat, and have no need to fade it. Those of us that have edit/fade available can overdo an effect the fade it in and out to judge variations, but anyone can do this just by trying different amounts of the effect.
Outlawing edit/fade would make no sense, it's not an actual effect in and of itself.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:32:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Sooooo ... once AGAIN, the lack of clarity in the rules bites people. |
I must say, I am indeed looking forward to hearing all of your rule suggestions where there is simultaneously zero subjectivity and 100% agreement amongst the masses... |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:41:49 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The bottom line is that "edit/fade" is just a handy shortcut. You can always apply the "correct" amount of whatever adjustment it is right off the bat, and have no need to fade it. Those of us that have edit/fade available can overdo an effect the fade it in and out to judge variations, but anyone can do this just by trying different amounts of the effect.
|
Actually, applying less Gaussian blur won't create the soft focus effect. The opacity of the blur has to be lowered to achieve soft focus look.
FWIW, if your software doesn't support doing something legally, you have a few choices:
1) Download the demo of CS3
2) Download GIMP
3) Or,I know a LOT of people are gonna hate this one, DO IT IN-CAMERA!
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:00:01 PM · #19 |
I can totally understand your disappointment about the DQ, but the SC has worked hard in pleading with people to ask before hand about any questions regarding editing, and have even posted the following in every challenge...."If you have any questions, you should err on the side of caution or contact the Site Council before submitting your entry. Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified." I have contacted many a times to find out if my editing was ok. Sometimes I've been told no and have changed according. If you would have told them the editing steps, they would have been more than happy to help you save yourself from a DQ. But try not to be to discouraged you have a great portfolio going. So keep up the good work!!
Message edited by author 2007-10-01 16:02:07. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:08:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
What's so wrong about putting "don't" things in the "you may not" category instead of backing into it in the "you may" category. |
If you read all the rules (as you confirm when you click the checkbox to submit), you would see the layer rules where they are now. Putting "don't" things in the "you may not category" would make reading those rules a much more daunting task indeed:
You may not...
• submit an entry that was taken with a camera that doesn't record EXIF data.
• enter GIF, PNG, TIFF or RAW files.
• submit an file larger than 150Kb
• enter an image that is less than 160 pixels or more than 640 pixels on each side.
..and so on until the rules are more than double their current length. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:08:54 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by swhiddon:
The first two soft focus challenges were "classic editing and basic editing IV". |
Non-adjustment layers weren't legal under those rules either, and there was at least one DQ in the last Soft Focus challenge for doing exactly the same thing. USM, Gaussian Blur, Fade is fine, but you have to keep everything on the background layer in Basic. |
I trust you on that :) I could not remember what changes were made or if it had an effect on the OP'ers question. But it's always a good thing to view the rule set and see if theres a difference when comparing an old challenge to a newly posted one. Mainly because something that may have been legal at that time, may not be now. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:10:40 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
I could not remember what changes were made... |
Click "Challenge Rules" in the menu, and you can see every version. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:13:35 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
3) Or,I know a LOT of people are gonna hate this one, DO IT IN-CAMERA! |
That's quite admirable, but unfortunately it represents one of the main reasons I switched to digital to start with. Soft focus is a perfect example of a forte in digital photography vs film. You can make one photo and have it both ways. Not only that, you can have total control over the amount of soft focus effect you want in your end result.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:18:18 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
That's quite admirable, but unfortunately it represents one of the main reasons I switched to digital to start with. Soft focus is a perfect example of a forte in digital photography vs film. You can make one photo and have it both ways. Not only that, you can have total control over the amount of soft focus effect you want in your end result. |
Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree. I wouldn't dream of buying a SF lens or filter anymore, but ... to complain that "I can't legally do this with my software" is a bit silly.
It's almost akin to me saying Larus should have to shoot with a Barbie cam, because I can't match his skill.
Message edited by author 2007-10-01 16:23:57.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:37:09 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's almost akin to me saying Larus should have to shoot with a Barbie cam, because I can't match his skill. |
I like that idea. Move it over to site recommendations. Maybe even prohibit him from using images made in Iceland.
LOL
Nice steal Leroy.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:30:45 PM EDT.
