| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2004 12:30:24 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by bestagents:
Only deficit is may blow out borderline areas, but you can do it on a seperate layer and adjust the opacity (50-100% works for most pics) |
Since this thread is about the Basic Editing rules, I wanted to clarify that you cannot apply unsharp mask on a "seperate layer and adjust the opacity" under the Basic Editing guidelines. Image layers (those that contain pixels) are only legal in Advanced Editing. Under Basic Editing, only Adjustment Layers (such as Hue/Saturation, Brightness/Contrast, etc.), which do not contain any pixel data, can be used, and must be applied in Normal mode. |
Generally the first 'rule' of editing is to dup the base layer. so you could USM that layer and use opacity over the orignal background..they both contain the same data / image, and it is applied to the entire image.
This is from a comment i made on a current challenge entry, and under advanced is permitted. It did not occur to me that it might be illegal under basic. In a past challenge I skewed a pic...again, since i was apllying it to the whole image it did not accur to me it was not legal.
Gees, turns out i cheated and still didn't get a ribbon. Is this when desperation sets in?
Message edited by author 2004-12-01 12:35:38.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 01:41:33 PM · #52 |
Thanks for the update to the rules. I do have a question about hot pixels. it would seem that you could not fix them as it requires spot editing, but it certianly falls with in the intent of the rules as the sceen did not have any hot spots. is it ok to fix hot pixels that result from longer exposures?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 01:55:08 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by brockmd:
is it ok to fix hot pixels that result from longer exposures? |
Only with a Neat Image or Despeckle filter applied overall. Spot editing is not allowed under Basic rules for any reason. |
|
|
|
12/01/2004 01:59:06 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Eddy,
It seems our interpretations of this rule disagree. I'd like to discuss this on the Site-Council rules revision thread and then issue an official interpretation to the users.
Thanks,
Terry |
Another thing to consider is the net result: most filters can be applied with a 'fade' option so the result would be the same as decreasing opacity of a second dupe layer.
---
On a separate note - in many ways NeatImage does a similar job to spot editing by 'choosing' portions of images to smooth out, which cannot be done by someone without the software.
I also think there's a case for relaxing the cloning rule in basic editing - it's fundamental, but getting tight on the effects filters sends the right message.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 02:01:00 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Oh, a 'poll' and not a 'vote'.
Wonder what the point of it was. |
The poll was a nonscientific referendum of site opinion on the issue. The poll was conducted to gauge site opinion on the issue so that we could appropriately consider it as a factor in our decision. Other factors in the decision included past experience with different versions of the border rule (including a single-color border rule), enforcement problems, and perceived benefit to the challenge format and growth of the site as a whole.
Had there been a strong site opinion one way or the other among the users, we would have allowed that opinion to override our judgment on the issue. An essentially even split (396-374) really can't be called a "strong site opinion," so we made our decision based on past site experience with a single-color border rule.
As a general rule, we try not to make rules out of anything that can be fairly dealt with by the voters (for example, meeting the challenge). We feel that borders are something the voters can and have addressed reasonably well. Nonetheless, we did add language to the rule encouraging simple borders, and I for one expect the voters will latch onto that and vote accordingly.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 02:02:13 PM · #56 |
Now if only we could have some of the challenges clarified ;-)
Originally posted by e301:
I odn't think there are any 'real' changes Kylie. It's clarification of language, rather than alteration of detail.
E |
|
|
|
|
12/03/2004 10:02:49 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by bestagents:
Only deficit is may blow out borderline areas, but you can do it on a seperate layer and adjust the opacity (50-100% works for most pics) |
Since this thread is about the Basic Editing rules, I wanted to clarify that you cannot apply unsharp mask on a "seperate layer and adjust the opacity" under the Basic Editing guidelines. Image layers (those that contain pixels) are only legal in Advanced Editing. Under Basic Editing, only Adjustment Layers (such as Hue/Saturation, Brightness/Contrast, etc.), which do not contain any pixel data, can be used, and must be applied in Normal mode. |
Eddy,
It seems our interpretations of this rule disagree. I'd like to discuss this on the Site-Council rules revision thread and then issue an official interpretation to the users.
Thanks,
Terry |
What does this mean to those of us who don't have the ability to use adjustment layers? (No Photoshop.) I can't think of any other way other than using layers to "fade" or select opacity for a filter in the tool I use (the GIMP). |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 06:46:54 PM · #58 |
If you feel a photograph deserves a vote of 1, 2 or 3, please include a comment with your vote explaining why you felt it deserved a "below average" score.
Great Addition to the rules.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2004 06:48:30 PM · #59 |
That's not an addition, though we did strengthen the wording.
The previous version had: If you feel a photograph deserves a vote of 1, 2 or 3, it is suggested that you include a comment with your vote explaining why you felt it deserved a "below average" score.
-Terry
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/12/2025 09:09:03 AM EDT.
