| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2006 02:17:29 PM · #26 |
| I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:17:31 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Great attitude...seriously, just the way I know the site wants their site council to act, think, and display their thoughts publicly. Thinking it's one thing, posting it for the entire community (who is supposed to look up to you) to see is just a bit out of line. |
And it's ok for someone to hint publicly that they would consider cheating??? To me, THAT is out of line.
I'm a member of this community just as much as you, and just like you, deserve to express my opinions on matters as I see fit. If you want me to step down from SC so I can tell people that I think it makes me sick to hear about people considering cheating, when I spend so much of my time giving the benefit of the doubt...fine.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:19:56 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
If all layers were in normal mode and 100% opacity, I completely agree.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:20:01 PM · #29 |
No Heather, it's not ok for someone to say they're going to cheat. I agree it, too, is out of line. Hey...I was just making a suggestion, whether you choose to follow it or not is up to you. Didn't the whole site council thing just step out of the line of fire not too long ago, and a big thing about presenting a more professional image? I'm just saying that this doesn't help...that is all.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:22:21 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Originally posted by Titia:
Does that mean that if I had been a smart Dutchie I should've just said I used sharpening, darkening and contrast and nobody would've known??? LOL
|
No, if you were a smart Dutchie, you WOULD have just used sharpening, darkening and contrast.
Maybe I'm just grumpy today, but this seems like a slap in the face comment to me. |
Maybe it means that the rules should be such that they focus more on effect than on cause, and remain consistent between challenges and DQ-requests.
As it stands, the basic rules, at least how they've been interpreted when I've asked for clarification, seem to favour those who have the tools to do illegal things in single steps (e.g. USM is the classical example of something that would be illegal if there weren't a menu item that did it for you). There's also the loophole that anything goes during conversion from raw formats, which is a bit like trying to determine when a person becomes a person.
[Editted to comment on posts made in the interim]
I didn't take the comment above to indicate that the commenter was considering cheating, but just to point out that the rule(s) could be better. At least, my first thought would be to give someone the benefit of the doubt before flaming them.
Message edited by author 2006-06-04 14:27:38. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:22:22 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by HBunch:
No, if you were a smart Dutchie, you WOULD have just used sharpening, darkening and contrast.
It really bothers me to see people say things like this. Maybe it's cause I spend to much time looking at all these photos, emailing people numerous times when we have issues to try to work them out, extending submitting deadlines, going out of my way to help people and then I see comments like this and it makes me sick. Joking or not, how will I ever know in the future if I should even bother wasting MY time trying so hard to get a photo validated, when I have it in the back of my head that a person would make a joke out of something I personally put a lot of my volunteered time into.
This makes me feel like the next time I see a problem, I should just vote DQ and move on, and not spend 4 days trying to get an original, or editing steps, and extending deadline upon deadline.
Maybe I'm just grumpy today, but this seems like a slap in the face comment to me. |
Great attitude...seriously, just the way I know the site wants their site council to act, think, and display their thoughts publicly. Thinking it's one thing, posting it for the entire community (who is supposed to look up to you) to see is just a bit out of line. |
How is it out of line to say that you don't find cheating to be funny, especially when you spend a great deal of time helping people understand what they should or shouldn't be doing? I bet you're right...that's exactly how the site wants the site council to think and act and display their thoughts. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:24:48 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by deapee:
No Heather, it's not ok for someone to say they're going to cheat. I agree it, too, is out of line. Hey...I was just making a suggestion, whether you choose to follow it or not is up to you. Didn't the whole site council thing just step out of the line of fire not too long ago, and a big thing about presenting a more professional image? I'm just saying that this doesn't help...that is all. |
Point taken.
But I stand by my opinion. Grumpy or not. Anyone got any Midol? |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:28:37 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
If all layers were in normal mode and 100% opacity, I completely agree. |
That you don't agree with the rules is not acceptable reason for not following them. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:33:21 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
If all layers were in normal mode and 100% opacity, I completely agree. |
That you don't agree with the rules is not acceptable reason for not following them. |
I don't think anyone in this quote thread said such a thing. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:37:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
If all layers were in normal mode and 100% opacity, I completely agree. |
That you don't agree with the rules is not acceptable reason for not following them. |
I don't think anyone in this quote thread said such a thing. |
My bad. It looks like you're saying that since the rule is silly, it's okay to insinuate that you should have just lied about cheating. I guess I misread. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 02:53:29 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
If all layers were in normal mode and 100% opacity, I completely agree. |
That you don't agree with the rules is not acceptable reason for not following them. |
I don't think anyone in this quote thread said such a thing. |
My bad. It looks like you're saying that since the rule is silly, it's okay to insinuate that you should have just lied about cheating. I guess I misread. |
Nah. Obviously the rules should be followed but this is one of those that does nothing to protect photographic integrity while pissing everyone off from the photographer to the SC who has to make calls on this. I'd say lets get rid of it so we make everyone happy!
Message edited by author 2006-06-04 14:56:10. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:02:56 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Nah. Obviously the rules should be followed but this is one of those that does nothing to protect photographic integrity while pissing everyone off from the photographer to the SC who has to make calls on this. I'd say lets get rid of it so we make everyone happy!
|
Or at least create a caveat to the existing rules that allows for one and only one duplicate layer for sharpening only.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:04:44 PM · #38 |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:09:30 PM · #39 |
I teach teenage kids. Slap-in-the-face comments are rife, but seldom, if ever, is the slap aimed at me or my face. You're right to say so if it feels that way, but the kids are all right. (We just have to believe that, right?)
Anyway, I know grumpy. Let me just say thank you, thank you and thank you.
r |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:19:50 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think she meant it as a slap in the face. Lets face it the rule is silly as it is applied here. Unless I missed something her extra pixel layer did nothing to alter the photo. All it did was provide her the ability to keep the original unsharpened, uncontrasted, i.e. untouched from her new edits, which btw were all legal. Duplicating a layer without doing anything else is not an edit as far as I'm concern no more than developing a second photo from the same negative in film. |
What's so hard about keeping an original, and working within the framework of the rules with a copied version?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:41:39 PM · #41 |
Lets see if we can put petty DPC bickering about cheating aside for a moment and talk about something really important instead. Lets talk about teaching proper image processing technique. OK?
When teaching post processing to students virtually all instructors, myself included, tell students that you never work on the background layer. You ALWAYS leave it untouched. You keep it as a benchmark for comparison to check against your work to see how it is progressing, to see if you are doing things right and for fast recovery, if necessary.
In DPC's basic rules you can't do that, even if you never touch that duplicated layer.
In other words, we teach poor image processing technique to people right off the bat and most of them have never done it before. Supposedly, as an educational site, we would not want to do that. We would want to encourage people to learn better ways to do things, not institutionalize bad habits.
Challenge rules must always be followed. When violations occur images should be DQed without exception. That should never change.
But when rules conflict with fundamental site values, like photography education, then it is time they are re-visited and revised to meet both the intended spirit of the rules set and the educational values of the site.
With a clear site mission statement and vision that is not difficult to do.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:45:54 PM · #42 |
Steve, that is one of the brightest statements ever made on DPC.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:46:45 PM · #43 |
I dunno...I don't see the harm in say duplicating the background layer, working on that duplicated layer, than merging it visible. You didn't violate anything, but you left yourself an out to go back to...now if you're using masks and selectively revealing parts of the original underneath, then you've obviously violated some rules.
It's like adding a border...if you have your photo 630 pixels, and increase the canvas to 640, or if you have your photo 640 and draw in your border with the pencil tool, what's the difference.
I'd say just work how you work, and when it comes to it, just don't admit to doing anything that violates the rules.
--
Put it like this...if you get DQ'd for duplicating your background layer, and working on that, then merging it down, shame on you for telling on yourself. If you get DQ'd for drawing a border in with the pencil tool, then shame on you again because no one ever shoulda known how you did it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:53:23 PM · #44 |
I'm going out on a limb here, and please don't hold me to this, but the discussion has come up before about using a duplicate layer to work on.
I believe SC would validate an image where the background was kept intact as a benchmark, as described by Steve. That is not illegal in basic (as I understand it).
I think the photo that started this whole discussion did not do that, but the duplicated layer was blended with the original at less than 100%, and that is illegal in basic. It wasn't keeping the background as benchmark, it was adjustments using layers. There is a difference.
ADDED: The problem we face at SC is what Heather is talking about - many of these things (achieved with layers) are undetectable, and if people omit the step in their details, we have no way of knowing. That does not make it OK to (1) do it that way, especially when in many cases the same can be done without layers; and (2) not list it and get away with it.
Message edited by author 2006-06-04 15:56:03. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:55:36 PM · #45 |
| I think someone probably a lot smarter than me once said "The true character of a man is in what he does when there is noone looking." |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 03:58:42 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Put it like this...if you get DQ'd for duplicating your background layer, and working on that, then merging it down, shame on you for telling on yourself. If you get DQ'd for drawing a border in with the pencil tool, then shame on you again because no one ever shoulda known how you did it in the first place. |
As I said below, I would not vote to DQ an image that is keeping a background layer intact, and making all adjustments on one, and only one, duplicate layer. In my view, that is valid in basic editing. Lying about editing steps is not, in my view. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 04:07:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ursula:
As I said below, I would not vote to DQ an image that is keeping a background layer intact, and making all adjustments on one, and only one, duplicate layer. In my view, that is valid in basic editing. Lying about editing steps is not, in my view. |
That makes good sense, IMO. and goes along with what Steve points out (a very valid point, I think). However, is that an 'official' SC stance? In other words, can people safely do this? or is there still a risk of possible DQ? Is this something that is being approached in the new rules that were being talked about not so long ago?
If it is ok, it seems kind of unfortunate for all the people that don't know about it :-) |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 04:13:38 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Steve, that is one of the brightest statements ever made on DPC. |
Whoa! Thanks. You sure I haven't made a lot of other brighter ones? (just kidding) LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 04:15:42 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Originally posted by ursula:
As I said below, I would not vote to DQ an image that is keeping a background layer intact, and making all adjustments on one, and only one, duplicate layer. In my view, that is valid in basic editing. Lying about editing steps is not, in my view. |
That makes good sense, IMO. and goes along with what Steve points out (a very valid point, I think). However, is that an 'official' SC stance? In other words, can people safely do this? or is there still a risk of possible DQ? Is this something that is being approached in the new rules that were being talked about not so long ago?
If it is ok, it seems kind of unfortunate for all the people that don't know about it :-) |
It is my position.
I know this came up not too long ago, but I can't remember where/how right now, and I can't find the thread.
As for the rules revisions, I would hope it is included in them.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 04:17:19 PM · #50 |
|
