| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2006 11:35:02 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
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. |
AMEN! |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:55:08 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
 |
Actually, now it's more like this:
 |
LOL.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:56:39 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bosborne:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Lets see if we can put petty DPC bickering about cheating aside for a moment and talk about something really important instead.... |
AMEN! |
Becky, glad you agree... seems to make sense, doesn't it? I still hope you like me for my body, though! LOL!!
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:57:07 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by m:
I don't think anybody has ever complained that somebody has ever removed a major element because of downsizing (as grounds for DQ), yet it sounds like you're suggesting that resizing alone can be cause for DQ in these cases. |
*sigh*
Again, it's not HOW you remove or obscure major elements, but the fact that you did it that makes it illegal. If you resize a high-res photo down to 24 pixels, all detail is lost, just as surely as if you used repeated Gaussian Blurs to eliminate your entire image. Similarly, if you dragged one end of the Levels adjustment all the way to the opposite side, your image would disappear. In every case, the tools may be legal, but making all the prominent features of your original capture disappear isn't. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:59:17 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
|
All Major Elements obscured... DQ! ;-P |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:12:39 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by m:
He cropped the original photo without obscuring any features in the original. He then increased the size of the image. |
No, he didn't crop the photo. he resized it small. Then he resized it big again. |
Ah, I misunderstood then. I thought he took a crop from the center of the picture, and then resized that larger.
I can now understand the ruling in the context of previous rulings where "legal filters were used for an effect" leading to DQ.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:17:49 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
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. |
Maybe this should be a tutorial? I'm not clear on if it is legal, but if it is, then great, and if it isn't, just put a disclaimer - but that way people can still be taught this technique. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:28:06 AM · #83 |
Personally I feel that the basic editing rules are certainly the easiest to understand because they offer a most primitive formula. The fact that you can not even contemplate removing a speck or sensor artifact tells you that you are at once highly limited in some forms.
Now, they allow you basic functions to control the relationship between light and shadows and color values through adjustments layers and you are even free to play with the channels to obtain color shifts.
However, the minute that you copy your working image and then alter it and then blend it back with the working copy you are in direct violation because now the image is dependent on two layers both with different information.
This argument has nothing to do with making or not making copies of the background. I do believe, that it is pretty well accepted that we never alter the background image but always work on a copy. This process is mere common sense because it will save you from going back to extract another working copy from the original source and I believe that it is incumbent upon you to preserve the original.
Basic editing means using only the adjustments layers. No selections of areas. It does allow for selection of tonal and color values through adjustment layers such as curves and levels and channel mixing but no object selection of any kind is allowed with a selection tool.
While topics like these thrive and bore many to death they serve a purpose for the beginner and those that have not grasped the rules.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:55:53 AM · #84 |
Woke up at 5.00am this morning
The more I read in this thread, the more confused I'm getting, though it seems it's been merged into someone else's DQ.
Went back to my photo and tried to make steps visible in an attempt to get, what I did wrong, into my head. I just discovered I can see thumbnails of layers, so I print screen them and safe them as a pic. I have a Dutch version of PSP (obviously because I'm Dutch and that's why I never came around to study PS because I have an English version of that and it sometimes is hard to understand exactly what they're saying as I have a hard time to understand what you all are saying, though I speak English rather well, but talking technique is soemthing else). Anyway, these are the steps I took.
Step 1 = background of original photo.
Step 2 = Layer 1. I turned the original to sepia through the feature coloring. I think I used saturation to grey for the challenge photo come to think of it.
I made a copy, then went back to the original and paste the copy on the original as a layer (layer 1)
Step 3 = I merged (if that's the right word) the two at 71% till I got the shade I liked.
Step 4 = then I put the layers together
Step 5, 6 etc. sharpening, contrast, darkening (I think) not specificly in that order.
Now in which step did I wrong for basic editing.
According to what I've read it must be step 3 I think.
Question: if this isn't legal in basic, could I have gotten the same result any other (legal) way? This is the only way I know, so I'm open for all suggestions.
Mind you, I'm not complaining about the DQ, if I did something wrong, I did something wrong, but I just want to understand where and why, because if I don't know, I just might make the same mistake over and over and get DQ after DQ.
Making me look like a moron is ok with me, I probably am in a lot of eyes, but making me look like a cheater, I absolutely reject, because I'm NOT.
And while all you nice photographers are trying to make me understand, I'm off fishing today, because I need my head blown empty after all this and try to catch some nice salmon or trout.
But then...I might end up as a failure again, when the fish won't bite my bait. (that's another little joke).
Ok, now I hope I got all the thumbs right and visible.
edit: forgot to finish a sentence.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 01:04:24.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:04:00 AM · #85 |
I think you are right about Step 3 being where you started to have a problem.
If you just used that top, sepia(?) layer alone (end of Step 2) you would probably be OK, but by blending that layer with the underlying original, you violated the (Basic challenges) rule against using more than one layer with pixels -- you are combining two sets of pixels to create a third, composite set of pixels.
This would be legal under the Advanced Rules, but not under Basic. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:08:31 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think you are right about Step 3 being where you started to have a problem.
If you just used that top, sepia(?) layer alone (end of Step 2) you would probably be OK, but by blending that layer with the underlying original, you violated the (Basic challenges) rule against using more than one layer with pixels -- you are combining two sets of pixels to create a third, composite set of pixels.
This would be legal under the Advanced Rules, but not under Basic. |
As the rules are written, she went astray at step 2, where she pasted in the sepia layer on top of the BG layer. She now has two layers, both containing pixels.
Or am I missing something?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:08:33 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I understand HOW my entry got DQ'ed and the reasoning SC used, faulty as it is, behind it. I just don't think it was justified and I likely never will. |
Yeah, but now you can mention it in every DQ thread and it's likely already gotten way more views than it would have had it remained in the challenge. Bonus! |
Kudos to mk for pointing out the obvious. Spazmo, you really need to give this a rest... as it is wearing rather thin.
Ray |
I think this is the only time I've brought it up since it happened.
Though the idea is interesting, I really don't care how many views an image gets.
I only bring it up to illustrate that it is possible to follow the rules and get DQ'ed under an arbitrary judgement of the SC.
It's not illegal to resize in some cases, but not in others. Where is the line between what is legal and what is not?
How is recognizability defined? If I use a GB layer and that covers some fine details, does that mean my shot is eligible fo DQ? If not, why not, since those details are no longer recognizable?
For that matter, what constitues a "major" element? Color clearly is not a "major" element, as defined at DPC, since it's not illegal to completely change the color of major portions of the image or add color that was never there or to obliterate the color altogether and submit a B&W consisting of only shape and tone.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 01:11:43. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:09:29 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think you are right about Step 3 being where you started to have a problem.
If you just used that top, sepia(?) layer alone (end of Step 2) you would probably be OK, but by blending that layer with the underlying original, you violated the (Basic challenges) rule against using more than one layer with pixels -- you are combining two sets of pixels to create a third, composite set of pixels.
This would be legal under the Advanced Rules, but not under Basic. |
Ok general, just caught your reply before I took off. Your words makes sence and I think I'm beginning to understand that specific forbidden rule in basic. Thank you.
As far as I'm concerned we could stop this thread now.
Have a nice day, mine just began.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 01:10:56.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:13:42 AM · #89 |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:26:50 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
*sigh*
Again, it's not HOW you remove or obscure major elements, but the fact that you did it that makes it illegal |
What about if you crop out a 'major element' ... is that illegal, since you removed a major element? Then technically this would be illegal in basic and advanced editing.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Similarly, if you dragged one end of the Levels adjustment all the way to the opposite side, your image would disappear. In every case, the tools may be legal, but making all the prominent features of your original capture disappear isn't. |
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:32:00 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Personally I feel that the basic editing rules are certainly the easiest to understand because they offer a most primitive formula. The fact that you can not even contemplate removing a speck or sensor artifact tells you that you are at once highly limited in some forms.
|
I'm not sure if even this is accurate, if you can remove the speck/artifact as part of the conversion from the raw image. Some/many(?) conversion software allows you to specify a custom map of hot/dead pixels in the sensor which are ignored (the surrounding pixels are used to interpolate the missing data). If you take a lot of pictures with dust on your sensor, it could even be worth the time to add that to the map for the affected pictures.
My understanding, from past threads, is that this is legal in basic, but there has been no authoritative answer. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:34:12 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think you are right about Step 3 being where you started to have a problem.
If you just used that top, sepia(?) layer alone (end of Step 2) you would probably be OK, but by blending that layer with the underlying original, you violated the (Basic challenges) rule against using more than one layer with pixels -- you are combining two sets of pixels to create a third, composite set of pixels.
This would be legal under the Advanced Rules, but not under Basic. |
As the rules are written, she went astray at step 2, where she pasted in the sepia layer on top of the BG layer. She now has two layers, both containing pixels.
Or am I missing something?
R. |
As (I think) Ursula noted earlier, under the "spirit of the rules" we *might* overlook a duplicate of the BG layer, which is used solely for the purpose of retaining the original BG in case of a foul-up. That layer would have to be 100% opaque -- I turn off my original BG layer before I save a flattened version. This is basically a time-saver compared with starting over from the original original.
What is clearly and obviously a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Basic rules is to blend two layers of pixels together -- even I'd vote to DQ that.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 01:36:18. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:34:21 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by m:
My understanding, from past threads, is that this is legal in basic, but there has been no authoritative answer. |
Even if there was an authoritative answer it seems like things change every couple of months anyway...what was legal 2 months ago is illegal now, and some of what was illegal then is legal now.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:36:59 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by m:
My understanding, from past threads, is that this is legal in basic, but there has been no authoritative answer. |
Even if there was an authoritative answer it seems like things change every couple of months anyway...what was legal 2 months ago is illegal now, and some of what was illegal then is legal now. |
I don't think that's literally true. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:37:34 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I turn off my original BG layer before I save a flattened version. This is basically a time-saver compared with staring over from the original original. |
All other types of layers (including those that contain pixel data or masks) and all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited
General, are you seriously admitting that every basic challenge you've ever entered, you have violated the rules because you would rather save time incase you mess something up than follow the rules?
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:39:49 AM · #96 |
  
 
Just thought I'd get a head start on the rest of this conversation.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:41:38 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As (I think) Ursula noted earlier, under the "spirit of the rules" we *might* overlook a duplicate of the BG layer, which is used solely for the purpose of retaining the original BG in case of a foul-up. That layer would have to be 100% opaque -- I turn off my original BG layer before I save a flattened version. This is basically a time-saver compared with staring over from the original original.
What is clearly and obviously a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Basic rules is to blend two layers of pixels together -- even I'd vote to DQ that. |
Quite some time ago, a year maybe, I suggested in a thread that we should do exactly that; place in the rules a statement that you may make one, and only one, "pixeled" duplicate layer and work on that, but it had to be in normal mode and 100% opacity. At the time I was told that while this made sense from a standpoint of better processing, it would "confuse the issue" by allowing an "exception" to the "only non-pixel layers" rule, and that the rules were more consistent as written, easier to enforce, easier to understand.
When, exactly, did this change? Or HAS it changed? It's a topic of considerable importance and I'm a little surprised to see it being articulated in such a hesitant away.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:43:05 AM · #98 |
| This layer talk hurts my head. Am I the only one who doesn't use layers at all and just applies any adjustments directly to the image? |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:43:39 AM · #99 |
wow thanks...I was actually gonna go there, but I really don't feel like beating a dead horse that much...
But since it was brought up, those are just a few of the images that show that there are inconsitencies in voting for DQ's.
General, to say that it is not 'literally true' is not entirely correct. To sum it up as different site council people voting at different times would make a bit more sense. Can you really not admit that there are inconsistencies? Do you really not see this as a problem? Because in all honesty, it was, and it is still, a big problem.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:46:10 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by MrXpress:
This layer talk hurts my head. Am I the only one who doesn't use layers at all and just applies any adjustments directly to the image? |
Nope! Me also. |
|
