| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2006 01:49:09 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by deapee:
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? |
No, I'm not talking about processing for Basic challenges -- more like when I'm editing for a print image.
And, I'm not saying the rules have changed, but only that a couple of us have individually expressed that we might be willing to cut a newbie some slack if they'd edited in such a way as the extra layer of pixels wasn't used in creating the final image, but that wasn't the case here. The rules are vague and arbitrary enough, without creating new grounds for discussion, and new avenues for cheating.
In the case of the image for which this thread was raised, that wasn't the case -- two differently-processed layers of pixels were then blended together. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:51:04 AM · #102 |
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? |
Far from it, but it's sure limiting yourself big-time. If you do a levels adjustment, it has an effect on the colors. If you do a color adjustment, it has an effect on the contrast, or at least the appearance of contrast, and so forth and so on.
If you simply, when you want to do a levels adjustment, go to "layer/new adjustment layer/levels", you get a dandy new layer that contains the levels adjustment instructions. Then you do the same thing for, say, hue/saturation. Now you can fiddle with both, independently, in many ways until you've fine-tuned the image to your satisfaction. It's hard for me to imagine not wanting to do this. It's very simple once you start doing it.
Where things get complicated is when you move to advanced editing and start creating layers, both with and without pixels, and changing the blending mode on these layers. This can become immensely complex. Done properly, the results are worth it, and the complexity becomes less and less of a problem the more you practice.
But in basic editing, learning to use adjustment layers instead of working directly on the image is a real plus for your workflow and your results.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:52:23 AM · #103 |
| To say there have been a few (apparent) inconsistencies in how the rules have been applied is more accurate than to say we keep changing or reinterpreting the rules every couple of months, which was the original, rather hyperbolic (IMO) statement to which I was responding. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:56:16 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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? |
Far from it, but it's sure limiting yourself big-time. |
Whoo, I have just now realized I have even more to learn. Thanks for the post. :-) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 08:04:46 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
To say there have been a few (apparent) inconsistencies in how the rules have been applied is more accurate than to say we keep changing or reinterpreting the rules every couple of months, which was the original, rather hyperbolic (IMO) statement to which I was responding. |
I said:
what was legal 2 months ago is illegal now, and some of what was illegal then is legal now
Can you really not admit that there are inconsistencies?
Inconsistency: n 1: the relation between propositions that cannot both be true at the same time [syn: incompatibility, mutual exclusiveness, repugnance] 2: the quality of being inconsistent and lacking a harmonious uniformity among things or parts
I would venture to say that my original, 'hyperbolic' statment, that you so strongly disagree with, is in fact the same statement that you have now agreed with.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 08:36:23 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by deapee:
What about if you crop out a 'major element' ... is that illegal, since you removed a major element? |
Cropping has NEVER been an issue. Only the final image area of your entry is examined for editing steps.
Originally posted by deapee:
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. |
 |
Not sure what your point is with this one. All prominent features of the original are still visible in the entry- exactly what I said. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 08:59:26 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by deapee:
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. |
|
Not sure what your point is with this one. All prominent features of the original are still visible in the entry- exactly what I said. |
Hmmm, prominent, like the rail on the right or the trees in the BG?? I guess those are not "Major Elements", but I would guess that if they were included, it would change the image significantly. You said earlier that it would be illegal to use Gaussian Blur to obscure the BG, what is the difference between using GB and tweaking the levels to obliterate the BG and an undesired element? Both tools are used to obscure significant parts of the image.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 09:03:28. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:08:11 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmm, prominent, like the rail on the right or the trees in the BG?? I guess those are not "Major Elements", but I would guess that if they were included, it would change the image significantly. You said earlier that it would be illegal to use Gaussian Blur to obscure the BG, what is the difference between using GB and tweaking the levels to obliterate the BG and an undesired element? Both tools are used to obscure significant parts of the image. |
Rather than harping on about how you disagree with the subjective interpretation of certain rules, why not do something productive?
I would recommend that you try to come up with a formulation of the rules that is entirely objective and creates no areas of potential doubt. When you have tried to do this, you will see how difficult it is. You may learn to appreciate that competition rules are not black and white, that you are always reliant upon the judgment of the adjudicators, and that (in the case of this site) no matter how hard you may try, their judgments are not subject to appeal!
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:09:23 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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? |
Normally, you can't enter an image with any dimension less than 160 pixels or greater than 640 pixels. If every object in your original has been completely obliterated in your entry, then you've incontrovertibly removed Major Elements. HOW you did it is irrelevant. This should be a no-brainer.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How is recognizability defined? If I use a GB layer and that covers some fine details, does that mean my shot is eligible for DQ? If not, why not, since those details are no longer recognizable? |
You defined it yourself: "details" aren't Major Elements, they're details. The prominent features of your original ARE. So, smoothing pores in a portrait with Neat Image or Gaussian Blur isn't a problem. Removing the head certainly is. Remember the purpose of the selective editing rule... you can "remove imperfections or minor distracting elements." If what you're removing is more than an imperfection or minor distraction, then you're probably messing with a Major Element. If you're not sure, then ask.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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... |
Correct. Color is not considered an element. As with any other legal tool, the only limitation is that you don't use it to draw in artwork or obscure prominent features of your original. So... you can change the color of a significant object (in Advanced), but you can't make it the same color as the background because then it would disappear, thus removing it. You can change the color of the sky, but you can't draw in a rainbow by selectively changing colors because then you're adding an object that didn't already exist.
As for inconsistency, the only change I've seen over time is the treatment of blurs. In the olde days, motion blurs were freely allowed. More recently, they've been regarded as elements themselves, and there is some logic to that: if motion wasn't already present in the image, then you can't add it (if the motion was already there, then you CAN enhance it). This is in contrast to color: you're not adding it, only shifting it. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:17:42 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmm, prominent, like the rail on the right or the trees in the BG?? |
The trees and right side rail were both in shadow and quite recessive. There was some detail visible, but their prominence paled in comparison to the left rail, bridge and person. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:54:24 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmm, prominent, like the rail on the right or the trees in the BG?? I guess those are not "Major Elements", but I would guess that if they were included, it would change the image significantly. You said earlier that it would be illegal to use Gaussian Blur to obscure the BG, what is the difference between using GB and tweaking the levels to obliterate the BG and an undesired element? Both tools are used to obscure significant parts of the image. |
Rather than harping on about how you disagree with the subjective interpretation of certain rules, why not do something productive?
I would recommend that you try to come up with a formulation of the rules that is entirely objective and creates no areas of potential doubt. When you have tried to do this, you will see how difficult it is. You may learn to appreciate that competition rules are not black and white, that you are always reliant upon the judgment of the adjudicators, and that (in the case of this site) no matter how hard you may try, their judgments are not subject to appeal! |
An interesting suggestion, but, I'm not interested in an appeal.
I'm also not interested in writing the rules.
What I have come to appreciate is the inconsistency with which the "judgement of the adjudicators", as you put it, is applied. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:03:56 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You can change the color of the sky, but you can't draw in a rainbow by selectively changing colors because then you're adding an object that didn't already exist.
|
Eddy G did exactly that in the Smoke challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:10:25 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You can change the color of the sky, but you can't draw in a rainbow by selectively changing colors because then you're adding an object that didn't already exist.
|
Eddy G did exactly that in the Smoke challenge.
|
No, he did not. He changed color of objects that already existed. He did not create a new object. Shannon's example of adding a rainbow clearly creates a visible object that would be described (named) by a viewer as "rainbow" that did not exist in the original.
Bottom line, we have always, consistently, allowed selective color shifts, and always, consistently, *not* allowed creation or removal of objects that are major elements.
Sorry you feel that the rules are not applied uniformly; I'm sure there is nothing I can possibly say that will convince you that the SC, as a group, endeavors to apply the rules with as much consistency as possible for human judges. Nonetheless, it is true. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:20:14 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sorry you feel that the rules are not applied uniformly; I'm sure there is nothing I can possibly say that will convince you that the SC, as a group, endeavors to apply the rules with as much consistency as possible for human judges. Nonetheless, it is true. |
I thought SC were all borgs patiently preparing to assimilate? |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:29:33 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sorry you feel that the rules are not applied uniformly; I'm sure there is nothing I can possibly say that will convince you that the SC, as a group, endeavors to apply the rules with as much consistency as possible for human judges. Nonetheless, it is true. |
I thought SC were all borgs patiently preparing to assimilate? |
Not all, just me... OOPS, now the secret's out! |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:32:37 AM · #116 |
| We are Bored. You will learn the rules. Resistance is inevitable. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:39:23 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We are Bored. You will learn the rules. Resistance is inevitable. |
That is wonderful. You should put that on the SC coat of arms. You don't even have to translate it into Latin.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:41:36 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We are Bored. You will learn the rules. Resistance is inevitable. |
I thought Resistance is V/I?? ;-) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:51:08 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We are Bored. You will learn the rules. Resistance is inevitable. |
I thought Resistance is V/I?? ;-) |
and: Resistance=Watts/I^2
while speed is furlongs/fortnight |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:52:32 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We are Bored. You will learn the rules. Resistance is inevitable. |
I thought Resistance is V/I?? ;-) |
and: Resistance=Watts/I^2
while speed is furlongs/fortnight |
It all boils down to the same thing, unless you start dealing with impedance :P |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:55:09 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You can change the color of the sky, but you can't draw in a rainbow by selectively changing colors because then you're adding an object that didn't already exist.
|
Eddy G did exactly that in the Smoke challenge.
|
No, he did not. He changed color of objects that already existed. He did not create a new object. Shannon's example of adding a rainbow clearly creates a visible object that would be described (named) by a viewer as "rainbow" that did not exist in the original.
Bottom line, we have always, consistently, allowed selective color shifts, and always, consistently, *not* allowed creation or removal of objects that are major elements.
Sorry you feel that the rules are not applied uniformly; I'm sure there is nothing I can possibly say that will convince you that the SC, as a group, endeavors to apply the rules with as much consistency as possible for human judges. Nonetheless, it is true. |
He created distinct areas of red, green and blue on the smoke by selectively editing those areas.
To create a rainbow across an otherwise blue sky, one would simply have to do the same thing only with a few additional colors.
I have no doubt that the SC tries to be consistent, I also have little doubt that they are not infallible and that there is room for improvement. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:57:20 AM · #122 |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:59:44 AM · #123 |
| Right on, Pidge! DPC is one of very few places that one can encounter so many technically knowlegeable women! |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:05:46 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You can change the color of the sky, but you can't draw in a rainbow by selectively changing colors because then you're adding an object that didn't already exist.
|
Eddy G did exactly that in the Smoke challenge.
|
The smoke was a pre-existing element. He did not render the clouds of smoke. Color has never been considered a seperate element. The reason is there's no way to write an effective rule that allows you to make hue shifts for things like selective desat or black and white and yet not allow hue shifts in other areas.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:07:45 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He created distinct areas of red, green and blue on the smoke by selectively editing those areas.
|
The smoke itself all ready existed. The color was a hue shift. It was also an advanced editing challenge and selective editing is legal.
The lines of a rainbow in this example do not exist. They have been rendered into existence.
|
|
