| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2006 12:09:55 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
The rules are subject to interpretation - they are fundamentally subjective.
I think that the problem is that the SC consistently interprets the rules in a different way to you.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:15:15 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that the problem is that the SC consistently interprets the rules in a different way to you. |
this sounds a little harsher than it was meant.
I am serious about trying to draft a better rule. If you could come up with a formulation that would clearly and concisely allow people to selectively adjust hues, saturation etc under normal processing conditions, but not do what EddyG did with his image, then I would be impressed.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:15:45 PM · #128 |
RGB Smoke has been debated to death since it was entered almost two years ago. Perhaps more recent (and frequent) examples of our "inconsistencies" would make a stronger case for there being something fundamentally wrong, rather than just a few people disagreeing over a subjective interpretation.
When you have different people voting on a subjective issue at different times and under different circumstances, it would be astounding (and statistically suspicious) if there weren't a few seeming inconsistencies. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:36:53 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by blemt:
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. |
The smoke did exist, the discreet areas of different colors did not. If the smoke had been made one solid color then it would be fine, but creating 3 distinct areas certainly adds something that is not there in the original, a delineation between those areas.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 16:40:09. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:47:43 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...creating 3 distinct areas certainly adds something that is not there in the original, a delineation between those areas. |
Colorizing the smoke didn't create a new object IMO... it's still three matches and smoke. Shifting the colors of those objects is allowed, and I personally wouldn't expect anyone to describe the separation between the colors as a new object.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 16:48:12. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:54:49 PM · #131 |
| I'm on hold right now with the National Commander of the ASPCA Rapid Deployment Force -- this is your last warning ... : ) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 05:01:39 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...creating 3 distinct areas certainly adds something that is not there in the original, a delineation between those areas. |
Colorizing the smoke didn't create a new object IMO... it's still three matches and smoke. Shifting the colors of those objects is allowed, and I personally wouldn't expect anyone to describe the separation between the colors as a new object. |
Seconded. This horse is quite dead. Going by Spaz's criterium, *any* selective desat would be illegal, as would be selective color, which is even legal in Basic.
Bottom line, we do try very hard to be consistent, and we're at the place we're at due to a tremendous amount of discussion and past experience with what is workable and not.
There *is* room for improvement on rules in general; you'd get little or no argument from any SC member, and all you have to do is look at the poll results to see that the community agrees. With regard to the color shifting question, there's little debate that it needs to be administered pretty much as it is, unless we want to open things up to wholesale creation of features; I don't believe the community wants that. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 05:02:18 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm on hold right now with the National Commander of the ASPCA Rapid Deployment Force -- this is your last warning ... : ) |
Uh-oh, looks like I'm toast! |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 06:28:39 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...creating 3 distinct areas certainly adds something that is not there in the original, a delineation between those areas. |
Colorizing the smoke didn't create a new object IMO... it's still three matches and smoke. Shifting the colors of those objects is allowed, and I personally wouldn't expect anyone to describe the separation between the colors as a new object. |
But ... but a rainbow (which was what started this) is just differently colored water molecules in the air, which are already in the hypothetical picture (assuming it wasn't shot in a vacuum). The problem is that so many of the rules/rulings/rationalizations are precariously situated on a slope that is a bit too smooth for its own good.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 18:29:19. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 06:35:55 PM · #135 |
| The problem with the rules isn't in locating the areas which are somewhat subjective/prone to slippery slopes, etc. It's in writing something solid, competely unsubjective that details exactly what should and shouldn't be done while still allowing creative freedoms. I'd invite anyone who thinks they can write a bullet-proof set of rules to do so and then post them in the forums for review. Beer and cookies for anyone who can write a perfect set. :) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:21:55 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by mk:
Beer and cookies for anyone who can write a perfect set. :) |
Beer and cookies? I only dunk mine in red wine. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:36:56 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by m:
But ... but a rainbow (which was what started this) is just differently colored water molecules in the air, which are already in the hypothetical picture (assuming it wasn't shot in a vacuum). |
No, rainbows are produced by water drops -- spheroids of condensed water -- which are not present in the hypethesized sky, plus the sun has to be positioned at a specific angle to the photographer to allow the specific set of internal reflections needed to achieve the effect. You can't make a rainbow if all you have is gasseous water molecules dissolved in the rest of the air. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:57:56 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by mk:
I'd invite anyone who thinks they can write a bullet-proof set of rules to do so and then post them in the forums for review. Beer and cookies for anyone who can write a perfect set. :) |
First we need to define exactly what you mean by "perfect" and "bullet-proof"? :P |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:01:36 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by mk:
The problem with the rules isn't in locating the areas which are somewhat subjective/prone to slippery slopes, etc. It's in writing something solid, competely unsubjective that details exactly what should and shouldn't be done while still allowing creative freedoms. I'd invite anyone who thinks they can write a bullet-proof set of rules to do so and then post them in the forums for review. Beer and cookies for anyone who can write a perfect set. :) |
we need lawyers now... great |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:09:51 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by crayon:
we need lawyers now... great |
I seriously doubt that this approach would resolve the issue... witness the countless numbers of laws that have been written, re-written, interpreted, and are consistently being challenged, appealed and adjudicated by supreme court judges.
The sad truth about laws, or any other set of rules devised to meet societal needs, is that for the most part they tend to be re-active as opposed to being pro-active, with the ensuing results being that they are for the most part one step behind.
Don't seek perfection in this realm, ... it is just beyond your grasp.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:25:13 PM · #141 |
| Aye..so much informantion.. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:40:38 PM · #142 |
I dont have time to read this whole thread-- But I have 2 quick questions about adjustment layers (Basic)
#1: Using the mask portion of the Adjust Layer is a No-No-- Correct?
#2: What is the workflow for saving-- Do you Flatten all layers then save for web?
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:42:01 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
I dont have time to read this whole thread-- But I have 2 quick questions about adjustment layers (Basic)
#1: Using the mask portion of the Adjust Layer is a No-No-- Correct?
#2: What is the workflow for saving-- Do you Flatten all layers then save for web? |
#1: You are correct.
#2: You don't have to flatten the layers unless you want to. Just save for web flatten or not. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:45:59 PM · #144 |
Thanks Yanko--
I just started using adjustments layers, I have no Idea why I didnt before..
I love the fact if you have 2 similar photos, once you edit the first one to your taste, just load the second picture and drag the adjustments layers you used on the first onto the 2nd pic, speeds things up tremendously..
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:19:25 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by crayon:
we need lawyers now... great |
I seriously doubt that this approach would resolve the issue... witness the countless numbers of laws that have been written, re-written, interpreted, and are consistently being challenged, appealed and adjudicated by supreme court judges.
|
Supreme court decisions tend to stand for a while, and more importantly, whenever there is a decision made, at least one justice takes the time to clearly explain the reason for the decision.
Having clear explanations instead of making people guess on this site would be a big help. Sometimes it's obvious from the invalidation reason ``must be taken within date'' when the exif information shows a different date. Other times, the stated reason doesn't make sense to an uninformed viewer. For instance, my first submitted image doesn't make use of any filter I saw as being illegal after thoroughly reading the rules (basically, just some USM and color shifting, which had previously been confirmed as being legal). It was then DQed and requests for more information have been unanswered. I still don't know what I did wrong because of this.
Having a perfect set of rules, or perfect adjudicators is neither practical nor necessary. What's important, in my opinion, and what would reduce complaints, is if the miscellaneous rabble could have some greater understanding of the Council's decisions and, obviously, if these were consistent somehow. Perhaps they are already consistent over a moderate temporal window, but without understanding the minutia inthe Council's reasoning, it isn't apparent, and the herd remains confused. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:46:47 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by m:
... For instance, my first submitted image doesn't make use of any filter I saw as being illegal after thoroughly reading the rules (basically, just some USM and color shifting, which had previously been confirmed as being legal). It was then DQed and requests for more information have been unanswered. I still don't know what I did wrong because of this....
|
You used the posterization filter.
From the Basic Editing rules: However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:58:45 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Titia:
I used a layer, darkened it and sharpened it and merged it with the original. Is that what they mean by pixel data?
What is 'just an ajustment layer'??? How does that effect a photo, can anybody explain that to me please?
Well I'm sorry if I did something I shouldn't, but it's obvious I didn't know I was doing something I shouldn't. Still don't know what purpose you use layers for otherwise than to change something.
Hope someone will explain it to me.
I'm not familiar with PS, I use PSP. |
The available adjustment layers in PSP are brightness/contrast, channel mixer, color balance, curves, hue/saturation/lightness, invert, levels, posterize and threshold. They can be found, I believe, under the Layer menu, under Adjustment Layers. Adjustment layers don't contain any pixels - they are basically instructions for how the image layers below it should look, without permanently changing the pixels on those layers. Those are all legal. Duplicating your image is creating a second layer that contains pixels. That's not allowed.
There are also different blend modes for layers. This affects how the layers are applied to the layers below it. In Basic editing, only normal mode is allowed. Some of the other available modes in PSP are darken, lighten, multiply, screen, dissolve, overlay, luminance, etc. None of those are legal in basic. |
Thank you mk for your explination, now I know what 'normal' mode means. I used one of the other modes on an entry, but lucky for me it's an advanced edit challenge, so I'm in the clear (I sure hope I am).
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:01:47 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Originally posted by m:
... For instance, my first submitted image doesn't make use of any filter I saw as being illegal after thoroughly reading the rules (basically, just some USM and color shifting, which had previously been confirmed as being legal). It was then DQed and requests for more information have been unanswered. I still don't know what I did wrong because of this....
|
You used the posterization filter.
|
I did no such thing.
[ edit ] For what it's worth, I think I state everything I did in one of my comments on the image. The posterization effect was a combination of curves and the limits of the file formats I was working with.
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 02:05:36. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:06:33 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Practical information: I don't know about PSP, but in PS we have a layers palette, and each new layer shows up as a new row on that palette.
Non-adjustment layers have a single thumbnail image on them, showing what is "contained" on that layer.
Adjustment layers have TWO thumbnails: the first one shows a graphic of some sort that corresponds to the type of adjustment layer it is; double click on that graphic and you get you hue/sat dialogue box for the layer back up, or your levels dialogue box, whatever it is.
If the SECOND thumbnail on an adjustment layer is anything BUT plain white, it's not a legal adjustment layer in basic editing, because it shows there are actual pixels, or a selection, on that layer. For example, if I select the sky and make a hue/sat adjustment layer of that, the foreground will show as black and the sky as white in the thumbnail.
So, in basic editing, your only "legal" layers show two thumbnails, the second of which is always pure white, indicating NO pixels and NO selections.
R. |
Thanks Robert, due to your explination I just discovered the tool in PSP which gave me the second white thumbnail after changing the contrast.
Question: when you've used different non-ajustment layers (all of them show a white thumbnail) and want to safe the photo (different name or you'll overwrite the original) all layers are flattened as one. How can one tell afterwards which layers have been used? Or how can one proof that only non-ajustment have been used.
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 02:16:50.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:07:46 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by m:
I did no such thing.
[ edit ] For what it's worth, I think I state everything I did in one of my comments on the image. The posterization effect was a combination of curves and the limits of the file formats I was working with. |
I believe you; the following "posterization" was achieved entirely with curves and levels in basic editing:
Didn't even use any hue/saturation or selective color :-)
R.
|
|
