| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2007 03:05:28 PM · #26 |
Thanks for the clarification, Kirbic. In regards to this statement:
Originally posted by kirbic:
To Robert's point/question, the end result of doing an operation on a layer and then reducing the opacity is exactly the same as doing it on the base layer and immediately using Edit>Fade. The only difference is the method used. In this case, the first method is not legal in Basic (uses layers) and the second is. Basic is a tools-based ruleset, so it's possible to do the same thing either legally or illegally. |
...may I ask why Edit>Fade has been made legal? It seems that if Basic is tools-based as you state, you would want to allow tools that are not software-specific. I use Elements, and as best as I can tell, there is no Edit>Fade option. I may be wrong, but this seems to be a CS2/CS3 option only. Now, I could get the same affect (as you stated) by using a non-opaque layer, but this would be DQ-able. So unless I shell out for CS2/3, I can't perform this function legally. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:11:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Thanks for the clarification, Kirbic. In regards to this statement:
Originally posted by kirbic:
To Robert's point/question, the end result of doing an operation on a layer and then reducing the opacity is exactly the same as doing it on the base layer and immediately using Edit>Fade. The only difference is the method used. In this case, the first method is not legal in Basic (uses layers) and the second is. Basic is a tools-based ruleset, so it's possible to do the same thing either legally or illegally. |
...may I ask why Edit>Fade has been made legal? It seems that if Basic is tools-based as you state, you would want to allow tools that are not software-specific. I use Elements, and as best as I can tell, there is no Edit>Fade option. I may be wrong, but this seems to be a CS2/CS3 option only. Now, I could get the same affect (as you stated) by using a non-opaque layer, but this would be DQ-able. So unless I shell out for CS2/3, I can't perform this function legally. |
Pretty much the same as how we can't do in-camera things that other can unless we shell out for fancier cameras? :) |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:23:31 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Thanks for the clarification, Kirbic. In regards to this statement:
Originally posted by kirbic:
To Robert's point/question, the end result of doing an operation on a layer and then reducing the opacity is exactly the same as doing it on the base layer and immediately using Edit>Fade. The only difference is the method used. In this case, the first method is not legal in Basic (uses layers) and the second is. Basic is a tools-based ruleset, so it's possible to do the same thing either legally or illegally. |
...may I ask why Edit>Fade has been made legal? It seems that if Basic is tools-based as you state, you would want to allow tools that are not software-specific. I use Elements, and as best as I can tell, there is no Edit>Fade option. I may be wrong, but this seems to be a CS2/CS3 option only. Now, I could get the same affect (as you stated) by using a non-opaque layer, but this would be DQ-able. So unless I shell out for CS2/3, I can't perform this function legally. |
I have Photoshop 7 and I can edit>fade (so it's not exclusive to cs2 & cs3). But my question is regarding why we can't use background layer copies as fallbacks in case we don't like the results of a modification. Essentially I just use this as a way of circumventing having to undo several wanted modifications to eliminate a single unwanted modification in the stack (I hope that makes sense). But you're saying that I can use a background copy layer only if I turn the actual background copy off while I work? Am I reading that right? Because that makes no sense. Furthermore, if I use that background copy and along the way it gets merged with the actual background layer (with no opacity change, essentially just replacing the background layer) that's legal? How on earth is that policed? And what's the big deal? If I'm only using the layer as a 'scratchboard' whats the harm in that? |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:31:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Pretty much the same as how we can't do in-camera things that other can unless we shell out for fancier cameras? :) |
Actually, SC outlawed in-camera double-exposure because only a handful of cameras supported this. I would propose the same for Edit>Fade. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:37:31 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by kellian:
But my question is regarding why we can't use background layer copies as fallbacks in case we don't like the results of a modification. Essentially I just use this as a way of circumventing having to undo several wanted modifications to eliminate a single unwanted modification in the stack (I hope that makes sense). But you're saying that I can use a background copy layer only if I turn the actual background copy off while I work? Am I reading that right? Because that makes no sense. Furthermore, if I use that background copy and along the way it gets merged with the actual background layer (with no opacity change, essentially just replacing the background layer) that's legal? How on earth is that policed? And what's the big deal? If I'm only using the layer as a 'scratchboard' whats the harm in that? |
Pardon (again) my lack of clarity. I'll give it one more go:
- You may not use layers in Basic (except adjustment layers in normal blend mode)
- We *have* ruled that the temporary "scratchboard" technique you describe is legal. So is keeping a background layer in the original (or some intermediate) state.
My statement about turning it off was meant to indicate that only one layer must be used to create the final product, therefore any remaining "backup" or "scratch" layers must be either removed or turned off prior to saving.
Bottom line, what the "no layers" rule is preventing is effects that cannot be done without the use of layers. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:41:39 PM · #31 |
If you work on a duplicate layer and turn off the background, when you flatten the image the BG layer is discarded, not blended. The only data left is that on the edited layer, 100% unaffected by any data on the original BG.
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes.
All of the rules are ultimately "policed" by trying to duplicate your entry from your original, following the steps you describe. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:45:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes. |
But my question is really, why allow it at all? It just irks me that I can't achieve the same affect legally. OK, it doesn't irk me all that much, but it does seem a tad askew. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:49:31 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
- To Robert's point/question, the end result of doing an operation on a layer and then reducing the opacity is exactly the same as doing it on the base layer and immediately using Edit>Fade. The only difference is the method used. In this case, the first method is not legal in Basic (uses layers) and the second is. Basic is a tools-based ruleset, so it's possible to do the same thing either legally or illegally. |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bottom line, what the "no layers" rule is preventing is effects that cannot be done without the use of layers. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes. |
I also use PSE2. I cannot "fade" a Gaussian Blur (or Sharpen) treatment without first applying it to a duplicate layer. Therefor, I'm stuck outta luck when it comes to Basic challenges I cannot create the same thing that users of PS7, PSCS2 and PSCS3 can because "edit > fade" is not available to me.
If it is "exactly the same" then I believe it should be allowed for users of less well-featured software...or not allowed at all. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:50:06 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
To clarify a little:
- it is *never* legal to use layers (other than adjustment layers) |
Excellent. Why can't that appear in the "You may not" section of the rules?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 03:51:08 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
I also use PSE2. I cannot "fade" a Gaussian Blur (or Sharpen) treatment without first applying it to a duplicate layer. Therefor, I'm stuck outta luck when it comes to Basic challenges I cannot create the same thing that users of PS7, PSCS2 and PSCS3 can because "edit > fade" is not available to me.
If it is "exactly the same" then I believe it should be allowed for users of less well-featured software...or not allowed at all. |
Yeah, what she said :) -- Thanks KaDi! |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:17:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you work on a duplicate layer and turn off the background, when you flatten the image the BG layer is discarded, not blended. The only data left is that on the edited layer, 100% unaffected by any data on the original BG.
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes.
All of the rules are ultimately "policed" by trying to duplicate your entry from your original, following the steps you describe. |
Basically - use of layer modes when blended on normal settings is capable of being replicated using edit/fade. So if you use the duplicate layer method, then it is undetectable unless you mention it in your processing steps explanation.
Many will undoubtedly see how to use the duplicate layer methodology without being DQed.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:19:06 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by kellian:
But my question is regarding why we can't use background layer copies as fallbacks in case we don't like the results of a modification. Essentially I just use this as a way of circumventing having to undo several wanted modifications to eliminate a single unwanted modification in the stack (I hope that makes sense). But you're saying that I can use a background copy layer only if I turn the actual background copy off while I work? Am I reading that right? Because that makes no sense. Furthermore, if I use that background copy and along the way it gets merged with the actual background layer (with no opacity change, essentially just replacing the background layer) that's legal? How on earth is that policed? And what's the big deal? If I'm only using the layer as a 'scratchboard' whats the harm in that? |
Pardon (again) my lack of clarity. I'll give it one more go:
- You may not use layers in Basic (except adjustment layers in normal blend mode)
- We *have* ruled that the temporary "scratchboard" technique you describe is legal. So is keeping a background layer in the original (or some intermediate) state.
My statement about turning it off was meant to indicate that only one layer must be used to create the final product, therefore any remaining "backup" or "scratch" layers must be either removed or turned off prior to saving.
Bottom line, what the "no layers" rule is preventing is effects that cannot be done without the use of layers. |
Let's see if I have it down right:
You can create a copy of background layer and apply adjustment layers in normal mode. If you save with background layer, it's illegal. If you delete or disable background layer and save, it's legal.
Did I get it right? |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:20:17 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Basically - use of layer modes when blended on normal settings is capable of being replicated using edit/fade. So if you use the duplicate layer method, then it is undetectable unless you mention it in your processing steps explanation.
Many will undoubtedly see how to use the duplicate layer methodology without being DQed. |
Absolutely. I could perform a normal-mode, semi-transparent blend in elements and claim that I popped over to CS2 and just used Edit>Fade. They couldn't DQ me because they couldn't prove otherwise. Frankly I wouldn't do that, though. I'd rather have a consistent and fair ruling on this instead. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:22:58 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Basically - use of layer modes when blended on normal settings is capable of being replicated using edit/fade. So if you use the duplicate layer method, then it is undetectable unless you mention it in your processing steps explanation.
Many will undoubtedly see how to use the duplicate layer methodology without being DQed. |
Absolutely. I could perform a normal-mode, semi-transparent blend in elements and claim that I popped over to CS2 and just used Edit>Fade. They couldn't DQ me because they couldn't prove otherwise. Frankly I wouldn't do that, though. I'd rather have a consistent and fair ruling on this instead. |
What Gary said. I won't knowingly cheat the rules. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:23:46 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes. |
But my question is really, why allow it at all? It just irks me that I can't achieve the same affect legally. OK, it doesn't irk me all that much, but it does seem a tad askew. |
With a tools-based ruleset there are bound to be tools in some software that don't have equivalents elsewhere. So unless we disallow everything that isn't present in even the most basic software, these conditions will exist. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:26:53 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you work on a duplicate layer and turn off the background, when you flatten the image the BG layer is discarded, not blended. The only data left is that on the edited layer, 100% unaffected by any data on the original BG.
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes.
All of the rules are ultimately "policed" by trying to duplicate your entry from your original, following the steps you describe. |
Oh, I'm completely lost The edit/fade option has all those different modes as an option, so more than one result is possible. So you can use fade/edit in any mode or just normal? :) |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:27:39 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
With a tools-based ruleset there are bound to be tools in some software that don't have equivalents elsewhere. So unless we disallow everything that isn't present in even the most basic software, these conditions will exist. |
Ahh, but an equivalent does exist -- it just involves the use of layers. Why not just allow us to use a layer blended in Normal mode only at any opacity we choose. What's so hard about that? Or get rid of Edit>Fade -- again what's so hard about that? |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:28:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
With a tools-based ruleset there are bound to be tools in some software that don't have equivalents elsewhere. So unless we disallow everything that isn't present in even the most basic software, these conditions will exist. |
But it does have it's equivalent elsewhere. It's called "dupe layer > USM > reduce opacity > merge layers" in PSElements. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:28:42 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Marigold:
Oh, I'm completely lost The edit/fade option has all those different modes as an option, so more than one result is possible. So you can use fade/edit in any mode or just normal? :) |
Oh, I didn't know that! Can of worms opened! |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:32:06 PM · #45 |
| From what I understand, you may use duplicate layers in Basic provided that layer has NO effect on the final image. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:34:05 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
From what I understand, you may use duplicate layers in Basic provided that layer has NO effect on the final image. |
Um. I think it's just one pixel-laden layer to a customer...
Besides, If it has NO effect then what's the point? |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:35:41 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Marigold:
Oh, I'm completely lost The edit/fade option has all those different modes as an option, so more than one result is possible. So you can use fade/edit in any mode or just normal? :) |
Oh, I didn't know that! Can of worms opened! |
No - just normal edit/fade mode is allowed.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:39:46 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
From what I understand, you may use duplicate layers in Basic provided that layer has NO effect on the final image. |
Um. I think it's just one pixel-laden layer to a customer...
Besides, If it has NO effect then what's the point? |
zarniwoop is correct. For the "why would I do that?" answer, read the thread, specifically kellian's post and my response. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:42:03 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
From what I understand, you may use duplicate layers in Basic provided that layer has NO effect on the final image. |
Um. I think it's just one pixel-laden layer to a customer...
Besides, If it has NO effect then what's the point? |
zarniwoop is correct. For the "why would I do that?" answer, read the thread, specifically kellian's post and my response. |
thank you. i have read the thread. still waiting for a good answer to questions raised, however. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:49:26 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Basically - use of layer modes when blended on normal settings is capable of being replicated using edit/fade. So if you use the duplicate layer method, then it is undetectable unless you mention it in your processing steps explanation.
Many will undoubtedly see how to use the duplicate layer methodology without being DQed. |
Absolutely. I could perform a normal-mode, semi-transparent blend in elements and claim that I popped over to CS2 and just used Edit>Fade. They couldn't DQ me because they couldn't prove otherwise. Frankly I wouldn't do that, though. I'd rather have a consistent and fair ruling on this instead. |
I am not advocating cheating. However, given that both methods result in precisely the same result, and offer no additional functionality, it is hard to see any significant moral hazard in doing the exact same thing with one combination of button presses rather than another.
I would add that it is misleading to say that the process is prohibited by the rules: it is prohibited on one reading of the rules (a reading that has some precedent).
Rather than adding more exceptions to the permissions or prohibitions, or relying on an inflexible and incomplete system of precedent, I would once again advocate a clause setting out a purpose against which the other rules would be interpreted. This would help the SC justify a more flexible approach.
This image does not offend any of the (unwritten) principles by which the rules are usually interpreted, even if it contravenes one literal reading of the rules. With a clearer purposive assessment, this image would probably have been validated (and rightly so IMO).
|
|
