| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2009 10:38:18 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by SandyP:
I wish there was a history somewhere I could reproduce that shows what I did from start to finish because it would definitely validate that this was done right. It's a TYPE-O thing, not a rule thing. |
In photoshop
Edit->Preferences->General. Select the History Log and then the text file. In Edited Log items, select Detailed. From that point whatever you do in photoshop will be recorded to text file, which you can reference for validation or directly copy and paste and send to the SC. |
Is there an equivalent in Elements? I don't see the history log under edit - pref - general... |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:40:37 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by SandyP:
I wish there was a history somewhere I could reproduce that shows what I did from start to finish because it would definitely validate that this was done right. It's a TYPE-O thing, not a rule thing. |
In photoshop
Edit->Preferences->General. Select the History Log and then the text file. In Edited Log items, select Detailed. From that point whatever you do in photoshop will be recorded to text file, which you can reference for validation or directly copy and paste and send to the SC. |
oooh....handy. Anything like that for Lightroom or Paintshop pro XI? I know in Lightroom it will keep your steps but does it keep them after the program closes? I forget. |
I am not sure of equivalents in other programs, I only use CS2. :) |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:43:26 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
How do you turn the history on. Maybe mine is on and I can prove that I didn't do anything wrong??????
I can't believe I lost a ribbon because I had a brain lapse and got my zen photo and ground up photo that both needed to be validated within two days of each other mixed up when I was TYPING.
I want to prove that I didn't break any rules with this one. |
back to SandyP's question. what about looking at her photoshop file?
1. It would show the layers and the modes and could prove or disprove her statement.
2. I doubt she could suddenly go redo it. It would be extremely difficult (if possible) to get the same EXACT results by suddenly redoing it for basic editing, so that shouldn't be a worry. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:43:37 PM · #54 |
| lightroom keeps all steps even when you close |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:44:02 PM · #55 |
Well, I just went and checked and my history is not turned on (of COURSE it isn't).
I thought site council had software or something that had ways of telling if there were improper layers applied. I guess I have only myself to blame for not being more careful in my typing -- but I feel so devastated that I lost my ribbon when it was edited so right.
Message edited by author 2009-07-02 22:44:21. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 11:39:05 PM · #56 |
Aside from the fact that Sandy wouldn't lie to begin with, it's very easy to believe one could follow the legal rules for an edit and then mistakenly write down a step they didn't use when reporting the steps taken.
How frustrating! ~!~
On a side note, I do most of my editing using an older version of Paint Shop Pro, where the steps taken are not recorded. In the current Free Study I edited my entry only to realize I'd accidentally resized it to 640 pixels. I wanted to use the full 720 pixels, so I went back to the source file and tried to recreate my original steps -- ones I'd just completed -- and I couldn't duplicate them exactly. I ended up entering a version of my entry that appealed to me slightly less than my first try.
Anyway, back to original topic: I loved your photo, Sandy, and I'm sorry this happened. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 11:43:04 PM · #57 |
| It's certainly a learning experience. I bet you don't list the wrong steps ever AGAIN :D |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 12:51:37 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by SandyP:
I wish there was a history somewhere I could reproduce that shows what I did from start to finish because it would definitely validate that this was done right. It's a TYPE-O thing, not a rule thing. |
In photoshop
Edit->Preferences->General. Select the History Log and then the text file. In Edited Log items, select Detailed. From that point whatever you do in photoshop will be recorded to text file, which you can reference for validation or directly copy and paste and send to the SC. |
oooh....handy. Anything like that for Lightroom or Paintshop pro XI? I know in Lightroom it will keep your steps but does it keep them after the program closes? I forget. |
Yes, that's all Lightroom is. It's a database of steps to produce the image. The original is NEVER affected or altered. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 12:52:27 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
. . . I know once site council has made their decision, there is nothing that can change it, but. . . |
I want to apologize for saying this. Shannon told me that there have been 4 to 6 ribbons reinstated since I've been a member. I honestly didn't realize that. I am pretty sporadic on the threads so I miss alot of the stuff that goes on. I am just really deflated -- but I really can't blame anyone but absent-minded, air-headed, horrible proofer ME!
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 01:19:45 AM · #60 |
| Sorry to hear of the DQ Sandy as it is a gorgeous photo regardless. I've found that submitting screen shots of my Photoshop processing history to be verifiable validation thus averting any problems such as this. It may be worth considering in the future for yourself, or anyone else for that matter. Either way, its still a remarkable entry. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 01:27:41 AM · #61 |
Are reinstatements announced? I've never seen one.
Please don't be so hard on yourself, Sandy. The circumstances of your entry were ambiguous and you should have been asked for clarification before the judgement was made, just like several other recent dq's. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 01:34:28 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Are reinstatements announced? I've never seen one.
Please don't be so hard on yourself, Sandy. The circumstances of your entry were ambiguous and you should have been asked for clarification before the judgement was made, just like several other recent dq's. |
I am going to take you to task for this. When we ask for the original and the editing steps, why should we have to go back and ask if they actually did each and every one of them and ask for further clarification????
She told us in her editing steps what I posted above (or below based on your settings). There was nothing ambiguous about that, at all.
Did she use an "illegal" blending mode? I don't know.
IF she did, did she do it on purpose? I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt it, and could probably go on record as saying no.
But, all we have to go on is what the photog tells us. If we, collectively, can't replicate it, then, yes, we ask. And we have done this on numerous occasions, but we don't start forum threads about it. Using the steps she gave us, we can replicate it. We had no reason, until this public thread, to question it or ask for more details, or to even suspect she did something different than what she said.
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 01:35:29. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 01:40:03 AM · #63 |
I think maybe she just meant ambiguous on my part having to have validated 2 similar photos in 2 days and being so tired and absent minded.
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 02:24:32. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 01:41:00 AM · #64 |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 02:31:37 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Are reinstatements announced? I've never seen one.
|
 |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 02:44:05 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
I think maybe she just meant ambiguous on my part having to have validated 2 similar photos in 2 days and being so tired and absent minded. |
Ya know, if you'd only submit stuff that scores in the low to mid 5's, you wouldn't have this problem. :-)
It is a good reminder to all of us, though, to have a method of keeping track of our editing steps. Most of us will never need them for validation purposes here, but they can come in handy if, like me, you mostly edit to post here (ie small web size) and then later want to edit for a larger size. I do have the history feature on, but even that isn't sufficient all the time. Granted, I don't often find a need to re-edit stuff (or validate) but I really should find a better way of keeping track of my editing steps when they go beyond levels, curves, sharpen. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 03:07:29 AM · #67 |
I am slightly concerned about the attitude of recent threads regarding DQ's, and the complete negative attitude shown (and accusations etc) towards the SC. granted, sometimes I don't think they get it 100% right, however, for the most part, they do a great job. In this case, it is black and white. The editing steps, as put forward by the photographer, clearly broke the rules, black and white..........
There have been times where the Photo has been reinstated based on additional eveidence produced to clear a photo, however, when compared to the number of times these threads bash the SC, and the evidence comes that the SC were right, you have to wonder. I am sure teh SC don't take the task of DQ'ing a photo lightly.
I agree that, not just to reduce these threads, but also as a learning experience for all (learn from others mistakes) that maybe the DQ reason on the photo could be much more discriptive (what layer function used ie screen mode etc in this case) to emphasise what is illegal.......just a thought guys.
Also, is not the lesson in this that maybe you should write your editing steps in detail down somewhere.........How about in the Photo details box where some people do, which also gives the chance for others to see how you managed to capture and process such a great photo............ |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 03:15:29 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to figure out why people want these things debated out in the public, unless they are trying to embarrass the SC, though it seems they usually end up embarrassing themselves ... |
I've been DQ'd before and I think people want a chance to explain themselves so others don't think they are cheaters, and not have to wait to talk until potentially after the challenge viewing period is over and new pics are up on the front page and they are forgotten.
For what it's worth, I think that if a basic editing rule is inadvertently broken (or said to be broken) and the EXACT same result could have been achieved without breaking the rule then the purpose/integrity of the rule set remains in tact and no harm is done. This would eliminate the reliance on editing history recollection and just make an easy test - can it be replicated? |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 06:20:52 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by AP:
For what it's worth, I think that if a basic editing rule is inadvertently broken (or said to be broken) and the EXACT same result could have been achieved without breaking the rule then the purpose/integrity of the rule set remains in tact and no harm is done. This would eliminate the reliance on editing history recollection and just make an easy test - can it be replicated? |
That doesn't work real well...
A LOT of the "illegal in basic" photoshop tools amount to automations of what used to be tedious manual tasks. When I'm editing for basic challenges, I often spend way more time getting a result similar to what I could have gotten with one easy step in advanced editing. I'd LOVE to be able to do it the easy way and justify it by saying "I could have done this under the basic rules, but I was too lazy and this was easier..." :-)
Personally, I think the basic rules are too restrictive and encourage bad photoshop practices, especially in their restrictions on layers and blending modes, but they are what they are and we gotta live with them.
R. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 06:48:10 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally, I think the basic rules are too restrictive and encourage bad photoshop practices, especially in their restrictions on layers and blending modes, |
You mean they encourage better photography in the first place to get the desired result?......8>)
There are plenty of us out here that can do some things here and there that qualify for Advanced Editing, but you might be surprised how many of us are out here that wouldn't know a blending mode if it made them a frappé......8>)
I definitely feel horrible for Sandy, and I wish what happened wouldn't have, but Basic as it is certainly isn't a bad thing.
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 06:49:02.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 08:04:50 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by kaiser_chief:
I am slightly concerned about the attitude of recent threads regarding DQ's, and the complete negative attitude shown (and accusations etc) towards the SC. granted, sometimes I don't think they get it 100% right, however, for the most part, they do a great job. In this case, it is black and white. The editing steps, as put forward by the photographer, clearly broke the rules, black and white..........
There have been times where the Photo has been reinstated based on additional eveidence produced to clear a photo, however, when compared to the number of times these threads bash the SC, and the evidence comes that the SC were right, you have to wonder. I am sure teh SC don't take the task of DQ'ing a photo lightly.
I agree that, not just to reduce these threads, but also as a learning experience for all (learn from others mistakes) that maybe the DQ reason on the photo could be much more discriptive (what layer function used ie screen mode etc in this case) to emphasise what is illegal.......just a thought guys.
Also, is not the lesson in this that maybe you should write your editing steps in detail down somewhere.........How about in the Photo details box where some people do, which also gives the chance for others to see how you managed to capture and process such a great photo............ |
I think the problem is that respected, knowledgeable people have been DQ recently. I trust SandyP and I trust Lutchenko. If they say the followed the rules, I believe them. And when they're DQ'd, and don't understand the specifics, you want to back them up. Again, if they had just said, "according to the information you sent, you used blah blah blah, and blah blah blah is illegal in basic", it would have saved two days of reading this forum.
And btw, even though I've seen where a blending mode exists, I wouldn't know a blending mode if it made them a frappé because I have no clue how to use them -- can they really make frappes?
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 08:06:06. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 08:07:10 AM · #72 |
| No, not frappes. But they can make an awesome cheesecake! |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 08:11:17 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
No, not frappes. But they can make an awesome cheesecake! |
no wonder I don't use them, then, I don't like cheesecake! |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 08:12:36 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Are reinstatements announced? I've never seen one.
|
|
Oops...  skewsme was one of the first to congratulate him for the re-instatement. :)
Originally posted by skewsme:
Glad to see that everything got, um, straightened out ;-) |
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:00:35 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by AP:
For what it's worth, I think that if a basic editing rule is inadvertently broken (or said to be broken) and the EXACT same result could have been achieved without breaking the rule then the purpose/integrity of the rule set remains in tact and no harm is done. This would eliminate the reliance on editing history recollection and just make an easy test - can it be replicated? |
That doesn't work real well...
A LOT of the "illegal in basic" photoshop tools amount to automations of what used to be tedious manual tasks. When I'm editing for basic challenges, I often spend way more time getting a result similar to what I could have gotten with one easy step in advanced editing. I'd LOVE to be able to do it the easy way and justify it by saying "I could have done this under the basic rules, but I was too lazy and this was easier..." :-)
Personally, I think the basic rules are too restrictive and encourage bad photoshop practices, especially in their restrictions on layers and blending modes, but they are what they are and we gotta live with them.
R. |
Yeah I guess I didn't really think about that... but what I meant was from a 'proof' standpoint, if there are no ultimate differences between an illegal and a basic procedure and they lead to the same exact result... then what is stopping someone from doing it all in adv. and then running the basic steps by SC?
Conversely, it seems unfair when the OPPOSITE results, and we have a basic procedure erroneously listed in the editing history and it is treated on its face as a rule violation. |
|
