| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2012 12:19:23 PM · #26 |
Is Thursday's challenge NOT expert editing?? I'M IN. :) (hopefully, anyway)
I have a few ideas. I LOVE expert editing. No "new areas" to worry about. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/15/2012 12:22:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Samantha_T:
Simple dodging and burning, yes. :) JamesDowning got it right!
I do not see why this would not be OK, as Advanced rules state dodging and burning are allowed: apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.
There are no actual "holes" therefore no new image areas are created. All the same pixels are there, just a darker color.
I also got asked for proof during the challenge and submitted it to the admins and have not heard that it was illegal.
It is really not that hard as long as you watch your light source....dodging and burning is a very effective tool. |
Just a fun fact, instead of using eyeliner in huge amounts, instead, just draw a circle on your face where you intend to burn the hole... Then you're just modifying an existing shape, which is allowed.
See this image for an example:
The fly segments already existed, so coloring them is OK in advanced.... At least, if I understand the rules correctly... In the end SC has arbitrary criteria from what I can tell, and often you should just run this sort of thing past them to ensure that you are within the rules... FYI - do this ASAP before voting begins, they need at least a few days to render an opinion. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 12:32:38 PM · #28 |
Thanks!! Good to know. :)
My opinion is still in disagreeance altogether on the burning and "new area" creation...I feel like if I were to draw circles on my face and "color" them in with the burn tool, its like using a coloring book to be creative....and I feel I am better than that. :)
But I completely understand your interpretation of the rules and I will keep that in mind for sure next time, as to not get myself into any hot water from the start.
I enjoy the rule sets overall, but I don't always agree with them...or maybe what I don't agree with is the vague and arbitrary interpretations of them. :P |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:08:13 PM · #29 |
i agree that sometimes the rules are vague, but in some cases it's pretty cut and dry.
in this case, you didn't have black marker on tape holding the 'stitches' to your mouth, you didn't have holes there already, you didn't use makeup to make the circles, you used an editing tool to create something (a hole) that wasn't there before.
I did quite like this picture and stated that it was the stitches itself that detracted in my opinion and i hold to that. as quiet as the grave could easily be represented here without the stitches. the posture and feel of the image is that of a recently deceased person (blood takes a while to cool and there is still color in the face for a while after death), so without stitches you could still convey a deceased person convincingly. My comment was more referential to the fact that while historically some groups have sewn the mouth shut for ceremonial purposes, it is not a common practice today and I cannot see reason to require a corpses mouth to be sewn shut. I get the figurative reference, but i find it to be overkill and detracting, personally.
Congrats on the score and the blue, it may hold up, but I wouldn't hold my breath over it :)
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 13:09:10. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:17:59 PM · #30 |
just to add i waited 4 weeks for validation on my black and white sunset one must have been a hearty debate
i think you'll get dq'd as you have created a new feature that was not there in the original image which is a shame but rules is rules
i didnt enter or vote in this challenge but ive never heard of as quiet as the dead, rd here is quiet as a mouse
hope it gets through.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 13:46:05. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:40:57 PM · #31 |
Validation is taking forever lately. I guess the SC is pressed for time. There is a Free Study winner that I feel will likely be DQ'ed and it's had it's week on the front page already and gone, and they haven't finished it yet. So I wouldn't think that 4 days is enough time.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:04:24 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Validation is taking forever lately. I guess the SC is pressed for time. There is a Free Study winner that I feel will likely be DQ'ed and it's had it's week on the front page already and gone, and they haven't finished it yet. So I wouldn't think that 4 days is enough time.
Matt |
All depends on how you define "incidental".
How does one get into the SC anyways? Is there like a yearly election? I want to run! |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:06:27 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
How does one get into the SC anyways? Is there like a yearly election? I want to run! |
You and me both.
People would vote for me, ...., right, ...., fine, I'll stay over here on this side of the room. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:28:36 PM · #34 |
| I think you get invited, did I read somewhere kibric used to be on the sc? |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:29:00 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by MattO:
Validation is taking forever lately. I guess the SC is pressed for time. There is a Free Study winner that I feel will likely be DQ'ed and it's had it's week on the front page already and gone, and they haven't finished it yet. So I wouldn't think that 4 days is enough time.
Matt |
All depends on how you define "incidental".
How does one get into the SC anyways? Is there like a yearly election? I want to run! |
There has been no change there since I've been a member.
Many of the SC are original members. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:30:07 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
I think you get invited, did I read somewhere kibric used to be on the sc? |
Yeah, it's invite, I've asked before. And kibric was on the SC. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:55:34 PM · #37 |
| Ah, an 'old boys club' eh? |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:01:11 PM · #38 |
| They've added SC members twice since I joined, in 2005 and 2006 I believe. You sent an "application" to SC and they decided amongst themselves who to accept. None since then. It's pretty much a closed shop. And yes, Kirbic was an original SC. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:12:01 PM · #39 |
It would seem Ironic that you could hang the "string holes on tape" from the ceiling on fishing line and then clone out the fishing line without being dq'd- but not "create the holes with the burning tool."
It seems though, you would have a better argument if you darkened faint magic marker or make-up marks to be more pronounced with the burning tool rather than darkening pixels to "create the appearance of holes"
I was one of the "negative" comments referenced, I indicated that the subject looked alive, and I think I used the term sexy, and not very dead-I realize what you were going for but the literal depiction of sewn mouth silence makes me unable to separate the no so literal, "alive and attractive" depiction of death.
No matter what happens, your shot was very well received- so its a win no matter what. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:27:30 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
They've added SC members twice since I joined, in 2005 and 2006 I believe. You sent an "application" to SC and they decided amongst themselves who to accept. None since then. It's pretty much a closed shop. And yes, Kirbic was an original SC. |
I remember the 2005 SC campaign. I remember that my candidate lost because of all the anti-wood smears.
Anywho - I thought Samantha's image was fantastic and agree with blindjustice's point about cloning out string. I also think there should be a time limit to validation and/or get more SC members or replace existing, non-participating ones. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 06:43:31 PM · #41 |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 06:53:42 PM · #42 |
| I have to say if there was no make-up used this would have to be a DQ IMHO I can see using dodge and burn to enhance what is already there but if there were no holes and you created a new area by burning them in then it should be DQ'ed. It really doesn't matter how small. Of course if there were shadows there and you just enhanced them, that might be a different story. Like others said hard to say without the original glad it is site councils decision and not mine. Either way great image. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 06:59:15 PM · #43 |
I agree, so it's +1001 now.
I respect the SC, and don't want them to think I'm berating them, they are unpaid and often unappreciated. But they are NUTZ if they think they're doing a great job of this. A passable job, yes, very much so, but nothing more, and I do think it's largely because many of them are burned out, busy, or disinterested.
I'd go start the thread, but that would probably be doing the movement a disservice. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 06:59:58 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
I think you get invited, did I read somewhere kibric used to be on the sc? |
Yeah, it's invite, I've asked before. And kibric was on the SC. |
It's by application, as Robert said. When there is a need, they open it up for submissions. I was on for about 4 1/2 years ending in late 2008 (holy crap, it's been that long??).
I do agree that it seems like time to get some more active folks on there. It's not at all an easy job; if you're really going to be active it takes a boatload of time. Validations can be contentious, everyone has their own interpretations of the "shades of gray" in the rules.
ETA:
Careful with the "last post" data... although posts to SC threads show up in the count of posts made, they of course do not show up in the list of most recent posts. So it is possible even probable that you are missing significant activity "behind the scenes."
Also, many SC members don't submit much. Their activity comes in other ways. I know this was (and still is) true for me.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 19:03:29.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2012 07:11:02 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
I think you get invited, did I read somewhere kibric used to be on the sc? |
Yeah, it's invite, I've asked before. And kibric was on the SC. |
It's by application, as Robert said. When there is a need, they open it up for submissions. I was on for about 4 1/2 years ending in late 2008 (holy crap, it's been that long??).
I do agree that it seems like time to get some more active folks on there. It's not at all an easy job; if you're really going to be active it takes a boatload of time. Validations can be contentious, everyone has their own interpretations of the "shades of gray" in the rules.
ETA:
Careful with the "last post" data... although posts to SC threads show up in the count of posts made, they of course do not show up in the list of most recent posts. So it is possible even probable that you are missing significant activity "behind the scenes."
Also, many SC members don't submit much. Their activity comes in other ways. I know this was (and still is) true for me. |
Will you be so kind as to agree that 4 weeks for validation is unreasonable?
Would you also agree that many things around here could be very much improved with a bit more help? *(challenge topic/descriptions, website mods, forum moderation, validation, etc)...
Essentially, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the SC and Langdon... for now. But if I don't see something changing sometime soon, I will shortly form the opinion that it's a lack of concern and professionalism, rather than a lack of manpower.
I don't have any idea what those various folks are doing, all I know is what I see that they aren't doing. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 07:40:58 PM · #46 |
I got a validation request back in March and after I submitted the original and details I never did hear back. The image didn't get a DQ though so I assume it passed. (95/98 so I don't think it was really worth worrying about.)
|
|
|
|
08/15/2012 09:42:25 PM · #47 |
the big problem with long validation times is that its not fair to those who stand to gain advanced placement by a DQ, they don't get the proper exposure for their images.
I got a DQ and the person who ended up with the ribbon missed a week of front page exposure.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 21:42:45. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 09:54:43 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Cory:
...Will you be so kind as to agree that 4 weeks for validation is unreasonable?... |
I have several validation requests which are unanswered for many weeks.
As far as I'm concerned, a validation request which is responsibly answered becomes unassailable after 3 days, if unanswered, as per the  Art Roflmao statute of limitations dictates. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 10:16:30 PM · #49 |
I also received a validation request for the simile challenge and no decision yet. Not worried in my case - was not borderline. The key for Samantha's image is whether it has been significantly changed from how you'd describe the original, in ways other than color, and where new features were introduced.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 22:26:45. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 10:37:06 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Will you be so kind as to agree that 4 weeks for validation is unreasonable? |
Four weeks? Four days is getting long, especially if it results in someone not getting their front-page time. Now, that said, my opinion applies where the submitter has held up their end, submitting both a valid proof file and editing steps as soon as possible. You simply would not believe some of the poor behavior in this regard, though. Folks ignore repeated requests for days on end, then claim they didn't see any requests. They claim they were DQ'd with no communication, when they failed to respond to questions. You name the behavior, the SC has seen it.
The rule is we have 48 hours to submit a proof file. The SC will often give a little extra time. If asked with a good reason, a day or two has been granted (it's not guaranteed). So you could be into three plus days before the work can begin.
But four weeks, no, should never happen. period. I don't know the specifics of any such cases, so I can't comment further.
|
|
