| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2013 02:40:41 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by h2:
Originally posted by mike_311:
just confirming I'm still at DPC. |
yes, it' s digital PHOTOGRAPHY challenge, not a design contest.
And I'm sure it is not legit to draw your entire image, too. |
i agree, but its not a DQable offense. I made the comment to point out the absurdity. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 02:45:38 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
This was an expert editing entry where a large amount of that entry was drawn:
 |
Clearly I'm a dumbass because I can't see anything in the Expert Rules about being able to draw an entry or part of an entry. I'm not trying to be difficult, but where does it say that? Or is there a subtle nuance I'm not getting?
I'm not specifically asking you Wendy, I am just interested in anybody's opinion. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 02:46:44 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...2. The rules don't have to make sense, they just have be followed...
4. You are all free to write and post proposed rule sets -- just make sure they make sense... |
??!!
;-) |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 02:46:46 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Originally posted by vawendy:
This was an expert editing entry where a large amount of that entry was drawn:
|
Clearly I'm a dumbass because I can't see anything in the Expert Rules about being able to draw an entry or part of an entry. I'm not trying to be difficult, but where does it say that? Or is there a subtle nuance I'm not getting?
I'm not specifically asking you Wendy, I am just interested in anybody's opinion. |
it doesn't say not either and that's the point.
Message edited by author 2013-02-28 14:46:54. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 02:53:17 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
it doesn't say not either and that's the point. |
Ah, got it. I was working on what it says you CAN do rather than what is doesn't say you can't do. Guess I need to toughen up. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 02:54:16 PM · #56 |
So is it ok to draw something in as long as it isn't a letter or number?
|
|
|
|
02/28/2013 02:56:22 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Originally posted by mike_311:
it doesn't say not either and that's the point. |
Ah, got it. I was working on what it says you CAN do rather than what is doesn't say you can't do. Guess I need to toughen up. |
only the strong survive here. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 04:03:40 PM · #58 |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 05:03:07 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
4. You are all free to write and post proposed rule sets -- just make sure they make sense and are enforcable within the limited site resources. |
Here is an idea that may qualify:
Originally posted by the Expert Editing rule set:
You may not:
.
.
. add text or any legible characters to your entry or its border during editing. This includes copyright statements.
.
|
|
|
|
|
02/28/2013 05:15:04 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Aw nuts, Wendy |
for my squirrels??
:)
Message edited by author 2013-02-28 17:15:17. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 05:42:16 PM · #61 |
This is really turning into a can of worms here. Please don't take this personally, Wendy. This is about the expert editing rule set, and by bad fortune it's your example and words.
I'm not surprised to see that this has been DQ'd. Text was added to the photo, and I honestly thought that was one rule that we all had a firm handle on, regardless of rule set. I was surprised, however, to read that you have written text in the past and it has passed validation. This is an obvious inconsistency.
I also mistakenly thought that expert editing could be a collage of photos, or elements of such, resized, manipulated, whatever, but the entry still had to be comprised of photos. But it turns out this is not true either:
Originally posted by vawendy:
This was an expert editing entry where a large amount of that entry was drawn (which is was surprised to a rarity, because I really can't draw):
|
So expert editing entries can, largely, be drawn? What is the point? Why does that belong here?
Edit to add: I take it to mean that this was also digitally created with editing software, and not a photo.
Message edited by author 2013-02-28 17:44:18. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 06:33:43 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
This is really turning into a can of worms here. Please don't take this personally, Wendy. This is about the expert editing rule set, and by bad fortune it's your example and words.
I'm not surprised to see that this has been DQ'd. Text was added to the photo, and I honestly thought that was one rule that we all had a firm handle on, regardless of rule set. I was surprised, however, to read that you have written text in the past and it has passed validation. This is an obvious inconsistency.
I also mistakenly thought that expert editing could be a collage of photos, or elements of such, resized, manipulated, whatever, but the entry still had to be comprised of photos. But it turns out this is not true either:
Originally posted by vawendy:
This was an expert editing entry where a large amount of that entry was drawn (which is was surprised to a rarity, because I really can't draw):
|
So expert editing entries can, largely, be drawn? What is the point? Why does that belong here?
Edit to add: I take it to mean that this was also digitally created with editing software, and not a photo. |
I thought that I had added text before -- but in looking back, I can't find any case where I had. So I guess I was thinking that text tool was not ok, but drawing text was ok. If you look at previous threads, many other people have had similar questions in the past. And if you look at this thread, many people have thought the same thing and have been DQd. Perhaps because we've seen text, as in kikitchen's photo, which he got text through photographic means. Yet it's still obviously not real conversation hearts. So we try to figure out how it's real, and we guess wrong.
As far as the photo I posted, I didn't mean to open the can of worms, and I'm sorry I did. This thread has gotten out of hand. I'm not challenging the DQ. I was simply saying that the expert editing rules are so incredibly vast, that perhaps we should revisit the text part of it.
As far as drawing things -- I've just been reading people's notes on how they do their expert editing. And many different people have drawn in different parts of their photos. I tried it once on the example I posted. I didn't like it. I'm not an artist, and I'd rather do the photography. I did draw the heart for the valentine's challenge. But I went to multiple stores first, and it was 10:30 at night, and I had no pink construction paper. At 10:40 at night, I must admit, drawing the heart seemed easier than cutting one out, lighting it and trying to put it together.
Not so anymore. :D
Message edited by author 2013-02-28 19:16:52. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 11:59:54 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I thought that I had added text before -- but in looking back, I can't find any case where I had. So I guess I was thinking that text tool was not ok, but drawing text was ok. If you look at previous threads, many other people have had similar questions in the past. And if you look at this thread, many people have thought the same thing and have been DQd. Perhaps because we've seen text, as in kikitchen's photo, which he got text through photographic means. Yet it's still obviously not real conversation hearts. So we try to figure out how it's real, and we guess wrong.
As far as the photo I posted, I didn't mean to open the can of worms, and I'm sorry I did. This thread has gotten out of hand. I'm not challenging the DQ. I was simply saying that the expert editing rules are so incredibly vast, that perhaps we should revisit the text part of it.
As far as drawing things -- I've just been reading people's notes on how they do their expert editing. And many different people have drawn in different parts of their photos. I tried it once on the example I posted. I didn't like it. I'm not an artist, and I'd rather do the photography. I did draw the heart for the valentine's challenge. But I went to multiple stores first, and it was 10:30 at night, and I had no pink construction paper. At 10:40 at night, I must admit, drawing the heart seemed easier than cutting one out, lighting it and trying to put it together.
Not so anymore. :D |
On the ghosts challenge, even though I didn't lift text, I made sure that I photographed each and every scrap of paper because someone elsewhere had been DQ'd for making up similar components.
I felt bad in the technology underwraps challenge that I even drew a single line. But the "Update" button on the wall was an actual photo of my screen even -- wouldn't even do a screenshot for that. Or of Art's photo.
This is the photo I used... I made sure to take it clearly showing the magnets in case it was challenged. I was worried the whole time I was under review because of the wording of that rule myself. I couldn't understand why the text tool is taboo, but made sure I didn't use it.
All this said, I completely hate getting 4th place this way. :( |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 01:59:08 AM · #64 |
This is my entry that just got DQed for adding text:
I made another version which would not validate any better:
Here is a thought though: That second version is based on a real card image, that had a J drawn were the S is. If I would torture that J to make it look like an S, would it then be valid? Just a thought exercise that may reflect on the appropriateness of the text clause.
Message edited by author 2013-03-01 11:34:34. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 02:31:02 AM · #65 |
The sorry thing about Wendys pix was it was like 99.99 picture, I would've NEVER known that was imposed writing .. heck those hearts have that all over them.... I fudged the snot outta the cloneing tool in my DQ... I knew i was pushing it past the limit, just Never thought it'd place so high LOL... well lesson learned~ Bad Kt Bad Kt...
The post about it being a photograph not an graphic editing challenge, Well just my opinion, but Expert editing, seems to me to be totaly off as far as photography goes! For instance (and I'm not picking on him because he has MAD CRAZY PS skills) and I love his works, but Gyban who wins what way over 1/2 of expert edits, I could not see actual photographs in just about all of his works. IE if I saw one of his works in a art studio I would think it was a painting. So he can take pieces of any photograph (taken within the challenge dates) and turn a part of lets say a car into the word Limbo is fine, Or I can photograph a be mine lettering and impose it on Wendys heart and thats also legal. In my opinion one dumb rule or two, limits us poor slobs who don't have mad photoshop skills ... Personaly I say toss all rules on Expert, let the artists and mad photoshoppers go for it... It's fun to try and wonderful to view... I've learned a lot about PS tools just trying to do an expert edit.
And  mitalapo Your card was da bomb!! this piece (again just my opinion) is a fine example how someone with out Mad photoshopping skills can compete with PS experts...
Oh OOps did I just understand Wendy that you Made the Heart in PS also?? OK so now you qualify as someone with MAD photoshopping skills ...LOL Thats really gooooooood... even the texture looks just like a candy heart!!!
Message edited by author 2013-03-01 02:38:53. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 01:53:33 PM · #66 |
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard?
If the goal is keeping shots photographic- then what gives? why not? |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 02:57:32 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard?
If the goal is keeping shots photographic- then what gives? why not? |
I assume they're trying to keep us from making text-based entries; that's give the poets and songwriters too much of an edge, eh? :-) |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 03:07:12 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard?
If the goal is keeping shots photographic- then what gives? why not? |
I assume they're trying to keep us from making text-based entries; that's give the poets and songwriters too much of an edge, eh? :-) |
son of gun! thats why I don't dominate! |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 03:10:57 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I assume they're trying to keep us from making text-based entries; that's give the poets and songwriters too much of an edge, eh? :-) |
And graphic designers ... though I think environmental considerations would weigh toward using the text tool rather than a spray can ...  |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 03:23:37 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard? |
There's no rule that says you can't ALTER existing text during editing. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 01:01:33 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard? |
There's no rule that says you can't ALTER existing text during editing. ;-) |
So if I photograph a scene that has in it a billboard, I can use my text tool to replace the billboard copy with whatever message I choose? Are you serious? |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 01:19:02 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I assume they're trying to keep us from making text-based entries; that's give the poets and songwriters too much of an edge, eh? :-) |
And graphic designers ... though I think environmental considerations would weigh toward using the text tool rather than a spray can ... |
Gosh, what a great shot. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 01:32:42 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard? |
There's no rule that says you can't ALTER existing text during editing. ;-) |
So if I photograph a scene that has in it a billboard, I can use my text tool to replace the billboard copy with whatever message I choose? Are you serious? |
No, I believe you can move/warp/twist/bend/distort/rearrange/cut/paste any letter that's already existing in a photo.
Basically, if there is text in your image, it should have exif data. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 01:32:54 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What would be the reasoning for allowing the ability to draw holes through bodies but not use photoshop to alter a license plate or change a street sign or billboard? |
There's no rule that says you can't ALTER existing text during editing. ;-) |
So if I photograph a scene that has in it a billboard, I can use my text tool to replace the billboard copy with whatever message I choose? Are you serious? |
Not my call to respond to this but this is not at all how I took  scalvert's comment. I took it in the context of mitalapo's question and example of using tools such as the warp tool to change a J into an S.
I hate to draw attention to one of my own recent entries lest doing so occasion in its turn a DQ, but the clock face I used for my entry in the Absurdity challenge had no 3 - it had alarm information in that space. So I copied parts of the 2 and the 5 and pasted and scooched them together and filled in a bit to create a 3. I thought and still do that this was/is perfectly legal in Expert. It would have been far easier to replace all the numbers with text numbers, especially as the exposure wasn't great on many of them so they required a lot of clean-up, but I thought that would NOT be legal.
I would like to see this "rule" gone in Expert, too, so I am not defending it LOL |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 03:44:54 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nam:
Is it legal, in Expert, to take a photograph of something you have printed, bring it in on a layer over another image, and then size, position, and erase everything but the letters so you can use that lettering (text) in your work?
The reason I'm confused is that it seems that this is legal (and I think it should be) but you are clearly bringing in lettering (text) during editing. |
In that case, the text was already in the photo(s), not added during editing. (<-- same answer to Bear) |
Let me ridicule this statement: according to this it would be legal (in Expert) to copy a single pixel from the original photo, and paste it multiple times to form letters, correct?
Originally posted by scalvert:
There's no rule that says you can't ALTER existing text during editing. ;-) |
There seems to be an agreement that not only the clause makes no sense in Expert, but that it is also counter-intuitive, so it should go away before more innocent souls fall into this trap.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 16:01:38. |
|
