|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2013 04:09:16 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by mitalapo:
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. |
It would be MUCH easier to simple paste the (all dark or all white) image into a selection created by the text selection tool... ;) |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 04:13:10 PM · #77 |
I'd just like to point out that the Dejected Bittersweets, are in fact, not available at this time. (sold out) |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 05:53:29 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by mitalapo:
it would be legal (in Expert) to copy a single pixel from the original photo, and paste it multiple times to form letters, correct? |
No. The rule says you can't add text or characters during editing. How you do it is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 06:23:50 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mitalapo:
it would be legal (in Expert) to copy a single pixel from the original photo, and paste it multiple times to form letters, correct? |
No. The rule says you can't add text or characters during editing. How you do it is irrelevant. |
But there's nothing to keep us from photographing text, adding it as a layer, and then manipulating it however we want in "editing"? That is to say, "Compositing" seems to be distinct from "editing", no matter how counterintuitive that seems at first glance?
And therefore, what's to keep me, in expert editing, from editing the composited photo to add text wherever I want and however I want, then photographing the screen, adding the photo back as a layer, THEN merging that layer into the (identical) layer below it?
Can't you guys see how silly this is getting? As opposed to the simplicity of simply allowing text in expert editing, with the specific exception of copyright statements or other statements that identify the photographer?
I mean, why the heck NOT? What is there to worry about? |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 07:11:32 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Can't you guys see how silly this is getting? As opposed to the simplicity of simply allowing text in expert editing, with the specific exception of copyright statements or other statements that identify the photographer? I mean, why the heck NOT? What is there to worry about? |
No reason to get upset. I'm only explaining the rules as they are, not what they should be. When the Expert rules were written, they were intended to enable freedom in retouching, but not the Worth1000-style composites they have become– as alluded in the first section of the rules. The "silliness" of text workarounds wasn't really on our radar at the time, probably because text had never been allowed before and therefore wasn't something participants used (I only see one entry the early Expert contests with any text, and that one was photographed in place). Nevertheless, people complained that Expert editing was turning into more of a Photoshop contest, and Langdon suspended them in 2007 with the statement that he wouldn't run any more until the rules were amended. In 2011 he suddenly started running them again with a vengeance (we had more Expert challenges in 2011 than we did in the previous four years combined) and without revising the rules. This is where the situation currently stands and composites have since become accepted, if not expected, in Expert. It would make sense to specifically address text and other issues, such as drawing in elements from scratch, but until that happens participants and validations must follow the rules in place.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 19:12:43. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 08:59:20 PM · #81 |
So we all see the problem and the solution.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 09:38:07 PM · #82 |
But see, Shannon, you guys CAN address the situation by making a couple simple modifications in the Expert rules, then giving them to Langdon to replace the current rules. In the opinion of a lot of us, this ought to be an ongoing process. Rules need to evolve at a somewhat less glacial pace than they have been.
Now, if SC has actually been DOING this and Langdon is not responsive, that's another thing altogether, there's not much else you can do. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:00:06 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:00:06 AM EDT.
|
