| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2005 09:21:37 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
legal? No? |
Would be good to find some precedents in the challenges. Difficult, but helpful.
...and don't tell idnic that Santa is bringing her the "Ferris Bueller does Dallas" DVD for Christmas. Shhh. |
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:41:02 PM · #27 |
i advised alfresco prior to the challenge that i didn't think this technique would be legal. however, at the time i was only working with his description. not being able to discern the AMOUNT of stroking that was going on (shutup), i advised him that it was probably best not to do it.
now that i see it, i don't think it's that big of a deal. but this is a good lesson to always err on the side of caution. :)
i'm too tired to get into major elements right now, but maybe i'll be back tomorrow. :P |
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:49:19 PM · #28 |
| When I read your description of adding the stroke, DQ was running through my mind, to be honest. But looking at the comparisons, I doubt I would have voted against it. It was subtle enough that I wouldn't have gotten too bent out of shape about it. And I'm one of the SC's "major elements Nazis," as they say. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 12:27:48 AM · #29 |
We've had SC tell us that we can't, for example, add a gradient to a sky where no gradient previously existed. We had SC tell us, for another example, that we can't use the dodge tool to simulate rays of sunlight in an image. Now we have some of the same people opining that it's OK to add an outline to text... This is getting very confusing.
It had always been my understanding that it was completely verboten to add new elements to an image. The gray area seems to be, "What exactly IS 'an element' for the purpose of the rule? When does an 'effect' become a 'new element'?"
The discussion gets pretty interesting if you start to think about stroking other areas than just the text as in this example. For instance, if you select a subject, feather the selection, ivert it, and apply gaussioan blur to the BG, you will get a "halo" around the subject. I guess this is sort of a "stroke", isn't it? Yet it's clearly been allowed may times int he past.
So take that same selection, and stroke with a 2-pixel black line around the selection to make it pop... Is this any different?
Oyyyy, my poor head spins! There's no way to make this simple, is there?
R. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 12:34:13 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Oyyyy, my poor head spins! There's no way to make this simple, is there?
R. |
No. Although I did suggest a way (a few posts ago) for this particular image to be modified in a way that has a higher likelihood of being deemed legal. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 12:36:43 AM · #31 |
I would have voted against the stroking as used here. I consider it adding an element - you are essentially drawing, adding to the image very similar to adding text...you are outlining text.
In this example is it a big deal? Probably not, BUT allowing it would set a precedent, it would give an inch...so in a few challenges someone'll wnat a foot, a yard, a mile.
|
|
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: 08/28/2025 04:07:33 AM EDT.
