| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2006 01:13:20 PM · #1 |
Does anybody knows the action called Dave's Midnight Sepia? Would that be legal in Basic Editing?
I wanted to enter a picture for the Rain Challenge but it looked the way I wanted only when using this action. I looked at the action step by step and I know that it doesn't use spot-editing but I'm not sure if the kind of layers it uses is legal or not.
Just to be on the safe side, I decided to take a completely different picture and I do not use the action, but I want to know in case I might want to use in an anonther challenge.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:19:02 PM · #2 |
| Submit a Ticket, and list all the editing steps included in the action -- there's no way to tell otherwise. |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:19:10 PM · #3 |
I'm pretty sure Dave's Midnight Sepia uses different layer blending modes in the process; I have a couple other of his actions and they certainly do. Here's how to find out: run the action NOT from the "Midnight Sepia" arrow, which automates the whole process, but instead by clicking on the first arrow under that and running it; then note what it does, click the next arrow, and so forth. This way you can see the layer modes etc for each step of the action before moving on to the next one. If any one of them uses a layer blending mode other than "normal" you know right away it's not legal.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-09-24 13:20:12.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:24:13 PM · #4 |
Thanks Rob, I'll try that and if I'm still not sure I'll follow Paul suggestion and submit a ticket.
Alain
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:27:06 PM · #5 |
| If I'm not mistaken the layers are applied in modes other than normal. Also I believe it uses layers with with pixel data which would be illegal in basic editing. |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:34:00 PM · #6 |
Scott's got a good point; check also to see that no layer is a "duplicate layer", as this is a pixel-containing layer. Although the only point of a duplicate layer would be to modify it and use it in a different blending mode, so they'd go hand in hand.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:37:07 PM · #7 |
It looks like my question is answered, it does duplicate layers. I for sure will not use it in Basic Editing.
Thnaks everybody.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:37:11 PM · #8 |
Here is the PSD file. Judging by the dodge and burn and layer blending mode it would NOT be legal in basic.
Found the PSD file here
Message edited by author 2006-09-24 13:39:12. |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:40:00 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
Here is the PSD file. Judging by the dodge and burn and layer blending mode it would NOT be legal in basic.
|
You CAN, however, runt he action and toss those two layers in the trash and see how that looks; some of the effect will surely be preserved. Assuming the other layers are all in "normal" mode...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:45:12 PM · #10 |
Wouldn't throwing those layers in the trash be illegal in of itself? In other words, you would have already done the action that was illegal even though the effects are not going to be applied to the final image. Sounds dumb but that's basically the same thing as duplicating a pixel layer just to preserve the original and that doesn't seem to be allowed. Maybe edit the action first so that those illegal steps never take place?
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:49:15 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Wouldn't throwing those layers in the trash be illegal in of itself? In other words, you would have already done the action that was illegal even though the effects are not going to be applied to the final image. Sounds dumb but that's basically the same thing as duplicating a pixel layer just to preserve the original and that doesn't seem to be allowed. Maybe edit the action first so that those illegal steps never take place? |
Oh, good grief, of COURSE not. Look at it this way; I want to determine what kind of curves and hue/saturation a certain, otherwise illegal effect is using, so I can emulate them. I run the action, toss the "illegal" components, and I've got some legal curves and hue/sat adjustments.
Now I open a new copy of the image, entirely separate, and I drag these curve and hue/sat adjustment layers across to that. On THIS copy of the image I never ran the action, just used curves and hue/sat. Totally kosher, and just the same as tossing the offending "illegal" components of the action.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 01:58:44 PM · #12 |
So duplicating a pixel layer in basic editing is ok then?
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 02:33:38 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So duplicating a pixel layer in basic editing is ok then? |
NO, of course not, but if you don't use it, then it doesn't exist.
Another example; I'm not sure how much USM to apply to my final image at 640 pixel size. So I make a duplicate layer, I oversharpen, and then I blow up to 100% or so and fade the duplicate layer until it looks right. I take note of the percentage of fade, I toss the duplicate layer, open up the USM again and reduce the amounts in the filter by the percentage of fade I used. There's no pixel layer in the image, it's completely legal.
If you think somehow "making it and tossing it" is not acceptable in basic editing, then how about this: I take my edited and resized image and make a whole new copy of it in a new window; then I do as above, note the amounts needed, and go to the original copy and apply them directly. Same difference, eh?
Or are you seriously proposing that it is somehow illegal in basic editing to do an "optimum edit" of a given image, then open a new copy of the image and edit it in basic so that it matches as closely as possible the optimized image? Always applying only basic-legal tools & effects, of course...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-09-24 14:34:19.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 04:43:48 PM · #14 |
No not at all. I agree only the "final result" of your image should be judged and not what you experimented, which is why I don't get the duplicate layer thing.
|
|
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: 09/09/2025 04:39:52 PM EDT.
