DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Virtual Photographer in Basic got me a DQ
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 73, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/19/2007 06:01:08 AM · #1
UPDate Update: Just Discovered VP IS NOT ALLOWED in Basic Editing as well! See note below from L2. Through this thread I have discovered that it was not the use of VP that caused me to be disqualified but rather that I had applied it to a duplicate layer (Contains image data) and then flattened with both the background and background copy open. Please read the thread to clarify.

{Added by L2: Virtual Photographer is illegal in Basic Editing, and only legal in Advanced Editing. Duplicate layers are also not permitted in the Basic Editing ruleset.)

Original Post: This is not a gripe, this is simply a warning to everyone who is like me was not sure if VP was legal in Basic editiing. I used Virtual Photographer as one of the final steps when editing my photo for the candy challenge (Basic editing).


I did a search of the forums and found this thread Forum Thread here and although there were different views it did talk about one photo that remained in after a request, maybe it's only certain ways of using VP that cause problems I'm not really sure.

Anyway here is my entry before VP was used
I did not used selected desat as some people thought.

It would have been nice to get a 6+ Score for a change but at least now you and I know not to use VP in Basic editing so alls good.

Also thanks to the SC who made every effort possible to allow me to state my case and what editing steps and setting I used.

My first DQ and it was my 125th entry ....

Message edited by author 2007-09-22 14:56:07.
 09/19/2007 06:51:33 AM · #2
In your editing steps, you said you did an hdr and you also used the channel mixer to convert to b/w. Were those steps legal in basic? Just wondering if it was only vp that was illegal or if you used a layer after the b/w conversion to get the color back into the arm & dress.
 09/19/2007 07:35:12 AM · #3
Originally posted by pcody:
In your editing steps, you said you did an hdr and you also used the channel mixer to convert to b/w. Were those steps legal in basic? Just wondering if it was only vp that was illegal or if you used a layer after the b/w conversion to get the color back into the arm & dress.


I used the 16 32 16 single image HDR or Tone Mapping Tutorial here and i have no reason to believe that it would be ilegal in Basic editing.

The Channel Mixer is perfectly legal method of converting to B&W, I simply reduced the opacity and fill to allow some muted colour to show through, I did not alter it from the normal setting.

I didn't put colour back in as you described I used hue/saturation yellow -100% saturation and Red -50% or somewhere about that to reduce the impact of the red. Again perfectly legal as it is done on the whole image.
 09/19/2007 08:34:33 AM · #4
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.
 09/19/2007 08:43:11 AM · #5
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So if he'd just done it on the base layer and used "edit/fade" he'd have been fine?

R.
 09/19/2007 09:08:38 AM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


Fair Dinkim? Well that sucks :/

I often create a Duplicate copy to test stuff when I'm editing so its easy to delete it if I don't like it.

Thank you for clearing it up for me! I'm not sure I fully understand it though.

So it was the Background Copy or the reduction in the opacity or both?

EDIT: I think I get it. The Background Copy contains image data even though it is an exact copy of the Background it still contains Image data and therefore is disqualifyable. Correct?

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 09:13:43.
 09/19/2007 09:14:53 AM · #7
Originally posted by Node:

So it was the Background Copy or the reduction in the opacity or both?

EDIT: I think I get it. The Background Copy contains image data even though it is an exact copy of the Background it still contains Image data and therefore is disqualifyable. Correct?


Thats the one. You can reduce the opacity of an adjustment layer. But you can only have one layer that contains pixel data, your original image layer.
 09/19/2007 09:17:09 AM · #8
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


Whew! Thanks for clarifying that it's okay to use Virtual Photographer if it is not applied using layers. I thought I was going to have to report one of my past (low scoring) challenge entries that I used Virtual Photographer on.
 09/19/2007 09:19:51 AM · #9
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


Whew! Thanks for clarifying that it's okay to use Virtual Photographer if it is not applied using layers. I thought I was going to have to report one of my past (low scoring) challenge entries that I used Virtual Photographer on.


Haha good way to get your average boosted though ;)
 09/19/2007 09:28:46 AM · #10
Originally posted by Node:
Haha good way to get your average boosted though ;)


I realized that when I mentioned the low scoring on that entry and I almost added that to my post ;)
 09/19/2007 09:38:23 AM · #11
To be honest I prefer the original to the one you entered. I am not mad about the blow out and would have voted it higher if I had voted on this challenge. Sorry about the DQ.
 09/19/2007 09:48:31 AM · #12
In basic editing challenges I have a problem with some plugin's such as VP. Some of the options seems to me to be illegal in basic editing because when it processes it has to use more than one layer with data. But how do we know?
 09/19/2007 10:03:05 AM · #13
Originally posted by loriprophoto:
To be honest I prefer the original to the one you entered. I am not mad about the blow out and would have voted it higher if I had voted on this challenge. Sorry about the DQ.


Thanks, well you know how it goes! New toy so it must be used :)

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 18:11:05.
 09/19/2007 10:03:22 AM · #14
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So once again, the rules' lack of clarity on what NOT to do with image layers bites someone. That's what, 3 DQs in the past month or so?

Just put something in the "You may not" section and be done with it!
 09/19/2007 10:09:13 AM · #15
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So once again, the rules' lack of clarity on what NOT to do with image layers bites someone. That's what, 3 DQs in the past month or so?

Just put something in the "You may not" section and be done with it!


It already states that you can only use adjustment layers in basic. What more do you want?
 09/19/2007 10:20:58 AM · #16
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It already states that you can only use adjustment layers in basic. What more do you want?


I want rules that don't address point a, which you're not supposed to do, by discussing point b, which you are allowed to do.

It's a very simple concept: tell people what they may do and tell people what they may not do. Don't hide what they may not do by saying what they may do with an exception.

To say nothing of people who may not know the definition of adjustment layer, may not be using software that has adjustment layers, etc. who may hit that section and say "that doesn't apply ... what's the next rule?"

You may not:
- use more than one image layer

or
You may not:
- use image layers at less than 100% opacity or in any blending mode other than "normal" (to cover many people, like me, who keep the original as a base layer beneath a 100% opacity edited layer).

And while we're at it ...
You may not:
- fade filters using any blending mode other than "normal"
 09/19/2007 10:43:41 AM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So if he'd just done it on the base layer and used "edit/fade" he'd have been fine?

R.

Well? Any response yet on this?
 09/19/2007 10:51:38 AM · #18
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So if he'd just done it on the base layer and used "edit/fade" he'd have been fine?

R.

Well? Any response yet on this?


Fade is fine. Data on a layer is not.
 09/19/2007 10:53:21 AM · #19
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So if he'd just done it on the base layer and used "edit/fade" he'd have been fine?

R.

Well? Any response yet on this?


Yes, he'd have been OK with that. It's OK to use Edit>Fade with any legal tool, as long as the blend mode remains in "Normal" mode.
 09/19/2007 11:08:12 AM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yes, he'd have been OK with that. It's OK to use Edit>Fade with any legal tool, as long as the blend mode remains in "Normal" mode.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Fade is fine. Data on a layer is not.

Great. Thanks for the feedback/clarification.

Not that I can use it (PSP doesn't offer that feature - dang it!), but I was curious and thought other's may be as well. :-)
 09/19/2007 11:13:06 AM · #21
Can SC now change the title of the thread to "duplicate data layers got me a DQ"?
 09/19/2007 12:36:25 PM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bob, just for clarity, it was not the use of VP that got you disqualified, but you applied it on a duplicate layer and reduced the opacity. The use of layers, other than adjustment layers, is not allowed in Basic.


So if he'd just done it on the base layer and used "edit/fade" he'd have been fine?

R.

Well? Any response yet on this?


Fade is fine. Data on a layer is not.


OK. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SC has said that it's OK to copy the base layer and work on that in basic, so there's a fallback if you screw up, right?

So answer me this: what's the difference between doing exactly that and altering the opacity of the work before flattening, versus using the "fade" command, which effectively does exactly the same thing?

R.

ETA:

Let me be more explicit: usually I use adjustment layers, of course, no problem. But in CS2 the (basic legal) shadow/highlight adjustment is NOT available as an adjustment layer, though it is in CS3. So as a matter of course, I copy the base layer, apply s/h to the copy, and flatten back to base when I am satisfied with the result.

Now, if I apply s/h and think I have overdone it, I can legally use edit/fade to mute the effect, right? And that's the exact same result as adjusting the opacity of the over-layer before flattening.

Now as far as I can tell, this is the workflow he used with VP, so where's the logic in DQ? Or am I missing something?

I don't mean to be getting on SC's case, I am just afraid something obvious is escaping me here.

ETA2:

And let me go further: if the workflow above is NOT allowed in basic (s/h to dupe base layer and fade opacity before flattening), then where's the rationale for that, since in CS3 s/h has actually BECOME available on the adjustment layer menu, so you can do effectively the exact same thing with impunity by any interpretation of the rule?

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 12:44:40.
 09/19/2007 01:20:43 PM · #23
Following the reply to Bear's questions with great interest....
 09/19/2007 02:23:52 PM · #24
I am a bit confused now too LOL

I thought that you could only use adjustment layers at 100% opacity. Period.

I knew that no selective tools were allowed. Period. Only global changes.

I did NOT know that you can't duplicate the image layer, apply an adjustment (like levels), and then flatten it without any other changes (such as opacity... I knew about blending modes) and be DQ'ed.

Is this right??

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 14:24:18.
 09/19/2007 02:58:46 PM · #25
To clarify a little:
- it is *never* legal to use layers (other than adjustment layers)
- If you duplicate the background layer and work on the duplicate layer with the background layer *completely hidden or turned off* then you are OK, because you have not used multiple layers *in editing your submission* (the duplicate layer does not change the final submission).
- To Robert's point/question, the end result of doing an operation on a layer and then reducing the opacity is exactly the same as doing it on the base layer and immediately using Edit>Fade. The only difference is the method used. In this case, the first method is not legal in Basic (uses layers) and the second is. Basic is a tools-based ruleset, so it's possible to do the same thing either legally or illegally.

Also, with regard to the legality of VP in Basic and the OP's submission:
- The stated reason for DQ was the use of layers
- There are components of Virtual Photographer that are certainly illegal in Basic (they are effects filters) and there are components that function the same as other allowed filters. I've re-opened an old SC discussion so that we can all get on the same page as to whether any of VP is legal in Basic. FWIW, *any* stand-alone utility that applies effects should be regarded as illegal in Basic unless it is specifically ruled legal. Effects filters are specifically prohibited in Basic, per the rules.

I hope that the brevity of my original post in this thread didn't cause confusion... I was merely trying to point out that the DQ was for layers, and not specifically for use of VP.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:49:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/02/2025 12:49:39 PM EDT.