| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2007 04:52:10 PM · #51 |
You guys have been busy over night :0
Originally posted by srdanz:
Can SC now change the title of the thread to "duplicate data layers got me a DQ"? |
Yes please do, my original intention was simply to make other members aware of the use of VP in Basic editing and it no longer applies.
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by kirbic:
To clarify a little:
- it is *never* legal to use layers (other than adjustment layers) |
Excellent. Why can't that appear in the "You may not" section of the rules? |
And here is where I came unstuck never even thinking that there was an issue because it is a full and complete copy of the original file not a selective portion.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:55:15 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I am not advocating cheating. However, given that both methods result in precisely the same result, and offer no additional functionality, it is hard to see any significant moral hazard in doing the exact same thing with one combination of button presses rather than another. |
Ahh, but that's the rub with the Basic ruleset. As kirbic said, the Basic rules are tools oriented, not results oriented. I just don't understand what would be so hard about changing this to make it consistent. There may be a good reason, but I can't see it if there is. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 04:55:59 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
From what I understand, you may use duplicate layers in Basic provided that layer has NO effect on the final image. |
Um. I think it's just one pixel-laden layer to a customer...
Besides, If it has NO effect then what's the point? |
While I understand the rule as kirbic explained it (the guy needs a raise!), the point for me is workflow. I always create a copy of the background out of habit and apply layers, filters, etc on the copy. If I screw up I can always revert to background layer since it's untouched. Now that I understand the rule better, I will have to always apply adjustment layers to the background or delete the identical background before saving for submission. Two different workflows, although the difference is minimal, can lead to mistakes.
I'm sure I have some (probably a lot) basic entries where I didn't delete the background before saving. Even though final product was the same since copy of background was at 100% in normal mode, they are subject to dq. I guess tonight I'll start going through my entries and put together a list for SC. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:02:11 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I'm sure I have some (probably a lot) basic entries where I didn't delete the background before saving. |
If all your editing work was on a single, opaque top layer (in Normal blending mode), then having the original in the background shouldn't be a problem since it's completely hidden and doesn't affect the image in any way. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:02:30 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I am not advocating cheating. However, given that both methods result in precisely the same result, and offer no additional functionality, it is hard to see any significant moral hazard in doing the exact same thing with one combination of button presses rather than another. |
Ahh, but that's the rub with the Basic ruleset. As kirbic said, the Basic rules are tools oriented, not results oriented. I just don't understand what would be so hard about changing this to make it consistent. There may be a good reason, but I can't see it if there is. |
I understand this - it is already one of the unwritten themes used to interpret the basic ruleset. It might be helpful if the themes or purposes were written, rather than left for us knowledgeable ones to know and for others to guess.
It would also focus attention on the question of whether that a very strict tools based interpretation is really what the basic ruleset is intending to achieve.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:08:14 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I'm sure I have some (probably a lot) basic entries where I didn't delete the background before saving. |
If all your editing work was on a single, opaque top layer (in Normal blending mode), then having the original in the background shouldn't be a problem since it's completely hidden and doesn't affect the image in any way. |
But kirbic said above "My statement about turning it off was meant to indicate that only one layer must be used to create the final product, therefore any remaining "backup" or "scratch" layers must be either removed or turned off prior to saving.".
The final product is the same and legal tools were used, the issue is whether the background was turned off or not. Is there a general consensus among SC? |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:09:03 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
From what I understand, you may use duplicate layers in Basic provided that layer has NO effect on the final image. |
Um. I think it's just one pixel-laden layer to a customer...
Besides, If it has NO effect then what's the point? |
While I understand the rule as kirbic explained it (the guy needs a raise!), the point for me is workflow. I always create a copy of the background out of habit and apply layers, filters, etc on the copy. If I screw up I can always revert to background layer since it's untouched. Now that I understand the rule better, I will have to always apply adjustment layers to the background or delete the identical background before saving for submission. Two different workflows, although the difference is minimal, can lead to mistakes.
I'm sure I have some (probably a lot) basic entries where I didn't delete the background before saving. Even though final product was the same since copy of background was at 100% in normal mode, they are subject to dq. I guess tonight I'll start going through my entries and put together a list for SC. |
Honestly, I get it. It's my "normal" workflow, too. But for DPC (the rare times I enter anymore) I change that workflow. Besides, you can always create 2 copies and just drag the adjustment layers you want from the first over to the one with the single background and merge.
My beef is that what edit > fade does is not "technically" legal in Elements because in order to create that effect it must be applied to a second pixel-bearing copy of the background and then the opacity can be reduced.
I understand that the rules were trying to avoid people using blending modes other than normal...but now it appears that other blending modes are available under the "fade" menu. Hmmmm...? |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:20:54 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Marigold:
Oh, I'm completely lost The edit/fade option has all those different modes as an option, so more than one result is possible. So you can use fade/edit in any mode or just normal? :) |
NO. Only in normal. Not that the rules mention blending modes in edit/fade at all. But that's why a recent ribbon winner was DQd.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:34:07 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
My beef is that what edit > fade does is not "technically" legal in Elements because in order to create that effect it must be applied to a second pixel-bearing copy of the background and then the opacity can be reduced. |
I'll raise you one. in earlier versions of Elements, there were no layers, and thus no way at all to duplicate this effect. The same is true in some low-end editing packages, even today. But it would be unfair to say "it's illegal, because not everyone can do it."
Originally posted by KaDi:
I understand that the rules were trying to avoid people using blending modes other than normal...but now it appears that other blending modes are available under the "fade" menu. Hmmmm...? |
Really wasn't to avoid folks using blend modes, more because we really wanted to clearly avoid allowing any use of pixel-bearing layers. Yes, the alternative blending modes are available in Edit>Fade, but no, they are not legal. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 05:58:40 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you work on a duplicate layer and turn off the background, when you flatten the image the BG layer is discarded, not blended. The only data left is that on the edited layer, 100% unaffected by any data on the original BG.
With the Edit > Fade technique, only one result is possible. If we allow blending of layers, it becomes too possible/likely that people will change other parameters such as blending modes. (bold added)
All of the rules are ultimately "policed" by trying to duplicate your entry from your original, following the steps you describe. |
Just to weigh back in briefly, as others have pointed out, this is not the case. Edit/fade has a drop-down list allowing you to apply it in modes other than normal, which we all agree is not legal in basic.
The edit/fade command is just a shortcut available in some (but not all) PS versions to avoid the necessity of the multiple step dupe BG-adjust-fade opacity-merge down workflow.
For all that it has been "explained" that basic editing is "tool-based", I have to disagree on this particular anomaly. In all fairness, I believe the use of the edit/fade command must be disallowed in basic editing if the SC does not want to allow the use of faded normal layers in basic. This would make things entirely consistent, in this area at least.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 06:30:12 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'll raise you one. in earlier versions of Elements, there were no layers, and thus no way at all to duplicate this effect. The same is true in some low-end editing packages, even today. But it would be unfair to say "it's illegal, because not everyone can do it." |
My copy of MS Paint cannot even save as a jpeg. It is all so unfair...
;-)
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 07:21:42 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by KaDi:
My beef is that what edit > fade does is not "technically" legal in Elements because in order to create that effect it must be applied to a second pixel-bearing copy of the background and then the opacity can be reduced. |
I'll raise you one. in earlier versions of Elements, there were no layers, and thus no way at all to duplicate this effect. The same is true in some low-end editing packages, even today. But it would be unfair to say "it's illegal, because not everyone can do it." |
I won't buy into your slippery slope argument. I "can" do exactly what Edit > Fade does in Elements. I "do" have the tool. It's just not available under the way the Basic rules have been written and are interpreted.
Matthew has provided a work-around that is not "strictly" legal based on current interpretations of the rules. It may also not be detectable...but that's just not me.
Robert has argued here, and multiple times elsewhere, that the "rule" of disallowing duplicate layers to which blur or sharpen are applied then faded goes against the intent of the tool based rule. Again, I have the tool, I just don't have the shortcut. Disallow the shortcut or allow the exception.
(One day, perhaps soon, I'll own CS3 and my personal interest will become moot. But I sure hope I'm not running around kicking sand in the face of the 100-pound weakling just because I get a little more muscle!) |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 07:25:33 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Robert has argued here, and multiple times elsewhere, that the "rule" of disallowing duplicate layers to which blur or sharpen are applied then faded goes against the intent of the tool based rule. Again, I have the tool, I just don't have the shortcut. Disallow the shortcut or allow the exception. |
Let me advance one more argument: what would be the effect on basic editing rules if we allowed layers, but added "You may not use any "mode" other than normal at any time while editing your image"?
Can anyone think of an example of how using pixel-containing layers in normal mode would change anything in the end result? Assuming, of course, that "edit/fade" continues to be legal?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 07:33:40 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
I won't buy into your slippery slope argument. I "can" do exactly what Edit > Fade does in Elements. I "do" have the tool. It's just not available under the way the Basic rules have been written and are interpreted.
|
Sorry, I'm not understanding the "slippery slope" reference? My point was simply that yes, you can duplicate the results with your current software (but not legally) but there are other software versions and packages where it's not even possible to duplicate it, whether legally or illegally. So then, what I'm asking is, if we were to allow the "new layer/reduce opacity" workflow in Basic, how do we respond to those who don't have layers?
The bottom line is, whatever we do, there will be some who feel that they are at a disadvantage because of it. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 08:22:11 PM · #65 |
I certainly understand your point kirbic, about where do you draw the line, but I think Bear brings up a very good point about the concept of allowing layer
eta: It seems that usually it comes down to the same 'tools' in the discussion. Basic adj. layers, gaussian blur, shadows/highlights, sharpen/usm. Could a rule be added that specifically allows a layer with reduced opacity IN NORMAL MODE for these items? for non PS/CS programs...
Message edited by author 2007-09-19 20:27:12. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 08:27:11 PM · #66 |
| It's certainly a subject that's come up in discussions. I'll make sure that the idea gets air time the next time we are looking at the Basic Rules. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 09:11:38 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by KaDi:
I won't buy into your slippery slope argument. I "can" do exactly what Edit > Fade does in Elements. I "do" have the tool. It's just not available under the way the Basic rules have been written and are interpreted.
|
Sorry, I'm not understanding the "slippery slope" reference? My point was simply that yes, you can duplicate the results with your current software (but not legally) but there are other software versions and packages where it's not even possible to duplicate it, whether legally or illegally. So then, what I'm asking is, if we were to allow the "new layer/reduce opacity" workflow in Basic, how do we respond to those who don't have layers?
The bottom line is, whatever we do, there will be some who feel that they are at a disadvantage because of it. |
...and there you have a perfect example of "slippery slope"...tah! If we allow this...then this...and then, OMG!, maybe this! Before you know it we'll be allowing people to draw in representations of what it would look like if they had layers!!!! BOSH!
I have the tool and the means but not the "shortcut". Allow me to use the tool and means available or disallow the shortcut. In your own words, they are "exactly the same thing"...or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
I am not wedded to either solution. I just want a level playing field. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 09:15:01 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just to weigh back in briefly, as others have pointed out, this is not the case. Edit/fade has a drop-down list allowing you to apply it in modes other than normal, which we all agree is not legal in basic.
The edit/fade command is just a shortcut available in some (but not all) PS versions to avoid the necessity of the multiple step dupe BG-adjust-fade opacity-merge down workflow.
For all that it has been "explained" that basic editing is "tool-based", I have to disagree on this particular anomaly. In all fairness, I believe the use of the edit/fade command must be disallowed in basic editing if the SC does not want to allow the use of faded normal layers in basic. This would make things entirely consistent, in this area at least.
R. |
Bear, as always, you succinctly explain what I could only struggle to put into words.
Originally posted by kirbic:
t's certainly a subject that's come up in discussions. I'll make sure that the idea gets air time the next time we are looking at the Basic Rules. |
Ultimately, this is all we can ask. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 09:24:42 PM · #69 |
As I understand it Edit/Fade just reduces the strength of the effect you're applying much like choosing a lower setting in the dialog box of the filter you're using. It most definitely doesn't blend the pixels from the layer below.
For example, if I open the Unsharp Mask window and used Amount=50, Radius=50 then hit ok and afterward faded it to 50% using Edit/Fade wouldn't that be the same or similar to using Amount=25, Radius=25 in the dialog window? If so why would there be a problem? Because it's a two step process vs one?
Message edited by author 2007-09-19 21:29:03. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 09:40:42 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The edit/fade command is just a shortcut available in some (but not all) PS versions to avoid the necessity of the multiple step dupe BG-adjust-fade opacity-merge down workflow. |
This isn't true. An easy way to test is duplicate the layer and desaturate it. Then apply an effect and fade it using Edit/Fade. You will see that the color from the layer below does not blend into the duplicate layer like it would if you siimply lowered the layer's opacity.. |
|
|
|
09/19/2007 10:06:44 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The edit/fade command is just a shortcut available in some (but not all) PS versions to avoid the necessity of the multiple step dupe BG-adjust-fade opacity-merge down workflow. |
This isn't true. An easy way to test is duplicate the layer and desaturate it. Then apply an effect and fade it using Edit/Fade. You will see that the color from the layer below does not blend into the duplicate layer like it would if you siimply lowered the layer's opacity.. |
This may be true, but it's getting awfully nit-picky. The bottom line is, it's "best practice" to use layers in Photoshop, and any ruleset that discourages this is anti-learning at the core.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2007 10:25:01 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by KaDi:
I won't buy into your slippery slope argument. I "can" do exactly what Edit > Fade does in Elements. I "do" have the tool. It's just not available under the way the Basic rules have been written and are interpreted.
|
Sorry, I'm not understanding the "slippery slope" reference? My point was simply that yes, you can duplicate the results with your current software (but not legally) but there are other software versions and packages where it's not even possible to duplicate it, whether legally or illegally. So then, what I'm asking is, if we were to allow the "new layer/reduce opacity" workflow in Basic, how do we respond to those who don't have layers?
The bottom line is, whatever we do, there will be some who feel that they are at a disadvantage because of it. |
...and there you have a perfect example of "slippery slope"...tah! If we allow this...then this...and then, OMG!, maybe this! Before you know it we'll be allowing people to draw in representations of what it would look like if they had layers!!!! BOSH! |
I don't at all know how you're interpreting my posts as being opposed to allowing something for fear of a "slippery slope" as you put it.
What I'm saying, rather, is that *there can be no level playing field.* It doesn't matter where we draw the line, whether we do so liberally or conservatively. It will exclude some and include others. You're pitching your own "solution" that benefits you personally.
Originally posted by KaDi:
I have the tool and the means but not the "shortcut". Allow me to use the tool and means available or disallow the shortcut. In your own words, they are "exactly the same thing"...or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
I am not wedded to either solution. I just want a level playing field. |
They are the same thing. In a tools-based workflow there will always be the chance that someone finds a (legal) way of doing something that by the "normal" path is illegal. Or conversely, that someone will use an illegal workflow to achieve something that can be achieved legally, and get disqualified.
I think this dead horse has been beaten into a fruit-juicy pulp. This will therefore be my last post on the matter. I have followed through on my commitment above to bring it up again in the Basic Rules discussion, so I'll leave it rest there.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2007 02:59:42 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by L2:
{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.)
|
This was added by  L2 and clearly states that VP is not legal in Basic Editing.
Message edited by author 2007-09-22 15:01:58.
|
|
