| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2007 11:39:53 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Where I was coming from mostly was the wording. When I think of "effects filters" I think of making a choice from a selection menu within an application (PSP, PS, etc...). I wouldn't apply the term "effects filter" to another stand-alone app like PM. |
Ah, I see, however many tools (including Photomatix) are available in both standalone and plugin versions. Wouldn't it be kinda silly to make a legal distinction based on that? |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 11:54:31 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Where I was coming from mostly was the wording. When I think of "effects filters" I think of making a choice from a selection menu within an application (PSP, PS, etc...). I wouldn't apply the term "effects filter" to another stand-alone app like PM. |
Ah, I see, however many tools (including Photomatix) are available in both standalone and plugin versions. Wouldn't it be kinda silly to make a legal distinction based on that? |
Messy business it is, isn't it? :P |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 11:57:52 AM · #78 |
to clarify: we are not against posting an announcement. we're not setting a trap. we (SC) just don't have the capability to "sticky" a thread on the home page or update the site news. we're at langdon's mercy for that, and we're working on it.
FWIW, our last big clarification of the rules (which is what this is) has been in the site news for 8 months. i'd say that shows we're interested in keeping people informed.
--
as for comments that this is a change in the rules, it's really not. it's a change in how we are interpreting the rules. i know that doesn't sound like much of a distinction, and for that i'm sorry.
long story short, there's no way the rules can specifically clarify exactly what tools are and are not allowed. we've structured them so they provide guidelines as to what is appropriate for each type of challenge. we asked that the filters used for basic were meant to preserve image integrity. while it's entirely possible to use these specific add-ons to do that, they were instead introducing special effects that were not in the original capture. therefore, we're making this clarification to try and rein things back in.
the details of the rules are in place as guidelines, but the key to the basic ruleset is this:
Originally posted by basic rules:
These rules are intended to allow you to fine tune your entry and correct basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc. |
--
finally, as far as us being "out of touch" with the regular users, i just have to say this: part of the reason it takes decisions like this so long to execute is because we spend hundreds of posts trying to take every possible point of view into account. gobs of time are spent playing "devil's advocate."
how much time and effort we spend entering challenges is a moot point. we're here -- everyday -- participating in the forums and the side challenges and the DPL and every social aspect of the site. we dedicate a great deal of time to keeping ourselves informed about what's going on. and, when appropriate, we do try to act on it.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 11:58:55 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Ok. I can see your point. Where I was coming from mostly was the wording. When I think of "effects filters" I think of making a choice from a selection menu within an application (PSP, PS, etc...). I wouldn't apply the term "effects filter" to another stand-alone app like PM. |
i see your point, and i realize i just posted this, but, to me, this trumps everything in the basic rules:
Originally posted by basic rules:
These rules are intended to allow you to fine tune your entry and correct basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc. |
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:15:29 PM · #80 |
The biggest Irony here is, about a year ago, maybe a bit less, I complained that Tonemapping should not be legal in basic editting, the usual argument ensued and I even went to the trouble of emailing photomatix to get a rundown on how tonemapping works, and yes, it did look like it broke the rules of basic editted, however, SC being SC would never never go back on a decision they make (god forbid) stuck by it and said it was legal, it wasnt a case of them not saying anything and everyone just assuming, they came out and said `tonemapping is legal`.. then, less than 12 months later, when a lot of us, me included, decided it was time to adapt and go with the ruling and I have worked tonemapping into my workflow, the SC now make a massive u-turn and say its not legal. my question, why take almost a year to decide?
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 12:15:49. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:20:30 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i see your point, and i realize i just posted this, but, to me, this trumps everything in the basic rules:
Originally posted by basic rules:
These rules are intended to allow you to fine tune your entry and correct basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc. |
|
...but not to change things entirely. Wouldn't that mean there exists a subjective line to be crossed even with your basic plain vanilla adjustment layers? That if your modification strays too far from the unmodified original then it violates the intent of basic editing rules and is grounds for DQ?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:21:45 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Simms:
then, less than 12 months later, when a lot of us, me included, decided it was time to adapt and go with the ruling and I have worked tonemapping into my workflow, the SC now make a massive u-turn and say its not legal. my question, why take almost a year to decide? |
I think just to irritate you. :-) Actually, I think Muckpond explained it pretty well above. Decisions take a lot of time because they do explore the angles, and these folks aren't just sitting around all day on DPC - they do (for the most part) have lives and such. Though I think that should be disallowed....
On the other hand, I can recommend my non-winning workflow - levels, curves, sharpen, crop to taste, resize, enter. :-) |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:26:25 PM · #83 |
in case anyone is interested, the old post is here!
Tonemapping Thread.
Its actually quite a fun read as I am so anti-photomatix, and here I am now, defending it!
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 12:27:25. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:27:27 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Simms:
why take almost a year to decide? |
Maybe, just maybe, you weren't the only one who thought it should be illegal, but just as many people thought it should and we decided to allow it while we discuss, evaluate, and see how well people adhere to the premise of fine tuning and correction. At least some parts of these tools COULD be legal, so it wasn't a simple yes or no answer and required some validation experience and thought to distinguish from some similar tools.
I'm confused though... you complain about SC never going back on a decision and then about SC making a u-turn. Huh? |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:33:46 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm confused though... you complain about SC never going back on a decision and then about SC making a u-turn. Huh? |
I know Shannon, I am confusing myself!! lol.
Seriously though, the timescale thing is a big issue here, in the past 10 months or so I have accepted the SC decision on tonemapping, saw it was the way photography could well go, and learnt to accept it, in fact I even embraced it. Maybe the SC should do this from time to time. Tonemapping has becoming a norm in basic editting (on this site)..
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 12:35:48. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:40:51 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
You just wait. I think our next move will be to outlaw cameras ... |
I'm ready for ya ... ;-) |
OK, that rocks! |
He, he, :)))) Pretty good. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:52:47 PM · #87 |
I don't think it was there earlier, but it's better then a UFO.
since this Green-Colored thread will eventually disapear from this Front-Page.
Three cheers for for some exciting and Insiteful, [b]"Sight News" posting, I just sighted.[/b]
Rah, raw, raw!
ADDED:
I assume it is still okay for Advanced Editing, it can do some cool stuff with out adding pixel content, AFAIK. Momma don't taaake my Photomatix away...
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 12:56:37. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:55:47 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Seriously though, the timescale thing is a big issue here, in the past 10 months or so I have accepted the SC decision on tonemapping... |
So use it in Advanced. FWIW, the SC thread on tonemapping predates yours by nearly 2 months. We agreed even then that tonemapping SHOULD be illegal in Basic, but discussion and evaluation are good, and changing one thing at a time on a rolling basis would be chaos. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:14:05 PM · #89 |
This is kind of amusing :-) As far as I know I am the one that started this whole "photomatix in basic" thin g, and there was a reason for it: at the time I was stuck on an old machine running PS7, and PS7 has no shadow/highlight adjustment. In my advanced workflow I was using "contrast masking" (the cntrl-alt-tilde thing) as a workaround, but this is not basic-legal because it uses pixel layers and layer modes.
Seeking a legal alternative, I came across photomatix pro tone mapping, and realized it accomplished about the same thing as shadow/highlight(and more, if used in certain ways, but that's neither here nor there). So for me, TM in basic was to seek to imitate the legal but unobtainable S/H of advanced PS versions.
Anyway, they've banned it now... PS7 users are SOL. Any further comments I have, I guess, belong int he other thread. My question:
Does this apply to tonight's entry? 'Cuz I have a tone-mapped entry ready to go... This is kind of late notice, if it does...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:17:48 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does this apply to tonight's entry? 'Cuz I have a tone-mapped entry ready to go... This is kind of late notice, if it does...
R. |
I'd like to think it does, I dont have an entry myself, but would suck if you have submitted already. fingers crossed for you! |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:24:26 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does this apply to tonight's entry? 'Cuz I have a tone-mapped entry ready to go... This is kind of late notice, if it does...
R. |
There's discussion pending -- I hope it will be clarified soon, but who knows ... |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:25:38 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does this apply to tonight's entry? 'Cuz I have a tone-mapped entry ready to go... This is kind of late notice, if it does...
R. |
There's discussion pending -- I hope it will be clarified soon, but who knows ... |
come back in ten months eh, give you a chance to discuss it? :) |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:28:45 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does this apply to tonight's entry? 'Cuz I have a tone-mapped entry ready to go... This is kind of late notice, if it does...
R. |
That would be total BS if it applied to this week's challenges running under Basic Editing that have tonight as a deadline. I don't have a tonemapped image myself, but in all fairness to those already entered I don't see how that would be the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:30:42 PM · #94 |
What about those who have already entered under the old rule set and will not check again in until after voting starts? I am happy with the rule change in basic, but make sure you have a full week for people to absorb the change.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 13:31:27. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:45:15 PM · #95 |
I make the motion that future Rule Changes/Intepretation-Advisories, or whatever it may be called,
be officially instated and effective during the Midnight of a "Challenge Turnover", unless some emergency situatons require otherwise. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:46:43 PM · #96 |
Well, to keep it simple I'll just not enter my tone-mapped basic shot; it's not going to score especially well anyway, I don't think. I'll sit the challenge out unless something happens this afternoon.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 13:47:12.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:52:10 PM · #97 |
I'm new here, but I agree with this rule change. I'd even like more restrict rules for some other things that are allowed currently.
I just think that the new rules and rule changes must be clearly available outside the forums, since not everyone has time to read the forums.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:55:27 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
What about those who have already entered under the old rule set and will not check again in until after voting starts? |
This was already covered at the beginning of the thread.
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Simms:
what if we have an entry already in voting that uses one of more of these filters? |
Those entries will remain without removal or penalty. |
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:07:03 PM · #99 |
I never knew you could use any of those in the first place but do feel that the shadow/highlight adjustment should stay.
Digital is NOT film and not being able to use it as creatively as we can is squelching but I guess as long as it is consistently reinforced, it's ok. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:07:13 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bassbone:
What about those who have already entered under the old rule set and will not check again in until after voting starts? |
This was already covered at the beginning of the thread.
|
Blame it on the General (7 or 8 posts back). :P
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does this apply to tonight's entry? 'Cuz I have a tone-mapped entry ready to go... This is kind of late notice, if it does...
R. |
There's discussion pending -- I hope it will be clarified soon, but who knows ... |
|
|
