| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2008 06:11:46 AM · #1 |
| OK OK, bring it back to the question we're all reading this now for, is "Lighting Effects" legal or not...........I very much doubt it for basic, but for advanced....? |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 04:02:48 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
With friends like that... |
Out of curiosity, what did I say that's even remotely negative?
R. |
Nothing. It's just that I wouldn't have liked to be the subject of a discussion like this. I am not saying you have any negative intention. I am pretty sure you don't. :) |
I understand where you are coming from but you must remember once you enter a challenge your photo becomes open for discussion in the forums and if you happen to get a DQ well I think it's imperative that we then have open and frank discussions regarding the DQ.
DQ's are all part of the learning curve.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:57:10 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
With friends like that... |
Out of curiosity, what did I say that's even remotely negative?
R. |
Nothing. It's just that I wouldn't have liked to be the subject of a discussion like this. I am not saying you have any negative intention. I am pretty sure you don't. :) |
To be fair, the individual isn't the subject of the discussion. The gradient/vignette he used is. Like Achoo said, if there is a legal gradient we would all just like to know about it.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 15:57:59. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:50:50 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
With friends like that... |
Out of curiosity, what did I say that's even remotely negative?
R. |
Nothing. It's just that I wouldn't have liked to be the subject of a discussion like this. I am not saying you have any negative intention. I am pretty sure you don't. :)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:28:24 PM · #5 |
Whilst I am not saying that I agree or disagree with either the reason for DQ or the discussing of an individual...I do want to say that one of my DQ's early in the peace was for something I thought was legal. I was DQ'ed. I then brought it to the forums to help others. And sure enough, 2 others came forward and said they didn't know it was illegal also and had to then quickly remove their own entries before they went to vote.
So my mistake...helped at least 2 others from the humiliation of a DQ.
So discussing whether an effect used was legal or not is relevant to not just the person at the center of the discussion...but also to others as well.
As long as there is no finger pointing...there is no need for 'defending'.
Keep it civil guys.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:25:52 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Sure he can be PMed but that only helps him. Discussing it in a forum helps everyone. When I first got here the forums and the photographer comments is where I learned about what you can and can't do in the challenges. I can assure you he isn't the only person that may be confused about what's allowed. Threads like this are most helpful. I really don't see why discussing this is an issue. Nobody is calling him names. |
Exactly. This has morphed, very usefully, into a discussion of whether "light effects" is legal in basic. I'm hoping an SC will chime in, as is Doc. I'm pretty sure it's not, though. In fact, I think the tool's so powerful it's often used to create effects that won't pass muster in Advanced...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:24:06 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
With friends like that... |
Out of curiosity, what did I say that's even remotely negative?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:15:44 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
ETA2: If everybody is so concerned with the second time he'll loose a ribbon, why not send him a pm rather than to discuss it over and over at the forum. |
Sure he can be PMed but that only helps him. Discussing it in a forum helps everyone. When I first got here the forums and the photographer comments is where I learned about what you can and can't do in the challenges. I can assure you he isn't the only person that may be confused about what's allowed. Threads like this are most helpful. I really don't see why discussing this is an issue. Nobody is calling him names. |
hmmm okay, good point.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:10:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
ETA2: If everybody is so concerned with the second time he'll loose a ribbon, why not send him a pm rather than to discuss it over and over at the forum. |
Sure he can be PMed but that only helps him. Discussing it in a forum helps everyone. When I first got here the forums and the photographer comments is where I learned about what you can and can't do in the challenges. I can assure you he isn't the only person that may be confused about what's allowed. Threads like this are most helpful. I really don't see why discussing this is an issue. Nobody is calling him names.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:09:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Besides, you are now doing exactly what I opposed to, spinning out the guy and his history in public. It's painfull enough as it is, isn't it? |
Well yeah, but I'm DEFENDING him.
R. |
With friends like that...
:P
;)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:58:53 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Besides, you are now doing exactly what I opposed to, spinning out the guy and his history in public. It's painfull enough as it is, isn't it? |
Well yeah, but I'm DEFENDING him.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:56:43 PM · #12 |
Actually I feel bad for the person, but at the same time glad it was brought up a bit here. Now I'll be more carefull about preserving my original in the off chance I ever make ribbon quality photo's.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 14:57:17. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:38:08 PM · #13 |
Well, partly for selfish reasons. If there is an effect that can achieve this and is legal...I wanna know about it so I can use it. :)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:27:21 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Nevertheless, that is only relevant if he did use the effect AND accidently lossed his original, which I find highly unlikely. |
Why? He's posted to the forums once, 25 months ago. He's entered 10 challenges total. He's never had an image up for validation before that I can see. He's not a native English speaker. It's perfectly possible he just didn't know any better and edited directly on his original JPG and saved it. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened to someone.
R. |
Yep, I agree. But that's only one half of the condition. :)
ETA 1: Besides, you are now doing exactly what I opposed to, spinning out the guy and his history in public. It's painfull enough as it is, isn't it?
ETA2: If everybody is so concerned with the second time he'll loose a ribbon, why not send him a pm rather than to discuss it over and over at the forum.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 14:30:58.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:11:30 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Nevertheless, that is only relevant if he did use the effect AND accidently lossed his original, which I find highly unlikely. |
Why? He's posted to the forums once, 25 months ago. He's entered 10 challenges total. He's never had an image up for validation before that I can see. He's not a native English speaker. It's perfectly possible he just didn't know any better and edited directly on his original JPG and saved it. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened to someone.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:06:37 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But to lose your second because nobody tipped you off that "light effects" was illegal would be even worse, eh? |
Had to think twice to understand what you're saying.
Yes you are right.
Nevertheless, that is only relevant if he did use the effect AND accidently lossed his original, which I find highly unlikely.
:)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:04:03 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But to lose your second because nobody tipped you off that "light effects" was illegal would be even worse, eh? |
I assume you mean "to lose another ribbon because..." right? So here it is, from the basic Rules:
You May:
• use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:58:48 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Originally posted by Brad:
Doubt there should be a bunch of speculation, as Adrian did state in his comments:
"But I got a problem.. can't submit original picture.. sorry if I'll disappoint anyone." |
And that's exactly what the reason for DQ states. So, indeed, no reason to speculate. Let's assume he deleted it by accident and save the guy a lengthy discussion on probable other reasons or illegal actions.
Let's face it, loosing a ribon through DQ is painfull enough as it is. |
But to lose your second because nobody tipped you off that "light effects" was illegal would be even worse, eh?
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:57:37 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Doubt there should be a bunch of speculation, as Adrian did state in his comments:
"But I got a problem.. can't submit original picture.. sorry if I'll disappoint anyone." |
And that's exactly what the reason for DQ states. So, indeed, no reason to speculate. Let's assume he deleted it by accident and save the guy a lengthy discussion on probable other reasons or illegal actions.
Let's face it, loosing a ribon through DQ is painfull enough as it is.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:28:19 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does anybody know what "light effects" actually is or at least what PP program it comes from? |
My guess is:
[thumb]626614[/thumb] |
If that's what it is, it's absolutely not legal for basic editing...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:06:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does anybody know what "light effects" actually is or at least what PP program it comes from? |
My guess is:
[thumb]626614[/thumb] |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:04:18 PM · #22 |
Does anybody know what "light effects" actually is or at least what PP program it comes from?
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 11:50:15 AM · #23 |
Doubt there should be a bunch of speculation, as Adrian did state in his comments:
"But I got a problem.. can't submit original picture.. sorry if I'll disappoint anyone."
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 11:47:17 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Phil:
It looks like vignetting might've been added. Not saying it was - just looks like it. |
It could have been a result of "light effects - default" which I have no idea what it is or if it is legal. I do agree it looks like there is a gradient there, but perhaps it was legally placed (or isn't really there after all)?
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 11:45:52 AM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 06:00:51 AM EDT.
