| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2006 02:56:24 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by yanko:
You guys are all getting confused here. You DO NOT need to select anything to use the distort tool. All you need to do is work on a non-locked layer and go to Edit/Transform/Distort without doing anything else. Selections are those little moving dashes, which is not the same as the control box with anchor points that you are presented with when you use the distort tool. |
This is all semantics; kind of reminds me of when Clinton tried to debate the meaning of the word "is"... Here's the deal: if you press cntrl-T without first making a selection, it defaults to selecting the entire image area and gives you a bounding box with control handles on it to use in making your distortion. If you select a portion of the area first with the marquee tool and then press cntrl-T, you get the exact same bounding box except it is limited to the area you selected.
Regarding Basic Editing IV rules, surely this qualifies as "any type of selection tool" pursuant to "Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping." The fact that photoshop creates the selection and the bounding box in a single step doesn't seem to be too relevant to me.
Especially not since the rules were apparently designed to get everyone doing all their work on the single background layer, which for 90% of photoshop users is always locked, meaning you can't use the transform tools on it without first making the selection yourself anyway :-)
In the new basic rules, you may not "distort or stretch your image in any way", making all this a moot point henceforward, right?
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:03:18 AM · #77 |
Regarding the ancillary issue of why gaussian blur and USM are allowed, I'd presume that since we obviously HAVE to allow some sort of sharpening, then we equally obviously have to allow some form of UNsharpening, and gaussian blur is sort of the inverse of USM. I mean, some people who work in jpg straight from the camera, and use their camera with sharpening dialed way up, occasionally (in contrasty light situations) create images that are TOO sharp, and a touch of USM will dial that back nicely.
Incidentally, I've found that you can simulate diffuse glow or gothic glow, up to a point, by repeated doses of USM followed by gaussian blur, finishing with a final touch of USM. I would presume this is still legal with the new version of the basic rules?
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:11:47 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Especially not since the rules were apparently designed to get everyone doing all their work on the single background layer, which for 90% of photoshop users is always locked, meaning you can't use the transform tools on it without first making the selection yourself anyway :-)
R. |
Untrue, you can right-click the locked background layer and then choose 'Layer from Background'. This unlocks the single layer and makes the distort tool available.
Then chose EDIT>TRANSFORM>DISTORT, note no selection has been made with ctrl-T or anything else.
I am now working on a single (unlocked layer) and can resize the image using the handles provided at the extremities of the image by the bounding box.
There is no filter being used, it is operating on all pixels eaqually. I don't see grounds for DQ here.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:12:41 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
occasionally (in contrasty light situations) create images that are TOO sharp, and a touch of USM will dial that back nicely.
R. |
Do you mean gaussian blur? or can you use USM that will dial back oversharp jpegs?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:21:25 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Especially not since the rules were apparently designed to get everyone doing all their work on the single background layer, which for 90% of photoshop users is always locked, meaning you can't use the transform tools on it without first making the selection yourself anyway :-)
R. |
Untrue, you can right-click the locked background layer and then choose 'Layer from Background'. This unlocks the single layer and makes the distort tool available.
Then chose EDIT>TRANSFORM>DISTORT, note no selection has been made with ctrl-T or anything else.
I am now working on a single (unlocked layer) and can resize the image using the handles provided at the extremities of the image by the bounding box.
There is no filter being used, it is operating on all pixels equally. I don't see grounds for DQ here. |
Note that I said "for 90% of all photoshop users": most of them don't KNOW you can do this to a BG layer, OK?
Now, you can use the cntrl-T function to RESIZE the image, absolutely, by taking any corner and dragging it diagonally, and as long as you hold down the shift key you maintain your aspect ratio and this is effectively the same thing as cropping the image. BUT if you don't hold down the shift key you change the aspect ratio; in Dsidwell's case, by stretching it vertically, and this introduces distortion into the image.
Now, in the new basic rules that's expressly forbidden, so it's a non-issue. In the old rules, there's no mention of "distortion", but I still say that as far as the real world is concerned, when you get a bounding box with handles on it that you can grab and manipulate, that is a selection! These seems completely obvious to me. I don't see anywhere in the rules that the definition of a "selection" is limited to "marching ants", and clearly this bounding box is acting like a container to define the area that is manipulated, and that, by definition, is a "selection" to me. Don't think so? DRAW a selection in the middle of your image, hit cntrl-T, and get a bounding box with handles on it that is precisely the same area as was your selection.
You can't HAVE that box without a selection; whether you had to define the selection manually or whether PS defaulted to full-frame selection is irrelevant; it's there!
R.
BTW, edit-transform-distort is even further off the reservation; at least edit-free transform (cntrl-T) is limited to the right-angled axes, where the "distort" command lets you actively skew things.
Actually, that raises an interesting question for advanced editing; is the "skew" command an acceptable way to level horizons under advanced editing rules?
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 03:27:23. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:25:01 AM · #81 |
Selection to me indicated that i have made some choice about an area of the image. In this case I have expressly made no choice and therefore no selection. I am working on the WHOLE image, no selection.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:30:55 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Selection to me indicated that i have made some choice about an area of the image. In this case I have expressly made no choice and therefore no selection. I am working on the WHOLE image, no selection. |
Well, actually, I'm all for it if it comes to that :-) I'd LOVE to be able to stretch or compress sometimes. But in the new basic rules it's absolutely not acceptable, because you may not distort your image in any way... The "selection" aspect of it is now immaterial. It's only relevant as to whether this particular image should have been DQ'd under the old rules, and IMO the answer is "yes". Certainly Dsidwell isn't fighting it :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:35:30 AM · #83 |
I agree about the new rules, and I know David isn't fighting it, but in my opinion the SC interpretation and ruling is unjust. I have proved that the letter of the rules have not been broken and that an incorrect interpretation of the rules is the only thing which has caused David to lose his ribbon.
The fact that there was great play about the date from which the new rules came in force and that this DQ was justified by quoting text from the new rule set indicates to me that SC made a mistake. I just think they should accept the facts and re-instate the blue ribbon.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:42:35 AM · #84 |
haha, talk about trying to find a way to change who got the first place image here. Wow.
I hope the SC will intepret the new rules better then this in the future. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:45:45 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bolti:
I hope the SC will intepret the new rules better then this in the future. |
This challenge was the last basic challenge run under the old ruleset. The image is definitely not allowed under the new ruleset, as it uses a distortion.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 04:32:00 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Basic Editing IV:
Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image.
|
So even if we argued that Distort isn't a selection, it then must be a filter. It can't be an adjusment layer, since they must have no pixels and that leaves nothing else to call it. The image is not being affected uniformly, no? The entire image is affected, but not uniformly in every direction. In dsidwell's case the pixels were pulled vertically and maybe not even horizontally at all. A uniform effect would be to hold shift like BearMusic said and keep the exact same aspect ratio. Just another argument...
Joe
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 04:45:59 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by Basic Editing IV:
Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image.
|
So even if we argued that Distort isn't a selection, it then must be a filter. It can't be an adjusment layer, since they must have no pixels and that leaves nothing else to call it. The image is not being affected uniformly, no? The entire image is affected, but not uniformly in every direction. In dsidwell's case the pixels were pulled vertically and maybe not even horizontally at all. A uniform effect would be to hold shift like BearMusic said and keep the exact same aspect ratio. Just another argument...
Joe |
Well, it's not a layer at all, but otherwise yes, that's the way I see it.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:01:41 AM · #88 |
The rule text says nothing about uniformly 'in every direction', simply uniformly. That means that as long as the whole image is affected in the same way then the rule has not been broken.
The distort tool is not a filter it is an image edit. Again the rules do not address these tools at all
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 05:03:53.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:05:15 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Falc:
The rule text says nothing about uniformly 'in every direction', simply uniformly. That means that as long as the whole image is affected the rule has not been broken.
The distort tool is not a filter it is an image edit. Again the rules do not address these tools at all |
NO, c'mon, that's silly man! What the heck do you think "uniformly" means in graphic terms? It means you have maintained the aspect ratio of the object being worked with.
By your definition, it has always been legal to turn a fat person into a skinny person by compressing the image laterally?
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:09:20 AM · #90 |
literally 'uniformly' means applying exactly the same process to every part of the image. If the image was stretched then it was stretched uniformly.
There is nothing in the words of the rule which prevents this interpretation.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:14:41 AM · #91 |
I still say that's not a real-world definition. In any case, we can agree that's definitely no longer possible, right? In the new rules? So what you're saying is the following version of my self portrait would have been legal under the old basic rules? If that's true, there's quite a few DQ'd images in the past (not just dsidwell's) would have to be reinstated :-)
Yours in the spirit of Goya,
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:14:41 AM · #92 |
The SC makes their own interpretations, I think it might become forbidden to challenge these interpretations (man thats a hard word to spell) becouse people are proving them wrong so often :)
(not that they would ever admitt they are wrong though)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:14:46 AM · #93 |
| you could achieve the exactly same result using tools allowed by the rules... so I really don't get the reason here... sorry |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:22:42 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Falc:
There is no filter being used, it is operating on all pixels eaqually. I don't see grounds for DQ here. |
This pretty much sums up what I've been saying. The bounding box is not a selection nor is it a filter. I don't see how either can be argued as such.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:22:51 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by carodani:
you could achieve the exactly same result using tools allowed by the rules... so I really don't get the reason here... sorry |
No you can't; if you look closely, you will see the pilings are "taller and skinnier" than they were in the original; the imaged has been slightly morphed in much the same way my picture below has been in an exaggerated way. He didn't just want to crop out foreground because he wanted the taller aspect ratio, so he stretched it down instead so the foreground just disappeared off the canvas, see? From side to side it's virtually full frame, the aspect ratio of the entered image is the same as the original, but there's MUCH less foreground. If he'd done this by cropping, the picture would be more square.
There's no way to do this legally in basic editing, and I'm not even sure it would be legal in advanced editing. What I did to my self-portrait is definitely not legal in advanced editing: "You may not use distortions to create new effects or radically alter objects." Is Dsidwell's "radically altered"? That would be a judgment call.
In the current basic rules, the wording is "You may not distort or stretch your image in any way." so under the current basic rules dsidwell's also would not be allowed on those grounds alone, regardless of whether a selection was made.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:23:51 AM · #96 |
The old rules were undefensible, they had holes all over them, this is one such example. The literal interpretation of the text allows this transformation. Therefore the image is legal.
The new rule set has been established to fix the holes but were not in force for this challenge. The reason for DQ quoted by the SC was taken from the NEW rule set, which is wrong. The blue should be re-instated or the reason for DQ re-worded.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:26:11 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Falc:
There is no filter being used, it is operating on all pixels eaqually. I don't see grounds for DQ here. |
This pretty much sums up what I've been saying. The bounding box is not a selection nor is it a filter. I don't see how either can be argued as such. |
Would you agree that the bounding box created by the crop tool is a selection? The rules certainly specifically treat it as one, and give it a special exemption. And it is identical the cntrl-T bounding box...
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:28:24 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Would you agree that the bounding box created by the crop tool is a selection? The rules certainly specifically treat it as one, and give it a special exemption. And it is identical the cntrl-T bounding box...
R. |
No the bounded box is not a selection in this case it is the whole image. How can that be a selection?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:30:07 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Falc:
There is no filter being used, it is operating on all pixels eaqually. I don't see grounds for DQ here. |
This pretty much sums up what I've been saying. The bounding box is not a selection nor is it a filter. I don't see how either can be argued as such. |
Would you agree that the bounding box created by the crop tool is a selection? The rules certainly specifically treat it as one, and give it a special exemption. And it is identical the cntrl-T bounding box...
R. |
I normally crop by making a selection first and then clicking crop so in that example yes a selection is being made. However if I use free transform or anything that uses a bounding box then no it's not a selection. Selections allow you to copy, paste and mask none of which can be accomplished with a bounding box and that makes sense since it's not a selection tool.
ETA: If you select something first and then check the checkbox "show transform controls" notice you'll get a bounding box AND a selection (denoted by the dashes). If they are one in the same why show both?
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 05:34:26.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 05:32:47 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Would you agree that the bounding box created by the crop tool is a selection? The rules certainly specifically treat it as one, and give it a special exemption. And it is identical the cntrl-T bounding box...
R. |
No the bounded box is not a selection in this case it is the whole image. How can that be a selection? |
You cannot crop without selecting an area to crop to. The bounding box is the means by which you define that selection. You cannot transform without defining an area to transform. The bounding box defines the area that is being transformed. That the area selected/defined is the entire image is neither here nor there. The bounding box with the handles on it IS a selection.
R. |
|
