| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2007 11:14:01 AM · #1 |
So, yeah. I don't get it.
not DQ'd
Dq'd
I was under the impression that if the effect was created by the user, and not clipart or free stock or something, it was fine. And then with the DQ results the rules don't seem to be applied consistently anyways. What gives?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:15:56 AM · #2 |
Oh, and wings are okay, but not stars?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:17:05 AM · #3 |
And we can create a whole lake, but not a magic fireball?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:23:27 AM · #4 |
The one by SRDanz was not requested for validation. But it probably would pass as a sort of 3D border (you know, where the image "extrudes" from a border.
The wings is a proven submission; the wings were from a second photo, not drawn in.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 11:23:54. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:24:09 AM · #5 |
And, umm.
Just for the record, I'm not trying to get any of these images DQ'd, I actually like them.
This just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:27:37 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The one by SRDanz was not requested for validation. But it probably would pass as a sort of 3D border (you know, where the image "extrudes" from a border.
The wings is a proven submission; the wings were from a second photo, not drawn in. |
"from a previous picture saved as a brush"
I guess that meets this: "use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules."
So, use a pic, make a brush, but we can't create wing brush or use a wing brush that we got from the internet.
I think the point is, there is not specific enough language on what is disallowed here. I thought that Expert was a free-for-all as long as you made all the effects yourself.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:28:14 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Oh, and wings are okay, but not stars?
|
If you read the comments by the photographer, the wings were added from another photo they took in August. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:28:17 AM · #8 |
Steve, those others were not "validation requested" either. If you have a doubt about a photo during the challenge, you can request validation.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:30:39 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Steve, those others were not "validation requested" either. If you have a doubt about a photo during the challenge, you can request validation. |
I don't want to get them DQ'd at all, and nether do I think ANY of them should have been, so why would I want to put any of those guys through that and get them DQ'd?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:34:26 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Oh, and wings are okay, but not stars?
|
If you read the comments by the photographer, the wings were added from another photo they took in August. |
That still doesn't answer the question of the flood filter, and I'm not buying the 3D border flies but these other two don't. That's not a border, it's an additional effect that changes the entire picture that it's applied to.
Again, don't think it should be DQ'd, but I don't think things have been applied evenly here.
What's really the point of expert editing if you can't create some of these things anyways?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:45:11 AM · #11 |
With regard to the flood filter, there's nothing in the Expert Rules about modifying, even pretty drastically, the content of images taken during the challenge timeframe. That's what was done with the flood filter, and also what was done here:
What isn't allowed under Expert is wholesale creation of detailed objects. Textures are a horse of a different color; they are allowed even in Advanced. They *may* be based on something photographic, or they may not. If they are, they need not be shot during the challenge timeframe. The limitation on textures is that they cannot add a feature to the scene that one would assume is part of the as-photographed scene. That would specifically violate the prohibition on addition of clip-art/graphics, which is present in both Advanced and Expert. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:05:09 PM · #12 |
Just for clarification, if Rebecca had used some sort of Star filter to create the stars, rather than drawing them herself, would it have been okay? And if someone had painted in a body of water instead of using the Flood filter, would they have been disqualified, even if the results looked exactly the same as it would have with the Flood filter?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:11:26 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
Just for clarification, if Rebecca had used some sort of Star filter to create the stars, rather than drawing them herself, would it have been okay? And if someone had painted in a body of water instead of using the Flood filter, would they have been disqualified, even if the results looked exactly the same as it would have with the Flood filter? |
At this time I won't comment on Rebecca's stars, given that my interpretation differs from the majority on that shot.
If someone had painted in a lake from nothing, yes, it would have been a certain DQ. The example is somewhat misleading, since a completely art-based workflow would not have resulted in the same pattern as a warping of existing information.
FWIW, the Expert Rules are still in Trial, and the main reason for that is the difficulty in adjudicating some of these situations. the problem arises because almost any modification of photographic data is allowed, but the addition of external or hand-drawn art is not - where is the line between radical modification of existing data and hand-created art? Additionally, the enforcement of the prohibition on hand-drawn objects has been tightened somewhat. We initially validated images that had small, hand-drawn elements. There is a current, ongoing discussion on how to handle these difficulties, and prior to release of the Expert Rules, they will have to be ironed out. We are diligently working toward a solution.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 12:12:48. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:29:57 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
Just for clarification, if Rebecca had used some sort of Star filter to create the stars, rather than drawing them herself, would it have been okay? And if someone had painted in a body of water instead of using the Flood filter, would they have been disqualified, even if the results looked exactly the same as it would have with the Flood filter? |
At this time I won't comment on Rebecca's stars, given that my interpretation differs from the majority on that shot.
If someone had painted in a lake from nothing, yes, it would have been a certain DQ. The example is somewhat misleading, since a completely art-based workflow would not have resulted in the same pattern as a warping of existing information.
FWIW, the Expert Rules are still in Trial, and the main reason for that is the difficulty in adjudicating some of these situations. the problem arises because almost any modification of photographic data is allowed, but the addition of external or hand-drawn art is not - where is the line between radical modification of existing data and hand-created art? Additionally, the enforcement of the prohibition on hand-drawn objects has been tightened somewhat. We initially validated images that had small, hand-drawn elements. There is a current, ongoing discussion on how to handle these difficulties, and prior to release of the Expert Rules, they will have to be ironed out. We are diligently working toward a solution. |
Ah, it's the "warping of existing information" part that makes this clearer to me. Thanks, Kirbic!
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:34:18 PM · #15 |
I thought this might be where the stars went astray, but wasn't too sure of it. To build on the "warping of existing info" bit, I gather that if I'd used a super strong dodge brush instead of a paintbrush, it would have been fine?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:37:37 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, the Expert Rules are still in Trial, and the main reason for that is the difficulty in adjudicating some of these situations. the problem arises because almost any modification of photographic data is allowed, but the addition of external or hand-drawn art is not - where is the line between radical modification of existing data and hand-created art? Additionally, the enforcement of the prohibition on hand-drawn objects has been tightened somewhat. We initially validated images that had small, hand-drawn elements. There is a current, ongoing discussion on how to handle these difficulties, and prior to release of the Expert Rules, they will have to be ironed out. We are diligently working toward a solution. |
Just for the sake of argument, the obvious solution would be to ALLOW the drawing. I've always felt that this is a gray area the rules can't adequately clarify any other way. Just a thought...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:41:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
Just for clarification, if Rebecca had used some sort of Star filter to create the stars, rather than drawing them herself, would it have been okay? And if someone had painted in a body of water instead of using the Flood filter, would they have been disqualified, even if the results looked exactly the same as it would have with the Flood filter? |
At this time I won't comment on Rebecca's stars, given that my interpretation differs from the majority on that shot.
If someone had painted in a lake from nothing, yes, it would have been a certain DQ. The example is somewhat misleading, since a completely art-based workflow would not have resulted in the same pattern as a warping of existing information.
FWIW, the Expert Rules are still in Trial, and the main reason for that is the difficulty in adjudicating some of these situations. the problem arises because almost any modification of photographic data is allowed, but the addition of external or hand-drawn art is not - where is the line between radical modification of existing data and hand-created art? Additionally, the enforcement of the prohibition on hand-drawn objects has been tightened somewhat. We initially validated images that had small, hand-drawn elements. There is a current, ongoing discussion on how to handle these difficulties, and prior to release of the Expert Rules, they will have to be ironed out. We are diligently working toward a solution. |
I think in that case, the general userbase might have been notified of the "tightening" is all. I could have sworn that some of these same general techniques were done in the past.
Considering that SC didn't notify people of the tightening is it really fair to DQ these people?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:41:34 PM · #18 |
Expert Editing should have no rules as to what is done to the image IMO. Just size restrictions.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 12:45:56. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:44:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the sake of argument, the obvious solution would be to ALLOW the drawing. I've always felt that this is a gray area the rules can't adequately clarify any other way. Just a thought...
R. |
Yep, that would be the obvious solution... the rub is that we didn't intend for Expert Editing to become "Unlimited Editing." The problem arises in trying to draw a line (pun intended) that allows small hand-drawn additions, but not wholesale creation of subject matter. There's a strong sense in the community and on the SC that complete digital art is not what we wanted in that rule set. There is no clear-cut criterion that can be applied to allow some hand-drawing but disallow wholesale subject-matter creation.
We are discussing one potential solution to the morass, and my personal opinion on that proposal is that it would be a big step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:46:31 PM · #20 |
| Maybe just add HDR to advanced and get rid of expert all together. Or just run the expert once in a while as a free for all. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:50:07 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's a strong sense in the community and on the SC that complete digital art is not what we wanted in that rule set. |
Then why create the Expert Editing rules set at all? What was wrong with just leaving the ones we had?
It seems to me that Expert Editing is just that, a Digital Art rules set. Or at least that is what it wants to be. If digital art isn't what you wanted, why create Expert Editing. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:53:26 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by breadfan35:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's a strong sense in the community and on the SC that complete digital art is not what we wanted in that rule set. |
Then why create the Expert Editing rules set at all? What was wrong with just leaving the ones we had?
It seems to me that Expert Editing is just that, a Digital Art rules set. Or at least that is what it wants to be. If digital art isn't what you wanted, why create Expert Editing. |
No, Expert is not a "Digital Art Ruleset." Expert was created to accommodate a whole raft of valid photographic techniques that are currently not allowed in Advanced, while maintaining a photographic orientation. We did plan for an "Open Editing" ruleset, which would be pretty much "anything goes." |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:54:50 PM · #23 |
I think that HDR should be allowed in advanced, and expert editing should be more of a "digital art" type thing. I dont see a point in an expert editing challenge and people wanting photos not to look too manipulated. Expert should still use as many photos as you want, and very little painting.
If people dont want "digital art", then expert editing should be removed, advanced editing should be all we have. Or maybe just have expert editing chalenges every now and then with a subject that suit it, like sci-fi, fantasy, dreams, etc... definetly not a free study.
edit: BTW- merging photos together is called Photo Manupulation, Painting on top, or most of the photo is called Digital Art. At least thats the way I see it :P.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 12:58:21.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:58:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by breadfan35:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's a strong sense in the community and on the SC that complete digital art is not what we wanted in that rule set. |
Then why create the Expert Editing rules set at all? What was wrong with just leaving the ones we had?
It seems to me that Expert Editing is just that, a Digital Art rules set. Or at least that is what it wants to be. If digital art isn't what you wanted, why create Expert Editing. |
Is this shot complete digital art?  I don't think so. It is very photographic in nature but would be impossible to do in advanced editing. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:58:46 PM · #25 |
You guys make such a big deal over this. Clearly the rule is 'you may hand draw birds, but you may not hand draw stars'.
Ok:
Not ok:
Come on guys.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 13:01:57. |
|
