| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2004 10:30:16 PM · #1 |
I am about to enter a image into the garage art competition.. but just realized it was basic editing. this isn't a problem, but i just realized that i turned the image to black and white using digidan's method.. which means i edited one of the adjustment layers in 'color' mode. Is this illegal... because if it is I will re-edit to black and white in another manner??
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:38:22 PM · #2 |
From the Basic Editing Rules:
Post-shot Adjustments may be made to your image in a photo editing program, so long as the modification is applied to the whole image. This includes levels, b&w conversion, hue/saturation, sizing/rotating, curves and cropping (or their non-Photoshop equivalents). The use of certain editing and adjustment tools is restricted or prohibited as outlined below.
Filters: The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian blur, the two of which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of the filter is prohibited.
Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/bluring tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
Text: No text may be added to your submission. This includes copyright statements.
Layers: Only adjustment layers may be used, and the layer must be applied in normal mode. All other types of layers and all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited. Layers may not be used to apply a prohibited effect to an image.
Borders: Your submission may include a border, but the border may not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
______________
;)
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:08:05 PM · #3 |
| I sure am glad someone mentioned this....I did the same thing. Have to re-edit and re-submit now. Thanks Tyler. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:26:20 PM · #4 |
yeah ok fine...
I DID read that too.. but just was hoping it wasn't really true... for some reaons... not wanting to look truth in the eye.... i'll go and re edit
..... hurry hurry hurry.. 30 min. left
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 01:25:46 PM · #5 |
From how i read the rules, and can use PS, I see no legal way to put one color item in an otherwise B&W image. Yet i see one or 2 entries each challenge that this has been done to.
So, is there a legal method, or are these pics rule-breakers? |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 01:41:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
From how i read the rules, and can use PS, I see no legal way to put one color item in an otherwise B&W image. Yet i see one or 2 entries each challenge that this has been done to.
So, is there a legal method, or are these pics rule-breakers? |
These shots can be achieved using the Hue/Sat tool in PS.
For example:
This shot was recommended for DQ, so it has been validated by the SC. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 04:31:29 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
From how i read the rules, and can use PS, I see no legal way to put one color item in an otherwise B&W image. Yet i see one or 2 entries each challenge that this has been done to.
So, is there a legal method, or are these pics rule-breakers? |
I think someone has posted the technique in the forums; try searching for "desaturation." You might also want to check out this "How'd They DO That?" article about a related/opposite effect. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 04:38:29 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
From how i read the rules, and can use PS, I see no legal way to put one color item in an otherwise B&W image. Yet i see one or 2 entries each challenge that this has been done to.
So, is there a legal method, or are these pics rule-breakers? |
I tried explaining it in this thread. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 04:58:52 PM · #9 |
These are the sorts of threads that best express my frustration with the basic editing rules.
The end result is that strange, less than optimal ways are employed to achieve an effect that can be more easily applied and more effectively achieved by 'illegal' methods, yet people do them using the inelegant limits of the basic rules.
Obviously the intent is there to achieve the effect, even though the implication of the basic rules is to stop them being used.
Kiwi had a good example (ice fall I think it was) where he used a bizzare set of legal filters to essentially spot edit his image to remove dust and reflections. I'm not saying his shot is illegal, I'm just using it to highlight the bizzareness of the current arbitary restrictions. It just forces people to come up with bad ways of doing things they want to do anyway - wouldn't it be better, as an educational site, to encourage the best practices to be used, not bizzare circumvention of rules ?
The desat one colour thing is also a fine example - the intent is to use selective colouration to focus attention on a particular feature. This is best achieved either via masking or judicious use of the history brush, yet we restrict it to this weird hue/ sat approach that nobody in their right mind, with a good grasp of photoshop, would recommend. It isn't the way a 'photoshop guru' would teach it, it isn't the way I would do it if I was doing a non-dpc restricted image its just an odd approach to get around the current rules.
its not the tools used, its the intent of the photographer that should somehow be ruled valid or not valid. Like the old saw goes, guns don't kill people...
Message edited by author 2004-02-04 16:59:39.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 05:08:03 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It just forces people to come up with bad ways of doing things they want to do anyway - wouldn't it be better, as an educational site, to encourage the best practices to be used, not bizzare circumvention of rules? |
You remind me of a story (possibly apocryphal) about the hazing process for new engineers at General Electric, where they would "assign them the project" of frosting the INSIDE of a light bulb. It was all very funny until one day a couple of guys who didn't know it was a joke went and did it.
Hopefully your opinions won't reach too high in the world of corporate law or politics, or I foresee an endless succession of IRS audits (if not INS inquiries) in your future .... |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 05:22:17 PM · #11 |
Gordon's post is right on the money.
IMO, the easiest thing to enforce, as far as disqualifications are concerned, would be a system that allows you to do anything to the shot. As has been discussed in the recent "Photoshop 1 Photography 0" thread, you'd still get community voting standards that would prevent the site from turning in to a Digital Art site.
I'd even go so far as to say relax the date restriction rules. Make it the honor system that the image should be taken within the challenge period. I expect that most of us understand the personal growth benefit of having to take a new shot within the time period, and thus it likely wouldn't be much of an issue if the occasional shot was outside of that date range.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 11:27:00 AM · #12 |
Thanks for the info - there are 1,000 ways to do 100 things in PS, and no one has yet learned them all.
As to the date bit - while i might have a great shot that fits from last year, etc, the challenge part is the timeframe. it keeps us busy, interested, thinking and most important, using our cameras!
chris |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 02:11:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
As has been discussed in the recent "Photoshop 1 Photography 0" thread, you'd still get community voting standards that would prevent the site from turning in to a Digital Art site. |
This isn't a closed community, and it will change over time. The "James Bond's Assasination" and "Electric Shoelaces" entries in PWL have proved that the the community at large will be either ignorant (due to either the skill of the photographer or the viewer being unaware of the capabilites of PS) or accepting of some level of digital artistry in the entries. "Electric Shoelaces" probably proves either the ignorance or the acceptance factor - there will be a growing tollerance for digital artistry (it got twice as many votes in the 8-10 range as in the 1-3 range - the community has accepted this standard), and as new people come they will see that as an acceptable practice in both submitting and voting.
DPC will eventually become DPAC - Digital Photography and Art Challenge - if not in name, then in spirit. I think the base is strong enough to keep photography the core focus, but like I said, the community changes, people come and go, and the standard for acceptance has been set high and will be pushed higher. (During the December test I remember thinking, and maybe even posting, that I wished someone would post something that pushed the digital art envelop - I felt that without that test of acceptance or rejection, we only really saw half the story.)
BTW, I'm not advocating stepping back in the rules - I've gotten a taste of the possibilites, and I for one don't want to give it up. (Though I did get bitten in the POV challenge - I forgot which rules we were under and did advanced editing, and had to have myself DQed.) We are where we are, and for better or worse we'll have to learn how to deal with it.
Message edited by author 2004-02-05 14:13:19. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/10/2025 08:58:05 PM EDT.
