*crop
*gamma correct
*fade correct
*full photo saturation
*several color adjustments in colorize till I got it right :)
*full photo burn
*soft focus
*border
*resize
Disqualification Details
The use of blending modes other than "normal" is not allowed in the Basic Editing rules.
Statistics
Views since voting: 986 Views during voting: 288 Comments: 16 Favorites: 1 (view)
Thank you Kenskid. I am still a bit confused, but I guess you not only have to master the use of a dslr, you also have to master the technical terms for different software usage and tools as per trying to understnad the rules as written. This I thought I had done, but I guess there will always be a lupole somewhere to be had..LOL.
So in further research and conversation, it has bascially come down to this. If anyone wants to use "Invert" in adjustment layers, the only option available to you in Invert is that in which the mode says "normal" (turning a postivie image to a negative image). Nothing else is acceptable. I would also, if I were you or anyone else, not use adjustment layers. I would use just what is under your 'adjust' and not under 'layers' in basic editing, as it seems anything in layers is borderline to a dq no matter which is chosen due to default modes or non default modes which may or may not apply. LOL...THAT is confusing in itself, but that's basically the jist of it.
In hindsight and in now remembering how I processed this particular photo, the full photo burn was never even used. I did list it, however, because in the "command history" of the photo data it still would have stated "adjustment layer" and then "merged layer", whether I backed out of the usage or not. So I included it in the list of processing done to stay above reproach had this "merged layer" been noticed in that command history when submitting the photo for validation. In wanting to stay honest, I listed the layer that was used when in processing, but it was never used in the final saved-to-web version. I only tried it, and just found it wasn't needed, and backed out of it. So the photo was dq'ed basically by default and in just wanting to remain honest in what the command history in processing would actually state on the photo, which I assume can be seen by council.
It's unfortunate, but I can't change that now..LOL. In the future, I will just make sure that the final command history for the photo is done properly as in whereas if I back out of an adjustment, I will simply redo the photo when I get all the proper effects for that finished look so that the command history on the photo remains true to what was actually used.
Ok, so I think I got this right now. Got your explaination by email Ursuala, thanks.
So those that want to use "invert" be very careful..LOL..not to confuse the fact that you cannot use invert in anything that is listed other than the very top word that says "normal". You can use no other invert options other than that one and solely that one.
"Normal" in this instance, is a noun. It IS the actual only layer you can use, and not an adjectve, as in a "type of normal blending mode". It IS the mode. It is called "normal", and it can only change your photo to a negative. You choose how much negative or positive to the image you want. That is it. You cannot use hard light/soft light/etc listed in invert. It will then be applied to the image differently than the "normal" negative-image choice and is not acceptable.
I am glad I know this now, but I have to say this is pretty deceiving to the viewer of basic editing rules. In there I read it differently. It really needs to say that if one is to use "invert" one can only use the top choice that says "normal". Make it more of a noun than an adjective.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I am now the wiser! LOL...
EDITED TO ADD: NOPE, no longer the wiser after further research. It seems to me that the default falls away when any adjustment layer is used and not just burn or anything else in invert. Even to use brightness/contrast in adjustment layers causes the default to fall away the minute any adjustments are touched. This means that any image in which an adjustment layer was used, still must be merged, and in doing so, it is not applied in a permitted way if you used an adjustment layer to do tonal or opacity adjustments that is not set at default.
I am seeking further explaination of this through admin. Needless to say, I am totally confused, and although some believe differently, I think I am not the only one who may have a problem with how I am reading the rules. How I am reading the rules now is that "use of adjustment layers is permitted in basic editing but only when turning a positive image to a negative, because otherwise any other effect is applied to the image in a prohibited way"..LOL..and that totally makes no sense to me.
Rose, I think you are misunderstanding the difference between adjustment layers (the actual layers upon which you make the adjustments) and the blending modes (how the layers are applied to each other).
The available adjustment layers in PSP are brightness/contrast, channel mixer, color balance, curves, hue/saturation/lightness, invert, levels, posterize and threshold. Any of those may be used. However, once you have used those on a layer, that layer must be applied to your photo using a normal blending mode. In normal blend mode, pixels on the Blend layer are combined with pixels on the underlying layer, only varying by opacity (by moving the opacity slider.) In the Burn blend mode, the lightness values of the colors in the Blend layer modify the underlying layers, by making them darker. That gives a different effect than if you had blended them in a normal mode and is prohibited in basic editing.
Hopefully this clears things up a little.
Not really understanding this, sorry. Scenario - Ok, so now I go to invert. Under invert it gives many choices (hard light, soft light, etc), and burn is one of them. Scale usage and choice is 1 to 100 for effect. Let's say I choose a #12. Ok, so now I close it up and go back to my photo. I have to merge that layer now, just as I would if I used any other in invert or the rest you list. Same thing. Same effect. If this is prohibited and not "normal" blending in how it is applied, then how can one be able to use invert at all when everything under invert effects the image in a prohibited fashion to basic editing rules? Yet you say invert can be used and it is just how it is applied? I can't control how it is applied. It is all applied one way, the same way.
So, in that, what is able to be used under invert that is "normal"? Also, once that invert is applied, it is saved just like any other layer used in what you list - you simply merge the layer you just adjusted. Nothing says "normal" or "not normal". I simply can't understand how this gives a different effect or how one can use invert at all if the effects are prohibited?
EDITED TO ADD: Ursula says that Invert has a normal mode with a default. Default is the only one that can be used. If this is the case, then any effect in Invert other than "normal" (the first effect, and the only effect under default, as all others cause the default to fall away once clicked on) cannot be used. This means that the only effect in Invert one can use is to change a photo to a negative. That is all the normal effect does, which can be done elsewhere in PSP8, and therefore invert not need be used at all. I think by saying others can use invert, it is confusing to the user when you don't clarify that Invert can only be used in turning a photo to a negative, as all other effects under Invert cause the default to drop. Is this correct?
The use of full photo burn is an adjustment layer in PSP8, and only changes the opacity of a full photo. It is really no different than gamma, levels, curves, or even brightness/contrast (which are all listed in the same area on PSP8). It is just more precise. No sliding scales or grids, but you can choose the opacity by a number scale. It is also no different than a full photo fade correction, or a full photo saturation correction. Therefore, this is an error in my opinion as a disqualifying image based on the reasons given.
I have appealed this decision for those reasons and also because I do not believe that PSP8 is being used to determine this decision, and if it is, I would like a full technical explaination of how this differs from a "normal" blending mode in full photo processing.
SC is quite familiar with PSP8.
Then blend modes define how the layer is combined with the underlaying layer. Blending in "normal" is quite different than blending in "burn". I would say that you must realize this, otherwise why would you use burn instead of normal.
-------------------------
Originally posted by espy:
There is really nothing stopping me from listing it as a gamma correction or levels adjustment, rather than a full photo burn in the future, and no one would really be the wiser in PP the photo for validation. It would still say in the data that an adjustment layer was used and then layer merged, as it is listed in the same area.
Are you saying that you plan to cheat and cover it up?
LOL...No, I am not saying I would "cheat". My integrity is much greater than that, thanks. I am saying that the difference between using full photo burn in and as an adjustment layer is no different then using gamma or levels and in that had I not used the word "burn" it wouldn't have been so intimidating then as to cause such a conflict on this image. Had I said I used gamma or levels, no one would have been the wiser and that is what I meant by what I said. The day I cheat on an entry is the day I need to sell my camera.
Now, I really need to have it defined for me what a "normal blending mode" is, so that I do not make this mistake in the future. I have not received that information. In PSP8, just rotating an image clockwise causes me to have to merge a layer, so seeing merged layers in my image data can also mean I just turned it, used curves, used levels, etc. I just need a list of what a "normal" blending mode is. There is nothing listed as such in PSP8 as "normal" blending modes. In your rules, however, it is legal to use adjustment layers and those that change the opacity of an image, and that is what I did with this image.
Why would I use burn instead of normal? Normal only takes an image and makes it a negative. Burn makes an image darker, and doesn't convert it to a negative. Burn is only an adjustment layer that effects the opacity in a dark/light, and not a positive/negative.
Rose, I think you are misunderstanding the difference between adjustment layers (the actual layers upon which you make the adjustments) and the blending modes (how the layers are applied to each other).
The available adjustment layers in PSP are brightness/contrast, channel mixer, color balance, curves, hue/saturation/lightness, invert, levels, posterize and threshold. Any of those may be used. However, once you have used those on a layer, that layer must be applied to your photo using a normal blending mode. In normal blend mode, pixels on the Blend layer are combined with pixels on the underlying layer, only varying by opacity (by moving the opacity slider.) In the Burn blend mode, the lightness values of the colors in the Blend layer modify the underlying layers, by making them darker. That gives a different effect than if you had blended them in a normal mode and is prohibited in basic editing.
The use of full photo burn is an adjustment layer in PSP8, and only changes the opacity of a full photo. It is really no different than gamma, levels, curves, or even brightness/contrast (which are all listed in the same area on PSP8). It is just more precise. No sliding scales or grids, but you can choose the opacity by a number scale. It is also no different than a full photo fade correction, or a full photo saturation correction. Therefore, this is an error in my opinion as a disqualifying image based on the reasons given.
I have appealed this decision for those reasons and also because I do not believe that PSP8 is being used to determine this decision, and if it is, I would like a full technical explaination of how this differs from a "normal" blending mode in full photo processing.
SC is quite familiar with PSP8.
Then blend modes define how the layer is combined with the underlaying layer. Blending in "normal" is quite different than blending in "burn". I would say that you must realize this, otherwise why would you use burn instead of normal.
-------------------------
Originally posted by espy:
There is really nothing stopping me from listing it as a gamma correction or levels adjustment, rather than a full photo burn in the future, and no one would really be the wiser in PP the photo for validation. It would still say in the data that an adjustment layer was used and then layer merged, as it is listed in the same area.
Are you saying that you plan to cheat and cover it up?
The use of full photo burn is an adjustment layer in PSP8, and only changes the opacity of a full photo. It is really no different than gamma, levels, curves, or even brightness/contrast (which are all listed in the same area on PSP8). It is just more precise. No sliding scales or grids, but you can choose the opacity by a number scale. It is also no different than a full photo fade correction, or a full photo saturation correction. Therefore, this is an error in my opinion as a disqualifying image based on the reasons given.
I have appealed this decision for those reasons and also because I do not believe that PSP8 is being used to determine this decision, and if it is, I would like a full technical explaination of how this differs from a "normal" blending mode in full photo processing. There is really nothing stopping me from listing it as a gamma correction or levels adjustment, rather than a full photo burn in the future, and no one would really be the wiser in PP the photo for validation. It would still say in the data that an adjustment layer was used and then layer merged, as it is listed in the same area. I would never do this, mind you, but this is how minute the changes are and how minute of an effect a full photo burn is.
If it was a violation, I certainly can't see how just because the name of the method used was different than gamma/curves/levels/or even a brightness correction.
And one of the winning images was that of a boy just holding a plane on what looks like a very dangerous window ledge (no offense scalvert..LOL). Just as sweet, just as telling. Except boys interact with their planes where as with girls and dolls, more of an unspoken word goes on between them (hence the title which actually is a quote about and for dolls). So I do, but at the same time don't, understand the difference in what you say.
I guess if I had to critique the difference myself, I would say the plane and the boy are nearer to the sky which was a photo with good color verses a vintage look. Mine was a girl dressed like her vintage doll, hence the vintage tones. Maybe, if anything, I also find that photos with soft focus don't do well at DPC.
To me, a lot of times the concept of a photo just cannot be known to the onlooker, and then there are those photos that speak it in volumes. Having had two girls, and having two neices, and being a girl myself, I can see nothing in my photo that doesn't speak those volumes. I also have a son, and can see that scalverts photo also speaks volumes. So it is all subjective and in the eye of the beholder. But given my photo had doll in center, it was not the prime focus nor meant to be, just as with scalverts.
I understand and appreciate your comment, but I don't agree with it. Those votes that placed higher than a 4 explain that to me, along with it being chosen as a favorite.
The challenge topic was "Photograph a child's toy (or toys) in an interesting and creative way."
This image is a portrait of a child who happens to be holding a doll. As such, it's marginal for challenge relevance; not outside the box, of course, perfectly valid, but at a competitive disadvantage in this particular challenge. The large number of 4's reflects that, I believe. Had it been entered in a "children's portrait" challenge I believe it would have scored much better.
I am ashamed for anyone that could vote this photo lower than a 5. If anyone ever wanted to see a photo that was totally robbed at DPC, you are looking at it right now, and this is your poster child.
Pidge - Good luck sweety in the MS Challenge! I hope to match up with you again sometime in the future.
OH, edited to add: Thank you to the person who chose it as a favorite :)
Really like the soft effect and duotone for this shot. Good composition. Reminds me of those photos from before the 50's. Though do find parts of the fabric too overexposed , perhaps a side effect of post processing.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
