I too am scratching my head about why Topaz would be considered separately, most especially in the light of allowing Photomatix and Lucis, which it seems are at least as prone to use as "effects generators."
I do think that in general this is a step in the right direction, although it has a *huge* subjective element to it.
ETA:
Now if we can just nail down a clarified artwork rule. ;-)
I'm one of the lucky ones, I have Photomatix so I am still good to go, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't use either one, and I don't like the overly processed look, so I don't really care. I'd rather completely eliminate the effects clause from Basic and stick to the objective parts: use whatever software, filters, or actions you want, but no selections, spot edits or layers with data, and leave the artistic calls to the voters. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm one of the lucky ones, I have Photomatix so I am still good to go, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't use either one, and I don't like the overly processed look, so I don't really care. I'd rather completely eliminate the effects clause from Basic and stick to the objective parts: use whatever software, filters, or actions you want, but no selections, spot edits or layers with data, and leave the artistic calls to the voters. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
NOW we're cooking. This is what I'd like to see myself. Why on earth were we trying to make 'artistic' a rule in the first place? lol.
use whatever software, filters, or actions you want, but no selections, spot edits or layers with data
This makes a ton of sense - why isn't this the case? Is it because some people might think they are making a global change but the software is making selections 'behind the scenes'?
Now if we can just nail down a clarified artwork rule. ;-)
Yeah, good luck with that. The proposal thread was supposed to clarify the existing rule, but quickly devolved into a conversation of what should be allowed and the need for any restrictions at all (questioning the intent itself). That's a valid conversation, but a separate issue. Rather than addressing the goals stated in the OP, it became a chaotic philosophy debate and nothing was settled. Thus, I don't expect that rule to change anytime soon.
use whatever software, filters, or actions you want, but no selections, spot edits or layers with data
This makes a ton of sense - why isn't this the case?
It's a philosophical issue of "corrective edit" vs. "created in Photoshop." The latter may be inappropriate for Basic, but leaving that decision to the voters would go a long way toward solving the current problems.
Just as a side note. In my camera club here in Calgary, regular editing rules allow anything that can be done in the old chemical darkroom. Anything beyond that is considered digital manipulation. Its almost like we have a basic/advanced ruleset and then expert.
As for the change (i.e. back on topic) I guess my question is what is the spirit behind the difference between the basic and advanced ruleset. I think that basic is exactly that. Simple changes that apply to the whole image that can be done by anyone in any photo editing program. In some ways, it would almost be nice to pick a really basic program like Picasa and say "if you can't do it in Picasa its not legal in basic". Of course, Picasa now allows some editing that's not legal in basic and I also live a fairytale world where everything is nicely laid out in black and white. :)
use whatever software, filters, or actions you want, but no selections, spot edits or layers with data
This makes a ton of sense - why isn't this the case?
It's a philosophical issue of "corrective edit" vs. "created in Photoshop." The latter may be inappropriate for Basic, but leaving that decision to the voters would go a long way toward solving the current problems.
That would be the most sensible approach IMO as well; let the difference between basic and advanced be that no selections are allowed, and no layers in other than normal mode. This gives us a playing field in which folks who don't know HOW to do selections and layer blending won't be at a disadvantage.
Now if we can just nail down a clarified artwork rule. ;-)
Yeah, good luck with that. The proposal thread was supposed to clarify the existing rule, but quickly devolved into a conversation of what should be allowed and the need for any restrictions at all (questioning the intent itself). That's a valid conversation, but a separate issue. Rather than addressing the goals stated in the OP, it became a chaotic philosophy debate and nothing was settled. Thus, I don't expect that rule to change anytime soon.
It did kinda degenerate, LOL.
Still, I think there was enough input there that was on topic that it could move forward. The artwork rule will always be contentious, I think y'all should just take the input you have and run with it. Of course it's easy for me to say ;-)
I don't use either one, and I don't like the overly processed look,
You're *REALLY* telling us that you are completely unfamiliar with the tool by this statement.
Just like tone-mapping and HDR, what most people don't like is when the process is used to an extreme.
That definitely applies to Topaz as well.
If you want to ban Topaz for a legitimate, or even a subjective reason like you just don't know enough about it to allow it, fine, but saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.
I just received a validation request for my footwear entry. It's probably going to receive a DQ because I used Topaz Adjust (photo pop) for an overall effect. =(
saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.
No Jeb, we call that a personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it thankyouverymuch. The images that voters immediately recognize as Topaz, LucisArts, Photomatix or others that produce a similarly illustrated appearance are not my cup of tea. That said, the rules are not determined by what *I* like, and I think it should be left to the voters to decide what looks are appropriate. I know darn well that even the most obnoxious filter could be used subtly for enhancement, but then we're back to judging 'how much is too much' for a DQ, which I'd REALLY rather avoid whenever possible.
saying "I don't like the overly processed look" is complete crap.
No Jeb, we call that a personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it thankyouverymuch. The images that voters immediately recognize as Topaz, LucisArts, Photomatix or others that produce a similarly illustrated appearance are not my cup of tea. That said, the rules are not determined by what *I* like, and I think it should be left to the voters to decide what looks are appropriate. I know darn well that even the most obnoxious filter could be used subtly for enhancement, but then we're back to judging 'how much is too much' for a DQ, which I'd REALLY rather avoid whenever possible.
I had always assumed that Topaz adjust was not legal under basic, because it separates the image into zones, so it's selectively editing the image. I'm surprised that the others are legal, however--don't they do pretty much the same thing? If we aren't allowed to selectively edit, allowing programs that are based on selective editing seems kind of silly. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding lucisArts and Photomatix.
While we're modifying the Basic Ruleset... how about we move into the 21st century and allow 720 pixels and 200kb for Basic as well as Advanced. Or even 800 for both.
While we're modifying the Basic Ruleset... how about we move into the 21st century and allow 720 pixels and 200kb for Basic as well as Advanced. Or even 800 for both.
That's not a rule change. You'll have to petition Langdon for that one.
