When we updated the basic editing rules, did we change from a tools based approach to an effect based approach?
Let's say I've come up with a tools legal way to add a vignette in Photoshop. If the tools do not select things and I'm not using a filter, is it legit? Or is the fact that I have added an effect come into play?
I'm a bit confused about the possible change in approach the new rules caused.
I'll throw in my guess. Based on what I've seen in the ol' forums in the recent past and the following line from the rules, I'd say that however you did it, it is not legal.
You May Not:
- use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture.
AFAIK, there has been no shift at all toward a results-based system for Basic (it's still methods-based). You can create selective effects in Basic, using USM, Shadow/highlight, or other globally-applied techniques. I've never seen a vignette successfully applied, though.
My personal opinion would be that if you used a Basic-legal editing workflow, it should be OK. If yoiu want to be *sure,* it's probably best to open a ticket and get the entire group's opinion.
I believe reading a while back that creating a vignette in your RAW converter is not allowed in basic. Technically you are not creating any selection when you do it either.
Looking back, I found this thread - RAW vignette adjust - Still legal in Basic?. It is one of example of what I meant when I said "Based on what I've seen in the ol' forums in the recent past" above.
That thread deals with RAW vignette additions specifically, but I don't see why it would matter if added during RAW conversion vs. PS. It seems that the SC that posted in that thread gave the vignette addition a universal thumbs down in basic, but it wasn't clear to me whether it was a "using an illegal tool" or "creating a new feature" opinion. I am certainly interested in knowing how this plays out!
"You may... use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature."
"You may... use RAW conversion software as long as the changes are made globally to a single file on one layer and do not create new features or effects in the process."
I'd certainly recommend contacting SC with specifics before rolling the dice on this.
"You may... use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature."
"You may... use RAW conversion software as long as the changes are made globally to a single file on one layer and do not create new features or effects in the process."
I'd certainly recommend contacting SC with specifics before rolling the dice on this.
~Terry
Does that mean that this one,
which was validated at the time, would no longer be legal under basic rules? The effect was created using shadows/highlights.
And yet, I do remember some entries that had been deliberately oversharpened to create big halos have been dq'd in the past.
I did that with one of my first entries last year. I didn't get DQ'd though. I still can't believe that image has 2 favorites. I love it.. I just can't believe anyone else would, heh.
"You may... use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature."
I think as this is phrased it is a marked departure from past practice. Previously, Sharpen/Unsharp Mask, Gaussian Blur, and color modification adjustments were simply "allowed," and only "specialized" filters or software like NeatImage and Dust&Scratches were specifically constrained by the "maintain image integity" injunction.
Currently, I see no trend that indicates a halo introduced via USM or Shadow/highlight is a DQable offense. We've pretty regularly validated them, and they are relatively common (there's one in validation now).
Currently, I see no trend that indicates a halo introduced via USM or Shadow/highlight is a DQable offense. We've pretty regularly validated them, and they are relatively common (there's one in validation now).
since you're validating one now, please be fair :)
Currently, I see no trend that indicates a halo introduced via USM or Shadow/highlight is a DQable offense. We've pretty regularly validated them, and they are relatively common (there's one in validation now).
since you're validating one now, please be fair :)
So you're saying you didn't spot edit the photo like the DQ states?
So you're saying you didn't spot edit the photo like the DQ states?
Didja read Crayon's comments on the pic, Yanko? He says it was just USM.
Ya I read it but the DQ reason stated otherwise. Since that photo was brought up in this discussion which isn't about spot editing I thought I seek clarification.
