I just did find out that the opacity parameter is not mentioned anywhere.
My impression is that, if considered, would be legal because what it does is just to reduce the adjustment (which is at its maximum at 100%) therefore it possibly restores more of the original pic before the adjustment.
I "think" it should be legal, but it is just not mentioned at the moment.
[Edited to correct "blending more" with " blending mode" !!!]
"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."
From this I think it's safe to assume that adjusting the opacity is not part of the "normal" mode, and thus would be contrary to this ruleset.
"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."
From this I think it's safe to assume that adjusting the opacity is not part of the "normal" mode, and thus would be contrary to this ruleset.
Well, even if it's not a big deal (try opacity to understand what I mean), "Normal" is one of the blending modes and the adjustment layers are set in "Normal" mode. Opacity is, in fact, another parameter and the rules as they are formulated at the moment, just omit it.
It would be wortwhile to consider it specifically and I suspect that it would be considered legal after realizing what it does.
There seem to be people here ready to give the thumbs down without really understanding the issue. I've used this in basic editing, and am willing to stand my ground on this issue. I've also seen it discussed quite a few times on the forums, and the answer always seems to be the same... it's okay.
"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."
From this I think it's safe to assume that adjusting the opacity is not part of the "normal" mode, and thus would be contrary to this ruleset.
I'm not in the site council either but:
But Opacity has nothing to do with the blending mode.
Blending modes are things like 'screen' or 'multiply'
Opacity changes the amount of the effect.
People have previously used the opacity or 'Fade' options on things like blur and entered those images, under the basic rules, without being DQed.
Again - its another example of the sillyness of the basic editing rules, but they are what they are. (Edit for clarity: the silliness is in forcing people to use bad workflow practices to get around restrictions on basic, well established good technique - like applying effects to layers rather than directly to the underlying image)
Another prime example is the hue/sat way of doing selective colour removal - the only place I've ever seen recommending that approach for that technqiue is here - because there are much better ways to do it.
Another prime example is the hue/sat way of doing selective colour removal - the only place I've ever seen recommending that approach for that technqiue is here - because there are much better ways to do it.
This is the only way I know how. Do you mind if I ask what are the better ways?
Another prime example is the hue/sat way of doing selective colour removal - the only place I've ever seen recommending that approach for that technqiue is here - because there are much better ways to do it.
This is the only way I know how. Do you mind if I ask what are the better ways?
Layers, channels, selection tools (eye dropper,magic wand,brushes, etc). You can get better colors.
"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."
From this I think it's safe to assume that adjusting the opacity is not part of the "normal" mode, and thus would be contrary to this ruleset.
I don't believe I have ever seen a ruling on this from SC, but it has been discussed many times before.
As an example, there was much discussion about how to achieve a soft focus effect last November (during the challenge of the same name). One of the oft-discussed techniques is to apply a gaussian blur and then fade. I know that it was discussed in the forums, but was not ruled "illegal" by SC, and as far as I know no one was ever DQ'd for using it.
I can see nothing in the wording of the Basic Editing rules that would prohibit fading an otherwise legal effect, providing:
- The effect is still applied to the entire image
- The effect is still applied in normal blending mode
- The effect falls in the "legal" category for basic editing
Pls. correct me if I am misinterpreting the rules.
Again - its another example of the sillyness of the basic editing rules, but they are what they are. (Edit for clarity: the silliness is in forcing people to use bad workflow practices to get around restrictions on basic, well established good technique - like applying effects to layers rather than directly to the underlying image)
I don't think the intent of the rules is to force people to use bad workflow practices to get around restrictions. I think the intent is to restrict you from doing certain things to your images even if there is a well established good technique to acheive those things. It is difficult to write airtight rules. If people have a desire to get around them they will find a way. I believe it is more honorable to comply than to circumvent.
I don't think the intent of the rules is to force people to use bad workflow practices to get around restrictions. I think the intent is to restrict you from doing certain things to your images even if there is a well established good technique to acheive those things. It is difficult to write airtight rules. If people have a desire to get around them they will find a way. I believe it is more honorable to comply than to circumvent.
I think it comes of trying to limit the tools, not the end result. The intent seems to limit the particular end results, but the method to describe them is the tools used to achieve it. If we don't want the end results, we should say that - not try and come at it from the ways to achieve them.
If we don't want people doing selective desaturation of colours, then say it. If you do want to allow it, then let it be done in a sane way.
What we have now is people who obviously want to enter pictures with selective colour desaturation, doing it in a stupid way.
If we don't want people being able to do variable strength blurs or masking the effects to certain areas, then say it - don't just hobble the ways to do it. Right now, people just do it in a difficult and cumbersome way. They obviously want to soften their images and control the effect, but the rules make them do it in a less effective way.
I'm not in principle against a very limited set of techniques that can be used, but the rules go about proscribing them in an ineffectual way, directly contrary to the original aims of the site.
I'm not in principle against a very limited set of techniques that can be used, but the rules go about proscribing them in an ineffectual way, directly contrary to the original aims of the site.
I have to lend my voice in support of Gordon. Some techniques which would be thought of as very elementary darkroom techniques are banned here. To learn how to make good photographs, we also need to learn to make good photographs.
