"Allow workshop" default

[Mrcurtain]

Adam, why is "allow workshop" set to 'No' by default?

I think that the workshop is one of the most useful learning tools on this site and wish that more photos had it turned on.

Cheers,
-Adam

[adam]

"why is "allow workshop" set to 'No' by default?"

Well, I'm being conservative when it comes to something like this.

"I think that the workshop is one of the most useful learning tools on this site and wish that more photos had it turned on."

Yes, I think it's a unique feature which is useful for learning. One thing I could do is allow it to be set to 'Yes' on a per member basis, with a setting in one's personal profile. If there is interest, please let me know and I'll add that in. That will probably encourage more photos to be 'enabled' for workshops.

[Bayleaf]

I'd be worried about this. I never turn it on for one reason. I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and say, think there is far too much cloning and other editing happening. If the workshop was ON by default, I would be unhappy if someone took my photos, as cloned out loads of stuff, something that anyone with a photo editing tool can do, and then tried to tell me how cool they'd made my photo. I still don't agree to cloning out any more than dust and slight imperfections from scanning etc.

If the "Allow Workshop" settings are to be changed, I'd prefer the opportunity to be able to specify what types of changes may be made in the Workshop.
For example:
1 Allow lightness, contract, colour or tone curve changes only (Excludes cloning etc.)
2 Allow any kind of digital editing.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe removing annoying objects from a scene should be done before tripping the shutter.
(I know I'm going to regret posting this, but here goes.)

[adam]

What about cropping? Would that be allowed? I could implement this if enough members are interested. You have a good point.

[Mrcurtain]

Bayleaf - your "rules" for what types of changes you would like to be allowed happen to match exactly to what adam has specified in the TOS (which I just read for the first time).

>Only photographs are permitted. Images may not >be digitally manipulated in an image editing >program ie, Photoshop except for the following >reasons:
>Copyright notices and frames
>Cropping, resizing and sharpening
>Touching up (dust, slight imperfections)
>Levels, Curves, Color adjustment, Hue, >Saturation etc.
>Multiple exposures to get proper exposure values
>Stitching for panoramic photos
>Color conversion to Black and White, Sepia, >Duotone etc.

One solution might be for "allow workshop" to remember what a user chose for their last image.

Oh and Adam, are you going to add 'rotate' to the TOS? :-)

Cheers,
-Adam (#2)

[adam]

'your "rules" for what types of changes you would like to be allowed happen to match exactly to what adam has specified in the TOS (which I just read for the first time).'

Right, but unless it's completely blatant I let it go for now.

"One solution might be for "allow workshop" to remember what a user chose for their last image."

Interesting idea. That is even easier to do.

"Oh and Adam, are you going to add 'rotate' to the TOS?"

Oh, I will add this in tonight, thanks for pointing that out!

[mdchachi]

I like the per-member default settings idea. I also would turn on the workshops by default.

As far as restricting goes, I think the ideas are good but I have some doubts because none of them are (automatically) enforceable. If people want to try to restrict types of workshop postings, they already have the ability to put directives into their descriptions. But if you're willing to implement it, it would be useful for some people I'm sure.

[Bayleaf]

Good point. I'd missed that one. I'd also agree to cropping.

[sam]

I think it's a good suggestion to offer a default on or off setting, configurable on a per-member basis in the Personal Profile. However, I would argue strongly that this should not be set as a default.

As useful as the workshop feature is for many people, it involves giving permission to copy, alter and publish a copyrighted image (albiet with implied restrictions). I know that copyright violations are rampant on the internet, but I think as a matter of principle--and law--it is important to recognize and uphold fundamental principles of copyright.

It appears that most members of this site would allow workshops without reservation, but that should be something the user sets (on individual images or as a personal default), not mandated to all users.

[Bayleaf]

Absolutely Sam. I totally agree.

[adam]

Me, too. I have not, and will not make 'Yes' the default. I may make it configurable by each user though. However, the default will always be 'No'.

[tuc]

Going back to an earlier point about what digital manipulations are allowable - is it acceptable to submit photos having corrected converging verticals in Photosho ?. I find this feature very useful for architectural shots.

[adam]

"is it acceptable to submit photos having corrected converging verticals in Photoshop?"

Yes, definitely acceptable. I'll update the TOS to include this. Thanks.

[BobTrips]

Throwing my 'two bits' in from Central India, a small town called Sanchi.

It seems as if people's thinking is being determined by what we 'could' do in the B&W darkroom - burn, dodge, choose different grades of paper for contrast, etc.

Photo editing tools have opened a new world for creating an image that we (personally) like. If I see a scene that I perceive as a potentially wonderful shot, except for an intruding TV antenna, I now have two alternatives instead of one.

In the old days I could make arrangements (pay) to have the antenna removed so that I could make the shot.

Today I can take the shot and remove the antenna at no cost to me or with no waste of time.

What is the difference?

Is photography valid only when one does it the 'old fashioned way'?

[adam]

It's good to hear from you Bob!

I think it's basically a gray area, with some people leaning on one side and others leaning on the other. I wouldn't have a problem with removal of an antenna, but I would never take a sky from one photo and substitute it for another.

[BobTrips]

"...but I would never take a sky from one photo and substitute it for another."

Both slide film and most digital cameras have far less dynamic range than does print film.

If I am visiting the Taj Mahal and find a beautiful sky but the Taj backlit what do I do? I can expose for the sky and loose the Taj in the shadows or expose for the Taj and produce a 'washed out' sky.

Or I can take two seperate photos, one exposed to maximize each seperate element and then combine the 'best of both' later.

Have I done something that violates the rule?

Or have I used the available technology to produce the best picture? (I could have done the job in one shot with a huge reflector....)

[adam]

"Or I can take two seperate photos, one exposed to maximize each seperate element and then combine the 'best of both' later."

This is perfectly acceptable. However, if you took a photo of a sky in Thailand a month later and put that in to the Taj Mahal shot, I would say that is not acceptable.