Now that we (that is the "Advantage" people and not the rest of you scum ) have the ability to upload images I had a question of ethics on use of the source.

If one of my pics is used for the daily and I have the original image at a higher resolution and depth is it bad to use that version? What I mean is that we have to submit at 1024x768/125k. But I have the original that I took at 1600x1200 and 5.49MB in size. Is it "uncool" for me to use that version for chopping my entry? Not that anyone would know it anyway I suppose (other than Him and I don't mean jmh).

Oh and I almost forgot the other side of the question. I have other pics from the same location/event. Is it okay to use those in the chop too?

I did Tofudisan (use a different angle) but I did site the source in my outside sources link that I normally provide to show people, so they didnt think I restored it myself. I felt that was the fair thing to do... I didnt want people to think I did that work. Personally all else in choppin IMPO is up for grabs.

All is fair in my opinnion. The final image is limited to 125 k anyway. I have started with images that are way higher than the site requirement for uploading as an original contest pic. There is no way of policing that anyway. It would be obsurd to state as a rule all outside source images must be 125 k or less. If you have other images from the same place as the contest image than I say you would really have an advantage...nothing wrong with that. Just don't make the fatal mistake of doing what this moron did.
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/93499/a-little-bit-more.html

If i were you i would erase this topic, use your own pictures and the other ones to.. make a amazing chop, win the contest and tell nobody it was you that uploaded the source.
Just kidding, but i cant see why you couldn't use your own picture. So you have a larger image but that won't be your chop. You still have to do something with it and i think that is what gets the votes and not how clear it appears on screen??
About the other pictures on that location, you have my blessing on using them i dont see any problems on that either... but that can be just me. I wonder what others think. Interresting topic.

Oh, i tried to make something with the oil rig platform and found a huge picture on google, the same picture.... in the end i still did not come up with something so its no advantage to have a larger picture in that case That's how i found out it is a gas rig and not oil

I think that if you are using another image as an outside source, then use whatever you want. But if you have the same image in a higher resolution, you should not use that as the main source for your image. You should use the image that everyone else is required to use.

Otherwise, I think anything else is fair game.

My 2 republic credits..

If there is a slippery slope here I don't think image quality is the danger, but rather taking an image that you will upload and chop it with as much time as you feel you need and then upload it, sort of a chicken before the egg. Now that's an advantage.

Anyway this is a moot point as I am having so much fun I don't really care who wins or loses.

First of all, i don't really like the idea of a member who submits a photo being able to chop his or her own pic to begin with. It gives the photographer extra time to think about--and even start to work on--a chop. (Maybe 90% of people play fair, but it's not like there aren't unethical people floating around here.)

But hey, I understand the view that not letting photographers chop their own picture might people from submitting photos. Or that we should all trust the photographers to abide by The Rules of PSC Ethics. I strongly disagree with those views, but I understand them nonetheless.

However, I really draw the line at using *anything* but the 125k image submitted to PSC. Blurriness is the bane of any good choppers' existence, so why should someone get a convenient way out of it merely because they took the photo?

Even worse is using other angles of the same photo. Members have spent countless hours changing the angles of source photos. Would we care about Metalic's marathoners if he had been the photographer and merely re-touched an overhead shot he took? What about Wes and Marco, who won contests by changing the angles of circuitboards? Sort of kills the point of PSC when voters have no clue if something is a great chop, or merely usage of extra source photos available ONLY to certain members.

I'm rather surprised by the positive responses in this thread...I remember that when Queen La Tiff had a photo accepted as a source some months back, she started a thread about the ethics of chopping it and got some mixed responses.

So in closing: No sir, I don't like it.

Well I guess that explains the angry look on your avitor.

Feral, While I agree with your points that it *might* be unfair to have someone who has the source image and every angle imaginable of the same object, what's the difference between someone who has taken the pics and someone who finds the source online that someone else took from every imaginable angle..?

If I find a site that has a collection of images that include the same object from several different angles, I may use all angles that I find to create the image that I'm going for.
The difference would not be access to different angles of the same pic, but the honesty of the person chopping. That is a completely different beast altogether.

If someone misleads voters into thinking he has done more work than he/she really did (that has NEVER happened on this site ) then THAT is a problem and should be dealt with accordingly...

[Cue darth vader breathing]

I like Jerry.

Thank you nancers...I like you too

I'm actually confounded by this BUT I agree with the Rampant Rodent.

We should all be on an equal playing field.

The only advantage belongs to those who have better PS skills and creativity. They'll always outshine and get more votes. They've earned it.

It gives the rest of us something to strive towards...don't it?

Amen to that
And it also doesn't matter if the photographer posts the "alternative angle" sources in the authors comments, it's still going to "fool" the voter who doesn't look at the sources into thinking the author did a lot of talented ps work that they didn't do.

I had a pointing figer in my head when I was reading that!!
You tell em Stephen.!