i see the lowering of the standard for all source very scary.
there are some who think 'all source' does not deserve special consideration.
That's fine with me--do not take it into consideration when you vote then.
As far as thinking that putting an ALL-SOURCE claim in the post comments
should be stopped..that would make me quit PSC right here and now--
if you don't vote for me....fine...but I insist on taking credit for doing a
chop that took 20-30-40 hours.
There are many styles of chop, all source is the hardest. If you find all source easy, then you are just plain doing an easy chop.
I won a contest a couple weeks ago with a chocolate girl that I did not claim all source on.
Becuase I used a solid black silhuette of a girl as a reference.
Every shadow,highlight,definition on her bady was my work.
It is not an easy thing to do , I never mentioned that i did it simply because I used a reference.
I feel few people would even want to try and copy the effort, but
I did not claim all source.

I guess you and I were typing at the same time Meaty.
I also see that your all-time highest voted image was one of those all sources.
Great job!
**In facT** I gotta say this--I was taking a very long break from PSC and not
participating at all, but when i saw that chop, I broke my break and logged in to vote for it...

I know this thread wasnt directed twards me, and I know we've had our differences.... but for you Shady, cause I respect and love you like a brother, from now on I will only put all source if indeed it is 'all source'... I hardly ever do those anyway.

That's a good style. I'd like to see it more often nowadays, in addition to better all source work. Metalic used to do those mass composites like you've done some of recently. There's a lot to be said for someone who can integrate a bunch of different sources together and make them all look cohesive, even down to the smallest detail.

hey there's nothing wrong with saying-- "mostly source",
which i think would be effective when accompanied w/ an explanation of what one did in the chop.
I know many people think the look of the final image is all that matters, and they vote by that.
That's why we have the occasional chop that is nothing more than posting a piece of the source into someone elses great image and getting all the credit for it.
There's nothing wrong w/ doing that, but if that were the standard for what is a great chop here,
as many think it should be, then aside from cutting and pasting and blending in one single element--it
would be plain crazy to do a chop that is the least bit more intense than that.
I don't care how good a chopper you are---noones perfect enough that others can't find a nicer actual photograph and paste one little bit in it.

I agree. Meaty did a composite a couple weeks ago that did well, but IMHO
it did not do as well as it desrved.
THAT is a PSC style that deserves respect.

that's stupid Scion... reference is a MUST for any chop, all source or not... for instance, the microscope I did last year is all source... though I added a background, painted the glass and used a 150x150 gif microscope illustration as reference... I claim that to be an all source... if ya disagree on that because I used reference or added a background, fine... all I know is that I used the given image to build the focus of my entry that was the microscope... besides, what's the deal with all source or not... a chop has to look good to be good... just like stephen said...

Indeed scion, my first and third where all source, but i dont personally enjoy doing them, i feel very much restricted doing them, i cant let my imagination get the better of the image if im stuck with one image to work with, Ok the castle in the sky entry wasnt alot of the source, but without me pointing out that all rock there was from the rock formation in the original, you wouldnt have noticed, it was a lot of work that could have easily been avoided by using another source image and i doubt i would have lost any points for it.

In that context--you are right- I don't think anyone would be such a stickler as to insist that did not deserve full "AS" credit
Some think, and this is well established from back when kitty did her amazing PS paintings, that reference means a source was actually used in a chop, as say..an overlay to line up your parts with.Nothing wrong with that-- a very sensible thing to do--
I would assume that to be called "AS w/ reference" at least.
In my "AS" chops, i do not even look at any other image--
if the details are not in my head, they will not make it into the chop, and
therefore my chop suffers for it. I find this very satisfying when a chop still comes out well.
*edit* It was obvious that the microscope was all source..and anyone should have been able to tell the background was added.I do not find that deceptive or confusing at all.

but it goes against the principle of all source you previously stated, once I used a microscope illustration as reference and added external elements...

as far as I understood on yer all source lecture, an all source entry shall be ALL source...

yeah--back then the people chopping--in general--had a clearer
inderstanding of what they were looking at--
Your chop was not all source--the microscope in that chop was all source..
is that clear?
It was assumed, at least by me that you did at least look at an
outside image.
I do not remember that chop having any tag saying it was all source..
what was and was not source was accurately comprehended by the viewers.
I am not going against anything that I said, I am trying to be diplomatic about this.
I am not the only person that enters all sources that are actually all sources.
I am one of only a couple still posting such images

no tags... tourney entry... not allowed comments... but as you said, there was no need to say it... it was preety obvious... what wasn't obvious was where the reference came from...

I love to make all source images. It's challenging.
About 40 I have made
And this is an exmple of really good all source chop http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/90472/soap-devil.html

All source and no preservatives
I agree with Mr Shade...I know it's rare and we wont make a habit of it will we shade

But all source is just that, like shade I have spent hours doing an all source chop and for what ever reason have used a template or a loaded selection from another image...and cant put...and I quote...
"All source other than the background" or" all source cept the people", if its all source then there is nothing else in it but the source and your PS skills. Thats what makes it so difficult to do all source images.

Heres an idea lets have once a month an all source Wednesday contes...so others can learn just how hard it is to do an all source image.

respect to you all and just remember this is my opinion, getting off ma soapbox now....

hmm.... interesting thread you got here...
i must say i never thought about it like that....
i don't think it's that important but if it is so some of you then we could all just be more spesific
and write "all source with reference" or "all soure and ps work" or "no outside sources" and stuff like that.....
just my opinnion...