I have understood since I joined PSC that "all source' meant that the contest entry is made from the original source image, and photoshop only.
I was under the impression that opening any other image into PS and using any part of that image in a chop, meant that it was no longer an all source chop.
This would include using the outline of another image as a selection and or mask
to liquify another image to form that shape.
I understood that using someone else's illustration to use the lines from it to fill in like a coloring book, was in no way all source.
I believed that using a part of an object to fill in on something you could not chop, made it no longer source, and
I believed that tracing is not using a reference, but just that, tracing and not all source.
I bring this up because on several images that claimed to be all source in the last several weeks I was able to find those images on google.
even some where almost the whole chop was the found source and only a small element from the original added.
So I have a question, what do people "think" all source means?

Call them out and post a link in the comment section. I too saw a couple that looked fishy, but didn't care enough to check it out.

To me, all souce means:

All Source, and nothing but the Source!

I have no intention of calling anyone out, I believe their is a slight confusion
as to whether it is ok to use a "small bit" of outside source as a "helper".
I do NOT wish, and hope everyone can agree with me on this, to call
anyone out or upset anyone.
I am just hoping that we can set a small standard for this one style chop..
which happens to be one that i am fond of.
I ask that noone go trying to find any such mistakes, let's leave it at this and set that standard.
**That is of course if we can get a consensus that that is the staandard**

I'll jump in the fray here with an image that I posted a few weeks ago. Did not say it was all source because obviously it was not. HOWEVER the majority of the pic was drawn by hand using another pic as reference. Even if I had re-drawn the tail, I probably wouldn't have said "All Source" in the author notes...

I don't have a problem with using an outside source as a reference even if you trace lines,etc from the outside source. Whether to say it's "All Source" or not is another question. I think we've attached the moniker "All source" to entries too much to indicate that somehow more work went into them. That is clearly not always the case.

I think we should just stop saying "All Source" altogether and let our chops stand for themselves. It's become somewhat overused and doesn't have the meaning that it once had. At least I have come to pretty much ignore the "All source" comments and vote on the image itself rather than the percentage of outside images used...

Here is my entry:

Here is the pic I used for reference (and the tail):
http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/2005/438/jpeg/13.jpg

All source=all source

Great topic... this is pretty much exactly what I was asking with the topic I started http://photoshopcontest.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=4579. As a new member I was really curious as to how everyone is getting their secondary source pictures; Whether it be google images or you're taking them yourselves in your own basements. I am extremely curious what the veterans of PSC are using.

Your description of "all source" should be the standard....the source pic and photoshop only.

To me all source means no outside sources are in the final result.

Doesn't matter if outside sources are used for reference or tracing. It's the end result that counts.

You wouldn't even think saying the next 2 images are not all source alltough a reference was used ( http://www.vggallery.com/international/dutch/paintings/p_0629_0631.htm ) (photoshop(like) software wasn't used though:D )

like Grefix, I thought all source ment that the final result has no outside sources.... period, just the original and PS work.
With that said, when I say "all source" and I used some sort of outside reference, I will normally say (except for yada yada used as a reference)
classic examples http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/92260/button-fish.html
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/99673/stonesflower.html
ones that were 'all source' http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/100689/devil-in-a-waterfall.html
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/97441/planet-splitwood.html

but I do like what you are saying Shady and would back it if it becomes the majority of the thinking... you should have a poll

When I say all source I mean all source. I don't even draw stuff in my all source pics.

for instance... let's say I'm drunk and go chop... the source of my entry is beer... if I run out of beer, it means I used all source to make the chop, no matter how the shite I posted was made... Do you understand it now Scion???

When I originally started doing all source, it was a very new phenomenon. The metalic style of using tons of sources and integrating them into a cohesive pic and the chrispis style of simple backgrounds and eye popping, super clean chops were very popular and then metalic initiated the all source era with the "marathon runner" perspective change. I followed that up with my painting repaint and some other stuff and the all source stuff went off the charts not too long after that. I pretty much agree with what Scion is saying, all source is supposed to be all source and sole ps work. On a related note, the beauty of all source is NOT in simply making something out of all source, it IS in making something out of all source that LOOKS GOOD. There are far too many all source images out there today that have horrible perspective, cutouts, edges, shadows, etc. and expect to get big votes just because it is all source and people "respect" all source as being hard to do. And they are right, all source is difficult, but only when done properly. It's almost as if people use the all source moniker as an excuse to be able to do a piece of work without taking the proper time to do good, solid detail work to it. The original idea behind all source is to make it look clean and pure, with all the correct perspective and shadowing you would find in other works. It is that type of all source work that is clearly the most impressive, and I would challenge the people who do all source work today to re-evaluate what you are doing, and try to do all-source stuff the right way. PSC, as a whole, will look a lot better because of it.

Totally agree with that.

now let's start checking them all (only about 300 images claim to be all source, according to google ( searchstring: "all source" site:photoshopcontest.com/view-entry ) )

I have only ever done 3 all source images, 2 where well placed the other was an early piece i did, and to be honest i find them a bit easier than doing the type of chops i do now, finding other images that work well with the original is not only time consuming but being solely the source image can mean it turns out to be an un-original idea as i found out, so I will continue to use other sources when ever i can.