BUR #20889 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke implied_light_source
deprecate implied_light_source
Almost every image on the site could be described as having an implied light source, and it's therefore not useful as a search term.
Posted under Tags
BUR #20889 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke implied_light_source
deprecate implied_light_source
Almost every image on the site could be described as having an implied light source, and it's therefore not useful as a search term.
The bulk update request #20889 (forum #258550) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
Perhaps i should have made a wiki for that for what my intentions for this tag was, I've done so with unseen_light_source, if this is still found unsuitable then i'll let the case rest
Obst said:
BUR #20919 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke unseen_light_source
No difference.
what do you mean no difference? you can't just say that when i literally gave a definition and limits to it's use. most images would not actually apply to this tag despite what you said.
The "can be assumed not to be natrual (sic) daylight" restriction excludes images that are outdoors during the day.
That leaves the tag as potentially applicable to:
Are you ready to personally go through 285,000 posts to determine which ones the tag applies to?
Moreover, who on earth is going to want to search for or exclude images like post #6853257 because they technically have an unseen light source?
If you were to write a definition that excludes indoors images too, the tag starts to narrow itself down to an interesting subset of images, but the multiple caveats mean that at that point it's bound to be misused constantly and create constant headaches (even the exclusion of natural daylight might lead to mistagging.) Tags that people have no hope of using properly without having read the wiki are bad.
7HS said:
- night -moon — if we naively assume that every post depicting the moon is also during nighttime, about 26k posts
It occurred to me of this after i had made the wiki, but would have to be rather verbose, as replacing "natural daylight" technically accurate "starlight", as even the light of the moon is starlight, wouldn't fly.
As for indoors i currently can't really say much without examples of what should/n't count .
Speaking of examples i would absolutely say that post #6853257 wouldn't count because it's consistently lit. i guess you can say that the search point for this tag is interesting lighting.
As for mistagging, a lot of that comes down the tag itself being ambiguous, and I'll perfectly admit that the current name isn't great, so any suggestion for a better name would be perfectly welcomed.
As for indoors i currently can't really say much without examples of what should/n't count .
You're the one suggesting the tag, you decide what counts.
i guess you can say that the search point for this tag is interesting lighting.
You might be looking for the existing tags chiaroscuro and tenebrism (they could probably be tagged on more posts than they currently are.)
Alternately, you could make a pool for posts with lighting you consider interesting.
The bulk update request #20919 (forum #258660) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
7HS said:
You're the one suggesting the tag, you decide what counts.
You might be looking for the existing tags chiaroscuro and tenebrism (they could probably be tagged on more posts than they currently are.)
Alternately, you could make a pool for posts with lighting you consider interesting.
oh! i wasn't aware that art lighting theory like this was something we considered taggable, i came across something like pool #12875 a while back and was wondering if it could be converted to a tag, but it's a much more broad theory than those two so i'm not sure.