Agree! It is the same with the chops that are using externals. It helps when they put the links, you'll see how they made the integration. Here's an example, really great great use of externals

http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/130339/late.html

yes Reggie, the authors note is important, for externals too,, and i think people slowly tend to totally avoid to write it; clearly, but on purpose or by lazyness...but really it was part of the learning too:
- inofrmation
- learning
-clarity (we say "transparence" in french)
= a good author's note= less possible doubts about sthg.

I think the discussion was opened because of this, see comments

http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/130432/votes.html

But what if that doesn't happen and someone gets a clean cheat out off that. What if the day that cheater win... and a good chopper stay behind on second place. May be the one on second place must have got his first win.
Its all timing....a good chopper can get in it and get depress. Whats the way to repay that???

Explaining the chop is good...I think. Say all source, only source, no reference, give links to externals, explain the external modification, brush used.



Tell me one thing...are you against all source chop???

No I am not against them. I just don't think that it makes them any better. You can take any image and make a painting out of it or a robot or put it in a glass dome but to come up with a truly brilliant idea that nobody else thought of is truly impressive. Even some of the above ideas can be brilliant if you put a little extra thought into them and add a twist. It does not matter if it is all source, as long as it is all original thought, that is what counts.