DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Photographic vs Expert
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 57, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/23/2006 04:23:34 PM · #1
After a lot of thinking about the expert editing rules and a possible proliferation of 'digital art' that would result from them, I think there may be a better solution to help establish the line between "photographic in nature" and digital art.

1. I think DPC definitely has room for digital art challenges on a regular basis, where anything goes with absolutely no restrictions on editing.

2. I think that the advanced editing rules could quickly become 'expert' rules by adding the following statement to those rules:

"You may use multiple photos of the same composition for the purpose of enhanced dynamic range. You may not use multiple different photos for your final image."

This would maintain the same type of images we get now with a little more robust set of opportunities to finish them. The advanced editing rules seem to give us most of the opportunities we want to properly finish a photograph in whatever way we see fit. The addition of tools to allow for HDR would make those even more complete without turning the results into photo collages.

Just some food for thought...
12/23/2006 04:50:20 PM · #2
Oh, I'm 1000% in favor of this proposed modification of the Advanced rules. I believe VERY strongly that HDRI from multiple exposures of the same scene is entirely within the photographic spirit of the site, and it frankly annoys me that I have to use half-assed alternative measures to process my expanded tonal range landscapes for weekly challenges.

Let's see a groundswell of support for this, people! HDRI absolutely IS photography, it's current state of the art, and the fact that so many people use it to create "cartoons" (me included, sometimes) does not speak against its value in the creation of traditional photographs.

R.
12/23/2006 04:55:09 PM · #3
Count me in!!! Haven't used HDR yet, but hope to start learning after the new year.

And yes, I too feel there is plenty of room for "expert" rules and regular challenges. If a person doesn't like "digital art" photos, then simply don't enter (and perhaps not VOTE) on them.

12/23/2006 04:55:55 PM · #4
Nods on the HDR rule addition.

I'd love to see a regular Friday Free-for-all with the new rules in effect.

Good times.
12/23/2006 04:57:24 PM · #5
but the current expert rules will stay, right?

had a lot of fun editing my challenge entry, and being able to create an image that otherwise would never come on screen with the basic or advanced rules.
12/23/2006 04:59:35 PM · #6
The proposition makes sense. I am not "into" HDR just yet but I do credit it with the appropriate level of photographic merit. I see nothing wrong with allowing true HDRI (multiple exposures/same image) to be included in challenges.

But please people, don't think your "cartoons" are going to score high. If this proposal is seen through, please use this technology moderately and not as a joke.

Message edited by author 2006-12-23 17:02:23.
12/23/2006 05:49:33 PM · #7
Originally posted by jfriesen:

The proposition makes sense. I am not "into" HDR just yet but I do credit it with the appropriate level of photographic merit. I see nothing wrong with allowing true HDRI (multiple exposures/same image) to be included in challenges.

But please people, don't think your "cartoons" are going to score high. If this proposal is seen through, please use this technology moderately and not as a joke.


I'm not into HDR either, but I recognize it as a very worthwhile tool in photography.
12/23/2006 05:53:48 PM · #8
i haven't tried HDR -yet- but i like using multiple images for panoramas .. and the only rule set that allows it / close to it is 'expert'

12/23/2006 05:56:55 PM · #9
I say no. Too automated. Too specific.
12/23/2006 06:11:25 PM · #10
HDR doesn't suit my taste or really work well for most of my photography, but I'd support that.
12/23/2006 06:30:31 PM · #11
I am also not "into" HDR or at least in the way it has been represented to me in the majority of what i have seen on this site but I am not by any means against it. Would these rules enable me to create something like this image of mine? Or is it just a rule to benefit the photographers shooting "still" subjects?

nick
12/23/2006 06:33:11 PM · #12
Originally posted by boysetsfire:

I am also not "into" HDR or at least in the way it has been represented to me in the majority of what i have seen on this site but I am not by any means against it. Would these rules enable me to create something like this image of mine? Or is it just a rule to benefit the photographers shooting "still" subjects?

nick


Somehow I think the answer would be no. And I agree with your reasoning...! Whilst HDR is great...and I would love to see more of it...I feel making that technique allowable under advanced but not other techinques (even the ones that have been around for much longer than HDR) is way too selective. Keep it in the Expert Editing....OR....have a HDR challenge on a regular basis.


12/23/2006 06:39:00 PM · #13
HDR should be a part of Advanced rules.
12/23/2006 06:56:46 PM · #14
I know I said I'd support it, but it does sort of give the Landscape photogs another advantage. Ofcourse DPC is the land of the landscapes, but do we need to give them another advantage in total ribbon domination?
12/23/2006 07:03:14 PM · #15
This debate drives me crazy. Those who do natural light photography are well aware that the potential tonal range of an image can stifle creativity. HDRI imaging is a purely photographic technique (no trickery at all) that was developed to better allow us to represent the world in all its glory. To say that doing so gives an "unfair advantage" to landscape photographers is ludicrous; I'd submit that landscape photographers have been laboring an unfair DISadvantage compared to studio photographers, who can manipulate the light to suit their vision at will.

R.
12/23/2006 07:06:23 PM · #16
I agree with Bear 100% here.
12/23/2006 07:15:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Those who do natural light photography are well aware that the potential tonal range of an image can stifle creativity.
R.


I am only fairly new to photography but isnt this the beauty of the beast?
12/23/2006 07:26:39 PM · #18
Originally posted by boysetsfire:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Those who do natural light photography are well aware that the potential tonal range of an image can stifle creativity.
R.


I am only fairly new to photography but isnt this the beauty of the beast?


Then why use grads/ND filters? HDR is no different from that. They are all tools to help produce the most accurate exposure possible.

I think having HDR under advance editing is a great idea. If we allow for perspective correction then why not exposure correction?

Message edited by author 2006-12-23 19:27:48.
12/23/2006 07:38:09 PM · #19
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by boysetsfire:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Those who do natural light photography are well aware that the potential tonal range of an image can stifle creativity.
R.


I am only fairly new to photography but isnt this the beauty of the beast?


Then why use grads/ND filters? HDR is no different from that. They are all tools to help produce the most accurate exposure possible.

I think having HDR under advance editing is a great idea. If we allow for perspective correction then why not exposure correction?


If its no different use the filters not multiple images.
12/23/2006 07:39:21 PM · #20
Originally posted by boysetsfire:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by boysetsfire:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Those who do natural light photography are well aware that the potential tonal range of an image can stifle creativity.
R.


I am only fairly new to photography but isnt this the beauty of the beast?


Then why use grads/ND filters? HDR is no different from that. They are all tools to help produce the most accurate exposure possible.

I think having HDR under advance editing is a great idea. If we allow for perspective correction then why not exposure correction?


If its no different use the filters not multiple images.


Why not use the one that produces the best results which may be a combination of the two?
12/23/2006 07:40:51 PM · #21
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

To say that doing so gives an "unfair advantage" to landscape photographers is ludicrous;


Mostly playing devil's advocate... you know as well as I do that HDR can be a useful tool for landscapers. But, the flip side of that coin is that it can also be a nice rope which to hang yourself, if not used correctly.

If it came up to a vote, I'd vote yes. I'm all for handing people rope :-)
12/23/2006 08:17:11 PM · #22
I'm all for it as long as Bear writes a tutorial on his workflow... to give us all a chance. :P
12/23/2006 08:47:01 PM · #23
I have to say that I am for the HDR in advanced rules. I pretty much shoot only landscape and can understand what Bear is talking about first hand. I just started dabling with HDR and tone mapping and love it.

I don't see what the problem is...it's all the same image.
12/23/2006 08:57:29 PM · #24
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:

I have to say that I am for the HDR in advanced rules. I pretty much shoot only landscape and can understand what Bear is talking about first hand. I just started dabling with HDR and tone mapping and love it.

I don't see what the problem is...it's all the same image.

Unless I misinterpret what you seem to suggest, jmsetzler and Bear are suggesting that the advanced rules be expanded to allow multiple images to be used for HDR from the same composition.

Edit to add my support for this idea btw.

Message edited by author 2006-12-23 20:58:54.
12/23/2006 08:58:02 PM · #25
Originally posted by Louis:


Unless I misinterpret what you seem to suggest, jmsetzler and Bear are suggesting that the advanced rules be expanded to allow multiple images to be used for HDR from the same composition.


Yup...and NOT for any other purpose!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/23/2017 12:32:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/23/2017 12:32:22 AM EDT.