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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 172, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/08/2004 10:50:00 PM · #1
I challenge all you naysayers to identify even one situation where strict photographic integrity is not maintained by allowing any and all possible photo digital editing techniques.

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that I am wrong.

Remember, if you or any of your DPC team should be killed or captured by my dazzling logic, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions!

Go ahead, make my day...

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 01:22:42.
03/08/2004 10:57:27 PM · #2
Are you talking exclusively on DPC for challenges, or in other venues, such as photojournalism?
03/08/2004 11:00:10 PM · #3
Ah, Hah! Trying to trick me I see!

Photojournalism is a different matter. In a DPC photojournalism challenge, of course, some editing restrictions would have to apply.
03/08/2004 11:06:18 PM · #4
Originally posted by stdavidson:

I challenge all you naysayers to identify even one situation where strict photographic integety is not maintained by allowing any and all possible photo digital editing techniques.


Originally posted by stdavidson:

Ah, Hah! Trying to trick me I see!

Photojournalism is a different matter. In a DPC photojournalism challenge, of course, some editing restrictions would have to apply.


Wow. This was over before it started. You have your "one situation" already, and you just conceded.
03/08/2004 11:07:46 PM · #5
You're a member, right? So if you entered just the membership challenges then all the DPC challenges for you would be all editing allowed.

Some people like it & others don't. This way everyone gets something!
03/08/2004 11:08:26 PM · #6
Originally posted by DJLuba:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

I challenge all you naysayers to identify even one situation where strict photographic integety is not maintained by allowing any and all possible photo digital editing techniques.


Originally posted by stdavidson:

Ah, Hah! Trying to trick me I see!

Photojournalism is a different matter. In a DPC photojournalism challenge, of course, some editing restrictions would have to apply.


Wow. This was over before it started. You have your "one situation" already, and you just conceded.


hehehe! Good observation!
03/08/2004 11:11:18 PM · #7
The naysayers speak... This discussion of photediting is for DPC, not the Los Angeles Times.

You can come up with something better than that.
03/08/2004 11:20:06 PM · #8
if one edits out a part of the photo such as power lines or their weird unlcle cletus, then the photographic itegrity has been breached reguardless if it is for the DPC challenges or for photo journalism.

Or if one adds information to the photo to make it appear something was in the original shot that was not there.

using 2 photos to create one image and passing it off as one single image with out noting it is a composition of several images is a no no also.

Also making enhancements to the photo to make colors jump out and look surealitic is breaking photographic integrity...yes That Adams guy who edited some awesome photos is just as guilty.

Now the edited photos do look MUCH better, but its still NOT what the photographer saw.

Did I cover enough?? or do you need more

James
03/08/2004 11:26:26 PM · #9
62221.jpg
03/08/2004 11:27:52 PM · #10
Just like sex, it's not good when it's faked :P

Message edited by author 2004-03-08 23:33:49.
03/08/2004 11:31:22 PM · #11
61652.jpg

(Sorry, Mr. Blobby.)

Please to point out your "dazzling logic" now.

03/08/2004 11:37:39 PM · #12
There have been a couple of examples where it seems clear that photographic integrity have not been maintained through the use of editing. Is there something you have in mind in particular?

Let's reverse this and ask you to tell us why all editing maintains photographic integrity.
03/08/2004 11:39:00 PM · #13
Finally, something of substance...

Suppose, for example, that your power lines are to far away to be recorded by your camera. Does the photo have integity then even if you can't see it? Of course. The opposite is also necessarily true.

Photography is an art form. It is always geared toward twisting different aspects of reality to present an interesting perspective, but not necessarily an accurate one.

Do fish-eye lenses create and accurate image. Of course not, but they are allowed even under basic editing rules at DPC. When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No.

Artists traditionally see with the mind's eye. Adding or subtracting a bit here and there to better convey an idea has been in the artists domain for centuries.

Why should things be different just because we have digital photo editing tools now? It should not.

Originally posted by jab119:

if one edits out a part of the photo such as power lines or their weird unlcle cletus, then the photographic itegrity has been breached reguardless if it is for the DPC challenges or for photo journalism.

Or if one adds information to the photo to make it appear something was in the original shot that was not there.

using 2 photos to create one image and passing it off as one single image with out noting it is a composition of several images is a no no also.

Also making enhancements to the photo to make colors jump out and look surealitic is breaking photographic integrity...yes That Adams guy who edited some awesome photos is just as guilty.

Now the edited photos do look MUCH better, but its still NOT what the photographer saw.

Did I cover enough?? or do you need more

James

03/08/2004 11:47:15 PM · #14
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

62221.jpg


John has the right idea and provides a great example. The question is not if this is real or not. It clearly is not "real".

The question is, "Is this good photography?". I voted it a 5.
03/08/2004 11:47:45 PM · #15
Photographic integrity means different things to different people. Our basic editing rules do allow us to get around that quite easily. We can make images that do not resemble photographs in any way within our basic editing rules.
03/08/2004 11:55:12 PM · #16
The basic editing rules are so that people could become conversant with their cameras. That's what's emphasized. That's probably the best first step to becoming productive photographers.
03/08/2004 11:57:45 PM · #17
Originally posted by stdavidson:

When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No.


This is a false assumption. If I get down on my knees and have my eleven year old son 5 feet in front of me while I am facing a mountain 100 yards away, my son looks bigger than the mountain. That IS reality...
03/08/2004 11:59:31 PM · #18
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

62221.jpg


I'm confused John, is this an arguement for or against... I look at this as proof that SOME things SHOULDN'T be done to a photo....
03/09/2004 12:10:27 AM · #19
I think the kinds of editing that the admins really want to curb is compositing, which when done with film is a very difficult and laborious craft that took years to learn and master. It wasn't all that available to most people so that you had to be the best you could be with a camera. It's not a choice about what art is or isn't, but rather what they wanted to emphasize on this web site.

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Finally, something of substance...

Suppose, for example, that your power lines are to far away to be recorded by your camera. Does the photo have integity then even if you can't see it? Of course. The opposite is also necessarily true.

Photography is an art form. It is always geared toward twisting different aspects of reality to present an interesting perspective, but not necessarily an accurate one.

Do fish-eye lenses create and accurate image. Of course not, but they are allowed even under basic editing rules at DPC. When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No.

Artists traditionally see with the mind's eye. Adding or subtracting a bit here and there to better convey an idea has been in the artists domain for centuries.

Why should things be different just because we have digital photo editing tools now? It should not.

03/09/2004 12:12:47 AM · #20
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It's not a choice about what art is or isn't, but rather what they wanted to emphasize on this web site.


Which when I read about the site history seems to be PHOTOGRAPHY!
03/09/2004 12:15:35 AM · #21
Originally posted by mk:

61652.jpg

(Sorry, Mr. Blobby.)

Please to point out your "dazzling logic" now.


OK. I will. Like this one, every artist creates their own unique interpretations for their own reasons. Nothing wrong with pushing the rules as was mrblobby's intent. Artists throughout history have done that. You think Picasso didn't push the limits? Does his work lack integrity? Certainly not.

Our goal, as judges of art is to decide if it is good or not.

This one got 5.093... The voters have spoken.


03/09/2004 12:27:47 AM · #22
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

There have been a couple of examples where it seems clear that photographic integrity have not been maintained through the use of editing. Is there something you have in mind in particular?

Let's reverse this and ask you to tell us why all editing maintains photographic integrity.


Good question!

Some people think that when they go out and snap a picture that they have captured an accurate redition of what is really there. Not true!

There isn't a film or photodetector in existence that has the range of the human eye. They are inaccurate from the get go. We need not mention that two people that look at the same scene will not see the same thing.

My camera, for example, rarely captures vibrant colors. Therefore I have to make color adjustments to bring out what I remember seeing.

Most digital cameras do not capture images in clear, accurate focus so we have to apply unsharp mask to bring it out.

Need I mention the "jaggies", those little hash marks along strait lines you see in many digital images? Are they real? No, of course not.

Cameras don't accurately record what was there in the first place.

So not only is photo editing necessary, it is required to for an accurate picture of reality!
03/09/2004 12:30:00 AM · #23
Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No.


This is a false assumption. If I get down on my knees and have my eleven year old son 5 feet in front of me while I am facing a mountain 100 yards away, my son looks bigger than the mountain. That IS reality...


Unfortunately, logic tells us otherwise. Your son only APPEARS to look bigger. He actually is not.
03/09/2004 12:43:13 AM · #24
This situation is true because that's what we would see in reality. It doesn't matter how big the child or mountain are standing next to each other, but how we would see it in reality from our vantage point. That's the reality that we're dealing with when we take a picture.

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No.


This is a false assumption. If I get down on my knees and have my eleven year old son 5 feet in front of me while I am facing a mountain 100 yards away, my son looks bigger than the mountain. That IS reality...


Unfortunately, logic tells us otherwise. Your son only APPEARS to look bigger. He actually is not.
03/09/2004 12:48:15 AM · #25
Though artists have always wanted to create what was in their mind's eye, they chose the materials and media to work with...not all media could be used for what they wanted to express, so they too were limited by their tools. Here on DPC the tools have been chosen for us. I have no problem with this.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/22/2017 07:12:07 PM

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: 11/22/2017 07:12:07 PM EST.