All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong!

03/09/2004 04:50:54 PM · #76

Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Is there any reason you have quotes around 'photograph' there ? That link goes to one of my least edited entries in a long while...

Yes, I know that was your image, and a darn good one too. The quotes were for emphasis, to underline the point I was trying to make. That being that most of the photos entered in challenges on this site have been edited to one extent or another and are therefore no longer, strictly speaking, 'photographs'.

That's why I asked. I have no idea what you are talking about with that comment, in reference to that image.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/09/2004 04:59:36 PM · #77

Originally posted by Koriyama:

Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph.

It helps me.

After a while of always doing level adjusting, contrasting and other editing, I realised that if I could include those changes before shooting, my photograph skills would be improved.

I find that digital editing is a good way of increasing awareness of weaknesses in our base photography.

Right, my point is, it is not the use of the tools that make you a better photographer, but your use of them makes you more aware of what you need to correct in the exposure itself. In other words I would like to get to the point that as little post proccessing is done as possible. All photographs are post proccessed, digital or not. Yes digital photos are done with digital editing, but I think mick's argument is a bit over the top. Wouldn't it then stand to reason that all digital cameras produce digital art and not photographs? I don't agree with that.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

03/09/2004 05:13:45 PM · #78

Originally posted by Gordon:

That's why I asked. I have no idea what you are talking about with that comment, in reference to that image.

I referred to your image as an example of a good photograph, one that should be allowed in a challenge, even though it has been edited. I referred to jonpink�s photo as an example of digital art that the current rules would not allow. However, after looking at his photo again I believe it is a straightforward photo of an existing work of art, and not an example of digital art as I had originally thought. Either way, the existing rules would disallow it as a challenge entry.

03/09/2004 05:16:53 PM · #79

Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by Gordon:
That's why I asked. I have no idea what you are talking about with that comment, in reference to that image.

I referred to your image as an example of a good photograph, one that should be allowed in a challenge, even though it has been edited.

I guess my main issue is with the clause I put in bold. I think by your current working definition of a photograph, or at least what you are implying by it, the majority of fine art film photography is not photography in your view, either. As such, I don't really understand what you are talking about.

03/09/2004 05:18:22 PM · #80

Originally posted by ScottK:

And that's the problem most people against relaxed/advanced editing feared. That the challenges would be taken over by digital art (which this and the burner clearly are)...

For the record, I support the advanced editing rules. I'm just fatalistic at this point. Digital art may not become the norm, but it will become a standard, "accepted" part of these challenges.

Scott,

Ahhhhhh.... It is worse than you think.

Here is the truth:
There is no absolute photographic integrity! Cameras do not accurately capture light in the first place. Photographers manipulate scenes for their own reasons and always have.

When a photographer chooses to use shallow DOF they are manipulating the image, changing the scene into something that was not there. They create their own reality. When they use levels, change contrast, apply soft focus, adjust color balance, create sepiatones, use filters or use special lense attachments they are not attempting an accurate capture of what is really there. Photographers already use any number of techniques to change reality. They are manipulating the image to create a mood or convey an idea. That is why cameras have all those buttons and knobs in the first place.

We left absolute image intergrity behind long ago, probably with the first crude cave drawings by prehistoric man.

So why lament? Why think we must suddenly draw a line now? I have confidence that digital tools give us new ways to express photgraphic creativity and will result in the best photographs than have ever been taken.

03/09/2004 05:36:58 PM · #81

Originally posted by Gordon:

The easiest way is to just disqualify images that are obviously or too extremely manipulated. This would solve the problem very easily. The burner and the flying fuses are obviously not realistic photographs - so remove them.
...
But just do what's right and over time users will get it.

Thanks for agreeing with me that all editing should be allowed. In the hands of a talented photo artist the tools can be used to create perfectly "natural" looking images. You just don't like digital art. That is fair enough.

However, the distinction between digital art and natural photography is considerably blurred already.

03/09/2004 05:40:22 PM · #82

By its very nature, photography is abstract. That is basic photo 100 art 100 whatever info. It seems that there is an interest in taking a site that was originally aimed at "photography" and moving toward a photoshop skills site. I like this site because of, not in spite of the restrictions. Here I am inclined to think more during exposure than in post processing, therebt reducing what needs to be done in post processing. Who knows what the future holds for this site. Look to Worth1000.com, they have challenges divided, one expressly for PS, the other for "photography". This site, at least as I see it, is dedicated to the photography end of the images. If there are members and/or users who want to photoshop the hell out fo their images, there is a spot for it... but as it stands right now, this is not the place.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 17:46:58.

03/09/2004 05:41:13 PM · #83

Originally posted by orussell:

Steve I gave this image of yours from the Road Signs challenge a 7. If it wasn't a basic editting challenge, what would you have done to improve upon it?

I would not change a thing.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/09/2004 05:44:14 PM · #84

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Thanks for agreeing with me ;) I've been arguing that point for a couple of years now...

It isn't that I don't like digital art, I just don't consider it much to do with digital photography.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

03/09/2004 05:46:47 PM · #85

Originally posted by Brooklyn513:

All photographs are post proccessed, digital or not.

I�m sorry, but I don�t understand what you�re saying. If I take a photo with my 10D, transfer it from the camera to my computer, then upload it straight to DPC, where is it being post-processed? As far as I know an image straight from my camera is just as the camera recorded it, pixel for pixel. The camera reads the color values for each pixel from the sensor and stores them as digital data in a file in memory. Sure, depending on the camera�s settings, it may modify the values it read from the sensor before storing them in the file, but the camera is still doing all the work, not an artist (photographer). That�s digital photography. A photo taken with a digital camera is by definition a digital photograph. Where is this post-processing that you�re talking about?

03/09/2004 05:54:10 PM · #86

Originally posted by ScottK:

Digital art is like pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I knew it! This pornography/digital art connection should be investigated immediately! I bet the mob is involved. :)

03/09/2004 05:55:41 PM · #87

My apologies for not being specific, or over generalizing. Yes, there is the ability to post an image transfered directly from your camera to DPC. My point was in the typical use of color correction, contrast etc by most (if not all) print shops. But, just for the sake of splitting hairs (which this whole thread is about), developing film is a form of post processing no? Who is to say that the data transfer is not. A digital medium is needed to do it, thus making it Digital Art.

03/09/2004 05:55:50 PM · #88

Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
All photographs are post proccessed, digital or not.

I�m sorry, but I don�t understand what you�re saying. If I take a photo with my 10D, transfer it from the camera to my computer, then upload it straight to DPC, where is it being post-processed? As far as I know an image straight from my camera is just as the camera recorded it, pixel for pixel. The camera reads the color values for each pixel from the sensor and stores them as digital data in a file in memory. Sure, depending on the camera�s settings, it may modify the values it read from the sensor before storing them in the file, but the camera is still doing all the work, not an artist (photographer). That�s digital photography. A photo taken with a digital camera is by definition a digital photograph. Where is this post-processing that you�re talking about?

Its post processed in your camera.

There is a processor, more powerful and application specific, than on your desktop, inside your camera that is post processing the image from the sensor. The fact that you don't have much control over the settings is no different than if I took it as a RAW image on to my PC and ran a photoshop action on it.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 17:57:00.

glimpses

Sony DSC-F707

03/09/2004 06:23:50 PM · #89

Originally posted by jonpink:

You don't know what a majority is?

What I do not know, is what has the majority to do with the definition of Photography and, if you think that it plays a defining role then you should look into what majority is and try to explain why it influences so much the definition of what Photography is in your view.

Does the majority define (or re-define) history?
It certainly does if history is what is told. It certainly doesn't if history is the actual succession of events as they did happen.

History shows that Photography is an Art and it occurs to me that this fact is not widely recognised in this conversation.

And being an Art, there are no "must" or "should" which can make sense.

[edited to correct the quote tagging]

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 18:24:59.

Mousie

03/09/2004 06:24:17 PM · #90

Originally posted by stdavidson:

A painting captures a moment in time just as a photograph does. The only difference is it is done with paint and digital art is done with pixels.

Uh... umm... do you re-read what you type, stdavidson?

A painting captures a moment in time? Here's one that captures not a moment, but movement of a subject *over* time, you may recognise it: //www.philamuseum.org/collections/modern_contemporary/1950-134-59.shtml

Here's a painting that's not capturing *any* moment in time:
//www.vomitus.com/museum/paintings_02/thoughtwars_full.html

Painting has nothing to do with capturing a moment in time unless that's the express wish of the artist.

Also, please enlighten me on the logical difference between 'looks' and 'appears to look'. Thanks!

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 18:39:57.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/09/2004 06:47:54 PM · #91

Originally posted by glimpses:

Originally posted by jonpink:
You don't know what a majority is?

What I do not know, is what has the majority to do with the definition of Photography and, if you think that it plays a defining role then you should look into what majority is and try to explain why it influences so much the definition of what Photography is in your view.

Does the majority define (or re-define) history?
It certainly does if history is what is told. It certainly doesn't if history is the actual succession of events as they did happen.

History shows that Photography is an Art and it occurs to me that this fact is not widely recognised in this conversation.

And being an Art, there are no "must" or "should" which can make sense.

[edited to correct the quote tagging]

You are absolutely correct in saying that art should never be subject to terms like "must" and "should". However, this site, based on its origins is to help one another to learn or better our photographic skills. In that sense, shouldn't there be limits, so the camera is in the fore.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

03/09/2004 06:58:04 PM · #92

Originally posted by Brooklyn513:

Sorry, but it takes a person making a conscious decision to create art. It cannot be made solely by a machine. And, simply transferring a file does not modify the digital data contained within that file. There is also little correlation between digital photography and film photography. One is digital and therefore deterministic, and the other is analog and therefore non-deterministic.

BTW, in case anyone was wondering, I agree with the folks that say DPC shouldn�t become a digital art web site. I like that this place is about digital photography and I hope it stays that way. But, I wouldn�t want to see it become a �no editing allowed� site either.

You�re right that we are splitting hairs. It�s been fun, but I�ve said all I care to on the subject, at least for now. I have to get at least a little work done today. ;^)

03/09/2004 07:42:36 PM · #93

Originally posted by jonpink:

I'll prove you wrong punk..hehe

Images like this: would be allowed, now that is 20% photography and 80% 3D render.

I dare say the majority would not like to see stuff like this appear on a photography challenge web site.

There....

;)

Hold it. I know what you are thinking... did he fire six logic shots or only five? In all this excitment I don't remember myself. But being that this is the most powerful logic in the world, you have to ask yourself this question... Are you feeling lucky? Well, punk, Are you?

Take this...
Nothing is overexposed and it has decent composition with reasonable use of the rule of thirds and a dramatic sky. That makes it better in traditional photographic terms than a lot of "natural" images posted here.