| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2004 10:06:35 AM · #126 |
As for photography = art, that is crap. Photography is a basic means of recording a moment - many people choose to turn that in to art - but a camera is primarily not a tool made for creating 'art'.
Believe me, I am all for no editing restrictions but can't understand some of the viewpoints your giving... |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:06:42 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche! |
Well, becasue it simply looks better when done in camera 99% of the time.
I depends on what you want out of photography - if (like you I suspect) simply like making pretty pictures to please yourself, then yay do as you wish.
For others the fun comes in learning how to use a camera.
And for others still, they would like to profit from their photographic skills (if so, learning how to obtain the best results in camera is pretty significant) |
Of course you make valid points. Some of us just like to do things the lazy way. :)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:10:04 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche!
And what makes you think Photoshop is the easier way? Is it because you know Photoshop better than know your way around a camera?
Some people come from a photographic background and have to learn Photoshop, so your sentence only applies to the PS Geeks.
Message edited by author 2004-03-10 10:10:32. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:13:27 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Of course you make valid points. Some of us just like to do things the lazy way. :) |
So you are admiting that I made a valid point as to why editing may not be a free for all thus proving you wrong ;) |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:21:18 AM · #130 |
... There's a lot of discussion here, but I don't know if it is all about photography.
Let me present an example:
You have taken a photo. You took it because what you has thinking at the moment, the light, the scenario, the complete conjuncure of elements that in your head an through the lenses became a photo. Some guy just a feet away could capture a diferent picure from a diferent point of view.
Well, if you go home and make it different is like triing to alter the result in a football math because the referee has done a bad work.
Of couse that photograph is art. And we are all different artists. And we all have limitations to hower work: different cameras, different prespectives, different life experiences, different interests.
If you get to your computer and look at a picture that you took and get the impression: "darn, this isn't exactly wat I wanted", you can face it from 2 different ways;
1) Ok, I must go there and try to make it the way I wanted.
or
2)Ok, I open it with a program and make it like I wanted to be.
Is just me or does you also feel like fake the second one????
Ok, it is art, but isn't photography. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:26:13 AM · #131 |
Yes it is photography, unless there is no photographic element left.
I really laugh when I see people saying "if you edit your photo it's no longer a photo" and then look and see they use a digital camera.
Nuno, was Ansel Adams a photographer? |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:33:40 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche! |
And what makes you think Photoshop is the easier way? Is it because you know Photoshop better than know your way around a camera?
Some people come from a photographic background and have to learn Photoshop, so your sentence only applies to the PS Geeks. |
Jon - what difference does it make? If I am more comfortable in Photoshop to do my editting than you are, why is that any different than if you have a better set of lenses than I do? So maybe you can take a better sharper macro of a bee than I can, and I have to do it the harder way by getting closer to the hive and risking gettting stung or having the bees fly away.
Should we restrict you in what camera equipment you use to take your shot because using a long lens is doing things the "easy way"? I would think not. So why restrict the tools that I want to use to produce my shot?
Dave
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:40:43 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by jab119:
...
When I do prints or photos for friends, of course I edit them like mad to get them perfect, but is more of a Challenge to me to make my photos look good for the challenges with out editing.
James |
The better a picture is in the first place the less editing will be required in post processing.
Though not always true, a general rule of thumb is that if you have to do a lot of post processing on an image then it probably wasn't very good to start with and likely won't be much improved. |
True, when I first started using a digital camera, I had to edit 9 out of 10 images to make them look acceptable. Sometimes it was 10 out of 10.
Today is a much different story, I have learned to use my camera to achieve the desired results that many get by doing a little post processing. now I edit 3 out of 10 images to achieve the results I want.
I learned to do this because of this site and the classic editng rules.
Usually the extent of my edits are a little sharpening and minor adjustments on the levels. Sometimes I need to edit out a dust speck or a hot pixel, but thats not very often. Cropping and resizing are done as needed.
James
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 12:25:38 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche! |
And what makes you think Photoshop is the easier way? Is it because you know Photoshop better than know your way around a camera?
Some people come from a photographic background and have to learn Photoshop, so your sentence only applies to the PS Geeks. |
Jon - what difference does it make? If I am more comfortable in Photoshop to do my editting than you are, why is that any different than if you have a better set of lenses than I do? So maybe you can take a better sharper macro of a bee than I can, and I have to do it the harder way by getting closer to the hive and risking gettting stung or having the bees fly away.
Should we restrict you in what camera equipment you use to take your shot because using a long lens is doing things the "easy way"? I would think not. So why restrict the tools that I want to use to produce my shot?
Dave |
Dave if you read my posts you will note that i am all for editing - period. I am just suggesting that by not being able to edit, one will find a away to do it in camera and thus learn how to use it's functions better.
As for lenses - that has nothing to do with skill or editing, I want a 500mm but can't afford it so I shoot within my equiptment. I don't try to take pictures of Elks 10 miles away for example. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 12:39:01 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Dave if you read my posts you will note that i am all for editing - period. I am just suggesting that by not being able to edit, one will find a away to do it in camera and thus learn how to use it's functions better.
|
Jon - I have read your posts and I think we happen to be on the same side of the issue here. I was not attacking you personally, just the notion that just because something is easier to do makes it bad in some way. Larry Wall, the creator of the Perl programming language, cites laziness as a character virtue, not a flaw.
I am very content with the advanced editting rules available in the member challenges, but wish the same rules applied to open challenges.
I think it is self evident that the winning challenge entries have not suffered in quality since the advanced editting rules were implemented, so why not, as you and I both advocate, extend the rules to everyone?
Dave
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 12:47:49 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Dave if you read my posts you will note that i am all for editing - period. I am just suggesting that by not being able to edit, one will find a away to do it in camera and thus learn how to use it's functions better.
|
Jon - I have read your posts and I think we happen to be on the same side of the issue here. I was not attacking you personally, just the notion that just because something is easier to do makes it bad in some way. Larry Wall, the creator of the Perl programming language, cites laziness as a character virtue, not a flaw.
I am very content with the advanced editting rules available in the member challenges, but wish the same rules applied to open challenges.
I think it is self evident that the winning challenge entries have not suffered in quality since the advanced editting rules were implemented, so why not, as you and I both advocate, extend the rules to everyone?
Dave |
Well I guess you also have to look at this from the point of view of Drew and Langdon. If they opened up everything to relaxed editting rules less people would opt to become paying members.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 01:12:56 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by budokan:
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm okay with editing in the challenges as long as it doesn't change the concept of an image. |
Louddog, what on earth is 'the concept of an image'?
It's necessarily abstract phrases like this that prevent clear rules being made, and ultimately corrupt your own argument. |
Okay, I'll explain. If I take a picture of a bird in a cage, and photoshop out the cage. The concept of the image has changed. It's no longer a bird in a cage.
Or if I take a picture of a fish and a bald cat sitting out a table, delete out the background of the picture so it looks like a flawless white background, put hair on the cat and make the fish more pretty it's no longer a picture of a balding cat an a fish sitting on a table.
Or, if I take a picture of a sunset and think it's not interesting enough so I add a 737 to it. It's no longer just a sunset picture. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 01:22:37 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by frankh:
I'm also affraid that when full editing wouldn't be allowed a good photo might become a matter of technology, the one with the best and most accurate camera would have even more advantage. |
But isn't it already that way? I can only afford an A60 for now, and it is incredible how limited the camera is...(just take a look at pictures taken with A60s on this site as an example) Until I can afford a better camera there is simply no way I can compete, unless we start appreciating lower resolution and softer focus ;) |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 01:29:34 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm okay with editing in the challenges as long as it doesn't change the concept of an image.
i.e. color enhancing, croping, and I'll even bend on spot removal is all fine.
adding/moving/cloning a tree, swaping a head or body, removing a fence or power line... not fine.
If you're doing it to sell or hang on your wall, do what ever you want and call it whatever you want. However, when entering in a challenge I think rules need to be in place and be fairly strict and specific to keep people from pushing the limits of the rules. |
Pushing the limits is what leads to great pictures. Swapping a head or two never hurts. Rules are made to be broken!
Take that, Louddog! |
See my post above...pushing the limits is fine -- after all that's how we got things like abstract photography in the first place -- but there is an ultimate boundary outside of which a medium simply becomes another. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 01:30:46 PM · #140 |
I like it as is. I save $25/year and I can only enter the challenges I really want to enter anyway. Perfect for me!
One of the things I do here at work is help create graphical instructions on how to build our product. As a rule of thumb we say if you have to spend more then 10 minutes in photoshop to make your picture look how you wanted it to look, you took a bad a picture. I like that rule of thumb.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 01:35:23 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Going back to your initial question "All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong!"
How's about the fact that for many, not being able to do certain things actually makes them think more with their camera.
...
So again I feel you perhaps have been proved wrong. |
Certainly not!
This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche! |
Yes. Think cake mix vs. cake from scratch. Hand-blown glass sculpture vs. machine-moulded vases. It's the difference between biking and driving a motor cycle -- nothing wrong with motor cycles, but just don't try to enter the Tour de France with one ;) That said, I don't want to get too lost in the analogies -- usually someone will pick some little detail so specific and unique to the analogy and argue against it, forgetting the original theory it was supposed to exemplify...but I think these are examples that show your theory does not hold in every case, thus invalidating it :) Let me know if I'm wrong...and I think you will ;) |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 01:53:14 PM · #142 |
| I heard Steve entered a can of Hormel Chili in a Chili cook off! |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 04:09:43 PM · #143 |
This thread has moved so quickly that I never even knew it was happening - been off taking photographs. :)
I have to admit that I feel good knowing people were arguing about a photograph of mine at one point in this thread - it makes me know I'm striking a nerve in people, some positively, some negatively. I also have to admit that it hurts to be criticized any time - but that's part of life and part of sharing anything we do. There's always someone who's going to hate what you do and, hopefully, someone who loves it. The worst thing is when no one has any reaction to it at all, IMHO.
(See Brooks Jensen's blog at this URL for almost my exact take on this albeit in his words: //lenswork.com/stl-web/b2/index.php - go to the one called 'You can't please all the people...')
Just for the record, I'd be happy to show you all the original image I made Burner Art from:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=64041
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 04:18:38 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I like it as is. I save $25/year and I can only enter the challenges I really want to enter anyway. Perfect for me!
One of the things I do here at work is help create graphical instructions on how to build our product. As a rule of thumb we say if you have to spend more then 10 minutes in photoshop to make your picture look how you wanted it to look, you took a bad a picture. I like that rule of thumb. |
I agree totally. If you have to use photoshop to save your pictures, then you've got a bad picture and you should learn how to take better photographs.
I don't think I use Photoshop to save any of my pictures any more. In fact, if I have a shot that isn't already good, I don't bother working on it.
However, there is huge difference between taking a bad picture and making it average, and realising the full potential of a well exposed, well composed original photograph.
Trying to claim that just shows ignorance of the realities of photographic materials, print materials and photographic history.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 04:46:09 PM · #145 |
The way I see it,the guy who is best in photoshop will win every time,
he can manipulate a bad picture into a good one most of the time,
plus, many people can only just afford the camera never mind an expensive piece of kit like ps.
It would be a retrograde step for this site,
just my opinion,
Paul. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 04:53:13 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by peecee:
The way I see it,the guy who is best in photoshop will win every time, he can manipulate a bad picture into a good one most of the time |
Photoshop can't always make a bad picture a good one. The people who win here do so because they have a great photograph upon which to build. If you feel otherwise, then please point out in recent member's challenges that allow for advanced editting where a bad photograph became a winner due only to the post processing of the photographer.
Dave
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 04:53:33 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I like it as is. I save $25/year and I can only enter the challenges I really want to enter anyway. Perfect for me!
One of the things I do here at work is help create graphical instructions on how to build our product. As a rule of thumb we say if you have to spend more then 10 minutes in photoshop to make your picture look how you wanted it to look, you took a bad a picture. I like that rule of thumb. |
You might be shocked at how much damage I can do to a photo with 10 whole minutes. Actually, I probably spend less than 10 minutes on average in actual editing. Sometimes I spend a lot of time just looking, or deciding between one photo and another, or I might have to play around with the final cropped size or compression to get under the limit while maintaining adequate quality. But I think overall I've been doing less editing than I used to. Of course, with the recent plunge in my scores, maybe I had better limber up the old stylus/tablet combo again.
Message edited by author 2004-03-10 16:56:03. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 05:46:07 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
Originally posted by peecee:
The way I see it,the guy who is best in photoshop will win every time, he can manipulate a bad picture into a good one most of the time |
Photoshop can't always make a bad picture a good one. The people who win here do so because they have a great photograph upon which to build. If you feel otherwise, then please point out in recent member's challenges that allow for advanced editting where a bad photograph became a winner due only to the post processing of the photographer.
Dave |
Not bad photos to start with, but all photos that would not have done too well in the basic editing rules challenge (this is just off the top of my head):
Dec Free Study, 1st place
Your Shadow, 1st place
Things that go together, 1st place
Painting with light, 4th place
Message edited by author 2004-03-10 17:48:54. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 06:37:37 PM · #149 |
Ugh, I got tired readding all of these replys to a very simple question.
This site is dedicated to Digital Photography. These contests are being judged by your peers for your digital photography essances captured by your digital camera.
I don't see where this site is called digital photo malipulation contest. Nor, does it say Digital Editing contest.
Plain and simple. The admints/owners of this site created a place to showcase digital photos. also they set the ground rules on which this site is governed.
Thus, do it their way. or find another site, or create your own site.
I have a horrible camera and I love to malipulate photos. Doing the unreal to something that was real. Its fun. Yet, I abide by the rules here. Which in turn is helping me to become a better photographer. There are so much you can do 'setting up a picture' to make the unreal real.
My suggestion. in my personal opinion is to just follow the rules and drive on. because you only make yourself look foolish.
Although I do have another suggestion. Write to the admins asking to do an contest with fool editing. maybe once every couple of months. That would have been a better way to use your energy.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 06:38:10 PM · #150 |
An example might help this discussion...
There was a great deal of talk about this excellent second place EddyG image a while back:
At issue is the blue spot and the way it was generated. It was created using PS tools that were not allowed for that particular challenge. To get around this he created the dot in PS using those tools and displayed it on his monitor in the photo background.
Some will argue that his creative genius with this technique demonstrates how photographic purity and integrity is maintained. They say it represents all that is good and pure about "real" photography.
Others argue that it is a form of cheating within the rules. He used clearly illegal editing and trickery to skirt the intent of the rules. Like Lady Macbeth they bellow, "Out, Damn Spot!"
I have a different view. EddyG is a gifted photographer. I would rather he devote his talent to creating more images faster than to wasting time and creative energy with unnecessary Rube Goldberg devices. He may have produced another great picture in that wasted time. I feel cheated.
This image is a great metaphorical example. It clearly shows that the weak arguements against editing are barely hanging on by a thread. :)
|
|
