| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 05:30:56 PM · #26 |
( I even replied to your post in the inferior thread) :D
edit: tooooo many typos!! (It's friday night, remember?)
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 17:36:10. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 05:43:40 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I think I posted in the wrong "impressionism" thread. :-P
So I'll post it here...
Would the SMUDGE tool be allowed under advanced editing?? |
Like most of these questions, it depends.
If you smudge a little bit of the scene, probably its allowed.
If you smudge the entire scene and basically create the whole entry using tools like that, then it probably isn't (or at least shouldn't) be allowed.
You shouldn't be using tools to make the main impact or essentially create the end result - at least IMHO. Some in the SC obviously feel it is okay though.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 05:46:36 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I think I posted in the wrong "impressionism" thread. :-P
So I'll post it here...
Would the SMUDGE tool be allowed under advanced editing?? |
Like most of these questions, it depends.
If you smudge a little bit of the scene, probably its allowed.
If you smudge the entire scene and basically create the whole entry using tools like that, then it probably isn't (or at least shouldn't) be allowed.
You shouldn't be using tools to make the main impact or essentially create the end result - at least IMHO. Some in the SC obviously feel it is okay though. |
Hmmm.... tough decision... thanks Gordon!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:43:45 PM · #29 |
| Whether it's legal or not, I think the expectation is that the 'Masters' should be able to achieve impressionism without resorting to filters. You might not get a DQ, but the resulting backlash wouldn't be pretty. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:55:58 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Whether it's legal or not, I think the expectation is that the 'Masters' should be able to achieve impressionism without resorting to filters. You might not get a DQ, but the resulting backlash wouldn't be pretty. |
Yep ... results should be interesting. I'm sure there are some sitting home going, "hmmm, a legal 7.5 with lots of backlash, or a filterless 5.5 with some peace of mind that I didn't 'cheat'"
I'm not too optimistic about mine. My submission uses no filters and could fit into a Basic Editing challenge ... but who knows if the voters are going to give me the benefit of the doubt? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:01:26 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Whether it's legal or not, I think the expectation is that the 'Masters' should be able to achieve impressionism without resorting to filters. You might not get a DQ, but the resulting backlash wouldn't be pretty. |
Wise words..... :-)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:18:08 PM · #32 |
Add to that that most entering this challenge are able to create the impression of filtered work through basic means, and yu have a complicate ddichotomy for most. Add again that the voting audience is under no obligation to have proved some understanding of the subjects and tecniques of impressionism, and you have a recipe for a real mess.
I can think of about five different approaches to take - and indeed have images prepared that take three radically different routes - and will almost undoubtedly remove my submission before Sunday.
I would say one thing - the fact that the advent of the truly portable camera and the end of the major worrk of the Impressionists coincided is no accident. Who would paint like that, when Atget could photograph like that? It was, in many ways, precisely what the camera could capture so (comparatively) effortlessly that the Impressionists were so interested in representing ... I mean - that oft repeated mantra 'a fleeting moment of light' - on first reading, does that sound like a secription of anything you're familiar with? Arguably, any photograph is coherent with the techniques of Impressionism.
So where do we go with this challenge? A fundamentally regressive approach of mimicry of brush-strokes, mimicry of common subject-matter, blurring and making things indistinct because that's what we think the average voter will be looking for? Arguably, we already work like that - everything we so happily judge here is simply a collection of pixles, anyway, no? So where do we look? What's the equivalent pushing of the restrictions of our medium to the way in which they pushed the boundaries of the medium of paint?
I haven't an answer, unfortunately.
E |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:23:56 PM · #33 |
First of all, I think this challenge has suffered because selection of impressionism is quite a choice when you consider the challenge it presents. The definition is simple, the emphasis is shifted from the classical form into one of color and light. The classical form are paintings that in many cases are continuous tone, though not in all cases. The impression school were not necessarilly guided with primary colors but a rather unorthodox application of bold unfinished strokes mixed with washed areas. There was no attempt to feather nor blend disparate part into the cohesive and polished work of the classical style. To those not fully involve find some of these works as almost unfinished and to a degree they are, but the intention is more to suggest than represent. You do not see reality as you do in the classical form.
Worst is that the unfamiliar attribute impressionsm with images which create an impression on the viewer. Every image does this but they mean those images that request a second look to decipher the intent. Impressionism simply presents the subject, never hidden, but the approach is in a more vibrant form while missing the classical blending of the old masters.
Again, I would have never gone with this challenge. Yet, I think "Your Interpretation of Art" would have done better because they would not be tied to a style that is not so easily lent to the camera. You can blur images, make them hazy and use filters but by far the best is an in camera effect and for this takes a lot of takes and experimentation.
Be that as it may, I do hope the entries increase and I am certain that every entrant will doubt his own effort to a degree. "Did I do it right?" lol |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:26:50 PM · #34 |
I'm still pondering my entry. I have a few ideas, but the ones I really want to do might not fit into the advanced editing rules. I'm still trying to figure that out.
This is the best example of impressionism that I can find. It LOOKS like a Monet or a Pissarro
but it usees filters in PS that may or may not be legal. It depends on who/how the rules are interpreted.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:34:58 PM · #35 |
But if it truly wants to be a 'challenge' to the 'masters', then it should be difficult, no?
E |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:52:33 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I'm still pondering my entry. I have a few ideas, but the ones I really want to do might not fit into the advanced editing rules. I'm still trying to figure that out.
This is the best example of impressionism that I can find. It LOOKS like a Monet or a Pissarro
but it usees filters in PS that may or may not be legal. It depends on who/how the rules are interpreted. |
Wow, Thanks Ericlimon.... It's actually just a Gringo... :o)
I'm actually a little disturbed at the expectations of some of the posts here, I wouldn't go to a gun-fight armed only with a knife, so if the challenge doesn't say specifically that we are not to use filters or that the effect should be only in the camera.... Why would you limit the tools available to you in this challenge? But I do think it would be wise to remember it is a "photography" contest and not to over do it with the filters. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:06:06 PM · #37 |
Agreed. I'd hate to see this turn into a digital art, heavily photoshopped entries, challenge.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Whether it's legal or not, I think the expectation is that the 'Masters' should be able to achieve impressionism without resorting to filters. You might not get a DQ, but the resulting backlash wouldn't be pretty. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:20:49 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
...if the challenge doesn't say specifically that we are not to use filters or that the effect should be only in the camera.... Why would you limit the tools available to you in this challenge? |
For the same reason I wouldn't encourage a baseball player to use steroids even though they're not speficially prohibited: it might help you in the short term, but the consequences of being dicovered probably outweigh any benefit. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:45:47 PM · #39 |
Well, I took the plunge and submitted and "in-camera" effect instead of a PS one... my main concern wa photographic integrity.
Like most people here, I have no clue how my entry will do.
At first I wasn't too keen on this subject and I wasn't going to participate. But then I told myself that this was a great learning opportunity... Thinking outside the box of traditional photography.
It has been fun!!! :-) Weather I get the brown, the blue or anything in between!!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:55:36 PM · #40 |
Sooooo, would you guys be offended if some of us underlings posted an example of what we might have submitted if we were eligible? (after the challenge closes of course) :)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:58:44 PM · #41 |
| I just received my third ribbon in the "Indecision Challenge" This week which makes me eligible for the "Impressionism" Challenge. I am a little behind in understanding the rules for this challenge. There seems to be a difference between what is allowed and what is acceptible. Am I understanding correctly that the use of filters like Gaussian Blur or Glass Distortion is allowed but not acceptable? I have a picture that I am considering entering, but I don't want to raise the hair on anybody's back if I do use a filter. I would just as soon not enter if it is going to cause a problem. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:58:58 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ancientimages:
Sooooo, would you guys be offended if some of us underlings posted an example of what we might have submitted if we were eligible? (after the challenge closes of course) :) |
There's already a thread for that that you can post yours in right now.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:00:34 PM · #43 |
Actually, the early Impressionists knew and used Photography, they just didn't become photographers.
//www.techno-impressionist.com/ |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:00:59 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ancientimages:
Sooooo, would you guys be offended if some of us underlings posted an example of what we might have submitted if we were eligible? (after the challenge closes of course) :) |
We already have a thread started just for us ribbonless talentless peons. Come over there and join us and please post. Here |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:10:13 PM · #45 |
Thanks folks. I'm just not too quick on the draw this evening, am I??
:) :) :)
See you "over there"
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:43:17 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by lnede:
I just received my third ribbon in the "Indecision Challenge" This week which makes me eligible for the "Impressionism" Challenge. I am a little behind in understanding the rules for this challenge. There seems to be a difference between what is allowed and what is acceptible. Am I understanding correctly that the use of filters like Gaussian Blur or Glass Distortion is allowed but not acceptable? I have a picture that I am considering entering, but I don't want to raise the hair on anybody's back if I do use a filter. I would just as soon not enter if it is going to cause a problem. |
Inede,
This is just my very humble opinion and I don't want to lead you in a wrong direction in any way.
I honestly believe that there are no losers in the "masters" challenges. You do what ever makes you happy! You are part of a very exclusive group of ribbon winners who have already proven they know what it takes to please the voters on DPC. The way I look at the "Masters Challenge" is: This is an opportunity to do whatever I want. I can go way out on a limb and everyone will know it was done on purpose. You already know what the voters like. In every challenge there is a line of sorts between what is allowed and what will please the voters. I don't think any of us really know the best take on impressionism is, but at least what ever you do in this challenge will have been done intentionally. So express yourself however you want. There are no losers.
(edit to correct my hillbilly grammar)
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 22:51:10. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:46:26 PM · #47 |
I'm gonna enter, and I'm hoping for top20!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:54:18 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by terje:
I'm gonna enter, and I'm hoping for top20! |
With only 16 submissions, you should be able to hit that goal.
:o) |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:34:03 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
This is just my very humble opinion and I don't want to lead you in a wrong direction in any way.
I honestly believe that there are no losers in the "masters" challenges. You do what ever makes you happy! You are part of a very exclusive group of ribbon winners who have already proven they know what it takes to please the voters on DPC. The way I look at the "Masters Challenge" is: This is an opportunity to do whatever I want. I can go way out on a limb and everyone will know it was done on purpose. You already know what the voters like. In every challenge there is a line of sorts between what is allowed and what will please the voters. I don't think any of us really know the best take on impressionism is, but at least what ever you do in this challenge will have been done intentionally. So express yourself however you want. There are no losers.
(edit to correct my hillbilly grammar) |
I'd strongly agree too. (While saying personally, I wouldn't use filters ;) ) But really - anything goes within the rules. That's what makes it interesting.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 23:34:26. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 03:34:39 PM · #50 |
Well, the strangest thing happened today ... the sky went a wierd colour (blue!) and this big shiny thing appeared and lit everything up : )
Got some shots I'm happy with, though probably nothing earth-shatteringly good, so I'll be in. Hoping for the funky coloured sky and big shiny thing again tomorrow.
On the downside, I went to one of my favourite shooting spots, only to find the area I usually shoot from was under a few feet of water!
Message edited by author 2004-11-13 15:35:15.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 12:52:45 PM EDT.
