| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2004 08:52:35 PM · #151 |
"Doctored image, or How I Learnt to Stop Worrying about the Process and Love the Image"
Film (2004): An insane group of photographers start a process to artistic meltdown that a forum of insane photographers frantically try to stop.
...only kidding....really! |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 08:53:50 PM · #152 |
I reckon I'll have the brown this time ... only I have my scores turned off, so I can't be sure.
9 comments only, though - after the last masters, that seems a good indication.
?
E |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 09:20:18 PM · #153 |
I second this......nothing under 6 IMO
Originally posted by kevrobertson:
I would just like to add to this thread.
I think that some of these entries are some of the best i have seen.
Well done to all.
PS or Not, some classic shots
Kev |
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 10:36:13 PM · #154 |
| But you know: I think that many of you have really missed some great entries in this challenge: the great night shots. Those that are slightly over-exposed and the colors pushed. Many of these have entertained us for quite a while with their romantic and magical look, and I had truly expected a few of these. I think they have been like a pre introduction to impressionism. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:12:35 PM · #155 |
| I have found it amusing to watch the comments roll in (19 so far) with assumptions about how the image was achieved. Some folks are going to be surprised when the challenge is over. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:19:34 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I have found it amusing to watch the comments roll in (19 so far) with assumptions about how the image was achieved. Some folks are going to be surprised when the challenge is over. |
did i peg yours? or am i going to be surprised, too? |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:38:06 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
did i peg yours? or am i going to be surprised, too? |
No surprise for you- LOL! You're one of a few people who clearly figured it out. Thanks for the great comment!
Message edited by author 2004-11-15 23:38:27. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 05:24:30 PM · #158 |
is it me - or would this challenge really have been hurt by having it be open entry?
I am not impressed at all by these blue ribbon entries. Maybe the point is- that it is very difficult and contrived when you try to make "impressionist art" with a digital camera. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 05:50:17 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
is it me - or would this challenge really have been hurt by having it be open entry?
I am not impressed at all by these blue ribbon entries. Maybe the point is- that it is very difficult and contrived when you try to make "impressionist art" with a digital camera. |
By open, do you mean a challenge without editing? If so, I know some of the entries are not PS filtered, and I have produced many such impressionistic/abstract entries just using camera movement rather than PS filters.
Feel free to look at the ones in my portfolio such as my "tulip":
This effect was produced by camera movement--not PS filters; in fact all the abstract/impressionistic shots--except for boyfish--in my portfolio were produced without PS filters. (I'd love to have people's comments on the shots).
If you meant would others who could not participate because they did not have three ribbons have done as well or better--again, I think that's answered by the non-masters shots people posted in our alternative "non-masters" thread Here
Message edited by author 2004-11-16 17:52:31. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 05:55:57 PM · #160 |
I just mean, I don't claim to be an art professor- I am just disapointed. I mean- goofy blurring effects do not make an impressionist piece. Thats all I see. I'm looking for light and color to interact adn carress the composition and soften it and transport the viewer to the place of the photo- not to use a cheesy photoshop technique. Hey- I can't do it- but "ribbony people" should be able to I think- if there is anything to be said for ribbons.
maybe a better version of something like this.
certainly no primary colors- blurred about.
Message edited by author 2004-11-16 17:57:40. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 06:01:04 PM · #161 |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 06:07:07 PM · #162 |
Nice one, Paul. That's a great example.
Don't assume that you're only seeing Photoshop effects, though. It's one thing to say you can match an impressionist look with a filter, but quite another to achieve a difficult effect with the camera only. There are some devious people on this site, and anything is possible (well, except skiing through a revolving door). I'm resisting the urge to PM commenters who say they're taking off for use of a PS filter when I didn't use any. Grrr.... |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 06:25:57 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Nice one, Paul. That's a great example.
Don't assume that you're only seeing Photoshop effects, though. It's one thing to say you can match an impressionist look with a filter, but quite another to achieve a difficult effect with the camera only. There are some devious people on this site, and anything is possible (well, except skiing through a revolving door). I'm resisting the urge to PM commenters who say they're taking off for use of a PS filter when I didn't use any. Grrr.... |
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!! |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:10:49 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
These shots all look nice! I'm still voting, but I really like almost all I've seen, so I'll be giving lots of high scores. Congratulations on some great interperations of the theme. |
So, since there is a site DPC algorithm which checks patterns in voting, and since there is going to be a disproportionate vote on the high side for these masters, has the voting pattern check been disabled for this challenge? else wise, it seems, many votes will not count. |
|
|
|
11/18/2004 09:02:39 PM · #165 |
I'll admit up front that I haven't read the whole thread, but had to just tell those in the impressionist competition that if I cannot find the time to make comments on each one, that I was blown away by almost all the shots in this competition and had to tell myself at one point that I would have a max of three that could be 10's.
I have to agree with one of the posters that blur does not an impressionistic artwork make. Some blur is simply too distracting other elements are not distracting enough to force the work into that realm of impressionism.
Kudos to all of you tho. I can't wait til I learn how to create this level of artwork.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 09:23:36 PM · #166 |
| So what happens if you judge an image to have used PS and you find it offensive that it wasn't an in camera filter so you mark it down. Then to your surprise when the contest is over it turns out that it wasn't a PS filter. Do you apologize to the contestant that you did not mark him/her higher? The point is. Don't use the supposition that PS was used as a factor in grading a picture. If you like the picture grade it accordingly. |
|
|
|
11/18/2004 09:34:25 PM · #167 |
Filters are very easy to spot. There is nothing wrong with using them in this challenge provided they look pleasing. What is troublesome about some is when you see artifacts that you very well know do not belong in the image because the effect is forced.
My suggestion is to look at the overall effect and if you find it pleasing follow your instinct. If something bothers you re examine it and try to see what it is. If you are not sure than it is best to extend the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
11/18/2004 10:08:30 PM · #168 |
This whole splitting hairs, nit-pick thread is quite the roller coaster ride.
Had I known, I would have stayed out of the challenge all together.
Someone request a DQ for illegal editing or something on mine so I can forget to send in the original. My 7+ and all the fantastic comments at this point is all I needed.
This is as bad as politics.
Edited for spelling so someone wouldn't start worrying about grammar too
Message edited by author 2004-11-18 22:10:09.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 11:18:03 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Filters are very easy to spot. |
I respectfully disagree. It's possible to generate all sorts of effects strraight out of the camera that look exactly like PS filters. The 39 entries in this challenge barely scratch the surface of what you can achieve without post-processing.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
There is nothing wrong with using them in this challenge provided they look pleasing. |
True enough. There's nothing in the rules to prohibit the use of filters, and you can't reliably spot their use anyway, so the whole debate is a moot point.
Message edited by author 2004-11-18 23:21:51. |
|
|
|
11/18/2004 11:48:25 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=graphicfunk] Filters are very easy to spot. |
I respectfully disagree. It's possible to generate all sorts of effects strraight out of the camera that look exactly like PS filters. The 39 entries in this challenge barely scratch the surface of what you can achieve without post-processing.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
There is nothing wrong with using them in this challenge provided they look pleasing. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From a straight photograph, filters and by filters I am talking about post processing filters excepting gb and um, are easy to identify. So easy in fact, that most voters hate them with a passion.
Effects can be created in the camera, by interfering between subject and camera and while some of these appear like conventional post processing, you can differientiate them by examining the image closely. Shoot an image behind a textured glass and do a similar effect with the liquify. Now look at the two and you will see that the natural shot does not have the look of the liquify. I am refering to creating a similar effect. Most filters leave their trademark or artifacts which can be detected.
Message edited by author 2004-11-18 23:50:57. |
|
|
|
11/18/2004 11:55:10 PM · #171 |
I respectfully disagree. It's possible to generate all sorts of effects strraight out of the camera that look exactly like PS filters. The 39 entries in this challenge barely scratch the surface of what you can achieve without post-processing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And I repectfully disagree. These 39 images are not all free of post processing. Mine like many others are straight off the camera, some are not.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2004 12:04:28 AM · #172 |
Guess nobody took it seriously.
I am. My print is approved, 16x20 will be on my wall, comments did more than any ribbon could and now to find a willing subject to request the DQ.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2004 12:06:28 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Guess nobody took it seriously.
I am. My print is approved, 16x20 will be on my wall, comments did more than any ribbon could and now to find a willing subject to request the DQ. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brad: what are you talking about? lol |
|
|
|
11/19/2004 12:10:08 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by BradP:
Guess nobody took it seriously.
I am. My print is approved, 16x20 will be on my wall, comments did more than any ribbon could and now to find a willing subject to request the DQ. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brad: what are you talking about? lol |
Read up a few posts.
I no longer want anything to do with the challenge and need to find a way to get my submission pulled.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2004 03:58:25 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Guess nobody took it seriously.
I am. My print is approved, 16x20 will be on my wall, comments did more than any ribbon could and now to find a willing subject to request the DQ. |
Brad, I hope you don't do this.
It's just a few loud voices in the forums. The majority obviously like your photo if you're scoring well, and those votes and comments will be on this site long after this thread is forgotten.
If it bothers you so much, just take the ignore thread option. I for one want to see you stay in the competition.
|
|
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 11:01:22 AM EDT.
