winner of broken challenge - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/20/2004 10:29:40 AM · #3

I hate to be the one that brings this up, but....
Is what he did legal? I thought you couldn't use the clone tool to add things that weren't there. If graphicfunc doctored up the collar, wouldn't that be illegal? Can anyone explain this to me?

banmorn

Nikon D750

12/20/2004 10:35:38 AM · #4

Originally posted by Marjo:

Perhaps in reading graphicfunk's description you assumed that he added to the neck area when he very well might have cloned areas away in order to have a clean cut, as it were, in that area.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/20/2004 10:41:11 AM · #5

I think it's a cool piece of digital art.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/20/2004 10:44:39 AM · #6

I just reread it. It sounds like that's what he did.
It's very creative and his first place confirms how this site has evolved.
I miss the more traditional "in-camera" techniques that used to be the norm. Anyone know some good sites?

adding: I couldn't even allow myself to hue shift colors on my holiday decorations entry. Shifting it to a gold and white tone created a more classy look, but it wasn't a true representation of the display. I felt guilty misrepresenting it. Maybe I need to lean toward a photojournalistic site.

Message edited by author 2004-12-20 10:50:11.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

12/20/2004 10:53:00 AM · #7

Being on the SC I get to see the original, and for all you assuming this is digital art, think again. The original is extremely close to the submitted entry. If graphicfunk didn't say he touched up around the neck I would never have noticed. It's amazing how quick some people are to assume someone used photoshop when it's easy to do with a bit of clever thinking :) I would really like it if he could post the original for you all to see.

Message edited by author 2004-12-20 10:53:22.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/20/2004 10:59:35 AM · #8

"Some people" read and reread his explanation. It states that he wore something black over his head which means that the back of the collar wouldn't have been visible. However he creatively did it, the result is a digital art presentation.

Sorry, gibun, for bringing this up on your congratulatory thread. :(

Message edited by author 2004-12-20 11:01:46.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

12/20/2004 11:02:01 AM · #9

It's not like he drew in a whole collar, he just lightened that area slightly, in the same way people use curves to bring out details in shots at night.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/20/2004 11:09:58 AM · #10

I hope Daniel will consider posting the original unedited version, just to clear it up. In my reading of his original comment was pretty clear there was no "digital trickery" going on. And he's updated his comments on the photo to clarify a few of those issues.

His entry is proving to be no more digital art than my Landmarks entry, where I selectively applied a separate curve to the foreground statue to lighten it up. Or John's Enter Sandman photo, where he "Cloned out and painted over some background noise..." and "Blacked out the eye sockets in the mask. Some irritating stuff was showing through :)".

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/20/2004 11:15:08 AM · #11

...or, to go back before we ever had "advanced editing", and maybe a more direct comparison, its no more digital art than e301's winner in the matrix challenge:

He used a photo as a prop, just like Daniel did.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

12/20/2004 11:34:43 AM · #12

Originally posted by Marjo:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Allow to me explain in detail. If the image is not 100 legal, I would never enter it. It is the height of folly to get a DQ. I would never live it down. However, since perception is a major factor than I advise members, for their own development to study the subject of photography deeper so that they can expand their perception.

You all know of the 1st zone, total black. You also know of the 2nd zone, almost all black but a strong presence of the first signs of details. Therefore when you shoot anything in the 2th zone, the black scarf against the black background (zone 1) you are able to depress zone 2 into one in a digital or regular background. You may ask why the black scarf is zone 2 and the background 1? The answer is that the lights are directly on zone 2 or the scarf. The background is too far away and is spared.

I put the ide cable in my mouth and wrapped the scarf around the head. Now by throwing the head back you are able to bring more light on the bottom or the neck area. This puts the top of the real head closer to the 1st zone and the neck area closer to the 2nd. Just a little detail, enough to signify a faint neckline.

Once you are through, the scarf may deliniate either a smooth line or possibly a smooth with minor imperfections of the cloth. These were not many. There was only two perceptible slight breaks. These effects are very popular in b/w studies where in only one light source is used. You all have seen these images where the shapes pops right at you and suddenly the shadows disappear and blend in with the black background.

In defense of these studies let me say the following. Photography is open to all styles. I also use it as an artistic expression. I look at photography more as compositions in light and shadows. It takes a lot of thinking to explore the best possible light for a subject. Even a composition like this can be easily dismissed, but I assure you that the lighting challenge is very demanding. While some think the end result is useless, it serves the artist a form of expression and that to me is what art is all about.

Yes, I could have cheated by extending the flesh color around the rim of the neck. That is adding. There is no addition here. Thank you, dan

Off to a Christmas party. I will post original tonight.

Message edited by author 2004-12-20 19:40:35.

Jinjit

12/20/2004 11:58:20 AM · #13

Personally, I don't think the issue needs to be cleared up. I really think you could have givven Daniel the respect he deserves after validating his picture by the SC.
If he is willing to show his original - it is his own decision and a great opportunity for us all to learn. But I really feel that some of the posts in this thread show a little disrespect to an artist's work.

It's true that there are much more then a few images in the challenges which are more digital art then photography. but that's exactly why there is a validation process by the SC.

By the way... this is something I have learnt during the parts challeng, where I wrongly assumed some of the pictures were cropped instead of taken as parts of a whole. These assumptions are not fair to make.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not writing with an "attitude". I just feel this way. That is all.

And I will go back to the thread's main intention - to congratulate Daniel for an excellent photograph, creative thinking and great work!
You are very well deserve this!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/20/2004 12:33:47 PM · #14

Thanks, Graphicfunk, for your explanation. I didn't mean any disrespect to you as implied by Jinjit. I think your work is awesome and always very creative. You are very knowledgeable and experienced and share willingly with all.

This just goes back to before advanced editing rules were implemented on this site. I still think that whenever any kind of spot-editing is applied the category for competition should be "digital-art".

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/20/2004 12:54:44 PM · #15

Originally posted by Marjo:

This just goes back to before advanced editing rules were implemented on this site. I still think that whenever any kind of spot-editing is applied the category for competition should be "digital-art".

By what possible logic? "Film" photographers have "spot-edited" their photos since before the advent of silver emulsions and celluloid.

I don't mean to rehash this, but that photo was judged to comply with the rules which applied to the challenge, and that ribbon is as valid as any other won here.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/20/2004 01:00:14 PM · #16

I'd have to disagree on that, marjo. Let me give another perspective:

My background is as a large-format, zone system photographer. I had the great good fortune to live in Carmel for 4 years and hang out with the likes of Brett and Cole Weston, Morley Baer, and Ansel Adams. I have taught Zone System at the Yosemite workshop and photography in general at the University level. Among these people, the use of zone system and advanced printing techniques produces some serious manipulations of the image.

Burning and dodging, for example, is commonplace in B/W AND color film photography, yet it's not allowed here in "basic" challenges. Adams routinely burned in the corners of his images, because he understood how an even field of tonality would seem to lighten as it approached the white matte, and he wanted the eye forced inward, not outward.

I strongly do not believe that the use of such rudimentary photoshop manipulations as curves, burn, dodge, etc constitutes moving a piece into the category of digital art. These are ancient techniques that far predate computers: using "curves" in photoshop is a precise analogue of using zone system in processing B/W negatives.

I can understand the members here not wanting to open the floodgates to totally (or even partially) artifical images, however. I don't quarrel with that.

(robt)

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

12/20/2004 01:00:30 PM · #17

I'm having a hard time understanding your post, Daniel (I'm still a rookie!) so I wouldn't mind a second attempt at explaining how you did this...it seems I could learn a lot about 'black'!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/20/2004 01:05:06 PM · #18

Originally posted by bear_music:

... using "curves" in photoshop is a precise analogue of using zone system in processing B/W negatives.

I am so happy to hear that!

I got to visit Adams' studio in Carmel a few years ago -- amazing stuff, especially (to me anyway) his record-keeping.

12/20/2004 02:51:01 PM · #19

Thanks for the post, bear music. I'm very appreciative of your input. I agree with every enhancement that you've referenced. Also,
I agree that "just" spot editing does not make a photo digital art. I only suggest it for a classification for dpc challenges. Every person perceives editing differently in how far they will/can go with enhancements, etc. I'd just like to see it more cut-and-dry...EDIT or NO EDIT leaves one without acceptable enhancement curves, etc.
The floodgates are already open. Just rename the categories to "Basic Rules" and "Anything Goes Rules".

Prof_Fate

12/20/2004 03:03:51 PM · #20

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I'm having a hard time understanding your post, Daniel (I'm still a rookie!) so I wouldn't mind a second attempt at explaining how you did this...it seems I could learn a lot about 'black'!

From what i gather, and my broken entry and e301's comments...
at the bottom of a page where you are voting on an image is a gray scale bar. On the right it starts at pure black. Zone 1. The next block over is zone 2, etc. to the far left that is pure white.
I got a comment on my entry from e301 that leads me to belive my background, wihile zone 2 (perhaps) to me is not that dark to him. My monitor passes the calibration test i have put it through, so now i must learn to use PS's ability to measure and set the black point i want.

Does that help any?

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

12/20/2004 03:40:47 PM · #21

Congratulations to Graphicfunk on a fantastic image. You just have to look at to realise this image could have been done on film so how are disputing it validity or that it is digital art !!.
It meets the rules of the site full stop. And sits far more comfortably to me then Brads frame shot which caused a lot of debate.

Pixelstate

Apple iPhone

12/20/2004 04:15:11 PM · #22

Thought I'd add my comment. Excellent piece of photography, this entry sums up everything that DPChallenge is about. Graphicfunk rose to the challenge in an inventive and stylish way. I had no idea how he had done this within the rules (Photo had been validated by the time I voted) Because I didn't 'get' the approach underlines that I currently lack the 'out of the box' lateral thinking that Graphicfunk posesses. I hope that I can achieve half as good an entry in 2005!

The nearest that I got to this style was my 'fairytails' entry

which I greatly enjoyed doing. Of course this image effect would have been much easier to achieve in Photoshop... but it is a 'challenge' to record the image as a photo.

Nice work Graphicfunk!!

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

12/20/2004 06:49:56 PM · #23

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I'm having a hard time understanding your post, Daniel (I'm still a rookie!) so I wouldn't mind a second attempt at explaining how you did this...it seems I could learn a lot about 'black'!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Okay, allow first a word of explanation. I am 66 years old and I am the eternal student. Here is my philosophy. If I am intrigued by any style I pursue it until I am able to contribute an expert image in that field.
This means a lot of work. Back in the old days I actually mixed all the chemicals according to Ansel Adam. There are many members here that do not study the old masters. There are many members that are not even aware of the zone system. There are also many members that look down upon table photography because the shots are staged. I suggest that you look into these matters. You need not master each but you should for your own edification at least be familiar with the principles that govern your art/craft. Knowledge is power. Table top is where you learn the basics because you are in total control. The lessons learned here can not help but make you a better photographer. Even if your object is to do emotive shots, table top is where you learn the rudiments and these can be applied to any style.

Now, I have done digital art and much of my port consists of digital art. However, here at DPC the emphasis is "in the camera" and believe me I have tried to close some of the loopholes that exist in Advance editing to no avail. I am outnumbered but I believe in a democracy.

There are those that forget that photography when practiced as art or craft has no graduates nor degrees. If you think you know it all then you reach what is known as a stasis condition. You stop evolvement.
I try to blow the mind of the expert by presenting images that look like digital art...but they are not. The site here does not allow what you imagine.

For this image I took a picture of my face with glasses slightly out of place for rwo reasons. First, to give the impression that the head was being handled. second, and most important, to have the eye look out at the viewer, saying something like, how can he fix this, he can't see. We need mirrors for that.

The head is then tweaked to give off a realistic look of color and shade. The head is then cut out and placed on 1/4 plywood and a cutting line is traced around. The board is then cut with jig saw. Image is then mounted. It must be a perfect mount otherwise the lights will reveal imperfections. Wires were then attached to the back with tacks and tape.

I sit and insert the ide connector in my teeth. I place the scarf around my head starting at the neck. Lean my head back while holding the head cut out in my habds. End of story.

here is the image right off the camera with no editing whatsoever. It is now a simple task to depress zone 2 into 1, but you only want this in the background. Look at the original and bring it into PS and apply levels to lighten and you will see the scarf.

What was done here can be accomplished in a typical film background. I know, some of you will say, well thats good but it is so contrived. Yes it is. How else can I present a graphical concept of a bionic man? Consider, this image applies to many of us because at times we become absorbed in ideas, places, or whatever, that we forget the world around us and reply to it as an afterthought.

Message edited by author 2004-12-20 19:45:34.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D