"Getting Around" the Rules - DPChallenge Forums

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

01/12/2005 09:58:40 AM · #1

I saw this posted on an adjacent thread. No names are necessary, because it's a common sentiment. It's not even a wrong thing to say, in some ways, but it's leaving an off flavor on my taste buds.

QUOTE: "Also, you can never be sure! Some people are very clever at getting round the rules."

I have to take exception to this. The whole purpose of basic editing rules is to force people to make their effects without resorting to photoshop manipulation. Anyway you can do that, is not "getting around rules", it is "meeting the rules." There's no rule that says "you can't have "x" effect, it's not allowed"; the rules specify ONLY the limitations that are being placed on how you may accomplish any effect.

As a fine example of this, see the winning challenge photo where the guy's holding his own head in his lap...

Forgive the rant, but how we state a thing is sometimes critically important. When we say someone "got around the rules" we are implying that the rules were framed with the intention of allowing or disallowing certain results; in other words, with the intention of stifling creativity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rules were written to allow/disallow certain processes, in the hopes that this would ENCOURAGE creativity at a more basic level.

I'd prefer to say "Some people are really good at finding solutions within the rules."

Robt.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/12/2005 10:33:24 AM · #2

Any way you look at it, the rules are in place to 'limit' something or another. DPC chooses to be a site where editing capabilities are limited. Even the advanced rules limit what can be done to some photographs.

The comment stating that 'this site is about good photography and NOT about good photoshop skills' is sorta worn out. Photoshop skills are a requirement for great digital photography just about any way you look at it. Sure, there are some cases where no photoshop is required to get what you want, but in many cases, its simply not true. I know a lot of photographers on this site who agreed with this statement in the beginning, but as they advanced, the tend to disagree with it.

Digital photography IS about learning to use your editing software. If you don't get out of that shell at some point, you are severely limiting what your images can be.

e301

01/12/2005 10:41:30 AM · #3

Whilst I agree with those sentiments John, it doesn't hurt to add that I (and I would guess this applies to you also) learnt a hell of a lot through the limitations of the basic editing rule set. That learning was not only about how to 'get around' the rules, but how to get the most out of the image in-camera - which experience makes the whole post-processing load that much lighter.

It's a similar argument to those that insist one can fix anything in sound recording on the computer afterwards; it isn't quite true - you can fix a hell of a lot, for sure, just like you can with PS, but you can never replace the impact of good quality recording in the first place - be it audio or photographic.

E

Prof_Fate

01/12/2005 10:42:47 AM · #4

I agree with Jim. PS is part of digital photography just as the darkroom is part of traditional film photography.

One of the major differences is that with film, particularly color, very few people have darkroom access and even fewer have the skills and talants to modify pictures. Digital takes the darkroom process out of the darkages and opens it up to everybody.

I see both sides of the coin, and while i am a PS fan and favor loose if any editing 'rules', i acquiesce to the majority here.

As for 'getting around the rules' - what was probably intended was that there are ways to acheive results beyond the obvious ones. As in desaturation - the 'best' way is to select an item and desat the rest, but that is not legal under basic rules, so techniques have been developed to 'work around' that rule limitation.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

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

01/12/2005 10:53:32 AM · #5

Originally posted by e301:

Whilst I agree with those sentiments John, it doesn't hurt to add that I (and I would guess this applies to you also) learnt a hell of a lot through the limitations of the basic editing rule set.

It has always been about getting the most out of the camera, but it is still an unfinished work.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/12/2005 10:59:48 AM · #6

We're going adrift here... My point wasn't whether the rules were "good" or not, but rather that to characterize something in "basic" as somehow "sneaky" cuz it looks like it's "advanced", by saying someone is "clever at getting around the rules" is kind of demeaning. I prefer to say "He did a hell of a job to manage this within that ruleset!"

HOW we say a thing is tremedously important.

Robt.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/12/2005 11:02:10 AM · #7

Like Robert, I really don't see these creative efforts as "getting around" rules at all. We specifically state that anything that's achieved in-camera is allowed. That means that the photographer has incredible flexibility in setting up and lighting a shot to achieve unusual effects.
This week's open challenge will undoubtedly generate quite a few outstanding examples of creative set-up and lighting. I certainly hope that the voters will keep a very open mind regarding these shots. Remember, the rules specifically state that if we suspect a shot is not legally achieved, we should request a DQ review and vote as if the shot were legal

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/12/2005 11:03:34 AM · #8

True Confessions of a past digital Addict.

The reason that I came to DPC was to end the heavy PS life I led. I am one of those fanatics who learned how to use all the basic tools of PS including the pen and the matting command. Being familiar with the old zone system, I became a wizard at changing zones in any specific parts od an image. No, I am not the type that places wrong values like vampire eyes, but everything in good taste. I always told the models don't worry, I will put it in. Instead of changing my lights for a nuance, I left it for my digital skills. I have made a good dollar with it. I have used PS since its first version.

Yet, I ran across DPC and embraced it with all the limitations because it forces me to be clever within certain limitations. The few loopholes that exists I tried to close to no avail. Allow me to mention one: Selections are defined to pixels. This is no good because selections should be constrained to objects. What this means is that you can select pixels to create a halo or whatever. To me, this is a loophole which will introduce an object. The clone will allow you to clone insignifant minor objects, like if you have a bed of leaves, who is to stop you from cloning and adding another provided it does not assume a critical position.

Anyway, I love DPC because it really challenges my imagination and then I revel in fooling the experts to prove that there are no real experts or that the experience of photography has no graduates. It is learning forever. There is no greater pleasure than creating an image that is not PS dependent. Advance editing here, is sufficient to express your heart's desire.

Of course, the digital darkroom must be learned, but I can assure you that while many stars will rise, as many will fall because the basic concept of photography must be well understood. Otherwise, the Digital darkroom becomes Frankenstein's workshop.

I agree with bear music, one can learn to be creative within the rules.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/12/2005 11:11:25 AM · #9

Firstly it was I whom you quoted :D

Secondly, the rules are there to reduce editing, not to make us users more creative!

I have always said that those wanting to achieve a certain effect in basic editing will do so, and that is where I said 'getting around the rules.

Example:

Someone takes a landscape and want to darken the sky. The quickest, most effective, and most precise method is the age old burning tool.

Now in basic editing this is disallowed, thus people if they need to darken the sky, shall go about it another way. The latter will be more complicated, take longer and be less precise but it still works.

Now that is teaching people the wrong thing. And it is getting around the rules.

Also some people will have clever ways to get text in their shot, or to change the color of something, or to create a funny frame.

My stance is that I enjoy being restricted most of the time, but occasionaly it can be annoying. Yesterday for the Movie challenge I spent a good 2 hours removing a dust spot from my image whereby if it was in Advanced editing it would have taken me 1 hour 59 minuets and 98 seconds less.

In essence, I don't understand what is trying to be achieved by a basic rules set, and would be happy to hear if anyone has an opinion of the benefits.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/12/2005 11:15:51 AM · #10

Jon,

See graphic's post below yours for one take on the benefits of the basic ruleset.

If it were up to me, I'd do away with such a restricted ruleset; but I don't mind working within it as long as it's here. Still, I repeat, my point here isn't the pros and cons of the rules, it's just that I worry about the WAY we label people who achieve extraordinary results working within the restricted rules.

Robt.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/12/2005 11:18:48 AM · #11

Originally posted by jonpink:

Yesterday for the Movie challenge I spent a good 2 hours removing a dust spot from my image whereby if it was in Advanced editing it would have taken me 1 hour 59 minuets and 98 seconds less.

You would have traveled back in time 38 seconds!!!!! That's awesome! The Nobel Prize is all yours!

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/12/2005 11:18:49 AM · #12

And to address his basic premise: He is correct. Many voters will not extend the courtesy that what they see has been achieved within the guidelines. It denigrades an effort by addressing it as fudged, pushed or pushing the envelope too far. Well, we do have the purist and like one told me I voted you low because the shot appears rigged. The sentiment is to forget creativity and apply the craft in its pure form. I believe in doing it in all different forms and glory provided I stay within the guidelines. This is certainly not about me but to all who dare submit something different and within the scope of the rules.

Look at this way, I would never allow myself to suffer the disgrace of an editing DQ. You would never see my face again. My suggestion is to be more open minded because in many cases what appears strange may only be a ball passing over your head.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/12/2005 11:22:05 AM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

I agree with all that. Plus can be annoying when people 'presume' you edited even in advanced editing.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/12/2005 11:22:42 AM · #14

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by jonpink:
Yesterday for the Movie challenge I spent a good 2 hours removing a dust spot from my image whereby if it was in Advanced editing it would have taken me 1 hour 59 minuets and 98 seconds less.

You would have traveled back in time 38 seconds!!!!! That's awesome! The Nobel Prize is all yours!

Damn, still in financial mode.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/12/2005 11:25:33 AM · #15

ROFL

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/12/2005 11:28:48 AM · #16

Jon,

that's a shame. But just for the sake of argument: Metaphorically speaking, "basic editing" is about shooting dust-free photos...

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-01-12 11:29:54.

coolhar

01/12/2005 02:23:35 PM · #17

Originally posted by bear_music:

.... Metaphorically speaking, "basic editing" is about shooting dust-free photos...

This thread gives me the impression that some of you think Basic Editing is a place for you to become a better editor by deniying some of the more advanced tools and forcing you to find new and creative ways to use the more basic tools of photoshop.

I thought that Basic Editing was about learning to use the camera to it's best advantage; and to provide a forum for that learning to beginners who are not fluent in photoshoping. An underlying assumtion being that you become a better photographer if you master the camera first, and do so without the nagging temptation to compromise that can come with knowing how to fix up your camera-use shortcomings in post processing. Would you disagree with that bear_music ?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

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

01/12/2005 02:28:07 PM · #18

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by bear_music:
.... Metaphorically speaking, "basic editing" is about shooting dust-free photos...

I thought that Basic Editing was about learning to use the camera to it's best advantage; and to provide a forum for that learning to beginners who are not fluent in photoshoping.

This is true, but the sad truth included with it is that your photo is judged on its overall quality regardless of how you achieved it. It's not all about 'dust specks' either. Dust is a problem sometimes, especially in a macro photo. Your camera sees things that you can't. It's also about imperfections in a subject that can be improved upon with spot editing.

The reason unlimited editing is not permitted is because a LOT of what comes out of that, it seems, is something other than photography.