|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2005 09:41:34 AM · #1 |
I just wanted to say thank you for all the supportive comments I received, and to take a moment to explain my photo to those who didn't get it.
Here's my entry:
If you didn't see it, look at the photo below, it might be easier without the grain. There is both a side view of me, and a frontal view, integrated.
My photo was a challenge I gave myself to capture something along the lines of Picasso's abstract self portrait, done during his cubism period.
Picasso's Self Portrait during the cubism period
It seemed like it could be a real challenge to do, and it was.
One issue I faced with DPC, was how to do this within the one exposure rule. I used a long exposure and two flashes--but since I don't have a remote slave flash setup, I used my Rebel and my Canon S1 and two remote controls. One for the frontal, one for the side. It was hard to time them right, but it was even harder to position my head right for the two poses. That was trial and error.
My original goal was just to show the front face but with the profile part integrated, just like Picassos. So for processing, I used a gradient with levels to darken the side view of my head. But I decided that if I completely darkened the side of my head and ear out, that, in the short time people look, they wouldn't see the profile. So I darkened but left them visible.
As to the intentional grain, which I assume it was why I got so many 1's, 2's and 3's (it can't be my looks, eh?). So why the grain? What the heck was I doing?
After I found the best capture, it still needed something to make it more "picasso-ish." I wanted to add something with cubism as well, so I looked for a cubism filter on the web:
But then I thought it might be frowned upon to use a special effects filter (this is a "cubism" filter I found on the web). And so I added the grain, a more traditional photo filter, using Virtual Photographer. I thought that made sense, since cubism was about breaking the model into it's components, and the components of a photo are pixels. In retrospect, this is wrong, it's not the components of the photo that matter, it's the components of the object being photographed. And I know I applied too much for this audience: I used the maximum applied it about three times, and then sharpened it to boot.
Alternates
So here it is without the grain (though I like the submitted crop better):
Here's one where I missed the eye alignment here, but I actually like "new face" it creates when you look at both images as a whole. Note the grainy grittiness is again intentional, but was achieved without a filter just by using the RAW converter and curves:
Finally, I was working on an alternative in parallel. I used a long exposure to try and capture my head in a balloon. This may have scored better as a portrait but to me lacked purpose and an artistic "center" and I had trouble balancing between making my head appear on/in the balloon and getting a good exposure on my head:
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;) Thanks again to my commenters, they made it feel worthwhile. I'd love to hear from people who didn't see the effect, and how they might feel about these various versions given a few more seconds of looking.
Message edited by author 2005-02-21 09:50:33. |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 11:57:16 AM · #2 |
| You are probably right about it being too much grain for this crowd, but the overall effect is really good -- I "got it" right away. |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 02:57:37 PM · #3 |
Thanks Paul.
I was actually beginning to get worried after submitting this--I could't remember if adding grain was legal. But rereading the advanced filters rule, all filters are legal--just may not get voted well (perhaps proof here). Would the cubism filter in my alternate have been legal? Does anyone like that better?
Also: At least 23 people scored this below 4. Just pop in and tell me why--you don't have to say what you scored it.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 04:54:09 PM · #4 |
I didn't get to vote on that challenge, well, not on many at least.
I really like your entry there, but then I also like grain on some B&W shots and thought it worked well there.
I didn't see the Picasso reference until you stated it, but then felt really silly I missed it as I know the original.
As for why people voted below 4 .... I can only guess, like General, that grain may have had a lot to do with it, which is unfortunate when it was a very deliberate effect and I think many people simply equate grain with a photo being bad.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 05:32:47 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Would the cubism filter in my alternate have been legal? Does anyone like that better? |
I think your use of the filter in that example is subtle enough that I would have voted to validate it, but I don't think it adds that much to it. I think filters to experiment with which might produce a better effect would be a finer/less-contrasty grain or a fine mezzsotint.
For a more "digital art" look I might try pencil, oil pastel, or dry brush filters. For a really cubist look try the Crystal, Mosaic, Stained Glass, or other filters in that group, set to a fairly large cell size. |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 05:35:49 PM · #6 |
Neil,
I liked the image and gave it a 7. I had no problem picking op the cubist reference, but then I went to art school so I guess I ought to have...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 10:59:16 PM · #7 |
Thanks Paul, good advice as always.
Taking the question of validating a bit further: supposing someone requests a validation, would the site council actually have to vote on any use of a filter in an advance challenge since as I recall none are explicitly forbidden? So if I used the stained glass filter, would that be a possible DQ? Is it still a "general purpose" thing?
Also, while we're on the DQ subject: had I used levels with a gradient mask to darken my side ear to the point of not being visible, would that be a potential DQ? If so, how does one avoid that--make it dark enough to be almost invisible but not quite?
======================================================
Simon and Robert, thank you for your comments.
======================================================
Lastly, to anyone else reading this, I still haven't gotten anyone to chime in who who didn't like it to comment and tell me why. Any takers. Again, I won't bite or argue (though I might ask a follow up question).
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 11:20:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Thanks Paul, good advice as always.
Taking the question of validating a bit further: supposing someone requests a validation, would the site council actually have to vote on any use of a filter in an advance challenge since as I recall none are explicitly forbidden? So if I used the stained glass filter, would that be a possible DQ? Is it still a "general purpose" thing? |
Any photo can still be DQ'd by majority vote of the SC if they feel a photo violates that ephemeral "spirit of the rules" which imply that effects should enhance a phtograph and not use it as mere raw material for "digital art" -- i.e., you can use any filter, but not "too much."
I would personally prefer that the decision of how much is "too much" to be left up to the voters at large, but that's the way it's set up now. I know we DQ'd an image which used the swirl filter, but I was able to apply a small degree of the "Rough Pastel" filter to this image without noticable objection (I was trying to ride the coattails of the nearly concurrent Impressionism challenge).
 |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 11:56:29 PM · #9 |
I for one really enjoyed that photo of yours, and spend a great deal of time looking at the different views of the face, wondering just how you did it.
I voted on this image (as well as others) on 3 diffent occasions and each time your score got higher, ending up at a 9.
Great job, and I hope we get to see more of your works.
Ray |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 05:37:38 AM  |
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: 09/16/2025 05:37:38 AM EDT.
|
