| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2005 04:43:28 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...the moon has been altered in the computer (to make it into the shape of a bulb) in a manner that is not allowed under basic editing rules. |
Editing rules apply to the images that come out of your camera, not the props and backgrounds you create beforehand. Without the bulb base, the distorted moon looks a lot more like a pear than a lightbulb. Would something like this be any different if I changed the words that are projected?
Funny that this probably wouldn't be up for discussion if my comments simply said "N/A." ;-) |
Yes, I understand. And I'm not singling out your image for "citicisim", as I think it's beautifully done and it's been ruled legal. I just find it interesting that, apparently, you took a moon shot and post-processed it in a manner that would not be legal in the given challenge, then used an image of that shot as post processed as the backdrop for the challenge entry. Speaking entirely hypothetically, it seems to me this opens all manner of doors to strange incorporation of extreme post-processing into DPC images, if you understand what I'm saying?
Please, let me reiterate: I think it's a wonderful, creative image and I think it richly deserves the ribbon. I'm using it, however, as a springboard for exploring where (if anywhere) the limits of this sort of thing lie.
Respectfully,
Robt. |
You have succintly nailed down the problem Robt. Permitting this type manipulation of 'background' image open the venue to almost any conceivable post processing effects. DPC will deteriorate into a Photoshop venue.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 04:46:38 PM · #52 |
Where the backdrop issue becomes a real problem for me in voting, is when I cannot determine what is and what is not backdrop. I cannot then judge the photographic skill as to depth of field, lighting, etcetera as to whether these were by the photographer entering the photo, or by the person who created the original backdrop image. This problem is magnified when the background image is actually a heavily edited photo to begin with.
Perhaps the voters on this site will continue to rate highly those photos incorporating previously done artwork in the initial photography rather than incorporating previously done artwork using multiple photos in photoshop. I, myself, do not see a great distinction especially when the included picture is itself a heavily edited photoshop creation.
I hope we will continue to see some photos which require depth of field and lighting of three dimensional objects do well.
I think the distinction of three dimensional and two dimensional art is important from a photographic perspective whether the photographed art was created by God or man. In judging any piece of art, I consider the overall effort and taste of the creator of the work: I do not just judge the final effect as I would not judge an original essay equal to one which is copied from another. If one must construct scenery, I do consider that as part of the effort. If one must haul beds, I do consider that is part of the effort. If one must find a photo of an eye that blends in perfectly with the palm of a hand, I consider that part of the effort.
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 16:57:04. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:11:33 PM · #53 |
| The rules could require that all included two dimensional artwork be framed, but that rule would rest on the honor of those participating. It would still be quite easy to include a two dimensional piece of artwork having the appearance to the judges, and anyone else, of being three dimensional. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:22:48 PM · #54 |
This problem runs deeper. Consider, the camera because of its single lens produces two dimensional images. This is why it is so easy to fool. Take a picture of say a girl standing and from the distance find an object that will give the appearance that it is standing on her head. We have all seen this image. In the surreal, you have the spray can aligned with clouds that are so far away, yet the eye accepts it in context, that is as if it is coming out of the can.
The rules are clear in basic editing. Do your effects outside the camera so that what the camera captures is ready for presentation. This we refer to as in camera image.
Whatever you do out there is of little importance provided you are not making a literal representation of art work and presenting it as an image. For example, you can use a painting of a forest by making the foreground subject or your addition an integral part. It is better to judge the image on its merit rather than to determine its origin. The important thing is that post processing has not been employed to alter the main appearance.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:27:26 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The important thing is that post processing has not been employed to alter the main appearance. |
Except, of course, the background image which can incorporate all sorts of processing that is otherwise illegal at DPC. In the case of scalvert's terrific image, the background is a crucial element in the image.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:34:42 PM · #56 |
I think (and this is only my observation) what happens is that many people beleived the 1st and 3rd place getters in this challenge were faked, and voted it down without waiting for validation.
I myself, waited until both photos were validated until I voted on them. NONE of the three deserve a 1 or 2, in any way shape or form. They are all full, clear images. I too would like to hear the justification for voting these 3 or under.
I might knock off one score point if I think that the entry doesn't meet the challenge, but it will still score well if the photograph itself has been nicely captured (and all that goes along with that). |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:50:16 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The important thing is that post processing has not been employed to alter the main appearance. |
Except, of course, the background image which can incorporate all sorts of processing that is otherwise illegal at DPC. In the case of scalvert's terrific image, the background is a crucial element in the image. |
This is the crux of the issue I am trying to explore. We're not "allowed" to move pixels around in DPC shots. Even in advanced editing, if I submitted an image of the-moon-as-a-pear-shape, standing alone, for a challenge, this would not be allowed. Nor could I take a straight shot of the moon, turn it into a pear-shape digitally, print it out, rephotograph the print, and submit that, because this would be a literal representation of an image or work of art.
However, I can do all of the above and combine it with a foreground element that is not part of that represented image, and it suddenly is acceptable. I worry about where the line is drawn here. The "subject" of this shot is "moon as lightbulb", and in order to make the moon into a lighbulb Calvert digitally altered an image of the moon. This seems to me to be an inconsistency.
DISCLAIMER:
Let me stress again that I LOVE this image and I completely accept that both precedent and site council ruling have deemed it "legal". I'm not advocating DQ of the image, nothing like that. It was done in good faith and deemed legal. It's a HELL of a picture.
*******
It just seems to me that THIS image pushes the boundary a little further than any of the other superimpositions I've seen thus far. I want to know just how far we can go with this.
Personally, I feel that if this is acceptable, then we might as well make PS superimpositions acceptable, but I realize I'm in a minority on that issue... But remember, my concern is not witht he FACT that this is a "collage" shot; my concern is with the fact that the base image of the collage has been digitally altered inh a manner inconsistent witht he editing rules, suggesting to me that "anything goes" (from an editing perspective) as long as you then use the altered image as a background element in an otherwise-legal shot.
Let me put it another way:
Suppose I made the same image by shooting the bulb threads against a black BG, and then pasting the base into the altered moon shot, then putting this new image of moon-as-lightbulb on my monitor just as Calvert did, and the posing my hands in front of this new base image with the fingers "grasping" the thread? This should be absolutely as acceptable as what he did, correct? But now we have TWO "illegal edits" in the base image, not just one. Where does it end?
This is all in the spirit of enquiry; I'm not upset that this image ribboned. Far from it. I have visions of untold possibilities unfolding in front of me, and I want to know if there are any limits as to how far I can go?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:54:29 PM · #58 |
The sky is the limit, Robert. The SC has ruled and anything goes for the 'background', just make sure there is some sort of something in the foreground.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:08:41 PM · #59 |
Graphicfunk:
I really love the work you and Shannon do. I can usually, but not always, tell what is real and what not. Let me give you an example of a case which I find problematic.
A brick wall with a window cut in it and a beautiful scene behind.
a. the brick wall could be real and the beautiful scene not.
b. the beautiful scene real and the brick wall not.
c. both real.
The third requires superb photographic skill. The first barely any. Now, if I am to make comments, I will appear quite the fool if I believe it to be the third case and it is truly the first. I also would find myself the fool if I voted solely on the resultant effect, and all the entrant supplied was a picture of a scene posted on a brick wall. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:19:42 PM · #60 |
I did this at the beginning of the year for "Breaking New Ground".
I received no comments about concerns on the digital background or any request for a DQ. It is of course pretty obvious that it is a digital back ground. And I suspect that no one thought for one minute that it was real ;)
The questions I have here in relation to this discussion thread are:-
1. Does the background constitute a major element (as there is only the lighted subject and the Background).
2. Is this considered by some as too much "pre-image" editing..
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 18:24:33. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:36:03 PM · #61 |
This is the kind of thing I am talking about. What if Magritte had photoshopped a picture and pasted it on his window before painting this picture? Would he then not have to worry about indoor light and outdoor light and not have to worry about depth of field? |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:42:54 PM · #62 |
| Would anyone be complaining if scalvert had stated that the moon had been physically painted, as in oil on canvas? How would that be any more or less acceptable than a monitor with a digitally manipulated image? I'm not saying anything one way or the other, just continuing the discussion... :) |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:43:50 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
DPC will deteriorate into a Photoshop venue. |
It hasn't happened in the last year. I don't expect it to start now. :)
Have just a tiny little bit of faith in SC. They've kept us on the straight and narrow this far.
I mean heck, the sky has been falling around here for MONTHS! ;)
Run awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy.
Clara
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:03:16 PM · #64 |
| Troll and rules issues aside... I do find it great that we're finally starting to see top 10 finishers in the 7's rather than the 6's. For a while there, it was hard for any image, even the blow-your-mind-awesome images to get above 6.9. One challenge (Self Portrait III) had an entry that received 8.1! I'm glad to see the scores are finally starting to rise to the levels the images deserve. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:34:03 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Would anyone be complaining if scalvert had stated that the moon had been physically painted, as in oil on canvas? How would that be any more or less acceptable than a monitor with a digitally manipulated image? I'm not saying anything one way or the other, just continuing the discussion... :) |
I don't think anyone is complaining. Scalvert's winning image and Labuda's as well are outstanding examples of what can be done with an imaginative approach. The question is: where are we heading, Photography or Photoshop?
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 08:00:24 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The important thing is that post processing has not been employed to alter the main appearance. |
Except, of course, the background image which can incorporate all sorts of processing that is otherwise illegal at DPC. In the case of scalvert's terrific image, the background is a crucial element in the image. |
This is the crux of the issue I am trying to explore. We're not "allowed" to move pixels around in DPC shots. Even in advanced editing, if I submitted an image of the-moon-as-a-pear-shape, standing alone, for a challenge, this would not be allowed. Nor could I take a straight shot of the moon, turn it into a pear-shape digitally, print it out, rephotograph the print, and submit that, because this would be a literal representation of an image or work of art.
However, I can do all of the above and combine it with a foreground element that is not part of that represented image, and it suddenly is acceptable. I worry about where the line is drawn here. The "subject" of this shot is "moon as lightbulb", and in order to make the moon into a lighbulb Calvert digitally altered an image of the moon. This seems to me to be an inconsistency.
DISCLAIMER:
Let me stress again that I LOVE this image and I completely accept that both precedent and site council ruling have deemed it "legal". I'm not advocating DQ of the image, nothing like that. It was done in good faith and deemed legal. It's a HELL of a picture.
*******
It just seems to me that THIS image pushes the boundary a little further than any of the other superimpositions I've seen thus far. I want to know just how far we can go with this.
Personally, I feel that if this is acceptable, then we might as well make PS superimpositions acceptable, but I realize I'm in a minority on that issue... But remember, my concern is not witht he FACT that this is a "collage" shot; my concern is with the fact that the base image of the collage has been digitally altered inh a manner inconsistent witht he editing rules, suggesting to me that "anything goes" (from an editing perspective) as long as you then use the altered image as a background element in an otherwise-legal shot.
Let me put it another way:
Suppose I made the same image by shooting the bulb threads against a black BG, and then pasting the base into the altered moon shot, then putting this new image of moon-as-lightbulb on my monitor just as Calvert did, and the posing my hands in front of this new base image with the fingers "grasping" the thread? This should be absolutely as acceptable as what he did, correct? But now we have TWO "illegal edits" in the base image, not just one. Where does it end?
This is all in the spirit of enquiry; I'm not upset that this image ribboned. Far from it. I have visions of untold possibilities unfolding in front of me, and I want to know if there are any limits as to how far I can go?
Robt. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No. No. You are confusing the issues. First let us clear the air:
Lets begin at the start. Portrait photographers realized that a real background detracts from the subject. They conceived the backdrop. This concept moved from the portrait artist to the commercial field and art fields. The artificial background can be white, black, textured or anything that may help create an atmosphere. This is an artificial background. If you can make it realistic, then the more power to you. Hollywood does this all the time.
Lets begin with Scalverts' image. Before let us consider its root. The root comes from aligning the viewing angle of two or more objects. Take a girl standing in front of and then a blimp above in the sky. Because the camera is a one eyed contraption it sees only in two dimension. Hence, you find the right angle and correct dof and shoot the girl so that the blimp is balanced on her head. We have all seen these images. The viewer knows that the blimp is far away, but somehow the mind accepts it. Same thing with the wonderful spray can and the cloud. From here it follows that while a natural background has a more natural feel, it begs the question: What if I can't find a natural background or what if what I need for my concept is much more involved. The answer is you make it or put it together.
It matters little whether he held the bulb base in his hands or not. Let us say the entire image is on the screen and he adds his hand to pretend he is holding the base of the bulb. Well, here he will have to employ black paint on special areas in his fingers to create the illusion. This is 100% valid. Simply inserting his hand completes the image. You can argue that the background comprises the major element, but this statement has a big flaw. Take either foreground ( the hand) or the background and you are left with an eerie shaped moon and sky or a hand holding nothing. No, the alchemical mix marries the two elements and it is useless to ask which is the more important. It is like asking who came first the chicken or the egg.
You are allowed to do outside the camera what you are not allowed to do in the camera. This is the distinction and this does not lead to any supposed slippery slope. What you are not allowed to do in the camera has no bearing on what you can do outside before taking the image.
Yes, purist do openly resent an artificial background, yet some employ them in artistic, and portrait work. A backdrop is an artificial contraption. There is nothing gray about creating your own background to fulfill the requirements of an image.
The image by Labuda is another which raises questions and yet the root of it is standard. It is merely a special double exposure which reserves a patch that remains available for a second impression. Here, you color around your eye in an oval. Everything outside the oval is black. You would normally use paint and then a black cloth to cover the rest of the head. Now you paint a slightly bigger oval on the palm of your hand. You now put your hand over your face and shoot. This leaves a patch whose pixels are still black or unexposed. Fire the light source and then remove the hand and fire again. Here the only thing that is available for exposure is the eye, since all else is black and we have a reserved area wherein the eye will now appear.
Is a double exposure less of an image? Of course not. This is possible because the camera is a two dimensional monster which can be easily fooled as has been demonstrated. However, the purist simply resent the camera being fooled because then the image has no real value to them. Of course, this is hogwash. They use the term fudged. Anything fudged is inferior. This attitude limits expression. To me good photography is presenting a good image. It does not matter how it was arranged. If natural great, if fudged great. The main thing is that they be good.
So all images in this challenge are considered 100% legit and not at all on the gray or grey.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 10:29:46 PM · #67 |
Regardless of how these fine images were produced, the voters have spoken and given them overwhelming support. It matters not what devious and ingenious methods were used to create the effect, so long as the result is a single image from a digital camera. However, I doubt that this type composite image would have scored so well if the voters knew in advance how the images were produced. If I am wrong then DPC is not a venue to improve photographic skills, but rather an exercise in methods to win without genuine photographic skills. There are many enormously talented photographers on DPC whose excellent work goes largely unrewarded while pseudo photographs take the honors. I want to learn photography, not substitutes for photography.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 10:40:23 PM · #68 |
Is this the right room for an argument?
I've told you once
No you didnt
yes i did
no you didnt
i did
when
just now
no you didnt
yes i did
this isnt an argument
yes it is
no it isnt its just contridiction
.......no it isnt
yes it is.
Gotta love the Python crew |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 10:56:51 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Regardless of how these fine images were produced, the voters have spoken and given them overwhelming support. It matters not what devious and ingenious methods were used to create the effect, so long as the result is a single image from a digital camera. However, I doubt that this type composite image would have scored so well if the voters knew in advance how the images were produced. If I am wrong then DPC is not a venue to improve photographic skills, but rather an exercise in methods to win without genuine photographic skills. There are many enormously talented photographers on DPC whose excellent work goes largely unrewarded while pseudo photographs take the honors. I want to learn photography, not substitutes for photography. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With all due respect I disagree. Here is why: Can you imagine a neophyte producing Scalverts' image. How about a neophyte producing the Labuda image. I humbly include in this catogory the my wine to water image and even my entry in this challenge, Honky Tonk. Can some one who is green accomplish this? Also consider, whenever you photograph a real subject against a special background are you aware of all the lighting problems that must be solved? Let alone the technique to make the images cohesive and give them a look as if they were one. Set up shots require much more work and expertise because the photographer must be very skillful with the art of photography and not just the craft.
I mean, look at the finish image and you will find that many of these shots are so difficult to do that some require multiple takes. Then study the image and see the harmony in exposure, lighting and presentation. The same happens when you shoot a portrait. You have backlight, main light, fill lights and then a highlight light. In the case of my images where I split the exposure on the sensor. The light and intensity of the first exposure has to be the same for the two halves.
Look, I take nothing away from the straight shot. Many are the most beautiful, but it can be argued that a beginner can have an image which can compete in a challenge. Tell the same individual to do a special effect and his result will not be as good. Why? because more expertise is needed and a deeper understanding of dof, the lens required and critical exposure. I have said elsewhere that the set up shot is where you learn about light and its properties and the ability of the equipment including lenses, etc. believe, it takes more experience and general know how to pull off images like you see in this challenge. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 11:34:29 PM · #70 |
I just wanted to offer a little Site Council perspective into the discussion on scalvert's blue ribbon winning "Nightbulb." Please note that I am speaking as one individual member of Site Council -- not on behalf of Site Council as a body.
I want to address each of the rule issues that was brought up on this, and my understanding of why it was validated with respect to each of them:
Ownership: The photograph you enter must be taken and post-processed by you.
This rule refers specifically to "the photograph you enter," which in this cases was taken by Shannon. No issue here.
Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not combine multiple exposures. You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, graphics or text such as multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week).
This rule has never been interpreted to prohibit use of one photograph as a prop in another. Precedent for this goes back at least to People (Challenge 17), in which "Eye Reflections" by hokie was validated in May 2002 under the Classic Editing Rules. This featured the photographer looking through a cutout in a collage of multiple photographs of his eyes.
Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
This rule appears in the "Post Shot adjustments" section and therefore applies only to what happens after the photograph is taken. It does not apply to the creation of a prop for the challenge.
Artwork: Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc).
With the addition of the hand and the light bulb base, this ceases to be a "literal interpretation," and instead falls into the category of "creative depictions or interpretations," which are expressly permitted.
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity
The question here would be whether copyright on the moon photograph was infringed.
While we generally do not require it, Shannon has voluntarily produced evidence of permission from the copyright holder to create a derivative work from the photograph. With that permission in place, there is no infringement.
Hopefully this clears things up a bit.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:24:53 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.
This rule appears in the "Post Shot adjustments" section and therefore applies only to what happens after the photograph is taken. It does not apply to the creation of a prop for the challenge.
Hopefully this clears things up a bit.
-Terry |
It sure does. We can do absolutely anything we want to with any image we choose to work with, as long as we have the right to use it, and as long as is it is then incorporated as one of the elements in the final image, not represented as the final image itself.
The site makes no distinction, in this area, between hand-painting a background and digitally creating a background. If we wish to, we can (for example) use a 3-D image generating program to create an entirely imaginary, photorealistic background and stage our final shot in front of that.
Thanks for the clarification.
Now may this thread (or this discussiopn within it, anyway) RIP...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 00:25:36.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:28:36 AM · #72 |
At some point we'll have to draw a line. Creative and imaginative techniques that are used to give the appearance of an image that is not legal are going to go so far that they will violate the spirit of the rules while technically not going beyond the letter fo the law. Some would argue that they already have. The last time the SC had to make a decision that resulted in a disqualification for going against the spirit of the rules we had an awful lot of hard feelings generated on all sides. Making the next such decision without all the name calling and arguements would be a display of improved leadership.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:50:56 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Funny that this probably wouldn't be up for discussion if my comments simply said "N/A." ;-) |
Good point! I don't think there is anything in the rules about having to publicly explain how it was done and since explaining it apparently unleashes a firestorm of contraversy, some might think it is not worth it to post the explanation.
On the subject though - I look at the top finishers including scalverts and especially this one:
and I think - if there were no rules against doing anything in PS, all of these images could've easily been done by the majority of members here. ...but so what? Because someone made the image "the old fashioned way" makes it that much more impressive? Many use double exposures and all kinds of photo tricks to create their entries. How is this different than using computer techniques? I guess there are other sites for that type of thing. I know some think this is more of a purist site, but that's not accurate at all - I think it's more of a balance between pure photographer skills and modern digital post-processing skills. The trick is maintaining that balance.
My 2 pennies. :-) |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:55:12 AM · #74 |
EDIT: post moved to a new thread...
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 02:56:16. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 06:26:36 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
At some point we'll have to draw a line. Creative and imaginative techniques that are used to give the appearance of an image that is not legal are going to go so far that they will violate the spirit of the rules while technically not going beyond the letter fo the law. Some would argue that they already have. The last time the SC had to make a decision that resulted in a disqualification for going against the spirit of the rules we had an awful lot of hard feelings generated on all sides. Making the next such decision without all the name calling and arguements would be a display of improved leadership. |
Why? We are a community of artists. Should our goal be to discourage creative and imaginative use of the camera? That seems more than a bit disingenuous to me, and completely counter to the direction we have tried to take the site for the past three years.
-Terry
|
|
