| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2005 10:18:24 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
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 |
As usual, Terry, you go straight to the nub. Though I would think in terms of 'artistic photographers' rather than 'photo artists'. There is a clear difference in the methodology of Labuda and Scalvert. Labuda's technique is entirely photographic while Scalvert's involves considerable preprocessing manipulation of the image in a computer then the camera work. Either technique is an accomplishment of note, but so are the results of many other art forms that we would not classify as photography. Just because a technique is difficult to master does not necessarily qualify that technique as photography.
All that said, the SC has ruled these techniques equivalently valid, but standby for a plethora of 'creative' techniques. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:30:38 AM · #77 |
I, personally, don't think the number of "these" entries will increase out of proportion to the site's growth.
Since I have been here (almost 3 years), there has been "this" type of entry is every few challenges. It would stand to reason, that as the site has grown, the different techniques that are successful will "grow" as well.
Another picture by hokie (mentioned above), uses the same ideas. 
(what is hokie doing nowadays, anyway?).
That was when it was basic editing, no borders, 640X480, before helpful comments, etc. etc. At that time, having 100 entries was considered a lot!
My point? It is not something that has suddenly happened here. Why should a background be only a piece of fabric, foamboard, or posterboard. If I needed an ocean background with dolphins, would anyone object if I used the shower curtain from my son's bathroom? If I didn't have that curtain, why not create it digitally and either use the monitor as the background or print out a picture and use it. Yes, in the first place picture, it is an important piece of the picture. But, it has been as such in all the examples given, as well.
Just my thoughts (as a member not a SC representative :-))
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 11:31:49.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:00:24 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Why should a background be only a piece of fabric, foamboard, or posterboard. If I needed an ocean background with dolphins, would anyone object if I used the shower curtain from my son's bathroom? If I didn't have that curtain, why not create it digitally and either use the monitor as the background or print out a picture and use it. Yes, in the first place picture, it is an important piece of the picture. But, it has been as such in all the examples given, as well.
Just my thoughts (as a member not a SC representative :-)) |
You almost make my point for me. Backgrounds should be just that, backgrounds. When the 'background' becomes a crucial element of the subject, it ceases to be a background, but instead a computer contrived major part of the subject. Elegant and fascinating images can be generated that go far beyond the category of background to make a mundane foreground object seem much more than it is in reality. Why not dispense with the camera entirely and just produce the image with a computer?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:05:15 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Labuda's technique is entirely photographic while Scalvert's involves considerable preprocessing manipulation of the image in a computer then the camera work. Just because a technique is difficult to master does not necessarily qualify that technique as photography. |
I think the key objection is that Photoshop was used in the creation of the background. Again, I don't see why it should make a difference. This shot uses a created background as a major primary element, and received nothing but kudos.
Same here... lots of pats on the back for the great artwork.
Perhaps the objection was that the moon image wasn't mine or that the technique allows me to do spot editing on an element beforehand. Is this key element Doug's artwork? Do you think that face wasn't spot edited in Photoshop?
Sure, this kind of stuff is going to raise the hackles of the purists, but it's all been done (and discussed) before. Maybe some people think that it's not about photographic principles because a key element was Photoshopped beforehand? Hardly. I went to a great deal of trouble to get the lighting just right on the hand. Too much light and the bulb doesn't appear illuminated, too little and the hand is obscured. I think the key to the whole illusion is that the bulb appears to be illuminating the fingertips. That's not an accident, nor is it Photoshopped. The white balance for the monitor background is very different from the light I used on the hand. I had to plan for that and deal with it in Basic Editing or they wouldn't match.
Someone mentioned doing the whole bulb in Photoshop, then just positioning your fingers in front of the screen. That wouldn't work, as the fingers must be partly behind the bulb base to show dimension.
It's worth noting that of the 65 comments I received during the voting, only 1 person commented on the stretched moon itself. For everybody else, it was the overall illusion- the complete image- that drew the comments and the votes. For every person who wants to come after me with torches and pitchforks, two more want me to create a tutorial. This site is about learning all different ways to get the image you envision out of a camera, and I think the more techniques you have at your disposal, the more successful you will be as a photographer.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 12:42:41. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:13:15 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
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 |
What seems "disingenuous" ?
I thought we were a community of digital photographers, organized around education in the use of digital camera techniques, the use of software to get the most out of our images, and using the challenges to motivate us and to measure our progress.
There has always been a push and pull between the those in favor of straight photography and those in favor of digital art, ongoing, for as long as I've been here. But it has always been said that the site was started to serve photography and that there are many other sites to serve digital art.
Terry, my own personal observation, and opinion, is that you have not tried to take the site in any particular direction at all, but rather have let it drift with the winds. That the winds have taken us in the direction of digital art, and away from our roots, is a belief held by many people here, not just me.
It appears that there may be another heated debate brewing. I would like to see it resolved with less animosity than the last time. If that were accomplished, I would say that our leadership has improved since the last time we had one of these brouhahas.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:16:06 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think the key objection is that Photoshop was used in the creation of the background. Again, I don't see why it should make a difference. This shot uses a created background as a major primary element, and received nothing but kudos.
|
NO. The key objection is that a major portion of the image subject is computer generated. Yes, I know it has been done many times in the past. Yes, the result is superb. But the only real part of the image is a hand holding the base of a lightbulb, hardly a subject to entrall the masses. It is the computer produced part of the image that makes the image so good. Art? Most definitely.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:33:19 PM · #82 |
I wanted to toss in my (checks pockets - drat - no 0.02 cents)
Shannon is to be commended for his creativity in what he produces here, with Nightbulb being one of his better final products.
Yes, the background is a key element, but having seen some of the outtakes first hand, I have to say a lot of time and effort was spent on this shot to get it to look right. The lighting here was a key element, and without it being done right, looked flat. The precise alignment of the exposure was no chance effort either.
Images like this never cease to amaze me, wondering were some contrive their brilliant ideas, then can actually make that idea happen. I for one am a bit jealous that I don't have that imagination and creativity, as I am more of a idea and find what presents itself and shoot it kind of photographer.
I suspect for some, this whole isssue will never go away, and suspect it is often more of a "not fair" issue than anything else.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:33:48 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
The key objection is that a major portion of the image subject is computer generated. |
Yes, a major prop was created (how is completely irrelevant). So what? Would Tim's excellent background be any different if it were drawn on a computer rather than paper? The only real part of this image is a pencil standing on end- hardly a subject to enthrall the masses. Note that Tim's photo is from 2002. No floodgates were opened, and the site hasn't drifted far from this early precedent at all.
The computer-altered moon is only one part (albeit a big one) of the overall illusion. The interest of my particular photo is, of course, the bulb, but it's the lighting on the hand that makes it believable. Yes, the moon part is digital art, but seamlessly merging that element into a believable scene is good old fashioned photography, and far more difficult than I expected it to be.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 13:52:43. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:48:05 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I wanted to toss in my (checks pockets - drat - no 0.02 cents)
I suspect for some, this whole isssue will never go away, and suspect it is often more of a "not fair" issue than anything else.
|
If it were not for Shannon's wonderful imagination and perseverence in producing this image, it could not have won. I don't believe anyone thinks something this good is routinely produced by someone that happens to own a computer and a camera, far from it, considerable expertise is mandated. But is it appropriate that a substantially manipulated subject set the standard in a photography competition? Well, maybe. It depends on where the SC wishes to take the membership. Should we have different categories of competition?
Some may think that I am angry about this subject, but no, just intensely interested. If we go more toward digital manipulation of images, then I should change my program!!!
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:48:25 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
NO. The key objection is that a major portion of the image subject is computer generated. Yes, I know it has been done many times in the past. Yes, the result is superb. But the only real part of the image is a hand holding the base of a lightbulb, hardly a subject to entrall the masses. It is the computer produced part of the image that makes the image so good. Art? Most definitely. |
So what are you trying to say? That it's easy to do this, it was unfair, etc...
I happen to think the results are really cool and hats off to scalvert for having the creativity to think of the concept and then follow thru.
If it's so easy, try it yourself for the next challenge...the playing board is equal, we all have the same tools (give or take a DSLR ), so that makes it fair. Take a shot at it. Good luck! ;^) |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:53:08 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
If we go more toward digital manipulation of images, then I should change my program!!! |
Better get the change a moving! ;^) The photo entered was not digitally manipulated (it was a basic challenge rule set). We've already moved toward digital manipulation...it's a digital photo challenge website. Isn't this fun. :P |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:59:12 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
NO. The key objection is that a major portion of the image subject is computer generated. Yes, I know it has been done many times in the past. Yes, the result is superb. But the only real part of the image is a hand holding the base of a lightbulb, hardly a subject to entrall the masses. It is the computer produced part of the image that makes the image so good. Art? Most definitely. |
So what are you trying to say? That it's easy to do this, it was unfair, etc...
I happen to think the results are really cool and hats off to scalvert for having the creativity to think of the concept and then follow thru.
If it's so easy, try it yourself for the next challenge...the playing board is equal, we all have the same tools (give or take a DSLR ), so that makes it fair. Take a shot at it. Good luck! ;^) |
You presume much from what is not said or implied.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:08:54 PM · #88 |
FWIW, I am not at all offended by the contrasting opinions of others. Some of those who object to my "technique" are among the photographers I most respect. I commented earlier that this would not be an issue if I hadn't explained how I achieved the shot. That doesn't mean that I'm going to stop leaving such explanations. I am only trying to deceive the eye, not the voters, and I requested validation on my own image twice to address the specific concerns raised by others.
I'm not the first person to use a created background as a key element, nor will I be the last. This is not the New York Times. It's a site where we try capture cool images, bizarre images, emotional images, amazing images- pictures that we want to come back to and enjoy for years. I will always try to make the most of whatever tools and techniques are available to me to achieve such photos, and I hope that others do the same. Restraint is a sure path to mediocrity. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:09:55 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
NO. The key objection is that a major portion of the image subject is computer generated. Yes, I know it has been done many times in the past. Yes, the result is superb. But the only real part of the image is a hand holding the base of a lightbulb, hardly a subject to entrall the masses. It is the computer produced part of the image that makes the image so good. Art? Most definitely. |
So what are you trying to say? That it's easy to do this, it was unfair, etc...
I happen to think the results are really cool and hats off to scalvert for having the creativity to think of the concept and then follow thru.
If it's so easy, try it yourself for the next challenge...the playing board is equal, we all have the same tools (give or take a DSLR ), so that makes it fair. Take a shot at it. Good luck! ;^) |
You presume much from what is not said or implied. |
I don't think El Gordo said anything like that, nor did I. Each of us was/is looking for clarification of what's permissible. Neither of us is/was running down this wonderfully creative image.
Speaking for myself, I'm completely satisfied with terry's explanation of how SC views these things, and I'm completely in favor of "allowing" this sort of thing as well. I sense that El Gordo may think we're going too far into "digital" here, and that's certainly his right, but I take NO sense that he's criticizing Scalvert or his image, or is "jealous" of either; it's a philosophical issue for both of us.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:17:58 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
But the only real part of the image is a hand holding the base of a lightbulb, hardly a subject to entrall the masses. It is the computer produced part of the image that makes the image so good. |
Sorry, I took the above part of ElGordo's comments out of context. To me it sounded like he was saying this photo was an easy setup, only requiring the hand holding the base of a lightbulb and the background did the rest of the work. I didn't think it was quite that simple...
I hear ya more clearly now. ;^)
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:22:07 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
But the only real part of the image is a hand holding the base of a lightbulb, hardly a subject to entrall the masses. It is the computer produced part of the image that makes the image so good. |
Sorry, I took the above part of ElGordo's comments out of context. To me it sounded like he was saying this photo was an easy setup, only requiring the hand holding the base of a lightbulb and the background did the rest of the work. I didn't think it was quite that simple...
I hear ya more clearly now. ;^) |
S'all right dude. This is a great discussion!!
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:48:27 PM · #92 |
I guess part of my philosophy about computer generated backgrounds (or any background) comes from my belief that the background is an important part of the image. It supplements (or in some cases, detracts from) the subject of the image. A photographer should choose the background carefully -- whether shooting film or digital.
Where will it end? When will the SC say "ENOUGH?" That is hard to say, if it can be said. Like someone pointed out -- this was a basic challenge. Had it been advanced, and he had taken a picture of the base of the bulb against a real time moon and spot edited it, would the outcome had been different? Possibly (but maybe not).
To me, with my self-admittedly limited knowledge of film cameras, anyone one of the shots could have been made with a film camera -- even an instamatic polaroid. So, to me, yes, it is still photography, not digital art.
Again, just my perspective. :-)
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:43:31 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I guess part of my philosophy about computer generated backgrounds (or any background) comes from my belief that the background is an important part of the image. It supplements (or in some cases, detracts from) the subject of the image. A photographer should choose the background carefully -- whether shooting film or digital.
Where will it end? When will the SC say "ENOUGH?" That is hard to say, if it can be said. Like someone pointed out -- this was a basic challenge. Had it been advanced, and he had taken a picture of the base of the bulb against a real time moon and spot edited it, would the outcome had been different? Possibly (but maybe not).
To me, with my self-admittedly limited knowledge of film cameras, anyone one of the shots could have been made with a film camera -- even an instamatic polaroid. So, to me, yes, it is still photography, not digital art.
Again, just my perspective. :-) |
That's quite true; in the end, eother of these shots (the moon or the eye/hand) could have been made on film. Still, just to clarify, the "real" issue here was the discussion of the fact that the MOON ITSELF had been dgitally altered in a manner that would not have been allowed had the shot of the moon, alone, been entered in a challenge.
So, the question was, is is "legal" to use "illegal editing" to create backdrops? And the answer, apparently, is an unqualified "yes". That's what we originally wanted to know.
Now there's a spin-off from this, discussing whether this is "going too far", but I (for one) am not a part of that discussion; I'm happy with the interpretation as it stands.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:54:23 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...the question was, is is "legal" to use "illegal editing" to create backdrops? |
Yep. The issue of editing, illegal or otherwise, only applies the the file that comes out of your camera. What goes in is up to you, as long as it isn't literal artwork, etc. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:55:38 PM · #95 |
IMHO we have very nearly exhausted this subject and I wish to express my thanks to those that have participated and especially to those that continue to delight us with their cutting edge photography!!
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:59:40 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...the question was, is is "legal" to use "illegal editing" to create backdrops? |
Yep. The issue of editing, illegal or otherwise, only applies the the file that comes out of your camera. What goes in is up to you, as long as it isn't literal artwork, etc. |
Yes, we know that now. SC has spoken. First the image was validated (correctly), then some of us went a little deeper to discuss some of the ramifications of that validation, and SC informed us that, indeed, the sky's the limit when it comes to the means used to create a "backdrop" image, which is what we wondering.
Case closed, good discussion.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:53:52 PM · #97 |
Posted by Bear music:
So, the question was, is is "legal" to use "illegal editing" to create backdrops? And the answer, apparently, is an unqualified "yes". That's what we originally wanted to know.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert, with all due respect and I like you and respect you...but after all this discussion you throw the above line almost at the end of the thread. To me words have meanings and what you are stating is inccorect.
The label of illegal editing can not be applied to the creation of any background that is being made outside the camera. This is a big one. To intimate as you state is almost to negate your very last post.
Illegal editing does not apply outside the camera. That is, you can cover imperfections with make up on a models face or do anything else to it before the image is taken. How can this or the creation of a background receive the title or label of illegal? |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 12:25:44 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Posted by Bear music:
So, the question was, is is "legal" to use "illegal editing" to create backdrops? And the answer, apparently, is an unqualified "yes". That's what we originally wanted to know.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert, with all due respect and I like you and respect you...but after all this discussion you throw the above line almost at the end of the thread. To me words have meanings and what you are stating is inccorect.
The label of illegal editing can not be applied to the creation of any background that is being made outside the camera. This is a big one. To intimate as you state is almost to negate your very last post.
Illegal editing does not apply outside the camera. That is, you can cover imperfections with make up on a models face or do anything else to it before the image is taken. How can this or the creation of a background receive the title or label of illegal? |
Sheesh, man, that's why I put the words in "quotes". That's been made perfectly clear. We all understand that now. It was a pithy expression...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 12:32:37 AM · #99 |
Hey Robert:
Cool. Then you have overshadowed my reasoning. My full apologies.
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 00:32:57. |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 12:40:13 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Hey Robert:
Cool. Then you have overshadowed my reasoning. My full apologies. |
Ah, that's ok. I was ill-advised to state it in that manner. I should have stuck with something unambiguous like "The question was, 'Is there any such thing as illegal editing in the creation of a backdrop image?' and the answer is 'No.'"
It's all good.
Robt.
|
|
