New Name - DPChallenge Forums

05/10/2005 01:25:59 PM · #26

Originally posted by Marjo:

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I thought it was a great shot, and deserved to win. It was great Photography! I am however uneasy with zoom and motion blur that has been added in Photoshop. I would vote to clarify the advanced ruleset to ban motion and zoom blur in future shots.

If it was accomplished in-camera, I would consider it to be great photography. As it is, I consider it to be a wonderfully edited version of the original photograph.

I agree that clarification is needed.

As argued above by someone else, I believe it would have still been a great photo without the zoom effect. To my mind, there was artistic vision behind the whole photo... not a mediocre snapshot which was rescued by 'cool' effects in PS.

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

05/10/2005 01:27:15 PM · #27

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

...It's a nice picture, it really does convey anger, but its success is based almost entirely on it's editing.

That was certainly true in this case, yet shifting colors has always been allowed. Deciding whether the use of a legal tool goes too far is a subjective call that's difficult to judge consistently.

(Someday EddyG will smack me for dragging out his image so often.)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/10/2005 01:30:13 PM · #28

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Plexxoid:
...It's a nice picture, it really does convey anger, but its success is based almost entirely on it's editing.

That was certainly true in this case, yet shifting colors has always been allowed. Deciding whether the use of a legal tool goes too far is a subjective call that's difficult to judge consistently.

(Someday EddyG will smack me for dragging out his image so often.)

Why even drag Eddy into it, when your own, more recent, "Nightbulb" could be the poster child for blending digital with straight in a composite image that's legal in DPC? jejejeâ�¢

Rock on!

R.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

05/10/2005 01:32:45 PM · #29

Maybe the definition of digital art needs to be expanded to include the question of whether or not the image looks like like something in the real/natural world or is "out-of-this-world?"

05/10/2005 01:33:34 PM · #30

In camera or not... that is the major differentiator today. So, what happens when the Canon or Nikon or decides to add the typical PS filters on-board? C'mon, my old D60 already has more processing power than my first computer. Who is to say that the powerful successor to 1Ds won't enable such things to be done in-camera. There are already sharpening, whitebalance, and other algorithms that run inside, it is just a matter of product marketing decision, not an engineering challenge.

Are we (DPC) going to take away the differences between the in-camera software digital processing and the out-of-camera software processing? Or at least when re-wording current rules, to try to think about the future and blur this already undefined line between the host processor that runs the same algorithms.

Or else, there will be obviously people that will have (even more) advantage just because they have more powerful equipment.

05/10/2005 01:34:34 PM · #31

Originally posted by srdanz:

But we're only talking here about motion and zoom blur... the rest of the advanced ruleset seems safe for the moment.

05/10/2005 01:35:35 PM · #32

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Maybe the definition of digital art needs to be expanded to include the question of whether or not the image looks like like something in the real/natural world or is "out-of-this-world?"

There's so much great photography which relies on imaginative and innovative use of in-camera techniques to achieve unusual effects. I don't need my photography to look 'real'!

moodville

Nikon D100

05/10/2005 01:36:44 PM · #33

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Maybe the definition of digital art needs to be expanded to include the question of whether or not the image looks like like something in the real/natural world or is "out-of-this-world?"

You can create "out-of-this-world" images with pure straight out the camera photography. Just because it doesnt look real doesnt make it digital art.

gaurawa

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/10/2005 01:37:49 PM · #34

Originally posted by srdanz:

Or else, there will be obviously people that will have (even more) advantage just because they have more powerful equipment.

Photoshop is also very powerful ( and expensive) tool and not everyone here has a copy. So whoever uses photoshop has an advantage too ?

05/10/2005 01:38:49 PM · #35

Originally posted by bear_music:

...one thing bothers me: those who have dSLRs can easily attain zoom blur in-camera, and those of us who don't, cannot. I hate the idea of having rules that allow a certain effect that is otherwise easily obtainable in photoshop only to those shooters who happen to have enough money invested in equipment to do it in-camera.

IMO, the legality of digital editing should come down to whether you're simply enhancing the original photo, or creating significant features that didn't exist before. DSLRs can offer advantages for zoom blur, low noise, specialized filters and more. That's just how it is. Point and shoot cameras might be an advantage for achieving deep DOF or snapping candids.

moodville

Nikon D100

05/10/2005 01:39:15 PM · #36

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

I believe its blue ribbon was won for its editting much more than for its photography.

I believe it won a blue ribbon for the visual impact. It got that visual impact from a mixture of creative imagination, personal vision, photography, and manipulation. Some people neither want to know or care to know how something was produced but instead enjoys (or dislikes) the art before them.

05/10/2005 01:42:47 PM · #37

Edit to add word FREE

Originally posted by gaurawa:

Originally posted by srdanz:

Or else, there will be obviously people that will have (even more) advantage just because they have more powerful equipment.

Photoshop is also very powerful ( and expensive) tool and not everyone here has a copy. So whoever uses photoshop has an advantage too ?

Yes, that's why I said "Even more" advantage. Although, to achieve certain results, you can use FREE SW like //www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/

I am trying to point out that the advent of advanced cameras will definitively blur the line between in- and out-of -camera editing.

What is the difference between putting the CF card in a PC card reader and running PS CS and having the same CF card and manipulating the image via options in camera? Bigger screen and the use of the mouse and keyboard?

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 13:43:38.

05/10/2005 01:46:41 PM · #38

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

But we're only talking here about motion and zoom blur... the rest of the advanced ruleset seems safe for the moment.

Yes, but we are fencing ourselves in with statements such as "That can be done in camera" or "that can be done in a traditional darkroom". Or at least I have reached that conclusion by reading this Rant.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

05/10/2005 01:46:50 PM · #39

Originally posted by bear_music:

Why even drag Eddy into it, when your own, more recent, "Nightbulb" could be the poster child for blending digital with straight in a composite image that's legal in DPC?

The impact in that shot came from a prepared prop. There was very little editing applied to the image captured in camera, which is what I'm addressing here. If I shot a foreground element juxtaposed against a billboard, I doubt that anyone would complain about how the billboard was made. ;-)

muckpond

Nikon D200

05/10/2005 01:47:12 PM · #40

Originally posted by Marjo:

I always thought that photography skills and uniqueness would win on this site.

since when?

and

i'm not calling anyone out. i just would hestiate to say that "unique" does well here.

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/10/2005 01:48:55 PM · #41

lol
Maybe unique is the wrong word!

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/10/2005 01:50:43 PM · #42

Why are so many feeling threatened by the occasional breakthrough of a visibly-manipulated image?

I've been here for quite some time and what attracted me to the site was the participating photographers' skill level. The site was geared towards improving your photography in-camera skills. I was in awe of so many photographers and what they were able to accomplish and I have learned so much from them. Many of these photographers don't participate anymore. Many still do but not as frequently.
More and more it's about the editing, which I agree is a big part of finishing a digital image to bring out the best...not change it to a totally different vision.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

05/10/2005 01:54:37 PM · #43

Originally posted by srdanz:

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
But we're only talking here about motion and zoom blur... the rest of the advanced ruleset seems safe for the moment.

Yes, but we are fencing ourselves in with statements such as "That can be done in camera" or "that can be done in a traditional darkroom". Or at least I have reached that conclusion by reading this Rant.

Edited to sound less confrontational...

I posted this above which answers your statement:
'I agree there's an argument to allowing this in PS, but speaking personally as a photographer, I always feel a little conned when I see that motion/zoom blur has been carried out in PS. It may look exactly the same, and express some artistic vision, but I admire the skill that goes into producing this in-camera.
There is no right or wrong here, only personal feeling and I personally believe that on DPC (which is primarily in existence to help people learn the skills of Photography) this should be achieved in-camera.'

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 13:56:23.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/10/2005 01:57:38 PM · #44

Originally posted by bear_music:

I hate the idea of having rules that allow a certain effect that is otherwise easily obtainable in photoshop only to those shooters who happen to have enough money invested in equipment to do it in-camera. Seems silly to me.

Robt.

There are lots of examples of better equipment increasing flexibility that can be replicated in PS. I am not sure that everyone should be allowed to fake in PS that which someone else has the expensive filter/underwaterhousing/macro lens etc to do something in real life.

05/10/2005 02:09:01 PM · #45

Edit for spelling.

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Edited to sound less confrontational...

I'm really not easily irritable. You could have left it in the original form (which I missed, by the way)

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I posted this above which answers your statement:
'I agree there's an argument to allowing this in PS, but speaking personally as a photographer, I always feel a little conned when I see that motion/zoom blur has been carried out in PS. It may look exactly the same, and express some artistic vision, but I admire the skill that goes into producing this in-camera.
There is no right or wrong here, only personal feeling and I personally believe that on DPC (which is primarily in existence to help people learn the skills of Photography) this should be achieved in-camera.'

And I cannot agree more with you, but I have to qualify your statement:
The in-camera (as I want to understand you) refers to the acts of a photographer such as manipulating focal length during the exposure time, or panning, or doing whatever else you can do to emulate post-processing of the image.

What I am concerned here is exactly the same post-processing done in-camera as in the computer. That is slightly off the main topic that concerns Joey's ribbon-winning shot (which I like BTW), but still within the thread topic as it discusses editing techniques while differentiating them by the host CPU that does the same processing.

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 14:12:18.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

05/10/2005 02:39:15 PM · #46

Oh, I should have read all your previous posts! ;-)

For the moment, I do see your point as being off this particular topic...
but if my camera was powerful enough to allow me to set up zoom and motion blurs which I could apply to certain parts of the image and have large amounts of control... basically if my camera could run Photoshop(!), I would still be against using it for zoom/motion blur but for allowing it to produce everything else that's currently legal for advanced challenges.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

05/10/2005 02:46:17 PM · #47

To be the Devil's Advocate, the image on the right was heavily
manipulated, and personally wouldn't consider it legal IMO.

vs.

A lot of pixels were moved (obviously) and other than a layer mask around
the car & driver, everything was done to the whole image, with no spot editing,
yet would, under the present rules, be legal.

I'm starting to lose sense of where the line is anymore.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/10/2005 02:52:05 PM · #48

Originally posted by BradP:

I'm starting to lose sense of where the line is anymore.

In your case, the lines run right down the center of the image :)