DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Overprocessed Silhouettes
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 68, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/24/2005 02:05:23 AM · #26
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Without giving any specifics - just want to say I'm disappointed how some of the blatantly overprocessed entries tend to score high.


This is a re-hash of an issue that has come up here many times. Your disappointment is rooted in what you expect to see in a photograph. If photography is considered an 'art', then the artist is allowed to inject his/her own creativity into the images. If it's considered a documentary science, the photographer may be more limited in post processing choices.

There are no rules constraining a photographer to either school of thought where this website is concerned. There are plenty of students in both schools here as well.

As photographers, we all can look at photos and know (most of the time) if they have been 'heavily' processed. We can do this because we know what an image looks like 'out of camera'. When we see a photo that appears to be heavily processed, we need to look beyond that and ask ourselves a few questions:

1. What is the photographer trying to accomplish with the processing?

2. Was he/she successful with it?

3. Is the post processing visible? When I ask this, what I mean is can we see obvious flaws in the editing such as sharpening halos, clone/heal artifacts, or other things that just don't belong in the image.

When I look at an image that appears to be heavily processed, I don't automatically discount it as 'bad'. In most cases, what I see is good. I see some creativity and imagery that the camera won't capture on its own.

Post processing should have a purpose. The purpose should be the realization of the photographer's own vision of what the final image should look like.

We all look at heavily processed images every day and don't even think twice about them. We seem to look with a more critical eye when we consider photography in a contest mode though. The last motion picture we all watched certainly had a significant amount of post processing and digital imagery... the last TV advertisement... the last magazine cover... Would we not like a movie because it was not 'realistically' rendered?

Don't be disappointed. Try to learn from what you see.

05/24/2005 02:10:17 AM · #27
Messerschmitt; left comment, nice images!
 05/24/2005 02:36:36 AM · #28
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Probably I'm alone in thinking this - oh, well - voters are always right.


Correctly, if unenthusiastically, stated.
 05/24/2005 02:44:15 AM · #29
Would you consider this one overprocessed?
(Read shot details for what was done)




05/24/2005 04:12:53 AM · #30
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Would you consider this one overprocessed?
(Read shot details for what was done)



Nah, that's fine, even a little "underprocessed" in a sense; could use more pop and luminance. I think when people refer to overprocessing, they refer to obviously unnatural effects and/or processing artifacts. Pedro's blue ribbon shot, by his own admission, is basically overporcessed/processed in a hurry and sloppily. But it's so powerful it overcame that handicap in the voters' eyes...

Robt.

Here's a quick take on your windmill with some additional processing. Is it overprocessed yet? I don't think so... Someone else might, I donno.



R.

Message edited by author 2005-05-24 04:25:48.
 05/24/2005 04:15:26 AM · #31
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Without giving any specifics - just want to say I'm disappointed how some of the blatantly overprocessed entries tend to score high.


Don't be disappointed. Try to learn from what you see.


And maybe add: It's not just about winning ribbons in DPC or cash prizes elsewhere.
 05/24/2005 01:01:24 PM · #32
Originally posted by bryanbrazil:
Is combining two raw conversions of the same shot legal in advanced editing? I didn't think it was.

Originally posted by kirbic:
... I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them ...

I thought this was illegal too. What's the ruling here?
 05/24/2005 01:05:24 PM · #33
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Originally posted by bryanbrazil:
Is combining two raw conversions of the same shot legal in advanced editing? I didn't think it was.

Originally posted by kirbic:
... I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them ...

I thought this was illegal too. What's the ruling here?


my guess is that since you have two copies of the same image with the same pixels, you are free to do this. and, if that's the case, i'm gonna start banging on that technique until they nail the door shut!!! oh, yeah, oh, yeah. if you're gonna take advantage of shooting raw, might as well go all the way!
 05/24/2005 01:41:59 PM · #34
From a year-old forum post...

Originally posted by EddyG:
...after a Site Council discussion, my interpretation of the rules regarding your query has been "overruled". =] So as long as you are working from a single photograph, processing that single image similar to what you describe (taking a raw file, and using exposure compensation to generate a "highlight" version and a "shadow" version and then layering the two together) would be legal under the Advanced Editing rules. However, taking multiple photographs, each exposed differently "in camera" and layering them together is illegal and considered "multiple exposures".
05/24/2005 02:16:09 PM · #35
just to further clarify, if such an image were requested for validation, what would you submit? the original raw file?
 05/24/2005 02:16:45 PM · #36
Originally posted by scalvert:
From a year-old forum post...

Originally posted by EddyG:
...after a Site Council discussion, my interpretation of the rules regarding your query has been "overruled". =] So as long as you are working from a single photograph, processing that single image similar to what you describe (taking a raw file, and using exposure compensation to generate a "highlight" version and a "shadow" version and then layering the two together) would be legal under the Advanced Editing rules. However, taking multiple photographs, each exposed differently "in camera" and layering them together is illegal and considered "multiple exposures".


Figures that would come from EddyG.

How, exactly, can you prove it either way.. besides someone having a camera that doesn't do RAW? It's still a load of bunk to me, and shouldn't be allowed.. but what do I know?
 05/24/2005 02:17:16 PM · #37
Yes, along with an explanation of your processing steps.
 05/24/2005 02:19:54 PM · #38
Originally posted by Artyste:
Figures that would come from EddyG.


Note that EddyG was against it, and I assumed it was illegal in the same thread. The bottom line is that you're working with a single capture from the camera in Advanced Editing, where layers are allowed.
 05/24/2005 02:25:37 PM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Figures that would come from EddyG.


Note that EddyG was against it, and I assumed it was illegal in the same thread. The bottom line is that you're working with a single capture from the camera in Advanced Editing, where layers are allowed.


ah.. I misread, it's worded as such that it sounds like EddyG was pro.
Anyway, I see your point, but it still reeks of elitism in a way, but then.. I guess one can duplicate a JPG and work on exposure settings in CS2 now too. They might not be as great as RAW, but it would probably still work.
Like I said, what do I know. I usually try and expose my shots correctly in the first place. (evil grin)
 05/24/2005 02:55:14 PM · #40
Originally posted by Artyste:
I usually try and expose my shots correctly in the first place. (evil grin)

you just can't expose some shots correctly :P
e.g. kirbic's photo. the dynamic range of the scene is more than your camera can capture and you can't expose it just right. You can either use ND filters or do digital blend as he did...
05/24/2005 02:59:40 PM · #41
Besides, you can do what kirbic did with a raw file processed just once (hint: generate a linear - gamma 1.0 - file). Interestingly, sometimes the rules prohibit one way of doing something and allow another, even when they are identical.

Does this mean Merge to HDR will be allowed, as long as it's all done from a single RAW file?


Message edited by author 2005-05-24 15:00:23.
 05/24/2005 03:09:45 PM · #42
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
1. What is the photographer trying to accomplish with the processing?

2. Was he/she successful with it?

3. Is the post processing visible? When I ask this, what I mean is can we see obvious flaws in the editing such as sharpening halos, clone/heal artifacts, or other things that just don't belong in the image.

When I look at an image that appears to be heavily processed, I don't automatically discount it as 'bad'. In most cases, what I see is good. I see some creativity and imagery that the camera won't capture on its own.

Post processing should have a purpose. The purpose should be the realization of the photographer's own vision of what the final image should look like.

I agree with most of what you said. My main concern here is #3 in your list above. Too many entries seem to get away with obvious sharpening halos, dodge/burn artifacts or things that just dont belong to the image.


05/24/2005 03:25:14 PM · #43
I would much rather all winners be visually stunning, emotion provoking images with editing flaws, than have technically-sound editing masterpieces that suck and have no point or emotion brought out in them. Personally.
 05/24/2005 03:56:53 PM · #44
Originally posted by bear_music:

Here's a quick take on your windmill with some additional processing. Is it overprocessed yet? I don't think so... Someone else might, I donno.


Thanks Robert, looks good!
 05/24/2005 04:11:58 PM · #45
Originally posted by papa:
I would much rather all winners be visually stunning, emotion provoking images with editing flaws, than have technically-sound editing masterpieces that suck and have no point or emotion brought out in them. Personally.


There's no reason a stunning image should be stuck with editing flaws, nor is there any reason an edited image can't be stunning and provoke emotion. Your concept is the recipe, the capture is your baking skill, and the editing is your presentation. Any of the three can appeal to the viewer's taste (or not), but a wise chef uses them all. ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-05-24 16:13:37.
 05/24/2005 04:19:20 PM · #46
Art is in the eye and the heart. I have been a portrait artist for over 20 years and I have found everyone likes things diffrant it dont mean any of it is wrong.
 05/24/2005 04:25:28 PM · #47
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Besides, you can do what kirbic did with a raw file processed just once (hint: generate a linear - gamma 1.0 - file). Interestingly, sometimes the rules prohibit one way of doing something and allow another, even when they are identical.

Does this mean Merge to HDR will be allowed, as long as it's all done from a single RAW file?


I don't believe that "merge to HDR" violates either the letter or the spirit of the rules, if a single capture is used as the source. As you pointed out, there are multiple ways play the extended dynamic range game, I just chose the one that was easiest for my particular shot. I'm going to have to play with "merge to HDR" to confirm that there are no "gotchas" that might impact legality... I can't imagine that there are.

Originally posted by artyste:

...it still reeks of elitism in a way...


With regard to this technique being "elitist", I'd debate that. No one complains when users of digicams that can do "double exposure" use that technique, even though DSLRs are incapable of it. Certainly that's not elitist behavior, it's just using a feaure that is there.
We shouldn't ask users not to use the full capability of their cams, which includes shooting RAW for those cams (DSLRs and digicams both) that are capable. Neither should we ask that users not take advantage of the full dynamic range of the RAW file they've just shot.


05/24/2005 04:39:22 PM · #48
Has there been a "no rules" contest before. Just let everyone post-process, edit and otherwise manipulate to their heats content. I would love to see what the creative minds here could cook up with no creative limitations. Call it "digital art" if you want, I just think if folks could express themselves freely once in awhile, it would be a relief.
 05/24/2005 04:42:50 PM · #49
Originally posted by papa:
Has there been a "no rules" contest before.


Yes, and Pedro won a ribbon in that one, too (darn ribbon hog).
 05/24/2005 04:46:44 PM · #50
Interesting! That still had a theme though.

Thanks.

Message edited by author 2005-05-24 16:50:47.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/19/2025 09:13:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 10/19/2025 09:13:57 AM EDT.