Author | Thread |
|
05/24/2005 04:48:07 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by gaurawa: Originally posted by sofapez: ... DPC is more a photographic, digital art site. |
the concern I think is dpc seems to be moving more towards digital art than photographic art. |
That's why I don't enter anymore. :( |
|
|
05/24/2005 04:53:55 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by papa: 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. |
If you like digital art that much, you might want to look at this site .
|
|
|
05/24/2005 04:54:50 PM · #53 |
Past week (or month or...) I've tried to stay out of a lot of these "issue" threads as much as possible, now gonna' add a few cents of my own.
I see a lot of very gifted and talented photograhers/artists here getting frustrated to the point of dropping out of challenges, or at least member challenges, because it's getting to be more of a challenge of hardware & software than photography.
I pushed the limits with my Daybreak shot, by adding a couple extra borders which I did check on the legality of before submitting. Rolled the dice (due to so many hating borders at the time) and came out unscathed (almost). That was about the most obvious case of taking PP over the normal, yet was very obvious it was just that - simple borders. Something that could have been done at a picture framing shop.
Now it seems that the process in member challenges is mostly about who can dig deep into PS and play the most, find the coolest filters & actions, etc. and seems the playing field isn't very level. I for one, am loving using CS2, mostly for the integrated noise removal tool and teh shadow/highlight tool, but as my demo is about to run out, will be forced to go back to basics in PS7, and maybe learn how to get around the added features of CS2. Not in my budget to upgrade my 7.0 right now. Without it, and better equipment, open challenges are becoming more attractive, due to it being basics: the photography itself, with basic enhancements.
I read a lot of threads on this site and don't think I feel alone in all this. I feel lucky that for the most part, most of what I have done PP-wise has been open challenge legal, making use of what I have and doing the PP at a basic level. Minor spot editing / cloning of a distraction, etc. will be missed in the member challenges.
Off to 5.5 land...
|
|
|
05/24/2005 04:56:04 PM · #54 |
All of these arguments fall quickly by the wayside. We are talking advance editing: any copy of the background and applied say in multiply mode is just like making another copy of the raw file one stop lower. Now, most of the modes do create states which highly alter the look of the original.
Many of these modes are more offensive and more radical than making copies from the raw to alleviate light balance control. The same principles could be used to make color alterations. Example make a copy of raw with low temperature and one with high temperature and then erase the information partially from one with selected items.
All of the above is mute because we are dealing with one single image source. The tools are there. Remember in the old film days you did the same from the original negative and then combined the negatives for a final printout. This is editing and if we use only the original and do not move elements then it is legal. Of course there are exceptions which may alter the original beyond recognition but then there is a voting team that will catch these anomalities.
Look, you must look at the image and decide if you feel rules have been broken. Your judgment here is dependent on the quality of your perception because I have met many so called experts who still retain a very poor perception of the photographic capabilities. The image stands on its own, you are the judge. What I do notice is that voters accept an image and once the process is explained to them, they want to disown it because they never dreamed that the creator employed "unorthodox" means to create the final result. Believe me, where there are minds there is revelation and inventions and there is no such thing as unorthodox.
Message edited by author 2005-05-24 17:03:50. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:05:03 PM · #55 |
Let me try to separate 'rules' from 'photographic integrity'
You can stay within basic editing rules, and still over-photopshop the final result. Even curves and contrast can be overdone to the point of creating an effect that just doesnt belong. Even though dodge/burn/USM are legal in advance editing - they can be overdone.
I tried not to get specific - but since the forum description says "Discuss challenge results here. Did the winner deserve to win, or did another photograph?", I guess its ok to say it:
When you can photoshop dust to look like fire - in my book, that has violated photographic integrity.
|
|
|
05/24/2005 05:11:43 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by BradP: ...it's getting to be more of a challenge of hardware & software than photography. |
There are plenty of winners who have used low-end cameras or minimal processing. I hear complaints about DPC becoming more about "digital art," but then I look back to some of the earliest challenges and find similar techniques. Of course, people complained THEN about the same things. If this were a film photography site, there would be people complaining about "unfair" darkroom techniques, and "elite" films.
As with any contest, you simply do the best job you can with the tools legally available to you and let the voters judge the results. I suspect that if everyone used the same exact camera and software, you'd still see a lot of familiar names scoring near the top. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:16:08 PM · #57 |
AGREED whole-heartedly. These types of discussions are fruitfull to say the least, but they really drain the joy out of it for me. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:16:40 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr: You can stay within basic editing rules, and still over-photoshop the final result. |
...and the voters will punish or praise you accordingly.
Originally posted by vfwlkr: When you can photoshop dust to look like fire - in my book, that has violated photographic integrity. |
Journalistic integrity maybe. Converting from color to reddish brown is no more radical than converting from color to B&W. Journalists are supposed to present what they see, but other photographers should present what they want YOU to see.
Message edited by author 2005-05-24 17:18:46. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:17:08 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr: Let me try to separate 'rules' from 'photographic integrity'
You can stay within basic editing rules, and still over-photopshop the final result. Even curves and contrast can be overdone to the point of creating an effect that just doesnt belong. Even though dodge/burn/USM are legal in advance editing - they can be overdone.
I tried not to get specific - but since the forum description says "Discuss challenge results here. Did the winner deserve to win, or did another photograph?", I guess its ok to say it:
When you can photoshop dust to look like fire - in my book, that has violated photographic integrity. |
I totally agree with this statement. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:19:35 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by papa: AGREED whole-heartedly. These types of discussions are fruitfull to say the least, but they really drain the joy out of it for me. |
I agree also and with you Papa.
I think most will find in the end that a preconceived notion can be a wet blanket.
:) can't spell or type.
Message edited by author 2005-05-24 17:20:43. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:23:43 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by vfwlkr: You can stay within basic editing rules, and still over-photoshop the final result. |
...and the voters will punish or praise you accordingly.
Originally posted by vfwlkr: When you can photoshop dust to look like fire - in my book, that has violated photographic integrity. |
Journalistic integrity maybe. Converting from color to reddish brown is no more radical than converting from color to B&W. Journalists are supposed to present what they see, but other photographers should present what they want YOU to see. |
I have never understood this. I have asked this before in another thread. Is it considered legal edit if I make a rainbow on an overcast day by changing colors in a sequence ? |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:30:13 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by gaurawa: Is it considered legal edit if I make a rainbow on an overcast day by changing colors in a sequence ? |
No, because then you're creating an object (a rainbow). That's no different than modifying the colors in a lake to "draw" a fish. Changing colors is OK if the object you're changing remains what it already was (an overcast sky). |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:31:10 PM · #63 |
I think he's referring to this, where the major element (RGB color) was not in the original.
|
|
|
05/24/2005 05:37:39 PM · #64 |
Before this gets locked, forget everything I said.
Never gonna' pull an 8.0 with my E-10 (last goal with it before retiring it) without all the toys available in a member challenge. |
|
|
05/24/2005 05:43:39 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by gaurawa: Is it considered legal edit if I make a rainbow on an overcast day by changing colors in a sequence ? |
No, because then you're creating an object (a rainbow). That's no different than modifying the colors in a lake to "draw" a fish. Changing colors is OK if the object you're changing remains what it already was (an overcast sky). |
I don't agree to your reasoning here. If a rainbow is considered an object, why isn't fire considered an object ? fire is quiet different from dust isn't it ?
A photograph was DQ-ed in lighting challenge for adding flares and your opinion was
Originally posted by scalvert: Lighting challenge or not, the lens flare created an object (the starburst) that forms the very focal point of your image. |
Keeping the same perspective, I think the fire (from dust) is a major element which draws attention and gives the photograph a major punch. Shouldn't this be considered adding a major element ?
I am not claiming the photo should be disqualified, but I don't think the reason you are stating here is valid. |
|
|
05/24/2005 06:15:05 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr: I think he's referring to this, where the major element (RGB color) was not in the original. |
It DOES follow the logic. The colors were changed, but no new objects or shapes were created. It was smoke, and it still is smoke. If you consider the color change itself a major element, then changing from color to sepia or selective desaturation would be similarly illegal.
I should mention that I don't care for overprocessed images either, but there is sometimes a fine line between overprocessed and enhanced. I personally feel that this one went too far, but it IS legal according to the rules, so I can only commend Eddy for his ingenuity.
Message edited by author 2005-05-24 18:31:09. |
|
|
05/24/2005 06:20:34 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by gaurawa: If a rainbow is considered an object, why isn't fire considered an object? fire is quiet different from dust isn't it? |
Sure, but maybe I don't understand which photo you're referring to. My best guess would be Goodman's elephant shot, but that's what the original looked like (just less saturated). It WAS sunlit dust and it still is sunlit dust. Whether or not it resembles fire doesn't change the fact that no shapes or objects were created that weren't already in the original. |
|
|
05/24/2005 07:04:28 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by gaurawa: If a rainbow is considered an object, why isn't fire considered an object? fire is quiet different from dust isn't it? |
Sure, but maybe I don't understand which photo you're referring to. My best guess would be Goodman's elephant shot, but that's what the original looked like (just less saturated). It WAS sunlit dust and it still is sunlit dust. Whether or not it resembles fire doesn't change the fact that no shapes or objects were created that weren't already in the original. |
Yeah, it's gotta be that one. And lord knows I produced plenty of shots back int he day that looekd pretty much just like that; for years my friends and I hung out in Baja California before the transpeninsular highway was finished, and I used to have a TON of shots of various animals and vehicles in backlit dust. Very photogenic... Some of it looked like fire WITHOUT post-processing...
R.
|
|
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 04:56:37 AM EDT.