| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/16/2002 09:15:53 AM · #1 |
My friends,
This is possibly going to give away my photo to a couple of you -- or it may make some of you think my photo is a different one than it actually is. So be it.
Before you comment that a photo of being tilted or rotated from where you think it should be, especially if the tilt/rotation is very minimal, you might want to check it in an image editing program. I''ve got a couple of comments that mine is tilted/rotated and if that''s the truly case, then Photoshop has got some serious problems with its guidelines function.
I know how easy it can be to see the tilt that isn''t there. I''ve thought a photo was rotated before, pulled it into PS and realized I was wrong. I think some of it may be an illusion created by rounded screens -- especially when the image is closer to one edge or another of the screen.
I''m not going to go so far as to say that my photo is perfectly straight -- as soon as I do someone will prove to me that it''s .0915 degrees off center -- but perceptually it''s pretty much as straight as you can get it.
2 Cents
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/16/2002 9:25:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2002 11:40:36 AM · #2 |
As an addendum -- how many people out there sit squarely in front of their monitors when voting even though the image may be left of center?
That's the only reason I can see that might account for people saying my image isn't straight -- as I look at it from a bit of an angle, it looks a little tilted, but if I move so I'm straight on, it straightens out.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2002 11:49:20 AM · #3 |
| One of my thoughts on this issue is that perspectives sometimes give the illusion of tilt when there is no real tilt. If you look at a vertical compared to one side of an image and see tilt, do you see tilt in the opposite direction on the other side of the image? |
|
|
|
07/16/2002 12:16:15 PM · #4 |
patella..I c=don''t know which one is yours so I''ll pick on a photo that may fit this description.
Sun, Moon, Star looks tilted to me.
I''ve taken it into photoshop and it''s a perspective distortion. Nothing you can do about that within the rules and I take that into account BUT..it is distorted and that is a fact. It also seems..(seems ) that the shot was taken from a very slight offset instead of straigt on.
Now..I don''t know who''s photo this is..I like it and take all the distortion stuff with a grain of salt BUT....I am a photog here so I cut slack that others may not.
Hey, my photo is strictly an art piece and people say they don''t "get" it. Why come to a photo sight looking to get all the art..Do you go to the National Museum trying to get everything? so I say..take the lumps and swing at em next week..:-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/16/2002 12:18:59 PM. |
|
|
|
07/16/2002 12:43:50 PM · #5 |
Hokie,
I think that's a good example. From what I see, everything you've mentioned seems to be true. I also took it into Photoshop and if you look at the horizontals and if you take a vertical reading from the center of the buidling (and not the sides) everything lines up square.
If I look at the photo straight on, the perspective is noticeable, but it fits the shot. If I look at it slightly from the side, things start to look tilted.
I guess what I'm trying to do with this thread, however inelegantly, is educate the people commenting. Ultimately, I'm not crushed if a photo doesn't do as well as I'd hoped for whatever reason. I've had what I consider to be some truly good shots that haven't done nearly as well as I think they deserve and I'm still here. (Also had some that I think scored better than they should have.) But we talk about this being a learning site -- does that only apply to the photographers? Or can we teach everybody looking at the photos new things too? (Both through the content and through discussions like this.)
Let's teach people about perspective distortion and similar photographic "standards" so we can help them better see what we're presenting.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2002 01:08:56 PM · #6 |
Patella, I agree with you 100%. I guess what I think is that unless we get a technical section to help folks with setting up their monitors and understanding other camera tech stuff its gonna be hard to get everyone on the same page.
And you are elegant in your comments..maybe too much...be goofy, disruptive and generally curmudgeony like me :-P
It's no more effective but its hella fun!!!! |
|
|
|
07/19/2002 07:02:14 PM · #7 |
I am missing the point here, I guess. Let me assume for this discussion that the sun moon pic IS tilted slightly. Is there any reason to believe that that was not deliberate?
What is it with taking it into PS and measuring the angles of someone else's shot! If the challenge said: "post a pic that is 100% level", then I could understand, but .... |
|
|
|
07/19/2002 07:21:10 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jakking:
I am missing the point here, I guess. Let me assume for this discussion that the sun moon pic IS tilted slightly. Is there any reason to believe that that was not deliberate?
What is it with taking it into PS and measuring the angles of someone else''s shot! If the challenge said: "post a pic that is 100% level", then I could understand, but ....
Well, if people don''t want other people to critique, discuss or reference their photo in any way what so ever then don''t post here.
Taking the photo into Photoshop was just a more accurate way of measureing if the funny angles were improper rotation or simply perspective distortion that is common when shooting large buildings.
And the challenge doesnt'' say post a pic 100% level, but perspective correction is assumed to be part of the technical hurdles a photographer may have to overcome. The site doesn''t say get your focus right either but you will be critiqued for it ..intentional or not..jsut read some other threads on THAT subject :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/19/2002 7:37:59 PM. |
|
|
|
07/19/2002 08:14:45 PM · #9 |
I may get into trouble for this, but here goes anyway for the sake of discussion:
If you are in an art gallery, do you take a photo/painting/art work down from the wall, and somehow measure it with photoshop or other means (levels, sextants, etc.), or do you evaluate it as you see it? |
|
|
|
07/19/2002 10:19:50 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
I may get into trouble for this, but here goes anyway for the sake of discussion:
If you are in an art gallery, do you take a photo/painting/art work down from the wall, and somehow measure it with photoshop or other means (levels, sextants, etc.), or do you evaluate it as you see it?
I evaluate it as I see it, but the human eye is capable of determining angles to about 1/2-degree. I can usually spot something a little off the vertical (especially) -- I often help people hang pictures straight (how many people put a level on top of the frame?). In a gallery, there is not the distortion problem caused by viewing a slightly curved image (on the monitor), perhaps from an angle as well, and through several layers of glass. Of course, anyone who has uncorrected astigmatism (1 vote here!) will introduce their own "errors." |
|
|
|
07/19/2002 11:42:13 PM · #11 |
| If it takes bringing it into an editing program to determine that something is not perfectly vertical or horizontal, then it the tilt is not enought to even worry about... |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 12:54:24 AM · #12 |
I have always seen this site as a learning site like a class room where you dissect, examine and discuss well beyond the ordinary "art gallery" exhibit.
Even in art galleries people discuss brush strokes, color usage, angles of attack or whatever. If we are going to get so selective here about just how detailed a discussion we are allowed to have it sorta defeats the student aspect to some degree. Then we are just another photsig or other digital photo contest site.
I can't see anything wrong with looking at the technical aspects of a photo for discussion, especially as they pertain to elements common to photography in general.
No one was making unfair comments about anything, it was just a technical discussion about a random photo that exhibits common perspective issues found in millions of photos like it.
Jeesh... |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 01:11:36 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If it takes bringing it into an editing program to determine that something is not perfectly vertical or horizontal, then it the tilt is not enought to even worry about...
I don't think the point in bringing it into photoshop was to see if it was tilted. The photo DID appear titled to the naked eye, and in my opinion that detracted from that particular photo. The point in opening it in photoshop was to see whether the photo was actually titled or if it was just an optical illusion or some other aberration. As it turns out, the majority of the photo isn't really tilted, making it more of an illusion than anything else. I think Hokie et al were just trying to illustrate the technical hurdles presented by this type of photography.
- Mike
|
|
|
|
07/20/2002 01:16:01 AM · #14 |
Sorry if I upset you today, Hokie - in this and another thread. Not my intention. I''ll shut up now, as I''m in a foul mood anyway.
Peace!? ;0)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/20/2002 1:15:49 AM. |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 01:32:18 AM · #15 |
No offense taken or nothing..:-)
I'll be the first to admit I get involved in discussions of technical minutia that may seem totally unimportant to the big picture. Other folks talk about challenge subjects or meeting the challenge, site rules or other topics I don't particapate in as much so I guess it all evens out.
mci is right about the photoshop thing but then again..I download lots of photos from this site and fiddle around with em in photoshop. It's so easy I never think much about the process I guess. =) |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 11:24:00 AM · #16 |
The reason I often take photos from this site into Photoshop is to make informed comments about a photograph. Since I hate it when someone makes a suggestion that I know I can't follow through on (at least not without "cheating"), I try to avoid doing the same. So, unless it's very definitely a "problem" with levels adjustment, rotation, or whatever, I pull it in to make sure my comment is actually useful and viable. Then, if I'm wrong, I usually say something like, "At first, I was going to comment on X, but then I looked at it in Photoshop and I was wrong (or I couldn't figure out how to fix it myself)." That way the photog knows that there was a perceived problem, but that there may not be anything they can do about it, or perhaps even need to do anything about.
Hokie,
How would you suggest to fix perception distortion? Like I said, in camera, I only know to use one of the special lenses (do they make them for digicams?) or a view camera with a tiltable back? |
|
|
|
07/20/2002 11:55:02 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Patella:
The reason [i]I often take photos from this site into Photoshop is to make informed comments about a photograph. Since I hate it when someone makes a suggestion that I know I can't follow through on (at least not without "cheating"), I try to avoid doing the same. So, unless it's very definitely a "problem" with levels adjustment, rotation, or whatever, I pull it in to make sure my comment is actually useful and viable. Then, if I'm wrong, I usually say something like, "At first, I was going to comment on X, but then I looked at it in Photoshop and I was wrong (or I couldn't figure out how to fix it myself)." That way the photog knows that there was a perceived problem, but that there may not be anything they can do about it, or perhaps even need to do anything about.
Hokie,
How would you suggest to fix perception distortion? Like I said, in camera, I only know to use one of the special lenses (do they make them for digicams?) or a view camera with a tiltable back?[/i]
Well said on the Photoshop stuff Patella. I do the same thing...just try to use photoshop to make sure I dont give a 'shoot from the hip' technical comment that can't be actually corrected.
This distortion affect always occurs with long lines..parallax (sp?) or convergence or whatever the official name of the distortion is natural in architecture shots.
Not to pick on the the Sun, Moon Stars photo but ..since we already opened that pandoras box.. Often times the only way to avoid the slight distortion created by convergence without resorting to edits that are against the rules here is to get as much in the middle of the building as you can. Like maybe getting in an opposite hill or another building that gets you higher up.
That is often an impossibility so graphic people who make use of a lot of architectural photos HAVE to resort to Photoshop or other software convergence allignment edits.
This site is at a weird junction. We don't allow Photoshop edits that every person in the known graphics universe uses to correct photographic images YET many voters hold every photo submitted to the challenges to the same level of perfection we see everyday in photos that HAVE BEEN corrected.
I understand and take into account the limitations of the edits here when I vote but I see many voters do not which hurts or may limit a lot of architectural photography. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 01:36:15 AM · #18 |
| Not everyone has Photoshop... I can't afford it. Not everyone is as skilled at using it if they do have it. Personally, I won't judge a photo by whether or not I could edit it to make it better. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 01:44:37 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by iggy386:
Not everyone has Photoshop... I can't afford it. Not everyone is as skilled at using it if they do have it. Personally, I won't judge a photo by whether or not I could edit it to make it better.
Well said :) The real art is learning to make the camera capture your image the way you want it to. I have only managed to do that once for a dpc challenge photo... This Photo is the only one I have done NO editing to before I posted it... other than a resize, this is right out of the camera... |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 01:48:51 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by iggy386:
[i]Not everyone has Photoshop... I can't afford it. Not everyone is as skilled at using it if they do have it. Personally, I won't judge a photo by whether or not I could edit it to make it better.
Well said :) The real art is learning to make the camera capture your image the way you want it to. I have only managed to do that once for a dpc challenge photo... This Photo is the only one I have done NO editing to before I posted it... other than a resize, this is right out of the camera...[/i]
With my limited software (and skill), all I have ever done to my pictures is crop and rotate. I'll have to learn how to mess with colors and stuff like that.
Oh...and I like that photo. :)
Mark |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 02:40:48 AM · #21 |
Iggy,
I'm sorry -- I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't trying to say I'd judge a photo based on how well it had been edited -- or whether or not I, specifically, could edit it to make it look better.
In some cases, I look at a photo and think, "You know, I wonder what that might look like in B&W," or "I wonder if a bit more saturation might be helpful." Instead of just making such a comment, I actually make those changes myself. Sometimes, my idea isn't useful and sometimes it is. I pass them along as such. I'm really trying to do this for the benefit of the photographer. Going back to the way this discussion started, if I perceive that something has a slight tilt but I'm not sure, taking it into PS lets me know whether or not I'm right. If I'm right, I can point it out with "authority." If I'm wrong, I might comment that it seems tilted, but I don't let my misperception influence my vote.
I also want to point something out to the population of dpc at large that has been said before -- and I think that many of us already recognize. While I totally love the idea of this site, and in some cases think that we're given too much freedom to use Photoshop, I think we all too often overlook the fact that the overwhelming majority of photographs we see in our daily lives have been touched up. I bet if you walked into just about any photo gallery and asked to see a "straight" photo, they'd have a hard time showing you one. There's a little burn there, or a dodge here, or some monkeying around with the saturation.
"Ansel Adams often said that the negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance."1 We're using digital negatives, but the same holds true. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 09:52:01 AM · #22 |
What else is available in a photo-editing program that we are not allowed to use that is equivalent to what is available to a traditional darkroom besides dodge and burn (which would require spot editing)?
(Not an invoker, or harrassment - an honest question).
|
|
|
|
07/21/2002 09:56:47 AM · #23 |
I am all for voting based on how the picture is presented on the site, since that is how it is entered, but I would be all for having someone move my phto over to photoshop so that they could give comments and advice.
I am terrible with it myself, and could use the help. Always feel I am loosing so much when I downsize my picture, just want to try and get it as close to thge original when I play around in Photoshop to get the picture on the site. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 01:56:01 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Patella:
....Going back to the way this discussion started, if I perceive that something has a slight tilt but I''m not sure, taking it into PS lets me know whether or not I''m right. If I''m right, I can point it out with "authority." If I''m wrong, I might comment that it [i]seems tilted, but I don''t let my misperception influence my vote.[/i]
It was noted a while ago on one of the threads here, or was floating around somewhere else in the universe that Ansel Adams was less concerned with how something ''really'' looked than how it was ''supposed'' to look. Now don''t go jumping down my throat with both feet, but I''m just wondering if all this looking at photos by degrees and inches isn''t missing the point. I''ll admit I never even thought of taking a picture into Photoshop to check out this and that (and I''ve been using it since v. 1.07). I''m more concerned with what the artist was trying to say, and my comments deal with aspects of vocabulary.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/21/2002 1:59:21 PM. |
|
|
|
07/21/2002 03:01:07 PM · #25 |
Sheyingshi,
First, I don't take offense at all. :-) Second, even though it might not seem like it from this thread, I agree with you. The problem we have here, as I perceive it, is that some people do things intentionally, and some don't. One person may have added a little bit of a tilt intentionally to make the viewer feel off balance when looking at the picture, and another may not even be aware of the fact that their picture doesn't line up properly.
Originally, I had a complaint. People were making comments on my photo this week that, with a little time spent looking at the picture, they could know themselves simply weren't accurate. I have theories, some coming from this thread, as to why they were making the commetns they were. My using PS to check things out is simply a time saving device -- when we've got over 100 pictures to look through, instead of sitting with a picture for a while and finding all those little clues that tell someone a picture is centered, or if the levels are good, or whatever, I can play with it quickly and know and move on. On top of that, I don't always know if my monitor is in some way distorting the image. I think I have my monitor adjusted properly both at work and at home. However, I also have a flat screen at work, but not at home. In using PS to check things out, I'm trying to give the photog the benefit of the doubt. If it checks out, then I have monitor issues. If it doesn't then maybe the photog does -- or maybe it's intentional. If it's an accident, they learn something and they can work on fixing it the next time. If it's intentional, the photog can write me back and say, "You didn't get it -- I did it on purpose and this is why..." and then I learn something.
In a normal situation, an artist creates something and everybody who sees the piece literally sees the same piece. (Yes, lighting changes, position that you're looking at changes, interpretations change etc. But the piece itself is always the same.) We do something completely different. We create a piece and every single person who views it, unless they're looking at it on your monitor, sees it slightly differently. There isn't a thing we can do about it other than hope that other monitors are at least comparabel to yours. In effect, we're voting on as many different versions of the piece as there are voters.
It might be a "Type A" kind of thing to do, but in taking something into PS, I'm trying to get closer to that original piece.
I don't know if any of that makes sense. But that's my goal. Not to go "AHA! You screwed up by 4.6 degrees..." but to say, "OK, I am seeing a tilt and it's not just me and/or my monitor." From there I move on to look at the piece and ask myself, "Does the tilt work for me?" |
|
