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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Are these over-processed ?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/05/2005 04:11:28 AM · #1
I know the blue rose thing has been done to death but I was interested in any feedback if these look over-processed?





08/05/2005 05:12:51 AM · #2
Well, I think when you turned them blue you got rid of any possibility of me saying they don't look overprocessed ;). I think I prefer the natural colors more here, but it could be the lighting that is persuading me in my opinion rather than the color. The lighting is a bit harsh for the typical flower shot (unless you were not going for the typical flower shot - which I suppose seems to be apparent, but I just thought I would mention it).

The saturation and everything else 'techincal' appear to be fine, if that's what you were asking about.
 08/05/2005 05:17:31 AM · #3
I like them. They're moody and beautiful.

Maybe stick one of them in my bottle


:)
 08/05/2005 07:18:54 AM · #4
Originally posted by skylen:
I like them. They're moody and beautiful.

Maybe stick one of them in my bottle


:)


They would go well with your bottle!
 08/05/2005 07:55:38 AM · #5
I love the whole blue rose thing, I think they look very natural, Great Job!
 08/05/2005 09:41:03 AM · #6
Bump

Anyone else ?
 08/05/2005 09:53:55 AM · #7
To me, overprocessed, means they've been worked too much. Too much contrast, too much sharpening, to smoothed from noise removal, too much saturation, etc, especially if it results in unwanted artifacts in the image (blowouts, lost shadow or detail, stark rounded edges)

Your blue roses look great. Yes, they are definitely processed, but it's only too much when you've gone past the point of improving the picture, and the processing starts detracting from what you were trying to achieve.
08/05/2005 10:57:55 AM · #8
"Overprocessing" only has meaning as a relative term: it can be applied two ways, and both are relative.

1. Is it overprocessed in terms of how the viewer likes his/her photography? (viewer-relative)

2. Is it overprocessed on its own terms, in terms of what the artist was trying to do? (artist-relative)

So to answer the question: 1. No / 2. No

1. I like to see photomanipulations and don't consider them to be "overprocessing" per se; others may disagree.

2. For this sort of photomanipulation, the processing is minimal.

Good work!

Robt.
 08/05/2005 11:18:10 AM · #9
Left you comments.
 08/05/2005 05:00:27 PM · #10
Thanks for the comments and input.

These images have no post-processing it was simply done with a blue light shinning onto pink roses. These are as seen by the eye.

This was more or less an experiment that come about from this thread

My apologies for the apparent deceit but I just wanted some people to realise digital art and photography have a synergy that has no clear divide accept when entering challenges or competitions like here, that have defined rules to operate under.

Also apologies to anyone who see's these as illusion outtakes they were not intended as such.
 08/05/2005 05:07:55 PM · #11
Originally posted by keegbow:
Thanks for the comments and input.

These images have no post-processing it was simply done with a blue light shinning onto pink roses. These are as seen by the eye.

This was more or less an experiment that come about from this thread

My apologies for the apparent deceit but I just wanted some people to realise digital art and photography have a synergy that has no clear divide accept when entering challenges or competitions like here, that have defined rules to operate under.

Also apologies to anyone who see's these as illusion outtakes they were not intended as such.


Keeg,

For those who dislike "manipulated" images, these qualify as manipulated. That you did the manipulation with light instead of PS is neither here nor there. Points up an anomaly in peoples' perceptions of HOW the thing was done (and may blow a hole or two in the "basic" ruleset premise) but won't change anyone's perception of WHAT the thing is. And a blue rose is a manipulation no matter how you got to it, right?

I'm not arguing with you by the way. It was an interesting exercise. But I'd be surprised if ANYONE came forward to say they liked the work better after they found out it's not 'shopped...

Robt.
 08/05/2005 05:14:53 PM · #12
lol, by turning them blue, u have kind of made it obious that they are over processed
08/05/2005 05:29:25 PM · #13
Originally posted by bear_music:


Keeg,

For those who dislike "manipulated" images, these qualify as manipulated. That you did the manipulation with light instead of PS is neither here nor there. Points up an anomaly in peoples' perceptions of HOW the thing was done (and may blow a hole or two in the "basic" ruleset premise) but won't change anyone's perception of WHAT the thing is. And a blue rose is a manipulation no matter how you got to it, right?

I'm not arguing with you by the way. It was an interesting exercise. But I'd be surprised if ANYONE came forward to say they liked the work better after they found out it's not 'shopped...

Robt.


I agree Rob but it was just an exercise to open minds and eyes and show that "digital art" and photography can be one.

08/05/2005 05:59:42 PM · #14
I think that bear_music has the right idea here, and a lot of the people worrying about the exact technique (on either side of the argument) are essentially missing the point.

What Ansel Adams did, for instance, was to subtly enhance the sensation of looking at a spectacular view, that you could believe you would see if you stood where the photographer stood (or at least if you stood there with eyes that worked in black and white).

What happens often at DPC is a total reworking of the scene into something that you could never possibly have seen there, using or abusing the same tools that Ansel Adams had (or their digital equivalent, anyway), to grossly alter the original capture.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this; I'm a fan of photo-art on its own terms. I do, however, far prefer images that represent at most a subtly enhanced reality, images where the impact comes from what is depicted rather than from how it is depicted, to images that are surreal or fantastic -- eye candy art. The former, to me, is photography; it is the art of recording visual history. The latter is photoartistry, the art of creating things that never existed on a photographic base. The blue flowers are borderline, an image that existed in reality only by artifice, an image that probably would never have been seen if you hadn't been intending to deceive the viewer, and from the intent to deceive, as opposed to the intent to record, I'd label it photoartistry, not photography. I could see myself deciding exactly the opposite on a very similar shot, if the shot contained context for the lighting, or was part of a photoessay that revealed the source of the lighting. A recording of how a blue light not placed specifically to tint a rose ended up tinting a rose is interesting to me.

A tinted rose is not so much. Frankly, if you're going to go that direction, go all out, discard any attempt whatsoever at realism, and photoshop whatever effects or background appeal to you into the image. It will be a more interesting and impressive image, and no more and no less a depiction of something one might have encountered in the real world.

DPC is a photoartistry site, artificially constrained by technique. A number of people come here expecting a photography site and end up a little disappointed. I find it doubly disappointing because it does it by halves -- neither realistic, nor at the limit of unreality. To a certain extent, it's not a bad thing for beginning photoartists; I plan to start submitting again once my photoshop skills improve a little, now that I have a better sense of what voters want to see. They won't be photos that I particularly like, but I need to learn how to shoot for this kind of audience as well as photojournalistic or historical audiences, and if I can end up consistently in the top 15%, I'll consider the audience type basically mastered and move on to something else.

I wouldn't mind seeing DPC split off into two sites, and two different styles of competition, actually: one version where a vision of reality is a requirement, and one where it is not, and then dump all of the restrictions on tools in advanced editing, and allow spot editing, dodging and burning in basic editing. As it is, you end up with realism-style photographers like myself who end up shaking their heads when the entries that they consistently vote scores 3 or 4 on end up taking ribbons, and the entries they vote 10 on being buried below the 50% mark. It's enough to discourage a person from voting at all, or particularly from commenting. My advice in my comments is probably going to be frequently bad, from the perspective of getting a higher score on DPC... the stuff I like, nobody else does.

I can't stand the top two entries in Wooden, for instance, though I admit to liking the third. I was highly entertained when the blue ribbon winner showed up in the postprocessing mentorship lesson... and I liked both the unprocessed image and most of the student results better than the winning version. :)

As I've posted before, I don't really see any point in ranting about it, or attempting to convert other forum readers, but I wanted to try and describe what goes on in my head when I'm looking at an image, and why it is that I (and I suspect a number of others like me) don't like the way that the rules work, or consider most of the images 'overprocessed'.

It's not really about the processing when that word is used. It's about the vision.
 08/05/2005 06:02:00 PM · #15
Postscript, just because I have an evil streak a mile wide:

I fully intend, the next time there is a debate about overprocessed images or photography vs. photoart, to argue that the limits should be done away with completely, since obviously the results will be self-correcting via the voters. I think it will be highly entertaining to watch all of the people in favor of the way things are now to suddenly change sides and argue for limits.
 08/05/2005 06:08:32 PM · #16
Originally posted by Telephoto:
lol, by turning them blue, u have kind of made it obious that they are over processed


though it might be difficult to reproduce this effect exactly, would you call a print i made in the color darkroom, with an overpowering cyan hue over-processed? For some reason I don't think many people would. Many things done in photoshop can be done on film, it just takes a lot more time and hard work to be very precise.

but to answer the question, no i dont think this is overprocessed. This effect could even be achieved with clever lighting and no photoshop.
It still is an obvious photograph.

Message edited by author 2005-08-05 18:09:27.
 08/05/2005 11:39:53 PM · #17
Originally posted by petrakka:
This effect could even be achieved with clever lighting and no photoshop.
It still is an obvious photograph.


Petrakka, a half-dozen posts or so up, he told us he did it with blue lighting and NO photoshopping...

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 06:26:06 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: 09/21/2025 06:26:06 AM EDT.