bending the rules or cheating? - DPChallenge Forums

12/25/2002 02:26:41 PM · #26

I work with Photoshop every day in my work and teach about it in the evenings so I know (as many others) what Photoshop can do. IÂ´m not very interested in a challenge where we can manipulate even more using Photoshop. I think such a challenge will turn out to be a Photoshop challenge and not a photography ditto. I still think itÂ´s perfect to let the camera talk and not the computer.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

12/25/2002 02:41:08 PM · #27

Originally posted by carsten:

The idea of unlimited editing is not about 'manipulation'. It's about making a photo a better photo... In my mind, it's not about adding effects, adding or removing significant elements, or even changing the colors of a shirt. It's about fixing problems that can't be fixed with the camera. Most of us are not shooting in studio environments where we have complete control of the lighting. It would be nice to be able to do a little dodging and burning, dust removal, red eye reduction, zit removal, etc. I know for a fact that photos here get comments on these very things. These things are not always controllable with the camera. With unlimited editing availble, three things would happen:

1: Great photos could be even better.
2: Decent photos could become great photos
3: Poor photos could become decent photos

I think that those who do not know how to use the software to get these enhancements would quickly learn. I would even be willing to write some tutorials on using things like the dodge/burn tools, as well as the clone tool.

I think the major fear about allowing ulimited editing comes from two places.

1: Photographers who do not fully understand how to use the software
2: People who are affraid that the site will be overrun with 'digital art'.

I think that DPC is a great place to learn photography. Why can't it also be a great place to learn how to efficiently and effectively post process your photo also? After all, digital photography is for people who want to have total control over their images. In my mind, most of the images I post here are unfinished business. I could not print them as posted here.

A bad photograph will not be saved by all the editing in the world...

John Setzler

myqyl

Nikon D3100

12/25/2002 02:48:50 PM · #28

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think there must be widespread misconception about WHY unlimited editing is desired...

Or misconception as to why it is not...

-Terry

Ummm, I have no misconception on either point... The fact is I have no idea whatsoever why or why not unlimitted editting might be desired. I'm honest enough with myself to admit I haven't the faintest idea what unlimitted editting can do in the first place :)

I wonder if there is a "Gimp for Dummies" book...

12/25/2002 02:56:33 PM · #29

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

1: Great photos could be even better.
2: Decent photos could become great photos
3: Poor photos could become decent photos

1: Photographers who do not fully understand how to use the software
2: People who are affraid that the site will be overrun with 'digital art'.
John Setzler

I agree with you in most things but IÂ´ve seen great photo-clubs here in Sweden turn out to be just artwork-clubs all over. Ordinary photos have no chance at all in the contests. For me personally I think it would be very fun but I donÂ´t think itÂ´s good for this site. And itÂ´s not good for most people here.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

12/25/2002 03:01:28 PM · #30

Originally posted by carsten:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

1: Great photos could be even better.
2: Decent photos could become great photos
3: Poor photos could become decent photos

1: Photographers who do not fully understand how to use the software
2: People who are affraid that the site will be overrun with 'digital art'.
John Setzler

I agree with you in most things but IÂ´ve seen great photo-clubs here in Sweden turn out to be just artwork-clubs all over. Ordinary photos have no chance at all in the contests. For me personally I think it would be very fun but I donÂ´t think itÂ´s good for this site. And itÂ´s not good for most people here.

We just have to draw a line between what is digital art and what is photography. That line could be started with "you may not add any elements to your photograph."

myqyl

Nikon D3100

12/25/2002 03:01:30 PM · #31

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I think the major fear about allowing ulimited editing comes from two places.

1: Photographers who do not fully understand how to use the software
2: People who are affraid that the site will be overrun with 'digital art'.

John,

The first point is moot... People (i.e. me) don't know how to use the software because it's not allowed here and 'here' is where many of us spend most of our photographic time. If post processing became part of our lives at DPC we'd learn the software.

But I have to admit the second point is more problematic. One of the (many) reasons I'm interested (obsessed) with this site is it's about the camera and what we can do with it... I personally think that 'digital art' would not score well here and that 'digital artists' would come to see that fairly quickily... I think 'unlimited editing that is used to enhance rather then alter' would be a good thing, while 'unlimited editing' might be a slippery slope that would best be avoided...

12/25/2002 03:03:20 PM · #32

It's simple enough to state that the sumbission must look like a photograph.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

12/25/2002 03:03:54 PM · #33

Everyone knows that a photo can be entirely changed to still look like a photo, but to be nothing at all like the original. No one would know the difference, and boom, now a crappy photo just became prize winning. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to win every now and then, but not that way. Goto worth1000.com if you want to learn editing, it's fun and you get to edit your heart out.
An editing challenge in addition to the normal challenges is fine. If all the challenges allowed spot editing, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'd have to reconsider entering any challenges at all.
~Heather~

bamaster

Canon EOS-D30

12/25/2002 03:07:49 PM · #34

Maybe in the Members section an Alternative challenge could be added to the normal one that is offered, one that would occasioanlly allow full editing?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

12/25/2002 03:11:56 PM · #35

For me itÂ´s important when I look at a photo and I say: "WOW, this IS great!" that I know that it is genuin and not just a fake.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

12/25/2002 04:02:49 PM · #36

Originally posted by hbunch7187:

If all the challenges allowed spot editing, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'd have to reconsider entering any challenges at all.
~Heather~

For the record, I wouldn't want to see ALL challenges allow spot editing... I didn't think that was what we were talking about... I thought this was about a separate, occasional, members challenge...

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

12/26/2002 12:08:10 PM · #37

I would have SEVERE RESPECT for anyone who can use spot-editing to turn THIS intoa winning photo :)

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

12/26/2002 12:35:08 PM · #38

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

I would have SEVERE RESPECT for anyone who can use spot-editing to turn THIS intoa winning photo :)

I don't know about award winning, but it CERTAINLY would have done better than the original. My lowsy attempt HERE.
(I have a thing for turtles)
:)
Obviously, someone who knows what they are doing, and has a week to do it can do a WAY better job, to make it look like an actual photo. I'm not claiming at ALL to have done a good job with this, but it IS possible to totally transform a photo and still have it look like a photo, but look nothing like the original.
I should state that I only used the clone tool.
I supose people could do this and try to get away with it under ANY rules, but I think it leaves more possiblities if it's semi-legal.

Message edited by author 2002-12-26 12:44:38.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

12/26/2002 12:56:58 PM · #39

LOL. Now that's making lemons into lemonade.

Or wait, maybe it's um, apples into turtle soup ... or something!

Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I would have SEVERE RESPECT for anyone who can use spot-editing to turn THIS intoa winning photo :)

I don't know about award winning, but it CERTAINLY would have done better than the original. My lowsy attempt HERE.
(I have a thing for turtles)
:)

12/26/2002 01:14:51 PM · #40

Originally posted by carsten:

For me itÂ´s important when I look at a photo and I say: "WOW, this IS great!" that I know that it is genuin and not just a fake.

If you look at it and say 'wow it's great', what difference does it make?

12/26/2002 01:23:04 PM · #41

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by carsten:
For me itÂ´s important when I look at a photo and I say: "WOW, this IS great!" that I know that it is genuin and not just a fake.

If you look at it and say 'wow it's great', what difference does it make?

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnÂ´t. It depends on what kind of challenge it is. In a challenge like "Free Study" it doesnÂ´t matter but in a challenge like "Photojournalism" itÂ´s important to know that the situation is genuin and not a fake.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/26/2002 01:26:09 PM · #42

Originally posted by carsten:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by carsten:
For me itÂ´s important when I look at a photo and I say: "WOW, this IS great!" that I know that it is genuin and not just a fake.

If you look at it and say 'wow it's great', what difference does it make?

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnÂ´t. It depends on what kind of challenge it is. In a challenge like "Free Study" it doesnÂ´t matter but in a challenge like "Photojournalism" itÂ´s important to know that the situation is genuin and not a fake.

This is a 'stigma' that I have had to work hard to overcome myself. I try NOT to look at photos all the time in the 'challenge' context. I used to catch myself doing this... lol..

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

12/26/2002 01:32:55 PM · #43

If you look at it and say 'wow it's great', what difference does it make?

The difference is that I have respect for the photographic skill that went into creating the shot. I also have respect for a good PhotoShop user, but this is Digital Photography Challenge, not PhotoShop challenge. I'm a distance runner and relish the process as much as the result in most things that I do. I like the journalistic aspect of photography, even if it's producing less aesthetically-pleasing images. If you took a shot of someone who had just climbed Everest vs. someone who was standing in their backyard with the Himalayas superimposed in the background, which would you like better?

I agree that a very small amount of spot-editing would be beneficial and have its place, but any spot manipulation at all is subjective and not quantifiable. We could no longer be sure that anything was done within the bounds of the spirit of this site, and for me that would be a shame.

Message edited by author 2002-12-26 13:34:25.

12/26/2002 01:43:34 PM · #44

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

That being the case, I think we should allow scans of film and slides. Post processing with photoshop or other software is a major part of digital photography...

Patella

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

12/26/2002 01:47:45 PM · #45

I know I've seen the "burn map" for Moonrise, the one that gives visual directions about how to print Ansel Adam's famous shot, but I can't find it now. Instead, I'll quote from one of his assistants about the piece:

"Moonrise, the negative, was far from perfect. It took me two years to convince Ansel to make a 'straight' print of Moonrise. He printed it without his customary darkroom manipulation as a teaching tool to show the basic information contained within the negative. Comparing this print with a fine print, one is struck by the immense work and creativity necessary for Ansel to produce what he believed to be the best interpretation of the negative. His final, expressive print is not how the scene looked in reality, but rather how it felt to him emotionally.

"Moonrise was Ansel's most difficult negative of all to print. Though he kept careful records of darkroom information on Moonrise, each time he set up the negative, he would again establish the procedure for this particular batch of prints because papers and chemicals were always variables not constants. After determining the general exposure for the print, he gave local exposure to specific areas. Using simple pieces of cardboard, Ansel would painstakingly burn in (darken with additional light from the enlarger) the sky, which was really quite pale with streaks of cloud throughout. He was careful to hold back a bit on the moon. The mid-ground was dodged (light withheld), though the crosses have been subtly burned in. This process took Ansel more than two minutes per print of intricate burning and dodging. Ansel created Moonrise with a night sky, a luminous moon and an extraordinary cloud bank that seems to reflect the moon's brilliance. Moonrise is sleight of hand. Moonrise is magic."

I think this is the ability the majority of the people asking for spot editing want to have. Not to create something out of nothing or to add elements to a photo that were never there in the first place, but to tweak and fine tune. To remove the hot pixel. To darken something that's a bit too light or lighten something that's too dark.

To be honest, I REALLY don't see what the difference is between doing a little dodging and burning and those people who are desaturating certain colors in an image while leaving others alone. Yes, I recognize that they're technically applying it to the whole image, but in reality, that's not true. In reality, they're killing off JUST the yellow portions of the image (or choose what color you will).

Stopping here, frustration is kicking in and that doesn't make for good writing.