| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2005 04:11:12 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Just a moment ago an s/c suggested that darkening a plain blue sky could be questionable. Is this the way you want the rules. If the S/C unite and speak with one voice, wouldn't that be better? |
The following image finished 15th of 267 in "Leading Lines II". Note the photographer's notes re: gradient. This is the kind of thing Dan is talking about. Does anyone seriously think this is an unacceptable manipulation of the image? Does this sort of time-honored burning in of the edges or perimeters of an image in any way destroy its "integrity"?
If you think it does, then a significant portion of the canon of great photography is a sham in your eyes, including much of the work of virtually any fine landscape photographer you can name.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:16:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Just a moment ago an s/c suggested that darkening a plain blue sky could be questionable. Is this the way you want the rules. If the S/C unite and speak with one voice, wouldn't that be better? |
The following image finished 15th of 267 in "Leading Lines II". Note the photographer's notes re: gradient. This is the kind of thing Dan is talking about. Does anyone seriously think this is an unacceptable manipulation of the image? Does this sort of time-honored burning in of the edges or perimeters of an image in any way destroy its "integrity"?
If you think it does, then a significant portion of the canon of great photography is a sham in your eyes, including much of the work of virtually any fine landscape photographer you can name.
Robt. |
This image also wasn't disqualified, nor was any significant attempt to *have* it DQd made.. I don't understand your point?
The battle of "photographic integrity" will go on forever.
My point is that the quest for the perfect rules is like any quest of perfection, it will end in nothing but failure.
Saying that, there's no reason why changes and tweaks *can't* be made, but such a wholesale frustration with the current ruleset really boggles my mind. The SC disagree, but I think history speaks for itself.. MOST DQs are pretty accurate given the rules, and most of the time the SC makes the right decision, in the end. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:17:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Speaking as karmat, and not SC, (I am allowed to do that, aren't I?), it seems the more we try to clarify, the muddier it gets. It's kind of like that legal smallprint at the bottom of something. Instead of saying "buy at your own risk" it takes like a gazillion words.
As far as having "one" chieftan among the council, I think that while it may make things simpler in the short term, it the long term it would just make them worse. And I don't see it addressing what I see to be graphicfunk's concern (the need for more clarification, but if that is too simple, blame it on sleep deprivation) |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe to have a good understanding of the rules as posted. I see the loopholes and how I can close them, but then those that know better have resisted the chamge. Fine, I live with it as it is. But then consider the following:
A landscape image with a plain blue sky receives a slight darkening as the sky rises to the top of the frame. To me, this was legal from day one. Today i see a s/c member question this by misidentifying the color or tonal attribute to the actual object itself. So, this to me, is going backwards. Should not the entire s/c be very well versed in the rules? If they confuse objects with their attributes the confusion will only multiply. But then, each s/c goes on their own independent way and if you ask a is this legal they say yes and then b votes it down. I think i am missing something here. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:17:48 PM · #29 |
I can agree alot with graphicfunks assessment.
And what Brent_Ward said about paying members being able to create within their own pix.
Maybe, there should be one more type of challenge for members only that includes element manipulation. Call it FX Challenge or something.
Having someone to oversee the SC is a good idea, and having a quality standard is and extremly good idea. Hell, look at the Critique Club. Any joe shmoe with a camera that has no clue can be in the CC.
There definetly is alot of inconsistencies in this site.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:25:24 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Just a moment ago an s/c suggested that darkening a plain blue sky could be questionable. Is this the way you want the rules. If the S/C unite and speak with one voice, wouldn't that be better? |
The following image finished 15th of 267 in "Leading Lines II". Note the photographer's notes re: gradient. This is the kind of thing Dan is talking about. Does anyone seriously think this is an unacceptable manipulation of the image? Does this sort of time-honored burning in of the edges or perimeters of an image in any way destroy its "integrity"?
If you think it does, then a significant portion of the canon of great photography is a sham in your eyes, including much of the work of virtually any fine landscape photographer you can name.
Robt. |
This image also wasn't disqualified, nor was any significant attempt to *have* it DQd made.. I don't understand your point?
The battle of "photographic integrity" will go on forever.
My point is that the quest for the perfect rules is like any quest of perfection, it will end in nothing but failure.
Saying that, there's no reason why changes and tweaks *can't* be made, but such a wholesale frustration with the current ruleset really boggles my mind. The SC disagree, but I think history speaks for itself.. MOST DQs are pretty accurate given the rules, and most of the time the SC makes the right decision, in the end. |
No, of course it wasn't DQ'd, nor should it have been. The point is that there is currently some discussion among SC, disagreement or disputation, that adding such a gradient is "adding an element" and is not allowed under the rules. Daniel is trying to address, in specific, a recurrent confusion both of us see between an "element" and its "attributes", and the distinction is critical. There are other confusions around as well, but this one happens to be on the table as an example.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:29:05 PM · #31 |
Can we all go back to taking pictures now? If you just wan't to sit here and argue, send your SLRs to me and I'll put them to use until you get this resolved. ;O)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:29:41 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Just a moment ago an s/c suggested that darkening a plain blue sky could be questionable. Is this the way you want the rules. If the S/C unite and speak with one voice, wouldn't that be better? |
The following image finished 15th of 267 in "Leading Lines II". Note the photographer's notes re: gradient. This is the kind of thing Dan is talking about. Does anyone seriously think this is an unacceptable manipulation of the image? Does this sort of time-honored burning in of the edges or perimeters of an image in any way destroy its "integrity"?
If you think it does, then a significant portion of the canon of great photography is a sham in your eyes, including much of the work of virtually any fine landscape photographer you can name.
Robt. |
This image also wasn't disqualified, nor was any significant attempt to *have* it DQd made.. I don't understand your point?
The battle of "photographic integrity" will go on forever.
My point is that the quest for the perfect rules is like any quest of perfection, it will end in nothing but failure.
Saying that, there's no reason why changes and tweaks *can't* be made, but such a wholesale frustration with the current ruleset really boggles my mind. The SC disagree, but I think history speaks for itself.. MOST DQs are pretty accurate given the rules, and most of the time the SC makes the right decision, in the end. |
No, of course it wasn't DQ'd, nor should it have been. The point is that there is currently some discussion among SC, disagreement or disputation, that adding such a gradient is "adding an element" and is not allowed under the rules. Daniel is trying to address, in specific, a recurrent confusion both of us see between an "element" and its "attributes", and the distinction is critical. There are other confusions around as well, but this one happens to be on the table as an example.
Robt. |
from what I understand the discussion is about the difference between adding a gradient to a non-existing sky, or having a gradient enhance one that is already there.
A pretty large difference in my books. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:31:43 PM · #33 |
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:32:33 PM · #34 |
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:33:54 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
...because the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site. It's really a win-win for everybody.
There was a huge uproar before advanced editing rules, I didn't see a lot of people leave after that was brought into place.
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 16:36:14.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:35:55 PM · #36 |
I'm here for the knowledge in the forums. The challenges really do not interest me.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:36:23 PM · #37 |
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
...because the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site. It's really a win-win for everybody. |
::nods at BaddBoyy I understand
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
I'm here for the knowledge in the forums. The challenges really do not interest me. |
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 16:38:54. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:37:34 PM · #38 |
If the most experienced shooters left, who would you learn from?
Originally posted by di53:
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
...because the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site. It's really a win-win for everybody. |
|
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:39:27 PM · #39 |
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If the most experienced shooters left, who would you learn from?
Originally posted by di53:
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
...because the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site. It's really a win-win for everybody. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:41:27 PM · #40 |
I answered twice, not my fault you don't get it. ;o)
Originally posted by di53:
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If the most experienced shooters left, who would you learn from?
Originally posted by di53:
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
...because the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site. It's really a win-win for everybody. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:42:57 PM · #41 |
its not my fault you are not answering my question....
so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I answered twice, not my fault you don't get it. ;o)
Originally posted by di53:
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If the most experienced shooters left, who would you learn from?
Originally posted by di53:
That didnt answer my question... so i repeat:
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
...because the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site. It's really a win-win for everybody. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:43:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
Di, is this a retorical question you are asking?
When people have a great interest in a site, (or a country for that matter) and wish it well, and see what they perceive as a possible danger to that wellness, they speak up. This is, I believe, what this discussion is about. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:45:06 PM · #43 |
No, this isnt retorical...
its an honest question
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
Di, is this a retorical question you are asking?
When people have a great interest in a site, (or a country for that matter) and wish it well, and see what they perceive as a possible danger to that wellness, they speak up. This is, I believe, what this discussion is about. |
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:45:13 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:45:59 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by di53:
No, this isnt retorical...
its an honest question
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
|
Originally posted by Brent Ward:
the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site[/b] |
That's a direct answer. What are you looking for?
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 16:46:19.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:48:06 PM · #46 |
Thats not an answer to my question..
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by di53:
No, this isnt retorical...
its an honest question
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?
|
Originally posted by Brent Ward:
the more experienced shooters want to see improvements made to enhance the overall experience of the site[/b] |
That's a direct answer. What are you looking for? |
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:48:21 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
If you join a shoe club and members suggest a better way to make the shoes, does this indicate that they are unhappy or perhaps that by pooling all the knowledge you can to produce a better shoe. Is this bad? And then if I were so unhappy why would I want to comment on so many images?
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 16:52:02. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:50:14 PM · #48 |
| Di - about six or seven of us have tried to answer your question. Perhaps you should rephrase your question if these answers are not sufficient. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:50:34 PM · #49 |
You arent answerign my question, Dan... the question was
why are you still on this site if you are unhappy here?
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
If you join a shoe club and members suggest a better way to make the shoes, does this indicate that they are unhappy or perhaps that pooling all the knowledge you can to produce a better shoe. Is this bad? And then if i were so unhappy whu would i want to commeny on so many images? |
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:51:41 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by di53:
Thats not an answer to my question.. |
Your question is about someone being "unhappy" - the post is about people wanting improvements to the site - being unsatisfied.
Why are we unsatisfied is the question we can answer - and "because we would like to see improvements" is the answer.
Nobody said they are "unhappy" with the site - those are YOUR words.
Why would we want to improve the site? That's a sort of silly question.
|
|
