| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2006 05:07:00 PM · #1 |
I originally posted this in the "To all members and the S/C" thread, but I think it will get lost so I am restating it in a new thread.
Have an additional weekly member challenge with no editing rules (anything goes). There should still be challenge descriptions, but entries could be an unedited photo, digital art, or anything in between. This could either be open to current members (I think you should be able to enter both member challenges and one open challenge), or have two membership levels with one as it is now and the second to include the new challenges. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:09:02 PM · #2 |
| I like the idea of the challenge but member levels I dont:) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:24:20 PM · #3 |
I think more like, additional photoshop liberties, but maybe "no holds barred" opens it up to more of a digital art thing. Dunno.
I could put a model on the moon with no rules.
But hey, if that's what people want to do, go for it.
I would like digital composites, like using several pictures you actually took and then put together later, like stitched panoramas and stuff, and complete removal of more major elements (like Joey's "screen saver" ropes), but not major additions. That's just me.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 17:25:35.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:34:43 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Gordon has neatly summarized why the definitions of the existing editing classes are so resistant to change. The risk in changing them is that in moving the skill level higher to keep pace with with the current group of participants, we cut off the flow of new talent because the level of the current participants is too daunting.
Adding a third level of participation with less restriction is another alternative. It has been discussed before, but not in the recent past. This something that the SC would have input to, but the ultimate decisions on the "roadmap" for the future of the site lie with the admins. |
I originally posted the above in the other thread, but will cross-post it here since this thread is intended to discuss that specific suggestion.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:42:38 PM · #5 |
| I'd like to see a third tier with no much more relaxed restrictions but one that would still require the end result to resemble a photo. I'm not interested in seeing your daughter's head pasted on Godzillas body skateboarding off the roof of your barn. I think we can extend our rules quite a bit before we hit digital art. I'd hate to have dpc be worth1000two.com |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:45:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by mk:
I'd like to see a third tier with no much more relaxed restrictions but one that would still require the end result to resemble a photo. I'm not interested in seeing your daughter's head pasted on Godzillas body skateboarding off the roof of your barn. I think we can extend our rules quite a bit before we hit digital art. I'd hate to have dpc be worth1000two.com |
obviously photos that are retouched to much would not score well. Let the voters decide what is too much, especially if it's not a weekly event. :D
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:47:49 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by mk:
I'd like to see a third tier with no much more relaxed restrictions but one that would still require the end result to resemble a photo. I'm not interested in seeing your daughter's head pasted on Godzillas body skateboarding off the roof of your barn. I think we can extend our rules quite a bit before we hit digital art. I'd hate to have dpc be worth1000two.com |
obviously photos that are retouched to much would not score well. Let the voters decide what is too much, especially if it's not a weekly event. :D |
Hey now, I can have an opinion too. :P
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:49:23 PM · #8 |
I think that an almost "no holds barred" challenge would be really interesting. There are some amazing talents out there in regards to PS and it would be fascinating what might get entered. I think it would still have to originate with a photo and from only one photo, although a composite challenge could provide some incredible shots as well.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:53:13 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
obviously photos that are retouched to much would not score well. Let the voters decide what is too much |
Photos that are retouched well could score very high, and the voters wouldn't know until the end. Similarly, there will be some who assume an image was retouched and score it low when in fact it was a straight photo and a lot of work. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:53:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mk:
I'd like to see a third tier with no much more relaxed restrictions but one that would still require the end result to resemble a photo. I'm not interested in seeing your daughter's head pasted on Godzillas body skateboarding off the roof of your barn. I think we can extend our rules quite a bit before we hit digital art. I'd hate to have dpc be worth1000two.com |
I agree. The problem is writing sensible, enforceable rules for it that everyone (or anyone actually) can agree upon.
I know what I think is, or isn't acceptable when it comes to my own personal ethical boundaries for editing. I know what I think a photograph is and where digital art starts or stops.
But I doubt I could write it down in any meaningful, unambiguous way that wouldn't be prone to misunderstandings or allowing stuff that other perfectly rational, sensible people wouldn't consider as photographs.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:03:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
obviously photos that are retouched to much would not score well. Let the voters decide what is too much |
Photos that are retouched well could score very high, and the voters wouldn't know until the end. Similarly, there will be some who assume an image was retouched and score it low when in fact it was a straight photo and a lot of work. |
I always come back to the discussions around this 
image when this sort of discussion starts up. Just recently I got a comment on it praising the use of gaussian blur. I'm sure many people believe this is a lot of photoshop trickery or advanced editing.
Even at the time there were plenty of people lineing up to tell me it wasn't a photograph and owed its appeal to my editing.
Except they are wrong. I removed a couple of dust spots. I tweaked the contrast. This shot is about the purest photograph I've taken and entered in a contest. It was all done with light.
Now if I entered this in a no-holds barred, photoshop what you like challenge, I'm sure everyone would assume I'd taken a picture of a paintbrush and then done everthing else in photoshop. Many would no doubt mark it down as a result of being digital effects and trickery - and I wouldn't have liked that.
Now what bends my noodle is, why should I care ? Does the end result matter more or less than the process ? I tend to argue that the end result is more important than how you get there (at least for photography, if not in life) So should it matter if I created this with clever lighting or clever photoshop ?
And if not, why would I be bothered that I'd get marked down for it, or not get the recognition that I want for my camera skills ? This is probably because all the voters on here are photographers to one degree or another and as a result many are unable to actually look at a picture without worrying about how it was made. Too caught up in the technical issues to actually see the image for what it is.
I'm certainly guilty of that. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:04:10 PM · #12 |
I can see the fun in such, but it should be only a few such challenges per year. They should also have more than 5 days time IMHO. Kinda like a "x Month Free Study"
Here are my suggestions
The Perfect Photo Challenges Class: the point is to open the door to allow you to perfect your photo to the best of your abilities so as to portray your desired intent.
- 4 per year: (Fall/Spring/Summer/Winter)
- Photo must be based on a single photo but may allow 2 additional photos as composite additions
- Submitted photo must resememble primary photo
- Effects are open, but realize over use will likely not go over well with voters.
- You may re-locate and delete major elements.
(In other words, you could erase the big light and extend the background.
Or dodge/burn/clone/brush the gaps in this photo
to get this desired photo
You could take two pictures of a moon over a city one with the city well exposed and the other with the moon well exposed and combine them.
But in the end, it would still need to have photographic merit and would need to be clearly based on the primary photo.
Whether these scores & ribbons should be totalled - I am not sure. Perhaps see how well the challenge works.
But I like the idea of these being the "Perfect Photo" challenges in that it denotes the goal. That the opened/loosened rules are there for you to perfect your photo as opposed to creating digital artwork.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:22:02 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
why would I be bothered that I'd get marked down for it, or not get the recognition that I want for my camera skills? |
What bothers me is that some people are so ready to make assumptions and punish you for digital art, when you might have invested a lot of time and effort to get the shot in-camera. I already get plenty of comments from people who gave me a 2 or 3, then realize after the challenge that it really WAS a photo and would have given me a much higher score. Maybe I'm being petty, but at least by not allowing "anything goes" editing there is some assurance that the image isn't just a Photoshop composite or filter.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 18:22:25. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:29:10 PM · #14 |
Personally, I don't like the idea. Then again, I just don't have to enter it either. But just to make my point, I like that there are boundries in editing here. It keeps everyones skill levels within boundries other than experience in photography, or certain equipment. If it starts getting into digital art, and we see babies growing out of flower heads, and pigs flying, then that would really be a bummer. I think that there are sites for that stuff already somewhere, but I am personally more interested in taking better photography, and not becoming a master in manipulative software. I use my software within the boundries of the editing rules, and that is about as far as I like to take it. For that matter, some on here are probably graphic artists who do that kind of digital art on a greater scale then me, or new members, etc.
I know I don't have to enter, but if it becomes habitual, then that would really suck.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:29:32 PM · #15 |
These commments underscore my thoughts about major removal, but not major addition.
Athough, some could counter that major removal = major addition in essence addition of a background instead of foreground element.... yeah, there is no spoon.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:07:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
....
Does the end result matter more or less than the process ? I tend to argue that the end result is more important than how you get there (at least for photography, if not in life) So should it matter if I created this with clever lighting or clever photoshop ?
And if not, why would I be bothered that I'd get marked down for it, or not get the recognition that I want for my camera skills ? This is probably because all the voters on here are photographers to one degree or another and as a result many are unable to actually look at a picture without worrying about how it was made. Too caught up in the technical issues to actually see the image for what it is.
....
|
In my mind it does not matter. Artistic achievement shouldn't be restricted by rules of process. It is here. This, I think, is the main reason why some of the more successful artists here have left and are continuing to leave.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:20:33 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ursula:
In my mind it does not matter. Artistic achievement shouldn't be restricted by rules of process. It is here. This, I think, is the main reason why some of the more successful artists here have left and are continuing to leave. |
But it could also perhaps be why some excellent photographers have stayed :) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:27:34 PM · #18 |
Just another thought on this idea of an "uber advanced" category. What if the photog were required to post a resized version of the original as a prerequisite for entering this category. The original would only be visible after voting. Now *that* would make it both interesting and educational for those watching and learning.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:34:39 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just another thought on this idea of an "uber advanced" category. What if the photog were required to post a resized version of the original as a prerequisite for entering this category. The original would only be visible after voting. Now *that* would make it both interesting and educational for those watching and learning. |
That would be interesting, quite interesting, but it would not help the bias during voting.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:35:20 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
Originally posted by ursula:
In my mind it does not matter. Artistic achievement shouldn't be restricted by rules of process. It is here. This, I think, is the main reason why some of the more successful artists here have left and are continuing to leave. |
But it could also perhaps be why some excellent photographers have stayed :) |
Are you saying, stayed because of the rules here?
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:52:06 PM · #21 |
my fear with saying "no rules" is that we run the risk of digital art infiltrating the site.
sure, right now we can say that those shots will take a beating in the voting. but who's to say what the makeup of the voters will be a year from now? could be that we have an influx of folks who think godzilla heads on people are funny. that runs the risk of chasing away photographers who DON'T have an interest in photo-manipulation.
it's a very slippery slope.
from what i am reading from the general populace, there are really two main issues:
1) ability to remove artifacts from images in basic editing (by "artifacts" i mean things that appear from the front of the lens to the sensor, like dust boogies and spots -- NOT anything that is in the actual scene of the photo itself.)
2a) either a clearer definition of the major elements clause
OR
2b) a complete removal of the major elements clause of the advanced editing ruleset.
am i correct in summing up these as the primary requests?
for the sake of argument, here are some other requests that i have heard tossed around:
a) allowing the use of masks in adjustment layers in basic editing
b) allowing bracketed exposures in advanced editing |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:06:07 PM · #22 |
I think the spectre of digital art is a little bit of a red herring. Sure, we can point to The Future, the one totally unlimited editing challenge that I can remember. That was, however, pretty much an invitation to go crazy. I think it is entirely possible to open it up more without allowing "digital art."
My suggestion to require an original for comparison was specifically aimed at this. If the photog must post the original shot, then the amount of modification will be ublic knowledge and will be openly discussed. This illuminates the process by which those most skilled in the art of post-processing work, and also provides a brake of sorts on extreme modification, since we know how that will be reacted to.
I don't at all think this site is ever in danger of becoming a Worth1000.com, but I do think it's good to consider how we could better serve our more advanced photogs, keeping them engaged and active, and creting yet another great resource for still those learning the skills.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:12:16 PM · #23 |
I understand quite well that "no rules" would be a "slippery rope". But these rules shouldn't become a restriction to personal artistic exploration (outside of challenges as they are now).
For a "no rules" situation to work when there are so many different participants each with their own set of ideas about what is ethical in image editing, there would have to be a clear definition accepted by all of what constitutes a photo and what is digital art.
But, we have the rules, and we live with them, and even learn to enjoy them.
In my personal view, what seems most odd about the rules here is the distinction between doing stuff to the whole image (in basic) vs. to selected portions of the image (in advanced). The place where it shows up most is in the removal of artifacts: ruling it impossible to do so in basic is unnecessarily restrictive IMO.
A clearer definition of the major elements clause would also be great, although I don't know if it is possible really to do that.
Bracketed exposures is another restriction that seems "odd" at times, and not only for advanced.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 08:35:33 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by jpochard:
Originally posted by ursula:
In my mind it does not matter. Artistic achievement shouldn't be restricted by rules of process. It is here. This, I think, is the main reason why some of the more successful artists here have left and are continuing to leave. |
But it could also perhaps be why some excellent photographers have stayed :) |
Are you saying, stayed because of the rules here? |
Yes, because I believe the INTENT of the rules, even if they are not perfect, is to keep the focus of the site more on the photography aspect of the creation and less on the editing aspect. I use editing all the time and appreciate what can be done, but I think first and foremost the intent here is to learn and grow with the CAMERA, and less with the editing.
I could be wrong, as I did not develop the site obviously. I also know that the rules are not perfect but I think the likelihood of reaching that stage where everyone agrees and thinks the rules are perfectly fair is highly unlikely.
Look at the wonderful images that have been created well within the current editing rules and look at the extremely talented photographers we get to share with all the time, who are active on this site. I think we should focus more on what we HAVE and less on what is perceived to be lost or missing. Just my .02 |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 10:44:03 AM · #25 |
| As a photographer who has spent the last twenty years shooting mostly chromes (and the fact that I have partial color-blindness) I'd like to see the opposite. A challenge where the file must come straight from the camera, and the only post processing that would be allowed would be sharpen, contrast & levels before resizing. Just my $.02. |
|
