| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 06:41:40 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by TooCool:
An entire lake was removed... |
Nope, it's still there, but blurrier. I can see it readily in the thumbnail, and it's still obviously a lake IMO. |
Had you not seen the original, I would say you would have no idea there was even a lake originally present. |
I had to look at the orginal to see what too cool was talking about. I always saw the shoreline. I had to check to see what lake was removed. ;o)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 06:41:55 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Had you not seen the original, I would say you would have no idea there was even a lake originally present. |
I knew it was a lake before I saw the original. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 06:45:37 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Had you not seen the original, I would say you would have no idea there was even a lake originally present. |
I knew it was a lake before I saw the original. |
Well I would bet that the average voter wouldn't know there was a lake present ;)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 06:47:30 PM · #304 |
But even if "a lake" was removed, what specifically make a lake a major element? The word "major element" is not absolute, it's relative to what the photo is about, right? So in my shot, it's all about the bird flying at me, the presence of a lake in an already blurred background should not be considred a major element just because it's a lake.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 18:47:58. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 06:47:56 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Shannon, many people (including myself) agree that the filter I applied moved the photo a bit away from photography and toward digital art, this is not the argument, let's drop that point. The point is that the rules don't include any grounds for the DQ (according to most comments on this thread). The SC can keep argue about what is and what is not photography, but the bottom line is that almost no one so far can find anything I did that violated the "written rules" except the SC. |
You seem to be stuck on those "written rules".
Besides the actual letter of the law, the Site Council is tasked with enforcing the "spirit and intent" of the rules. Your's is not the first instance where a case could be made that there was no violation of a specific written rule but the decision hinged on the spirit and intent. Such decisions in the past have gone both ways, resulting in DQ's and resulting in images being ruled legal.
Anyone who relies solely on the actual written rules and ignores the "spirit and intent" is skating near the edge of thin ice, and is much more likely to become ensnared in a subjective decision that goes against them. Skate at your own risk if you choose to, but don't expect us to change the rules every time someone falls thru the ice.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:06:38 PM · #306 |
I didn't read this entire thread but it seems to me that the issue here is really about taste and nothing more. The reasons giving about not using the radial blur really don't fly.
Also this idea that this place is really "just" a place to learn about taking photos is totally false. Heck, just take a look at the front page and look at all the winners. Every one of them except for perhaps Migration Interupted wouldn't have ribboned had it not been for it's great photography AND great postprocessing. Besides don't we already have Basic Editing for the old school people who are too stubborn in their ways to accept anything else?
ETA: Btw, "digital art" could be applied to all these photos that are obviously oversharpened or heavily dodged/burned which produces an effect that really doesn't look real but it's appealling even though it doesn't look real so yes I do believe this is an argument about taste and nothing more.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 19:16:41. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:10:27 PM · #307 |
IMHO, the difference lies in the degree to which the filter's effect has changed the entry's appearance from that of the original file. I would be able to be more emphatic in stating this if I had seen the original file for all three. The Site Council has seen all three originals. I am pretty sure that none of the posters in this thread who are second guessing the Site Council's decison have seen all three original files. And I am pretty sure that no one outside of Site Council has as much knowledge of "case law" at their disposal.
The Site Council has told us, repeatedly, that a revision of the rules is in the works. And I'm pretty sure that project was active long before the current DQ ruling was handed down.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:12:45 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
IMHO, the difference lies in the degree to which the filter's effect has changed the entry's appearance from that of the original file. I would be able to be more emphatic in stating this if I had seen the original file for all three. The Site Council has seen all three originals. I am pretty sure that none of the posters in this thread who are second guessing the Site Council's decison have seen all three original files. And I am pretty sure that no one outside of Site Council has as much knowledge of "case law" at their disposal.
The Site Council has told us, repeatedly, that a revision of the rules is in the works. And I'm pretty sure that project was active long before the current DQ ruling was handed down. |
Has someone posted the before photos for the two on the right? Oh wait nevermind.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 19:17:45. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:20:26 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Besides the actual letter of the law, the Site Council is tasked with enforcing the "spirit and intent" of the rules. |
Truth is that the letter of the law MUST be the basis of all decision making.
The SC, which does a fantastic job btw, struggles with decisions based on the letter of the law. If rules get changed they will struggle with that.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:23:31 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides don't we already have Basic Editing for the old school people who are too stubborn in their ways to accept anything else?
|
This is supposed to be a photography site. Not a photo editing site. Not a digital art site. Photo editing is a wonderful thing and a plus for all of us to learn and master. It's just not supposed to be edited to the extreme for dpc challenges.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:27:18 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Anyone want to talk about major elements ? :) |
Color shifts have always been allowed. All the elements (smoke, matchsticks) were in the originalâ only their attributes (the color) has changed. Selective desaturation is no less of an edit. |
That's only if you define 'major element' in a certain way. If a major element is a physical property for example.
Well - colour is a physical property. The 'major element' clause seems to be the most consistant inconsistancy.
The motion blur on the plane - a major element of the impact of the shot. The motion blur on the birds - a major element of the impact of the shot.
IMO, they both should have been DQed and pretty easily decided upon, based on the major element rules. But then I think the same way with the Red, Green and Blue smoke shot, given that the whole impact of the shot came from the physical properties of the colour that was changed. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:29:46 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Color shifts have always been allowed. All the elements (smoke, matchsticks) were in the originalâ only their attributes (the color) has changed. Selective desaturation is no less of an edit. |
If you look at that in the context of the title, and the commentary on the image, I think you are incorrect in your conclusions. |
If that were true, then about a half-dozen entries in the Pink challenge that were hue-shifted to make them pink would be DQ'd. Color is an attribute of an element, not an element itself (although opinions vary on this). [/quote]
Yup - isn't this whole thread about inconsistant applications of those rules ? So I'd agree, a whole lot of entries in the pink challenge should have been DQed. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:32:08 PM · #313 |
| I don't have the inclination to read through this entire thread but I just want to say that I hope arguments like this serve as an encouragement to move more towards achieving effects "in camera" and not rely so much on post-processing for the special effects. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:32:59 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides don't we already have Basic Editing for the old school people who are too stubborn in their ways to accept anything else?
|
This is supposed to be a photography site. Not a photo editing site. Not a digital art site. Photo editing is a wonderful thing and a plus for all of us to learn and master. It's just not supposed to be edited to the extreme for dpc challenges. |
Again, you are defining 'photography' as everything that happens before you start photo editing. So by that definition, anything that ever happened in a darkroom would not be photography.
The contention is that that is patently false. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 07:43:38 PM · #315 |
I see no difference in printing something out and shooting in the seen instead of doing it digitally. Except that digitally will reslut in a better photo most of the time. Also digitally take more skill.
Printing it out and shooting it is just a waste of money and time.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 19:43:53.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 08:23:00 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Shannon, many people (including myself) agree that the filter I applied moved the photo a bit away from photography and toward digital art, this is not the argument, let's drop that point. The point is that the rules don't include any grounds for the DQ (according to most comments on this thread). The SC can keep argue about what is and what is not photography, but the bottom line is that almost no one so far can find anything I did that violated the "written rules" except the SC. |
Maybe the majority felt it violated this part:
"The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules." (emphasis added)
Despite the fact that I personally disagreed with the majority's opinion on this vote, I believe they have both the right and grounds to make it. The image uses post-prosessing to create the illusion not only of movement, but movement which it would be almost impossible to capture with camera alone -- to me that provides a valid argument to call the "photographic integrity" of the image into question.
You will never get perfectly consistent results when there's a subjective component to the decision. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 08:26:28 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides don't we already have Basic Editing for the old school people who are too stubborn in their ways to accept anything else?
|
This is supposed to be a photography site. Not a photo editing site. Not a digital art site. Photo editing is a wonderful thing and a plus for all of us to learn and master. It's just not supposed to be edited to the extreme for dpc challenges. |
I would have to disagree. There are far more photos I see "processed" under advance editing that do well than those straight out of the camera. Dodging/burning, sharpening, blurring, saturation boosting, etc, etc, produce unrealistic images and to think that isn't more "digital art" than "real life" is deluding one's self.
There is an inherit old school bias among some that think dodging/burning, level adjustments and the like are "ok" because they have a history of being "accepted" in the film only days because those things could be acheived in film postprocessing but that doesn't change the fact that you are changing the image to something that doesn't exist in real life hence it's art. Before it was technically "film art" now it's "digital art".
I'll grant you the ability to do more in digital opens the door for it to look way more different than reality but in cases like that let the voting decide if the image is too far from reality. Why limit creativity especially when as I mentioned before there is basic editing?
In a real photography-only site there is no reason to have both basic and advance editing challenges yet this site does. This site also has a bunch of tutorials about postprocessing techniques (as well as setting up a shot). Why do we have the tutorials that we do? Simply put, everything about this place screams both. Why is learning both at DPC a bad thing?
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 21:02:30. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 09:06:21 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by samanwar:
Shannon, many people (including myself) agree that the filter I applied moved the photo a bit away from photography and toward digital art, this is not the argument, let's drop that point. The point is that the rules don't include any grounds for the DQ (according to most comments on this thread). The SC can keep argue about what is and what is not photography, but the bottom line is that almost no one so far can find anything I did that violated the "written rules" except the SC. |
You seem to be stuck on those "written rules".
Besides the actual letter of the law, the Site Council is tasked with enforcing the "spirit and intent" of the rules. Your's is not the first instance where a case could be made that there was no violation of a specific written rule but the decision hinged on the spirit and intent. Such decisions in the past have gone both ways, resulting in DQ's and resulting in images being ruled legal.
Anyone who relies solely on the actual written rules and ignores the "spirit and intent" is skating near the edge of thin ice, and is much more likely to become ensnared in a subjective decision that goes against them. Skate at your own risk if you choose to, but don't expect us to change the rules every time someone falls thru the ice. |
I think it should be like baseball where the benefit of the doubt goes to the batter (the photog). Now I intend to be cliché and say "You canât polish a turd" and âCream risesâ.
In other words the one who is supposed to win will win. Spirit and Intent also applies to the SCâs judgment. No?
Best Regards |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 09:12:04 PM · #319 |
old-school-too-stubborn comment rubbed me the wrong way...
I like advanced editing to enhance and bring out the best qualities of my photos...just not to the extreme...for dpchallenge. I feel that changing it to your "vision" or whatever you want to call it changes it into a work of art and it should be classified as such. To say it's still a photograph doesn't seem right to me. I'm not saying that it's a problem. I've said this many times before. Just reclassify it to Basic editing and Anything Goes editing and have some fun without all the discussions of legal, etc., etc. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 09:14:59 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
old-school-too-stubborn comment rubbed me the wrong way...
I like advanced editing to enhance and bring out the best qualities of my photos...just not to the extreme...for dpchallenge. I feel that changing it to your "vision" or whatever you want to call it changes it into a work of art and it should be classified as such. To say it's still a photograph doesn't seem right to me. I'm not saying that it's a problem. I've said this many times before. Just reclassify it to Basic editing and Anything Goes editing and have some fun without all the discussions of legal, etc., etc. |
Awesome. so we are at 'is it photography or is it art' with the assumption that art can't be photography ?
Discuss ;) |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 09:19:10 PM · #321 |
You're making my brain hurt. Stop it. :)
Yes, photography can be art. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:04:08 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Marjo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Besides don't we already have Basic Editing for the old school people who are too stubborn in their ways to accept anything else?
|
This is supposed to be a photography site. Not a photo editing site. Not a digital art site. Photo editing is a wonderful thing and a plus for all of us to learn and master. It's just not supposed to be edited to the extreme for dpc challenges. |
I would have to disagree. There are far more photos I see "processed" under advance editing that do well than those straight out of the camera. Dodging/burning, sharpening, blurring, saturation boosting, etc, etc, produce unrealistic images and to think that isn't more "digital art" than "real life" is deluding one's self.
There is an inherit old school bias among some that think dodging/burning, level adjustments and the like are "ok" because they have a history of being "accepted" in the film only days because those things could be acheived in film postprocessing but that doesn't change the fact that you are changing the image to something that doesn't exist in real life hence it's art. Before it was technically "film art" now it's "digital art".
I'll grant you the ability to do more in digital opens the door for it to look way more different than reality but in cases like that let the voting decide if the image is too far from reality... |
What is reality, real life, digital art?
If we restrict our sense of reality to only a material, outer reality to be recorded the way a CSI photographer would a crime scene, then we wouldn't, of course, have the evidence being tampered with by anything but the most basic edits - but already here the borders are wearing soft. What if we have to enhance an image to bring out a critical feature or detail?
For those of us who have a broader sense of reality, is it not natural and critical that we post-process in an attempt to approximate the reality we see, the emotional or spiritual aspect of a scene or object? Are dreams not real, even though we have them, live with or by them? Are aspirations not real, fears, drama? Is a chair no longer real when it is photographed in a contemplative context?
And digital art, o my, what is this?
To me it is no more than a hapless term describing a monstrosity or an insufferable demonstration in poor taste: day-glo, roaring elks on velvet, lava lamps... that sort of thing. There are, I hope, other interpretations.
There are, in the end, no rules, guide lines and departments who help us sort this mess. We'll have to do it ourselves, picture by picture. If we know what we love, we won't mind this approach.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 22:07:48.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:47:43 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
old-school-too-stubborn comment rubbed me the wrong way...
I like advanced editing to enhance and bring out the best qualities of my photos...just not to the extreme...for dpchallenge. I feel that changing it to your "vision" or whatever you want to call it changes it into a work of art and it should be classified as such. To say it's still a photograph doesn't seem right to me. I'm not saying that it's a problem. I've said this many times before. Just reclassify it to Basic editing and Anything Goes editing and have some fun without all the discussions of legal, etc., etc. |
I didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. I wasn't directing that comment at you but rather I was making general statement regarding how film postprocessing is viewed vs digital postprocessing. It seems only the "film" equivalent techniques done in digital are truly acceptable and I take issue with that premise.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 22:48:38. |
|
|
|
02/03/2006 12:03:52 AM · #324 |
I am truly appreciative to the support and nice words I received from everyone since I started this thread, even though it did not totally negate my feelings of unfairness, it did make a huge difference.
Having said that, I am even more disappointed now with the responses (or lack of responses) from the SC members, specially the ones who supported the DQ.
After all the responses that disagreed with this DQ, all the logical reasons provided, and even the similar examples which were treated different, the fact that this thread received very few responses from the SC to support or to logically explain the DQ (except from Shannon) means that you guys have not much to say, you couldâve just admitted that you were wrong and move on â¦
but anyway, too many people spent too much time on this ⦠So ⦠I guess there is no more DPC for me for now .. Until I get over this, or until I find another photography web site that is hopefully more mature.
Regards and thank you all for the awesome experience ..
|
|
|
|
02/03/2006 12:10:03 AM · #325 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
I am truly appreciative to the support and nice words I received from everyone since I started this thread, even though it did not totally negate my feelings of unfairness, it did make a huge difference.
Having said that, I am even more disappointed now with the responses (or lack of responses) from the SC members, specially the ones who supported the DQ.
After all the responses that disagreed with this DQ, all the logical reasons provided, and even the similar examples which were treated different, the fact that this thread received very few responses from the SC to support or to logically explain the DQ (except from Shannon) means that you guys have not much to say, you couldâve just admitted that you were wrong and move on â¦
but anyway, too many people spent too much time on this ⦠So ⦠I guess there is no more DPC for me for now .. Until I get over this, or until I find another photography web site that is hopefully more mature.
Regards and thank you all for the awesome experience .. |
I agree that you got screwed and I haven't read this entire thread. Don't bail out over this. Brush it off and hope that it gets fixed soon. It does suck to be the 'example' guy tho..
|
|
