| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 02:20:51 PM · #126 |
Can we (I think we can) rewrite the "multiple image" rule so as not to disallow multiple image panorama. It's a shame to lose those as an option--though I admit they are less likely when we consider a 640 pixel limit.
Also, personally, while I like Robt's Rules (hey, that's a good title ;)), I don't like naming specific filter types. You can use effects filters to achieve results other than effects. For example, if you apply the dry brush filter and then fade it to 13%, it often provides a softer form of sharpening than USM, without giving a painterly effect at all. Conversely, sometimes sharpening filters may be using similar effects behind the scenes, we just don't have the details (for example, I don't know what algorithms are used by FocusMagic, but I know it sharpens better than USM without the halo side effects.)
So I say we should use the "Photographic Integrity" clauses but NOT name the techniques you can apply while maintaining them.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:27:08 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a quick stab at a much simpler pair of rulesets. It certainly would need to be tuned up, but it eliminates such issues as "major elements" altogether and tries to focus on the distinction between objects and attributes. Go ahead and tear me up :-)
|
The concept of "major element" has certainly been overworked at DPC. Since this site is rooted in traditional photographic values then rules should be based on traditional photographic technique.
Though images can be combined to add elements, both minor and major, in a traditional darkroom to make a composite print it is not normally done when printing and probably lies outside the values of this group.
However, dodging and burning as well as masking are time worn traditional darkroom techniques. Even I used to do them in my little unsophisticated home darkroom way back when.
If dodge, burn and masking is to be allowed under a set of rules then completely dodging, burning and/or masking out what now is called a "major element" probably should be allowed to. I did it in my little darkroom.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:29:00 PM · #128 |
wise word here I support what you are saying
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a quick stab at a much simpler pair of rulesets. It certainly would need to be tuned up, but it eliminates such issues as "major elements" altogether and tries to focus on the distinction between objects and attributes. Go ahead and tear me up :-)
|
The concept of "major element" has certainly been overworked at DPC. Since this site is rooted in traditional photographic values then rules should be based on traditional photographic technique.
Though images can be combined to add elements, both minor and major, in a traditional darkroom to make a composite print it is not normally done when printing and probably lies outside the values of this group.
However, dodging and burning as well as masking are time worn traditional darkroom techniques. Even I used to do them in my little unsophisticated home darkroom way back when.
If dodge, burn and masking is to be allowed under a set of rules then completely dodging, burning and/or masking out what now is called a "major element" probably should be allowed to. I did it in my little darkroom. |
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:39:52 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A guide might be commonly used filters in traditional photography and their use on a real camera. That is not a long list. If it is commonly used on real cameras then perhaps it should be allowed in post processing as well. What is allowed or not allowed in basic and advanced rules would be set by the SC. |
you mean like Cokin Motion Blur filter
so its allowed then ;-) |
This looks pretty "traditional" to me but that is a decision to be made by the group.
My suggestion is that if it is allowed on the camera then its equivalet should be allowed in post processing... if not allowed there then it is not allowed on the camera either.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:46:53 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A guide might be commonly used filters in traditional photography and their use on a real camera. That is not a long list. If it is commonly used on real cameras then perhaps it should be allowed in post processing as well. What is allowed or not allowed in basic and advanced rules would be set by the SC. |
you mean like Cokin Motion Blur filter
so its allowed then ;-) |
This looks pretty "traditional" to me but that is a decision to be made by the group.
My suggestion is that if it is allowed on the camera then its equivalet should be allowed in post processing... if not allowed there then it is not allowed on the camera either. |
How is this site "rooted in traditional photography" again? When I look at the home page and see the winners today and in the past what I see is NOT traditional photography. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:49:40 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Can we (I think we can) rewrite the "multiple image" rule so as not to disallow multiple image panorama. It's a shame to lose those as an option--though I admit they are less likely when we consider a 640 pixel limit.
|
Personally, I'd LOVE to see this because I can make incredible landscapes this way, but it unfortunately opens things up to much for potential abuse.
My feeling is this... Putting together multiple images to make great lanscapes is something I will definitely do, but I'll consider it beyond the scope of what DPC is about.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:02:46 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by yanko:
How is this site "rooted in traditional photography" again? When I look at the home page and see the winners today and in the past what I see is NOT traditional photography. |
I see it in all the discussions about maintaining the "integrity of the picture" in forums and in the existing rules:
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission"
"The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent."
"...You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, graphics or text such as multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images,..."
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 15:03:54.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:17:13 PM · #133 |
Photographic integrity is mentioned once and then only in the basic rules:
"Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted."
Photographic integrity certainly plays a MAJOR role in the DQ process.
If it is to continue to be of fundamental importance to the group then it should be stated as a core value in all rule sets.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 15:19:19.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:32:59 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by yanko:
How is this site "rooted in traditional photography" again? When I look at the home page and see the winners today and in the past what I see is NOT traditional photography. |
I see it in all the discussions about maintaining the "integrity of the picture" in forums and in the existing rules:
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission"
"The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent."
"...You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, graphics or text such as multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images,..." |
The existing rules have some of the elements as you pointed out but I can point to other parts that go against the rules of traditional photography (as I have mentioned earlier in this thread and elsewhere). As such we get lot and lots of photos that win or rank high that are not based in traditional photography in any shape or form. If the site was truly rooted in traditional photography then there should be rules already in place that stress accuracy and realism beyond everything else. That means no neatimage, no wild colors (unless that's how it actually was), no USM, no desat, etc., etc., but I don't see anybody at all call for all of that.
Every time I look at the wonderful photos at DPC the last impression I get is that this place is about traditional photography. Yes there is definitely plenty of that along with everything else so I don't deny it's presence. I'm just going on what people actually submit and win with and everything else (tutorials posted, challenge themes, other aspects of the rules that contradict traditional photography, etc.). In any case that's just my opinion. I just hate to see censoring of certain styles when that can be done via voting and according to one's personal tastes which is what I think fuels this rules debate more than anything else.
ETA: I'm only referring to the advance editing rules and NOT the basic. I think basic should be as little to no post processing as possible.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 15:53:53. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:40:01 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Leok:
This will cause a flame war but here goes anyway:
DQ for did not meet the challenge |
This was done at the beginning, but it was removed very earli in the site's history, because it was impossible to enforce. Whenever we DQ'ed an entry under this rule, we would get some 500-word essay from the photographer on how the entry was connected to the challenge.
In the end we decided that this was an issue best left to the voters, and there was no need for such a rule.
~Terry |
Of course you got an essay, I guess you would with many DQs, thats human nature, nothing to do with the validity of the rules. I'm thinking of images like this one - a fantastic image that won but did not meet the challenge.
the challenge was called singled out. The description was "Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition. Use minimal depth-of-field to your advantage to help isolate your subject, and as always, be creative."
There is NO use of minimal depth of field here...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=279671 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:43:14 PM · #136 |
| For those who would like to "let the voter decide", I wonder how much bellyaching will result. Right know using computer images or cutouts to achieve an effect that would be otherwise impossible under the rules is allowed. Personally I don't like it, but I have a difficult time "voting down" these pictures just because it's my preference. Are those who are asking for a more libertarian approach to the rules really going to accept my vote of 1 with the comment "I categorically vote 1 on shots using cutouts or computer imagry?" |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:46:54 PM · #137 |
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this had been said: Posting to other sites such as PhotoSig, prior to a challenge here, should be discouraged. For one it takes away anonymity and secondly it gives the entrant a test audience, ie. if it gets good crits elsewhere they enter it here, if it doesn't they don't enter here.
Also I think that showing other members your shot prior to a challenge should be discouraged, but that's hard to prove and even harder to enforce. For that we can only rely on the honesty and integrity of individual members.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:52:44 PM · #138 |
We have bounced a few ideas around here and the arguments for and against will probably go around in circles for days. What I would like to know and more importantly what should be discussed are the ideas and wording the site council has come up with.
I know you guys are only in a draft stage but you have been working on it for a while and these are drafts that we should be looking at and debating.
I know you have asked for suggestions but maybe you could steer this thread by giving us some suggestions that you guys have come up with. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:01:21 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For those who would like to "let the voter decide", I wonder how much bellyaching will result. Right know using computer images or cutouts to achieve an effect that would be otherwise impossible under the rules is allowed. Personally I don't like it, but I have a difficult time "voting down" these pictures just because it's my preference. Are those who are asking for a more libertarian approach to the rules really going to accept my vote of 1 with the comment "I categorically vote 1 on shots using cutouts or computer imagry?" |
Since some people already vote this way how would anything change? The ethics of voting a 1 on a photo that showed alot of technical skill or artistry is always going to be a hot topic just like the "does this really fit the theme" voting debate. Now if we did leave more up to the voters than a better way to handle it would be to make voting more complex. For example you vote on technical merit, artistic, fit's theme, etc.) for each photo. Of course that causes more site development work for the powers that be.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 16:02:33. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:09:58 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Leok:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Leok:
This will cause a flame war but here goes anyway:
DQ for did not meet the challenge |
This was done at the beginning, but it was removed very earli in the site's history, because it was impossible to enforce. Whenever we DQ'ed an entry under this rule, we would get some 500-word essay from the photographer on how the entry was connected to the challenge.
In the end we decided that this was an issue best left to the voters, and there was no need for such a rule.
~Terry |
Of course you got an essay, I guess you would with many DQs, thats human nature, nothing to do with the validity of the rules. I'm thinking of images like this one - a fantastic image that won but did not meet the challenge.
the challenge was called singled out. The description was "Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition. Use minimal depth-of-field to your advantage to help isolate your subject, and as always, be creative."
There is NO use of minimal depth of field here...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=279671 |
Oh good you brought in another debate. Should the Challenge's description be taken as an extension of the rules? Clearly that wasn't done here. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:10:18 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For those who would like to "let the voter decide", I wonder how much bellyaching will result. Right know using computer images or cutouts to achieve an effect that would be otherwise impossible under the rules is allowed. Personally I don't like it, but I have a difficult time "voting down" these pictures just because it's my preference. Are those who are asking for a more libertarian approach to the rules really going to accept my vote of 1 with the comment "I categorically vote 1 on shots using cutouts or computer imagry?" |
If you were to vote 1 I would guess the author had done a pretty bad job of evaluating the 'acceptability' of the image.
I have exactly the same issue when I submit an image to the local club competition. I know some judges will be more forgiving than others, and its upto me to work out where to pitch the image. So why can these basic principles not also apply here?
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:11:22 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Also I think that showing other members your shot prior to a challenge should be discouraged, but that's hard to prove and even harder to enforce. For that we can only rely on the honesty and integrity of individual members. |
I agree that pictures shouldn't be posted elsewhere during a challenge but disagree that we shouldn't share shots prior to a challenge with other members. It's not like one vote will make the difference - at least I don't think it would. Feedback, on the other hand, can be very valuable in choosing between shots for submission. Granted, I use my mom, some non-photographer on-line friends, and coworkers for feedback, but I also use another member here as a sounding board. You also have several "pairs" of photographers here who routinely see each other's work prior to submission.
Just my two cents worth. :-) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:17:08 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Personally, I'm working on carefully manipulating my camera during lens changes so that the dust on my sensor forms a DPC logo and provides a natural, legal watermark. ;) |
ROFL Neil :p
I agree with all that there is fault in the watermark thing in general - i just wanted to provide a working model rather than a speculation to go from - i need to see things to know if they are viable.
It wouldnt always be in a place complimentary to the image or in a place easierly reproduced - if we set a stand placement for a watermark - which is why you use it or stuck it up thing comes into play.
Personally i am not sure i believe Any water mark except a really obnoxious annoying one that ruins the image would help, but others might feel differently. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:34:33 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by leok:
the challenge was called singled out. The description was "Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition. Use minimal depth-of-field to your advantage to help isolate your subject, and as always, be creative."
There is NO use of minimal depth of field here...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=279671 |
Oh good you brought in another debate. Should the Challenge's description be taken as an extension of the rules? Clearly that wasn't done here. |
Absolutely not. Explain to me how this shot did not single out the subject...
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 17:04:09. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:59:13 PM · #145 |
I don't participate in the challenges (but I do enjoy flipping through them to look at the entries) so perhaps I shouldn't be able to make a suggestion, but here it is.
If dodging and burning to remove objects isn't allowed then I would also like to see a rule regarding cropping. I don't think cropping more than 25% of an image (or another appropriately low percentage) should be permitted. I think people should work on their composition in-camera rather than "composing" later (aka cropping the hell out of their image) in software - for example, going from a 10" printable image to a 2" printable image. Cropping large portions of an image is a significant change, imo.
To clarify, I am NOT against cropping. Some images actually require cropping to get the right look (i.e. a square), however, you should still be able to compose in-camera to allow for the least amount of cropping.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 17:01:07.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:01:15 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a quick stab at a much simpler pair of rulesets. |
Bear, sorry but I find these words even more confusing than the existing rules. Talk of attributes and objects almost sounds like a programming language. |
I thought bear's initial draft was a great starting point. It was clear and concise. |
Same here....
Ray |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:07:29 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suggest you use this as the new rules set... It will do away with the need for disqualificaitons completely and make your job a lot easier.
1. State your objective with the challenges.
2. Ask the voters to decide if those objectives have been met by having them 'vote accordingly'.
Pass the burden of determining if the rules have been broken to the voter and keep things less complicated for the SC. |
This is the ONLY workable solution that I have seen in this thread |
I would beg to disagree with this premise. We already have guidelines in place which clearly stipulate that the view is to take into consideration whether the photo meets established criteria and vote accordingly.
Alas, it would seem that very few people are aware of this criteria.
Is this workable??? most certainly it is... but it is based of the mistaken premise that people actually read and or even care about rules.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:12:03 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by orussell:
Also I think that showing other members your shot prior to a challenge should be discouraged, but that's hard to prove and even harder to enforce. For that we can only rely on the honesty and integrity of individual members. |
I agree that pictures shouldn't be posted elsewhere during a challenge but disagree that we shouldn't share shots prior to a challenge with other members. It's not like one vote will make the difference - at least I don't think it would. Feedback, on the other hand, can be very valuable in choosing between shots for submission. Granted, I use my mom, some non-photographer on-line friends, and coworkers for feedback, but I also use another member here as a sounding board. You also have several "pairs" of photographers here who routinely see each other's work prior to submission.
Just my two cents worth. :-) |
Sorry Melethia, I wasn't thinking in terms of showing just one other member but rather groups of members. As you say, one vote wouldn't make that much of a difference but a group certainly would. And we'd be fools to believe that it doesn't happen, maybe not often, but often enough.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:24:13 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suggest you use this as the new rules set... It will do away with the need for disqualificaitons completely and make your job a lot easier.
1. State your objective with the challenges.
2. Ask the voters to decide if those objectives have been met by having them 'vote accordingly'.
Pass the burden of determining if the rules have been broken to the voter and keep things less complicated for the SC. |
This is the ONLY workable solution that I have seen in this thread |
I would beg to disagree with this premise. We already have guidelines in place which clearly stipulate that the view is to take into consideration whether the photo meets established criteria and vote accordingly.
Alas, it would seem that very few people are aware of this criteria.
Is this workable??? most certainly it is... but it is based of the mistaken premise that people actually read and or even care about rules.
Ray |
Ray,
if you read Jon's first line it indicates that there would only be 2 very very simple rules. That way it doesn't matter whether they read or not. Its so simple, so easy, no hassles, no arguments ...
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:25:44 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
If dodge, burn and masking is to be allowed under a set of rules then completely dodging, burning and/or masking out what now is called a "major element" probably should be allowed to. I did it in my little darkroom. |
IMO, what you did or didn't do in your darkroom is irrelevant. Just because you can do something in the darkroom does not mean it should be legal here at DPC. It's possible to sandwich two negatives together in the enlarger to make a composite, but that's not legal here at DPC, and shouldn't be. Editing in the "digital darkroom" is completely different and should be treated as such.
------------------------------------------------------
In my view, tools that enhance the original photograph without creating/removing a major element should be allowed, and not much else. Minor cloning of imperfections and dodging/burning are fine for Advanced editing.
I would like it to be illegal to significantly shift color values. For example, I saw this before-and-after series in a recent "How was it done?" thread:
 
I cite these photos merely to discuss my view. Personally, I would consider this digital art. The color was not present in the original even in the least degree and new color was created in its place. I think there should be something in the major elements clause concerning when and to what extent color shifting is ok. When the added/shifted color creates the entire impact of the shot, I would consider that a major element, such as EddyG's "RGB Smoke."
Thoughts?
|
|
