|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 05:29:48 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Falc:
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 ... |
Oh but I have read these two lines... and being that I have also read the rules regarding DNMC... I stand firm in my conviction that we are only fooling ourselves if we honestly believe this will work.
I don't know if you have read the guidelines regarding the DNMC criteria, but I can assure you that it most certainly is not applied in this venue.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:31:22 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
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? |
Then B/W photography would be illegal also. After all you are adding shades of grey in place of color. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:36:04 PM · #153 |
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.
Much too complex for a dumb amateur photographer, even if I do work in IT ;-) |
In real-world anologues it's very simple; I have an object on my desk here, say a wooden sphere. I can paint it any color I want, and it is still a wooden sphere; I have altered an attribute of the sphere but not the sphere itself, the "object". If I take a chisel to it and gouge out sections of it, I have altered the object itself.
So it is with our images; the key distinction is between the "thing" we photographed, its integrity, and the attributes of the thing, its color and contrast and so forth. The distinction actually underlies the entire current ruleset, albeit it is not explicitly stated. IMO it should be; it's not a hard concept to grasp.
In the basic rules, as written, we can alter attributes but we cannot alter objects. In the advanced rules we have some limited felxibility in altering objects themselves, but the lines are blurry and subject to interpretation. The proposed advanced ruleset eliminates interpretation, for the most part, by doing away with the "major elements" clause while adding restrictions to what may be done with the "empty space" that results when an element is eliminated. It's just a draft anyway; there's a lot of room to tune it up.
Aside from the "major elements" gray area, my major concern with the rules as written is the inconsistency of allowing such one-step tools as CS2 shadow/highlight tool while prohibiting (in basic editing) the use of contrast masking (the cntrl-alt-tilde layering technique) which functionally underlies the newer, one-step tool. As long as rules remain tool-centric, there will always be inequities as new versions of programs come out that automate previously-disallowed techniques. I'd like to see both rulesets results-based instead of tool-based, as much as possible.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:45:06 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
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? |
Then B/W photography would be illegal also. After all you are adding shades of grey in place of color. |
Converting to B/W is perfectly fine (removal of color alltogether)- but taking a B/W photo and "painting" in colors is digital art, IMO.
For example, what if I converted a landscape photo to B/W, then changed the grass to blue, the sky to green, and the trees to purple with yellow spots. Then I inverted the colors. I'm pretty sure under the current rules this would be legal. Although no objects are changed (only the attributes), I would still consider it digital art. I don't like the idea of "alter the attributes of the objects all you want so long as no objects are added or removed." There needs to be limits concerning the alteration of an object's attributes.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 17:48:07.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:45:29 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Falc:
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 ... |
Oh but I have read these two lines... and being that I have also read the rules regarding DNMC... I stand firm in my conviction that we are only fooling ourselves if we honestly believe this will work.
I don't know if you have read the guidelines regarding the DNMC criteria, but I can assure you that it most certainly is not applied in this venue.
Ray |
As far as I am aware there are no RULES regarding DNMC, its simply upto the voter to decide whether the image presented either fits the challenge description or not. They may vote it down if they assume the latter.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:47:14 PM · #156 |
Definitions
I have been harping on giving the terms used concrete definitions that fit the uses they are put to on this site. Terms such as 'photograph' and 'element', but also if terms such as 'must', 'must not', 'may' and 'may not' are going to have specific uses they also need solid definitions.
It was pointed out by Gordon in another thread that these terms do have solid definitions. While it is true in a general sense that any good dictionary will define these terms well -- that definition is all encompassing and may or may not be relevant to the use of those terms on this site or within the challenges. Stating solid definitions of the use of these terms within this site is essential to ensure we are all understanding what is written in the context it was written in.
DPC does not incorporate all of photography -- nor, do I believe any one site can -- so photographic terms should not be used without defining how they fit within the subset of photograpy that is DPC.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The purpose of the Basic Rules is to provide a limited tool set so that new photographers unfamiliar with photo editing software can get their feet wet without being paralyzed by too many options. |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Under the Basic Rules, tools are legal, not [/i]effects[/i]. Where the Advanced rules are result-centric, the Basic Rules are method-centric. |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
This is why, within the Basic Rules, we base the rules on the purpose and use of the filter. |
First, forgive me for quoting without context -- the intend is not to misquote, but to address generally what was said without the specific context.
Can these purposes, fleshed out as needed, be included? ... and, are these your views or official purposes? I know it is not how I would have described the basic rules, but that may be just me -- the point is, not knowing the purpose from the site's perspective leaves me to draw my own conclussions. This leads only to confussion. I asked for such in this thread but received little interest.
While we're at it, can we remove the reference to all tools and describe what is allowed and not allowed in terms of photographic techniques? What specific tools are legal under such terms is best left to another document -- yes that document will become long and cumbersome, but better it than the rules. :)
In short, I strongly feel the process of defining should start with the site itself and work down to the rules -- starting with the rules seems backwards to me, and certain to make the entire process much harder and error prone.
Specifc Wording
As for offering specifc wordings that address these issues -- not really possible without the basic purposes defined. Asking for input on the rules without defining the focus certainly leads to interesting discussions -- but it also leads to discussions that are constantly increasing in scope. Defining the purpose of the site, and then within that the purpose of the challenges will focus discussions such as this -- directing the discussion inward toward a solution instead of outward toward increased problems.
Sensor Dust
On the subject of cloning out sensor dust, hot spots and dead pixels -- where is the line to be drawn? I'm assuming this change is suggested to allow defects introduced by the camera to be removed -- but where to draw the line? After all, noise from high ISO and long exposure times are also camera introduced, as is CA, lens flare and a host of other camera-made effects that altered the scene from what was seen.
Also, speaking of sensor dust specifically -- if removing it was allowed, how to tell if it was actually sensor dust and not something else, such as a dirty window on an airplane or glass wall at a zoo?
While I certainly understand the desire to legalize their removal -- I feel it opens the rules up much farther than basic rules should be opened.
Multiple images
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Can we (I think we can) rewrite the "multiple image" rule so as not to disallow multiple image panorama. |
I agree -- and, if allowing multiple exposures to 'widen' the lens I would also like to be allowed multiple exposures to widen the dynamic range of the image or decrease noise from long exposures.
That is, I would like to be allowed to (for example):
- take an exposure for the sky and one for the shadows and combine them to get an image that better represents the scene I photographed.
- take mulple exposures at the same exposure settings and stack them to remove random sensor noise.
- take a black frame (I think that's what it's called) of just the noise and use it to remove the noise in post processing.
This, in my mind, is preserving photographic integrity as it makes it possible to overcome camera limitations and represent the scene I photographed!
I will stress however, this view does not include using exposures that contain different objects. In the case of different random object (such as a bird or cloud) that refuses to hold still for multiple exposures, only one instance of the object may be used.
Originally posted by Falc:
Here is my proposal -
Your entry MUST follow the following advanced manipulation rules:
1. Originate from a single exposure, taken during the challenge period.
2. The original single exposure MUST only be converted from RAW once. It may not be processed multiple times using different parameters and combined at a later stage of post processing. |
Why not? Combining multiple RAW conversions is no different than creating multiple layers while working on the image -- or splitting the image into seperate images for each channel and later recombining them.
---
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... Aside from the "major elements" gray area, my major concern with the rules as written is the inconsistency of allowing such one-step tools as CS2 shadow/highlight tool while prohibiting (in basic editing) the use of contrast masking (the cntrl-alt-tilde layering technique) which functionally underlies the newer, one-step tool. As long as rules remain tool-centric, there will always be inequities as new versions of programs come out that automate previously-disallowed techniques. I'd like to see both rulesets results-based instead of tool-based, as much as possible.
R. |
To this, I can only agree. Keeping things tool-based, even a little, only leads to confussion.
David
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 18:35:18.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:48:15 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
Much too complex for a dumb amateur photographer, even if I do work in IT ;-) |
In real-world anologues it's very simple; I have an object on my desk here, say a wooden sphere. I can paint it any color I want, and it is still a wooden sphere; I have altered an attribute of the sphere but not the sphere itself, the "object". If I take a chisel to it and gouge out sections of it, I have altered the object itself.
So it is with our images; the key distinction is between the "thing" we photographed, its integrity, and the attributes of the thing, its color and contrast and so forth. The distinction actually underlies the entire current ruleset, albeit it is not explicitly stated. IMO it should be; it's not a hard concept to grasp.
In the basic rules, as written, we can alter attributes but we cannot alter objects. In the advanced rules we have some limited felxibility in altering objects themselves, but the lines are blurry and subject to interpretation. The proposed advanced ruleset eliminates interpretation, for the most part, by doing away with the "major elements" clause while adding restrictions to what may be done with the "empty space" that results when an element is eliminated. It's just a draft anyway; there's a lot of room to tune it up.
Aside from the "major elements" gray area, my major concern with the rules as written is the inconsistency of allowing such one-step tools as CS2 shadow/highlight tool while prohibiting (in basic editing) the use of contrast masking (the cntrl-alt-tilde layering technique) which functionally underlies the newer, one-step tool. As long as rules remain tool-centric, there will always be inequities as new versions of programs come out that automate previously-disallowed techniques. I'd like to see both rulesets results-based instead of tool-based, as much as possible.
R. |
Bear, I understand the principles, but the wording is way over the top. If it needs explanation then its too complex to be enforced without 'interpretation'. Which is why I'm arguing for 'less is more'.
The fewer rules we have the fewer arguments we will get into.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:52:52 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Here is my proposal -
Your entry MUST follow the following advanced manipulation rules:
1. Originate from a single exposure, taken during the challenge period.
2. The original single exposure MUST only be converted from RAW once. It may not be processed multiple times using different parameters and combined at a later stage of post processing. |
Agreed. Anyone without a RAW-capable camera is left at a disadvantage. It's illegal for me to expose one photo for the highlights of a scene and another for the shadows of a scene and combine them in post-processing - which is essentially what is happening when combining two different conversions made from one raw image.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:01:16 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
For example, what if I converted a landscape photo to B/W, then changed the grass to blue, the sky to green, and the trees to purple with yellow spots. Then I inverted the colors. I'm pretty sure under the current rules this would be legal. Although no objects are changed (only the attributes), I would still consider it digital art. I don't like the idea of "alter the attributes of the objects all you want so long as no objects are added or removed." There needs to be limits concerning the alteration of an object's attributes. |
I agree with you Justin. I would like to see the color shifting as shown in these examples be illegal. Converting to b&w, desaturating/saturating any or all of a photo is fine because the colors are already there. I might even be ok with altering the entire color scheme of a photo (changing the hue of an apple to purple for example) as long as the entire photo is adjusted. But to pick and choose the areas to be adjusted along with the colors to be added in which didn't exist in the first place, that's a bit much for me.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 18:02:14. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:17:51 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Most importantly, we'd like to solicit your suggestions. If there is anything you would like to see in the new rules, now is the time to voice it! |
Change the rules to consistantly reflect "real" photography today and the emergence of post-processing image editing.
It would be a variation of this concept:
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission"
That change would be to:
"Any modification allowed inside the digital camera itself along with its digital editing equivalent is considered acceptable for challenge submission"
The list of specifically allowed and disallowed capabilities would be defined and maintained by the SC. But the overriding philosophy would be that if it is allowed with the camera and/or traditional "wet" darkroom then it is also allowed with image editing. If it is not allowed in digital editing then it is not allowed in the camera either. There would be one set of allowed capabilities for basic challenges and one set for advanced challenges.
This would remove the inconsistancies from the way rules have evolved.
Commonly accepted camera functions and commonly accepted "wet" darkroom practice would be the fundamental basis for deciding which capabilities would be allowed or disallowed.
This could mean things like:
1-If a radial filter, or any other filter, is allowed with the camera then the equivalent filter is allowed in post processing.
2-If multiple images not allowed in post processing then double exposures are not allowed in the camera either.
3-If borders cannot be created in cameras then they cannot be created in post-processing either.
4-Focusing is used in a traditional "wet" darkroom so focusing is allowed in image editing.
etc, etc. |
I tend to agree. many cameras, such as 20D allows B&W, sepia, multi colored filter effects etc etc to be used directly from the camera without processing. If advanced cameras can do it then it should be allowed under basic rules using a computer program to replicate the appearance. I know people will dissagree but the true visible difference at 640 and 72 dpi as posted on dpc will be minimal on how sepia or B&W or green filter is applied either directly from the camera or through use of a computer. With a final hi quality print there can be difference but not with the quality that we use here.
Look at the most advanced camera, make a list of the effects and filters built into it, use this as the basis for basic and add a few additional computer processing basics like: contrast, sharpness, shadow& highlights, rotate, . Lets not get into how a program sharpens a photos, some use smart sharpen in CS2 and others use USM. For dpc, sharpen is sharpen. A si,ple list of allowed and a simple list of not allowed.
I agree on another suggestion, a page where DQ'd photos are with explaination on why. Not to embarase the photog but to give examples.
SC's you are doing great with a most difficult position, I do believe a position of no win. ;) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:21:29 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by kteach:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
For example, what if I converted a landscape photo to B/W, then changed the grass to blue, the sky to green, and the trees to purple with yellow spots. Then I inverted the colors. I'm pretty sure under the current rules this would be legal. Although no objects are changed (only the attributes), I would still consider it digital art. I don't like the idea of "alter the attributes of the objects all you want so long as no objects are added or removed." There needs to be limits concerning the alteration of an object's attributes. |
I agree with you Justin. I would like to see the color shifting as shown in these examples be illegal. Converting to b&w, desaturating/saturating any or all of a photo is fine because the colors are already there. I might even be ok with altering the entire color scheme of a photo (changing the hue of an apple to purple for example) as long as the entire photo is adjusted. But to pick and choose the areas to be adjusted along with the colors to be added in which didn't exist in the first place, that's a bit much for me. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe that when you make such alterations the voters themselves will vote the image down. My suggestion is to leave the attributes free. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:22:46 PM · #162 |
Folks, one size simply does not fit all challenges.
Keep Basic Challenges basic (Site Council does not need to worry whether someone cloned out a hot pixel or a bird at 300 yards...), and have a limited set of rules for advanced that universally embody the mission and values of DPC. Within these boundaries, I\'d like to see guidelines for voting in order to broaden consistency across the board.
Beyond the universal boundaries, for each individual challenge, add specific stipulations for that challenge only. I can\'t emphasize this point enough. After all, the point of different challenges is to challenge us photogs to do bend to certain constraints. If you don\'t have to bend, what\'s the challenge and why bother?
Let\'s take the recent \"Fantasy\" challenge. Following the above line of thinking, it could have been stipulated as to whether or not previously photographed scenes could be printed and used as major elements of the photo. Universally advocating \"no\" to something like what Scalvert did in his brilliant ribbon-winning entry would be overly limiting and therefore IMO silly, but making it a constraint to this specific challenge -- or if the rule against it were to exist, then relaxing it -- would make sense.
With regards to the \"Tribute\" challenge, it could have been stipulated that the emulated photog\'s name must appear in the Title. The lack of this stipulation made voting on a difficult challenge that much more difficult, and dare I say turned this into another quasi-free study.
Once the individual stipulations are stated for the challenge, we as voters need to be more flexible with regard to peoples\' creative interpretations of those challenges. No longer are will we have to beat our chests in pride when we sorta-kinda manage to be consistent across all challenges, because now we only need to focus on the unique challenge at hand.
Back to basics. What do y'all think? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:24:02 PM · #163 |
I feel sorry for SC right now.
I don't know whether we could get 5 people to even agree on what photography is.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:27:55 PM · #164 |
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. :-) |
I agree that "similar" images should not be posted on dpc during a challenge. I disagree that anyone who may be members of various other photog sites would be policed by dpc members if they saw the shot posted somewhere else. That makes less impact than sharing with other members for input. Almost every challenge has "team" photos where the same pic is taken by 2 or more photogs at slightly different view points with both or all posted in the challenge. If this becomes a standard then we might as well put our names on all of them. Football is a team sport, I think dpc should be an individual learning challenge. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:33:11 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
I feel sorry for SC right now.
I don't know whether we could get 5 people to even agree on what photography is. |
I think this IS the main point. There are several thousand members of this site and each will have an individual interpretation of what photography means to them.
Some will say it has to be the 'non-manipulated' traditionally based photography, whilst others will be looking at how to push the limits of technology and maybe stepping towards the arty side of photography.
Both are valid, both deserve space.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 18:34:07.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:54:13 PM · #166 |
It has been suggested that the use of photos displayed on a monitor for a backdrop shouldn't be allowed. I agree with that. Now, the use of textured backdrops or printed photographs should continue to be allowed.
The difference between the two is the source of lighting. You see, with printed photographs and cloth backdrops etc., we have to supply the lighting (ok, in the case of the sun the lighting is provided for us, but we still have some control over how it's used by using reflectors or shades).
Computer monitors (crt's, lcd's, etc.) not only provide the "backdrop" but the lighting also. In some cases, the photo on the computer screen has been incorporated in such a way that it becomes a major element of the overall photograph. (make sense?) :)
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 07:31:08 PM · #167 |
Things I'd like to see:
1-Keep it simple.
2-A concise guiding philosophical statement that serves as the basis for each ruleset be put at the beginning.
3-Rules based on that statement be defined in simple, concrete, behavioral terms. The fewer the better. (sounds like that is the direction the SC is going)
4-Voting guidlines simplified. Little more than 1 - "bad" to 10 - "good" is all that is needed. Individuals can decide what that means.
5-DQ guidelines VASTLY simplified and tied to the ruleset philosophy. Policing such things as the "amount of usage" of a particular filter or effect is impossible to define in behavioral terms and should be avoided.
Suggestion:
Develop a popup list of allowable DQ offenses that voters must choose from in order to report a DQ.
That could reduce the number of frivoulous DQ requests and more specifically guide what the SC considers when reviewing a DQ request. It would also serve as the reason supplied for an image DQ. That would simply and speed the process.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 19:40:45.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:00:30 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by ggbudge:
It has been suggested that the use of photos displayed on a monitor for a backdrop shouldn't be allowed. I agree with that. Now, the use of textured backdrops or printed photographs should continue to be allowed.
The difference between the two is the source of lighting. You see, with printed photographs and cloth backdrops etc., we have to supply the lighting (ok, in the case of the sun the lighting is provided for us, but we still have some control over how it's used by using reflectors or shades).
Computer monitors (crt's, lcd's, etc.) not only provide the "backdrop" but the lighting also. In some cases, the photo on the computer screen has been incorporated in such a way that it becomes a major element of the overall photograph. (make sense?) :) |
As you note, a monitor is yet another form of lighting, used much the same way that a rear-projection of a lantern slide would have been used about 100 years ago. I see nothing wrong with using a monitor as a light source, as long as it is not the only element present in the photo, but rather a component of an overall composition, just like any other piece of 2D art (see tutorial on the "Artwork Rule").
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 20:06:15. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:06:11 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ggbudge:
It has been suggested that the use of photos displayed on a monitor for a backdrop shouldn't be allowed. I agree with that. Now, the use of textured backdrops or printed photographs should continue to be allowed.
The difference between the two is the source of lighting. You see, with printed photographs and cloth backdrops etc., we have to supply the lighting (ok, in the case of the sun the lighting is provided for us, but we still have some control over how it's used by using reflectors or shades).
Computer monitors (crt's, lcd's, etc.) not only provide the "backdrop" but the lighting also. In some cases, the photo on the computer screen has been incorporated in such a way that it becomes a major element of the overall photograph. (make sense?) :) |
As you note, a monitor is yet another form of lighting, used much the same way that a rear-projection of a lantern slide would have been used about 100 years ago. I see nothing wrong with using a monitor as a light source, as long as it is not the only element present in the photo, but rather a component of an overall composition, just like any other piece of 2D art (see tutorial on the "Artwork Rule"). |
I agree as a sourse of lighting but not as a major element. If the computer photo or art work or picture was gone would the challenge photo be able to stand on its own or would the effect be almost totally gone. If the monitor is required then it is taking a picture of art work that should under present rules be DQ'd. Again we get to what is a "major" element. A prop outdoors or in a studio is different than taking a photo to "double" expose into a single photo. I see that as using two photos and not one. I see that as artwork and not photography as photography. Both are forms of artwork and both look great but one is "gaming" the system a little too much. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:16:41 PM · #170 |
| Sensor dust is something that can be fixed with cleaning before shooting; however, you can ruin a sensor if you do it wrong. I'd rather let a professional clean my sensor when it needs it rather than ruin a fifteen hundred dollar camera. Dust on the sensor...a pain in the butt, sensor cleaning kit...a pain in the neck, clean the dust bunnies in post processing...Priceless!! |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:35:38 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
I feel sorry for SC right now.
I don't know whether we could get 5 people to even agree on what photography is. |
I know and that's the problem. You're never going to convince people that some tinkering of a photo doesn't produce digital art while others do. The whole concept is ridiculous. People just have some biases that they will not let go of no matter what. USM, dodge/burn, neatimage, blur, etc., produce artistic images (i.e. not realism hence digital art). |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:43:21 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
If the computer photo or art work or picture was gone would the challenge photo be able to stand on its own or would the effect be almost totally gone. |
Incorporating artwork into an interesting juxtaposition is nothing new, even with film. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:51:00 PM · #173 |
| I would like to see a challenge that has no holes barred...no rules...everything goes. Here's the kicker. All submissions are voted on; however, the top twenty votes moves on to a judging panel. The judging panel uses a set of predefined criteria. The judges are selected from a list of members who volunteer. Judges may conver with each other. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 08:58:53 PM · #174 |
I've seen it suggested many times that we should just list which specific tools are legal or not. While it would certainly simplify validations, there is a reason why this isn't practical. "Distortion filters" like Liquify and Motion Blur can be used for subtle touchups, while even the most basic tools can be abused. The second and third images below were modified using only Gaussian Blur and Levels, respectively...
  
Personally, I'd rather give the photographer the freedom to use anything in his toolbox, but emphasize that he should use his powers for good, not evil. ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 21:01:04. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:17:45 PM · #175 |
While you have shown a proof of concept here Shannon, I doubt it would matter in the real world. Neither picture you show would do well with the voters. Perhaps someone could gaussian a nice DOF background, but they never look as nice as the real thing and perhaps it's fine as many P&S are not capable of that type of DOF anyway (giving the dSLRs an advantage). I remain of the opinion that a yea or nay approach to filters will lead to the least complaining about SC decisions.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 21:18:57. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 10:49:58 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 10:49:58 AM EDT.
|
