| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2003 11:50:54 AM · #1 |
Ok, I know that it has been discussed before, but I really feel strongly about this.
Why can we not do spot editing on photos?? I was doing my CC critiques just now and came across a couple of photos where the photographers got creative with the filters on their cameras. Well, guess what, I can't put filters on my camera. So I can't blur half my frame, eliminate glares and reflections, etc. etc.
My camera, Canon S30, is very basic and does not return the greatest looking shots as a D30 or D60 would. So would it be so unfair if I did spot editing to 'touch up' my photos?? I'm not talking about creating digital art, or any drastic changes, but simply turn my so-so shots into a bit more professional looking photos.
z....runs for cover |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 11:56:49 AM · #2 |
I think one issue is - where do you draw the line? Touching up a few spots of noise could easily turn into making more elaborate changes (painting in/out a tree branch, removing partial glare, and so on).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I disagree. I have a pic I'd like to submit for the Yellow challenge, but as it contains a number plate of a car, I don't think I could. If I was able to blur the number plate slightly that would be great. Alas, that's not allowed.
I'm just looking at Jacko's excellent 'Two Classics' photo. The checks in the water blobs looks excellent. If spot editing was allowed, some people might instantly think 'That's just edited', which could detract from the photo itself. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 12:04:11 PM · #3 |
Zadore, several winning photos were taken with a Canon Powershot S30. :)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 12:09:58 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by franziska lang:
Zadore, several winning photos were taken with a Canon Powershot S30. :) |
If that's your way of telling me that it's me that sucks and not the camera...point taken :)
I'm not talking so much in terms of 'winning' a challenge as I am in allowing for more creativity. You stick in a polarizer filter to eliminate glares on a glass, well I want to spot edit all the glares in my photos with Photoshop...isn't that fair?
z |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 12:16:34 PM · #5 |
Actually, I wasn't trying to tell you you suck at all, you don't :) , sorry you got that impression. I was trying to counter the argument that your camera can't return nice-looking shots like other cameras.
As for spot-editing, I can see both sides of the argument ... for and against spot-editing, so I'm not going to get into that one ...
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 12:31:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I think one issue is - where do you draw the line? Touching up a few spots of noise could easily turn into making more elaborate changes (painting in/out a tree branch, removing partial glare, and so on).
|
I think these elements of spot editing are fine for the most part. I think spot editing should be for the puropose of removing unwanted elements of a photo rather than adding new elements to a photo. My 'perspective' and my 'yellow' submissions could not be finished works because of the rules on the site.
I think it's unfair overall to say "you should have chosen a different subject to photograph' simply because there are some elements of your photo that could not be corrected in the camera composition. The beautiful thing about digital photography is that you CAN fix things like this. With the no spot editing rules, we might as well allow scans of film prints / negatives / slides to be entered into the competitions as well :)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 12:56:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think these elements of spot editing are fine for the most part. |
How about "Spot editing to remove noise and small imperfections affecting no more than 2% of the submission"?
Coupled with that, maybe there could be a 'This image was spot edited' box? Then the photos that didn't need it could perhaps be given an extra point if the voter felt it was worthy?
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My 'perspective' and my 'yellow' submissions could not be finished works because of the rules on the site.. |
I appreciate your problem. I'd be interested to see the results (maybe after 12pm for the Yellow one).
Of course, for the uninitiated (such as myself) spot editing might encourage less attention to detail. I think I'd find myself thinking 'Hmm, that's ok, I'll edit that out anyway', rather than taking the best possible photo I could.
Message edited by author 2003-02-16 12:58:07. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 01:01:39 PM · #8 |
ah, but cant you spot edit film as well?, burning and dodging coming easily to mind :) Granted working with film, you are a bit limited in your editing, therefore they can easily do an "anything goes" contest for film photography.. but there's lots of stuff you can do with film that we cant even do in this competition. i was just letting my mind wander, and realised you could patially do layering with film, exposing another shot over a half-exposed film.
Of course it all comes down to "where do you draw the line" .. and thats the hard part. somoene would have to "decide" if there was too much spot editing, or if they can even tell. After years of photoshopping, i can do some pretty wicked editing to pics, and could probably combine elements from multiple pictures together. This would be pretty "wrong" in the sense that i'm not submitting a photo, but more of a "collage" nicely put together.
It's a weird situation with digital photography, and to be fair i guess going to one extreme presents the least trouble with disqualifications, etc.
just my 2 cents :P
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 01:08:18 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think these elements of spot editing are fine for the most part. |
How about "Spot editing to remove noise and small imperfections affecting no more than 2% of the submission"?
Coupled with that, maybe there could be a 'This image was spot edited' box? Then the photos that didn't need it could perhaps be given an extra point if the voter felt it was worthy?
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My 'perspective' and my 'yellow' submissions could not be finished works because of the rules on the site.. |
I appreciate your problem. I'd be interested to see the results (maybe after 12pm for the Yellow one).
Of course, for the uninitiated (such as myself) spot editing might encourage less attention to detail. I think I'd find myself thinking 'Hmm, that's ok, I'll edit that out anyway', rather than taking the best possible photo I could. |
I don't believe that 'how' the image was achieved should play a role in the scoring. What you see before you is what you should vote on.. not how the photographer achieved the result.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 01:56:05 PM · #10 |
Sadly (because it does stifle some legitimate creativity) I side with the admittedly draconian "no spot editing" camp. I'd certainly agree to several exceptions, however, one mentioned above (the removal of a auto tag number.)
As regards filters & certain cameras, I submit that filters are where you find them. I've seen some incredible use of "natural filters" here on this site. Also, if it's really impossible to mount some sort of filter adapter on a given camera, it's probably still possible to somehow arrange to shoot through the filter, even if it means holding it there manually.
Whoever said "necessity is the mother of invention" must have been a photographer. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 02:07:47 PM · #11 |
I am continually shocked by how many times the same topics -- indeed excatly the same questions and complaints -- keep coming up and wasting bandwidth. Just about every week there is someone complaining about whether or not spot editing should be allowed, about the unfairness of in-camera abilities.
This is sheer laziness, folks. Nothing but laziness.
Find an old thread and revive it if you anything new to say. Or, better yet, just read the old threads first and see if there is anything at all ORIGINAL that you can add. If not, please don't start another thread just to rehash the same old stuff!! It is REALLY boring.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 02:11:02 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jak:
I am continually shocked by how many times the same topics -- indeed excatly the same questions and complaints -- keep coming up and wasting bandwidth. Just about every week there is someone complaining about whether or not spot editing should be allowed, about the unfairness of in-camera abilities.
This is sheer laziness, folks. Nothing but laziness.
Find an old thread and revive it if you anything new to say. Or, better yet, just read the old threads first and see if there is anything at all ORIGINAL that you can add. If not, please don't start another thread just to rehash the same old stuff!! It is REALLY boring. |
If you don't want to discuss spot editing, then why did you post to this thread?
I think it's a worthy discussion and hope that one day spot editing will be allowed on dpchallenge...
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 02:14:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sadly (because it does stifle some legitimate creativity) I side with the admittedly draconian "no spot editing" camp...Also, if it's really impossible to mount some sort of filter adapter on a given camera, it's probably still possible to somehow arrange to shoot through the filter, even if it means holding it there manually.
Whoever said "necessity is the mother of invention" must have been a photographer. |
I found a 52mm polarizing filter in a basket at my local trift store for 50¢. It's about twice the size of my lens assembly, so it's no problem to hold it over the lens with my "other" hand -- with a little pressure to hold it flat it helps stablize the shot almost as well as a two-handed grip. It does obscure the viewfinder a little, but I usually have pre-composed the shot anyway. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 02:19:30 PM · #14 |
and until a "search" function appears on the forums, starting it "fresh" for the newer people can be usefull.. in any case.. if you dont like it that much, dont even click the thread if it says "spot editing" in the topic :)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 02:35:44 PM · #15 |
How about simply allowing any editing that yelds the same effect as any marketed camera filter? Have the user submit two photos, one before the filter, one after, and what filter they used. To make this more manageable start a collected list (on dpc) of filters and their effects. Limit a users editing to one of the filters on the list (which would be added to when possible).
Just a thought, don't flame me too badly *ducks*.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 05:11:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Refracted:
ah, but cant you spot edit film as well?, burning and dodging coming easily to mind :) Granted working with film, you are a bit limited in your editing, therefore they can easily do an "anything goes" contest for film photography.. but there's lots of stuff you can do with film that we cant even do in this competition. i was just letting my mind wander, and realised you could patially do layering with film, exposing another shot over a half-exposed film.
Of course it all comes down to "where do you draw the line" .. and thats the hard part. somoene would have to "decide" if there was too much spot editing, or if they can even tell. After years of photoshopping, i can do some pretty wicked editing to pics, and could probably combine elements from multiple pictures together. This would be pretty "wrong" in the sense that i'm not submitting a photo, but more of a "collage" nicely put together.
It's a weird situation with digital photography, and to be fair i guess going to one extreme presents the least trouble with disqualifications, etc.
just my 2 cents :P |
I don't think people would get carried away with the spot editing. If you look at the entries for windows and doors challenge, where editing was allowed, you'll find a lot of nice photos that are not 'overdone'. People here (after hanging around for awhile) learn what they can get away with and what they can't. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 06:08:34 PM · #17 |
wow, Jak! get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning??? ;-)
as the owner of a lower end digital camera (1.3 mp), i have learned to improvise. a cheap pair of sunglasses held in front of the lens makes a good polarizing filter...a magnifying glass in front of the lens boosts the macro capabilities. i know this makes it harder for me to compete with more powerful cameras, but it's also taught me to see things a little differently BECAUSE my camera isn't one a pro would use. and seeing things differently can be a good thing sometimes.
i don't think minor spot editing would give anyone an unfair advantage. no photographer can edit out power lines or a piece of trash "in camera"...but, i think a lot of shots would be more "available" and appealing if we could edit out these things. as long as the photo is kept as natural as possible, i don't see the harm.
take care...
sher
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 06:10:21 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Jak:
....
Find an old thread and revive it if you anything new to say. Or, better yet, just read the old threads first and see if there is anything at all ORIGINAL that you can add. If not, please don't start another thread just to rehash the same old stuff!! It is REALLY boring. |
Very easily said, but not so easily done since there is no searching capability.
I agree that we should be able to do reasonable spot editing. For example, my camera has a glowing blue spot that shows up in the lower right section when I take a long exposure. There is nothing I can do about it except spot edit it out or crop it out. If cropping doesn't support my composition, I am stuck with it. Maybe it can be fixed, but I don't want to spend any money on it either. Spot editing it out is a 2-click process in PS with the cloning tool; very simple.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 06:57:52 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Whoever said "necessity is the mother of invention" must have been a photographer. |
I took a photo on the weekend inside a plastic grocery bag to create a soft lighting effect... I figure it's a pretty cheap softbox since the supermarket gives them away free with your groceries!
As far as spot editing... I think both camps have a valid point, and I like DPChallenges solution of occaisionally allowing "any editing". I like the rules the way they are for most challenges though for fear of the site changing from a photography challenge to a photoshop challenge.
Perhaps we should just have a few more "anything goes" challenges. On the converse I'd be interested in having a no editing (except a single resize) challenge - no crop, no levels, nothing. That would really show who is good with a camera in their hands... I'd lose miserably.
I do agree with the concept of masking a licence plate number if required, however I've seen photos on this site with clear number plates and I can't think of many situations where it would be a problem. If the car was in public you have the right to take a photo of it - as far as I understand. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 07:19:08 PM · #20 |
In all honesty, I had not even realized that "spot-editing" was not allowed. I have not submitted yet, so no harm done, but the rule seems rather strict. I can certainly understand rules against digital manipulation, but I have alway been able to spot out dust and scratches when working in the dark room and assumed that any techniques available in a traditional dark room setting would be allowed here. As far a where to draw the line.... I believe removing dusk spots and hot pixels should be permited.
Message edited by author 2003-02-16 19:19:49. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 07:41:10 PM · #21 |
Being able to spot edit, imo, is one of the great things that separates digital photography from film photography. Being able to 'fix' something that could not be fixed with the camera is a really nice thing :)
I don't agree with the arguments being made about being able to duplicate what you can do in the darkroom however. There are probably only a small handful of people on dpc who process their own film.
Being able to use the paintbrush / clone / dodge / burn tools allow a home based digital photographer to properly finish an image.
We already have the ability to modify our images in such a way that they no longer look like photographs. Why can't we have the ability to make our photographs look like better photos?
I don't think it really matters to what extent a photographer uses these tools. I already draw a line between what is photography and what is digital art. I traditionally score images that don't look like photographs lower for this reason. I would continue to do that even if all the available editing tools were available for use on this site.
A possible way to word the rule on editing would be:
********
You may post process (edit) your photo in any way you see fit. This site is about PHOTOGRAPHY and you should try to maintain a photographic nature to all your images. You should NOT create composite images by combining elements of more than one photograph. Your final image should be achieved all on one layer. You should NOT apply filters to your images that make them look like paintings / drawings / cartoons / sketches / or any other form of digital artwork.
********
After all... I don't believe that you could make a bad photograph into a great photograph by editing it. You still have to have a good image to work with from the very beginning.
:)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 08:04:42 PM · #22 |
I agree with all the positive points to allowing editing but also see it doing more harm than good in some situations.
There would be plently of comments along the lines of "you should have edited ..." or "you should have cloned out ...". Maybe anyone who didn't spend an hour or 2 editing their image would struggle to well anymore.
There would be a new rant to add to the regular list, namely "Photoshop users have an unfair advantage". You can argue as much as you want that anything that can be done in PS can be done in the free editor that came with your camera but it won't stop the argument cropping up every 2 weeks.
I tend to do very little to my shots - there's only so many hours in the day and my editing skills beyond cropping, level adjustment and unsharp mask pretty much suck.
I guess I'm on the leave the rules as they are side of the fence. I would hate to see things go the way of F1 where so many aids were allowed that it became hard for a driver to make a mistake. As a result the races became dull & predictable and the FIA are having to take the driving aids away again. Life without imperfections sounds like a nightmare to me. |
|
|
|
02/16/2003 08:18:34 PM · #23 |
I have to admit, John, that you make strong case for allowing spot editing. I have always been concerned that this site would just turn into a photo editing contest. Aside from Dpchallenge, I often spot edit my own photos to improve them but with the intention of keeping them as photographs. I feel that the line is crossed into digital art when the editing is visible and/or prominant features are either added or removed from the image. Basically , messing with too many pixels is bad and messing with the lighting (which is the essence of photography) can be good. Where that line is drawn is very subjective and that is my concern. If the rules were worded properly like you suggested then I might be in favor of testing spot editing to see what results we get. I am skeptical about it, though, because some people tend to try to get away with as much as they can. Something else to consider is that many people would be unimpressed with some of the high quality photos with the thinking that they were just manipulated greatly to make them look that good when in reality the photo may not have any significant changes at all.
T
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 08:24:44 PM · #24 |
Tim, I agree with what you say but the theory is flawed in my own mind....
When I listen to Mozart, I don't ask myself what kind of work went into the symphony. When I view Renoir paintings, I don't wonder what kind of brushes he used...
I don't understand why people would worry about the 'how' instead of what they see before them...
|
|
|
|
02/16/2003 08:30:25 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Being able to spot edit, imo, is one of the great things that separates digital photography from film photography...We already have the ability to modify our images in such a way that they no longer look like photographs... |
Guilty! Although I'll still maintain that "Golden Gate" as a tri-tone "painting" is a better image than the original (link on the photo page), and it was already late Sunday afternoon...
I agree with everything else except the one-layer part -- I usually clone/paint onto a separate layer first; then flatten the image. Non-destructive editing "is one of the great things that separates digital photography from film photography."
I'd be for trying at least one free-editing challenge/month to start, and see how it goes. If people stay within the spirit of the guidelines you listed then the rules may be relaxed more frequently. I'd likewise be willing to try a "re-size only" challenge at least once. |
|
