| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 04:54:13 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
This brings up a good example of removing major elements... |
Except that Major Elements weren't part of the rules at the time. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:55:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
This brings up a good example of removing major elements... |
Except that Major Elements weren't part of the rules at the time. |
Ahhh...why the rule addition?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:56:20 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
This brings up a good example of removing major elements... |
Except that Major Elements weren't part of the rules at the time. |
Ahhh...why the rule addition? |
Dunno. I wasn't around yet. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:57:11 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You ARE aware that in the digital world the camera itself is an "editor" right? I can use my 20D in jpg mode to shoot B/W, sepia, low saturation, high saturation, low contrast, high contrast, any white balance I choose to dial in, low sharpness or high sharpness, whatever.
Or I can shoot in RAW and program any of these variations in after the fact as if it WERE the original, which in fact it IS. RAW represents the original, unadjusted image and it looks like mud. Every digital camera "edits" pictures so the RAW data becomes visually appealing, and nearly all of them allow you to vary the "editing" they do to attain different effects.
Robt. |
I was just shooting that suggestion off the cuff, but I think the original posters statement revolved around the amount of processing that is done after the pic is taken. Sure you can set up your camera for a multitude of settings preshot - which would in essence make it the original - but it seems to be the editing afterwards, usually in Photoshop or a similar program, where we are able to get the more specific designed look of our shot and possibly make it look overprocessed or fake. Any prep with camera settings beforehand I would consider to be knowing how to use your equipment, be it digital or not and not editing. But then I may just be rambling. I love my photoshop.
I havent worked with RAW images so I have no clue what can be done with them.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 17:00:17.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:59:05 PM · #30 |
| How about this for an exciting challenge, no editing, in fact no images, we just judge the shots based on the source code. Best series of 1s and 0s wins! |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:01:59 PM · #31 |
All this talk about things looking phony because of the inherent differences between film and digital seriously begs a burning question:
WHO CARES?!
So there are new capabilities. True. But with any artform, even photography, there are advances made, both technologically and methodically. Your taste is your taste, for sure, but digital photography allows for greater post-production control, so we shouldn't limit what we find to be acceptable just because we think someone overutilizes available tools, it's all preference.
P.S. Dodging and burning are two of the most basic processes in film photography; it started there first. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:02:44 PM · #32 |
Post processing is just another part of the creative process. So what if it isn't straight from the camera. If I have a particular photographic vision of a very dramatic scene, using dodge and burn or cloning can help me bring that about. I did lots of dodging and burning on my Beacon Heights shot but it created the effect that I intended from the moment I started hiking the trail. I still look at this and think maybe I should have dodged some areas more.
Learn to take advantage of photoshop and you can do so much more with your photography that is otherwise not possible.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 17:04:14. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:04:11 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I was just shooting that suggestion off the cuff, but I think the original posters statement revolved around the amount of processing that is done after the pic is taken. Sure you can set up your camera for a multitude of settings preshot - which would in essence make it the original - but it seems to be the editing afterwards, usually in Photoshop or a similar program, where we are able to get the more specific designed look of our shot and possibly make it look overprocessed or fake. Any prep with camera settings beforehand I would consider to be knowing how to use your equipment, be it digital or not and not editing. But then I may just be rambling. I love my photoshop. |
My point is that if you are serious about your work, RAW is the only way to go, and you can adjust all these in-camera settings AFTER shooting in the RAW processor; basically all you need to do is get the exposure right when shooting. If you shoot JPG, you lose that flexibility and gain nothing. And RAW is actually a great learning tool even IF you want to shoot your "family stuff" straight-to-jpg for ease of distribution.
By opening a RAW image and playing with white balance, for example, you can SEE the effects different white balances have in different lighting conditions, and you can SEE how "auto" WB will handle the lighting, and you thus become better-informed about WB and can apply this knowledge to your camera settings when shooting in JPG mode. Ditto for contrast, saturation, all that stuff.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:06:06 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Now here is an opportunity for a new type challenge. A Free Study - NO EDITING - No photoshop except to resize for web purposes. Take it to the extreme just to see what people can produce with camera alone. |
Great idea :-) that could be fun.
Digital photography is a new way of taking and making pictures. Not the same thing as taking pictures and then doing some work in the dark-room. In some ways you can compare the two, in some ways you can not. I have only been here since January, taken part in 7 or 8 challenges, score is not too good, but I want to learn this way too. Have not been all bad at the old fashioned way and this is a challenge.
I am not going to let others tell me what is a good photo and what isn't, I want to find my own way.
What is artificial and phoney is a matter of opinion. Being on DPC means you have a digital camera that probably means you have Photoshop or something similar in your pc or Mac. That means that you manipulate your pictures. No one here can tell where the boarder is, where you pass the line over to artificial, to the phoney.
I'm not yellow, but sure have it on my mind right now.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:08:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
what do you think???? |
If it makes you feel any better, I think there is a growing backlash against it. Actually, I think my shot is getting nailed in part for it's dodge/burn feel. This is one of the few times I've actually "edited" my photo for entry in any real way.
Usually I just shoot, crop, sharpen. So this shot I took required a bit of extra processing effort. Gave it a shot. It's doing okay but much lower than I feel it should be getting.
- Saj |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:25:14 PM · #36 |
thanks kawesttex........ that is the analogy i was looking for!!!
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:33:02 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Ahhh...why the rule addition? |
if i recall correctly it all started around the time Labuda entered this shot
he digitally re-created the blade, which got some people's shorts in a knot. i think it was eventually DQd even though there were no specific rules against it at the time, which spawned the need for several re-writes.
or I might be remembering incorrectly. I drink sometimes.
P |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:36:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
or I might be remembering incorrectly. I drink sometimes.
P |
Excellent idea! It's after 5:30 here; I think I'll have a drink (or two)... My update button is getting too hot for comfort.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:39:54 PM · #39 |
| There was another photo where several images/items were laid out and captured in a single shot, which was then cut up and re-assembled into a final composite image. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 07:55:53 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
thanks kawesttex........ that is the analogy i was looking for!!! |
No problem, but the bird was not a sparrow, the editing only removed some distracting elements to make it an outstanding photo. The 'major element' rule may have changed the capability to post a shot like this during a challenge now though. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 06:09:22 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by holdingtime:
Most of the people in here over 35 probably didnt grow up with computers and learning how to use them is a new world in its own. |
Hey you are making me feel old. I turn 34 in July. :) Btw, I grew up using computers and had them in school. Those Apple IIe's were the bomb back then. lol |
hehe - Try the old TRS-80 with cassette tapes for hard dives that ran only on BASIC. Now I FEEL OLD! haha
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 06:52:09 AM · #42 |
This one got voted down for looking unnatural in Best of 2005.
Funny thing is, when I showed the webpage and comments to this couple, the husband said that he was not really surprised about this because of the way his skin looks, but seriously, he skin really does look that smooth. Especially when you are face to face. The whole picture hinged on that smoothness.
He's a lucky boy and I've been keeping my eye on girls from that tribe ever since he got married to her...
You never really know though how close some of these 'artificial' pics really are artificial.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 06:56:04 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by davidcara:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by holdingtime:
Most of the people in here over 35 probably didnt grow up with computers and learning how to use them is a new world in its own. |
Hey you are making me feel old. I turn 34 in July. :) Btw, I grew up using computers and had them in school. Those Apple IIe's were the bomb back then. lol |
hehe - Try the old TRS-80 with cassette tapes for hard dives that ran only on BASIC. Now I FEEL OLD! haha |
I had a handheld TRS80 with the printer, tape player/recorder interface, and even a couple of prepurchased programs. That's where I learned BASIC programming, at age, umm, twelve, maybe????
Wow. Those were the days of PRINT, FOR/NEXT, GOTO 10 and untold versions of "BERNARD IS THE GREATEST" on Sears demo units.... |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 07:13:49 AM · #44 |
In my career, I have become quite accustomed to dropping film off at a lab and getting back bright vivrant prints. In all retrospect that was easy. Now, I'm going almost all digital (or trying too) and for the most part have shot JPEG for most of those assignments, because they come out of the camera like prints with little PP work needed.
Now, I'm switching my workflow to RAW. Whoa, this takes me back to my college newspaper days, sitting in the darkroom trying to get the PERFECT image for reproduction. RAW images are very FLAT from the camera, but wow are they flexible and really does remind me of what I used to do with that enlarger and different chemical temperatures and processing times (but less expensive).
And, with Photoshop, I don't waste a lot of paper dodging and burning, I mess up, I can hit UNDO.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 07:15:43 AM · #45 |
It's a style just let it go.
Stop blaming digital, for all it is, digital might have saved photography and created a new art, digital art (although not a fan). Ever been in a darkroom? I can produce the same "artificial" looking pictures in a darkroom as well as in photoshop.
Photography has never been just taking a picture ALONE, never. You've got the printing process, the actual development, hell, even the film you use can vary the picture.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 07:19:33 AM · #46 |
The major elements thing was because of this shot of mine, which got the blue, and one of Aleks Labuda's, which got the red, in the window view challenge. If anyone's still interested.
e |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 07:52:43 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
thats like taking a Yugo, putting BMW decals over the Yugo decals, and calling it a BMW.
artificial right down to the core. |
I think your analogy is closer to "he took a picture of a sparrow and turned into a hawk" |
Yeah. It's more like he simply removed the decals from an existing BMW. Note, however, that Crabappl's winner was entered before the major elements clause was in place, and the same editing could very well be DQ'd under the current rules. |
Boy, I hope not. I would say the major element was the bird and not the minor wire fence... |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 08:20:30 AM · #48 |
At first I felt the same way about editing photos with whatever software ppl are using! But now, it's photography and digital art mixed together in one....and you can get some amazing results with editing. Just like the bird pic, sometimes you see a perfect shot but something is there screwing it up...with the editing, you can get that perfect shot (well sometimes haha) I'm still trying to learn how to do the editing and what is legal in the challenges, the only things I'm experienced at is making sigs, crop, brightness, resize, and sharpening haha Haven't really messed with the dodge and burn stuff yet...what I did try looked horrible! Editing is just a part of digital photography...first you gotta have something to edit, that's the important part! ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 09:05:41 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by justahobby:
Haven't really messed with the dodge and burn stuff yet...what I did try looked horrible! |
If you use Paint Shop Pro, it will probably always look horrible - there seem to be some real problems with their approach to that. Photoshop or PS Elements does a MUCH better job.
Originally posted by justahobby:
Editing is just a part of digital photography...first you gotta have something to edit, that's the important part! ;-) |
Please don't misunderstand this, but that's a REALLY BIG signature graphic you have, and if you could edit it to maybe 100 pix high or something like that, it wouldn't be quite so intrusive. Thanks :) |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 09:10:24 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
however, a lot of these photos that people are posting (and winning with) look very artificial due to all the digital editing that is being done to them.
what do you think???? |
I think it may be true for some, but isn't for others. For example:
Hopefully you will agree that's an excellent shot and deserving of the win. Scroll down in the comments to see a thumb of the original, complete with fencing over the bird's face. Only digital post processing could take care of that so effectively. And I think you'd agree that at the very least, that picture doesn't look artificial at all. |
This brings up a good example of removing major elements... |
Damn straight! I call for retrospective DQ! Shouldn't have won at all!
Now. How about this for a counter example:
Personally, I think this looks more "fake" than Crab's shot, and I can guarantee that it has much less post processing. So how do you define looking fake?
Using a graduated ND filter in front of the camera lens would have the same effect as underexposing the image then burning all the bits under the horizon. But one is done before the image is capture and the other is done after. How do you distinguish between the two in the final image?
Looking "fake" is a defined by the viewer, not by the process.
|
|
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: 08/16/2025 05:17:42 AM EDT.
