DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Something very odd about a book on Exposure...
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 186, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/02/2006 07:02:06 PM · #101
Originally posted by Cutter:
And nards, I disagree on one point. Not for one second do I think DPC would be harsh on him. I bet DPC would enjoy the knowledge and contribution from any accomplished photographer.


Perhaps you are correct. Maybe we'll see :) I gave him my personal welcome, anyway.
 11/02/2006 07:04:43 PM · #102
Such a cool thread. I'm glad I read all of it. As for the photo, I don't really see any issues with it. All he said in the book was that he was glad he got the fish in the shot he didn't say he was glad he got three fishes in the shot. Also it was pointed out several times already that the book in question is about exposure. Anyway, great thread I hope he joins the site.
 11/02/2006 07:26:38 PM · #103
Originally posted by agenkin:
If you ask me, cloning that fish in a published photograph *without disclosing it* was a complete no-no. I have read two books by Bryan when I was starting out. I appreciate his response, but my respect for him has declined. It's easy to be honest retrospectively.


Why? The photograph was not being used for a journalistic purpose, and the cloning was totally irrelevant to the point he was demonstrating with the photograph. To me, in the context of this book, the fact that the fish was cloned changes nothing.

Originally posted by Gordon:
and when you realise that it is you that makes the boundaries, you can start to really go somewhere interesting...


Very well said. Mind if I use that in my signature?

~Terry
 11/02/2006 07:56:01 PM · #104
What a great thread!

I do share Bryans view as I have always thought of the photography as an alternation of "the truth". Maybe not a lie but only a partial truth.

Best, Hrannar

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 20:01:32.
 11/02/2006 08:13:58 PM · #105
I find it bizarre that Bryan considers cloning in an extra fish to be "artistic license", yet he somehow considers cropping to be a bad thing. I'm sorry, but cropping is the most benign/innocuous form of photo manipulation possible. Arguably, it's not even manipulation at all.

Surely, every time a photographer takes a picture, s/he essentially "crops out" everything that s/he chooses to not include in the viewfinder. What difference does it make whether you make this cropping decision "in camera" or in post-processing?

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 21:03:00.
 11/02/2006 08:16:35 PM · #106
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Why? The photograph was not being used for a journalistic purpose, and the cloning was totally irrelevant to the point he was demonstrating with the photograph. To me, in the context of this book, the fact that the fish was cloned changes nothing.

For the same reason this sort of thing is not allowed in the DPC challenges. When you do that - the photograph stops being a photograph, becomes a piece of graphic art.

I read the Bryan's book on Exposure (in fact, I read two of his books). It is *wrong* to say that the book only demonstrates exposure. It is geared towards a starting photographer, and gives tips on all aspects of photography (while concentrating on choosing the "creatively correct" exposure).

I think that one of the main harms in this cloning affair is giving a new photographer a start in the wrong direction.
 11/02/2006 08:17:22 PM · #107
great thread / i own/have read a few of his books & (some) are quite worth while
though i'll admit that i belong to "croppers anonymous"
(for various reasons ;)

he gave great answers & the picture might rate a 6.3 but be DQ for major elements modification. ... far warning if he enters any contests ;)
11/02/2006 08:19:00 PM · #108
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
... cropping is the most benign/innocuous form of photo manipulation possible. Arguably, it's not even manipulation at all.

Of course not ...

My top-scoring entry: Original:
11/02/2006 08:19:13 PM · #109
Originally posted by Hauxon:
I do share Bryans view as I have always thought of the photography as an alternation of "the truth". Maybe not a lie but only a partial truth.

I started a discussion of what photography is and how it differs from other visual arts in this thread. You may be interested to have a look.
 11/02/2006 08:34:33 PM · #110
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
... cropping is the most benign/innocuous form of photo manipulation possible. Arguably, it's not even manipulation at all.

Of course not ...

My top-scoring entry: Original:


Well, you've certainly given an extreme example. Nevertheless, the appearance of your final, submitted image is pretty much how that part of the sky "really" (whatever that means) looked. Sure, you cropped out a bunch of stuff to get that final composition, but the part of the photo that remains is essentially unmanipulated. Now, if you had exercised "artistic license" and cut-and-pasted a few seagulls into the scene, I'd say that would definitely be more manipulated than just cropping.

Nice photo, by the way :)

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 20:49:45.
 11/02/2006 09:10:06 PM · #111
Quote from Mr. Peterson

"As I viewed the slides on the light table, it was quickly apparent that the best overall composition would have been to have captured the two fish in front and the one in the rear on the same frame, but we’re talking fish here, fish who are being chased by a bear and there every move is really out of my control. It was than that I decided to exercise ‘artistic license’ and clone a fish near the rear of the bear to achieve what I knew to be a very likely event; three fish running for their life from the jaws of a hungry bear. I am guilty as charged of cloning in a fish near the rear of the bear that chose not stick its head out of the water at the same moment when two fish in front of the bear chose to do so."

That made me laugh. I mean, poor photographer. The fish was beeing uncooperative... and that's what gave him the right to clone it in?

I understand if you wanna exercise "artistic license" to position a leaf on a rock or a mouse on an elephant BEFORE taking the photograph. But cloning the leaf on the rock or cloning the mouse on the elephant later in photoshop is a different story.

Take this photograph by Joey Lawrence for example.

To me, this image is a 10. If I learn Joey cloned in the birds in the background, it drops to 6.

The image is worth alot BECAUSE it's hard to capture such photograph. Joey is talented and he got lucky that day, and lucky is good.

Mr. Peterson didn't get lucky with the fishes that day, well that's too bad. Personally I would have preferred if he would have left it that way instead of hacking reality to make it look better by adding a third fish. If everyone starts hacking reality by adding elements to photographs, how do you give credits to ppl that really deserve it.

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 21:10:31.
 11/02/2006 09:28:34 PM · #112
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
... cropping is the most benign/innocuous form of photo manipulation possible. Arguably, it's not even manipulation at all.

Of course not ...

My top-scoring entry: Original:


Well, you've certainly given an extreme example. Nevertheless, the appearance of your final, submitted image is pretty much how that part of the sky "really" (whatever that means) looked. Sure, you cropped out a bunch of stuff to get that final composition, but the part of the photo that remains is essentially unmanipulated. Now, if you had exercised "artistic license" and cut-and-pasted a few seagulls into the scene, I'd say that would definitely be more manipulated than just cropping.


I strongly disagree. Not only was it severely cropped, he rotated it and the end result conveyed a very different meaning than what was original there. You can't get more manipulated than that. Just my opinion though.

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 21:30:01.
 11/02/2006 09:35:50 PM · #113
Originally posted by yanko:
... the end result conveyed a very different meaning than what was original there. You can't get more manipulated than that. Just my opinion though.

Thank you! : )
 11/02/2006 09:36:08 PM · #114
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
... cropping is the most benign/innocuous form of photo manipulation possible. Arguably, it's not even manipulation at all.

Of course not ...

My top-scoring entry: Original:


Well, you've certainly given an extreme example. Nevertheless, the appearance of your final, submitted image is pretty much how that part of the sky "really" (whatever that means) looked. Sure, you cropped out a bunch of stuff to get that final composition, but the part of the photo that remains is essentially unmanipulated. Now, if you had exercised "artistic license" and cut-and-pasted a few seagulls into the scene, I'd say that would definitely be more manipulated than just cropping.


I strongly disagree. Not only was it severely cropped, he rotated it and the end result conveyed a very different meaning than what was original there. You can't get more manipulated than that. Just my opinion though.


Then why is cropping allowed in DPC basic editing challenges, but cloning is not?
 11/02/2006 09:41:18 PM · #115
Because the Basic rules aren't written to Mr. Peterson's standards?
 11/02/2006 09:55:29 PM · #116
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
... the end result conveyed a very different meaning than what was original there. You can't get more manipulated than that. Just my opinion though.

Thank you! : )


As I said before, every time a photographer takes a picture, s/he essentially "crops out" everything that s/he chooses to not include in the viewfinder. What difference does it make whether you make this cropping decision "in camera" or in post-processing?
 11/02/2006 10:07:31 PM · #117
I actually thought I was weird because I have a similar rule set to mr. Peterson. I personally would never have added a fish, and if I had it would have been from a different exposure so that the splash looked different, but I do feel free to take my editing further than the DPC standards when presenting photos for my gallery. However, I find that I NEVER crop. NEVER. I print 8x12s and 16x24s why? because that to me is the challenge of the photographer. To see that image, to sepearte the individual elements in an interesting way. The thing is, this is MY rule. I think every single person who belongs to this site has his/her own rule set that works for them. This is ART. seriously. People through that word around a lot here, but we are just trying to express ourselves. Lets not judge mr. peterson for a little cloning, or others for cropping, lets enjoy the vision that each of us bring to the table, learn from it, take from it what you consider the good points, leave behind what you consider the bad elements. It is my job to capture beauty and then make sure that the print comes out amazing. I will walk to the ends of the earth to get this goal achieved and if it means I need to spend a few hours in front of the computer... so be it.

drake
 11/02/2006 10:20:39 PM · #118
Last time I checked, DPC is not mainstream (pardon the pun) photography. It's been pointed out again and again that many well regarded professional photographers WHO ARE ROLE MODELS FOR DPCERS do not operate by "dpc rules". Mathew Brady for one would be DQ'd for serious major elements additions. :)

I figure it this way- his editors don't have a problem then I don't. I thank you Mister Petersen for taking the time to remind us that photography is more than just documenting the scene. It's about documenting the moment. :)
 11/02/2006 10:28:47 PM · #119
I did not mean to imply that all photographers should be held to DPC "basic editing" standards. Sorry about that.
 11/02/2006 11:16:00 PM · #120
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
... the end result conveyed a very different meaning than what was original there. You can't get more manipulated than that. Just my opinion though.

Thank you! : )


As I said before, every time a photographer takes a picture, s/he essentially "crops out" everything that s/he chooses to not include in the viewfinder. What difference does it make whether you make this cropping decision "in camera" or in post-processing?


There's no difference because the results are the same. Both tell the same amount of truths and the same amount of lies which is why I always find it amusing when purists balk at photoshoppers for doing the same sort of thing that purist do in-camera. For example, using a polarizer is photo manpulation but a purist will only agree it's manpulation if it's done in photoshop. That's hogwash. Ok, I just posted this so I can use that word. :P
 11/02/2006 11:26:37 PM · #121
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
... the end result conveyed a very different meaning than what was original there. You can't get more manipulated than that. Just my opinion though.

Thank you! : )


As I said before, every time a photographer takes a picture, s/he essentially "crops out" everything that s/he chooses to not include in the viewfinder. What difference does it make whether you make this cropping decision "in camera" or in post-processing?


There's no difference because the results are the same. Both tell the same amount of truths and the same amount of lies which is why I always find it amusing when purists balk at photoshoppers for doing the same sort of thing that purist do in-camera. For example, using a polarizer is photo manpulation but a purist will only agree it's manpulation if it's done in photoshop. That's hogwash. Ok, I just posted this so I can use that word. :P


So, just to be clear, you're agreeing with me on this point, right? I was beginning to think I was all alone on this, lol.
 11/02/2006 11:40:51 PM · #122
I agree with both of you guys on the different points. I agree it doesn't matter when you do the crop but I also agree that the crop (whether in-camera or post) is a form of manpulation as the General pointed out with his extreme example.

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 23:41:28.
 11/03/2006 03:23:56 AM · #123
Originally posted by yann:
That made me laugh. I mean, poor photographer. The fish was beeing uncooperative... and that's what gave him the right to clone it in?

I understand if you wanna exercise "artistic license" to position a leaf on a rock or a mouse on an elephant BEFORE taking the photograph. But cloning the leaf on the rock or cloning the mouse on the elephant later in photoshop is a different story.

Take this photograph by Joey Lawrence for example.

To me, this image is a 10. If I learn Joey cloned in the birds in the background, it drops to 6.

The image is worth alot BECAUSE it's hard to capture such photograph. Joey is talented and he got lucky that day, and lucky is good.

Mr. Peterson didn't get lucky with the fishes that day, well that's too bad. Personally I would have preferred if he would have left it that way instead of hacking reality to make it look better by adding a third fish. If everyone starts hacking reality by adding elements to photographs, how do you give credits to ppl that really deserve it.


What if Mr. Peterson had produced a painting instead of a photograph? If he had seen only two fish, but painted three in a "realistic" landscape painting, would we care?

~Terry

Message edited by author 2006-11-03 03:25:25.
 11/03/2006 03:48:52 AM · #124
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Then why is cropping allowed in DPC basic editing challenges, but cloning is not?


The DPC challenges were designed from the very beginning (back in 2002) as a tool to help learn about photography, with an emphasis on getting as much right in the actual exposure as possible and minimizing reliance on post-processing. They do not, and are not intended to define what it or is not "real photography."

The DPChallenge rules are nothing more than a framework for an exercise. While it is possible to produce great artwork within the context of that exercise, it is also possible to step outside that framework and continue to produce great artwork. "DPC-legal" means little outside the challenges, and nothing outside this site.

~Terry
 11/03/2006 05:28:58 AM · #125
Has anyone mentioned 'Integrity'?

I've read various points here about the Bear/Fish photo being outside of DPC rules. Fine, I agree.

I've read where some have mentioned the book was about exposure and the photo manipulation (cloning) is irrelevant in the scope of the book. Ok, fine, the book is about exposure.

Paintings vs a Photograph? That's a bit thin (nothing personal Terry) - two different items. One expects a painting to be approximate in most cases, artwork with liberal artistic license.

Photography can be many things. If I'm looking at a photo that is a studio or setup shot I know that subjects and items in the composition have been placed/manipulated. My expectations are that it's unrealistic, something may be added and/or removed via PP. If I'm looking at a photo on the front page of the newspaper I expect it to be a true representation of the actual scene.

Point I'm trying to make in a long-winded manner, is that there are various expectations many viewers have when looking at any particular photograph. One of the expectations that I believe exists is that photography of nature is a representation of the actual scene for the most part. Ok, add some contrast, convert to B/W, etc...but don't add elements that weren't there to begin with after the fact.

Integrity is a word I associate with nature photography.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:22:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/03/2025 05:22:59 PM EDT.