| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2006 05:39:44 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've always been a big fan of DangerMouse. |
Excellent, I knew you would come round to my point of view ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:44:10 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've always been a big fan of DangerMouse. |
Excellent, I knew you would come round to my point of view ;-) |
Now we can get back to worrying about Britney Spears' divorce and if Neon entries will get into triple digits.
FWIW, I really liked 
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 17:49:16.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:00:23 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Falc:
...I have no problem with altering the raw image to better match what my visualisation saw when I took the shot. |
Sometimes I think that something that comes straight from the camera is the sketch and only after the editing it has become the photograph. |
But if you edit it too far, it becomes a cartoon ? |
That happens a lot I think. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:29:14 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most English-speaking people above the age of 4 would describe a new object there (as opposed to RGB smoke, where three plumes of smoke blended at the top are still three plumes of smoke blended at the top). |
So then, you would feel differently if it was say one match and still the 3 colours of smoke ? |
How many threads have we beat this to death in? And where oh where is dr. nick and his popcorn when you really need him??...... |
 |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:37:39 PM · #255 |
Post-processing of a photo can correct minor flaws and turn a good photo into a great photo. It cannot however make a bad photo a good photo (and I should know!). Manipulating colors of existing objects does not make it digital art, although it occasionally makes it for some viewers less appealing than the original.
So, some of you don't like the the RGB smoke. It is possible to make RGB smoke with certain minerals/elements. If the photographer used those chemicals, would the photo still piss you off? What if the green stopsign was handmade by the photographer so that it were green? In photography, just because something doesn't look real doesn't mean that it isn't real, and just because it looks real, doesn't mean that it is. Photography is an art, expressing the photographers perspective and vision; it is not just a freeze frame of time and space.
The point of the rules, imo, is to allow maximum manipulation of existing elements without adding a clearly defined object that was never there. Its not a difficult concept, and as long as participants keep it in mind during post-processing, there shouldn't be a problem with the validity of their entries. Will there be people who'll try to expand the boundaries? Yes there will, just like there will be people who want to shrink them. But, these are our rules for these challenges, which we agree to by participating on this site. Those who do not agree with the rules (and subsequent rulings) are free to find an alternative photography contest.
The part of the rules that I like the best is the statement that if you suspect a rules violation, you should vote on the photo as if it were perfectly legal. It is unfair to punish people for something you only suspect that they have done. As I said, some of the effects achieved in post-processing can be achieved without it. So vote on what you see, not what you assume you should/shouldn't see. If you can't do that, then skip it. But, certainly, if you feel you've found an infraction, report the photo.
If you're definition of photography is offended by post-processing such as the selective colorshifts in the RGB smoke, then stick with the basic editing challenges where that sort of post-processing is not permitted. Personally, I am grateful for both types of challenges. One allows me to experiment and learn about the tools available, and the other helps to level the playing field for those of us who are only just learning how to do things like making RGB smoke. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:57:19 PM · #256 |
And now for a whole new gripe.
Basic editing rules do not allow for things like selective coloring. Yet at the same time, some cameras allow this internally, and the rules state you can use whatever exists in your camera.
What's the difference between doing it in camera and out of camera? It is still software manipulation. And if anything, gives an advantage to those who purchase said cameras.
Seems to me fair is fair. If you can do it in camera with software, then let it be done outside of the camera. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 07:01:14 PM · #257 |
| Cameras allow for selective colouring in camera? Selective colouring meaning in this case that you can select an area and manipulate its colours separatedly from the other areas of the photo? |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 07:10:07 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Cameras allow for selective colouring in camera? Selective colouring meaning in this case that you can select an area and manipulate its colours separatedly from the other areas of the photo? |
E.g., The Sony DSC-N2
Has a touch screen and stylus that lets you do spot editing to the image.
What's interesting about the DSC-N2's touchscreen is its Paint function, found in the camera's Playback menu. Paint mode offers a mini image editing interface, with options for painting lines, stamping, cloning, and rotating. While any serious retouching is better left to a more complete software package and a larger display, it is fun to be able to alter images in the camera and then print them directly to a PictBridge device. However, take note, the Sony N2 automatically saves any altered file at 640 x 480 pixels, which is really only best for printing snapshots and sending as email attachments. I don't know if the Paint utility will be useful for serious photographers, but some consumers may get a kick out of imprinting graphics on a photograph, or circling an area of interest with the paintbrush tool.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 07:13:44 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Cameras allow for selective colouring in camera? Selective colouring meaning in this case that you can select an area and manipulate its colours separatedly from the other areas of the photo? |
E.g., The Sony DSC-N2
Has a touch screen and stylus that lets you do spot editing to the image.
What's interesting about the DSC-N2's touchscreen is its Paint function, found in the camera's Playback menu. Paint mode offers a mini image editing interface, with options for painting lines, stamping, cloning, and rotating. While any serious retouching is better left to a more complete software package and a larger display, it is fun to be able to alter images in the camera and then print them directly to a PictBridge device. However, take note, the Sony N2 automatically saves any altered file at 640 x 480 pixels, which is really only best for printing snapshots and sending as email attachments. I don't know if the Paint utility will be useful for serious photographers, but some consumers may get a kick out of imprinting graphics on a photograph, or circling an area of interest with the paintsomehow in the EXIF data?brush tool. |
That's interesting. It must be difficult however to do much editing on a little tiny screen. If these edits are saved as a 640x480 file, would you not have two originals of sorts then? |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 07:23:01 PM · #260 |
| Sounds like the EXIF data would be altered on any images edited in the camera, which would then make those invalid as originals. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 07:48:19 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's pretty obvious in this shot that the color, impact, and challenge connection were all created in post, but the voters didn't seem to have a problem with it.
 |
Yup, and scored higher than the 'real' thing
I haven't claimed to be some sort of conduit for the site zeitgeist, but I'd happily say that a red stop sign changed to be green, in a green challenge, also breaks that ethical/moral pact that I was alluding to, as well. Giving it a catchy title seems to smooth the way though.
Also, there is no deceit being practiced here. All the viewers know what was going on. Nobody thought it really was a green sign. So maybe that's the distinction. The other cases are less honest. |
Fair statement. So, I guess my question is, how would you quantify this into a rule that is both clear and easy to understand? Remember that history has shown that the community tends not to like ambiguous or highly subjective rules. When subjectivity cannot be avoided, the test which will be applied should at least be incorporated into the rule.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 07:55:30 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Cameras allow for selective colouring in camera? Selective colouring meaning in this case that you can select an area and manipulate its colours separatedly from the other areas of the photo? |
E.g., The Sony DSC-N2
Has a touch screen and stylus that lets you do spot editing to the image.
What's interesting about the DSC-N2's touchscreen is its Paint function, found in the camera's Playback menu. Paint mode offers a mini image editing interface, with options for painting lines, stamping, cloning, and rotating. While any serious retouching is better left to a more complete software package and a larger display, it is fun to be able to alter images in the camera and then print them directly to a PictBridge device. However, take note, the Sony N2 automatically saves any altered file at 640 x 480 pixels, which is really only best for printing snapshots and sending as email attachments. I don't know if the Paint utility will be useful for serious photographers, but some consumers may get a kick out of imprinting graphics on a photograph, or circling an area of interest with the paintsomehow in the EXIF data?brush tool. |
That's interesting. It must be difficult however to do much editing on a little tiny screen. If these edits are saved as a 640x480 file, would you not have two originals of sorts then? |
All the more reason to not distinguish between in-camera and out-of-camera but rather on just the net "effect" that is applied however it is done. It would also help level the playing field between those with snazzy cutting edge cameras and those without them (ex. like the Nikon multi-shutter click / multi-exposure shots which are legal even in basic editing.)
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 19:56:15. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:06:06 PM · #263 |
I, too, tend to feel cheated at times.
If you present me with a green stop sign (or some other obviously impossible thing), it doesn't bother me much because I KNOW it was manipulated in pp. I can use my vote and/or comments to let the photographer know what I thought of the idea.
However, if you give me someone in a pink outfit for a "Pink" challenge, I must assume the photographer is innocent (i.e. it truly WAS pink) unless proven guilty. Sadly, though, in THIS case, I have NO way of knowing that I am being cheated, and therefore I end up voting on a lie.
I have no suggestions for a perfect solution, but I sure wish there was a way to stop that sort of "legal cheating". |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:33:35 PM · #264 |
| in-camera processing/edits should be allowed as it was previously, with the exception that the spot-editing clause overrides the in-camera rule for certain special cases. I'm sure the SC-clan (lol) has thought about those exceptions and won't allow it. But I also think there should be a quick guide to prevent new-members from "abusing" that in-camera clause. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 09:07:06 PM · #265 |
Heck all this talk about feeling cheated reminds me of one of the earliest pictures that I discoverd wasn't "real"
This all goes back to that whole philosophical "Is photography truth?" stuff.
I'm really sorry that there is still ambiguity. But, to me, the only way to erase that is to lay down definite parameters about what you can and cannot do. And that will just lead into the "this site stifles my creativity too much" arguments.
and round and round we go.
I'm still waiting for someone to help us out on the wording of a rule that will prevent the viewer from being cheated, but still allow basic "art" things. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 09:41:40 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The term has been promoted from a 'should' in the old rules to a 'must' in the new rules so I'm just assuming this means something. |
Yeah... it means that's the only scale available on the voting page, so you don't have a choice. ;-) |
Jeez! This is the stupidest thing to argue about I can find on these several pages ... "should" vs "must" is, as the Bard put it, much ado about nothing. We can edit the rule (in a few weeks) to just say "Use the voting scale ..." |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 09:45:33 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Jeez! This is the stupidest thing to argue about I can find on these several pages ... "should" vs "must" is, as the Bard put it, much ado about nothing. We can edit the rule (in a few weeks) to just say "Use the voting scale ..." |
Dunno, the last 'should' vs 'must' discussion I was involved in cost about $1.5 million dollars. Like I said, I have to deal with that sort of stuff all the time, perhaps I'm just sensitive to it. But I assumed the fact that it had changed from one revision to the next and had been promoted to a more stringent level was meaningful.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 21:46:20.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:00:03 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by fencekicker:
The part of the rules that I like the best is the statement that if you suspect a rules violation, you should vote on the photo as if it were perfectly legal. It is unfair to punish people for something you only suspect that they have done. |
Aha! You've spotted what's almost certainly the most frequently violated rule at DPC. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:04:02 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Dunno, the last 'should' vs 'must' discussion I was involved in cost about $1.5 million dollars. |
If we had even $10 at stake then it would be much ado about something at least; I just think that's the least important discussion we have to deal with here. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:08:55 PM · #270 |
these new rules DO NOT apply to the basic editing challenges beginning tonight (reflections without mirrors/neon sign), right?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:12:57 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
these new rules DO NOT apply to the basic editing challenges beginning tonight (reflections without mirrors/neon sign), right? |
Originally posted by Langdon:
These rules (barring any obvious flaws) will be in effect, as written, for all challenges that begin between November 6th and November 29th. |
So the answer is "yes", they do apply. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:33:21 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by elsapo:
these new rules DO NOT apply to the basic editing challenges beginning tonight (reflections without mirrors/neon sign), right? |
Originally posted by Langdon:
These rules (barring any obvious flaws) will be in effect, as written, for all challenges that begin between November 6th and November 29th. |
So the answer is "yes", they do apply. |
Didn't those challenges start last week ? The voting starts tonight, the challenge started last week ?
Can we get a definite ruling on this ?
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 22:36:34.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:36:39 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Langdon:
These rules (barring any obvious flaws) will be in effect, as written, for all challenges that begin between November 6th and November 29th. |
So the answer is "yes", they do apply. |
Didn't those challenges start last week ? The voting starts tonight, the challenge started last week ?
Can we get a real ruling on this ? |
yeah that confused me, I need to know cause i have a dust spot :P
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:38:01 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
yeah that confused me, I need to know cause i have a dust spot :P |
Same here, and the challenges say they are under the old rules.
Exclusive Open Challenge Exclusive Open Challenge: Neon Signs
Rules: Basic Editing IV
Submission: Nov. 1st - Nov. 7th
Submissions: 114
View Details and Submit
Edit: hmm. Well, sort of basic editing IV should allow spot editing.
But on the challenge rules page, basic editing IV doesn't allow spot editing (which I think is the problem)
and the link I think is to basic editing III, which is titled basic editing IV, and doesn't allow spot editing.
Someone want to clear this up before its too late to re-edit/ resubmit ? :)
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 22:43:58.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:53:57 PM · #275 |
I thought the rules would be announced on the 6th (and were released on the 5th), and would be in effect for the challenges announced on the 6th and tonight.
so the dust bunny stays, i think. |
|
