| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2006 08:58:14 AM · #1 |
From the Expert Rules:
Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.
What does this mean? I ask for clarification only.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 09:12:23 AM · #2 |
in my opinion (not that it matters)
it is possible to make a cartoon out of an image - don't do that
it is possible to make a image that is not convey a concept, place, person, or thing - don't do that
it is possible to over use filters in such a way that the is little photographic information left in the image - don't do that
and like most - "i knows it when i sees it" - that it still is a photograph ....
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 09:12:59 AM · #3 |
| i'd like that clarified as well ... good question |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 09:27:26 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by ralph:
it is possible to make a image that is not convey a concept, place, person, or thing - don't do that |
So a straight-up basic-editing legal abstract isn't a photograph? :-/
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 09:47:43 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by ralph:
it is possible to make a image that is not convey a concept, place, person, or thing - don't do that |
So a straight-up basic-editing legal abstract isn't a photograph? :-/ |
again - MY OPINION -
if an abstract does not convey any information / feeling / thought it does not work well as an image (i'm not much a fan of OOF blurry messes... no matter how many filters were used .. )
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 09:55:26 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by ralph:
if an abstract does not convey any information / feeling / thought |
it's almost(?) impossible not to convey information / feeling / thought
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 10:14:13 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ralph:
if an abstract does not convey any information / feeling / thought |
it's almost(?) impossible not to convey information / feeling / thought |
i'll disagree - or atleast play devils advocate, i think there as many images than convey nothing -
anecdotal evidence - many of my images convey nothing (but how bad a photographer i am) & those are the ones i delete
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 10:17:51 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
What does this mean? |
Simply this: DPC is a photography contest, so your entry should probably look like a photograph (rather than an illustration, painting or other medium). Images with strong effects filters applied tend to score poorly. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 10:20:39 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ralph:
if an abstract does not convey any information / feeling / thought |
it's almost(?) impossible not to convey information / feeling / thought |
i'll disagree - or atleast play devils advocate, i think there as many images than convey nothing -
anecdotal evidence - many of my images convey nothing (but how bad a photographer i am) & those are the ones i delete |
I guess my point is that you're being too vague about your standards. Any image I've ever seen has conveyed at least one of those three things to me. If an image did not, well, I suppose that would be Nirvana.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 10:34:14 AM · #10 |
It doesn't really mean anything in any sensible way.
It means don't enter pictures that don't look like photos. For example:
  
   
All of which are in the zero to extremely minimal editing categories and fell out of the camera looking just about how they ended up entered. Two of them had curves applied to create the final effect.
So - once someone can tell me what a photo is supposed to look like *insert rolling eye smiley here* then the rules will be all clear, right ?
ps I'm still thrilled that my experiment into the colour theory of pop art still hurts my eyes and makes them zing, even in a thumbnail :) The comments were the best part of that AMAZing entry. It is amazing what you can do with colour.
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 10:39:51.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 10:46:59 AM · #11 |
So "looking like a photo" is the same as "photographic in nature?"
In the current Sky challenge, for instance, there are photos that "look like a photo", but I suspect that some folks would consider them "photo art" or "digital art" rather than "photographic in nature." On the other hand, some folks may see the Expert Rules as being exactly the kind of opportunity to do some of this lovely work.
I'm trying to stay neutral, but I'd still like to know what "photographic in nature" means.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 10:51:09 AM · #12 |
To clarify further:
Some may see the Expert Rules as: "Great, now I can use HDR!"
Other may see the Expert Rules as: "Great, now I can combine photos to show things that are impossible to capture with one photo! I can combine images, play with perceptions and relative sizes and shapes, and make an exciting fantasy!"
So is any of these more "photographic in nature" than the others?
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 10:51:48.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 11:06:37 AM · #13 |
I think the "photographic in nature" phrase was merely picked up from the Advanced Editing rules text, and may not apply as much in Expert. It's only meant as a general reminder that the voters are expecting photos, not drawings. It says that you're "encouraged" to keep entries photographic, not that you have to. If you look at the bottom of the results in many challenges, you'll often find solarized images and other effects that the voters pummeled. There's nothing to stop you from going wild though, and sometimes that actually works.
If you look at Gordon's examples, most scored in the 4-low 5 range. The exceptions were for Neon Sign and Impressionism (which demand a more artistic approach). The paintbrush is photographic IMO. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 11:17:02 AM · #14 |
JOCULAR BREAK
It means no people. " ... in nature", get it.
END OF BREAK |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 11:25:53 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Impressionism (which demand a more artistic approach). |
Actually, I think the rules and restricted entry for Impressionism demanded more from the voters. It was a 'masters' (ignoring the whole tea-cup storm of the word) challenge. The voters knew that the people entering the challenge at least had a clue what they were doing. They were all ribbon winners before, so should at least know which end of a camera is which.
As a result, most any picture in that challenge had to be viewed as deliberate. Nobody explaining that 'this seems a bit blurry' rather they maybe had to stop and think 'why is this so blurry'
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 11:39:48.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 11:33:09 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by ralph:
it is possible to make a image that is not convey a concept, place, person, or thing - don't do that |
So a straight-up basic-editing legal abstract isn't a photograph? :-/ |
again - MY OPINION -
if an abstract does not convey any information / feeling / thought it does not work well as an image (i'm not much a fan of OOF blurry messes... no matter how many filters were used .. ) |
But that's not what you've said. You essentially said that an abstract that I took with my camera, straight from the camera, doesn't qualify as a photograph, since something that doesn't convey a person/place/thing/emotion/concept/yaddayadda isn't photographic in nature. Whatever emotion you do or do not get from it is irrelevant as it came from a camera. Taking a photograph is what a camera does. The subject and composition are not what makes a photo a photo. A photo is always going to be photographic in nature - go figure, since it's a photo.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:19:29 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
But that's not what you've said. You essentially said that an abstract that I took with my camera, straight from the camera, doesn't qualify as a photograph, since something that doesn't convey a person/place/thing/emotion/concept/yaddayadda isn't photographic in nature. Whatever emotion you do or do not get from it is irrelevant as it came from a camera. Taking a photograph is what a camera does. The subject and composition are not what makes a photo a photo. A photo is always going to be photographic in nature - go figure, since it's a photo. |
eh? i don't believe i said any thing about " my camera, straight from the camera " ...
i am saying -
things like  are a photograph
and  are not
same image processed differently
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 12:20:43. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:19:30 PM · #18 |
[agggrhrhhh] dbl post
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 12:20:58. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:28:33 PM · #19 |
It's simply a new way to say that the line between photography and digital art is quite gray and fuzzy. If you flirt with it, there's no way to know if you cross over to the other side. The precise interpretation of where that line is as far as it relates to DPC is left to the Site Council.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:38:50 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's simply a new way to say that the line between photography and digital art is quite gray and fuzzy. If you flirt with it, there's no way to know if you cross over to the other side. The precise interpretation of where that line is as far as it relates to DPC is left to the Site Council. |
Although the rules do say that crossing that line isn't grounds for DQ so the SC's interpretation doesn't really matter much. The only danger is suffering the wrath of the voters.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:39:39 PM · #21 |
It seems like the simple way to explain is that we are supposed to use a camera and make it obvious that a camera was used to create the main parts of the image (not a drawing program or something like that). Effects and distortions can be used but shouldn't take away the appearance that a camera was used.
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 12:40:43. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:43:35 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by metatate:
It seems like the simple way to explain is that we are supposed to use a camera and make it obvious that a camera was used to create the main parts of the image (not a drawing program or something like that). Effects and distortions can be used but shouldn't take away the appearance that a camera was used. |
Right. I'm just not convinced that the majority of voters are fit to judge that with the information provided.
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 12:50:10.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:45:13 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by metatate:
It seems like the simple way to explain is that we are supposed to use a camera and make it obvious that a camera was used to create the main parts of the image (not a drawing program or something like that). Effects and distortions can be used but shouldn't take away the appearance that a camera was used. |
I agree here. And on another note - I dont expect that this type of editing challenge to become the norm here. Odds are it wont show its face on a monthly level - maybe quarterly would be good. There are people here that are really good at this type of thing and its nice to see them get the chance to spread their wings in a voted competition and go head to head with each other. I am enjoying it (granted my score is good though) but I really did enjoy seeing the creativity that comes with basically a no holds barred challenge. Good stuff - count me in for the next one.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 12:52:58 PM · #24 |
What it really means, and I'm plumbing the depths of pointless approaches to argument by using a dictionary here, is 'Resembling a photograph, especially representing or simulating something with great accuracy and fidelity of detail.'
So if we took that rule literally, then really well rendered computer images are more photographic than say something shot with a lensbaby.
Fun that.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 01:20:17 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm just not convinced that the majority of voters are fit to judge that with the information provided. |
WE (all DPCers) are the voters, so thanks for the vote of confidence. I think most humans beyond kindergarten are capable of figuring out if an image looks photographic or not. Whether it actually IS a photo is beyond the scope of the written recommendation.
This suggestion is not new BTW. In the old rules, it was worded, "Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters."
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 13:23:38. |
|
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: 08/25/2025 03:03:29 PM EDT.
