| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2006 04:53:22 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So is it photographic ? That's the point of this thread after all. |
Technically there is nothing about Kiwiness' image that could not be done in a studio. Although it would take a lot of prop and set design to do, it is achievable. |
SCalvert does this sort of stuff by using his big plotter sometimes:
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 04:54:47 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
SCalvert does this sort of stuff by using his big plotter sometimes:
|
Most of those have always struck me as something more sensibly, or at least environmentally friendly, done on a green screen/ chromakey setup.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 04:55:31 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So is it photographic ? That's the point of this thread after all. |
Technically there is nothing about Kiwiness' image that could not be done in a studio. Although it would take a lot of prop and set design to do, it is achievable. |
SCalvert does this sort of stuff by using his big plotter sometimes:
|
Yes, in that, the Expert editing rules do level the playing field a bit.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 05:06:06 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by hopper:
so you'd vote this one down?
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
OK...
"Photographic" means that it looks like a photograph. It does NOT look like something that started out as a photograph and ended up as something else after a randomly selected group of filters was applied to it. |
|
What I would vote is irrelevant. I'm just making a point here. That chosen photograph is unedited except for color toning and a 180 degree rotation anyway, but it's an example for sure.
My personal interest in photographic arts is far different from the norm here. I'm all for a photographer having the ability to inject his or her own artistic vision into a photograph in whatever way he/she sees fit. My original point is that the rule as written, even though it's nothing more than a suggestion for voters, suppresses that and attempts to keep photographs on the straight and narrow path of tradition rather than promoting exploration of possibilities.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 05:09:27 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by hopper:
so you'd vote this one down?
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
OK...
"Photographic" means that it looks like a photograph. It does NOT look like something that started out as a photograph and ended up as something else after a randomly selected group of filters was applied to it. |
|
What I would vote is irrelevant. I'm just making a point here. That chosen photograph is unedited except for color toning and a 180 degree rotation anyway, but it's an example for sure.
My personal interest in photographic arts is far different from the norm here. I'm all for a photographer having the ability to inject his or her own artistic vision into a photograph in whatever way he/she sees fit. My original point is that the rule as written, even though it's nothing more than a suggestion for voters, suppresses that and attempts to keep photographs on the straight and narrow path of tradition rather than promoting exploration of possibilities. |
I agree. The whole point of photography is to follow the set standards, but also to push the limits. Those who like straight should stay straight, but there is nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries. Just take a look at the variety in the Sky challenge. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 05:14:48 PM · #81 |
Seems I owe you an apology, John. Your original post led me to the (false) conclusion that were accusing me (and gordon) of just trying to be argumentative for no reason, and that the rules were crystal clear.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My original point is that the rule as written, even though it's nothing more than a suggestion for voters, suppresses that and attempts to keep photographs on the straight and narrow path of tradition rather than promoting exploration of possibilities. |
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 11:29:26 PM · #82 |
So I suppose we'll see, when the Sky challenge is over, what DPC voters will accept, communally, as "photographic in nature" when it comes to "Expert" editing.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 12:20:14 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
So I suppose we'll see, when the Sky challenge is over, what DPC voters will accept, communally, as "photographic in nature" when it comes to "Expert" editing. |
I think it's fairly simple actually. I believe that there are two situations available here. One is when photographic editing is done well enough that the post processing doesn't become the subject of the photo. The other is when the post processing does become the subject of the photo. Beyond those two things, eye candy must be present for the image to do well.
Regardless of what the rules are, there are still a couple different camps of photographers. Some love heavy post processing and others hate it. Regardless of what the rules say, you have to please the eye of the voter.
My personal opinion of the expert editing rules isn't a positive one, but I accept that they are here. Those rules do give a photographer an opportunity to create a new type of image here on this site that we haven't had in the past. They also give full latitude to create digital art where a majority of the image is not a single photograph.
I believe your original post in this thread asks a fair question about the nature of these rules though. I believe the answer goes back to the original intent and nature of DPChallenge's existence. The founders of this site stated clearly in the beginning that they did not want this site to turn into a digital art competition. That being the case, I'm actually surprised that they have allowed the expert editing rules, but it does show that they are listening to the requests of the population here.
As stated earlier, these rules don't allow us to do anything significant that couldn't be done in a dark room, but all of our rule sets allow us to do things that can't be done in any reasonable amount of time in a darkroom. We always make the case that we're not doing anything that couldn't be done in a darkroom, which may be true. However, if one ever tried to accomplish some of these basic and advanced editing tricks in a darkroom, they would quickly find that they are in way over their heads, and the end result wouldn't be worth the time it took to do it :) Photographic in nature? Yes. Feasible? No. If it is feasible, you wouldn't be able to get it done in a week :) I bet there are only a handful of folks at DPC who could create a multiple photo single image print in a darkroom.
I suppose the best solution is to push the rules as far as we can to find out where the line in the sand is. This particular rule isn't a violation if broken though. My thoughts are that the voting public will like the images that go to the extremes. That is proven in most challenges that we have now. It's not as much about just meeting the challenge as it is going to the extreme boundaries of that topic.
I haven't looked at the photos in the sky challenge, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that a large number of the skies aren't skies. They are probably photoshop creations. In my opinion, that is sad. To me, that does fall outside of 'photographic in nature', photographic integrity, or any other term you would want to use to describe photography. Digital art based in photography is fun, but it's different enough from standard photography that they shouldn't be lumped together. I bet the results of this challenge will show winning images where extreme amounts of manipulation have been done.
It's not my personal preference in photography, but I can live with it. I think I'll go take a look at what's there just to see. I can't vote on them though. My votes would not be fair to the entrants since I'm biased in my preferences of what photography is and should be :)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 12:26:17 AM · #84 |
"Photographic in Nature" enough ;-)
|
|
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 03:05:22 PM EDT.
