| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2006 02:16:44 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by jaxsond:
The problem I have with digital art is not an inherent one, but rather how DA relates to DPC. I'd just hate to see DPC become another photoshop contest -- there are plenty on the web already. |
I don't see this happening. I don't see a new ruleset applied to a new, additional group of challenges as affecting the already-existing structure at all. What I hope might happen is that some folks who are valued community members may hang around longer since we have opened up a new avenue for their creativity.
There's always been an undercurrent here at DPC that it's not a site for "experts", and it is natural that people will grow and move on. I don't agree with that. I think as our people grow, we should grow to meet their needs. What's the downside of it, after all?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:38:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jaxsond:
The problem I have with digital art is not an inherent one, but rather how DA relates to DPC. I'd just hate to see DPC become another photoshop contest -- there are plenty on the web already. |
I don't see this happening. I don't see a new ruleset applied to a new, additional group of challenges as affecting the already-existing structure at all. [...] What's the downside of it, after all?
R. |
The potential downside is that you dilute the user base, move focus away from a purely photographic challenge to photography and digital creativity. The more purist photographers move on and the site becomes another me-too worth1000.com.
One common theme of the dotcom bust was companies who excelled in a niche trying to push out further and further. Specialisation isn't a bad thing. Focus isn't a bad thing. Being number one at something doesn't mean you have to try to become bigger.
That's the potential downside.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 02:40:52.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:46:28 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
That's the potential downside. |
You don't have much faith in our photographers if you think that simply exposing them to a new group of challenges with less restrictive rules will cause them to lose interest in the basic and advanced stuff and turn into a gang of photoshopping zombies. Sheesh.
And if the so-called "purists" (and I consider myself to be one of them, actually, a very tradition-oriented photographer) start leaving en masse simply because we start holding challenges they don't care to enter or vote on, well, that's just a ridiculous attitude on their part.
You mention how the dotcom bust decimated companies who tried to expand their core businesses/expertise, but the annals of business development are equally filled with traditional businesses that went under or were absorbed by others because they could not adjust to the changing needs of their customers. I don't think either applies in this case; we're just a website/social community formed around a passion for photography, and i thin k it is silly, absolutely silly, for people to be stressing out over a moderate expansion of the limits of the site.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:53:53 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we're just a website/social community formed around a passion for photography, and i thin k it is silly, absolutely silly, for people to be stressing out over a moderate expansion of the limits of the site.
Robt. |
You asked what the downside was, I'm just pointing it out. There are plenty of other sites that have the same rules as the expert rules here. Not so many have the other rules. What's the value in becoming another one of many ?
Rather than considering the downside, what's the added value in fake skies and moons, or distorted fisheye planets ?
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:59:48 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Rather than considering the downside, what's the added value in fake skies and moons, or distorted fisheye planets ? |
You don't have to like these things, but not liking them isn't a good enough reason to make them unacceptable on the site. And as things stand right now, some high-end, purely photographic techniques are only permissible under this new ruleset. I think the pros outweigh the cons. Anyway, the results don't show the fabricators running away with the top scores. Far from it, in fact. It seems to be an OK playing field when straight shots, HDRI shots, and fabricated shots share the top 10.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:05:28 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Rather than considering the downside, what's the added value in fake skies and moons, or distorted fisheye planets ? |
You don't have to like these things, but not liking them isn't a good enough reason to make them unacceptable on the site. And as things stand right now, some high-end, purely photographic techniques are only permissible under this new ruleset. I think the pros outweigh the cons. Anyway, the results don't show the fabricators running away with the top scores. Far from it, in fact. It seems to be an OK playing field when straight shots, HDRI shots, and fabricated shots share the top 10.
R. |
I know you love your HDR, but that's a largely different issue than if open editing is a good or bad thing for photographic development. I actually like not having any restrictions myself. I have several images with hundreds of exposures. I just don't see the value to this site, when somewhere like worth1000.com actually has more restrictive rules in terms of photoshop use and is obviously not an area with such a photographic bent.
There are plenty of sites, I just don't get the value in being like all the others. I haven't seen anyone explain that yet, other than 'but it lets me do the stuff I want to do here' That might be great for your own self interest, but does it really move the site forward, or just spread it around more ?
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:09:26 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There are plenty of sites, I just don't get the value in being like all the others. I haven't seen anyone explain that yet, other than 'but it lets me do the stuff I want to do here' That might be great for your own self interest, but does it really move the site forward, or just spread it around more ? |
But we're NOT like the others, and including a category for more-advanced compositing work doesn't make us like anyone else I'm aware of. We still have our "core business" of "pure" photography and that isn't going to change. These "others" you keep bringing up don't have what we have, not even close to it. Worth1000 is not a photography site, we are not in danger of becoming them.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:09:38 AM · #33 |
I agree with bear_music and Artyste - EXCEPT that there is actually an army of photoshopping zombies AND they are coming to force everyone into gay marriage.
...I am continually amazed at the periphery that is frequently added to these recurring debates. :/
Carry on. I'll just grab some popcorn and have a seat in the grandstands. :) |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:17:06 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...simply exposing them to a new group of challenges with less restrictive rules will cause them to lose interest in the basic... |
Well, maybe it has already started down that path (at least this week)--Basic Editing has been dropped.
There are five challenges currently under way and none of them are under the Basic Editing rule. What's next, five Expert Editing challenges? (just kidding...trying to stir the pot a little) :-D
Maybe it's not the photographers losing interest in Basic, maybe it's Langdon? ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:18:43 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Maybe it's not the photographers losing interest in Basic, maybe it's Langdon? ;-) |
Maybe it's Langdon's awareness that the current open challenges will be used in the WPL3 Photobowl, and he wants to see the registered members on a level field with the paid members for that smackdown?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 09:46:46 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
boy the voters sure like it don't they?
that's the first time I've had a chance to look through the results - those scores are amazing! |
Well, one reason for the very high scores could be that some voters (me being one of them) simply chose not to vote on that challenge (or, I started voting and decided to stop before I reached 20%). I dislike most of the pictures in the challenge and would have passed out a lot of 2,3 and 4 votes - and a few high ones as well (mainly on some of the lesser "worked on" pictures). But, I decided not to vote simply because I'm not crazy about that kind of pictures and I felt it wouldn't be fair. My guess is that I'm not the only one here who didn't vote for those reasons - and that the majority of those who did vote really like pictures like these - and the result is: Higher than average scores...
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 09:57:29 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Maybe it's not the photographers losing interest in Basic, maybe it's Langdon? ;-) |
Maybe it's Langdon's awareness that the current open challenges will be used in the WPL3 Photobowl, and he wants to see the registered members on a level field with the paid members for that smackdown?
R. |
no, he's run open challenges under advanced editing before. just a little extra to keep things interesting.
that there are no basic editing this week is pure coincedence. i can assure you that there is no plan to do away with basic editing, and there may even be a more restrictive rule set in the future, to use occassionally (think -- straight from the camera type stuff). |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 10:14:03 AM · #38 |
Brilliant! ... so perfectly stated Posthumous.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Ya know...I kinda agree. This type of challenge really takes away from true spirit of photography. |
Then don't participate. Expert Editing rules threaten photography the way gay marriage threatens marriage... not at all. |
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 10:17:31.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 10:17:16 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by silverscreen:
Well, one reason for the very high scores could be that some voters (me being one of them) simply chose not to vote on that challenge (or, I started voting and decided to stop before I reached 20%). I dislike most of the pictures in the challenge and would have passed out a lot of 2,3 and 4 votes - and a few high ones as well (mainly on some of the lesser "worked on" pictures). But, I decided not to vote simply because I'm not crazy about that kind of pictures and I felt it wouldn't be fair. My guess is that I'm not the only one here who didn't vote for those reasons - and that the majority of those who did vote really like pictures like these - and the result is: Higher than average scores... |
In general I agree with much of what you've said...however, I did take a look at the Challenge History page and the number of votes and comments were quite high for the 'Expert' editing challenge being discussed. Higher than many other member challenges held recently.
Usually, I'll vote in challenges I've not entered. In this case I had no desire to vote, or even look at, the 'Sky' challenge entries - too much like Worth1000.com for my taste (artificial, composite art).
Although I'll admit I was quite impressed with the results that  Bear_Music achieved with his 'Winter Sunset' entry.  |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 10:29:08 AM · #40 |
I think that EXPERT editting ups-the ante a bit for people.
It forces a person to make decisions and the allowed time of 1-week seems much shorter than with a traditional image.
It is probably an uncomfortable environment for people who might not be too excited about digital editting. For me, it was an opportunity to do something I had meant to do for a while. Having said that, I don't have time for the one this week ;)
If I were asked, I would say Expert editting should be in a challenge every couple of months. Of course, I'm one of these people that wants to enter every challenge!
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 11:40:13 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by karmat:
i can assure you that there is no plan to do away with basic editing, and there may even be a more restrictive rule set in the future, to use occassionally (think -- straight from the camera type stuff). |
God! I hope not! Back in the old days of "Traditional" photography, the majority of my photography education was in the "darkroom" making my "straight from the camera type stuff" look the way I envisioned it when I captured that moment. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 11:49:04 AM · #42 |
i was kind of against the expert editing at first, but i've quickly warmed to the concept.
part of the issue that i have here is that a lot of the photographs that i show in "real life" are compositions that are composed of more than one image. some are collages, some are triptychs, some are screen prints. a lot of that effort gets lost in the challenges here. having the expert editing allows me to more creatively display the shots i take.
i brought up all of the arguments about not wanting to be a photoshop contest site, and mentioned worth1000 in particular. the decision was made to leave it up to the voters what is and is not appropriate for these types of challenges. i think for the most part they did a good job our first time out. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:00:58 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
ETA: actually, Jerry is still working but he doesn't use digital in his workflow. His prints are hand-created in the darkroom, using as many as 8 enlargers set up with different images and moving the paper from one enlarger to the next. |
Off topic, but in spirit of the topic (photographic ethics), I wonder if Jerry Uelsmann, allposter.com or agallery.com gave you (bearmusic) the permission to post linked images of Jerry Uelsmann's work here? If we as a group of photographers can't respect the intellectual rights of other photographers how can we in good conscience demand them for ourselves. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:08:01 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
ETA: actually, Jerry is still working but he doesn't use digital in his workflow. His prints are hand-created in the darkroom, using as many as 8 enlargers set up with different images and moving the paper from one enlarger to the next. |
Off topic, but in spirit of the topic (photographic ethics), I wonder if Jerry Uelsmann, allposter.com or agallery.com gave you (bearmusic) the permission to post linked images of Jerry Uelsmann's work here? If we as a group of photographers can't respect the intellectual rights of other photographers how can we in good conscience demand them for ourselves. |
It falls under the "fair use" clause of the copyright laws, since the images are used in an "educational" manner for purposes of critique and discussion. It's also OK for me to quote copyrighted poetry in a discussion of metrical techniques on a poetry website.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 12:08:17.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:17:00 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It falls under the "fair use" clause of the copyright laws, since the images are used in an "educational" manner for purposes of critique and discussion. It's also OK for me to quote copyrighted poetry in a discussion of metrical techniques on a poetry website.
R. |
Just because it meets the letter of the law, doesn't necessarily mean it meets the spirit of the law or even common courtesy. A photographer̢۪s work linked just to strengthen a certain side of an argument (which is does well) doesn̢۪t meet, IMO, a truly educational use at all.
edit for grammer
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 12:17:45. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:19:35 PM · #46 |
I skimmed the posts so it may have been said already
just because the rules exist doesn't mean you have to use them
...you can look at the challenge as just another topic...
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:25:19 PM · #47 |
OMG! ... you're scattering my brain - now we have to argue what "educational" is !!! ??
... Is it really fair to discuss so many topics in one thread? There's GOT to be a rule about that!!!
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Just because it meets the letter of the law, doesn't necessarily mean it meets the spirit of the law or even common courtesy. A photographer̢۪s work linked just to strengthen a certain side of an argument (which is does well) doesn̢۪t meet, IMO, a truly educational use at all.
edit for grammer |
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 13:06:12.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:28:25 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It falls under the "fair use" clause of the copyright laws, since the images are used in an "educational" manner for purposes of critique and discussion. It's also OK for me to quote copyrighted poetry in a discussion of metrical techniques on a poetry website.
R. |
Just because it meets the letter of the law, doesn't necessarily mean it meets the spirit of the law or even common courtesy. A photographer̢۪s work linked just to strengthen a certain side of an argument (which is does well) doesn̢۪t meet, IMO, a truly educational use at all.
edit for grammer |
Showing examples of a technique isn't considered "educational?" If not, then what is? I'd say it meets both the spirit and the letter of the law just as they were intended. No rights, intellectual or otherwise, were violated, nor was common courtesty.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:29:47 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Showing examples of a technique isn't considered "educational?" If not, then what is? I'd say it meets both the spirit and the letter of the law just as they were intended. No rights, intellectual or otherwise, were violated, nor was common courtesy. |
Yeah I would think he would be happy with us discussing his work. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:39:44 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by metatate:
OMG! ... you're scattering my brain - now we have to argue what "educational" is !!! ??
... Is it really fair to discuss so many topics in one thread? There's GOT to be a rule about that!!!
|
Yeah! And we haven't even gotten to the ethics of hotlinking yet! ;) |
|
