| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2006 03:38:26 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Nothing mentioned about "Advanced" rules (challenges) in your post. For me personally, I think "Advanced" rules are sufficient in maintaining photographic integrity, while still allowing some artistic (creative) license to the photographer. |
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the Advanced Rules do not currently allow a cutting-edge, purely photographic technique many of us are now avidly exploring: "true" HDRI generating expanded tonal range from multiple exposures of the same scene. I believe it ought to be allowed in Advanced (considering it to be completely distinct from multiple-different-image compositing) but as things stand now it's a no-no, and the Expert Rules are currently the only place we have to display this kind of thing.
That's actually my worry about the Expert Rules; if the site embraces fantastical images as the norm in this ruleset, then we still won't have a place to compete on a level field with conventionally photographic HDRI images. I'd LOVE to see HDRI written into the Advanced Rules, where i think it belongs. Maybe someday... :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 15:39:02.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:49:24 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's actually my worry about the Expert Rules; if the site embraces fantastical images as the norm in this ruleset, then we still won't have a place to compete on a level field with conventionally photographic HDRI images. |
I dont see the fantastical images being strong and numerous threats in future challenges. Granted - 3 images that could be termed fantastical graced the top 10 in sky but I think that was mostly due to the newness and novelty of this type of editing. I would doubt very highly that the mini globes that Tate and I did would fare as well in future challenges. And the artwork that Gaby created while strong is probably not somehting that a large group of people would care to do even if they were capable. I expect the next challenge will result in high scores for the images that might use the expert rules but in a way that doesnt feel like digital art - just like the ribbon winners of the past one.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:56:55 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's actually my worry about the Expert Rules; if the site embraces fantastical images as the norm in this ruleset, then we still won't have a place to compete on a level field with conventionally photographic HDRI images. |
I dont see the fantastical images being strong and numerous threats in future challenges. Granted - 3 images that could be termed fantastical graced the top 10 in sky but I think that was mostly due to the newness and novelty of this type of editing. I would doubt very highly that the mini globes that Tate and I did would fare as well in future challenges. And the artwork that Gaby created while strong is probably not somehting that a large group of people would care to do even if they were capable. I expect the next challenge will result in high scores for the images that might use the expert rules but in a way that doesnt feel like digital art - just like the ribbon winners of the past one. |
If this comes to pass (and it very well may) then all this sound & fury has signified absolutely nothing :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:59:23 PM · #79 |
Note that this ruleset is on a "trial" basis -- it even says so right on the challenge.
To me it makes sense to argue the issue -- if there is one -- after some results are in ... I believe that is the point of a trial; to gather evidence for later interpretation. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 04:03:19 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by jaxsond:
Expert editing rules need revision. While it was fun to look at many of the entries they are not photographs...they are digital art. Take for instance Gaby_G's "photo" ....do I think it should have placed as high as it did? Yes...it apparently adhered to the rules and it is very well composed and interesting. Nonetheless, it is not a photo. Gaby's entry could have been created in photoshop exclusively (I'm not suggesting it was but it could have been.) If you don't believe me take a look at Bert Monroy's work at //www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart1.htm#
In the future, I propose that if DPC retains these editing rules they are renamed "anything goes." Also, ya might as well throw out the need for photo verification as it basically comes down to photoshop skills when this much lattitude is granted so what is the point. |
i agree this is rubbish ypu it shoud be about how well you take pictures ot how good you are on the computer |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 04:06:27 PM · #81 |
typing skills included ;]
Originally posted by ian2901:
i agree this is rubbish ypu it shoud be about how well you take pictures ot how good you are on the computer |
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 16:11:01. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 04:21:20 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the Advanced Rules do not currently allow a cutting-edge, purely photographic technique many of us are now avidly exploring: "true" HDRI generating expanded tonal range from multiple exposures of the same scene. I believe it ought to be allowed in Advanced (considering it to be completely distinct from multiple-different-image compositing) but as things stand now it's a no-no, and the Expert Rules are currently the only place we have to display this kind of thing.
That's actually my worry about the Expert Rules; if the site embraces fantastical images as the norm in this ruleset, then we still won't have a place to compete on a level field with conventionally photographic HDRI images. I'd LOVE to see HDRI written into the Advanced Rules, where i think it belongs. Maybe someday... :-)
R. |
I'm all for multiple image HDR images being allowed in advanced editing, but the exposures should be of the same scene i.e. static. Your wonderful Winter Sunset shot wouldn't be allowed under my vision of the rules, as I doubt the birds remained motionless in mid-air for the four exposures. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 04:30:06 PM · #83 |
../// my error - i mis-read his description the first time...
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 16:32:00.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 05:26:43 PM · #84 |
Constant tweaking of the various rule sets is necessary for clarification purposes as we have seen in recent months. However the essential character of them have been cast for basic and advanced for quite a while. Multiple exposure of any kind has never been offered in a rule set until expert was introduced. It may be that in expert the use of mostly outlawed multiples, other 32 bit, or rare ps tweaks, cuts, pixal layers, modes & plugins is exactly where it should be.
Since the rule sets are imposed in a arbitrary way as determined by the challenge writer, it seems a logical (if slow) progression to allow multiples (read static HDRI for most proponents) in a expert category. Of course as this thread has explored.... what exactly will be determined to be included, (if anything) in final expert editing rule set. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 05:29:23 PM · #85 |
Screw photography, let's all go back to painting... wait, no! let's go back to cave drawing!! we must be pure, right??
Why should DPCers have to go to another site for their photoshopping needs? If anything, the fact that we want to stay here should tell you something about DPChallenge Loyalty.
anyway, this site started out as a sort of snapshot challenge site. it was a bunch of amatuers having fun trying to get a shot that met the challenge in a fun way. Then, more and more "professionals" joined the site and starting turning it into the political mushpond it is now.
(ps: before you check my registration date, check Dave's instead, not to mention he'd been watching the site since it started) |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 06:07:03 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I'm all for multiple image HDR images being allowed in advanced editing, but the exposures should be of the same scene i.e. static. Your wonderful Winter Sunset shot wouldn't be allowed under my vision of the rules, as I doubt the birds remained motionless in mid-air for the four exposures. |
No. of course not. Those birds are hand-drawn. Because I could. But I'd have gladly entered the image without them in an Advanced Editing challenge.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 06:37:21 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
Screw photography, let's all go back to painting... wait, no! let's go back to cave drawing!! |
I'm down for a cave drawing challenge, but what inks are allowed? Mastadon blood? What tools are legal? DoDo bird feathers? Where do I send my rock for validation? |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 11:45:43 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I dont see the fantastical images being strong and numerous threats in future challenges. Granted - 3 images that could be termed fantastical graced the top 10 in sky but I think that was mostly due to the newness and novelty of this type of editing. I would doubt very highly that the mini globes that Tate and I did would fare as well in future challenges. |
At first, I didn't see the mini globes as fantastical, just as a different presentation of a normal picture, but I've been playing with panoramas for a while, and am used to seeing similar types of "mapped" images.
All the top 10 images clearly had good, solid pictures under them. While the three "fantastical" images were not reality, they looked like pictures as opposed to paintings (or like the effect of extreme tone-mapping.) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:05:32 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amandalore:
Screw photography, let's all go back to painting... wait, no! let's go back to cave drawing!! |
I'm down for a cave drawing challenge, but what inks are allowed? Mastadon blood? What tools are legal? DoDo bird feathers? Where do I send my rock for validation? |
Altamira Cave Paintings
Roman Photography? |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:13:46 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No. of course not. Those birds are hand-drawn. Because I could. But I'd have gladly entered the image without them in an Advanced Editing challenge.
R. |
Wow, thats amazing. Great job, I did not have a clue they were hand drawn.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:32:55 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amandalore:
Screw photography, let's all go back to painting... wait, no! let's go back to cave drawing!! |
I'm down for a cave drawing challenge, but what inks are allowed? Mastadon blood? What tools are legal? DoDo bird feathers? Where do I send my rock for validation? |
Altamira Cave Paintings
Roman Photography? |
see, now that puts things in perspective... all of us digital photography users are not pure at all!!
Does anyone hate it when film-users start blabbing about how digital photography is a desicration (spelling?) to the art? well, sounds like the same "argument" here |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:22:20 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Where do I send my rock for validation? |
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Assay Office is located in Cleveland, Ohio. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 05:31:30 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a LOT that can be done under the "expert rules" that cannot legally be done with the advanced rules yet still remains in the realm of "true" photography; in particular i refer to HDRI processimng, which is "truly photographic" `in nature. And this is even MORE true if you consider the work of acclaimed photographer/artists like Jerry Uelsmann, who did all his stuff long before there was such a thing called "digital editing". I actually don't think Jerry was ever as persecuted by "purist" photographers as those who like to explore fantastical compositions are on this site ;-)
"Philosopher's Desk" by Jerry Uelsmann
"Untitled" by Jerry Uelsmann
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.
Edited to text links |
I would also add Ryszard Horowitz //www.ryszardhorowitz.com/ which I adore. He started his amazing photography in the late 50s - no computers then... Digital technology is only a tool. New models of cameras are allowing editing that not so long ago was available only for Photoshop users. I think with time the borders between digital photography and digital imaging will vanish. The already existing categories show that too (basic and advance editing). IMHO there is no sense to fight, as there is a separate category for Expert Editing. I'm not good with Photoshop, although I enjoy playing with it sometimes. I envy the skills of people who can create such wonderful and mind provoking images, no matter what tools do they use. Isn't it all about image and viewer emotions anyway?
PS Ryszard Horowitz site is quite extensive and takes some time to load, but I believe it's worth it. There is a short bio on his page which I recommend.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 06:27:13 PM · #94 |
I've read through this thread and I think it missed a couple key points.
Originally posted by jaxsond:
Expert editing rules need revision. While it was fun to look at many of the entries they are not photographs...they are digital art. Take for instance Gaby_G's "photo" ....do I think it should have placed as high as it did? Yes...it apparently adhered to the rules and it is very well composed and interesting. Nonetheless, it is not a photo. Gaby's entry could have been created in photoshop exclusively (I'm not suggesting it was but it could have been.) If you don't believe me take a look at Bert Monroy's work at //www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart1.htm# |
First, I think it's telling that the blue-ribbon winner would have been completely legal under the Advanced rules. Ditto for the yellow-ribbon winner. The red, of course, took advantage of the Expert rules to combine multiple exposures for HDRI, a classic darkroom technique. It's probably also fair to say that even adding the birds could have been accomplished or at least very closely approximated in a "traditional" darkroom via masking. Photography still prevails.
Originally posted by lesgainous:
I didn't say I didn't like the graphics in this past challenge. In fact, there are some super cool graphics submitted.
I'm just saying that this rocks the very foundation of which photography purists are based. |
Ignoring that fact that I don't believe such a thing as "pure photography" can truly exist at all, I also don't subscribe to the idea that photographic purism should be the the only philosophy allowed here. Photography takes many forms and its practitioners seek many objectives. To hold out one of those objectives as "right" and all others as "wrong" seems rather contrary to the goals of an art community. To take a lesson
from history, remember that if the realists had held sway in the second half of the 19th century, Impressionism might never have gained popularity.
Originally posted by jaxsond:
For example, this is a picture of my dog "Spike." Spike is a handsome dog. The photo was taken during the challenge dates and edited under expert.  This photo might not score well but you get my point...........
......or maybe you don't :) |
I might point out that, at least according to my reading of the rules, your satirical photograph of Spike could be achieved legally using only the Basic rules (at least according to my personal interpretation of them). Simply use an extreme levels adjustment to even everything to one level, then hue-shift the whole thing to cyan, resize, and enlarge the canvas to add your border. It would probably be illegal in Advanced, though.
In any case, though, your argument ignores a key provision of the Expert Editing rules:
Originally posted by Expert Editing (Trial):
You should ... keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly. |
What this provision seeks to do is to take the decision of what is and is not photography out of the hands of the Site Council and leave that up to the voters. In theory, that should produce challenge results most in line with what the community considers photography, since it is, after all, the community who votes.
In other words, that low score you fear receiving for your portrait of Spike is the very defense mechanism in place to discourage it.
Originally posted by AltCtrl:
I agree with the idea of changing the name of the "Expert Editing" rules. This is because as this is primarily a photography site then the name implies that the skills required are specifically photographic editing skills. However these rules encompass a broader range of skills than that. You can be an expert at editing/processing/developing your digital photography without necessarily having all the skills to make the most of the expert editing skillset. |
Remember, these are called the Expert Editing rules, not just the "Expert" rules -- for exactly that reason.
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe are the largest community-judged art contest (of any type, not just photography) on the Internet. I know for certain we are the largest community-judged photography contest site. We have no great desire to "me-too" anyone, and further, if we were trying to "me-too" Worth1000, the Expert Editing rules would not be the right set of rules to do so. The restriction on added text and the admonition to vote down entries that are not photographic in nature both run completely counter to that goal.
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
On the other hand, probably the biggest dot-com success story is Amazon. Amazon started by learning how to excel at selling books, then used the experience gained to carefully expand into other areas where they thought they could do well.
At least with the current Site Council in place, I don't think we're in any danger of pushing to become all things to all people. Our goal is simply to add some variety to the contests, and to offer the photographers here another arena in which to improve their skills.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Very true. I don't think we want to become the world's best manufacturer of buggy whips.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Rather than considering the downside, what's the added value in fake skies and moons, or distorted fisheye planets ? |
If you feel there isn't one, then the rules encourage you to vote accordingly. We could write the rules to make such entries disqualifiable (and, in fact, considered doing so), but I don't think anyone really wants the Site Council acting as the site's arbiters of good taste. We'd much rather entrust the community with that role, and if the community eventually becomes bored with Photoshop trickery, we'll see that reflected in the scores. I suspect that after the novelty wears off, that's exactly what we'll see happen.
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Well, maybe it has already started down that path (at least this week)--Basic Editing has been dropped. |
That's nothing new. Check the challenge history -- we run Open challenges under Advanced several times a year. The Basic Rules serve their purpose exceedingly well, and we have no plans to get rid of them.
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
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. |
Completely off-topic. Please remember, also, that as per forum rule #10, you may not publicly accuse other participants of rules violations. If you believe a rule has been broken, report the post, and do not reply at all.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
You know, not everyone thinks that making a montage or some fantasy composite graphic/image (call it what you want) from multiple photos is photography. I would call it digital art. Not everyone cares to be photoshop junkies. I know, I know, then don't enter, don't vote, etc, etc... |
Not everyone things that it isn't, either. Why not let the voters decide? The history of this site has prove that overall, they (we as voters) do a pretty good job.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The only thing I fear about the new "Expert" challenges is that it will take DPC down a slippery slope and turn it into a place where photoshop reigns and photography is second fiddle. It isn't about "raising your game up a notch" in photography skills... |
The exact same arguments were made when the trial version of the Advanced Rules was put forward. I think time has proven those fears unfounded.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
The "expert editing" rules do not apply to the regular weekly challenges right? I think they never will either. |
We have no plans to replace the Advanced Rules with the Expert Rules.
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I dont see the fantastical images being strong and numerous threats in future challenges. Granted - 3 images that could be termed fantastical graced the top 10 in sky but I think that was mostly due to the newness and novelty of this type of editing. I would doubt very highly that the mini globes that Tate and I did would fare as well in future challenges. And the artwork that Gaby created while strong is probably not somehting that a large group of people would care to do even if they were capable. I expect the next challenge will result in high scores for the images that might use the expert rules but in a way that doesnt feel like digital art - just like the ribbon winners of the past one. |
Agreed. Your mini-globes were impressive, but I suspect that once the novelty wears off, the scores for that type of shot will as well, and they will fade into the background, as have so many photographic fads in the history of DPC.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 10:33:45 AM · #95 |
Terry.... an interesting and insightful summary. Except for your defense & explanation of a "keypoint" disgraceful addendum; non-rule inserted into the rules. An unfortunate paternal admonition; friendly reminder; distracting & subjective voting guideline; intrusive - creative & artistic limiter; unnecessary editorial; spirit of the site; or what ever it is?
Voting nor submissions should ever be determined by this kind of coercion.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I've read through this thread and I think it missed a couple key points.
Originally posted by jaxsond:
For example, this is a picture of my dog "Spike." Spike is a handsome dog. The photo was taken during the challenge dates and edited under expert. This photo might not score well but you get my point...........
......or maybe you don't :) |
I might point out that, at least according to my reading of the rules, your satirical photograph of Spike could be achieved legally using only the Basic rules (at least according to my personal interpretation of them). Simply use an extreme levels adjustment to even everything to one level, then hue-shift the whole thing to cyan, resize, and enlarge the canvas to add your border. It would probably be illegal in Advanced, though.
In any case, though, your argument ignores a key provision of the Expert Editing rules:
Originally posted by Expert Editing (Trial):
You should ... keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly. |
What this provision seeks to do is to take the decision of what is and is not photography out of the hands of the Site Council and leave that up to the voters. In theory, that should produce challenge results most in line with what the community considers photography, since it is, after all, the community who votes.
In other words, that low score you fear receiving for your portrait of Spike is the very defense mechanism in place to discourage it.
~Terry |
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 11:17:43 AM · #96 |
So how about this - if "expert" is retained, make the challenge mutually exclusive with "advanced". You can only enter one of them at a time, just like the basic challenges.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 11:18:21 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
So how about this - if "expert" is retained, make the challenge mutually exclusive with "advanced". You can only enter one of them at a time, just like the basic challenges. |
Why?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:24:16 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
So how about this - if "expert" is retained, make the challenge mutually exclusive with "advanced". You can only enter one of them at a time, just like the basic challenges. |
Why?
R. |
So the camp that wants the extra editing allowance can have theirs, and those that want to retain "purity" while still being allowed some liberties (advanced) can have theirs. The submitter will have to make a choice which way they will go, same as basic challenges.
Why do we have two basic challenges? To both offer a choice of subjects and to cut down on the numbers of entries in each challenge. Not much different than what I am suggesting.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:24:50. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:52:18 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Why do we have two basic challenges? To both offer a choice of subjects and to cut down on the numbers of entries in each challenge. Not much different than what I am suggesting. |
But the Exclusive Open Challenges offer members a choice of two different topics using the same editing rules. You're proposing that members should have to choose between two different sets of rules, which is a different beast altogether. Especially when you consider that the Advanced Members Challenges are weekly, whereas the Expert Challenges are occasional.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:34:50 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Terry.... an interesting and insightful summary. Except for your defense & explanation of a "keypoint" disgraceful addendum; non-rule inserted into the rules. An unfortunate paternal admonition; friendly reminder; distracting & subjective voting guideline; intrusive - creative & artistic limiter; unnecessary editorial; spirit of the site; or what ever it is?
Voting nor submissions should ever be determined by this kind of coercion. |
Why not? This is after all a photography site... Even if they didn't include that clause twice, the spirit of the rules and the spirit of the site would dictate that same! I will always, as I did in the Harsh Environment Challenge vote and comment with that clause firmly embedded!
|
|
