| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2007 12:24:21 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That said, it wouldn't be fair criticize people or vote them down for doing what's allowed. If this trial continues long enough, I would expect the entries to "self-correct" as voters determine what works and what doesn't, and I'll probably jump in at some point. Right now the situation reminds me of early desktop publishing, when people used all-caps script typefaces with shadows just because they could. In time, I hope the Expert Editing follows a similar evolution, where we still know we have all sorts of fancy tools that we can use, but we find the wisdom to know better. ;-) |
Well said, I agree once I learn how to use my tools better, I think I will be more toned down. As for my entry... I just ran across a tool messing around. I loved the image that came out, and yes entered it knowing it may very well get mix emotions.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:30:49 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Right now the situation reminds me of early desktop publishing, when people used all-caps script typefaces with shadows just because they could. In time, I hope the Expert Editing follows a similar evolution, where we still know we have all sorts of fancy tools that we can use, but we find the wisdom to know better. ;-) |
I've had this thought a few times myself - that the real sign of a great image with a whole lot of editing is that someone has to ask if you did anything to it, or not. That the use of Photoshop should be to produce a believable end result, even if it never existed. Not 'You Photoshopped this' but 'Did you Photoshop this ?'
So the mark of good work would be that you can't see the good work has happened. Subtlety. Appropriate use of tools. Mastery of the techniques.
But I wouldn't expect that straight away from anyone and probably never in the overall sense of a contest as everyone is always learning. Just like HDR can be done in a subtle way to enhance a photographic result, it can also be used like a hammer to produce something garish and over saturated. Multiple images can be pulled from all over the place to produce some sort of teenage sci-fi/fantasy art mish-mash or to bring all the elements of a final photograph into place, just the way it looked in front of you but you never captured.
I've always argued for free-for-all photoshop rules in the pursuit of fine photographic images. I just don't know how to make the second clause of that sentence work in a rules sense. I want to and often do use any and all tools available to me to get the end result I want, but I want a believable end result, not something painfully obviously artificial. But those are just my own personal aims and I recognize that it doesn't mean anyone else should be aiming for the same spot.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 12:31:35.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:32:43 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Unfortunately, lifting most editing restrictions means that we get digital composites, too. I don't say that out of insecurity or contempt- some composites (those of JoeyLawrence or Kiwiness, for example) can work beautifully, and I'm pretty sure I can compete with anyone here in the use of Photoshop or imagination. It's just that composites seem a bit like "cheating" to me... as if physics, lighting and physical composition are reduced to supporting actors rather than the lead roles. Just shoot the right pieces, and reality becomes irrelevant- you can just Photoshop whatever scene you want. |
I hear ya. But for my two entries so far, I have used this opportunity to grow, think outside the box (or reality) and approach photography from more of a cinematic concept. I have been on both sides of this argument in my mind, but have concluded to embrace a fresh outlook, if only to have fun. But to be able to create something truly fantastic is creatively freeing. And actually has allowed me to look at mundane, "basic" photographic situations in a new light. So the physical impossibilities of basic and advanced are now within the bounds of our imagination....
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:42:47 PM · #29 |
I know i sound like a broken record, but this website is a game. Some people use it for personal growth and/or learning, but the statistics here track the winners. The object is to win. And in trying to win, we usually learn how to play better.
The new rules set is interesting because no one knows how to vote, and no one knows what type of image is going to do well ... but it'll get figured out eventually and the "expert rules" will be liked or disliked just like the advanced editing rules are liked or disliked.
The simple fact that it's new makes it a hot topic, but ultimately I think it's no big deal, or no big change from the norm. As long as the other rule sets stay in use, what's the big deal if we add a few different ones as well? More games, more chances to win :) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:45:20 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find it curious, and mildly disconcerting that some folks would choose to vote down or comment negatively on images that they don't feel were highly edited. A finished work should stand on it's own merit. If it has defects that could have been corrected with Expert Editing, then by all means those deserve comment, but a beautifully seen and shot, carefully edited and well-presented shot is always so, no matter the techniques used. |
AMEN, Brother Fritz! Sing it from the mountaintops. I think it's insane that some people are not scoring "simple" images high just because they are (apparently) not making use of the "expert rules".
R. |
That's also what I was trying to say. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:47:25 PM · #31 |
American Horse -I see alot of insecure people in DPC not appreciateing the fact that there is yet another way to do things. Because of this fact, this makes DPC alot more competative with other sites, and more appealing to people like myself.
Marjo -totally disagree with this statement and MK's response is similiar to mine. I call it bullshit.
American Horse -Expert Editing is a tool for those that 'can' manipulate the digital file to look like something else.
Marjo -Where does it state the digital file should look like something else?
American Horse -Whether it is a brush, paint, knife, or your computer, this third level of editing is a challenge pure and simple, to see if you can manipulate the digital file to get your idea across.
Marjo -from kirbic: a beautifully seen and shot, carefully edited and well-presented shot is always so, no matter the techniques used. I'd add to this statement of kirbic's: carefully edited to remain photograpic in nature.
American Horse -If your just shooting your image straight from the camera, and are comfortable in doing so, then keep it up. But, don't blame the Expert Rules on your short commings with digtal manipulation.
Marjo -More Bullshit
American Horse -Rock on Langdon.
Marjo -Rock on Langdon.
At least we agree on something!
I think the best thing for this site would be to change the wording for the Expert Editing to Digital Art/Anything Goes and remove the photographic in nature portion in the rules. Personally, it's hard for me to vote on created images when they obviously obtain their impact from digital post processing.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:51:31 PM · #32 |
i think i agree with this
Originally posted by Marjo:
change the wording for the Expert Editing to Digital Art/Anything Goes and remove the photographic in nature portion in the rules. |
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:52:01 PM · #33 |
You know, IMO, it's all a crap shot. It doesn't matter which rule set you're using, someone will love it and someone will hate it. As long as you have acheived that, again IMO, it's a sucess. The score doesn't matter. It's when you only receive all 5's that you have failed because you failed to move anyone to any emotion at all.
I'm currently in this challenge and have 7 comments. 1 says it looks like a photograph, the next says it doesn't. 1 believes it's a composite and another tells me it's a beautiful piece of graphic art. So, which is it? Does it matter? I've gotten both high and low scores judging by the comments, but my score is stuck firmly in the middle. When the voting is over and I see a nice curve, I'm happy. I just hate when it seems to be a closed fist giving me the finger.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:53:21 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
I think the best thing for this site would be to change the wording for the Expert Editing to Digital Art/Anything Goes and remove the photographic in nature portion in the rules. Personally, it's hard for me to vote on created images when they obviously obtain their impact from digital post processing. |
I'm not picking on Marjo by quoting this - I just see this thought showing up a lot, and it bothers me. I hope DPC NEVER has a "digital art" category. Period. I hope this site will ALWAYS be based on photographic entries.
That's my preference. DeviantArt has its niche and that's fine. I don't enjoy that kind of thing. I hope it never comes here.
Yes, I understand that I can simply not enter and not vote. But let's face it - such a trend would surely change the nature and face of the community at large, and I don't want that.
Hasn't this thread basically duplicated the rules announcement thread already? :) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:56:25 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think there is room for both here, but I don't think they should mix. |
Whereas it's precisely this mix that I find interesting. I think of it as an exploration of the boundary. And why shouldn't a site that is about topic X explore the boundaries of topic X? |
I don't think "Topic X" includes digital art. That's just my view. |
But that's exactly the view that I am addressing here. I am talking about a boundary between photography and digital art, and exploring that boundary. Obviously if there's a boundary then I'm assuming that photography does not include digital art.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:01:16.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:01:27 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by scalvert:
That said, it wouldn't be fair criticize people or vote them down for doing what's allowed. If this trial continues long enough, I would expect the entries to "self-correct" as voters determine what works and what doesn't, and I'll probably jump in at some point. |
I don't really understand how these two sentences fit together. Don't vote down and eventually the entries will self-correct? How is that? |
I suppose that could be contradictory. I simply meant that a Frankenstein photo composite may receive low votes because it doesn't look appealing, not because the rules allowed its creation. In time, the "artificial" looking composites may dwindle as the voters essentially say, "yes, it's allowed, but this result isn't pretty." |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:03:03 PM · #37 |
re: nards656 I hope DPC NEVER has a "digital art" category. Period. I hope this site will ALWAYS be based on photographic entries.
I don't want it either. But I'm tired of all this discussion and being accused of not wanting to change, ignorant, insecure, etc, blah, blah...
just because I'm trying to enter and vote with "photographic-in-nature" or "photographic integrity".
I think all would be represented if we had three categories: Basic, Advanced and Digital Art. I'm not opposed to voting extreme post processed created images highly, just not when they are supposed to represent photographic in nature. Watch out! You'd better not enter one of those images in advanced or basic, though. You're going to get a low vote if you do.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:06:53. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:03:13 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find it curious, and mildly disconcerting that some folks would choose to vote down or comment negatively on images that they don't feel were highly edited. A finished work should stand on it's own merit. |
Is this actually happening ? It strikes me as almost entirely backwards. If the editing is so done so obviously that it can be seen, then hasn't it more often than not, been done badly ? Its the editing that you can't see that should be voted highly, difficult though that might be to do in practice :)
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:09:09 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find it curious, and mildly disconcerting that some folks would choose to vote down or comment negatively on images that they don't feel were highly edited. A finished work should stand on it's own merit. |
Is this actually happening ? It strikes me as almost entirely backwards. If the editing is so done so obviously that it can be seen, then hasn't it more often than not, been done badly ? Its the editing that you can't see that should be voted highly, difficult though that might be to do in practice :) |
Personally, I found it hard to avoid thinking "this doesn't look like it was edited much at all; why is it here?" and voting it "middle of the road", then seeing something that was OBVIOUSLY edited but well done and thinking "man, that's some good editing" and giving it a high score even though it was OBVIOUSLY NOT REALITY. That was just my difficulty, which I would bet someone else may have also encountered.
In other words, I found myself voting on the editing and whether I thought it was well done RATHER than voting on the result.
I realized what I was doing about halfway through. Not really the point, huh! |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:10:32 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
I think all would be represented if we had three categories: Basic, Advanced and Digital Art. I'm not opposed to voting extreme post processed created images highly, just not when they are supposed to represent photographic in nature. Watch out! You'd better not enter one of those images in advanced or basic, though. You're going to get a low vote if you do. |
The thing is though, there is a fourth estate that would be left out in the cold. And that's the no-holds barred photographic editing category. The kind of believable and unbelievable probabilities practised by the like of Vincent Versace, John Paul Caponigro and many others at the top of the photographic tree. Work like this image by Craig Tanner, that looks like a single frame but enhanced along the way during the capture.
It's photographic art, using the full gamut of the available digital tools.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:13:08.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:12:16 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find it curious, and mildly disconcerting that some folks would choose to vote down or comment negatively on images that they don't feel were highly edited. A finished work should stand on it's own merit. |
Is this actually happening ? It strikes me as almost entirely backwards. If the editing is so done so obviously that it can be seen, then hasn't it more often than not, been done badly ? Its the editing that you can't see that should be voted highly, difficult though that might be to do in practice :) |
Sounds like a catch-22. If the PP is done so well that it doesn't look like anything manipulative was done, then voters may think "nothing fancy here". It's almost like you need to have something obviously manipulated, but still look cool and not garish.
Just thinking out loud. I haven't voted or looked at any of these (except for the Sky winners on the front page recently).
edit to add, just read nards post...kind of confirms what I thought might be happening and one of the reasons I have no desire to vote either.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:15:04. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:12:41 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In time, the "artificial" looking composites may dwindle as the voters essentially say, "yes, it's allowed, but this result isn't pretty." |
unless the artist can make it look stunning ... then the site slowly lists towards deviantart. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:14:19 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sounds like a catch-22. If the PP is done so well that it doesn't look like anything manipulative was done, then voters may think "nothing fancy here". It's almost like you need to have something obviously manipulated, but still look cool and not garish. |
Exactly. So the trend would be towards more outlandish, more unrealistic and more heavily and obviously edited - but in a good way.
Is that the point of the expert rules ?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:14:25 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Right now the situation reminds me of early desktop publishing, when people used all-caps script typefaces with shadows just because they could. In time, I hope the Expert Editing follows a similar evolution, where we still know we have all sorts of fancy tools that we can use, but we find the wisdom to know better. ;-) |
I've had this thought a few times myself - that the real sign of a great image with a whole lot of editing is that someone has to ask if you did anything to it, or not.
I've always argued for free-for-all photoshop rules in the pursuit of fine photographic images. I just don't know how to make the second clause of that sentence work in a rules sense. |
It can't be done in a rules sense, which is why we leave this question up to the voters. If an image is subtly and seamlessly-edited so that it looks like a photo you captured with your camera it should get (and deserve) a high vote.
If it is a "Frankenfoto" worthy of the daily hacks at Freaking News it will get (and usually deserve) a lower vote.
We occasionally have a challenge (e.g. Gary Larson) which may call for a "digital art" approach, but otherwise, whether an image crosses the subtantial gray area between "photo" and "digital art" is a decision best left to the collective esthetic. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:18:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Marjo:
I think all would be represented if we had three categories: Basic, Advanced and Digital Art. I'm not opposed to voting extreme post processed created images highly, just not when they are supposed to represent photographic in nature. Watch out! You'd better not enter one of those images in advanced or basic, though. You're going to get a low vote if you do. |
The thing is though, there is a fourth estate that would be left out in the cold. And that's the no-holds barred photographic editing category. The kind of believable and unbelievable probabilities practised by the like of Vincent Versace, John Paul Caponigro and many others at the top of the photographic tree. Work like this image by Craig Tanner, that looks like a single frame but enhanced along the way during the capture.
It's photographic art, using the full gamut of the available digital tools. |
Good point. We'll just have to have Four Categories. ;) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:19:34 PM · #46 |
While we are at it, someone want to define 'digital art' ? :)
It seems to be used in a mostly derogatory sense, for something obviously unreal, fantastic and overly manipulated, rather than the more literal and useful sense of art created using digital tools.
I also have a problem with digital photography being excluded from being art by the implied definition. Sort of the way photographic galleries/ghettos were set up, because photographs weren't good enough to be considered for art galleries.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:22:01 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by hopper:
I know i sound like a broken record, but this website is a game. Some people use it for personal growth and/or learning, but the statistics here track the winners. The object is to win. And in trying to win, we usually learn how to play better.
|
To me, that means that people play to the gallery, rather than try something new. However, I certainly agree that the name of the ruleset should not be 'Expert'. John suggested 'Digital Art - Anything Goes' - a more accurate name in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:25:05 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is this actually happening ? |
Yes it is. I don't want to single anyone out so I will just say a search of the current thread topics carefully would be enlightening in this area. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:32:02 PM · #49 |
I always come back to not being able to wrap my noodle around what would happen to a shot like this, under editing rules like Expert:
and would it be better, worse or just the same if done digitally, rather than all infront of the camera.
Would it lose the wow factor, if it was just done in Photoshop ? and if so, why does that matter ? Isn't it the end result that counts (at least it should be)
Though obviously the vast majority of voters on here are photographers, so it isn't really the end result alone that matters, but a lot of it is 'how did you do that' or 'I wish I could do that' or 'I wish I could be in Iceland' to create the wow and high score, rather than just how the final image looks, alone.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:36:59 PM · #50 |
Are the pictoralists digital artists? Hmm... never mind.
I will ask that the term digital art NOT be used to describe the rule set. It would presuppose that images entered are not photographic in nature - really killing the challenge hopes for anyone who doesn't create highly manipulated work. |
|
