| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2007 01:37:50 PM · #51 |
| The Expert Editing entries to date have provided, for me, visual interest that is lacking in many of Basic and Advanced editing challenges. Whether the image is composed of several photos and is intensely processed in Photoshop does not matter a wit to me. It is the final result that matters. Sometimes I vote images with little processing highly; at other times I vote intensely processed images to the top. Its the final image that matters - not the route by which it was achieved. Expert Editing provides me with an interesting learning experiment. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:39:26 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
This image, if placed in the Expert vs Advanced challenge, would get a lower score (if I was voting) in Expert than it would in an Advanced challenge. Either way it is an outstanding image, but in Advanced I would know it was a great photograph, in Expert I would think that the creator of the image was a good "photoshopper".
Expert - "cheating".
Advanced - great photographer.
JMO of course, and since I'm not voting my voice probably doesn't carry that much weight in this debate anyway. :D |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:40:27 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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) |
it would lose the wow factor because many people on this particular site want to be better photographers first, and better digital artists second (perhaps not believing they go hand in hand). If I can learn to accomplish your shot without photoshop, I'm a better photographer (film or digital). If I can't, but instead use photoshop, then I've just cheated the people on this site that call themselves "pure photographers".
Same reason people get pissed at Shannon for using a large format color printer to make up 60% of his final image. He has access to a tool that others don't, so they feel cheated. (or if not cheated, at least like they are at a disadvantage)
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 13:42:25. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:42:49 PM · #54 |
I think your shot would be lost if entered under expert.
You're right. The "How'd he do that?" would be replaced with
"I can photoshop better than that!"
I hate to be labeled as someone not wanting to change, but you've hit it on the head as to what I miss most about this site. I would study each image and pour over the tech notes to see just how the photographer was able to accomplish such amazing shots first and then process minimally to perfection. It's quite the opposite now. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:43:05 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
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. |
If not 'Digital Art', then what? 'Photographic Collage'? :D
I think the term digital art comes from piecing together various components (in this case numerous photos) to create something that is ficticious (make-believe). I know, I know...nothing in a single photograph is ever truly "real". :D |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:45:29 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
That puts the old "finger" on my concerns pretty accurately. This EXACT shot, as a PS composite, does NOTHING for me (based on a "theoretical" picture). As a photo, it's awesome and I really like it. This is probably largely driven by the fact that, as a photographer, I am very interested in being able to PHOTOGRAPH these types of images. I have NO interest in creating them in any other fashion, thus I don't enjoy those that are created in any other fashion. Not knowing which way they were created makes me assume that they were created in PS, and that means I regard them entirely differently. (Not saying this is all "right", just analyzing MY POV.)
Just a part of the breakdown of "what I like." Others feel differently, I understand. That doesn't change MY preferences. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:49:23 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
I hate to be labeled as someone not wanting to change, but you've hit it on the head as to what I miss most about this site. I would study each image and pour over the tech notes to see just how the photographer was able to accomplish such amazing shots first and then process minimally to perfection. It's quite the opposite now. |
this is my point of view as well, but i don't believe adding a new rule set is going remove the photographers - it's just going to add some digital artists, and I'm hoping there's room for both of us.
i've decided (for now anyway) not to prticipate in, or vote on, any "expert rules" challenges for just this reason ... I'm tainted at the moment. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:01:41 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'll put my two cents in. My one submission to Expert rules could have been submitted under Advanced. It's not that I don't have confidence or skills to use the Expert rules (hell, much of the multiple-image related stuff in Expert is stuff that I was advocating for including in Advanced several years ago). It's just that some shots don't need those tools. It's perfectly acceptable to submit a shot editied within Basic Rules to an Advanced challenge, so why is it a no-no to submit a shot edited within Advanced (or even Basic) rules in an Expert Editing challenge?
In the end, the tools are there to be used if you need them, but use of them is not required. 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. |
And yet there is a kind of expectation to be able to "see" the expert editing in the entries. At least, it would seem so from some of the commenting. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:02:13 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by dahkota:
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. |
If not 'Digital Art', then what? 'Photographic Collage'? :D
I think the term digital art comes from piecing together various components (in this case numerous photos) to create something that is ficticious (make-believe). I know, I know...nothing in a single photograph is ever truly "real". :D |
I understand that. But what if you use true HDR instead? Or, A single image with a major element cloned, dodged or burned out to improve the appearance? Both would fall under expert but wouldn't quite fit under digital art, yes? I see the expert rules as an extension of the advanced rules. Others may not agree but if you title it digital art, the expectation will be set... |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:04:24 PM · #60 |
| i'm in the it's-not-for-me crowd. as i said in another thread debating these changes, i'm ok with this stuff on a limited, contained basis, but i think it's going to be rather off-putting to the novices that come here and find themselves ill-equipped to participate. there have been plenty of people who have come here not knowing much, and through time, have developed into being fine photographers. however, most of them came at a time where it mainly took effort; now, it takes not just effort, but equipment, software, and time to master a lot of different skills--just to try to score above a 5. i can see newbies feeling so far behind that it will be a lot easier to simply abandon the site than to participate fully. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:06:45 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by ursula:
And yet there is a kind of expectation to be able to "see" the expert editing in the entries. At least, it would seem so from some of the commenting. |
That certainly makes sense. But it means that the rule set is about making images that explicitly don't look like images taken from reality. If it has to look unbelievable to meet the challenge of the rules well, doesn't that mean it has to strive to not look like a photograph to succeed ?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:12:45 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
And yet there is a kind of expectation to be able to "see" the expert editing in the entries. At least, it would seem so from some of the commenting. |
That certainly makes sense. But it means that the rule set is about making images that explicitly don't look like images taken from reality. If it has to look unbelievable to meet the challenge of the rules well, doesn't that mean it has to strive to not look like a photograph to succeed ? |
It is one way to look at "expert" editing, but, at this time, it isn't the way I intepret "expert" editing. Maybe it is the word "expert". Words have a lot of weight, and it seems to me that in this case "expert" might have been used a bit carelessly.
To me, it didn't mean that the resulting images had to look unbelievable or not from reality, but that presentations that weren't possible before were possible now. As a matter of fact, it meant that they needed to look almost "super believable", rather than unbelievable. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:20:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by ursula:
To me, it didn't mean that the resulting images had to look unbelievable or not from reality, but that presentations that weren't possible before were possible now. As a matter of fact, it meant that they needed to look almost "super believable", rather than unbelievable. |
That's certainly what I'm striving for. It's unlikely you'll ever see me do a digital composite or warped entry, but this is the only place I can use HDRI right now. I think we'd be able to stratify the debate better if we admitted HDRI to the advanced ruleset, frankly.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:25:53 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
To me, it didn't mean that the resulting images had to look unbelievable or not from reality, but that presentations that weren't possible before were possible now. As a matter of fact, it meant that they needed to look almost "super believable", rather than unbelievable. |
That's certainly what I'm striving for. It's unlikely you'll ever see me do a digital composite or warped entry, but this is the only place I can use HDRI right now. I think we'd be able to stratify the debate better if we admitted HDRI to the advanced ruleset, frankly.
R. |
In other words, you want your toy but you want to deny others theirs. :)
Doesn't seem quite right, either. I think HDR is the grey area that pretty well contains the entire debate. Without a push for HDR, I wonder if the "rest" of this would have happened. Without HDR, the photographic "purists" would not support "Expert" at all, which would make it much less likely to succeed. But, because HDR has capability that even purists like, but they can't do in Basic or Advanced, a new ruleset becomes a high priority, and it opens doors that many of us don't want open.
Again, just MY preferences. I LIKE HDR, but it sure has the capability to NOT look anything like a photograph, and if the requirement to vote based on "appearing photographic" is purely in the hands of the voters, a high percentage of "digital art" afficiandos would surely make photos with a "digital art" look score higher than they currently do, I'm fairly certain. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:29:22 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's unlikely you'll ever see me do a digital composite... |
We already did though with your latest entry.
True, it was just a small element and doubtful anyone would have ever given the birds a second look as they were done so well and so very plausible - was a nice touch adding them.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:31:34 PM · #66 |
| the problem is that there is no way to deliniate between HDR and other types of editing involving multiple images. and, once you involve multiple images, you move into an area way beyond what most people are doing with their cameras. should you be able to do this? sure, but not all the time, especially not on a weekly basis. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:32:18 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
To me, it didn't mean that the resulting images had to look unbelievable or not from reality, but that presentations that weren't possible before were possible now. As a matter of fact, it meant that they needed to look almost "super believable", rather than unbelievable. |
That's certainly what I'm striving for. It's unlikely you'll ever see me do a digital composite or warped entry, but this is the only place I can use HDRI right now. I think we'd be able to stratify the debate better if we admitted HDRI to the advanced ruleset, frankly.
R. |
In other words, you want your toy but you want to deny others theirs. :)
|
That's harsh! :)
I wasn't referring to HDR or anything Bear specifically. I am not even quite sure what I'm thinking, but it's something like this. The last time I was at the Museum of Photography in Ottawa, I saw 2 images, one a B/W composite of a tree, taken in sections, the images stacked to make a whole tree, the other a picture of a girl in a living room (?) with objects sort of all out of place, all odd and Joey like in a way. The first was a composite of many shots, the second was a straight shot. The first would fit my view of "expert" editing more so than the second, even though the second would "look" a lot more like what we call "expert" editing here.
The tree, in parts, pieces stacked up, looked "super believable" to me; the straight shot of the living room looked sort of fantastic, like a nightmare, more in the field of "unbelievable".
The more I talk about this, the more I get mixed up. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:44:09 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
And yet there is a kind of expectation to be able to "see" the expert editing in the entries. At least, it would seem so from some of the commenting. |
That certainly makes sense. But it means that the rule set is about making images that explicitly don't look like images taken from reality. If it has to look unbelievable to meet the challenge of the rules well, doesn't that mean it has to strive to not look like a photograph to succeed ? |
It is one way to look at "expert" editing, but, at this time, it isn't the way I intepret "expert" editing. Maybe it is the word "expert". Words have a lot of weight, and it seems to me that in this case "expert" might have been used a bit carelessly.
To me, it didn't mean that the resulting images had to look unbelievable or not from reality, but that presentations that weren't possible before were possible now. As a matter of fact, it meant that they needed to look almost "super believable", rather than unbelievable. |
In the first Expet challenge I got some comments along the lines of "Too processed", on the socond I got a couple of "not processed enough"
If you are looking for obvious processing you could be missing so expert editing that makes the picture look unprocessed when in fact it took a lot of processing to get it that way.
Maybe this had been said, but I will judge this category on the merits of the photograph and how well it fits the challenge. The extra editing rules jsut gives the photographer more options.
I have no problem with a photo that would have been acceptable under Basic rules being in the Expert rules challenge. But obviously some people do.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:47:31 PM · #69 |
What I don't understand is why is all of this such an issue.
I don't see this site being at risk of becoming a digital art site. Seems it is just offering the members here that want to stretch their wings a bit and play to their heart's content, a venue to do so. Those not in favor of it can ignore it. Those that want to use multiple exposures in an HDR fashion can do so, as well as those that want to extend themselves and cross over into digital art with a full-blown composite. It's all in fun and certainly not for everyone, but for those that get tired of having to carefully stay in the lines when painting, this ruleset says it's ok to throw the paintbrushes at the canvas for a change, if you so desire to.
Not even sure why I am responding to this anyway....
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:51:29 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Maybe this had been said, but I will judge this category on the merits of the photograph and how well it fits the challenge. The extra editing rules jsut gives the photographer more options.
|
That is the way I would like to look at these challenges. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:52:27 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by BradP:
What I don't understand is why is all of this such an issue.
I don't see this site being at risk of becoming a digital art site. Seems it is just offering the members here that want to stretch their wings a bit and play to their heart's content, a venue to do so. Those not in favor of it can ignore it. Those that want to use multiple exposures in an HDR fashion can do so, as well as those that want to extend themselves and cross over into digital art with a full-blown composite. It's all in fun and certainly not for everyone, but for those that get tired of having to carefully stay in the lines when painting, this ruleset says it's ok to throw the paintbrushes at the canvas for a change, if you so desire to.
Not even sure why I am responding to this anyway.... |
I'm just bored this morning, so I'm just talking away for no good reason. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:56:11 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by nards656:
In other words, you want your toy but you want to deny others theirs. :) |
I see the smiley, but just for the record I don't want to deny anybody anything; I just think HDRI imaging should be legal in advanced editing. I don't see a problem with what skip has mentioned, as far as opening the door for other sorts of composites; it's easy enough to write a rule that limits it to contiguous exposures of the same scene with no major elements being added/subtracted during exposures.
Here's the thing of it: we can already DO all that fakey-jakey HDR stuff in advanced editing NOW; we just have to do it off of a single RAW exposure processed multiple times and sandwiched. When it comes to doing extreme-fake HDR looks, that's as good as real HDRI really; you go that far, it doesn't much matter.
And right NOW in basic, we can do tone mapping; and we can make THAT fakey-jakey too. Why is tone mapping allowed in basic? because they opened the door when they said CS2 shadow/highlight is legal: S/H is the C S2 version of tone mapping. So, lacking CS2, I bought Photomatix so I could get this expanded tonal range into my arsenal. But I digress, that's irrelevant.
Bottom line: there's an aspect of HDR "abuse" that people are pretty much agreed is a "bad direction" to go in, for a "photography" site. And I more or less agree witht hat, though I'm not a hard-ass about it. But the thing of it is, we can already get there in both basic and advanced, if we choose to. Now in the meanwhile, everyone says a "well done" HDRI image is a a fine example of photographic skills/rendering, and I completely agree with that too obviously. HDRI, at a pure level, is about taking all the light that you can see and rendering it all in a way that can be displayed, without sacrificing shadows and highlights.
In the film days, serious practitioners of B/W photography did this every day as a part of their workflow: it is called the Zone System, and it involves exposing and processing to control the tonal range of the negative so you can create a print with shadow and highlight detail both. And HDRI Imaging is the digital equivalent of the Zone System. So small wonder it excites me, because it gets me closer to what I used to do with my large format cameras and my b/w film, see? it's intensely creative and involving, it's exciting to do.
But we have this paradox right now, where the "abuse" is possible in any of the rulesets, but we're only occasionally allowed to deliver the real thing; and when we do, we have to compete head-to-head with wholly fantastical, digitally-composited images of imaginary scenes, that take the photograph(s) as their starting point and then warp and/or combine them into entirely new creations. I have nothing against this, mind you, but it's not where HDRI ought to be slotted IMO. I think it's really short-sighted to limit us to quasi-HDR imaging in advanced, when the real thing is every bit as accessible to our members (same software for both), and is actually MORE accessible to CS2 users, since they have to jump through EXIF hoops to make quasi-HDRI work, whereas we Photomatix people don't have that problem.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 14:58:55.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:59:50 PM · #73 |
Just a few thoughts from me:
1. An entry deserves a DNMC vote if it does not meet the CHALLENGE. If someone did not take advantage of the allowances made by expert editing rules, that is fine. How much editing you do has nothing to do with meeting the challenge.
2. How can anyone know if someone did or did not take advantage of the freedoms allowed under expert editing? If a photo does not look like it used "expert" editing, that may just be a testament to the expert skills of the person that submitted the photo. To me, the better photos are the ones where you can NOT tell that they took advantage of the expert rules.
3. If you don't like the "digital art" photos, use your vote and comment to convey that message. If these photos end up toward the bottom of the rankings, people will start to get the idea. If they consistently end up near the top, then learn to accept it (You still don't need to like it). |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:05:43 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by BradP:
What I don't understand is why is all of this such an issue.
I don't see this site being at risk of becoming a digital art site. Seems it is just offering the members here that want to stretch their wings a bit and play to their heart's content, a venue to do so. Those not in favor of it can ignore it. Those that want to use multiple exposures in an HDR fashion can do so, as well as those that want to extend themselves and cross over into digital art with a full-blown composite. It's all in fun and certainly not for everyone, but for those that get tired of having to carefully stay in the lines when painting, this ruleset says it's ok to throw the paintbrushes at the canvas for a change, if you so desire to.
Not even sure why I am responding to this anyway.... |
It's a concern to ME because I don't see most of these issues the same way you do. :)
Remember that membership / participation is not a "set in stone" thing. It's dynamic. This will attract a new kind of membership, perhaps recalling some that have left, and will thus introduce a new "kind" of voter and a new kind of preference. If they are attracted by the "digital art" ruleset that some would like to see, they WILL influence other areas of the site. It's unavoidable. Not that they are bad people, but their being attracted by "digital art" pretty much guarantees that they like digital art. These preferences and their "newness" indicates to me that they will NOT be as concerned about maintaining the "photographic" nature of this site. Over time, they will push for yet more and more capability, perhaps even a category that doesn't require a photographic base but simply a blank canvas. It's happening NOW, on THIS thread, even, let alone later.
These are simply MY preferences. No need to act as though I'm paranoid, delusional, or even backward. I LIKE the "true photography" nature of the site. But it's NOT my site.
If you don't care about any of the things that I care about, I can understand that you wouldn't see this as "an issue". However, I DO see it as an issue, even though I'm not necessarily meaning to "fight" it.
We all have opinions, and I just chose here and now to express mine :) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:12:43 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by nards656:
... We all have opinions, and I just chose here and now to express mine :) |
I'll ride your coattails on this one. Well said. |
|
