| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2003 08:21:29 AM · #101 |
I vote no. Two points:
1. Some people will not have access to an image editing program that allows them to dodge and burn. (I know GIMP is free....but how many non-techies will load that program and figure out how to use it?)
2. Looking at the examples above that show the effects of using dodge and burn -- it's very nice indeed, but to me it looks more like you are exercising your painting skills to modify the photograph. Look at the winning DPChallenge photos over the last year or so. They are amazing photographs. Would they really be better after using dodge and burn? Show me more examples if you think so.
Right now I have to vote no.
Alan |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 08:27:03 AM · #102 |
I suspect that in most cases where people want to use D&B, a curves adjustment will do the trick? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong...
BTW, I'm on the side of no spot editing at all at the moment, but I'm open minded. I believe it makes me look harder at the available lighting options at the moment when I take the photo without this option. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 08:55:11 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I suspect that in most cases where people want to use D&B, a curves adjustment will do the trick? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong...
BTW, I'm on the side of no spot editing at all at the moment, but I'm open minded. I believe it makes me look harder at the available lighting options at the moment when I take the photo without this option. |
Ditto. I agree, for persons such as myself, who are not yet overly proficient with the camera (and have crap cameras to boot) it would be just another "crutch." Currently, I'm challenged everyweek to get the best possible image "out of the box." If implemented, although I might not want to, will be tempted to use the D/B and not strive for the best possible image from the camera. Then again I would have no one to blame for that but myself. But I can see many "newbies" falling into that trap or registered users who don't become members because they find it too daunting.
For the Admins.:
This site has no doubt become a commercial success for Drew and Langdon. From a totally business perspective, I think they ought to consider potential member drop-off as a result of new rules being suggested. Please air on the side of caution. I think this site is great and I don't want to see it go downhill over this matter.
Regards,
Owen
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 08:58:39 AM · #104 |
I vote yes for Dodge and Burn and no to clone tool.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 08:59:47 AM · #105 |
just read this thread......
yes I vote yes. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:08:26 AM · #106 |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:13:03 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Yes, please yes, let's allow dodging and burning. Take the two images below. Both would be DPC legal if we were to allow dodging and burning. I did the edit in about 5 minutes. Which would you rather have? |
Honestly? I see no difference, except that one is BW. The BW one is still weirdly muddied, as far as where your eye's supposed to go (I prefer the color one for that reason, as the color contrasts lead the eye better).
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:15:59 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by greenem2:
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but when you say "photographic skill," to me that includes post-processing. |
See, and to me it doesn't, because they're completely different skillsets, and require separate learning. My professional-photographer-all-his-life grandfather could get decent-to-great results out of any decent digicam he was handed within a day or two of playing with it, without any post-processing at all. And my photoshop-native mother can take crappy shots I took on film before I knew anything about photography and make 'em glow.
THAT's why.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:18:19 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Dodge and Burn would make a great addition to the rules, and it's not at all hard to learn.
Here is an example I did a few weeks ago, during the fauna challenge. It was the first time I'd ever attempted to use dodge/burn and the results are far better than the original image. Think what you could do with a little practice :) |
Quite honestly? You took a decent snapshotty photo and turned it into an unusable mess, in my opinion. I'd get better results with simple contrast, gamma, whitepoint, and blackpoint manipulations.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:22:30 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between D/B and clone.
D/B just allows selective lightening and darkening. Perfect for when you got the shot but the main subject was backlit, or your sky was dark but your ground was light. That's ALL it is.
Clone, OTOH, is all about moving and replacing pixels with other pixels, which allows much more radical alterations to the reality and verisimilitude of the image.
Big, big difference :). |
This really hits the mark. Cloning is not at all the same thing. It adds or removes things from the picture. It is something I commonly use ( not in DPC) but does "alter" the original picture. It is like cutting and pasting.
D/B just alters the exposure of the selected pixels. It is much more in line with levels, not cutting and pasting.
AS such, I say YES to the dodge and burn.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:33:25 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by eloise:
Quite honestly? You took a decent snapshotty photo and turned it into an unusable mess, in my opinion. I'd get better results with simple contrast, gamma, whitepoint, and blackpoint manipulations. |
I'd like to remind people that it IS possible to state one's opinion about someone else's efforts without using such hurtful language. Expressing yourself in this way does nothing to keep forum discussions civil and can be quite offensive.
Could you not simply have said: "Personally, I think that the original image was acceptable and that the changes you made using Dodge and Burn have not improved the image/ have made the image less attractive".
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:34:16.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:36:02 AM · #112 |
Agreed. There's never a bad time for tact.
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by eloise:
Quite honestly? You took a decent snapshotty photo and turned it into an unusable mess, in my opinion. I'd get better results with simple contrast, gamma, whitepoint, and blackpoint manipulations. |
I'd like to remind people that it IS possible to state one's opinion about someone else's efforts without using such hurtful language. Expressing yourself in this way does nothing to keep forum discussions civil and can be quite offensive.
Could you not simply have said: "Personally, I think that the original image was acceptable and that the changes you made using Dodge and Burn have not improved the image/ have made the image less attractive". |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:37:22 AM · #113 |
My vote is an emphatic "YES!" Let's use a film analogy. Growing up, we had a darkroom in our house (still do for that matter, although thanks to the digital camera, it's a bit dusty).
When I'd develop my own B&W prints, I wouldn't think of printing a picture without paying careful attention to areas of the film that were over-, or under-exposed, especially if the print was for some meaningful purpose other than experimentation.
I remember spending a lot of time using a bent paperclip with a circular piece of paper taped to it that I would use to dodge areas, and I used to allow light to shine through a hole I'd make with my hands to burn particular areas of shots.
That's quite a neanderthalic (sp?) way of doing it, but it helped me learn a lot about producing good qualilty images in the darkroom.
Why should the digital darkroom be any different? In film days, photography skills came from skills attained behind the camera, and skills related to the darkroom. They work hand-in-hand.
The same should go for the "digital darkroom." Learning to produce quality photos consists of skills that you use while shooting the photo, but the end result is equally reliant upon the skills related to processing software.
My vote is that we should get to use the site to brush up both the behind-the-camera skills, as well as cleaning up the finished product.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:38:10 AM · #114 |
I agree with you. The extent of alterations already allowed can turn any pic into a psychedelic acid trip .. Which is why I don't think the other edits suggested would really be that big a deal.
But as long as we're trying to come up with something that's limitable, it's far easier to limit D/B and come up with wording than it is to limit 'acceptable use of clone'.
Originally posted by JasonPR:
magnetic. that's true about the clone tool being different, but I don't think anyone would really change much of their image with the clone tool. the only thing i ever really use it for is to get rid of a few annoying specks or telephone poles, etc, stuff you couldn't do with any other tool. People can make their images much more unrealistic by using the dodge and burn tool. Actually, the things that are allowed on here, such as levels, curves, color channels, etc, can change pictures far more than I ever would with the clone tool alone. If there is one tool that is soley for spot editing and touch ups it is the clone tool. I think that we should be able to use all of the tools but stress the fact that it can only be one picture and pixels can be taken out of the image but not added. |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:48:18 AM · #115 |
Another example of why I want dodge/ burn:
Click for larger versions
dpclegal:
I can't bring out any more shadows without blowing the sky highlights and so on.
dodged/burn:
Now everyone is perfectly at liberty to tell me I screwed the picture up totally, in which case, letting people add this to the rules only really improves your chances doesn't it ? :) |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:48:55 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
[quote=eloise]I'd like to remind people that it IS possible to state one's opinion about someone else's efforts without using such hurtful language. Expressing yourself in this way does nothing to keep forum discussions civil and can be quite offensive. |
Once we start telling people how they can express their opinion, we might as well have the ayatollahs ruling us.
I would also point out that you state something as an absolute ("Expressing yourself in this way does nothing to keep forum discussions civil and can be quite offensive") that is really just YOUR opinion. This is a far more offensive and egregious problem in my opinion than anything eloise (who stated everything as HER opinion) did.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:50:57 AM · #117 |
agreed, in principle Jak. However, as a friendly piece of advice to Eloise, she will have better success in having her opinion listened to (assuming that's important to her), if she phrases it in a way that doesn't immediately provoke a negative reaction. :)
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by Kavey:
[quote=eloise]I'd like to remind people that it IS possible to state one's opinion about someone else's efforts without using such hurtful language. Expressing yourself in this way does nothing to keep forum discussions civil and can be quite offensive. |
Once we start telling people how they can express their opinion, we might as well have the ayatollahs ruling us.
I would also point out that you state something as an absolute ("Expressing yourself in this way does nothing to keep forum discussions civil and can be quite offensive") that is really just YOUR opinion. This is a far more offensive and egregious problem in my opinion than anything eloise (who stated everything as HER opinion) did. |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:53:14 AM · #118 |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:54:39 AM · #119 |
| Gordon... nice example, where can I see more tutorials that show how you can achieve this? The earlier one on the Apple website was interesting, but not that helpful unless I plan on taking lots of photos of tornados. I want to see how this is used on everyday photos! |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:55:33 AM · #120 |
I didn't tell her anything. I merely advised that it is possible to state the same opinion in a more civil way without causing offence and still get the exact same point across - and gain more respect in doing so. If the intention is actually to cause offence, then go ahead.
However, clearly these threads are causing a great deal of bad feeling, anger and upset - I'm bowing out. I don't have any desire to read threads where people feel the only way to state their opinion is in hurtful and offensive manners.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 09:56:13.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:56:22 AM · #121 |
| This thread is moving off topic... please keep it on topic. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:57:06 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by eloise:
See, and to me it doesn't, because they're completely different skillsets, and require separate learning. |
Thanks for helping me make my earlier point! Yes, they are two skill sets, and they work together. They're both necessary elements in becoming a better photographer. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 09:59:28 AM · #123 |
I would vote no on the rule change
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:18:41 AM · #124 |
I vote yes on the rule change - like every other editing tool here there is nothing saying that you HAVE to use it if you don't want to. If you are a purist and want to only use your photo right from the camera with only a resize done before uploading to a challenge Go For It! If you have an editing tool and want to try and make adjustments to your photo before submitting then please do. The voters ultimately decide which photos warrant the most merit.
We have all seen examples with the current rules where people have used editing tools to greatly improve a photo - and the opposite as well. I think we would find that with additional freedoms we ultimately learn more about better photography skills from the purists and how to properly edit a photo to produce the desired affects from those skilled in the post processing tools.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 10:21:18. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:30:41 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Gordon... nice example, where can I see more tutorials that show how you can achieve this? The earlier one on the Apple website was interesting, but not that helpful unless I plan on taking lots of photos of tornados. I want to see how this is used on everyday photos! |
this is the approach I used Though frankly I have some issues with it, mostly due to banding in the 8-bit greyscale layer.
This shot was also done using this approach. The background was darkened up and the highlights on the wings were brought out.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 10:32:11. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 01:07:21 PM EDT.
