Rule Change Discussion: Dodge and Burn

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/07/2003 01:00:35 PM · #178

i agree. but again, it comes down to need and applicability. yeah i can use the 'spherize' filter, for example, in photoshop all i want on my own personal photography (a filter that turns the image into a 3D ball) - but in reality i never, ever use it because it doesn't ever really have a relevant application.

if i use or overuse any tool in such a way that it looks cheesy, voters are going to call me on it. same as they would right now if i did some kind of cheesy inversion/hue-shift within legal modifications. same difference, just letting as access more parts of the toolbox, with the same caveat: do it well and appropriately, or voters will kick your ass :).

Originally posted by Jak:

The same argument then can and will be made for freeing up ALL filters and tools.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/07/2003 01:07:54 PM · #179

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by Jak:
The same argument then can and will be made for freeing up ALL filters and tools.

It could be but we are not asking for anything but dodge and burn.

Misses my point entirely. Right now you are only asking for d & b. Once that is granted, the exact same argument can and will be used to bring in ever more filters and tools. Slippery slope. You know.

I point out as evidence that several times in the multiple threads on this issue that you, John, have pointed out as an argument for THIS rule change that the rules have been changed before.

Sigma 70-200 /2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II

06/07/2003 01:19:48 PM · #180

Originally posted by Jak:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Jak:
The same argument then can and will be made for freeing up ALL filters and tools.

It could be but we are not asking for anything but dodge and burn.

Misses my point entirely. Right now you are only asking for d & b. Once that is granted, the exact same argument can and will be used to bring in ever more filters and tools. Slippery slope. You know.

I point out as evidence that several times in the multiple threads on this issue that you, John, have pointed out as an argument for THIS rule change that the rules have been changed before.

You make a lot of assumptions that are based on your opinion of things. I think I have made myself clear that I don't want any rule changes that will promote images that are not in the spirit of natural photography. We already have too much latitude on that as is. Your point has also been made over and over and I respect your point of view. I'm not sure that responding to your posts is worth while because it goes nowhere. I know how you feel already.

Maybe I should ask you what I should do from this point....

sulamk

Canon EOS-60D

06/07/2003 01:23:26 PM · #181

Yes! If it is allowed in film photography it should be allowed in digital!

lamedos

Nikon Coolpix 5000

06/07/2003 01:48:16 PM · #182

Here is a photo that I entered for a challenge. Below is a Dodged & Burned version. I am not a photographer in the sense that most of you guys are. I brought my camera for taking family memory type snaps but every now and then I try to put a bit of effort into taking a nice picture. I have no idea how to use almost all of the features in PS but D&B are so simple that I fail to see the argument about a learning curve.

I see people changing images by manipulating channels to achieve sepia and the like or to make a B&W image with only one aspect, such as a red rose, stand out. As a very genuine question - is this easily achievable in a conventional darkroom? I also remember many conversations about sharpening - I know this is acheivable in a standard darkroom, but how easy is it? Once again, I find it a very difficult thing to get right in PS with all the various options.

My vote would be to allow D&B - it is a simple darkroom technique that anyone can use in either a conventional or digital arena. Some of the other already allowed enhancements would be very difficult in a conventional dakroom. D&B would no more decieve the viewer than adding a blur, sharpening, manipulating channels or curves/levels.

KimInNB

Canon PowerShot A80

06/07/2003 03:54:33 PM · #183

Is this a challenge for photography or a challenge for who has the best image editing software?

I vote no rule change - it is not effecting the entire image - it is spot editing.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/07/2003 04:05:32 PM · #184

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Maybe I should ask you what I should do from this point....

I need to point out that, yes, I keep making my points AND you keep making your points. That's what debate is all about. However, John, a decision needs to be made one way or the other so that this debate can finish.

In most well-ordered societies (not democracies where temporary majorities brutalize the temporary minority) consensus rules and is considered the most important factor, and if consensus to change cannot be found then the status quo stands. I think you have to agree that there is a very large, albeit minority, group of members who object to this change. Perhaps we can agree that now is not the right time, but maybe bring it up again in 6 - 12 months.

Arachnophilia

Logitech ClickSmart 510

06/07/2003 04:13:39 PM · #185

this point has probably already been made, and seeing as how i'm on someone else's computer (dialup on their only phone line) i'm not gonna really go check...

but. the argument that "i can do this in a darkroom" is a poor one. originally, every filter designed for photomanipulation programs were designed to duplicate effects that you could do in a darkroom.

for instance, i can solarize in a darkroom. just turn the lights on while the print is still in the developer. i've seen people make outline prints with various large negative print masking techniques. i can even get a sharpie and a transparency and put writing and non-standard borders into my prints. you can do just about anything in a darkroom.

but this is not a "what can i do in a darkroom challenge" it's a photography challenge.

right?

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

06/07/2003 04:22:45 PM · #186

The more i think about it, the more i am in favor of D&B. Why don't we simply allow it in a couple of challenges and THEN come out with a poll? This will give everybody the opportunity to experience this much talked about change and this might revise their opinion one way or the other. IMO, the overall impact of D&B will be quite nominal. The main benefit will be that the submitter will be more pleased with the finished product she/he will be able to submit.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/07/2003 04:32:37 PM · #187

Originally posted by Jak:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Maybe I should ask you what I should do from this point....

I need to point out that, yes, I keep making my points AND you keep making your points. That's what debate is all about. However, John, a decision needs to be made one way or the other so that this debate can finish.

In most well-ordered societies (not democracies where temporary majorities brutalize the temporary minority) consensus rules and is considered the most important factor, and if consensus to change cannot be found then the status quo stands. I think you have to agree that there is a very large, albeit minority, group of members who object to this change. Perhaps we can agree that now is not the right time, but maybe bring it up again in 6 - 12 months.

This is exactly what will happen. I have asked the site administrators to present this issue as a poll to all participants on this site. Currently, we don't have a large enough response from all participants on the site to make any kind of decision. There are a very large group of participants here who never read the forums and are currently unaware of this idea.

To be quite honest, I do believe that when this idea goes to that sitewide poll, u will see different results than you have seen in this thread. A previous poll on modifying the editing rules was a large majority in favor of keeping them the way they are now.

vjoz

Canon EOS-10D

06/07/2003 06:33:45 PM · #188

Let's get a poll on that, ... I'm sure it will take us to the next step of this discussion...

or?

marco

06/07/2003 08:04:18 PM · #189

YES for me, although I'm not really sure what consequences a rule change like that will have. Certainly when there IS a problem with a submission. How, with only EXIF data available, will the administrators be able to check wether a submission is legal or not?
I could, for instance, use the lasso tool to select an area, and do all sorts of very subtile modifications (even color adjustements), and no one will ever know.
Just being devils advocate, I like the idea of adding dodging and burning to our DPC toolbox... but I do think that there is a risk of turning DPC slowly into a 'digital editing challenge'.

Message edited by author 2003-06-07 20:06:09.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

06/07/2003 08:27:39 PM · #190

Originally posted by KimInNB:

Is this a challenge for photography or a challenge for who has the best image editing software?

The camera and its possibiltities are only 'a part' of photography. Postshot adjusting using software or hardware stuff is another part. Raw camera data is not the 'true and only' photograph. I never has been and it never will be. Image editing parameters are imho the same like on-camera parameters.

I hate collages and bs additions, but tonal/luminosity corrections, be it at certain spots aint that special and I regard them as just another aspect of photography.

There is even another aspect. You can use a whole range of hardware gradient and non-gradient warming and cooling filters on your camera. The same results can be achieved in PS with a layer and optionally partial selections and feathering. Because I can do it in PS I haven't bought any other filter but a protective UV filter and Polarizer. This gives me a disadvantage at dpchallenge however, because I am not allowed to use software to mimic perfectly 'legal' hardware.

Dodging and Burning is photography.

johnmk

Ricoh Caplio RR1

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/08/2003 04:29:40 AM · #191

Handicaps?
By mistake I posted this remark in the other thread ('community'). However, I now have had time to sleep it over and still think that it is feasible and can satisfy everyone:
we have the group split up into 3 ranges:
1) Low-end camera users (no in-camera editing stuff, nothing like sepia toning or whatever); no other editing than crop and resize.
Final mark will be upped by one point for any entry.
2) Middle group, any camera; leave editing rules as they are. No use of in-camera editing allowed. No change to final mark.
3) Pro-group: any camera; no limits to editing tools. An explanation of what has been done goes with the entry and will be visible after the challenge. Final mark gets one full point subtracted.
Using this handicap system we still would have a fair competition (even fairer than it is now, when one compares the options of high-end vs. low-end cameras). For the low-end camera users the emphasis will be on photography, for the pro-group photography is understood, and they can do whatever they feel necessary on editing, teaching the rest of the community along the way.
How does this sound?
(Wrong thead again?)

06/08/2003 01:47:00 PM · #192

Due to the lack of a high percentage of support for this idea, I have retracted my request for a site poll on the proposed change.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/08/2003 01:59:38 PM · #193

I don't see how retracting your request for the poll solves anything. It's been almost a week now, with many, many threads on the subject. Why not just vote and come to a decision, rather than shut it down now and have it be brought up again in two weeks? Then we won't have to haggle over who thought what and posted something in one thread but not in the other and blah blah blah, we can just have a definitive answer on the topic and move on. Opposition to an idea doesn't seem to me to be a reason to retract a poll.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

06/08/2003 02:02:22 PM · #194

Feel free to take up the push for this on your own :)

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

06/08/2003 02:07:24 PM · #195

I think this discussion has been a good one. It has elicited exploration of not only where DPC is and might go, but also exploration of each person's definition of photography..and where that begins and ends. I think this is too soon to stop it. Also, I do not believe you are "on your own", as many have voiced their support of it.
A few days is not nearly enough time to consider this. If the change happens or does not happen, so be it.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/08/2003 02:12:37 PM · #196

Okay, here's my push. I have asbolutely no idea what it takes to get a poll offered around here, but I think that there should be one, regardless of my personal feelings on the editing/no editing issue. I would like to see an "official," definitive answer on people's stance and then go with whatever is decided. If, as John feels, there isn't significant support, then that will be represented in the poll. And I'd rather see that than have this thread be pushed under the carpet, only to reappear two weeks from now.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/08/2003 02:15:50 PM · #197

mk, your push assumes that this site is run as a democracy, that the results of the poll will directly affect the way the site operates. It isn't, and I for one am not suggesting that it should. Whatever WE have to say on the matter, the site owners can and will make their decision. And quite right, I say.

Thus, the push for a poll will not "settle" the matter.

Message edited by author 2003-06-08 14:16:16.