| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2007 03:23:12 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
|
There's a primary difference. The editing rules are not titled "Digital Art / Anything Goes" as has been suggested / requested by many folks here, several in THIS thread. That would open up / invite an entire mentality that I don't think REALLY exists here right now.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:29:13 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
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. |
Yes there is...
HDR uses multiple images of the exact same scene/composition shot at different exposure levels. Nothing in the scene changes between photos. They are essentially identical photos.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:31:46 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
|
There's a primary difference. The editing rules are not titled "Digital Art / Anything Goes" as has been suggested / requested by many folks here, several in THIS thread. That would open up / invite an entire mentality that I don't think REALLY exists here right now. |
I don't think you're understanding my point, or I am missing yours...
BEFORE we had the "expert rules", we could do "quasi-HDRI" in advanced, and Tone Mapping in basic, and both of those are fully capable of creating the extreme, digitally-manipulated look that so offends many "real" photographers on the site. What we CAN'T do, except in occasional expert challenges, is "true HDRI", which by its nature is at least somewhat less-susceptible to being pushed to extremes, and is no more demanding of software or experience than the stop-gap approaches we are currently permitted in advanced editing.
So my point is, if you pull true HDRI into the advanced ruleset (where IMO it logically belongs), you kill two birds with one stone: you get better product that will please more people in the advanced challenges (instead of the half-baked compromises we are forced into now) and you separate the HDRI (which is a truly photographic technique with roots in the 75-year old Zone System of classic photography) from the digitally created/warped/whatever composites that are now permitted in the expert challenges.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 03:51:56 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by nards656:
There's a primary difference. The editing rules are not titled "Digital Art / Anything Goes" as has been suggested / requested by many folks here, several in THIS thread. That would open up / invite an entire mentality that I don't think REALLY exists here right now. |
I only suggested that category because it does already exist here and then it would at least be classified as what it really is! |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 04:40:20 PM · #80 |
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. |
Right - the 'super believable' is what I have in mind with unlimited photographic editing. I just recently started reading 'Welcome to Oz' which talks about a cinematic approach to photographic editing and the difference between creating a believable probability, an unbelievable probability, or believable improbabilities.
To me, digital art falls mostly into the realm of unbelievable probabilities, when done well. It looks fake. It looks like something out of this world, but when done well, you can suspend disbelief and believe that it is truthful. It is obviously not real.
But where I'd like to go with expert editing is towards believable improbability. Images that look real - or hyper-real - better than I'd have any right to capture as is, but still looking like I took it with a camera.
No doubt I've got the believable and unbelievable/ probable/improbable mixed up. I need to read it more carefully :) Point being, there is a difference between unreality and hyper-reality.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 04:42:34 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by nards656:
In other words, you want your toy but you want to deny others theirs. :)
|
I don't think it is quite that either though - there are plenty of examples of the use of multiple images to create believable, photographic looking images. They wouldn't be considered digital art, to look at them - the Craig Tanner link I gave above is a good example - the water comes from a entirely different shot, as part of the same shoot, but is used to create a more complete final image.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 04:44:37 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by BradP:
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. |
Though I guess as they were just freehand drawings, it doesn't count as a composite - they were drawn in, not cut and pasted from another source. In some ways, even further removed from photographic integrity I suppose, they were never photographed in the first place.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:03:20 PM · #83 |
My opinion!
Edited to add: Wow I thought that thread was forgotten. I have gone back and responded to many who have left comments in that thread today.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 17:20:27.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:01:43 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
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. ..... i can see newbies feeling so far behind that it will be a lot easier to simply abandon the site than to participate fully. |
I can see your point, but what about the tutorials that DPC offers?
what about the Gods that want to contribute to tut's?
what about the forum threads that can answer quick questions?
I too am not interested in a WORTH1000.com, or PHOTOSHOPCAFE.com, or DVGARAGE.com type of site. Those sites mentioned are great for what they offer, and should attract pure digital manipulators, as opposed to a pure photographer.
I know that DPC is not a place to call a school, but is it not true also that DPC is a place to learn more about Photoshop as well as photography? If I am wrong, then I guess the tut's available are wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:39:08 PM · #85 |
| hummmm, so my one entry in this category was really processed almost just like basic rules. I find that sometimes photo and nature need little improvement. AND yes I did get a comment that it was good but looked like I really didn't PS it that much ... yup right on. Heck with basic rules a photo can be changed to look so sci-fi that it's nowhere natural looking also. I do not believe voters should down vote when the photo does not look PS to death ... but who am I to say that. I too believe that an all-out PS challenge is good but I also believe that a very basic challenge is needed. AND then another that fits nicely between them like the old advanced one. So from my point, basic should be much more basic, leave this one and leave the old advanced. Covers the spectrum with three rule sets. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 10:54:46 AM · #86 |
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. |
Brooks Jensen had an interesting blog entry on the trend towards HyperReal photography - visions of landscapes that never existed, or Hollywood versions of women who are fantastically feminine or men who are hyper-masculine.
The downside of these he seems to think is it diminishes the comparative beauty of the actual real, which doesn't measure up to the fantasy, for some.
His blog entries or get the mp3 directly: The Hyper-World
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:08:06 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
IIRC, you can do selective color, and that is legal in basic rules so long as you apply it to all pixels equally. So (I think) you could take a landscape, turn the grass and leaves purple, the water red, the moon green, etc and still be legal in basic. IMO, that's more of an "abuse" than "properly done" HDR is.
HDR helps level the playing field for those whose camera's don't have a wide dynamic range (e.g. many P&S cameras).
On the other hand, if you allow HDR, why shouldn't stitching of two or more photos be allowed? This would level the playing field for those who don't have wide angle lenses, or cameras that don't have in-camera panoramic capability.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 13:09:48. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:19:47 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Brooks Jensen had an interesting blog entry on the trend towards HyperReal photography - visions of landscapes that never existed, or Hollywood versions of women who are fantastically feminine or men who are hyper-masculine.
The downside of these he seems to think is it diminishes the comparative beauty of the actual real, which doesn't measure up to the fantasy, for some.
His blog entries or get the mp3 directly: The Hyper-World |
Thanks for the link! :) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:04:56 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by hankk:
On the other hand, if you allow HDR, why shouldn't stitching of two or more photos be allowed? This would level the playing field for those who don't have wide angle lenses, or cameras that don't have in-camera panoramic capability. |
I have no particular problem with allowing panorama stitching as a "photographic technique" muyself. However, this involves stitching completely separate "scenes" together to make a single image, and it may be difficult to regulate this. HDRI compositing, on the other hand, uses "identical-except-for-exposure" components in compositing, and this is easy to regulate.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:07:56 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
and this is easy to regulate.
|
and if the wind blows ? Or a bird flies through ? Or someone walks into the scene ? or someone kicks the tripod between each frame for some creative use ? Or just shoots it handheld ?
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 14:08:53.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:15:09 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hankk:
On the other hand, if you allow HDR, why shouldn't stitching of two or more photos be allowed? This would level the playing field for those who don't have wide angle lenses, or cameras that don't have in-camera panoramic capability. |
I have no particular problem with allowing panorama stitching as a "photographic technique" muyself. However, this involves stitching completely separate "scenes" together to make a single image, and it may be difficult to regulate this. HDRI compositing, on the other hand, uses "identical-except-for-exposure" components in compositing, and this is easy to regulate.
R. |
YOUR approach to it uses identical-except-for-exposure images. I bet it could do a lot of other things with creative combinations. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:20:44 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hankk:
On the other hand, if you allow HDR, why shouldn't stitching of two or more photos be allowed? This would level the playing field for those who don't have wide angle lenses, or cameras that don't have in-camera panoramic capability. |
I have no particular problem with allowing panorama stitching as a "photographic technique" muyself. However, this involves stitching completely separate "scenes" together to make a single image, and it may be difficult to regulate this. HDRI compositing, on the other hand, uses "identical-except-for-exposure" components in compositing, and this is easy to regulate.
R. |
YOUR approach to it uses identical-except-for-exposure images. I bet it could do a lot of other things with creative combinations. |
Yes, and we MUST come up with more rules to keep people from being creative! Or photography will be destroyed!
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:00:35 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hankk:
On the other hand, if you allow HDR, why shouldn't stitching of two or more photos be allowed? This would level the playing field for those who don't have wide angle lenses, or cameras that don't have in-camera panoramic capability. |
I have no particular problem with allowing panorama stitching as a "photographic technique" muyself. However, this involves stitching completely separate "scenes" together to make a single image, and it may be difficult to regulate this. HDRI compositing, on the other hand, uses "identical-except-for-exposure" components in compositing, and this is easy to regulate.
R. |
Well, I usually try for 50% overlap on a panorama, and I think you need at least 15-30% to get things right. So its not completely _separate_ scenes. You could regulate it by saying that any scene used must have at least a 30% overlap with at least one other scene in the panorama, and you must first join the images before any other editing (e.g. you can't cut out a person and add them to another picture).
I assume you'd allow an HDR image made from several handheld scenes, and they wouldn't be exactly identical, so it doesn't seem much harder to regulate panoramas. It probably means that validation requires more images, though.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 09:00:52. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:25:57 AM · #94 |
Really surprised with the outcome of the Harsh challenge.
Images that were really clever, and seamless I thought would do better than where they ended up.
The problem with this type of challenge is the advent of change.
Hell is when change is hard to overcome.
To overcome and change will require a revolution in Hell.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:45:38 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Really surprised with the outcome of the Harsh challenge.
Images that were really clever, and seamless I thought would do better than where they ended up.
|
Weird. I had almost the entirely opposite reaction.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:48:08 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Weird. I had almost the entirely opposite reaction. |
While I think of it. Thankyou for your comment...!
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:56:12 AM · #97 |
I have a great level of difficulty accepting members in the crowd that are so quick to booooo and throw stuff at the cast memebers, and yet don't jump in the mix themselves.
Let your hair down and have fun - it's supposed to be fun.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:01:28 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I have a great level of difficulty accepting members in the crowd that are so quick to booooo and throw stuff at the cast memebers, and yet don't jump in the mix themselves.
Let your hair down and have fun - it's supposed to be fun. |
You should watch panto, you might like it.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:25:56 AM · #99 |
I prefer more intellectual entertainment actually.
I'm a Mr. Bean fan.
Smooth off the rough edge Gordon - it's all in good fun.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:38:18 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I prefer more intellectual entertainment actually.
I'm a Mr. Bean fan.
Smooth off the rough edge Gordon - it's all in good fun. |
I'm not the one posting the prickly comments - I'm booing and hissing and shouting its behind you. and while its supposed to be fun it was also supposed to be photography once upon a time.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 01:39:09.
|
|
