| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2007 01:54:23 AM · #101 |
bet you punished yourself real bad if you colored outside the lines...
Actually Gordon, it IS still photography.
We once did this in our darkrooms. Now we can do it on our computers.
IF every bit of data in a composition came only from digital image files, then it still works. Seems Drew & Langdon opened up a small room for some of us to play and color outside the lines, and though the room isn't for everyone, it also shouldn't be cast down as a lesser form of art, it's just different. The deception in making something look plausible or science-fiction potentially plausible was my goal. The comments and favs support that I acheived it. It was fun.
The site isn't jeapordized by having a small room for a few to play in. Pure photography still exists here.
Not sure why you make such a stand about this really. It's D&L's site, we're just guests. They say here's a room to go play and color outside the lines for you, yet you stand up calling foul. Why? What are you to gain by the room being barred up for the few that want to use it? I'm at a loss really, and don't take this as a personal attack in any way Gordon, but let it go and let us, who use it, play in there - turn the other direction and pretend we don't exist.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:24:08 AM · #102 |
Hmmmm well, I'm in the "it's probably not for me because I want to shoot more than play at the computer" camp.
However, just because it's not my cup of tea, doesn't mean that there's no place for it in the realm of photography.
Jerry Uelsmann's work isn't my thing either, but it's still photography. It sure as hell isn't "digital art".
Come to think of it, why does the term "digital art' get spat out around DPC like it's the name of some filthy beast? Every image created with a digital camera is "digital art". It's a 2D representation of something 3D created and manpulated electronically. The term "digital art" seems only used here on DPC to denote some arbitrary and variable division between what is deemed "real" and what is not.
I just hate the term "Expert". It implies that creating more traditional images digitally somehow takes less skill, when in some cases it can take more.
Also, whenever I hear or see the word "expert" the following definition springs to mind:
Since an Ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure, and Expert is really just a has-been drip under pressure.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:28:21 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmmm well, I'm in the "it's probably not for me because I want to shoot more than play at the computer" camp.
However, just because it's not my cup of tea, doesn't mean that there's no place for it in the realm of photography.
Jerry Uelsmann's work isn't my thing either, but it's still photography. It sure as hell isn't "digital art".
Come to think of it, why does the term "digital art' get spat out around DPC like it's the name of some filthy beast? Every image created with a digital camera is "digital art". It's a 2D representation of something 3D created and manpulated electronically. The term "digital art" seems only used here on DPC to denote some arbitrary and variable division between what is deemed "real" and what is not.
I just hate the term "Expert". It implies that creating more traditional images digitally somehow takes less skill, when in some cases it can take more.
Also, whenever I hear or see the word "expert" the following definition springs to mind:
Since an Ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure, and Expert is really just a has-been drip under pressure. |
Well said. Btw, where does that definition come from? |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 03:03:04 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by BradP:
bet you punished yourself real bad if you colored outside the lines...
Actually Gordon, it IS still photography.
We once did this in our darkrooms. Now we can do it on our computers.
IF every bit of data in a composition came only from digital image files, then it still works. Seems Drew & Langdon opened up a small room for some of us to play and color outside the lines, and though the room isn't for everyone, it also shouldn't be cast down as a lesser form of art, it's just different. The deception in making something look plausible or science-fiction potentially plausible was my goal. The comments and favs support that I acheived it. It was fun.
The site isn't jeapordized by having a small room for a few to play in. Pure photography still exists here.
Not sure why you make such a stand about this really. It's D&L's site, we're just guests. They say here's a room to go play and color outside the lines for you, yet you stand up calling foul. Why? What are you to gain by the room being barred up for the few that want to use it? I'm at a loss really, and don't take this as a personal attack in any way Gordon, but let it go and let us, who use it, play in there - turn the other direction and pretend we don't exist. |
Is there really anything else that needs to be said on the matter?
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 08:03:32 AM · #105 |
Well I haven't read the entire thread but I read a good part and I must say that many of the views expressed are part of the reason that I don't submit anymore (not that anyone actually cares that a mediocre photog that nobody knows quit submitting) but I am tired of the mindset that people don't want what they don't like on the site. People say that they don't like digital art and don't want it on this site and don' want the site to turn into DeviantArt. MY question is why the hell does it matter to you if there are some challenges that digital Art entries?
This site is a business and I think the addition of the expert editing set can draw more business and membership fees.The vocal people's reaction is why I think DeviantArt will be getting my money in a few months instead of DPC. I don't like DA anywhere near as much and am very sad about the prospects but every time someone brings up digital art someone pipes in with "If you want to do that type of stuff then go to DevientArt" so I guess I will. Why in the hell would I want to submit a photo that I have manipulated to my artistic vision only to recieve a comment that it was the reason they were voting against the new ruleset. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 08:14:54 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Ya know Gordon, you have a great eye. You have skill. You are a motivated person, knowing what you want in your frame. Obviously forethought was used before pushing that button.
Your old school patronage is admirable, and I do appreciate it. I can relate because of my background.
But, because of my background, and what I know can be done to entertain the masses. How editors, and efx manipulate images on a daily basis in Hollywood for the entertainment industry. Why producers rely on on efx, and post houses to get their vision on the screen.
It is because of this knowledge I have is why I can also appreciate how a single frame of information. Granted 'frankensteined'. Can give a differant emotional value to a viewer.
If blood was just a tonal value in a black in white movie, can you imagine what the emotional value was when the viewer saw the blood in "Scarface"?
This is the same thing here. The same issue. Change.
Star Wars would not be around if it wasn't for change. Hell, sound would not be in the theatres if it were not for change.
It is not diminishing the artistic value of shooting the camera at an image you love. It is giveing extra tools for people to enhance, manipulate, and create that image.
What Hollywood movies can say in 24fps for 1 1/2 hours, is what this editing levels gives us as opportunity in one frame.
Call it what you want, call it 'Play Time' for all I care, but I like this editing level.
I hope it stays, and I hope DPC members become more sophisticated artisians for it.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 08:53:32 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by BradP:
... The site isn't jeapordized by having a small room for a few to play in. Pure photography still exists here.
Not sure why you make such a stand about this really. It's D&L's site, we're just guests.
... let us, who use it, play in there - turn the other direction and pretend we don't exist. |
Obviously, I agree that this is D&L's site, and little can be gained by voices in the forum thread either way, unless there is a mighty uproar - and even then it may or may not influence the direction of DPChallenge. Rightly so.
I think some of the concern about 'DeviantArt' type imagery here on DPC is the audience it will attract. For D&L that's probably a good thing $$$. However, if that group attracted for this style of "art" gets large enough is it not feasible that there could be spillover into the regular challenges (basic and advanced)? Perhaps not so much in actual challenge entries at first, but in results and what's favored by those that prefer the more extremes (opposite of pure - for lack of a better word - photography). This in turn could frustrate or turn off members of the DPC community that enjoy photography in a less altered condition leading to a snowball effect as 'DeviantArt' types gain in membership as others leave (or fail to participate anymore). |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 08:59:38 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
...I am tired of the mindset that people don't want what they don't like on the site. People say that they don't like digital art and don't want it on this site and don' want the site to turn into DeviantArt. MY question is why the hell does it matter to you if there are some challenges that digital Art entries?
|
It's comments like this that make it appear that my opinion is already unwelcome.
I've been here a long time. I've seen a lot of change. I don't mind change. There are simply some changes I don't think are good.
I don't mind changing my underwear - I don't even mind changing from briefs to boxers or vice versa, but so far I've resisted the temptation to change from men's underwear to ladies underwear.
Changing just for the sake of proving that change is not always bad isn't always good.
edited for clarity concerning underwear...
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 09:00:45. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 09:03:16 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Changing just for the sake of proving that change is not always bad isn't always good.
edited for clarity concerning underwear... |
Change = Growth
"You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation ".
-Plato
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 09:05:55.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 09:23:08 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
The vocal people's reaction is why I think DeviantArt will be getting my money in a few months instead of DPC. I don't like DA anywhere near as much and am very sad about the prospects but every time someone brings up digital art someone pipes in with "If you want to do that type of stuff then go to DevientArt" so I guess I will. |
first - your opinion is that you dislike someone else's opinion? That's funny :)
second - The "complaints" forum over at deviantart has 1.9 million posts. If you don't like complaining, you should stay here. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 09:25:05 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by nards656:
It's comments like this that make it appear that my opinion is already unwelcome.
I've been here a long time. I've seen a lot of change. I don't mind change. There are simply some changes I don't think are good.
I don't mind changing my underwear - I don't even mind changing from briefs to boxers or vice versa, but so far I've resisted the temptation to change from men's underwear to ladies underwear.
Changing just for the sake of proving that change is not always bad isn't always good.
edited for clarity concerning underwear... |
opinons are always welcome. I was not really refering to people not liking digital art but people that say that there is no place for it here. some of the photo purists here have a very elitist attitude and it bothers me. it all seems like old money new money crap to me. "he won his money in the lottery so he is not as good as me" sounds the same as " he did his shot with a lot of help in photoshop so he is not as good as me" in the end both guys are rich and both images look great. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 09:29:58 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
The vocal people's reaction is why I think DeviantArt will be getting my money in a few months instead of DPC. I don't like DA anywhere near as much and am very sad about the prospects but every time someone brings up digital art someone pipes in with "If you want to do that type of stuff then go to DevientArt" so I guess I will. |
first - your opinion is that you dislike someone else's opinion? That's funny :)
second - The "complaints" forum over at deviantart has 1.9 million posts. If you don't like complaining, you should stay here. |
not so much I don't like their opinion but how they state it. glad I amuse you. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 10:05:18 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Originally posted by nards656:
Changing just for the sake of proving that change is not always bad isn't always good.
edited for clarity concerning underwear... |
Change = Growth
"You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation ".
-Plato |
Very mathematically incorrect equation. Change can just as easily equal regression.
Plato? |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 10:20:50 AM · #114 |
When did DeviantART turn into a Weekly challenge site for various levels of artists? Also, When did they stop allowing written word and Drawings and other multitueds of artistic vission on their site to make it strictly photographic related??
Can someone please answer me these question so I can better Understand why the fear of turning DPC into DA started?
Excuse me for a minute, but these are two completely different sites and there is no way with these addition of expert ruleset to create a new DA with it.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 10:27:15 AM · #115 |
i believe the references to da are in regard to the way the images (submissions to challenges) may/or may not begin to look
not that this site "will become" that site
Originally posted by littlegett:
When did DeviantART turn into a Weekly challenge site for various levels of artists? Also, When did they stop allowing written word and Drawings and other multitueds of artistic vission on their site to make it strictly photographic related??
Can someone please answer me these question so I can better Understand why the fear of turning DPC into DA started?
Excuse me for a minute, but these are two completely different sites and there is no way with these addition of expert ruleset to create a new DA with it. |
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 11:21:11 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Ya know Gordon, you have a great eye. You have skill. You are a motivated person, knowing what you want in your frame. Obviously forethought was used before pushing that button.
Your old school patronage is admirable, and I do appreciate it. I can relate because of my background. |
Thanks and all, but I think you entirely misunderstand my problem with the rules. I'd love to see free form, do what you want editing in a photographic contest. I've got no problem rendering lighting effects in my images, removing what I like, combining any amount of images. I do it all the time. I'd just rather see it be a photographic contest than just another photoshop collage contest.
The top three images are great examples of fine images. I voted them high and it was clear that a couple of them were not single photos, but they still tried to retain some level of photographic integrity.
There are even a few that ended very low that I voted high - Alienysts entry is a good example - I find it beautiful, but I don't find it a photograph or photographic.
People can be very quick to pigeon-hole those who disagree with their view as 'against change' or 'stuck in the past' I'm not. I'd just hope for a different and special future for the site. I don't see too much hope for that in the top 20 images, unfortunately. My comments are all available in my profile for that challenge. Some times I wish my votes were too. People are often too quick to jump to conclusions.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 11:21:56. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 11:30:08 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by BradP:
bet you punished yourself real bad if you colored outside the lines...
Actually Gordon, it IS still photography.
We once did this in our darkrooms. Now we can do it on our computers.
IF every bit of data in a composition came only from digital image files, then it still works. Seems Drew & Langdon opened up a small room for some of us to play and color outside the lines, and though the room isn't for everyone, it also shouldn't be cast down as a lesser form of art, it's just different. |
Avoiding calling it collage and trying to claim its still a photo doesn't change the fact that its not. Neither do snide personal comments. It starts with photography, then is something else. I don't dislike it or like it, I just don't think its photography and there are plenty of other sites more appropriate for it.
The problem I have with having this digital collage challenge called expert is that it avoids the possibility of a great photographic editing option. I've posted plenty of links if anyone would bother looking at them that clearly show I'm not some phototraditionalist who colours within the lines, so I guess there's no point trying to change the entrenched viewpoints and assumptions. I know you haven't been here that long so wouldn't have faced the long posts and threads where I was pushing for more editing freedom. It would be lovely to be listened to rather than barracked at for a change though.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 11:38:42. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 11:37:19 AM · #118 |
Speaking of change. 10 challenges currently open or voting.
All Advanced Editing. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 11:58:47 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... this digital collage challenge... |
I get the feeling that four or five people are scoring 'plausible collages' such as Judi's Red Ribbon shot normally.
But those same people are trolling 'fantastical collages' such as Brad's with 1's, just because it's not something there's sort of a chance that it might possibly appear in real life. But Brad's shot still got 7th place due to the 200+ votes.
The overall preference seems to be for 'plausible', though. The numbers have spoken that way so far.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:06:10 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Speaking of change. 10 challenges currently open or voting.
All Advanced Editing. |
Maybe it's because no one's quite sure what the rules are for 'Basic' anymore? :D |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:14:21 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
The overall preference seems to be for 'plausible', though. The numbers have spoken that way so far. |
I muttered on about believable probabilities and unbelievable probabilities in one of these threads somewhere. That's to me what I think of when I consider if an image is photographic. If you want to play by those rules, you'd better do it effectively, otherwise it shows, often painfully.
Though with 0.2 splitting third place from the next 7 mostly fantastical images, I think its a stretch to claim the votes are indicating much of a preference. Death Valley is quite the fantastical environment too, even when you stand there.
Maybe the people who trolled the image with ones will speak up though.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 12:22:40.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:23:17 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Gordon:
... this digital collage challenge... |
I get the feeling that four or five people are scoring 'plausible collages' such as Judi's Red Ribbon shot normally.
But those same people are trolling 'fantastical collages' such as Brad's with 1's, just because it's not something there's sort of a chance that it might possibly appear in real life. But Brad's shot still got 7th place due to the 200+ votes.
The overall preference seems to be for 'plausible', though. The numbers have spoken that way so far. |
The funny thing about this is that to me, the second (Brad's image) is more believable in a way. And please, this is not an attack on anyone, just my perception. The first, Judi's image, the guy looks like he's floating, and there is this weird thing going on with storm and rain vs. very dry, brown vs. blue/green; it is lovely, but it isn't believable to me, in so much that I can't put myself in that situation and "live it". The other, Brad's image, is much more like a poster for a Star-Wars type movie, and yet, in a funny way, I can put myself in that place and feel the harshness of it.
Maybe it's just the way people's imaginations work.
On the other hand, if I were to HAVE to quantify which one is more photographic, in my view, I would put Judi's higher up, because Brad's image, again, is more like a poster, more like a graphics production than a photograph (to me).
PS - I gave Judi a 7, and didn't vote on Brad's.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 12:24:29. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:15:49 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by ursula:
The funny thing about this is that to me, the second (Brad's image) is more believable in a way. And please, this is not an attack on anyone, just my perception. The first, Judi's image, the guy looks like he's floating, and there is this weird thing going on with storm and rain vs. very dry, brown vs. blue/green; it is lovely, but it isn't believable to me, in so much that I can't put myself in that situation and "live it". The other, Brad's image, is much more like a poster for a Star-Wars type movie, and yet, in a funny way, I can put myself in that place and feel the harshness of it.
Maybe it's just the way people's imaginations work.
On the other hand, if I were to HAVE to quantify which one is more photographic, in my view, I would put Judi's higher up, because Brad's image, again, is more like a poster, more like a graphics production than a photograph (to me).
PS - I gave Judi a 7, and didn't vote on Brad's. |
That's very similar to how I viewed them and voted, too, although apparently it isn't a 'helpful' view given the comment moderation it received ;)
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:16:54.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:34:36 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I don't mind changing my underwear - I don't even mind changing from briefs to boxers or vice versa, but so far I've resisted the temptation to change from men's underwear to ladies underwear. |
I notice worth1000 has a change male stars into women contest just starting. You might want to enter and expand your mind
Gender Bending 9
Changing gender of male celebrities.
and for those that say worth1000 is totally different, the 'Mysterious Places' challenge now voting seems to have a lot of parallels to what's being proposed as photographic just now and I think is quite illustrative of what's to come. Some beautiful art.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:37:53.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:50:39 PM · #125 |
hmm... Basic challenges... Advanced Challenges... Expert Challenges...
Seems like there is a little everything for everyone. Why can't we be happy?
If you fear expert leaking into other challenges, there is that button you can press 'rules violation' and score it below average.
What exactly is the Big deal with offering something new that people obviously want. There was a fair number of entries.
Please, tell me exactly what the problem is because I sure don't understand it.
|
|
