| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2003 08:45:23 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by cykhansen:
"... learn to create and finish good photographs rather than trying to save bad ones. "
I believe this is a legitimate comment. It is all too easy to take your photos and then muck around in Photoshop trying to fix them. I'm learning Photoshop and enjoy reading tips about how to do certain things. However, I believe that I should be concentrating on taking better photos and getting the most out of my camera.
I prefer the idea of "no restrictions" on specific challenges (or set of challenges) but not all of them. |
I'd truely like to see a compelling example of this.
I've asked before and yet nobody has stepped up. There seems to be this myth you can turn a crap photograph into a photographic masterpiece, only with a few mouse clicks in photoshop. So if its true, lets see it. If its not, lets stop perpetuating a myth.
Note I said 'photographic masterpiece' Lets see a before and after of a bad photograph, turned into a fantastic piece of work that still looks like a photograph.
Anyone ? Use any editing tools you like.
The reasoning behind opening up the editing to include dodging and burning is to allow correct finishing of already good work, not saving of rubbish.
Message edited by author 2003-06-08 20:48:27. |
|
|
|
06/08/2003 08:53:33 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
the community here has been better than any of those other sites. a good synergy of personalities, skill levels, and energies here. this site is much more troll free than most yet still vibrant and active and interesting. pure and simple that's why people stay here, even when they don't participate as much in challenges :)
|
About this we all agree. What differs between us is that many of us want to keep it that way. It has worked fine so far, why change it?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 08:57:00 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Jak:
It has worked fine so far, why change it? |
I don't get this arguement because this site has changed enormously in the last six months. Some people thought no one would be willing to pay a membership fee, but here we are.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 09:14:22 PM · #54 |
You are correct..that was poorly worded. However, I contend being forced to enter a photo with the current minimal modifications will AID in you learning to be a better PHOTOGRAPHER. Wheather or not you improve is an individual matter.
One of the things that makes this site appealing to me is being able to see what one can get basically 'out of the camera' if you have the equiptment and skill. Many of us still shoot 35's and will NEVER do the darkroom bit and many of us don't have the time to devote to PS.
It is a casual hobby to me. Not a job I do every day.
btw...I have yet to see a "photograph masterpiece" by anyone here, including the photos in the individual portfolios.
Originally posted by greenem2:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Does leaving the rules as they are make you a BETTER or WORSE photographer? |
Neither. However I think there is a potential learning experience to be had by all if we are allowed to produce the best output of a photo. I realize this isn't the only place that I can do that, but it is the only place that forces creativity, which is the main reason I am here. |
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 09:17:28 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Jak:
About this we all agree. What differs between us is that many of us want to keep it that way. It has worked fine so far, why change it? |
Because it has continued to evolve since its inception. I could equally ask why stagnate now, when all previous evolutions have improved the site.
The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress - Charles F. Kettering
Message edited by author 2003-06-08 21:23:02. |
|
|
|
06/08/2003 09:18:27 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
btw...I have yet to see a "photograph masterpiece" by anyone here, including the photos in the individual portfolios.
|
Well, that is an opinion to consider for sure.. however it is subjective. There are "masterpieces" in galleries and museums that I wouldn't tip my hat to. So (shrug).... |
|
|
|
06/08/2003 09:22:42 PM · #57 |
As you know Terry I got upset the other night and got very quiet, now all I can say is thank you! I couldn't agree more with you!
Anna |
|
|
|
06/08/2003 09:35:42 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Because it has continued to evolve since its inception. I could equally ask why stagnate now, when all previous evolutions have improved the site. |
Other than the border issue (which has caused little but confusion, see recent threads), I'm not aware of any significant change in the photographic aspects of this site in the year I've been here. Did I miss something? Most particularly, the no spot edit rule -- one of the key differentiators of this site -- has stayed firmly intact.
Someone mentioned the membership charge, but that of course has nothing to do with the photography and is just a red herring in this debate.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 09:49:43 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Because it has continued to evolve since its inception. I could equally ask why stagnate now, when all previous evolutions have improved the site. |
Other than the border issue (which has caused little but confusion, see recent threads), I'm not aware of any significant change in the photographic aspects of this site in the year I've been here. Did I miss something? Most particularly, the no spot edit rule -- one of the key differentiators of this site -- has stayed firmly intact.
Someone mentioned the membership charge, but that of course has nothing to do with the photography and is just a red herring in this debate. |
As far as I can remember the rules all got overhauled about a year ago, adding some new features and clarifying others.
The border issue is another area I'd like to see some further change/ resolution as it has always been a problem, since the inception of the site (see my first ever submission for an early example). Yes it is not yet at a satisfactory conclusion, neither was it perfect originally, nor in the variety of recent incarnations.
The general motivation has always been to establish rules that stop people entering heavily modified, non-photographic in appearance, digital art. The aim is, was and has always been to promote the best quality photographic entries, and rule changes have continued to be made to try and minimise the number of pointless and petty DQs. The motiviation for this most recent discussion is a prime example. If the home sweet home winner is such a travesty of digital art and the complete antithesis of fine photography, why did it get voted top of the heap ? But it used dodging and burning, the current dpc pariah tool for everything that is wrong about Photoshop.
Some examples of what I consider progress. Allowing curves to be used. (while often used to create bad examples of selective desaturation, there is no accounting for taste and a great deal of subtle improvement was enabled).
Removal of restrictions on image dimensions (there was a great fear that we'd get a deluge of tiny entries, or 10 pixel high x 640 pixel wide entries that would be the end of dpc).
Stopping DQing people who crop badly - yes the borders rule could be better, but the motivation is sound.
Change for the better is never realized without the realization change could be better.
Message edited by author 2003-06-08 21:54:15. |
|
|
|
06/08/2003 10:24:28 PM · #60 |
[quote=David Ey]
btw...I have yet to see a "photograph masterpiece" by anyone here, including the photos in the individual portfolios.
WHAT WAS I THINKING...there are many GREAT photos here. To name a few
(In No Particular Order)
Dang Old Timer April In May Panache Dress Up Ready For The Outback Taking Cover Prairie Bound Jenine Eyes Pepsi Blue Lady Between Rides and last but not least...rubber baby duckie chuckie
Sorry folks, and there are others too aren't there?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 10:47:36 PM · #61 |
LOL...
My favorites were (as you put it)
"Bound Jenine"
and
"Blue Lady Between Rides"
What kind of site are we running here? lol |
|
|
|
06/08/2003 10:59:30 PM · #62 |
i cant see how allowing B&D can in any way promote or even increase the number of submissions that are "digital art" ..in fact, it makes mroe sense to include D&B than say, hue adjustments, or channel mixing. The photographs we already see in challenges, i could actually consider to be to a certain extent digital art.. take the "no color except one" photos, like the red eye in the "how'd they do that" area (edit - actually, it's not in there.. but anyway, that red eye that won, or placed very high in a challenge.. but lookign at the "how'd they do that", i see alot of stuff that i'd consider digital art... ).. i dont perticularly like the use of the current rules to create such a photograph. it's too much digital art for my taste. It's NOT somethign easily done in regular photography, and well, just goes to show how far we can already go with the rules everyone already accepts..
as i mentioned before in another thread, take this perfectly DPC legal photo:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=23989
... not very pretty isn't it? i dont think D&B can get much worse than this, yet this is already legal..
I wonder what kind of debate we'd be having if we were trying to include Hue adjustents right now instead of D&B.. i'm betting it would even be harder to try to concince anyone of allowing it.. it allows for MUCH more distortion of reality compared to D&B.. For this reason, among others already mentioned, i dont see how D&B can be a bad thing.. it's not dificult to use, i've seen no proof that it can "save" an otherwise bad shot, and is a perfectly logical photographic tool.
anyway, however this pans out, i'll follow whatever's decided, if anything changes at all.. i just dont see how this perticular change will affect things much.
just my 2 cents.. (canadian$$.. so i guess thats not worth very much, lol)
Message edited by author 2003-06-08 23:01:44.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 11:51:44 PM · #63 |
worth more and more every day, brother. :)
Originally posted by Refracted:
just my 2 cents.. (canadian$$.. so i guess thats not worth very much, lol) |
|
|
|
|
06/08/2003 11:54:30 PM · #64 |
I always find it humorous when someone joins in the discussion just to say that that the thread has gone too far : )
For those that don't yet realize this, even if we wen't as far as to allow the use of all editing tools that is NOT the same as allowing you to do anything with your photo. We have and always will be emphasizing the creation of photographs and not digital art. The argument, "If you give an inch they'll take a mile...." will never happen unless it is allowed to happen. There are far too many of us that will not let that happen.
T
|
|
|
|
06/09/2003 03:32:40 PM · #65 |
magnetic9999: FWIW, I read your first post in this thread, as did probably most people posting. It just gets hard when you're catching up on 60+ posts to respond to every arguement. But I feel your frustration - I've had it myself on many posts in these recent threads. Things just move too fast....
That said, just a couple of points on various arguements made thus far:
- I haven't seen anyone say anything like John/Gordon/Tim/whoever is for/against this change, so that's my opinion too. Claiming that anyone's possition on the issue, for or against, is based on who's leading the cause is pretty much baseless.
- There's an arguement that new people won't join with a new rule that either 1) allows D&B specifically, or 2) allows more liberal editing. FWIW, I've recently pointed a friend to this site. His first reaction was to NOT join because of the current restrictions. I'm not saying this supports changing the rules. What I am saying is that the arguement that a rules change will chase people away may be moot because the current rules MAY already be chasing others away.
- There's an arguement that new people won't join.... (same as above). My personal experience in joining the site: I learned about the site from members of another forum who were also members here, and always discussing their experience here. I came over, signed up and read the rules. As someone who had only had a digicam a month or two and had no experience with photoshop, or even much with digital editing in general, the editing rules were mostly greek to me. (No offense meant to anyone Greek!) Layers, levels, curves, spot editing? All meant nothing. So an additional rule, or an addition to the current list of allowed edits, would have been meaningless. In fact, it probably would have been encouraging as another option to be learned improve my photos. Of course, this is only my experience - others may be different. But it's not a given that adding D&B to the list of allowed tools will drive newbies away - most (like me) won't have a much of a clue what it is anyway!
- The option of a separate "no holds barred" challenge group, or implementing experience levels, isn't really an answer to the D&B issue. It's a separate arguement that has it's own merits and debate. But D&B isn't an all-or-nothing rules change. I think that as an alternative to John's original proposal, it was relevent, so in those regards it's somewhat legitimate to have made the suggestion. However, the debate moved on from that open-ended set of proposed changes to a very limited change. In short, John moved on to a possition of compromise. To bring up the proposal at the top of this thread is fine in it's own rights, but to suggest that because John is against it means he's against compromise is just a complete non-sequiter - there's no real connection between the two.
- The arguement that because other sites allow certain types of editing means this site should isn't totally irrelevent, but not a strong arguement in support of changes either. This isn't other sites, and it has it's own focus and goals. I personally feel D&B is within the spirit of those goals, but others may not. Ultimately, Drew and Langdon have to decide whether it is, since they defined the spirit!
- A "level playing field" isn't an strong arguement on two fronts: 1) as has been pointed out often, there's no level playing field now. I'll bring my own "disappoinment" on this front up: I've been kind of discouraged lately to find that some of the participants are able to dedicate professional-type studio space, time and equipment to their entries. I'll never be able to compete in that arena. That having been said, 2) we all still compete mostly with ourselves. While I strive to "win" as much as anyone at my level, for me winning is as simple as doing better than last week, or the week before, etc. I haven't had a good entry (based either by score or my own opinion) in about 2 months. But that's kept me focused on improving, and this week my Liquid entry is doing very well (for my standards). It probably won't win, but it's poised to end better than any of my entries so far, so by my standard, this will be a "winning" week for me. I don't need a ribbon, or top-of-the-heep ranking to determine that, it's just part of a process. And if I didn't have stiff competition to spur me on, I might not be so driven to get better.
So, there's my 2-cents x 6. Hope you're still reading Magnetic! ;-) |
|
|
|
06/09/2003 05:51:53 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, many of us see it as just a beginning I suppose. And other changes have been mentioned so much it is hard to seperate exactly what the discussion IS about. Some won't even clarify because the say they already have. And some aren't even happy when they are offered the whole "shabang" in a compromise. Next will you want to enter an old photo because you just now "dodged and burned" it?
Ask yourself one question......Does leaving the rules as they are make you a BETTER or WORSE photographer? |
This site is largely run on the honor system. People could very easily now submit an old picture with no one the wiser. Allowing doging, burning, and the cloning out of small detractions will not transform this site's users into criminals, nor will it transform photographers into closet digital artists.
I am personally of the opinion that the only consequence of a bit more lax editing rules will be a bit better pictures, but I am also of the opinion that it's not exactly Denmark that's at stake here. Now, can we cut out the ad hominem and doomsday overexaggeration before we start proposing a DPC Editing Rumble to settle our differences?
Martin |
|
|
|
06/09/2003 06:28:45 PM · #67 |
| man, people are willing to kill a perfectly good site over a stupid tool in photoshop. what is the point. people that want to use dodge burn can do that and submit their prints to dpc prints. they sound like the types of people that really need to start selling professionally and really wouldn't gain much from a challenge where such tools were even allowed. that being said, i think d/b itself should be allowed because how crazy can you get with just one tool. i think terry is absolutely right that some folks here have probably gotten all they can get from dpc, maybe they should graduate to site gods or something. i know i can't do anything effective with d/b because i don't have the slightest clue, and i think the site was moving along just fine before all this bs came up. do it, don't do it, i don't really care, but i still want this site to exist so can we please end this bs before people start walking away from what has become an amazing community over the last 15 months. |
|
|
|
06/09/2003 07:19:24 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by achiral:
man, people are willing to kill a perfectly good site over a stupid tool in photoshop. what is the point. people that want to use dodge burn can do that and submit their prints to dpc prints. they sound like the types of people that really need to start selling professionally and really wouldn't gain much from a challenge where such tools were even allowed. that being said, i think d/b itself should be allowed because how crazy can you get with just one tool. i think terry is absolutely right that some folks here have probably gotten all they can get from dpc, maybe they should graduate to site gods or something. i know i can't do anything effective with d/b because i don't have the slightest clue, and i think the site was moving along just fine before all this bs came up. do it, don't do it, i don't really care, but i still want this site to exist so can we please end this bs before people start walking away from what has become an amazing community over the last 15 months. |
This is an example of overdramatization. Please treat this as a discussion, not a civil war. |
|
|
|
06/09/2003 09:05:56 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Malokata:
Originally posted by achiral:
man, people are willing to kill a perfectly good site over a stupid tool in photoshop. what is the point. people that want to use dodge burn can do that and submit their prints to dpc prints. they sound like the types of people that really need to start selling professionally and really wouldn't gain much from a challenge where such tools were even allowed. that being said, i think d/b itself should be allowed because how crazy can you get with just one tool. i think terry is absolutely right that some folks here have probably gotten all they can get from dpc, maybe they should graduate to site gods or something. i know i can't do anything effective with d/b because i don't have the slightest clue, and i think the site was moving along just fine before all this bs came up. do it, don't do it, i don't really care, but i still want this site to exist so can we please end this bs before people start walking away from what has become an amazing community over the last 15 months. |
This is an example of overdramatization. Please treat this as a discussion, not a civil war. |
it's called human frustration, look it up |
|
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: 06/18/2025 03:39:40 PM EDT.
