| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2007 07:50:51 PM · #26 |
| Of course Vincent Van Gogh's sunflowers sold for 6 million or something, so nothing wrong with artistic representation of nature. Vincent never heard much of the applause in his lifetime, and he certainly would have been shocked to see such a sticker price on that vase of sunflowers! I wonder what he'd have done with a top of the line digital camera today...how post-processed would he have gone? |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:00:33 PM · #27 |
PDF I think you're making way too many assumptions. Here's a quote from earlier in the thread...
'Well, IMO, the photographer has to have the final image in their head BEFORE they hit the "shutter release" to be able to get it out in print (or on screen, whatever) to begin with, if there is no vision then chances are good there will be no ribbon winning image in the end. I guess what I am driving at is it is no different then being well versed in the darkroom back in the day, the photographer still had to know what they were after from the start to end up where they wanted to be...'
To suggest that people take pics to document a moment as is, is a little misguided in this type of community.
End results are what most are after I think and in a case like this one...
you're way off the mark. You would have absolutely no idea what changes were made unless the photog wasn't gracious enough to display his original. Which I'm afraid he may be reluctant to do again after this thread is dead and gone. Critiquin a image is AOK, but trashing it as nothing more than a cheap imitation of reality sounds more like sour grapes than constructiveness. Can you tell me in what way this image is anything less than exceptional as an end result of a number of very well executed steps... without simply dismissing it as computer generated trash. Cause if that's your argument, you might as well throw out every image, movie and song published in the last 10 years.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:22:21 PM · #28 |
What a great read, my thoughts run the same. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:38:33 PM · #29 |
Just remember, almost all effects done by digital post processing can be done by traditional means with film. Its harder, takes longer, and involves skill in wet chemistry techniques. That is why this is called DP challenge. You use the digital image and digital processing techniques as you normally would with wet chemistry.
You are attempting to equate the chemical process to the digital. They are not the same. There is an overlap, but still, much remains distinct with the two processes.
Originally posted by charliebaker:
Looking at the current homepage of ribbons, I figure it is about time to rename this website to www.dppchallenge.com (Digital Post Processing Challenge).
|
|
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:39:36 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by PDF:
Funny that most of the "great post processing" comments are AFTER the challenge. |
Which is the greatest compliment of all so thanks for posting that up. If you edit a picture and make me think that what I'm looking at was what you saw before you clicked the shutter, then you have done a fine job. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:41:06 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Just remember, almost all effects done by digital post processing can be done by traditional means with film. Its harder, takes longer, and involves skill in wet chemistry techniques. That is why this is called DP challenge. You use the digital image and digital processing techniques as you normally would with wet chemistry.
You are attempting to equate the chemical process to the digital. They are not the same. There is an overlap, but still, much remains distinct with the two processes.
Originally posted by charliebaker:
Looking at the current homepage of ribbons, I figure it is about time to rename this website to www.dppchallenge.com (Digital Post Processing Challenge).
|
|
The guy who wrote photoshop was very good in a dark room. But he was looking for ways to work with digital images and disatisified with what was currently avaliable.
1.0 was released in 1990 but 0.9 was used on a cray XMP1 super computer for the 1989 Film the Abyss. It was used to help finish the rendering for the water tentacle in the movie. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:43:49 PM · #32 |
Now that is one cool bit of trivia!
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
The guy who wrote photoshop was very good in a dark room. But he was looking for ways to work with digital images and disatisified with what was currently avaliable.
1.0 was released in 1990 but 0.9 was used on a cray XMP1 super computer for the 1989 Film the Abyss. It was used to help finish the rendering for the water tentacle in the movie. |
|
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:49:17 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Now that is one cool bit of trivia!
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
The guy who wrote photoshop was very good in a dark room. But he was looking for ways to work with digital images and disatisified with what was currently avaliable.
1.0 was released in 1990 but 0.9 was used on a cray XMP1 super computer for the 1989 Film the Abyss. It was used to help finish the rendering for the water tentacle in the movie. |
|
//www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html
A brief history, his father was a photographer also.
Im not sure where the page for The Abyss is. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 08:56:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Qart:
To suggest that people take pics to document a moment as is, is a little misguided in this type of community.
End results are what most are after I think and in a case like this one... |
well of course most people are after end results. That's my problem. They just want a visually appealing image even if that comes at the cost of deceiving people (NOT I repeat NOT saying anyone here WANTS to deceive anyone).
Originally posted by Qart:
You would have absolutely no idea what changes were made unless the photog wasn't gracious enough to display his original. |
First off, let me say it again: I'm not exactly sure what to think about that particular picture. However, that's the whole point!! I would have NEVER in a million years guessed that the original pictures (often more representative of reality) looked like they do, and that is why I feel lied to. My whole point is that the final ones look nothing like the originals, and sometimes that qualifies as (unintentional, most of the time) deception.
Originally posted by Qart:
Critiquin a image is AOK, but trashing it as nothing more than a cheap imitation of reality sounds more like sour grapes than constructiveness |
I have no idea where you got the idea that I'm trashing the picture. I think it's a VERY appealing image. I don't even know what to say. I DO like that picture and I can appreciate the amount of skill necessary to achieve those results. You're just missing the point of what I'm saying.
Originally posted by dudephil:
If you edit a picture and make me think that what I'm looking at was what you saw before you clicked the shutter, then you have done a fine job. |
That's what I don't like, because I don't like being misled.
Message edited by author 2007-04-08 20:57:23. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:10:39 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by PDF:
That's what I don't like, because I don't like being misled. |
Then obviously you're at the wrong site. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:18:36 PM · #36 |
I've been saying this for over a year now, its why I didnt enter anything for so long. I have felt the tide turning and seen the direction the site is taking and I can press a shutter, but my PS skills just arent up to par... I have to agree with the original poster, to win a ribbon around here you have to either a) have some great PS skills or B) Luck up and take one of those once in a lifetime images, and 9 times out of 10 a PS'd image will ribbon above it anyway.
Maybe I'm jealous that my post processing skills aren't as good as others.. but I consider my hobby "photography" not "digital art" or "image processing".
However, since I love DPC so much and I personally think that my skills in both photography AND processing need help, I upgraded my camera and am trying to upgrade my skills.. I am entering challenges again and I am turning with the tide.
Message edited by author 2007-04-08 21:21:26. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:21:09 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Then obviously you're at the wrong site. |
You're right. I guess I am. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:22:19 PM · #38 |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:23:42 PM · #39 |
| How do I delete my account and pictures? It says at the bottom the copyright is still mine. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:24:14 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I've been saying this for over a year now, its why I didnt enter anything for so long. I have felt the tide turning and seen the direction the site is taking and I can press a shutter, but my PS skills just arent up to par... I have to agree with the original poster, to win a ribbon around here you have to either a) have some great PS skills or B) Luck up and take one of those once in a lifetime images, and 9 times out of 10 a PS'd image will ribbon above it anyway.
Maybe I'm jealous that my post processing skills aren't as good as others.. but I consider my hobby "photography" not "digital art" or "image processing".
However, since I love DPC so much and I personally think that my skills in both photography AND processing need help, I upgraded my camera and am trying to upgrade my skills.. I am entering challenges again and I am turning with the tide. |
Well it looks like some of your photos have enough post processing to qualify for basic. Which is more then just clicking the shutter. Which even great photo's by great photographers need a minor touch up because well Bayer sensors dont produce color like film. But outside of that i think your skills are enough to make the shot what they should look like fromt he camera.
Nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:24:35 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by PDF:
That's what I don't like, because I don't like being misled. |
Instead of thinking of it as being misled.. think about it as being treated to an alternate viewpoint. In fact, what the camera captures is misleading right out of the box. The camera doesn't capture a scene as it is either. It adds its own distortions, processing, and manipulations as soon as you click the shutter button.
Humanity isn't equal either. I see color differently than you do, for example. Some people see color completely different, for others it's a matter of a minuscule shade difference. The photographer of the sunflower, for instance, *saw* the sky darker, the colors more punchy, the scene more enhanced. The camera, however, deceived *him*.. (or her, I admit I can't remember the photographer now), so they changed it to better suit what they saw, or, even, wished they had saw.
Now.. had they copied in a few bees buzzing around, and a happy-face sun in the background, and a family of twiddlebugs on the leaves.. then you'd have a case for being misled and showing a realm of digital art.
If you wish to continue to feel that you are being misled by the photographers here that wish to share the way they see something, that is your unhappy prerogative, but I suggest that you might want to start being unhappy with your own eyes, and the very camera you carry, for misleading you every single day. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:25:44 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Adapt or die. |
Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated!
hehe |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:28:12 PM · #43 |
I've been here since the end of 05 and I can't say that I've really seen anything change other than the fact that some people have used the site to it's fullest and became better at editing their digital images. Have the rules really changed that much or have the people adapted to what the rules have pretty much always allowed?
Although I am hardly good at Photoshop, I certainly enjoy seeing these enhanced images and especially the before and after shots. If this site went to being a straight from the camera competition I would leave in a second. The straight from the camera challenge was pretty much the most boring one I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. The compositions were great but photos from digital SLR cameras are made to edit.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:29:33 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by PDF:
How do I delete my account and pictures? It says at the bottom the copyright is still mine. |
Can't delete challenge entries. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:30:29 PM · #45 |
Phil what has changed is people whine more lol. I dont score well at all but you dont see me trying to change things so i can score better.
What i do and will change is practicing creativity and learning how to enhance the color that the bayer sensor fails to produce. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:32:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Phil what has changed is people whine more lol. |
nah, they (we) have whined a lot since the beginning. . . :) |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:33:24 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Phil what has changed is people whine more lol. |
nah, they (we) have whined a lot since the beginning. . . :) |
LMAO, i try to participate in discuission but try to avoid whining. Ill enter no matter what im scoring or how bad the site gets.
Message edited by author 2007-04-08 21:34:01. |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:45:40 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jackal9:
Well, IMO, the photographer has to have the final image in their head BEFORE they hit the "shutter release" to be able to get it out in print (or on screen, whatever) to begin with, if there is no vision then chances are good there will be no ribbon winning image in the end. I guess what I am driving at is it is no different then being well versed in the darkroom back in the day, the photographer still had to know what they were after from the start to end up where they wanted to be... |
Art at work......Conceptualization is the most important part....
Wow... This is what I try and do but I need more photoshop skills and photomatrix and neat image to get whats inside my head to show up on the screen..
|
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:47:38 PM · #49 |
Not that I don't believe in the power of processing, but you don't have to process heavily to ribbon... |
|
|
|
04/08/2007 09:52:16 PM · #50 |
A couple o' random thoughts...
1) If you want to do well in challenges here at DPC, you must post process - since you will be competing against images that have been post processed. If you choose not to, your score will suffer - right or wrong. If you want to ribbon, you should try to do your best to anticipate what the DPC voting community wants to see, and present it to them in a way that seems to follow/adhere to the current trends/tendencies of the site. Unless you are just flat out nasty. Then you can enter anything you want and still ribbon. (That's not most of us).
II) If this site was PJChallenge.com (photojournalism) then the idea of 'deception' would make a little more sense to me. Since it isn't, I really only care about the resulting image, not the 'reality' behind it. Does a black and white image fall under the 'deception' category? How about cloning out stray hairs in a model shoot? What about using strobes, softboxes, reflectors, etc - is that 'deceptive' lighting?
c) When I think of a sunflower, in my mind, I see the processed image in this thread ( Nuzzer's) - not the washed out bland original. That could just be me. Does that image accurately depict reality? I, uhh, don't really care. It looks like it could be real - and it's stunning (or at least as stunning as sunflowers get). Talk about making something out of nothing...nice work Nuzzer!
) I'm not a huge fan of processing for the sake of processing. Most of the Expert Editing stuff I have seen is cool, but it just doesn't strike me. Give me something that looks like it's from the camera, regardless of whether or not it took 34 hours of PP'ing to accomplish it...
I've totally lost any(?) thought(?) process(?).
I'm out.
*looking for eject button*
|
|
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: 08/30/2025 01:49:55 AM EDT.
