DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Thoughts about 'digital art'
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 71, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/04/2007 05:51:56 PM · #26
Originally posted by littlegett:

Originally posted by Qart:


For me, Digital photography is ANYTHING that starts with a camera.


Amen to that!!


I second that!! ;-)
05/04/2007 06:07:15 PM · #27
Originally posted by Qart:

... I for one have rarely tried my hand at composites and was turned onto the idea by trying to study and emulate the beautiful works of people like Kiwiness. When the EE rules were introduced, I thought great, another avenue for me to explore. ...

We don't have to have to have EE rules at DPC to do "kiwiness" experiments. In fact, we can conciously prevent 'digital art' from creeping into the site by terminating the EE trial without final approval.

There is no law that says we can't do sky replacements, composites, panoramas, true HDRI and other things allowed under EE rules independent of DPC. Just because they can't be submitted in challenges is no big deal and certainly no reason to dismiss learning and using the techniques. We already do that. Besides, there are other sites where digital art is both welcomed and encouraged where we could do that experimenting.

I don't want EE rules terminated but would have no problem if that is what happened.
05/04/2007 06:19:50 PM · #28
'Just because they can't be submitted in challenges is no big deal and certainly no reason to dismiss learning and using the techniques. We already do that. Besides, there are other sites where digital art is both welcomed and encouraged where we could do that experimenting.'

I do get your point Steve. However, there are two primary flaws with your reasoning IMO.

1. One simply dosn't get the same exposure or feedback by simply adding an image to one's portfolio.

2. I like it here... and if this place allows and encourages the occassional EE challenge, all the better.

I don't think the answer is to suggest that members find other sites to frequent for satisfaction... not sure that's in Langdon's business plan anyway... :)

Message edited by author 2007-05-04 18:20:12.
05/04/2007 06:46:12 PM · #29
What I love about this site is hat it stretches me and my photography skill (?) in all directions. From the intense challenge of producing a good image straight from the camera to a photoshopped frenzy of creativity and everything in between. I think the more skills I have with the tools that I'm using the better. For me that means learning to use the camera as well as the editing software. Digital art may not be your thing but it's a helluva learning curve to come to grips with PS and the knowledge gained and the confidence in what I can do helps with editing for advanced and basic. Just as minimal is a wonderful learning tool for getting the shot right in the first place, how many of us routinely take photos that we intend not to edit at all. It also stretches my creativity and that hopefully will flow across to the other challenges.

05/04/2007 08:07:12 PM · #30


edit: I love how I can pull these out and reuse them at least 4 times a year. :)

Message edited by author 2007-05-04 20:07:54.
05/04/2007 10:25:02 PM · #31
Originally posted by Qart:


1. One simply dosn't get the same exposure or feedback by simply adding an image to one's portfolio.

2. I like it here... and if this place allows and encourages the occassional EE challenge, all the better.

Believe it or not Rudy, I actually can agree with your two points. :)

1) Portfolio images are really only showcased in forum threads, and the turnover on the front page here is pretty quick...to keep an image out front then in the forums requires a bump or two (or three) to get exposure.

2) Occassional EE challenges would be all right with me too. However, I do think they should be run where an alternate is available to those not interested in going the EE route. IMO going with EE for this past Free Study was a mistake because many look forward to this monthly high-profile challenge and sitting it out isn't really much fun. Then you end up with the two different types/styles of images competing in the same arena where they would be much better showcased/judged in their own grouping.
05/04/2007 10:31:01 PM · #32
If we cant destroy the EE rules, let us agree to vote over-edited images low if they look so synthetic..
That's what I am going to do.
Don't try to stop me.
They should be photographic in nature as the voting guidelines suggest.
People with half of their bodies sketched and painted and whatnot are not photographic in nature, although they may look neato.
Fact is fact, can't change that.
05/04/2007 11:05:04 PM · #33
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:


They should be photographic in nature as the voting guidelines suggest.


Now see this one line seriously bothers me...

One.. GUIDELINES

Two... If my image is Derived from a PHOTOGRAPH, then guess what it is PHOTOGRAPHIC in nature.

Two Extended... If you don't believe my image to be Photographic in Nature... Ask for it to be Verified... and Once it is Validated, You should go back and give it the score it deserves and not your biased eyed score.

and Fact is Fact... Just like you said. Every image entered into any challenge on this site has to be a PHOTOGRAPH. No Exceptions. Just because I have tools to do something 'different' to it, does not give you reason to complain about it. No one ever said you HAD to use the tools, they are there for those of us that WANT to use them.

I really wish people would end their bigotry of this, Because I bet the constant complaining and Openness of those who state the Purposely vote low is driving away more people then coming in.
05/04/2007 11:14:10 PM · #34
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:

If we cant destroy the EE rules, let us agree to vote over-edited images low if they look so synthetic..
That's what I am going to do.
Don't try to stop me.
They should be photographic in nature as the voting guidelines suggest.
People with half of their bodies sketched and painted and whatnot are not photographic in nature, although they may look neato.
Fact is fact, can't change that.


I believe that my current free study photo has been voted low because there is an assumption it was a composite created in Photoshop. The reality is while it might look that way its simply not the case. There is cloning to remove some dust spots and other imperfections. It would probably qualify under advanced rules. The assumption that something is "over edited" or "synthetic" because it has a certain look is just that ... an assumption. I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time and saw an interesting image and captured it. While some images may have aspects that are clearly not Photographic in Nature (like bodies sketched) I believe assumptions are being made on images that could just be unusual photographs. Its unfortunate that quality images are possibly given low votes because of baseless assumptions.

Another point... "Gone with The Wind" had many scenes that were composites. It is considered by many to be a Masterpiece. No Photoshop was used. It is a beautiful example of what is possible when motion picture photography and art merge.
05/04/2007 11:45:50 PM · #35
Actually, from the Challenge Rules - Expert Editing (Trial) it reads specifically (bold emphasis added):

"Expert Editing places minimal restrictions on your post-processing. A full range of editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement as well as for image modification. Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly."

Originally posted by littlegett:

If my image is Derived from a PHOTOGRAPH, then guess what it is PHOTOGRAPHIC in nature.

Not always true, and most that read the EE rules overview would pick up on the meaning...a photograph can be altered to a state that it looks nothing like a photo anymore.

Originally posted by littlegett:

If you don't believe my image to be Photographic in Nature... Ask for it to be Verified... and Once it is Validated, You should go back and give it the score it deserves and not your biased eyed score.

Validation has nothing (NOTHING) to do with whether or not an image is "photographic in nature"...per the EE ruleset "voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly".

Originally posted by littlegett:

Every image entered into any challenge on this site has to be a PHOTOGRAPH. No Exceptions. Just because I have tools to do something 'different' to it, does not give you reason to complain about it.

There can be a wide range between doing something "different" to a photograph and taking it to the extreme point that it bears no resemblance to a photograph at all anymore. They can (and have in some cases) gone to that extreme degree - although those are the exception.
05/04/2007 11:53:02 PM · #36
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Processing Liberation Organization (P.L.O.)
Society Against Processing (S.A.P.)

Who do you support?
:-D


P.L.O. member here.

I like to get into fictional imagery sometimes. Kind of like a good book, that has no bearing of reality, but still a good book.

I also like to read non-fiction books, as I like to shoot straight photography.

Both types of photographic art and literature, whether you like it or not, are in my local library.
05/05/2007 12:15:39 AM · #37
Originally posted by seenosun:

Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:

If we cant destroy the EE rules, let us agree to vote over-edited images low if they look so synthetic..
That's what I am going to do.
Don't try to stop me.
They should be photographic in nature as the voting guidelines suggest.
People with half of their bodies sketched and painted and whatnot are not photographic in nature, although they may look neato.
Fact is fact, can't change that.


I believe that my current free study photo has been voted low because there is an assumption it was a composite created in Photoshop. The reality is while it might look that way its simply not the case. There is cloning to remove some dust spots and other imperfections. It would probably qualify under advanced rules. The assumption that something is "over edited" or "synthetic" because it has a certain look is just that ... an assumption. I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time and saw an interesting image and captured it. While some images may have aspects that are clearly not Photographic in Nature (like bodies sketched) I believe assumptions are being made on images that could just be unusual photographs. Its unfortunate that quality images are possibly given low votes because of baseless assumptions.

Another point... "Gone with The Wind" had many scenes that were composites. It is considered by many to be a Masterpiece. No Photoshop was used. It is a beautiful example of what is possible when motion picture photography and art merge.


That isn't in the least what I am talking about.
Don't jump to conclusions.
I'm talking about.. This is a bad example,
but that photo that ribboned not long ago.
Half the woman's body was a sketch.
Wasn't even photographic in nature.
Way too edited.
Those are the images I would like to see on a different site.
They just simply aren't photographs anymore.
They're almost drawings.
05/05/2007 12:37:02 PM · #38
I'll bet you held on to your film camera as long as possible and was the last of the people you knew to switch to digital (because it wasn't true photography)
05/05/2007 02:23:30 PM · #39
Doesn't matter, both are different facade of photographer's observation.
05/08/2007 12:41:23 PM · #40
Ok. Our most recent Expert Editing challenge has just finished. Any new thoughts on this trial set of rules while the iron is hot?

I found some comments posted by a photographer in their recent challenge entry that is food for thought.

Comments are along these lines:
"I am unsure how this image will be met in the challenge, but I am hopping for the best like I always do. I am also hopping this is different enough from the norm that it may be a refreshing view... but also figure it will be knocked down because it is too cartoonish, to dark, and not true to photography."

I emphasized the part I found most interesting as it comes from someone quite emphatic about expert editing and 'digital art' still being photographic in nature.

So, anyone interested in bantering this subject (Digital Art vs True Photography) around anymore, or is it a dead horse at this point? :D
05/08/2007 12:56:51 PM · #41
Glad you looked at my comments of my Batman Image.

It is based off a Photograph, and the expert rule set allowed me to give it a more Comic book feel. I like the expert rules for that reason, allowing me to create what I want.

Now, in by taking a photograph of a toy isn't that all exciting, as you can see the first comment I received from the image. But, I feel I achieved something more dramatic and dynamic with my editing style, I achieved exactly what I wanted.

The phrase 'Not true to Photography' was added because I know this community and I listed the reasons I was likely to see in comments. It is a comicbookish image, it is what I wanted to do. Something different I pushed the limits and my 476th place shows it's acceptance.

However, you don't see me in the forums, crying about it, or asking for more input about it or not, I hoped for the best and ended where it ended. If I had the chance to do it again, I would.

The image was validated and well... so be it.

Everything is an imitation of life, a photograph of a toy imitates the toy, but my editing of that photograph imitated my feelings for the toy I wanted to share.

Now, you tell me whats more important to any single 'ARTIST' some bland cookie cutter image, or their personal interpretations of said image?

feed that thought.

Edit to add image for link for all to see...
-- Original only converted to jpg and resized.

Message edited by author 2007-05-08 13:05:30.
05/08/2007 01:17:49 PM · #42
Originally posted by littlegett:

Now, you tell me whats more important to any single 'ARTIST' some bland cookie cutter image, or their personal interpretations of said image?

feed that thought.

:)

Hmmm...I can see your point on wanting to portray your vision/interpretation as an artist.

I guess that's where some of this becomes fuzzy, the term 'Artist'. Art covers a broad spectrum and I'll readily admit I'm not educated in 'Art' well enough to dive in deeply.

Photography is 'Art'. The question becomes when does photography as an 'Art' stray so much into the other genre's (painting, graphics, collages, etc...) that it's no longer photography? The other question - what is 'True' photography?

Can we, as a community of 'Photographers', be comfortable with mixing various types of photographic art under one umbrella? Specifically, combining in one challenge to be judged together as was this recent Free Study?

I know, many questions - sorry. Kind of just thinking out loud...tossing ideas around. :)
05/08/2007 01:32:33 PM · #43
Define 'digital art'.

There are a lot of things that are being defined as 'digital art' where the technique has been used in the film world for decades. Take multiple exposures for example. Doing this in camera or by sandwiching two images together after processing has been done for ages. Now we just have a different tool to do it.

In a lot of cases it's hard to tell whether the image is a photograph or a creation made mostly in editing software. The challenges using the EE ruleset are showing this.
05/08/2007 01:40:01 PM · #44
It is all subjective...

and, well, I am looking at the types of my image, and I think (I may be wrong) it would even have been legal in advanced editing rules, minus the fix on the eyes mind you. Which I suppose could be fixed with some dodging.

Anyway, it is all subjective, and here the mass of the people vote. It really doesn't matter what image goes into the challenges, how they where edited, or what they are, the mass votes and thats that.

There could be a handfull of people who really enjoy the image, you get a couple tens, a handfull that doesn't a few ones...

There is no baseline, no formula no nothing that is going to make everyone happy most all the time.

There are images where more people like them then dislike them, but when it comes down to it all.. its Subjective and the artist vision doesn't mean squat to your own vision of whats in front of you.

When do we stop calling it photography? Well, they stopped I suppose When they first started using film, when they first started using colour film, when the first digital camera took a picture, when the first photo editing program altered some pixels....

I have heard some say it is not a photography unless you can hold it in your hands. So, according to them, there is absolutely no photography on this site because I can not hold any of it in my hands.

Real problem lies in what are you afraid of?

It seems, people are more afraid of 'competition' then anything, However, when it comes to it, the masses vote on the images and each image gets whatever those X number of voters wanted to give it on an average.

Only thing you can do, is try and figure out what the appeals to the masses if you want to ribbon... or submit what you want and accept whatever is given knowning you scored yourself a 10 because it is exactly what you wanted...

Share your art with the world... what else can you do cept hold your breathe in hopes someone else would enjoy it? You may be long dead before you click the shutter....
05/08/2007 01:56:13 PM · #45
Originally posted by seenosun:



I believe that my current free study photo has been voted low because there is an assumption it was a composite created in Photoshop. The reality is while it might look that way its simply not the case. There is cloning to remove some dust spots and other imperfections. It would probably qualify under advanced rules. The assumption that something is "over edited" or "synthetic" because it has a certain look is just that ... an assumption. I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time and saw an interesting image and captured it. While some images may have aspects that are clearly not Photographic in Nature (like bodies sketched) I believe assumptions are being made on images that could just be unusual photographs. Its unfortunate that quality images are possibly given low votes because of baseless assumptions.


OK - the Free Study Challenge is over and I can post the image I entered.


I thought this may have not worked for the voters because it looks like it may have been created in photoshop. This shot was taken at an abandoned asylum. It was a place where mentally handicapped children were put away. It had been closed in 1991 because of the horrible conditions. After 15 years this place was pretty disgusting. Urban Decay would be an understatement. I went into a small church in the compound and saw this image and captured it. One commenter (see comment below) suggested using the same pattern of the stain glass window in the yellow/orange pane. The yellow panes of glass were obviously not original and had a different look then the rest of the stain glass pieces. I liked the image because it symbolized hope from a world of despair.

The only editing done on this image was:
1) crop
2) Rotated to fix tilted horizon
3) cloning to clean up some dirt spots on the stain glass
4) the cross in the window was originally a weather vane. I copied the left half (arrow side) of the weather vane and pasted over the tail to make the weather vane into a cross.
5) Adjusted levels and curves
6) resized
7) slight USM
8) saved for web

It was doing so badly that I almost pulled it from the challenge when I received this comment:

"A phenomenal abstract. The colors and composition are superb, although I wish that you could apply the stained glass texture to the yellow rectangle to keep it consistent."

Connecting with one voter that saw what I saw in the image made a week of seeing a 4.xxx score everytime I hit the update button a little easier. Ultimately I got the score up to a 5 but it is the worst score I have received at DPC.

So my question is...was this image voted low because it looked like Digital Art created in photoshop or is it just one of those images that didn't work for DPC?

05/08/2007 01:57:21 PM · #46
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Define 'digital art'.

This is at the crux of the issue.

It was suggested earlier that 'digital art' and 'real' photography be separated into their own respective challenges.

But how do we do that? When does an image stop being a photograph and transform into 'digital art'? How do we positively determine which type challenge, 'digital art' or 'real', that a given image should be entered into? How do you know if an image 'looks like a photograph' or not?
05/08/2007 02:21:24 PM · #47
Originally posted by seenosun:

... So my question is...was this image voted low because it looked like Digital Art created in photoshop...

I think this part of your question is quite valid. It is also something that I think many voters had to ask themselves (fair/unfair/or otherwise). IMO, that question shouldn't even enter the mind of the voters in a challenge. However, as long as there are mixed entries in one challenge the question will always linger.
05/08/2007 02:25:19 PM · #48
Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Define 'digital art'.

This is at the crux of the issue.

It was suggested earlier that 'digital art' and 'real' photography be separated into their own respective challenges.

But how do we do that? When does an image stop being a photograph and transform into 'digital art'? How do we positively determine which type challenge, 'digital art' or 'real', that a given image should be entered into? How do you know if an image 'looks like a photograph' or not?

Eliminate the combination of multiple photos (with exceptions *). That will take care of the question of whether it is a real photograph or a fabricated one.

* The rules could be written to allow the use of multiple images for purposes of HDR imaging. This has been discussed previously I think in the administrative expert editing thread (good luck finding it!).
05/08/2007 02:42:53 PM · #49
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Define 'digital art'.

This is at the crux of the issue.

It was suggested earlier that 'digital art' and 'real' photography be separated into their own respective challenges.

But how do we do that? When does an image stop being a photograph and transform into 'digital art'? How do we positively determine which type challenge, 'digital art' or 'real', that a given image should be entered into? How do you know if an image 'looks like a photograph' or not?

Eliminate the combination of multiple photos (with exceptions *). That will take care of the question of whether it is a real photograph or a fabricated one.

* The rules could be written to allow the use of multiple images for purposes of HDR imaging. This has been discussed previously I think in the administrative expert editing thread (good luck finding it!).


Exceptions are BS bottom line. But, as you can see from my image, it was created from a single image, so that really craps out your theory on that one.
05/08/2007 02:45:07 PM · #50
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Define 'digital art'.

This is at the crux of the issue.

It was suggested earlier that 'digital art' and 'real' photography be separated into their own respective challenges.

But how do we do that? When does an image stop being a photograph and transform into 'digital art'? How do we positively determine which type challenge, 'digital art' or 'real', that a given image should be entered into? How do you know if an image 'looks like a photograph' or not?

Eliminate the combination of multiple photos (with exceptions *). That will take care of the question of whether it is a real photograph or a fabricated one.

Would it be fair to catagorize your viewpoint to mean that a 'real' photograph is made up on only one image?

In that case this image - - is a perfectly acceptable 'real' photograph.

And why should HDR multi-image compositions be allowed? What is so special about them? In your opinion, are there other forms of composites that should be allowed as well and why should they be allowed? What are the limits?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 11:07:15 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/18/2025 11:07:15 AM EDT.