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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Allow the burning of backgrounds in Advanced
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 188, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/11/2007 11:58:44 PM · #126
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
.. so to follow your analogy...


What do past film photographers have to do with it? Should we just drop the rules and make it 'anything goes' because some famous photographer at some point used whatever technique you care to try? Do you have a similar complaint against restrictions on spot editing in Basic? The rule exists to prevent the wholesale creation or removal of *anything* since PS makes it so easy to do so. If that's too restrictive for the budding Man Ray, there's always Expert.


What do past film photographers have to do with photography? I'm speechless.


I am so glad you didn't follow this with a speech :))))
 06/12/2007 12:00:07 AM · #127
Originally posted by idnic:
To oblitherate the background of an image and still call it photography?


There. See, Shannon? We are talking about the definition of photography. The history of photography has some relevance to the definition of photography. My comments in that area should not be dismissed as belonging in the past. The past has shaped the present.
 06/12/2007 12:00:33 AM · #128
a small change

what is the worst that can happen here - c'mon people
 06/12/2007 12:01:20 AM · #129
Originally posted by ursula:
I am so glad you didn't follow this with a speech :))))


Oh, you would have loved my speech. I would have sprinkled in Shakespearean anachronisms, grand pronouncements and rambling asides. It would have been an aural circus.
 06/12/2007 12:01:48 AM · #130
The line between Photography and Digital Art is somewhere around South Carolina.
 06/12/2007 12:02:24 AM · #131
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ursula:
I am so glad you didn't follow this with a speech :))))


Oh, you would have loved my speech. I would have sprinkled in Shakespearean anachronisms, grand pronouncements and rambling asides. It would have been an aural circus.


Oh, bummer! Such a pity we missed this! :)
 06/12/2007 12:03:02 AM · #132
Originally posted by idnic:
The line between Photography and Digital Art is somewhere around South Carolina.


North/South or East/West?

Sorry - thread hijack is over :)

Message edited by author 2007-06-12 00:03:26.
 06/12/2007 12:03:28 AM · #133
Man Ray? Isn't that one of the characters on SpongeBob with his episodes of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy?

06/12/2007 12:04:48 AM · #134
Originally posted by karmat:
Man Ray? Isn't that one of the characters on SpongeBob with his episodes of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy?



you know i think of that everytime:)
 06/12/2007 12:06:30 AM · #135
Well, I'm off to bed. You can all go to sleep now. :P
 06/12/2007 12:06:41 AM · #136
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by idnic:
The line between Photography and Digital Art is somewhere around South Carolina.


North/South or East/West?


Well I was thinking North/South, but I guess you could cut it either way. :D
 06/12/2007 12:08:59 AM · #137
Originally posted by posthumous:
What do past film photographers have to do with photography? I'm speechless.


Evidently not... and that's NOT what I said. What do past film photographers have to do with this specific rule on this specific site? The rule exists to prevent people from taking a photo of the Goodyear Blimp with a seagull in front of it and burning out everything but the seagull just because the blimp is in the background. What Ansel would have allowed, another photographer may have forbidden. It's simply not relevant to whether or not background removal is allowed in Advanced.
 06/12/2007 12:09:45 AM · #138
Your request rule change will have repercussions vis a vis the other rules, for example not being able to create new shapes or "features" or a variety of other problems. We recently went through a substantial revision of the rules, with more than substantial discussion. So far, no one has proposes an actual rewording of the rules which allow what you ask for while not creating problems with other areas of the rules.

Mostly, I'm disturbed by the vociferousness of this "discussion" which is labeled a "suggestion" but feels more like a band of crusaders attacking the castle gate with a battering ram.

Do you really think we could just announce, tonight -- "OK, this rule is changed ..."
 06/12/2007 12:12:24 AM · #139
I'd just like to know why people can't be happy with the rules. We have FOUR sets to chose from.
 06/12/2007 12:13:08 AM · #140
man, that was a quick month :-(
 06/12/2007 12:13:52 AM · #141
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'd just like to know why people can't be happy with the rules. We have FOUR sets to chose from.

Maybe because THIS challenge happens to be running under THOSE rules?
 06/12/2007 12:15:45 AM · #142
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'd just like to know why people can't be happy with the rules. We have FOUR sets to chose from.

Maybe because THIS challenge happens to be running under THOSE rules?


Right. Let's just run every challenge under ever ruleset, so we can vote on 12-16 challenges per week! Then, only the top three photos out of all four versions of that challenge will be awarded ribbons. I predict that Minimal will lose out 75% of the time.

:p

I think it's time to take a break for a few minutes.
 06/12/2007 01:25:46 AM · #143
Can we allow burning of backsides?
 06/12/2007 01:40:54 AM · #144
Originally posted by Melethia:
Can we allow burning of backsides?


That all depends how close your backside gets to the candle...mmuuwwwaahhhh!!!

06/12/2007 01:54:34 AM · #145
I have a quick question, i sometimes like to photograph objects in a completely white bright background, but i dont exactly have the lighting or studio type setup to properly do that so i have to kinda improvise with whatever white i have. Is it ok to dodge out some less-than-white shadows from the background to make it look more even. I dont want it to be COMPLETELY white... just an evenness.
 06/12/2007 01:57:39 AM · #146
Originally posted by mango:
I have a quick question, i sometimes like to photograph objects in a completely white bright background, but i dont exactly have the lighting or studio type setup to properly do that so i have to kinda improvise with whatever white i have. Is it ok to dodge out some less-than-white shadows from the background to make it look more even. I dont want it to be COMPLETELY white... just an evenness.


this is exactly why the thread started, i think.
the problem is, though the sc may usually forgive such actions, they cant admit it clearly or properly define it - you know how certain people tend to look for loopholes in the rules to break them ;)
 06/12/2007 02:02:43 AM · #147
question please. what if, instead of dodging n burning out the background, JJ had darkened the entire image evenly using the curve/brightness/contrast tool... and then he used dodge n burn to brighten up the subjects and the table instead? would that have been grounds for DQ?
 06/12/2007 03:04:09 AM · #148
Probably still a DQ, and it probably would have looked overly dodged and burned.

My take (and it's worth all of absolutely nothing) is that Monsieur Beguin did what he wanted to with this picture - he created something with which he was pleased and shared it with us. In the comments on the photograph itself, he notes that he "probably should review the rules". He hasn't led any storm-the-gates charge to get his DQ overturned, nor bemoaned the inability to burn or otherwise edit a background into oblivion.

I love the picture. I love the mood he created with it, the emotion shared. I suspect I'd probably love it *with* the background, too, though I also suspect it may not have fared as well here scorewise.

I am not one in favor of burning backgrounds into oblivion for the sake of challenges. For the sake of your own work for your own purposes, sure. Go for it. But for challenges, no. Why? In most cases, it makes a picture too sterile, removes context - I happen to like context.
 06/12/2007 03:08:47 AM · #149
Originally posted by crayon:
this is exactly why the thread started, i think.
the problem is, though the sc may usually forgive such actions, they cant admit it clearly or properly define it - you know how certain people tend to look for loopholes in the rules to break them ;)


That kind of change has always been allowed in Advanced. Since the background is already white (or black), correcting minor abberations doesn't change anyone's description of the photo as a whole.
 06/12/2007 03:10:32 AM · #150
Originally posted by crayon:
question please. what if, instead of dodging n burning out the background, JJ had darkened the entire image evenly using the curve/brightness/contrast tool... and then he used dodge n burn to brighten up the subjects and the table instead? would that have been grounds for DQ?


If it removed the background entirely, definitely a DQ. Different method, same effect.

If the background was just darkened but still visible and de-emphasised, it might be legal. That's a grey area.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 11:32:33 PM

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: 08/25/2025 11:32:33 PM EDT.