| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2007 08:37:36 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by mileskea:
I've just looked at the advanced editing rules for this challenge and from where I stand I can't see how the application of filters could be seen as DQ grounds. |
Well, in some challenges* using radial blur is cause for disqualification, and many of these photos have been altered more than that.
EDIT: *(advanced editing)
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 08:43:09. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 09:56:42 AM · #27 |
6th place in impressionism I
205th place impressionism II :)
Missed out on my first brown ribbon :(
New lowest score ever :)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:10:05 AM · #28 |
I hear your fustration. I can understand trying to put all the camera techniques effort into a shot just to be outscored by someone who went the photoshop/edititing software route. Digital photography has made it difficult and sometimes pointless to use the hardware that generate more or less the same effect. :(
(Like why buy lense filters anymore (except polarizers)? you can get the same effect in photoshop with less effort and less cost.)
I have the same feeling about color photos (which is also dependant on the voter's monitor settings. A shot might look vibrant on one monitor, and dull on another). I feel that sometimes people emphasize too much on colors and forget about the subject and message the photo or the photographer is trying to convey.
Of course, one can take that either way, Either the photographer didnt do a good job in presenting his message, or the voter is just naive and looks for a purdie picture. Either way, It really wants me to go back to shooting in black and white. It's a hell alot easier to convey a message without having to worry about saturing and coloring(another photoshop feature) lol. But I'm sure It would get voted down due to that some dont like B&W photos.
I just think the tides are changing and we need to adapt or we will cease to exist. The film and hardware days are going to be a thing of the past soon.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 10:11:20. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:16:41 AM · #29 |
and yet, your average just took it on the chin without moving a muscle
that's great when you score low, sucks when you score high
:)
Originally posted by Gordon:
6th place in impressionism I
205th place impressionism II :)
Missed out on my first brown ribbon :(
New lowest score ever :) |
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 10:17:01. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:19:29 AM · #30 |
This thread inspired me to show this video:
Why Cheaters do not prosper
NOTE: I am not calling anyone a cheater here, its a joke |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:20:30 AM · #31 |
What amazes me is that for the most part the voters seem to have expressed the mindset that "impressionism" = "imitating a painterly technique of the late 19th century", as opposed to anything I would call "photo-impressionism", which I expected to see more of. And some of the top vote-getters, IMO, are neither. I have in mind in particular a high-placing still life, which IMO is no kind of impressionism whatsoever, albeit it is a wonderful still life reminiscent of some of the Flemish Masters.
Also, from my understanding of the rules and how they have been applied in the past, a lot of this post-processing is, I would have thought, not legal. The 3rd place image, in particular, is completely dominated by painterly effects that are absolutely not present in the original, especially the white flecks.
So I'm a little surprised. I agree with Doc (the OP) that this represents a real change. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of these are very lovely, but... As far as I can see, if these images are all validated, there is NOTHING to keep us from doing "painterly" transformations on ANY advanced-editing challenge, and I'm not sure I like that...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:21:33 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
... Digital photography has made it difficult and sometimes pointless to use the hardware that generate more or less the same effect. :(
(Like why buy lense filters anymore (except polarizers)? you can get the same effect in photoshop with less effort and less cost.) ... |
Now you tell me! :) I just invested in some Cokin P series equipment (had used A series prior to some equipment changes).
As for "the same effect in photoshop with less effort" - for some maybe, but I find graduated filters to be quicker and easier than software manipulations.
That being said, I'm starting to really like some of the xero plug-ins for PSP I installed recently. :P So, I guess for me I find applications for both hardware and software image adjustments.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:29:49 AM · #33 |
| It's unfortunate that so many push the editing to the point of dq. I would imagine this challenge kept sc in the overload mode. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:37:15 AM · #34 |
I have to say i'm disappointed with these voters:
1 = 3
2 = 9
3 = 14
26 of them were most likely prompted to give a reason for 1 - 3 votes, but they didn't.
I know it's not essential, but surely 1 or 2 of them could have commented on why they didn't they the image was great in their opinion.
How are we to improve otherwise? |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:43:14 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Nichola:
How are we to improve otherwise? |
Look inwards ? Follow your muse ? Be yourself.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:48:44 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am thoroughly amazed that in the 2004 Impressionism challenge there were 9 pictures in the Top 10 which used in-camera tricks to get their effects. In 2007 only 2 used in-camera tricks. |
The 2004 challenge was a "masters" challenge with only 39 entries from a group of people more inclined to go the photographic route since regular ribbon winners know that voters don't generally appreciate heavily filtered images. The current voters may have been more willing to accept filters because of the topic and possibly some desensitization from the Expert challenges.
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
During voting I asked for validation on a couple of entries.....3rd place in particular, since I thought the addition of those huge brush strokes was adding an element. It was validated. |
Changing the visual qualities of existing objects with a texture, filters, color shift, etc. is allowed in Advanced. Adding an object or sense of motion where none existed before (including details on a previously blank background) or removing something prominent (either by cloning or completely obscuring with a filter) gets into DQ territory. FWIW, this challenge didn't really spark any unusual surge in validation requests.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 10:49:32. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:52:08 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What amazes me is that for the most part the voters seem to have expressed the mindset that "impressionism" = "imitating a painterly technique of the late 19th century", as opposed to anything I would call "photo-impressionism", which I expected to see more of. And some of the top vote-getters, IMO, are neither. I have in mind in particular a high-placing still life, which IMO is no kind of impressionism whatsoever, albeit it is a wonderful still life reminiscent of some of the Flemish Masters.
Also, from my understanding of the rules and how they have been applied in the past, a lot of this post-processing is, I would have thought, not legal. The 3rd place image, in particular, is completely dominated by painterly effects that are absolutely not present in the original, especially the white flecks.
So I'm a little surprised. I agree with Doc (the OP) that this represents a real change. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of these are very lovely, but... As far as I can see, if these images are all validated, there is NOTHING to keep us from doing "painterly" transformations on ANY advanced-editing challenge, and I'm not sure I like that...
R. |
I am with you 100%. I had a really nice painterly outtake, which my teammates advised me was better. But I felt the one I entered better represented photo-impressionism, as defined by Patterson and Gallant anyway.
I would have never guessed voters would actually be looking for brushstrokes in a photo impressionism challenge under advanced rules.
In retrospect, I misjudged the voters completely. Live and learn! |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:54:35 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
In retrospect, I misjudged the voters completely. Live and learn! |
Also in retrospect, a light brushstroke filter could've made a big difference in score (albeit also defeating the goal of your shot). |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:54:53 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Changing the visual qualities of existing objects with a texture, filters, color shift, etc. is allowed in Advanced. Adding an object or sense of motion where none existed before (including details on a previously blank background) or removing something prominent (either by cloning or completely obscuring with a filter) gets into DQ territory. FWIW, this challenge didn't really spark any unusual surge in validation requests. |
So the flecks of white and the brush strokes in, for example, the 3rd-place entry are perfectly OK under advanced editing, even though they strongly add an "element that was not present" in the original, because they are considered "textures"? We can use these artistic filters to our heart's content with no fear of DQ?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:56:17 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
... I had a really nice painterly outtake, which my teammates advised me was better. ... |
??? I thought DPL season was over? Team collaboration is still available?
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:57:25 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I am with you 100%. I had a really nice painterly outtake, which my teammates advised me was better. But I felt the one I entered better represented photo-impressionism, as defined by Patterson and Gallant anyway.
I would have never guessed voters would actually be looking for brushstrokes in a photo impressionism challenge under advanced rules.
In retrospect, I misjudged the voters completely. Live and learn! |
Thats our problem right there: the challenge never mentions "photo" impressionism, just "impressionism". Silly us to think the challenge was about photography, not copying tried-and-true painterly techniques.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 10:59:18 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
... I had a really nice painterly outtake, which my teammates advised me was better. ... |
??? I thought DPL season was over? Team collaboration is still available? |
It always has been, even before DPL. DPL just gave teams a private forum to do it in.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:01:03 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
??? I thought DPL season was over? Team collaboration is still available? |
It always has been, even before DPL. DPL just gave teams a private forum to do it in.
R. |
I have a crack team of market research specialists solicit feedback on my various entries each week. Unfortunately for the impressionism challenge, my research team was on crack.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 11:01:21.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:03:40 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So the flecks of white and the brush strokes in, for example, the 3rd-place entry are perfectly OK under advanced editing, even though they strongly add an "element that was not present" in the original, because they are considered "textures"? We can use these artistic filters to our heart's content with no fear of DQ? |
IMO, the brushstroke appearance is a quality adjustment of the elements already present (the woman, sheet, background wall...), just as the surface appearance would be altered with a Gaussian blur or added grain. Had the filter been carried to such an extreme that those objects were no longer obvious, it would've been DQ'd. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:03:57 AM · #45 |
My 2 cents
My image came in 6th. I used a combination of tone mapping and the dry brush filter.
I did receive some low votes. I'm assuming that the low votes were due to the use of filters. I don't know for sure because they didn't leave a comment.
I used dry brush because I noticed that one of the top 3 entries in the previous Impressionism challenge used it. I figure if it was OK then it is OK now.
In my experience here the use of artistic filters, while suffering low votes, were never specifically banned. The key rules to me are the "change description" and "added elements". If using the dry brush filter violates these standards then so does Film Grain, also in the artistic filter list in Photoshop. I don't recall anyone being DQd for adding film grain effects to an image in Advanced Editing. I have seen them get hammered in the voting, but that's another issue.
If Film Grain is allowed, then the others in the Artistic Filters should also be allowed. Then you just let the voters decide. Adding Film Grain to an image does as much to change the description and indeed adds an element not in the original image, just as Dry Brush does.
Other filters to the extreme like Gaussian blur, tone mapping, noise reduction do the same, IMO. If people go overboard with these, they usually pay the price in voting.
But to have a challenge called "Impressionism" and not allow impressionistic filters is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.
The challenge did not mention photo impressionism, but rather the "Learn about the techniques of impressionism, and incorporate them into a photograph".
Dry Brush is a technique that certianly falls into this category.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:04:24 AM · #46 |
| How does one join one of these teams that help you choose the best shot for a challenge? I usually have like feedback on choosing the right photo. That would be great for me to learn and improve. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:09:24 AM · #47 |
In my opinion (and it is how I voted), it was all about the "impressionism style" and had nothing to do with the steps used to create the photo. At no point in my voting did I wonder how the final photo was created for the purpose of adjusting my vote. IMHO, in-camera methods are misused and abused just as much as photoshop filters and effects are. It's as easy in-camera to create blur (or perhaps easier), or put something between your filter and subject as it is to add it with photoshop. Because it is easy to do many times the effect is applied with no thought as to why; resulting in some pretty unpleasing compositions.
Original Unedited: 
Submission: 
Ps. Mine has not been validated.... |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:10:24 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What amazes me is that for the most part the voters seem to have expressed the mindset that "impressionism" = "imitating a painterly technique of the late 19th century", as opposed to anything I would call "photo-impressionism", which I expected to see more of. And some of the top vote-getters, IMO, are neither. I have in mind in particular a high-placing still life, which IMO is no kind of impressionism whatsoever, albeit it is a wonderful still life reminiscent of some of the Flemish Masters.
R. |
Hello Robert, I'm guessing you are refering to my shot so please allow me to explain my logic behind submitting such a shot
I do not see artistic impressionism in the same way as I see photographic Impressionism. The photograph I submitted was my 'impression' of the work of the early masters and I decided to go with a still life simply down to personal taste. To me, Impressionism is not using extensive art filters to create brush marks or trying to mimick the painting side of impressionism. If we take the word in its literal sense then we have to expect people to submit photoshopped pictures that resemble the artist brush and paint. I feel it is opinionated and open for interpretation so I do not mind so much about over photoshopped images, they are not to my personal taste of how I see impressionism within photography but everyone is entitled to their opinion about that.
I submitted what I believed was a photographic rendition of a work of art.
I do realise you was not attacking my shot I just felt an explanation of how I think was in order.. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:10:46 AM · #49 |
This is a serious question because I was thinking about doing it in a shot.
Shannon seems to indicate that the filters did not add new shapes or textures to the sky in the blue ribbon and the walls in the yellow. Looking primariliy at the yellow, we see flecks of white which, I'm guessing, are probably not in the original.
If I shoot a sunset or evening landscape, can I find pixels that are naturally somewhat brighter than their surroundings (ie noise), and dodge them into stars? It seems that if the flecks of yellow are allowed, this should be allowed as well as I would not be creating new textures, but only enhancing the textures that are already there.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:17:44 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
My 2 cents
My image came in 6th. I used a combination of tone mapping and the dry brush filter. |
I wouldn't consider yours to be even remotely questionable as far as my understanding of the rules went. I don't even consider it to be "objectionably" painterly; the use of the filter is relatively subtle. But, again using the 3rd place image as an example (largely because he was kind of enough to provide a link to the original), the texture completely dominates the image-as-submitted, and there's no trace of that texture in the original.
It's OK with me if this is, in fact, considered legal; I just didn't think it WAS going into the challenge.
And it's equally OK with me that the voters (and indeed perhaps most of the entrants) saw this as a "replicate a painterly technique" challenge; I was just surprised by it, I expected something different.
I am, however, a little concerned that, based on what I'm reading, this sort of extreme manipulation of the image into the quasi-painting realm has been completely validated, and would appear to be legal in any advanced challenge. I suppose this may be a red herring of a concern, because it may be that the voters will not look kindly on such images in challenges that don't have "impressionism" in the title, but who knows?
R.
|
|
