| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2007 11:22:44 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by MAK:
[
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 realise you was not attacking my shot I just felt an explanation of how I think was in order.. |
Right, I'm not attacking you at all, and I have no problem with your logic for that matter. I was a little surprised, referring to the challenge in general, that the voters came down so strongly in favor of "replica" works instead of what some of us call "photo impressionism" but that's neither here nor there.
However, I do have some concern, as other posts of mine have indicated, as to the repercussions of your image being validated. Not because you, in particular, set out to do anything "wrong" (and evidently it's OK anyway), but because of a huge gray area that['s been opened up by the way your image introduces noticeable shapes and details to areas that had been completely devoid of them in the original. Where is the line to be drawn now?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:23:56 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
That's the kind of thing that's worrying me, exactly. I think a can of worms has been opened up here.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:30:31 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[quote=scarbrd]
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. |
I echo this concern. When entering the challenge, I read the rules, inferred that the use of heavy filters was not appropriate, and entered a photo that used in-camera effects only. Like Gordon, I was punished with the worst score I've ever had.
While there were some excellent entries, I was dismayed that this challenged turned into Battle of the Photoshop Filters.
All of which is neither here nor there, I suppose, except it certainly expands the definition of Advanced Editing for future challenges. And doubles my resolve to stick with Basic Editing challenges in the future; that's the realm where I'd like to see my work evaluated by fellow photographers. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:39:12 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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? |
You'll find "quasi-painting" filters effects in the 2004 Impressionism challenge, and within brown-ribbon range in a number of past Advanced challenges. You guys act like this is some shocking new development when the Yellow Ribbon winner in the last Impressionism challenge was heavily filtered. Huh?
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 11:40:53. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:52:46 AM · #55 |
It did cross my mind if I should use any brushstroke like filters.
Hey after all this time, it's still hard for me to accept, that here the rules here are whatever you can get away with. Nothing needs to meet any challenge. As long as it appeals to the masses of voters, just like politics.
On the other hand we do need some leeway for artistic interpretation, that is a nice freedom. Maybe the "Rules" should more rightly be called "Guidelines".
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:03:34 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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? |
You'll find "quasi-painting" filters effects in the 2004 Impressionism challenge, and within brown-ribbon range in a number of past Advanced challenges. You guys act like this is some shocking new development when the Yellow Ribbon winner in the last Impressionism challenge was heavily filtered. Huh? |
I think the yellow ribbon winner in the first Impressionist challenge is reason for so many "brush" effect entries this time around. That is specifically what gave me the justification for using them in the most recent Impresionist challenge. I'll bet I'm not the only one.
I really don't think anything has changed as a result of this challenge. Go ahead and use an artistic filter in an upcoming challenge. The voters will let you know empatically if it is accectable or not. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:11:00 PM · #57 |
If I ever get a DQ because I used a filter to create an effect in Advanced, I'm definitely gonna remind SC of this little fiasco.
This, IMO, is along the same lines as using the motion blur filters to create motion, which IS illegal.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 12:12:21.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:19:51 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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? |
You'll find "quasi-painting" filters effects in the 2004 Impressionism challenge, and within brown-ribbon range in a number of past Advanced challenges. You guys act like this is some shocking new development when the Yellow Ribbon winner in the last Impressionism challenge was heavily filtered. Huh? |
I think the yellow ribbon winner in the first Impressionist challenge is reason for so many "brush" effect entries this time around. That is specifically what gave me the justification for using them in the most recent Impresionist challenge. I'll bet I'm not the only one.
I really don't think anything has changed as a result of this challenge. Go ahead and use an artistic filter in an upcoming challenge. The voters will let you know empatically if it is accectable or not. |
I agree the previous challenge in 2004 solidified it for me that it was legal and acceptable. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:36:51 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
This, IMO, is along the same lines as using the motion blur filters to create motion, which IS illegal. |
Motion is not a surface attribute of an existing object, like color, sharpness or texture. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:36:58 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If I ever get a DQ because I used a filter to create an effect in Advanced, I'm definitely gonna remind SC of this little fiasco.
This, IMO, is along the same lines as using the motion blur filters to create motion, which IS illegal. |
Motion Blur is a filter, but it is not in the Artistic Filter collection (in Photoshop, anyway) it is under the Blur filters. Use of Blur filters has always been very specific here at DPC. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:43:58 PM · #61 |
| I am so out of the PS filters, I used a ziplock bag over my lens. I guess I had better "brush" up on my filter usage. :) |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:46:53 PM · #62 |
I would caution people about using past precedent to guide their thinking for a few reasons:
A) Mistakes have been made in the past. If you happen to use a "mistake" validation to justify your current one, you may have trouble. I can think of a specific picture which cost me a ribbon which I believe there is no way in the world it should have been validated and would not be validated if entered today. My point is not to put all your eggs in one basket and base your choice on one photo.
B) SC membership changes. Since this is subjective and based on votes, what may have been kosher in the past may not be kosher today. A 7-6 vote before could easily sway to a 6-7 vote. I think SC does use precedent to help guide them, but precedent is not set in stone.
C) Don't forget rulesets have changed slightly as well.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 12:48:08.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:49:10 PM · #63 |
I think it's pretty obvious that the texture in the sky of the winning shot and the texture in the walls of the yellow ribbon, plus all the little white flecks, were not in the originals.
I also think, to use a now-defunct judgement point, that both of them would get descriptions of "a painting of ..." as opposed to "a photograph of ..." which means the processing changed my description of them.
Now it's a question of whether those are significant enough changes to be worth DQing. I think it's disingenuous of scalvert to claim there are no visible changes, but I also see room for individual decisions about whether they're worth DQing.
At any rate, the SC has now given us a very strong signal of what's legal.
I'd also like to say it's disingenuous of anyone to say "I got punished because I relied on in-camera effects." No, you still need to produce an interesting image, with good lighting, composition, etc.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:51:58 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I am so out of the PS filters, I used a ziplock bag over my lens. I guess I had better "brush" up on my filter usage. :) |
I think your ziplock bag worked rather well. I put your picture up in the "Posthumous Ribbons of the Week" thread. :) |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:04:35 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Mine was in camera, and in retrospect, it was a mistake. I love the shot and the effect, but in camera is no match for photoshop.
Edit: Actually, mine was in front of the camera. One thing I had never tried before with all my previous attempts at impressionism and abstraction (usually involving camera movement) was hairspray on a cokin filter. I think it works better than the cokin effects filters I've bought, and better and less messy than vasoline. It was a tip I picked up from Patterson and Galant's Impressionism book. |
Well I think your shot kicks arse, not everything needs to be PS'ed to death.
JM2C.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:06:26 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I think it's disingenuous of scalvert to claim there are no visible changes... |
That doofus! Where did he claim that? |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:22:43 PM · #67 |
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 really hoped to see more of. :( |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:28:21 PM · #68 |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:32:53 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
I think it's disingenuous of scalvert to claim there are no visible changes... |
That doofus! Where did he claim that? |
Maybe I misunderstood you ...
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO, the brushstroke appearance is a quality adjustment of the elements already present (the woman, sheet, background wall...) |
The texture and the white bits were not "already present."
At any rate, none of this matters much outside DPC. Art is art, and people will decide whether they like it or not. It's only within the context of the DPC rule sets that this discussion has any relevance.
srdanz: that's a hilarious cartoon!
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:38:51 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO, the brushstroke appearance is a quality adjustment of the elements already present (the woman, sheet, background wall...) |
The texture and the white bits were not "already present." |
Nor would they be if you added noise to a photo, and using Neat Image would amount to removing texture and white bits. That's not something I consider a feature. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:44:46 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Is that why this image was dq'ed?
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:52:21 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO, the brushstroke appearance is a quality adjustment of the elements already present (the woman, sheet, background wall...) |
The texture and the white bits were not "already present." |
Nor would they be if you added noise to a photo, and using Neat Image would amount to removing texture and white bits. That's not something I consider a feature. |
We've disagreed before, Shannon, and we do now, but no harm done. :)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:54:48 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO, the brushstroke appearance is a quality adjustment of the elements already present (the woman, sheet, background wall...) |
The texture and the white bits were not "already present." |
Nor would they be if you added noise to a photo, and using Neat Image would amount to removing texture and white bits. That's not something I consider a feature. |
Wait, I want to know if I can dodge my "noise stars"? How come I think the answer will be different?
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:56:12 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I also think, to use a now-defunct judgement point, that both of them would get descriptions of "a painting of ..." as opposed to "a photograph of ..." which means the processing changed my description of them.
|
I totally agree. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 02:02:20 PM · #75 |
As I said in my post challenge comments, being new to DPC I had no idea what a controversy using filters is. I now know that while a lot of people liked my challenge submission, there are an equal number of people out there who do not, which is fair. If this challenge comes up again, I will try something different, non-filter. I am happy that I got a ribbon, but scores mean nothing to me, only that my image has meaning, that is all I seek to accomplish.
Edited to add: Thank you everyone who voted on my entry be it good or bad, I really appriciate your opinions.
P.S. I am a she not a he =)
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 14:05:38. |
|
