December rules - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/22/2003 02:17:39 AM · #2

I was very mixed on the idea, did not know if it would be a pain or a blessing.

I've liked what I've seen. Some are over processed, but overall I think it has worked very well indeed. Most people are maybe using it for small spot edits and tiny ups, so you can't even tell.

Ironically I've needed it on entries in the past, but the one members entry I have had so far this month didn't need any of the new rules ..... naturally, my one in the next open challenge does (though so minor I am not worried) *laugh*

Jason

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/22/2003 04:01:28 AM · #3

50/50

I like the pictures that the others are doing with the new rules. Myself, I can't do a lot with Photoshop yet ... so not a fan of it.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/22/2003 04:09:10 AM · #4

Originally posted by faidoi:

I notice some very clean images

The main issue I see with editing is that it's impossible to tell the difference between someone who, for instance, has taken a top-quality, beautifully lit studio shot, and someone who has taken a mediocre shot, then Photoshopped it massively. I've seen a comment where a shot had been marked down because someone thought they were overly PS'd - on a non-PSd image!! That strikes me a huge disadvantage of the new editing rules.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the new rules promote bad camera skills, with the thought of 'I can fix it in PS later'.

sonnyh

Canon EOS-7D

12/22/2003 07:22:38 AM · #5

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by faidoi:
I notice some very clean images

The main issue I see with editing is that it's impossible to tell the difference between someone who, for instance, has taken a top-quality, beautifully lit studio shot, and someone who has taken a mediocre shot, then Photoshopped it massively. I've seen a comment where a shot had been marked down because someone thought they were overly PS'd - on a non-PSd image!! That strikes me a huge disadvantage of the new editing rules.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the new rules promote bad camera skills, with the thought of 'I can fix it in PS later'.

I totally agree!

oskar

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

12/22/2003 07:47:48 AM · #6

I second (hmm third ) that !

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/22/2003 08:20:22 AM · #7

I'm with you guys. I want to know how to use more advanced PS techniques, but don't think that it's really a NECESSITY in this forum (DPC) in the challenges. Will I use it if it's there? Yes, to stay competitive, but I liked it when I had to concentrate more on the shot itself and not will I PS it perfectly...

OK now everytime I get into this discussion, someone calls me a name...

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/22/2003 09:49:27 AM · #8

would you rather be called by your description
or maybe just a symbol - like that guy who used to be prince? ;}

Originally posted by TooCool:

OK now everytime I get into this discussion, someone calls me a name...

personally i dont think the new rules are ruining good photos, and you can't take shotty photo and make it great on the PC - you have to start with something good. however some really good photos have minor flaws which now you are able to fix...

i like the new rules, but yet didnt use them for the water challenge.
i did take slight advantage for the macro challenge - only minor spot fixes...

Crafty Sue

Sony DSC-F717

12/22/2003 10:33:57 AM · #9

The December rules are helping me to learn more about using Photoshop Elements. Not that I've used them that much for submissions because I haven't learned to use them that much but little things can make a big difference.For the record since this is a digital photography challenge
I think that from time to time all kinds of digital photography should be allowed.

12/22/2003 12:39:06 PM · #10

Originally posted by Crafty Sue:

There are plenty of sites/books/etc that teach you about using Photoshop. I think finding vibrant, active sites for photography is much harder. :-(

spectre013

Canon EOS-D60

12/22/2003 12:43:02 PM · #11

I have not used too much photoshop in any of my photo's, but there is only so much photoshop can help when your lighting challenged like me :)

12/22/2003 12:47:12 PM · #12

The whole point of the rules was to improve you images, not help you learn photoshop. Spot editing a dust spot with the clone tool isn't rocket science. Anybody can do it.

I always find it funny that people think they can turn a bad image into a great one with photosop...

...it's just like the darkroom. If your negative sucks, you can only do so much for the print. No matter how good you are!

12/22/2003 12:59:34 PM · #13

Originally posted by MeThoS:

The whole point of the rules was to improve you images, not help you learn photoshop. Spot editing a dust spot with the clone tool isn't rocket science. Anybody can do it.

But the editing isn't limited to spot editing. From several comments I've read it's becoming the norm for people to mark a shot down for looking edited, whether it is or not. This can't possibly be a good thing. Basically you're degrading your opinion of someone's photographic skills by chalking it up as PS editing.

12/22/2003 01:14:24 PM · #14

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
The whole point of the rules was to improve you images, not help you learn photoshop. Spot editing a dust spot with the clone tool isn't rocket science. Anybody can do it.

But the editing isn't limited to spot editing. From several comments I've read it's becoming the norm for people to mark a shot down for looking edited, whether it is or not. This can't possibly be a good thing. Basically you're degrading your opinion of someone's photographic skills by chalking it up as PS editing.

So are you saying to change the rules back to take care of ignorant voters? I left a comment on one in the macro challenge stating that the composition and idea where great, but it was photoshopped poorly. There was a black fill that was obviously done. The only reason I left the comment was to let the person know, that the shot would of been better with less photoshop.

It's like anything else. It's new, so people are going to see how far they can push it. The happy medium will be found. But maybe this should just remain a point and shoot challenge with some of the mentality around here...

12/22/2003 01:25:35 PM · #15

Originally posted by MeThoS:

The rules should reflect what the challenges and voting are about, which to ME is photography alone. But that is only me.

Originally posted by MeThoS:

It's like anything else. It's new, so people are going to see how far they can push it. The happy medium will be found. But maybe this should just remain a point and shoot challenge with some of the mentality around here...

My problem isn't with the submissions, it's that the line between photographic skill and PS skill have been blurred in voting.

Let's take two shots:

(1) Hardly any editing, perfectly lit background
(2) Medium amount of editing to correct a poorly lit/exposed shot

Which deserves to be better on DPC? My point is, in a lot of cases, you can't tell the difference.

I've said before on DPC that it doesn't seem worth arguing against the status quo, so I'll shut up now. :-)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/22/2003 01:59:37 PM · #16

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
So are you saying to change the rules back to take care of ignorant voters? I left a comment on one in the macro challenge stating that the composition and idea where great, but it was photoshopped poorly. There was a black fill that was obviously done. The only reason I left the comment was to let the person know, that the shot would of been better with less photoshop.

The rules should reflect what the challenges and voting are about, which to ME is photography alone. But that is only me.

Originally posted by MeThoS:
It's like anything else. It's new, so people are going to see how far they can push it. The happy medium will be found. But maybe this should just remain a point and shoot challenge with some of the mentality around here...

My problem isn't with the submissions, it's that the line between photographic skill and PS skill have been blurred in voting.

Let's take two shots:

(1) Hardly any editing, perfectly lit background
(2) Medium amount of editing to correct a poorly lit/exposed shot

Which deserves to be better on DPC? My point is, in a lot of cases, you can't tell the difference.

I've said before on DPC that it doesn't seem worth arguing against the status quo, so I'll shut up now. :-)

What's the point of shooting digital then? Just shoot chrome, then what you get is what you see. ;D

Shooting digital images with out using the digital darkroom doesn't make sense to me. But hey, what do I know...

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

12/22/2003 03:40:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Used to think the other way, but as of late have changed my mind. I suppose this sums it up best for me.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

12/22/2003 03:53:01 PM · #18

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

That's all perfectly ok for studio shots where you have perfect control over lighting, background, content, composition and where you can try and try again until it is exactly right. But that cancels out all non-studio photography unless you are extremely skilled and have hours of time to prep your shooting environment by cleaning, setting up reflectors, slave flashes, etc etc.
Many landscape shots at the right hour for example have too extreme contrasts (when captured on the ccd/cmos, not for the eye) and need shadow correction. Wildlife and action photograpy don't let you control the situation that much either and it is easy to forget that one tiny detail or you can't wait for the background to be ferfect or or or etc.
Tell me, how do you both capture the shadow side of an object against a bright sky?

Example:

This photo had the shadow side of the windmills brightened (using a shadow selection mask on a layer in screen mode), the shadows were very dark (almost no detail), but the advantage of that exposure was saving the details of the clouds. It couldn't be corrected with just curves or levels.
I also took out a trashcan that could not be hidden by choosing another composition but was very much in the way (because it was a too modern item for this scene).

What were my non-spot-editing options?
a) accept either liveless dark shadows or a dull bright sky with blown out clouds
b) set up some remote triggered flashes to fill the shadows. I shot this with a 350mm focal length from almost 200m distance or more, so that wouldn't be slave flashes but more expensive radio remote ones. I don't have those.
c) Take some 500W lamps with me, but where could I hide them, how to avoid the reflections and where to get the power?
d) take some tools with me and physically remove the thrashcan. Well, that would not have been allowed, perhaps it would if I had an assignment from "Windmills Magazine" or something like that. Not an option here. Another composition to avoid the trashcan was not an option.

That's just an example, but it applies to a lot of outdoor photography. This shot could not be used in the challenge at that time. I would have preffered it over my actual entry.

I know another one as well. If you're shooting in bright light with a prosumer small ccd camera but want to use the blurred out effect of a wide aperture (F2.8-F4) and can't get below ISO100 or your shutter faster then 1/1000 you have a problem.

This is F2.8, ISO160, 1/5000s (!!!). Now this may not be such a great composition, but I had to do with these conditions (bright summer sun) cause my time was limited. Fortunately I can use 1/5000s in manual or even 1 stop faster: 1/10.000s to be able to shoot with F2.8.
If you can't use those shutters you will need to stop the lens down (at 1/1000s that would mean F5.6 =2 stops down-) but that means that you loose the blur effect. It can be brought back in PS by selective adding of a blur.
(note that the balls are still slightly overexposed. I have one with better ball exposure at 1/10.000s but the shadows become a bit too shadowy and I could not bring those back properly because of the rules)

Message edited by author 2003-12-22 16:02:03.

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/22/2003 04:03:13 PM · #19

I think that what worries me most about the December rules is that people may think that unusual elements are manipulations. For example, my Halloween entry is of a ghost pumpkin, so-called because it's skin is white instead of the usual orange. But I suspect some people thought I changed the color to be more ghost-like. Some of my favorite DPChallenge photos have the appearance of a painting, and I'd hate to see them scored lower just because some voters consider them to have a low "photographic integrity".

For the Water and Macro challenges, I've appreciated the chance to remove some distracting bright spots and background elements. For Macro, I did a bit of dodging to lighten some dark areas, but as has been stated, there is only so much you can do in a darkroom (digital or otherwise) to correct poor lighting or exposure.

12/22/2003 04:08:07 PM · #20

I'll repost these as an example of retouching within the december rules...

This one is within the rules with minor retouching

glimpses

Sony DSC-F707

12/22/2003 04:12:23 PM · #21

Let's try to be seriously provocative here..

Introducing digital editing gives more power to the photographer and, therefore, it is a shame to do not be able to see a sensible improvement comparing the top pictures of this challenge and those of the previous challenges.

Nice/Good shots but not among the best of those who I have seen winning on this site.

One possible explanation is that by not allowing editing, people just has lost the chance to learn how to do it, therefore it's no surprise that the outcome is not the one that logically it should be.

sn4psh07

Canon EOS-10D

12/22/2003 04:25:23 PM · #22

well I've already said before that on occasion I think that the original rule set already gave the photographer too much editing power.

With that in mind I really disagree with the new rules. It's definitely true that you need a good image in the first place, but with any fairly modern digital camera almost any clown can take a good picture. The question is how much do we make this a site for how well you Photoshop a picture, or how good are your photographic skills?

I am not great at Photoshop, nor am I fantastic at photography -- I can however see that a moderately good photographer with very good Photoshop skills should on the technical aspect be able to win almost any challenge. At that point it is simply down to meeting the challenge in an obvious way. This to me makes it too much of a editing challenge site rather than a photography challenge site.

If you have dust on your sensor, then clean it. You really do not need Photoshop to be able to edit out dust. Also if you can't clean your own camera, or you can't look after it then get someone who can to do it for you. I really do not see that we need to be able to spot edit any of our pictures, nor that we should be able to do as much as the new rules set allows.

There must be either a medium in between or preferably to me the original rule set that we can go back to.

Just my thoughts, but I really do not like the new rule set.

glimpses

Sony DSC-F707

12/22/2003 04:37:09 PM · #23

Originally posted by sn4psh07:

well I've already said before that on occasion I think that the original rule set already gave the photographer too much editing power.......

Your logic is precise but ultimately ends into this one: keep the Photoshop masters out of this site.

Why? Because you assume (and you could be right or not - I do not enter the point) that those masters would easily win against photographers.

Now, I am just guessing what a real photographer would think about it.

12/22/2003 04:41:56 PM · #24

Originally posted by sn4psh07:

You really do not need Photoshop to be able to edit out dust. Also if you can't clean your own camera, or you can't look after it then get someone who can to do it for you.

You've obviously never had a digital SLR. Mine is top of the line and has one of the worst dust problems ever. And yes, I know how to clean, but the little buggers never get all out! ;D

All the shots I posted above where medium format film scanned in. The original chrome of the beach looked a lot better. It wasn't the best scan ( I was busy so I had one of my designers do it). But it shows what can be done to enhance a photo.

What I see is a bunch of people who are afraid to grow and think they will be left in the dust if they don't photoshop there images as well as others. Life isn't fair. Some people are naturally more talented than others, but how are you going to learn if every competitor is at the same skill level?

People take this site WAY to seriously...