| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2003 04:47:23 PM · #26 |
I like the new option for December, and hope it stays.
I feel that no amount of Photoshop use can elevate a bad photo to one worthy of a ribbon |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 04:56:34 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by JC_Homola:
I feel that no amount of Photoshop use can elevate a bad photo to one worthy of a ribbon |
Which is a more worthy ribbon winner, a shot straight out of the camera, or one that's been edited? Personally I value photographic skills above PS skills.
As I see it (as someone who's not bad at PS himself), PSing can replace some photographic skill, which doesn't promote improving one's photographic skills.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:04:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by JC_Homola:
I feel that no amount of Photoshop use can elevate a bad photo to one worthy of a ribbon |
Which is a more worthy ribbon winner, a shot straight out of the camera, or one that's been edited? Personally I value photographic skills above PS skills.
As I see it (as someone who's not bad at PS himself), PSing can replace some photographic skill, which doesn't promote improving one's photographic skills. |
Why do you shoot digital again? ;D |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:13:24 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why do you shoot digital again? ;D |
I'm not saying "Don't use PS you heathens!". No seriously, I'm not... ;-)
I use PS a fair bit (I've done some pro graphic design work) for shots outside DPC. It's just that I really like DPC because it's about photography, not how well I use PS. DPC has been immensely successful with the old rules..
As has been mentioned, there are plenty of sites about PS work. Let's keep DPC about photography. Don't know about anyone else, but nothing gives me more satisfaction than taking a shot that needs hardly any (if any) editing.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:16:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why do you shoot digital again? ;D |
I'm not saying "Don't use PS you heathens!". No seriously, I'm not... ;-)
I use PS a fair bit (I've done some pro graphic design work) for shots outside DPC. It's just that I really like DPC because it's about photography, not how well I use PS. DPC has been immensely successful with the old rules..
As has been mentioned, there are plenty of sites about PS work. Let's keep DPC about photography. Don't know about anyone else, but nothing gives me more satisfaction than taking a shot that needs hardly any (if any) editing. |
SO the darkroom isn't a about (or a part of) photography? |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:19:24 PM · #31 |
My macro shot has very little photoshop work in it. I try to take the best image I can with my camera. In fact I pride myself on doing the best I can that way.
My highest rated images have the least PS work.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:22:29 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
SO the darkroom isn't a about (or a part of) photography? |
I have no personal experience using a darkroom, but I would consider it a secondary part of photography. As someone has said, a darkroom won't help with a poor shot.
I think PS can do a little more than a darkroom though..
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:29:02 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
SO the darkroom isn't a about (or a part of) photography? |
I have no personal experience using a darkroom, but I would consider it a secondary part of photography. As someone has said, a darkroom won't help with a poor shot.
I think PS can do a little more than a darkroom though.. |
Experience in the darkroom, improves your photography. Just like photoshop improves digital photography. I've shot chrome a lot, most of my images in my portfolio are scanned chromes with no retouching.
Very little viewer's care about how you achieved the final print, it's the finished product that matter's. |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:41:42 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Experience in the darkroom, improves your photography. Just like photoshop improves digital photography. I've shot chrome a lot, most of my images in my portfolio are scanned chromes with no retouching. |
How do you mean improves my photography? I can see how it improves my results, but in terms of me pointing and shooting all I think PS/a darkroom can do is make me more sloppy!
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Very little viewer's care about how you achieved the final print, it's the finished product that matter's. |
I see DPC as more than just about the final results, but about the process they were achieved. Can you honestly say a perfect out of the camera shot is equal to a poorer shot that has been edited?
All I see happening is more and more people thinking 'ah, that's just been nicely edited; probably crap out of the camera'. That seems to disadvantage those who are genuinely excellent photographers.
EDIT: You've got some excellent portfolio shots, btw.
Message edited by author 2003-12-22 17:42:42.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:52:47 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Experience in the darkroom, improves your photography. Just like photoshop improves digital photography. I've shot chrome a lot, most of my images in my portfolio are scanned chromes with no retouching.
Very little viewer's care about how you achieved the final print, it's the finished product that matter's. |
I would agree entirely. When I have an image I'm working on in my darkroom (Photoshop in this case) I see many things I could have improved upon when I took the shot.
And, if I am shooting in the studio, I can go back and reshoot. I much prefer an image that is correct out of the camera than one I need to correct.
But when shooting in the field that is not always possible. So I need to do some work in the "dark room". In a traditional dark room Most if not all image require some sort of work to perfect them.
I don't know any professional photographers that just turn the film over to a lab & have them print them straight from the negative.
Taking an image straight out a digital camera and just cropping is basically the same thing.
Photoshop (or similar programs) is the new dark room. Any photographer that wants to produce the best product will use any and all tools at their disposal.
By doing so they are not diminishing their worth as a photographer.
They are only making the best use of all the tools available to produce an excellent product. |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 05:55:54 PM · #36 |
So where do we draw the line? It's perfectly reasonable and expected to crop, adjust levels, brightness and contrast, desaturate, sharpen, maybe even duo/tri/quadtone images- somehow these are considered "normal" amounts of editing, but spot editing and many other options available to us are too much? Yes, the line between photography and digital art is blurring. Of course that is going to happen with new technology. Whether that's good or bad is up to each individual. DPC seems to have chosen a fence straddling position. If they wanted it to be a strictly photography site, the only editing allowed would be only what would be available in a darkroom. But the fact that we have digital cameras and PS means we aren't chained to that darkroom.
As an example, if a professional film shooter takes a photo of someone with a bad complexion, it is possible to retouch that photo to give them "better skin"- essentially, spot editing. If a digital shooter takes a photo of someone who is overweight and that shooter has the capability to slim them down in PS- if that's what the client wants, why in the world shouldn't they be able to do that? It doesn't mean the original photo wasn't well composed, sharp, or compelling, it just means that it could be made better. We aren't doing photojournalism here- if there is a way to make a photo more pleasing, why not do it?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 06:00:52 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Experience in the darkroom, improves your photography. Just like photoshop improves digital photography. I've shot chrome a lot, most of my images in my portfolio are scanned chromes with no retouching. |
How do you mean improves my photography? I can see how it improves my results, but in terms of me pointing and shooting all I think PS/a darkroom can do is make me more sloppy!
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Very little viewer's care about how you achieved the final print, it's the finished product that matter's. |
I see DPC as more than just about the final results, but about the process they were achieved. Can you honestly say a perfect out of the camera shot is equal to a poorer shot that has been edited?
All I see happening is more and more people thinking 'ah, that's just been nicely edited; probably crap out of the camera'. That seems to disadvantage those who are genuinely excellent photographers.
EDIT: You've got some excellent portfolio shots, btw. |
Thanks for the compliments.
Why don't you try and tape over the preview screen, and see how your photographic skills improve. ;D |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 06:08:06 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why don't you try and tape over the preview screen, and see how your photographic skills improve. ;D |
Is that like using "the force"? :-D
Nikon is the 'dark side'..
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 06:09:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why don't you try and tape over the preview screen, and see how your photographic skills improve. ;D |
Is that like using "the force"? :-D
Nikon is the 'dark side'.. |
It's like shooting chrome. You won't know if you go the shot until your home. ;D |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 06:16:01 PM · #40 |
all this back and forth about digital editing is tiresome.
have any of you anti-relaxed rules folks ever been in a darkroom?
do you think that film is a WYSIWYG type of situation. well it isnt.
if you dont believe me - pick up a darkroom handbook
or read up online. you need a whole skill set to use a dark room.
is that not part of the production process of a photograph? or do film photographers snap away rolls of film and say - well lets bring the film to wallmart and see how my pictures came out.... unlikely
also - any clown can take a picture, and it might come out good.
a photographer with skill can make it come out right most of the time.
and then tune the image a bit after the fact.
sure there are over the edge effects you can use, but i think you'd see it as obvious as over exposure. there are folks who dont know how to use the editing apps, and again you can tell. practice the digital darkroom techniques, and your prints will be better. and thats half of what this site is about.
i'll enter challenges with any rules, but like the full blown options the DEC rules allow.
lastly - who here would prefer to pay money for a print that had dust and hair fragments in it over a touched up version that is clean?
what's worth more to you?
i think i know the answer, and i think you do as well...
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 06:49:33 PM · #41 |
So, back to this cover the preview screen subject.
Ever tried it? That would let you shoot like a film camera... |
|
|
|
12/22/2003 07:27:15 PM · #42 |
man i dont always see that page 2 button - err
i was out of context again - sorry
oh well
i normally just bracket shots, and maybe check a couple key ones if motion is involved - as far a viewfinders go.
wait till i get home to look at them -
still quicker than rolling film into a canister, and shaking it for an hour, and rinsing it for 30min, and drying it overnight, and cutting the negatives into strips, and printing a contact sheet, developing that, and then exposure strips, and then a couple enlargements of shots developed, and rinsed well.
and hung to dry... ;}
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 07:45:16 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by soup:
lastly - who here would prefer to pay money for a print that had dust and hair fragments in it over a touched up version that is clean?
what's worth more to you?
i think i know the answer, and i think you do as well... |
Don't forget that the old rules only ever applied to challenges. You have always been able to touch up evan a challenge entry shot for selling on DPC Prints.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 07:50:33 PM · #44 |
right, but its an oxymoron to have the site that particular way.
and involves both keeping track of, and editing different version of the same shot.
Originally posted by Natator:
Don't forget that the old rules only ever applied to challenges. You have always been able to touch up evan a challenge entry shot for selling on DPC Prints. |
BTW - i take free liberty to explore all i can find as far as modifying a photo goes, how could anyone be artistic folowing some one elses rules?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2003 07:53:59 PM · #45 |
learning something is a different story, and that's the other half of this site, and my point in the earlier post was that the digital editing skills are as important as darkroom skills to a film photographer.
so opening the the DEC rules offers the opportunity to learn the back end aspect of digital photography. where is the majority of a film photographers time spent?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2003 04:36:14 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
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. |
If that were what I said then I would agree, but it is not. What I said was that the original rule set was better than what we have at the moment. That does not mean that I do not think that people should be allowed to use Photoshop, or that people who can use Photoshop should not be allowed to use the site.
I truly have reservations about how much you can do with a moderately high-quality shot with Photoshop. And I also believe that anyone who can use Photoshop particularly well will realise I am actually correct.
Originally posted by MeThoS:
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
People take this site WAY to seriously... |
Actually if you check my profile you'll find that I actually use a 10D and I believe that even though you may be using the most expensive and best digital SLR around that even that camera qualifies as an SLR. I am also aware of dust problems, I am also however aware that if you take your camera and hold it for a portrait then you can get 2 images out of your camera one above the other that are of the same quality as my camera can do on its own.
As for taking this site too seriously, actually I do not. I simply do not appreciate that most people on this site seem unaware of what Photoshop can actually do for a picture -- they therefore assume that the new rule set is somehow wonderful and fantastic and will promote good photography. I really cannot see this happening, and am starting to wonder why I paid for a full year subscription if that is the direction the site is going in. I actually joined this site to learn about photography, not Photoshop. I can learn about that quite easily from the book, and I already know plenty about it.
If you want to know how seriously I take this site, then have a look at my macro entry for this current challenge. When the challenges over, find my entry and look at the top left corner of the picture -- tell me if you notice anything. If you do not private message me and I'll point out that there is an obvious flaw in my picture because I'm too lazy to edit it properly just for this site.
When I take a picture for myself I will edit it properly, but my editing will not teach me about photography. That was one of the main reasons I came here -- shame that now all I can do is displayed my photoshopping skills, and I'm too lazy to do so. |
|
|
|
12/23/2003 05:24:14 PM · #47 |
The 10d doesn't have a dust problem compared to the 1Ds. I can't understand why there is this problem. It wasn't on the D30 or the D60...It's horrible.
We have to agree to disagree on the others, but If you can pick up a book to learn about photoshop. Then why can't you do that with photography?
I thought this was a competition site, hence the name, but maybe it's really called www.dpschool.com. ;D
just kiddin'. |
|
|
|
12/23/2003 06:55:30 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
12/23/2003 07:39:41 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Have the lifting of some of the rules in the members' challenge helped or not? I notice some very clean images , some overprocessed, and some that needed some work. Any thoughts? |
No. I like the rules being relaxed, but no, I have not taken advantage of it at all. Of the three shots I have submitted or am about to submit all have undergone very minimal and conservative editing: two shots have been sharpened and resized only, one underwent an additional level adjustment.
As usual, I did all my editing in Graphic Converter, none in Photoshop.
Yet I welcome the idea of competing with photos which have gone through the works. |
|
|
|
12/23/2003 09:26:39 PM · #50 |
This is digital photography. It involves, because it is so perfectly suited and entirely designed for, both setup skill and editing skill.
But, like the old expression says, garbage in, garbage out.
If you take a "bad" photograph, there isn't much you can do to make it a "good" photograph. You can make it more interesting to look at than it already is, but at the cost of some or all of its photo-realistic qualities. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure this site will always hold photo-realism up as the highest, most edifying, most valued element of "good" photography, so we don't have to worry about "interesting" images taking the place of "good" photography around here.
The thing about digital photography is that it just isn't film. So much of what makes the photo actually takes place in the camera - things like exposure, white balance, tint, contrast. The camera actually generates these qualities in the image based on the settings you choose in your camera. If you shoot in jpeg, these settings become set in stone the moment you release the shutter, leaving editing, direct pixel manipulation, as your only option for changing the appearance of the image. But if you shoot in RAW mode, these elements you chose prior to pressing down and releasing the shutter button are merely placeholders - you don't have to keep them if you don't like. With a proper RAW image editor like Photoshop CS, you can unlock and change these settings, as though you were back in the place where you took that shot and you could shoot it again and again under the same conditions but using different white balance and exposure settings. Once you exit the RAW mode and enter the image into Photoshop, then you are comitted to manipulating pixels, but until that moment, you are simply retaking the photo with different settings until you find the ones that work the best.
So what's the difference between doing this at the moment you take the picture or later that day?
Maybe setting white balance is just as bad at the time you take the photo as it is to change that setting later. Maybe things like white balance and exposure settings should be banned as well to make things fair and more "true" to photography. Maybe we should just light our subject, point our cameras, focus and take the shot - its all about lighting and composition afterall.
Well of course it isn't. Its as much about the buttons we press and the dials we turn on our camera as it is about the light we cast and and subjects we place in front of it. If you're no good at using ligting, yet you insist on doing so, chances are you won't take a very good photo. If you're no good at pressing those buttons and turning those dials, yet you insist on doing so, chances are you won't take a very good photo (save for using the automatic setting, though this usually lands in the mediochre range of images produced). If you're no good at using Photoshop to edit photographs, yet you insist on doing so, chances are you're only going to make your photo worse than it already is.
The beauty thing here is, if you insist on continuing to do the things you're not very good at, chances are you will eventually get better at them. Better lighters equals better photographs produced by the photographer. Better camera operators equals better photographs produced by the photographer. Better Photoshopers equals better photographs produced by the photographer.
Its high time this site recognised that if it wants to be a DIGITAL photography challenge then it needs to incorporate all that makes digital photography what it is, and what makes digital photographers produce the best possible photographs.
Message edited by author 2003-12-23 21:27:07.
|
|
