| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2004 10:00:26 AM · #51 |
two things:
1) i think you missed my point in the first instance. my point was that, under the old rules, people would say 'this looks too (choose your word) 'fake, artificial, processed, ps'd, etc', and would vote a picture down. but it was ok for some reason, then. whatever reason a person didn't like a picture, they were 'allowed' to go with it. maybe the picture looked processed when it had been achieved with some other means, but even then, the person, thinking it looked processed, was free to give their two cents (and whatever vote they deemed reasonable).
2) now that we have less restrictive rules, there's a photoshop witch hunt underway. But it's still the same as before. People are still saying that they don't like something that looks like it was created with heavy handed image editing, EVEN IF it was created with other means. Yes, they're guessing about the process, but if they don't like the end result, who is to say that the vote they give isn't valid?
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
the rules before also let you mangle up a photo pretty darn good. yet no one minded then when someone voting would say 'too ps'd'. or 'too much digital art'.. |
Yeah, mangle is the right word. With the old rules you had to reach for extremes to achieve the "(over-)edited look". Just because no one said anything about PS-type comments, doesn't mean no one minded. Really.
Anyway, I certainly don't think it's about the editing rules per se nor about a change in aesthetic values. However, it has been made quite clear that, had the voter known the images were not photoshopped, they would have voted differently.
This hasn't happened in the past (old rules say) because the more restrictive (albeit too restrictive) editing rules also placed restrictions on the voters. With open editing comes a more open, interpretive voting process. Again, to me, this is a non-issue, but the "integrity" clause is a lame crutch, more so with less restrictions on editing.
Determining "integrity" is akin to measuring intent. Apart from magic, opening up the comment field or allowing actual conversation during voting both provide an opportunity for the photographer to convey intent and bring their integrity up for measure. If the image is to speak for itself, then voters ought to simply accept that it is a photograph first. Whether the voter likes the result is the only matter of importance. As for the process, it's simply speculation (during voting). |
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 10:08:44.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:00:41 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
To which, I'd ask again - why's that ? What does the process have to do with the final image ? Do I care if someone braved rapids, climbed mountains and crawled on their hands and knees to make an average picture of a small plant ? Does the amount of effort that went in to it change what the final image looks like ? Why is the editing any different ? Aren't we voting on the final image ? |
Crawling on one's knees to get a shot is not what I meant by "camera skills". Think of this situation- two guys are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, both have a 300D with the same lens, both take a shot for a dpc challenge. When they go home and upload to their computers, the first guy is very pleased with his shot and only resizes it before submitting it; the second guy thinks his shot has potential but needs editing so he spends an hour fine tuning it. They both receive a score of 6.500 when voting is final. The first guy has, on this occasion at least, displayed better camera skills.
I think people tend to put a higher value on the things they find more difficult to do.
Now you say it doesn't matter because the voters didn't know which guy has spent the extra hour editing to come up with the equally attractive photo. But I say it does matter to alot of peolpe here, and that's why there are so many "too much PS" comments when voters can detect some editing, and such a fuss about those type of comments, and so much more curiosity about what methods the ribbon winners used. If the voters knew how much editing each entry underwent many would probably vote low on more images. Note from another current thread (The Truth About Advertising) how much surprise and indignation there is when people learn about the extensive editing that goes into commercial photgraphy. When they find out that an image has been changed people feel deceived.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:04:27 AM · #53 |
I think that's because most people are under the misguided notion that the camera never lies.
Personally I find it more difficult to do things well in photoshop than I find it to do them well with a camera. Does that mean I should place higher value on good photoshop editing ?
I suspect some day when I am good at both I'd be in a position to judge which has more value - but I know right now I'm a whole lot better at photographic capture than I am at photographic finishing. Ever learning...
Also - in your grand canyon example, my personal opinion is that while one of them may have displayed better camera skills, the other displayed better photographic finishing skills, and as a result their final image was equally good (from your voting score hypothesis)
Thus, I'd say one was better at photographic capture, the other better at photographic finishing and as a result they were both equally good photographers.
But this comes to the crux of the issue. I believe photography is an art and a craft that extends to the final image. (print/ web whatever)
It is obvious that you are more inclined to believe that photography ends after the shutter is clicked.
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 10:08:31.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:07:31 AM · #54 |
with all due respect harvey, that makes absolutely no sense :). If the guys put exactly the same amount of camera effort into it, then it is the same degree of 'camera skills'. But one guy ALSO had some photoshop skills........
Originally posted by coolhar:
Think of this situation- two guys are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, both have a 300D with the same lens, both take a shot for a dpc challenge. When they go home and upload to their computers, the first guy is very pleased with his shot and only resizes it before submitting it; the second guy thinks his shot has potential but needs editing so he spends an hour fine tuning it. They both receive a score of 6.500 when voting is final. The first guy has, on this occasion at least, displayed better camera skills. |
And, about that, I think that not everyone feels that way. In fact, I don't personally know anyone who cares about the manipulation of images for advertising. It's a free country and people vary. :)
Originally posted by coolhar:
Note from another current thread (The Truth About Advertising) how much surprise and indignation there is when people learn about the extensive editing that goes into commercial photgraphy. When they find out that an image has been changed people feel deceived. |
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 10:09:18.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:11:41 AM · #55 |
| Maybe we could get a rough measure of who has the better editing skills by watching to see who starts winning more ribbons under the new rules than they did under the old ones. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:17:33 AM · #56 |
ok :).
Originally posted by coolhar:
Maybe we could get a rough measure of who has the better editing skills by watching to see who starts winning more ribbons under the new rules than they did under the old ones. |
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:20:00 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
If the guys put exactly the same amount of camera effort into it, then it is the same degree of 'camera skills'. But one guy ALSO had some photoshop skills........ |
Effort is not the same as skill. If you can achieve with your camera alone what it takes me an hour of tweaking to accomplish, then you have more skill with the cam.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:21:41 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
If the guys put exactly the same amount of camera effort into it, then it is the same degree of 'camera skills'. But one guy ALSO had some photoshop skills........ |
Effort is not the same as skill. If you can achieve with your camera alone what it takes me an hour of tweaking to accomplish, then you have more skill with the cam. |
... and the other person has more skills with photoshop. Like I think I said about 3 posts back, I still think that's photography. You obviously feel that photography ends with the click of the shutter. The weight of photographic history seems to largely disagree with your view.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:28:51 AM · #59 |
The first guy may have equal or greater editing skill but he didn't need to use it this time. Both clicking and tweaking are within photography. However I think the conventional wisdom, both here at dpc and at large, recognizes that it is more desirable to take a photo that doesn't need a lot of tweaking.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:29:59 AM · #60 |
| Okay. What if I took an excellent shot of, say... a bridge. However, this bridge happened to have some barbed wire running across it that there was no way I could remove physically. Say I wasn't happy with the photo as it stood. If then took the time to clone out said barbed wire and make the shot excellent in my own mind.. would I be less of a photographer and more of a photoshop guru? |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:32:50 AM · #61 |
One comment I expected to see next to my self-portrait:
'It looks too much like a photograph."
;) |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:34:35 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The first guy may have equal or greater editing skill but he didn't need to use it this time. Both clicking and tweaking are within photography. However I think the conventional wisdom, both here at dpc and at large, recognizes that it is more desirable to take a photo that doesn't need a lot of tweaking. |
Many of the most well regarded and frequently taught approaches to photography pretty much disagree with that assertion.
The Zone System would be one good example to consider.
Or the newer digital 'expose to the right' approaches.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:34:56 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by mbardeen:
Okay. What if I took an excellent shot of, say... a bridge. However, this bridge happened to have some barbed wire running across it that there was no way I could remove physically. Say I wasn't happy with the photo as it stood. If then took the time to clone out said barbed wire and make the shot excellent in my own mind.. would I be less of a photographer and more of a photoshop guru? |
I think I'll go with the weight of photographic history and say you are more of a photographer.
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 10:40:55. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:35:16 AM · #64 |
I like what Ben Horne has to say in this article on exposure. It sort of touches on the whole integrity issue: //www.fredmiranda.com/A16/
Not sure, but you may need to login to Fred Miranda to read the article.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:36:58 AM · #65 |
| And there are people who don't believe in global warming. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:50:35 AM · #66 |
I'm just going to comment on the images and leave the PS infractions to the SC. In this case, it's the end product that is important to me, not the process.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:01:55 AM · #67 |
Coolhar
Think of this situation - three chaps are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, two of them have a Nikon D100 and the other a film Nikon F100 - all with the same lens, the all take a shot for a DPC challenge.
When they go home and upload to their computers, the first guy is very pleased with his shot and only resizes it before submitting it; the second guy thinks his shot has potential but needs editing so he spends an hour fine tuning it via PS
The third guy knew from the start how he wanted the image to look (he had vision), but alas, the conditions were not right so he went into his darkroom and during his main printing exposure he held back the shadowed cliff on the right edge of the photo for a 2 seconds. And on the right hand corner there are some trees, so he held that area off also for 2 seconds. After the basic exposure, he burns the bottom edge for a second and the lower left corner for 3 seconds. Then burns the left edge of the whole print for 2 seconds and the right for another 2. In each case - titling the card to favour the sky.
Then burning is required from the base of the middle to the top of the image with 3 up-and-down passages of 3 seconds. Then the sky is burnt again for 10 seconds continuing with 2 & 4 seconds at the upper left corner. Then using a hole 1 inch wide, he burns the central area for 10 seconds then brings the hole closer and burns another 10 seconds.
Then he prints his image - edits out the dust spots by using dyes and a fine brush, scans it in and submits to DPC.
They all receive a score of 6.500 when voting is final.
Which guy has the best camera skills now?
"I think people tend to put a higher value on the things they find more difficult to do."
If that were the case, number 3 should have won no?
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 11:09:06.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:05:25 AM · #68 |
By the way - guy 3's approach was taken from 'The Print' by Ansel Adams, a man who (in my opinion) made the most of his images by using every single editing tool avaliable to him.
Does he have no photographic integrity?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:17:17 AM · #69 |
I really can't relate to that very well jonpink. My film time is far behind me and I'm glad of it. Maybe this will make my point easier to understand- of the three the one I would aspire to emulate is guy one. If I could get a shot equal to that of the editing guru and the wet darkroom master straight out of my digicam I would demand to be treated equally; and, to myself, I would consider my skill as a photographer superior.
Does that make me have less integrity in your eyes? |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:18:41 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I really can't relate to that very well jonpink. My film time is far behind me and I'm glad of it. Maybe this will make my point easier to understand- of the three the one I would aspire to emulate is guy one. If I could get a shot equal to that of the editing guru and the wet darkroom master straight out of my digicam I would demand to be treated equally; and, to myself, I would consider my skill as a photographer superior.
Does that make me have less integrity in your eyes? |
dunno, but it would mean you were more concerned with luck than with technique. more power to your shutter finger if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:22:53 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I really can't relate to that very well jonpink. My film time is far behind me and I'm glad of it. Maybe this will make my point easier to understand- of the three the one I would aspire to emulate is guy one. If I could get a shot equal to that of the editing guru and the wet darkroom master straight out of my digicam I would demand to be treated equally; and, to myself, I would consider my skill as a photographer superior.
Does that make me have less integrity in your eyes? |
Sorry Coolhar - think wires have been crossed.
I didn't write the above thinking in your hypothetical situation that all 3 images came out the same. (just that the scores were the same)
Even if they did, all 3 simply have different ways of doing the same thing.
So to pose the question again - would you say Mr. Adams has no photographic integrity? Or that he is less superior to ther snappers that don't bother editing?
What if chap 1 scored 6.5 chap 2 scored 6.8 and chap 3 scored 8?
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 11:25:06.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:24:08 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
dunno, but it would mean you were more concerned with luck than with technique. more power to your shutter finger if you ask me. |
What if guy one finished equal to, or higher than, the guru and Ansel for ten straight dpc challenges (of all types, basic advanced or speed) in a row?
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 11:33:15. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:24:48 AM · #73 |
Or does this photographer have more integrity in that context ?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:25:22 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
What if guy one finished equal to, or higher than, the guru and Ansel for ten straight dpc challenges (of all types, basic advanced or speed) in a row? |
Then his pictures are more popular.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:27:55 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
What if guy one finished equal to, or higher than, the guru and Ansel for ten straight dpc challenges (of all types, basic advanced or speed) in a row? |
Here on DPC that wouldn't suprise me ;)
Anyway, yes he would be champ to the masses. But we seem to be getting away from the integrity part of this thread..
|
|
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: 08/28/2025 04:20:22 PM EDT.
