|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/13/2012 01:12:52 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Could one of you please explain what "photographic in nature" means, exactly? |
To me, it means does it look like the photographer was present at the scene and took a photo -- regardless of how unlikely or fantastic that setting.
An example I've seen more than once would be a photo of a skylike with a larger than normal full Moon -- though it's a composite, it can look just like a "real" photo would look if the Moon was actually that large.
The use of filters to give a "painterly" effect (like old sci-fi magazine covers) I'd consider less "photographic in nature" in this context, although they are perfectly valid tools for creating art. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 01:38:02 PM · #77 |
I think it's important to remember that just because it's an expert challenge doesn't mean you are required to do gobs of processing. I've entered quite a few expert challenges with shots that could be entered in advanced or even basic editing challenges.
Like Christophe said, this is a hobby for us, let's enjoy ourselves. If you like a challenge theme that is expert editing but your idea is a minimal editing shot, score be damned shoot it and enter it. Someone will enjoy it. I've always taken the viewpoint that if I had fun shooting it, and at least one other person enjoyed looking at it then it's a success for me. Yes, we all want good scores and ribbons and that stuff is sxciting but for goodness sake let's just have fun taking pictures and editing them, in whatever ratio of time that may be. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 03:50:19 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
I believe there is room for every style, and I am very happy that DPC shows such tolerance for every kind of expression. I truly hope it stays that way. |
As do I my friend, as do I.
I just want fewer full-on Expert editing challenges. As your further editing of the candlelight entry proved, you can still absolutely please yourself in addition to restricting yourself to advanced rules for the challenge.
Besides, I really was much more in awe of your work when I was seeing it less often in it's full blown glory. The full edits are amazing, yes, but for me they lack something that pure photography has in abundance - flaws... Just like they figured out with computer generated animations of people, you have to have some flaws for things to be realistic. Perhaps you will move that way with your expert work one day, perhaps not - but either way, I'll still prefer the challenges and flaws of realistic photography.
You should know that you're pretty much my hero for this shot:
I want that gyaban back more often too. Your newer stuff is mind blowing, but less charming for me.
That's all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 05:13:21 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I just want fewer full-on Expert editing challenges. |
You say "I just want". Fine, you are free to express your opinion, but understand that some may not share it. As you can imagine, my point of view is different: I truly enjoy entering these challenges, and don't like entering the other ones so much. So this gives me 20% of the challenges to choose from, while you have 80% of them at your disposal. Are you already entering all those 80% so that you really need even more to be happy? Or is it rather that you want to prevent other persons (like me) to have anything suiting their tastes at all?
Originally posted by Cory:
As your further editing of the candlelight entry proved, you can still absolutely please yourself in addition to restricting yourself to advanced rules for the challenge. |
You are not in position to judge this. I am the only one able to tell what pleases me. As I explained several times in the past, working on a 'basic editing' project forces you to take technical paths that are very different from than the ideal ones, and you end-up with something you aren't truly happy with. I can elaborate if needed, but that's not the subject here. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no, I cannot further edit an image optimized for basic editing to fully match the result I would have obtained without rules restriction. And this bothers me, even if you don't agree.
Originally posted by Cory:
[...] I'll still prefer the challenges and flaws of realistic photography.
I want that gyaban back more often too. Your newer stuff is mind blowing, but less charming for me.
That's all I'm saying. |
"I want", again. I am sorry, but my main goal is not to please Cory. I am always happy and thankful when my work is appreciated, but my own wishes and tastes will always be preponderant. Which doesn't imply that all I want to do is composites: when possible, I do love preparing real setups and photograph them. It's simply that some images are not doable at all that way, and I don't see why I should avoid them just because someone on an Internet forum says "it's bad to do that". |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 06:01:13 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by jagar:
I don't bother with expert challenges much anymore, just not my thing, guess I lean to a more realistic photographic approach. For me it has nothing to do with the editing required to do a decent expert job, it's just I mostly don't appreciate what an expert edit does. I do however understand that many people do like to see fantasy and digital art so I still think we need expert challenges, we might want to get rid of the rule that states they should stay photographic in nature though because a lot of images break that rule already. |
Digital and fantasy art are fun to see on occasion. I do agree that, if offerred, the photographic in nature clause should be removed from the expert set rules. What's the fun of doing fantasy art if restricted?
But it's pretty clear to me from the increasing low participation in the expert editing challenges, and from the increasing number of NON expert edits that get entered even by those who do participate, that as a group we've had enough for awhile.
I believe it would be in the best interest of DPC as a whole if we stick to the editing rules that attract the most photographers. |
I agree with you, it's difficult to do this though without offending some of our most popular and talented photographers, if i was told that there would be no more candid or street challenges, i would be highly pissed. |
I would never want to offend. And my expert edit entries (meager at best and not always "expert" rules) are mostly all street images so I feel I can enter them in any edit set. But I also know that our best expert artists here, gyaban included, can also win ribbons with advanced (even basic and minimal) editing. So I don't think it would be limiting them either.
All that said, for those that enjoy Expert editing (digital and fantasy art), I would still want there to be opportunities. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 07:22:19 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
I just want fewer full-on Expert editing challenges. |
You say "I just want". Fine, you are free to express your opinion, but understand that some may not share it. As you can imagine, my point of view is different: I truly enjoy entering these challenges, and don't like entering the other ones so much. So this gives me 20% of the challenges to choose from, while you have 80% of them at your disposal. Are you already entering all those 80% so that you really need even more to be happy? Or is it rather that you want to prevent other persons (like me) to have anything suiting their tastes at all?
|
Well, to be fair, it's not much of anything to do with your, or "other persons like you", it's really more about the direction that DPC is going - surely you are intelligent enough to know the value of concentrating on your core market, and having a specialty. Your own career is a good example, as I'm betting you make a fair amount more than the average database admin. Specialists just enjoy more success, and I see DPC declining - I think some of that could be either stopped, or perhaps reversed if the site concentrates more on the photography and less on digital art. Can you tell me what it is that makes Worth1000 so unappealing to you? Or what stops you from expressing yourself and suiting your tastes by doing the further editing and submitting to 1x or any one of the other dozen places that are made for digital artworks? I don't want to ruin your fun, or for you to go anywhere - I just can't quite see how you NEED expert editing in order to have a good time here. Besides, I'm not advocating for none... I'd advocating for fewer. Be clear on that, I'm not out to 'ruin' DPC for you. I'm simply pointing out the reasons why having a half dozen of these a month is inappropriate IMO.
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
As your further editing of the candlelight entry proved, you can still absolutely please yourself in addition to restricting yourself to advanced rules for the challenge. |
You are not in position to judge this. I am the only one able to tell what pleases me. As I explained several times in the past, working on a 'basic editing' project forces you to take technical paths that are very different from than the ideal ones, and you end-up with something you aren't truly happy with. I can elaborate if needed, but that's not the subject here. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no, I cannot further edit an image optimized for basic editing to fully match the result I would have obtained without rules restriction. And this bothers me, even if you don't agree.
|
Am I not? I think that speaks volumes about how in line your desires are with DPC's nature. You want full on digital artwork all the time, but DPC isn't really about that Christophe. I am sorry that you didn't enjoy winning that ribbon in the candle challenge, but I can tell you there are many here would would have enjoyed it, and I honestly did expect that you would have fun with it as well. I really do think you're being a little silly about it, I admire the level of creativity you show, unfortunately I think that creativity may have carried a bit far with this argument. Honestly, if photography doesn't appeal to you, and you don't like limitations, perhaps DPC shouldn't be the only place you submit stuff to. Really, I'm actually just stunned that you said you don't like doing the work and being so creative, I'm honestly disappointed, as I had always envisioned you working with enthusiastic vigor and determination to complete these wonderful setups. Now I know it was apparently just miserable drudgery. Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
[...] I'll still prefer the challenges and flaws of realistic photography.
I want that gyaban back more often too. Your newer stuff is mind blowing, but less charming for me.
That's all I'm saying. |
"I want", again. I am sorry, but my main goal is not to please Cory. I am always happy and thankful when my work is appreciated, but my own wishes and tastes will always be preponderant. Which doesn't imply that all I want to do is composites: when possible, I do love preparing real setups and photograph them. It's simply that some images are not doable at all that way, and I don't see why I should avoid them just because someone on an Internet forum says "it's bad to do that". |
Well, I apologize for telling you about admiring you. I've lost most of that today, I can quite well assure you. I'm not telling you that I expect you to try to please Cory... I'm telling you that it's appropriate to respect any community, and recognize that a certain amount of respect for that community's history and legacy is expected. In my opinion, given what you've said above, I don't honestly think DPC fits you as well as I had previously thought. Perhaps one day you won't find photography so distasteful that you feel you must be able to create digital artwork from it before it's any good. You're an amazing artist, I just never realized you had a basic distaste for photography that isn't wildly photoshopped.
Frankly, your attitude and a quick glance at your favorites tells me that despite your obvious success here, you seem to have very little respect and admiration for photography in it's pure form. That's a shame in my opinion. Is it bad? nah, it's certainly not bad... Just not what I perceive as being DPC, this place is about photography, it's about learning - occasionally it's great if we include some really killer expert editing work - but we have moved too far in that direction.. We used to have a few of these a year, not a few a month, and I don't think the change has particularly suited the site, or the majority of the members here.
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 19:44:03. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 07:57:12 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, to be fair, it's not much of anything to do with your, or "other persons like you", it's really more about the direction that DPC is going - surely you are intelligent enough to know the value of concentrating on your core market, and having a specialty. Your own career is a good example, as I'm betting you make a fair amount more than the average database admin. Specialists just enjoy more success, and I see DPC declining - I think some of that could be either stopped, or perhaps reversed if the site concentrates more on the photography and less on digital art. Can you tell me what it is that makes Worth1000 so unappealing to you? Or what stops you from expressing yourself and suiting your tastes by doing the further editing and submitting to 1x or any one of the other dozen places that are made for digital artworks? I don't want to ruin your fun, or for you to go anywhere - I just can't quite see how you NEED expert editing in order to have a good time here. |
I don't share your analysis about DPC decline, but my opinion is not important, since I am not this website owner: I don't feel like it's my job to make it successful. I'm just an average customer.
About Worth1000, I don't see anything appealing about it: they offer "Effects" contests, which consists in photoshoping stock images, and "Photography" contests with rules similar to the "Advanced" DPC ruleset. To my knowledge, they don't propose contests with both sides at once. DPC and its expert ruleset is simply the only place I know where you have to be the photographer AND the post-processing author. As for 1x or other websites, they are not contest websites: I submit my stuff there, but my work is first created to be submitted at DPC.
Originally posted by Cory:
Am I not? Well, I am sorry that you didn't enjoy winning that ribbon Christophe. I frankly think you're being a little silly about it, I admire the level of creativity you should, unfortunately I think that creativity may have carried a bit far with this argument. Honestly, if photography doesn't appeal to you, and you don't like limitations, perhaps DPC shouldn't be the only place you submit stuff to. Really, I'm actually just stunned that you said you don't like doing the work and being so creative, I'm honestly disappointed, as I had always envisioned you working with enthusiastic vigor and determination to complete these wonderful setups. Now I know it was apparently just miserable drudgery. |
Please. Don't make me say what I did not. What doesn't appeal me is arbitrary limitations, that's it, which is why I mostly enjoy entering expert editing challenges. The editing limitations force me, for example, to use a lighting setup that is not the best one I could use for a given photo, and it is frustrating. "Re-lighting" a photo afterwards in photoshop is a pain, and very hard to do accurately. It's great to win a ribbon, but if you're not happy with the photo to the point you don't even show it to your own family, there's something wrong. I realize I may be totally silly, but that's how I feel about my candlelight challenge entry, for example.
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, I apologize for telling you about admiring you. You can bet I've lost a bit of that today. In my opinion, given what you've said above, I don't honestly think DPC fits you as well as I had previously thought. Perhaps one day you won't find photography so distasteful. |
Don't get me wrong... it is a real pleasure when people tell me they like my work. I feel honored and flattered about the fact you especially liked my 'balcony' photo, it was one of my craziest setup, and I am quite proud of it. So thank you for letting me know, it is really important to me. That being said, I'm sorry if I'm not the one you thought, but it's no use to lie, is it? Moreover, I never said I find photography distasteful or anything like that. Again, I am only speaking about arbitrary rules: I understand why there are there, why they add much fun for people beginning with photography, but as time flows and experience grows, I don't see myself complying to those rules much more. Which is why expert editing is important to me. Sorry if my previous message sounded rude or blunt, that was not my intent. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 08:18:34 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
I don't share your analysis about DPC decline, but my opinion is not important, since I am not this website owner: I don't feel like it's my job to make it successful. I'm just an average customer.
About Worth1000, I don't see anything appealing about it: they offer "Effects" contests, which consists in photoshoping stock images, and "Photography" contests with rules similar to the "Advanced" DPC ruleset. To my knowledge, they don't propose contests with both sides at once. DPC and its expert ruleset is simply the only place I know where you have to be the photographer AND the post-processing author. As for 1x or other websites, they are not contest websites: I submit my stuff there, but my work is first created to be submitted at DPC.
|
I honestly didn't realize that the Expert challenges here were so unique. I can see why you would fight to keep them in that case.
Perhaps it's time we have a weekly Expert challenge as a variation of the open challenge? Two challenges, same title, two rulesets. Open challenges, always. *shrug* maybe, maybe not? I don't want to ruin your fun, especially if DPC really is the only place that offers what you love. That wasn't my perception previously.
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
Am I not? Well, I am sorry that you didn't enjoy winning that ribbon Christophe. I frankly think you're being a little silly about it, I admire the level of creativity you should, unfortunately I think that creativity may have carried a bit far with this argument. Honestly, if photography doesn't appeal to you, and you don't like limitations, perhaps DPC shouldn't be the only place you submit stuff to. Really, I'm actually just stunned that you said you don't like doing the work and being so creative, I'm honestly disappointed, as I had always envisioned you working with enthusiastic vigor and determination to complete these wonderful setups. Now I know it was apparently just miserable drudgery. |
Please. Don't make me say what I did not. What doesn't appeal me is arbitrary limitations, that's it, which is why I mostly enjoy entering expert editing challenges. The editing limitations force me, for example, to use a lighting setup that is not the best one I could use for a given photo, and it is frustrating. "Re-lighting" a photo afterwards in photoshop is a pain, and very hard to do accurately. It's great to win a ribbon, but if you're not happy with the photo to the point you don't even show it to your own family, there's something wrong. I realize I may be totally silly, but that's how I feel about my candlelight challenge entry, for example.
|
But, isn't there a beauty in this Christophe? In the flaws themselves there is charm. I don't quite understand how the editing limitations forced you to use a different lighting system, other than the fact it had to be done in one frame.. Please explain what you would have done differently, I'm genuinely curious.
You are damned silly. Yes you are. That was an awesome shot.
As per the arbitrary limitations not appealing to you, I am sorry to say, but for me that is very much one of the core things about DPC, those limitations make things so much more interesting, at least to me. There are many places on the web I can see amazing work - but much of it lacks the honesty of DPC.
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, I apologize for telling you about admiring you. You can bet I've lost a bit of that today. In my opinion, given what you've said above, I don't honestly think DPC fits you as well as I had previously thought. Perhaps one day you won't find photography so distasteful. |
Don't get me wrong... it is a real pleasure when people tell me they like my work. I feel honored and flattered about the fact you especially liked my 'balcony' photo, it was one of my craziest setup, and I am quite proud of it. So thank you for letting me know, it is really important to me. That being said, I'm sorry if I'm not the one you thought, but it's no use to lie, is it? Moreover, I never said I find photography distasteful or anything like that. Again, I am only speaking about arbitrary rules: I understand why there are there, why they add much fun for people beginning with photography, but as time flows and experience grows, I don't see myself complying to those rules much more. Which is why expert editing is important to me. Sorry if my previous message sounded rude or blunt, that was not my intent. |
I don't just like that balcony photo, I worship it like a god, and have considered setting up a shrine to it in my house... ;) (just kidding, but almost that level of awe)...
Hell rude and blunt is cool, I don't mind it at all - as you say there is "no use to lie". ;) You can't change how you feel, that much I know. I hope you don't stop entering advanced editing contests, as that is the work of yours which I tend to admire more than any of your polished stuff, and I know I'm not alone in this.
I do think you find photography a little distasteful though, you seem to have no appreciation for the flaws of the medium, and why they're charming and wonderful. That's ok, certainly I'm not in any position to tell you about photography - but you don't seem to look at this in the same way that the majority here do. Again, that's great, no harm in being different - but despite all of that, I do think we need to find a way to keep you happy enough to stay (I don't want you to go anywhere, you're an amazing talent and I do enjoy ALL of your work.. Wouldn't want to miss out.), while backing off just a bit on the Expert stuff maybe.
Let me ask you a question:
At what frequency do you think you can produce really amazing images? Is two or so a month enough? I think maybe the quality of your work would improve even further if you were doing this at a well regulated pace.
So, Christophe, how many Expert challenges do you think would be best for you and DPC each month, given all the various factors?
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 20:19:56. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 08:58:48 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I honestly didn't realize that the Expert challenges here were so unique. I can see why you would fight to keep them in that case.
Perhaps it's time we have a weekly Expert challenge as a variation of the open challenge? Two challenges, same title, two rulesets. Open challenges, always. *shrug* maybe, maybe not? I don't want to ruin your fun, especially if DPC really is the only place that offers what you love. That wasn't my perception previously. |
Yes it is the only place I know where you can do expert edits of your own photos only. Contests based on photoshoping Hollywood stars to make them look older isn't really the same thing ;-)
As for your suggestion about 2 rulesets for a challenge, why not? The problem is not that much about ideas to try, but as we know, it's more about the website owner's lack of reactivity and communication.
Originally posted by gyaban:
But, isn't there a beauty in this Christophe? In the flaws themselves there is charm. I don't quite understand how the editing limitations forced you to use a different lighting system, other than the fact it had to be done in one frame.. Please explain what you would have done differently, I'm genuinely curious.
You are damned silly. Yes you are. That was an awesome shot.
As per the arbitrary limitations not appealing to you, I am sorry to say, but for me that is very much one of the core things about DPC, those limitations make things so much more interesting, at least to me. There are many places on the web I can see amazing work - but much of it lacks the honesty of DPC. |
I understand your point, and agree with you: there is beauty in flaws. They add life to things. In fact that is something I am currently trying to add in my composites, to make them look more photographic. It is not easy though.
About the editing limitations, as you said, one is obvious: when composites aren't allowed, destroying a real Gothic cathedral to photograph it can't be done. But even for more classical photos, if you want to be optimal for the ruleset, you have to shoot it quite differently from what you would have otherwise. An example in basic editing: adding a vignette in PP isn't allowed. If you want your photo to have one, you have to create it with your lighting setup, which implies using snoots or grids. You can't use umbrellas or softboxes, because the light won't be directional enough, and you won't obtain the vignette as you wanted. As a result, the shadows are much harsher, the light less pleasing, and improving that in PP is a nightmare. The "good" way to add a vignette in that case is to do it in PP, but for that you need advanced rules. Just an example, of course.
Originally posted by Cory:
I don't just like that balcony photo, I worship it like a god, and have considered setting up a shrine to it in my house... ;) (just kidding, but almost that level of awe)... |
Haha, thanks. The damn thing is still in the basements of my house, if you would like it to put it in your garden ;-)
Originally posted by Cory:
Hell rude and blunt is cool, I don't mind it at all - as you say there is "no use to lie". ;) You can't change how you feel, that much I know. I hope you don't stop entering advanced editing contests, as that is the work of yours which I tend to admire more than any of your polished stuff, and I know I'm not alone in this.
I do think you find photography a little distasteful though, you seem to have no appreciation for the flaws of the medium, and why they're charming and wonderful. That's ok, certainly I'm not in any position to tell you about photography - but you don't seem to look at this in the same way that the majority here do. Again, that's great, no harm in being different - but despite all of that, I do think we need to find a way to keep you happy enough to stay (I don't want you to go anywhere, you're an amazing talent and I do enjoy ALL of your work.. Wouldn't want to miss out.), while backing off just a bit on the Expert stuff maybe. |
I suppose you are right. It's a mental illness I have, I can't resist removing flaws, to the point it often looks too smooth, lifeless. Something I need to work on. Thanks again for your compliments, much appreciated. That said, I know I'm not the only one enjoying expert editing, and I suspect many more would like to create fantasy images from time to time, even if some are a bit shy about it ;)
Originally posted by Cory:
Let me ask you a question:
At what frequency do you think you can produce really amazing images? Is two or so a month enough? I think maybe the quality of your work would improve even further if you were doing this at a well regulated pace.
So, Christophe, how many Expert challenges do you think would be best for you and DPC each month, given all the various factors? |
For DPC, I really don't know. As you pointed out accurately, I am probably not the best person to know what the majority wants. As far as I'm concerned, the frequency is not really the problem, the duration of each challenge is. One week is very, very short (finding a good idea, finding the appropriate various shooting locations, traveling there, waiting for good weather, processing: a damn lot for a single week). What would be perfect is an expert editing challenge that lasts 2 weeks, every 2 weeks (to always have something to do). But this is probably just a wishful discussion between us, unless the owner changes his attitude towards DPC :-/ |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 09:22:09 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
About the editing limitations, as you said, one is obvious: when composites aren't allowed, destroying a real Gothic cathedral to photograph it can't be done. But even for more classical photos, if you want to be optimal for the ruleset, you have to shoot it quite differently from what you would have otherwise. An example in basic editing: adding a vignette in PP isn't allowed. If you want your photo to have one, you have to create it with your lighting setup, which implies using snoots or grids. You can't use umbrellas or softboxes, because the light won't be directional enough, and you won't obtain the vignette as you wanted. As a result, the shadows are much harsher, the light less pleasing, and improving that in PP is a nightmare. The "good" way to add a vignette in that case is to do it in PP, but for that you need advanced rules. Just an example, of course.
|
I have to pick on this - you could, instead of jumping through hoops with the light, just cut out a circle in some black card-stock and put it in front of your lens. Instant vignette, no need to futz with the light.
I think there is almost always some creative solution to the problem. Unfortunately, in the case of the church, the alternative is indeed explosives and a likely prison sentence. ;)
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
I don't just like that balcony photo, I worship it like a god, and have considered setting up a shrine to it in my house... ;) (just kidding, but almost that level of awe)... |
Haha, thanks. The damn thing is still in the basements of my house, if you would like it to put it in your garden ;-)
|
Wonder what shipping charges for THAT would be? ;) lol.
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
Hell rude and blunt is cool, I don't mind it at all - as you say there is "no use to lie". ;) You can't change how you feel, that much I know. I hope you don't stop entering advanced editing contests, as that is the work of yours which I tend to admire more than any of your polished stuff, and I know I'm not alone in this.
I do think you find photography a little distasteful though, you seem to have no appreciation for the flaws of the medium, and why they're charming and wonderful. That's ok, certainly I'm not in any position to tell you about photography - but you don't seem to look at this in the same way that the majority here do. Again, that's great, no harm in being different - but despite all of that, I do think we need to find a way to keep you happy enough to stay (I don't want you to go anywhere, you're an amazing talent and I do enjoy ALL of your work.. Wouldn't want to miss out.), while backing off just a bit on the Expert stuff maybe. |
I suppose you are right. It's a mental illness I have, I can't resist removing flaws, to the point it often looks too smooth, lifeless. Something I need to work on. Thanks again for your compliments, much appreciated. That said, I know I'm not the only one enjoying expert editing, and I suspect many more would like to create fantasy images from time to time, even if some are a bit shy about it ;)
|
:)
Just joining DPC qualifies you for a mental illness diagnosis. :)
I know there are also others (who have been learning from you BTW) who also enjoy this... Again, that's why I'm not advocating for the removal of the style entirely, just a shift in frequency. I'm sure even this doesn't appeal to you, but at least I understand why you feel so strongly now.
And I do appreciate you engaging with me in the dialog, it's fun, and I've learned more about your motivations.
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
Let me ask you a question:
At what frequency do you think you can produce really amazing images? Is two or so a month enough? I think maybe the quality of your work would improve even further if you were doing this at a well regulated pace.
So, Christophe, how many Expert challenges do you think would be best for you and DPC each month, given all the various factors? |
For DPC, I really don't know. As you pointed out accurately, I am probably not the best person to know what the majority wants. As far as I'm concerned, the frequency is not really the problem, the duration of each challenge is. One week is very, very short (finding a good idea, finding the appropriate various shooting locations, traveling there, waiting for good weather, processing: a damn lot for a single week). What would be perfect is an expert editing challenge that lasts 2 weeks, every 2 weeks (to always have something to do). But this is probably just a wishful discussion between us, unless the owner changes his attitude towards DPC :-/ |
Extremely true. I would probably enter a good composite myself if there was time.. (Alas, I too have a similar mental illness..)..
I would STRONGLY support your idea of a 2-week duration, and 2 per month. Not replacing any challenges, but supplementing them.
It would draw a new crowd to DPC, and wouldn't impact those of us who would prefer less Expert-in-place-of-Advanced challenges.
.
So, in other news, how many ribbons are you expecting this week? ;) lol! |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 09:43:40 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I have to pick on this - you could, instead of jumping through hoops with the light, just cut out a circle in some black card-stock and put it in front of your lens. Instant vignette, no need to futz with the light. |
Haha, yes, I was expecting that answer :) I tried the black card trick, and even gradient filters. It works well if a circular vignette works for that image, but if you want something more precise (like vignetting only 3 corners, etc.) then it's very hard to make something that looks nice. I didn't succeed, and changed the lighting instead.
Originally posted by Cory:
I think there is almost always some creative solution to the problem. Unfortunately, in the case of the church, the alternative is indeed explosives and a likely prison sentence. ;) |
Yeah, you can often find tricks to improve the situation. I remember once wanting to precisely control the color of one item in basic editing, so I made sure this item was the only thing green in the scene (so that adjusting green hue would affect only that). All of these can be fun, but after a few shots done that way, it quickly feels old, especially when your time is limited.
Originally posted by Cory:
I know there are also others (who have been learning from you BTW) who also enjoy this... Again, that's why I'm not advocating for the removal of the style entirely, just a shift in frequency. I'm sure even this doesn't appeal to you, but at least I understand why you feel so strongly now.
And I do appreciate you engaging with me in the dialog, it's fun, and I've learned more about your motivations. |
Sure, communication is always a good thing. Especially if it makes us realize we are not "enemies", but rather enjoying different parts of a same activity.
Originally posted by Cory:
Extremely true. I would probably enter a good composite myself if there was time.. (Alas, I too have a similar mental illness..)..
I would STRONGLY support your idea of a 2-week duration, and 2 per month. Not replacing any challenges, but supplementing them.
It would draw a new crowd to DPC, and wouldn't impact those of us who would prefer less Expert-in-place-of-Advanced challenges. |
Well, why not! Anything can be tried for a while I suppose, if it doesn't work it is always possible to come back to a different scheme. But this requires an active leader, and... well.
Originally posted by Cory:
So, in other news, how many ribbons are you expecting this week? ;) lol! |
Well I just have one entry at the moment (I'll let you guess the challenge ;)) and it just got a shiny 1. Probably too many flaws in it, or not enough of them... I'm not so sure now ;-) |
|
|
|
10/14/2012 04:39:23 AM · #87 |
| By taking the photographic in nature clause out of expert and also having as many minimal challenges as Expert, we might solve all this bickering. I swear I saw a pig above the tree line this morning. |
|
|
|
10/14/2012 10:04:02 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by jagar:
By taking the photographic in nature clause out of expert and also having as many minimal challenges as Expert, we might solve all this bickering. I swear I saw a pig above the tree line this morning. |
I hope you took a picture of it, black and white I assume. |
|
|
|
10/14/2012 11:12:16 AM · #89 |
Fortunately or unfortunately my time spent working with Christophe has changed my photography. And it echoed something that Bear_music said in a forum quite awhile ago.
Christophe told me that he creates images the way he remembers them or wants them to be. Bear said that he shoots with his processing in mind. (I hope I didn't misquote them too badly... :)
I have found myself doing this more recently. In one of the current challenges, my lighting wasn't right, and I couldn't retake it. So I edited the image to the way I wanted it to be, not the way it was taken.
Part of me feels very odd doing this. It somehow goes against the grain, and I feel that it isn't my photography anymore. Yet I keep thinking of all the things people have done in the darkroom. It sounds like Ansel Adams pictures were created more in the darkroom than straight from the camera. Is it wrong to use the editing tools to their fullest extent to create what you wanted to to create in the first place?
The trees challenge is driving me up the wall. I have 5 images, all of them "meh" images. The lighting was terrible, and there wasn't much I could to about it. Even if I had brought artificial lighting with me, I doubt I could have created the image that I saw, much less the one I wanted. I'll enter one of the "meh" images, because if I shoot for a challenge, I'll enter it, whether I like it or not. Otherwise why bother shooting? I might as well take the chance that I might learn something in the process. But the images are so much less because of the lack of editing. Even basic editing could have improved them quite a bit.
So I understand Christophe's irritation when he can't produce the image he wants to produce because of the limitations in the editing set.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2012 12:12:41 PM · #90 |
I sat down with a cup of coffee this morning to wade through this thread.
Sorry...just couldn't do it.
But for those of you who can...here's my coffee recommendation for this week:
Sweet Maria's Papua New Guinea Tairora Smallholders...try it! You'll like it!
::beams:: |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 11:08:15 AM · #91 |
After scanning through the challenge history, since this is the first minimal challenge in a long while, noticed it's one of the most popular.
Since I've been a member (Feb 2012), only the following member challenge outside of Free Studies have had more entries:
Abstract Macro IV (Basic Editing)
Abstract: Black and White (Advanced Editing)
All Alone II (Advanced Editing)
Animals In Black And White (Advanced Editing)
Flowers for Sherpet (Advanced Editing)
If we include open challenges, another seven can be added to the list.
Double Take IV (Advanced Editing)
Foreground Bokeh II (Advanced Editing)
Green Macro (Basic Editing)
Landscape VI (Advanced Editing)
Mundane II (Basic Editing)
Negative Space V (Advanced Editing)
Spring (Advanced Editing)
I'm just posting this from a dollars and cents perspective, don't want to rehash what's been discussed already. But you'd think Langdon would keep track of stuff like this and want to fill out competitions more uniformly by looking at past results. I know I would.
Message edited by author 2012-10-15 11:13:03. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 11:40:29 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Part of me feels very odd doing this. It somehow goes against the grain, and I feel that it isn't my photography anymore. Yet I keep thinking of all the things people have done in the darkroom. It sounds like Ansel Adams pictures were created more in the darkroom than straight from the camera. Is it wrong to use the editing tools to their fullest extent to create what you wanted to to create in the first place? |
It's only "wrong" if your mindset (and it is a VALID mindset, of course, but just one of many possible mindsets) is to *record* some sort of objective reality.
But why would you want to limit yourself to that? And assuming you don't, then what on earth is WRONG with using any tool you wish to manipulate your work in any direction that pleases you? That's what being creative is about. Isn't it?
You were right about what I said: I don't even TAKE a picture unless I've already got a mental vision of what it is going to look like when I'm done with it. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 12:08:07 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Venser:
After scanning through the challenge history, since this is the first minimal challenge in a long while, noticed it's one of the most popular.
Since I've been a member (Feb 2012), only the following member challenge outside of Free Studies have had more entries:
Abstract Macro IV (Basic Editing)
Abstract: Black and White (Advanced Editing)
All Alone II (Advanced Editing)
Animals In Black And White (Advanced Editing)
Flowers for Sherpet (Advanced Editing)
If we include open challenges, another seven can be added to the list.
Double Take IV (Advanced Editing)
Foreground Bokeh II (Advanced Editing)
Green Macro (Basic Editing)
Landscape VI (Advanced Editing)
Mundane II (Basic Editing)
Negative Space V (Advanced Editing)
Spring (Advanced Editing)
I'm just posting this from a dollars and cents perspective, don't want to rehash what's been discussed already. But you'd think Langdon would keep track of stuff like this and want to fill out competitions more uniformly by looking at past results. I know I would. |
I think it has to do with the subjects of the challenge more than anything else. If you're not shooting for money, then you're shooting to make yourself happy. The best way to do this is with a subject you enjoy. These are all wide open challenges as far as interpretation goes. While they each have limits (animals, b&w, macro, green, etc.), most people can find something within those categories to make themselves happy. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 12:53:45 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't even TAKE a picture unless I've already got a mental vision of what it is going to look like when I'm done with it. |
Make also room for development Robert. And for the unexpected. A lot of things exist in the head that are not translatable on paper. or screen. There is also the fleeting moment, the spark ...
|
|
|
|
10/15/2012 01:06:09 PM · #95 |
I agree with Robert 100%. I'm not a photojournalist (well, except in one of my roles at work). I strive to convey my vision of a scene, which often would not be considered an accurate rendition of what someone who was present at the time of image acquisition would have described.
As an example, I've been working on making four definitive images of a local landmark, one for each season. Last Winter, my wife and I went out to capture an appropriate seasonal image, and when we returned home I set to work processing. The conditions had been very low contrast with some light snow falling. My exposures were in the multi-second range, and I stacked exposures. When I showed my wife the final image, her response was "but that's not how it really looked." This was 100% accurate, however, had sh not been there, she would have no reference, and likely would have had a completely different reaction. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 01:39:36 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... I strive to convey my vision of a scene, which often would not be considered an accurate rendition of what someone who was present at the time of image acquisition would have described..... |
It depends on the scene. My goal is to produce an image which accurately represents what I really saw with my eyes. Easier said, than done. Our cameras can only capture about 5 stops of light. Our eyes can see about 10 - 12 camera stops of light between the details in the darkest shadows and the details in the brightest highlights. Our eyes are really remarkable and make our cameras appear to be very inferior tools, relatively speaking. In the Colorado mountains, in daytime...(away from the golden hours), we experience very high contrast light. Most of the time there is little humidity, pollution or atmosphere to diffuse light particles. It's the reason most visitor/tourists (about 4 million per year to RMNP) are frustrated with their photographs.
The photographer who wishes to present an image which matches the beautiful, dramatic and high dynamic range landscape (as viewed by their eyes), needs to use all the tools at his/her disposal to circumvent the limitations of their cameras. For me, that includes graduated neutral density filters (often stacked to dampen the brightness of the sky by 5 stops). I will also capture bracketed images for HDR blending. Most importantly, one has to work with the available light. Selection of shooting angles and times and the use of filtering clouds contributes to the success of any landscape shoot.
When I sell a landscape image from my gallery, I am often asked if the image has been "Photoshopped". I present images in such a way that I can always say, "This is the way I saw it with my eyes." I suppose that, with regards to PP techniques, I'm closer to Ansel Adams' techniques than I am to  gyaban's Expert Edits. (But, I will always stand in humble awe of both.)
Message edited by author 2012-10-15 13:55:01. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 02:22:02 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
When I sell a landscape image from my gallery, I am often asked if the image has been "Photoshopped". ... |
Richard, if I were in your position, I think I would be *really* tempted to respond "Well of course it has!"
From a business perspective, I'm thinking that would be a really bad idea, which might be one reason I'm not in that business ;-)
The question, IMO, shows a serious lack of understanding of photography, and art in general, but I think that your answer addresses what they are really asking. They want to know whether such a scene really existed, or whether the artwork represents a composite or some other drastic manipulation of reality. There are markets for both, to be sure. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 02:31:41 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
It depends on the scene. My goal is to produce an image which accurately represents what I really saw with my eyes. Easier said, than done. Our cameras can only capture about 5 stops of light. Our eyes can see about 10 - 12 camera stops of light between the details in the darkest shadows and the details in the brightest highlights. Our eyes are really remarkable and make our cameras appear to be very inferior tools, relatively speaking. In the Colorado mountains, in daytime...(away from the golden hours), we experience very high contrast light. Most of the time there is little humidity, pollution or atmosphere to diffuse light particles. It's the reason most visitor/tourists (about 4 million per year to RMNP) are frustrated with their photographs.
The photographer who wishes to present an image which matches the beautiful, dramatic and high dynamic range landscape (as viewed by their eyes), needs to use all the tools at his/her disposal to circumvent the limitations of their cameras. For me, that includes graduated neutral density filters (often stacked to dampen the brightness of the sky by 5 stops). I will also capture bracketed images for HDR blending. Most importantly, one has to work with the available light. Selection of shooting angles and times and the use of filtering clouds contributes to the success of any landscape shoot.
When I sell a landscape image from my gallery, I am often asked if the image has been "Photoshopped". I present images in such a way that I can always say, "This is the way I saw it with my eyes." I suppose that, with regards to PP techniques, I'm closer to Ansel Adams' techniques than I am to gyaban's Expert Edits. (But, I will always stand in humble awe of both.) |
Curious, why do you take this view on landscapes but not with wildlife? In "Freedom" you use a very shallow DOF. Even if your eyes focused just on the bird you would still see some detail in the background. |
|
|
|
10/15/2012 02:44:36 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Curious, why do you take this view on landscapes but not with wildlife? In "Freedom" you use a very shallow DOF. Even if your eyes focused just on the bird you would still see some detail in the background. |
I do explain narrow DOF to customers who purchase wildlife photos. I do very little PP on wildlife images, allowing the lens to produce the effects I want. And, I choose lighting conditions favorable for wildlife images (bright overcast). Landscape images represent 80% of my sales.
Message edited by author 2012-10-15 14:46:03. |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 09:00:46 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Those who are not in favor of Expert editing seem to do an awful lot of complaining. Like chained dogs barking at the moon. The moon isn't listening. |
âThe hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.â
- Confucius |
gold!
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 10:44:45 AM  |
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: 08/12/2025 10:44:45 AM EDT.
|
