|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2013 04:13:45 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by RKT:
And I have to really agree with  bvy on this point;
And usually I'm constrained by the bizarre Expert themes.
Maybe we just need to simplify the themes a bit for the Expert challenges we do have. |
+1 |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 04:43:44 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Are you (proponents) interested in looking at fascinating images, or outscoring your opponents in the eyes of a random pool of voters?
|
If you think I'm interested in "outscoring" anyone, you haven't looked at my portfolio lately. Unless I'm not understanding... |
No, I figured that (about you, but the question was directed at all "proponents" -- I just found your post the best one to quote).
My point was that, if scores are not important, this can be just as "valid" run as a side challenge, and not have to mess with the rules or schedule or anything else. Just go ahead and set it up with whatever rules (or lack thereof) you want. You could make it exciting by having everyone submit on the same day (e.g. last day of the month), rather than along the way as seems more usual with side challenges ...
Message edited by author 2013-06-01 16:46:03. |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 05:57:41 PM · #53 |
I think this is a good and necessary discussion about expert editing, digital art, etc.
If I were king, I would keep things photographic. Perhaps no tone mapping, HDR, topaz, lighting effects, etc. But we have those tools, and they render things very unphotographic at times.
The reason why Expert should be considered for Free Study inclusion, in my eyes, is that when you see "expert" on the challenge, everyone expects that that is the norm, the standard, and that we are required to flip, blend, collage, add holes into aliens and put fire wings on ourselves in a mason jar. There are some ancedotal exceptions to the "got to be digital art sensational rule" - but few and far between.
So, with the inclusion of expert into the free study, it would not be a foregone conclusion, and might inspire use of expert for other than headless clowns burning moon cites. perhaps cloning out a bigger piece of the shot, changing skies, putting a realistic yet different face on a body in an otherwise perfect picture.
This thread does not require a yes or no vote, just discussion. No one is changing or implementing anything based on this, sadly, even if it was a good idea...
Message edited by author 2013-06-01 18:00:04. |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 06:32:55 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think this is a good and necessary discussion about expert editing, digital art, etc.
If I were king, I would keep things photographic. Perhaps no tone mapping, HDR, topaz, lighting effects, etc. But we have those tools, and they render things very unphotographic at times.
The reason why Expert should be considered for Free Study inclusion, in my eyes, is that when you see "expert" on the challenge, everyone expects that that is the norm, the standard, and that we are required to flip, blend, collage, add holes into aliens and put fire wings on ourselves in a mason jar. There are some ancedotal exceptions to the "got to be digital art sensational rule" - but few and far between.
So, with the inclusion of expert into the free study, it would not be a foregone conclusion, and might inspire use of expert for other than headless clowns burning moon cites. perhaps cloning out a bigger piece of the shot, changing skies, putting a realistic yet different face on a body in an otherwise perfect picture.
This thread does not require a yes or no vote, just discussion. No one is changing or implementing anything based on this, sadly, even if it was a good idea... |
Perhaps if the work was a tad more sophisticated and wasnt totally self indulgent, the OP's suggestion would be better received. FWIW, I do think having month long expert editing challenges would be a step in the right direction, provided the extra time is spent on making concepts span a wider audience to include adults too. Of course challenge themes play a big part so we would have to resist the urge to suggest such nonsense like Photograph Becomes A Painting and the like. |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 06:33:01 PM · #55 |
Since minimal and basic editing have fallen to the wayside, perhaps we need a new editing choice between advanced and expert. Expert is what it is, and has had enough of a track record to be accepted as allowing and favoring fantasy images. Advanced does not allow many photographers to use their full bag of tricks that they use day to day in producing their normal work.
So could we have a new level of editing that allows multiple frames (For better exposure in the shadows, for pano stitching ect.) and textures and for whatever else, yet limit the creation of new elements or whatever people think is needed to create an aesthetic that is more classically photographic than the work we seem to love in the expert challenges? |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 06:36:34 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think this is a good and necessary discussion about expert editing, digital art, etc.
If I were king, I would keep things photographic. Perhaps no tone mapping, HDR, topaz, lighting effects, etc. But we have those tools, and they render things very unphotographic at times. |
And yet every one of these things (plus cloning, compositing, masking, dodging, burning, etc.) is merely a chemical-free attempt to emulate a technique already extant in the toolkit of the pre-digital photographer. |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 07:17:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think this is a good and necessary discussion about expert editing, digital art, etc.
If I were king, I would keep things photographic. Perhaps no tone mapping, HDR, topaz, lighting effects, etc. But we have those tools, and they render things very unphotographic at times. |
And yet every one of these things (plus cloning, compositing, masking, dodging, burning, etc.) is merely a chemical-free attempt to emulate a technique already extant in the toolkit of the pre-digital photographer. |
-that 96% of people could not have done before digital... |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 07:53:21 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think this is a good and necessary discussion about expert editing, digital art, etc.
If I were king, I would keep things photographic. Perhaps no tone mapping, HDR, topaz, lighting effects, etc. But we have those tools, and they render things very unphotographic at times. |
And yet every one of these things (plus cloning, compositing, masking, dodging, burning, etc.) is merely a chemical-free attempt to emulate a technique already extant in the toolkit of the pre-digital photographer. |
-that 96% of people could not have done before digital... |
"Could not" ... or were never afforded the realistic opportunity? |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 08:29:32 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think this is a good and necessary discussion about expert editing, digital art, etc.
If I were king, I would keep things photographic. Perhaps no tone mapping, HDR, topaz, lighting effects, etc. But we have those tools, and they render things very unphotographic at times. |
And yet every one of these things (plus cloning, compositing, masking, dodging, burning, etc.) is merely a chemical-free attempt to emulate a technique already extant in the toolkit of the pre-digital photographer. |
-that 96% of people could not have done before digital... |
"Could not" ... or were never afforded the realistic opportunity? |
The digital age does make things accessible-but who's to say digital art mixed with photography is any kess pure photography?
Would we have argued not to let Picasso into our painting club for lack of realism? |
|
|
|
06/01/2013 08:44:40 PM · #60 |
| diane arbus & instagram comes to my mind. |
|
|
|
06/02/2013 06:18:14 AM · #61 |
| Not to mention Bob Mortimer. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 03:15:07 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: 07/27/2025 03:15:07 AM EDT.
|
