| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2013 01:47:33 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though). |
Absolutely fantastic, I think doing something like this might help re-inspire me. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:57:34 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant? |
I think good to me mostly means interesting. Is there something interesting to look at in the picture that is obvious. |
Ok, thanks. So, are you willing to concede that "interesting" is different for everyone? |
Well, sure. That's a no brainer. |
No, it's not a no-brainer, Schlake, based on how you rail against the work on DPC. But I am honest when I said I wanted to learn about what YOU like, since it is clearly nothing on this site. I like different things than you do, period. A difference of tastes is not a reason to be disparaging about another person's preferences. Thank you for sharing. |
I like lots of the images on this site. I'm just sad that this is supposedly a site about photography that doesn't require submissions to be photographs. |
A valid sentiment for sure, Schlake. One shared to some degree, I'm pretty sure, by all of us. But just because we don't agree with your definition doesn't make us "votards" and "failtographers". |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 02:27:28 PM · #78 |
| I still find the declaration of these not being photos pretty silly. Of course they're still photos, they've just been manipulated to various degrees after capture. My ground efx kit, neon lights and curb feelers don't make my car any less a car, though they may not be to your taste. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 02:32:34 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I still find the declaration of these not being photos pretty silly. Of course they're still photos, they've just been manipulated to various degrees after capture. My ground efx kit, neon lights and curb feelers don't make my car any less a car, though they may not be to your taste. |
WTF - you've got a tricked out ride and we've never seen it in a challenge?! |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 02:34:44 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
exactly what is "fake" about any of the ribbon winners? none of them are over-processed in any way. |
Almost Empty doesn't look real at all. The lighting is surreal, the colors are surreal.
|
Sorry, you have failed. Please study harder next time and take the test again at your earliest convenience.
As a cheat sheet, here are the editing steps I took:
1. Decreased the blacks slightly to open the shadows
2. Increase the definition very slightly
3. Resized
4. Sharpened
5. Saved
Total editing time, less than 90 seconds.
The lighting and colors are basically exactly like if you walk into this room.
 |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 02:36:16 PM · #81 |
Just so I'm on the right page. Processing is bad? Any use of it renders an image "fake"?
Fair synopsis?
Would you say the same about the many "fakes" that Adams, Stieglitz et al processed? |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 02:36:55 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bohemka:
I still find the declaration of these not being photos pretty silly. Of course they're still photos, they've just been manipulated to various degrees after capture. My ground efx kit, neon lights and curb feelers don't make my car any less a car, though they may not be to your taste. |
WTF - you've got a tricked out ride and we've never seen it in a challenge?! |
I don't want to be responsible for melting anyone's screens. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 02:56:46 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
exactly what is "fake" about any of the ribbon winners? none of them are over-processed in any way. |
Almost Empty doesn't look real at all. The lighting is surreal, the colors are surreal.
|
Sorry, you have failed. Please study harder next time and take the test again at your earliest convenience.
As a cheat sheet, here are the editing steps I took:
1. Decreased the blacks slightly to open the shadows
2. Increase the definition very slightly
3. Resized
4. Sharpened
5. Saved
Total editing time, less than 90 seconds.
The lighting and colors are basically exactly like if you walk into this room.
|
he's clearly wrong about all of the ribbon winners. couldn't even make a claim about the box photo except "something was done to it". Said something about the window lights being oversaturated in the Hilton Waldo, but he probably didn't see that it was a 4 second exposure (which would give the lights that appearance). and then he said something about the floors being removed, don't even know what that meant. it's not expert editing. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:09:15 PM · #84 |
I find this very interesting ΓΆ€“ no not the name calling - but the whole conversation about editing. Was Adams a photographer or a failtographer? He developed his film and paper in different chemicals, he used different papers to print on, and he dodged and burnt highlights and shadows and so much more. So what is the difference between using a filter on a colour photo during the printing process in a darkroom to saturate a photo and adjusting the saturation in Photoshop using the advanced rule set? Really sit back and think about it. It is easier in Photoshop and you can go further in Photoshop but it has existed since the start of photography.
With that being said I do agree that the expert editing is a completely different ball game but it is still photographic art.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:12:51 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Enlightened:
I find this very interesting ΓΆ€“ no not the name calling - but the whole conversation about editing. |
My point, exactly.
And let me just say....
HOLY HIJACKED THREAD, BATMAN!!
Sorry, Susan. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:17:16 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
and then he said something about the floors being removed, don't even know what that meant. it's not expert editing. |
Originally posted by schlake:
and possibly someone erased a few floors down from the person. |
Nope, a PERSON erased from the picture so Waldo's alone, he is saying.
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 15:17:59. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:43:56 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by nygold:
This thread has taken a terrible turn can we get back to being insulted by Snaffles. |
a sliver of wit. wish I had caught it sooner. slivowitz. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 04:09:40 PM · #88 |
| Speaking of taking risks, I once drank milk that was 4 days past it's date. Top that DPC losers. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 04:25:29 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Speaking of taking risks, I once drank milk that was 4 days past it's date. Top that DPC losers. |
LOSER! That's a total misperception of reality. The "date" is the sell-by date, and the milk's good for at least a week after that, usually more if you have a good reefer. Off to the loser corner with you! :-)
(And yes, the pun's intentional)
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 16:25:59. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 04:57:51 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
and then he said something about the floors being removed, don't even know what that meant. it's not expert editing. |
Originally posted by schlake:
and possibly someone erased a few floors down from the person. |
Nope, a PERSON erased from the picture so Waldo's alone, he is saying. |
misread, but my point is the same. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 07:09:12 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by chazoe:
Speaking of taking risks, I once drank milk that was 4 days past it's date. Top that DPC losers. |
LOSER! That's a total misperception of reality. The "date" is the sell-by date, and the milk's good for at least a week after that, usually more if you have a good reefer. Off to the loser corner with you! :-)
(And yes, the pun's intentional) |
Reefer... isn't that an illegal subtance still?
Wait, wait, maybe if I had a reefer I could find  Snafflesin that photo. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 19:16:32. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 07:29:18 PM · #92 |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 09:51:59 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though). |
Had a look through your photos, snapshots would be a better way to put it. Just pointing the camera and taking photos of whatever is in front of your eyes. With little thought behind them. I can appreciate an photo with no processing just as much as one with days worth of processing as long as I can tell there has been some thought to what the final product is going to be before you push the shutter button. And that means all aspects of the photo. Take susans photo for example (bringing it back to the original posters question) She obviously put a lot of thought into her idea and how to accomplish it, however she failed to bring it to us in an interesting way. The photo was skipped over, most people probably didn't take the time when voting even to look for a face because the rest of the photo failed to capture the attention of the viewer.
Schlake: I would appreciate your comments much more if I thought you had a clue how to take a good photograph and then chose to photograph in the style you do. But somehow I don't think you know the first thing about the basics of photography, lighting, DOF, composition. I think you are someone who looks down on people who know how to do these things correctly because you don't know how to do them yourself and you are jealous.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2013 11:29:25 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though). |
Had a look through your photos, snapshots would be a better way to put it. Just pointing the camera and taking photos of whatever is in front of your eyes. With little thought behind them. |
Some of us -- many of us, perhaps -- don't define "snapshot" that way. Please come up with another term that doesn't insult those of who proudly make snapshots.
Now back to your irregularly unscheduled hijack. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 11:33:22 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though). |
Had a look through your photos, snapshots would be a better way to put it. Just pointing the camera and taking photos of whatever is in front of your eyes. With little thought behind them. |
Some of us -- many of us, perhaps -- don't define "snapshot" that way. Please come up with another term that doesn't insult those of who proudly make snapshots.
Now back to your irregularly unscheduled hijack. |
Brian, just out of curiosity, exactly how would you define 'snapshot'? |
|
|
|
12/14/2013 12:04:53 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though). |
Had a look through your photos, snapshots would be a better way to put it. Just pointing the camera and taking photos of whatever is in front of your eyes. With little thought behind them. |
Some of us -- many of us, perhaps -- don't define "snapshot" that way. Please come up with another term that doesn't insult those of who proudly make snapshots.
Now back to your irregularly unscheduled hijack. |
I'm guessing you put more thought behind your photos than just to randomly click the shutter. His photos look as though they are mostly all just snapshots. Yes I'm sure both you and I have just snapshots in our portfolio but not all of them are. Just because we have very different styles doesn't mean we both didn't put some thought into them.
Besides that I don't care what your style is, if you know how to use your camera and chose to be more of an abstract photographer. My major complaint is by those people who don't know how to use their camera and then claim it is because it is their style. I think that is a load of crap.
Message edited by author 2013-12-14 00:07:43. |
|
|
|
12/14/2013 12:16:35 AM · #97 |
Basically, it's like claiming to create art by being as artless as possible. It's that kind of deal. Not that Schlake's claimed he makes "art". He hasn't even claimed his work is "good". All he's said is it's "real". I find a certain virtue inheres in the mindless pursuit of the mundane, and I've engaged in it a lot myself (I'm a very versatile bear) so I'm not taking anything LIKE the amount of umbrage y'all are :-)
As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us..." |
|
|
|
12/14/2013 12:24:10 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Basically, it's like claiming to create art by being as artless as possible. It's that kind of deal. Not that Schlake's claimed he makes "art". He hasn't even claimed his work is "good". All he's said is it's "real". I find a certain virtue inheres in the mindless pursuit of the mundane, and I've engaged in it a lot myself (I'm a very versatile bear) so I'm not taking anything LIKE the amount of umbrage y'all are :-)
As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us..." |
But what makes him the judge of what is real. I don't find his work any more real just because it isn't edited. When I photograph a sunset that photo never looks like what I saw. I have to edit it to look that way. So which is more real, what my eyes saw or what the camera processed the image to look like. What is real is what our minds see and everyone sees things differently. |
|
|
|
12/14/2013 12:47:18 AM · #99 |
Snaffles - I thought I saw a face in the blackness on the left, did not see the face on the wood on the right - but I am old so I have an excuse ;)
sjhuls - Jennifer - ok this is fighting talk ;)
Snap shots are mostly what I take these days I see nothing at all wrong with them, It's very challenging trying to predict movement and press the shutter, well at my age it is anyway. Yes, I do know about DOF, ISO and all the other paraphernalia needed to take photos but this photography lark can sometimes be over rated and taken too seriously.
Most importantly If I get a bad critique on a photo I can always counter with 'It's just a snap shot' - So it's a win-win situation for me :)
|
|
|
|
12/14/2013 01:11:35 AM · #100 |
Personally I don't give a flying fudge about one style vs another. I love that we all have different ideals, ideas and ways of taking, processing , viewing and appreciating all types of photography. One is not more or less 'right' than the other. We all have our preferences but being completely disparaging of others' preferences is simply insulting.
What pissed me off earlier and still does is the patronising bullshit and name calling crap. Unnecessary. |
|
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: 07/20/2025 04:34:18 PM EDT.
