| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/12/2014 05:25:36 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Originally posted by Mike:
i've always felt the ruleset should be named "enhanced editing".
likewise, advanced should be renamed as well
minimal
standard
enhanced
this way none imply ability, they merely define the level of application you can apply to your photographs. |
Absolutely. |
That's an excellent idea as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 05:34:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by SaraR:
Originally posted by Mike:
i've always felt the ruleset should be named "enhanced editing".
likewise, advanced should be renamed as well
minimal
standard
enhanced
this way none imply ability, they merely define the level of application you can apply to your photographs. |
Absolutely. |
That's an excellent idea as far as I'm concerned. |
Or maybe even
none
some
lots |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 08:17:09 PM · #28 |
| can't argue with that logic :) |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 08:48:42 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i've always felt the ruleset should be named "enhanced editing".
likewise, advanced should be renamed as well
minimal
standard
enhanced
this way none imply ability, they merely define the level of application you can apply to your photographs. |
Yes! |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 10:11:17 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by damjanev:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
(snip)As I said, the results of the expert challenges have more to do with Photoshop compositing skills than anything else.(/snip)...But it's not their photographic skill that wins in expert challenges. True, they create good source images, but the results of the challenge have far more to do with creating composite illustrations in Photoshop than their photographic skill. |
While I do agree with the latter half of this statement, I disagree with the first part. It most certainly IS about photographic skill!! The degree of photographic knowledge, in terms of exposure, lighting, perspective, posing, dof, and a whole host of other photographic details, required in the source images IS the reason the compositing of the winning entries works in the final image. One only has to view any of the "expert" challenges (and I completely concur on a change of term for the ruleset...) to see that there are numerous examples of good ideas, which didn't coalesce because the pieces did not match up, due to any of the aforementioned technical issues not applied uniformly. |
I agree. Just look at the descriptions by the author ( gyaban) on the images referenced in this post. Lots of photographic knowledge was used to create those composite images. Lots of lighting theory was put in practice. For example this part from Let my imagination flow:
- Body parts: 16 photos were selected and arranged in the final composition. All of them were photographed at home, with 2 strobes: one for reproducing the main light source (we moved it during the shooting so that its position would be accurate for each part) and another as fill.
You may like it or not, it's up to you. Sometimes i like them, and sometimes i do not, but i respect the photographic knowledge of the author. |
If you've seen the source images, most of them would not stand on their own as ribbon worthy photographs, yes, they're technically well executed. I used to make catalog shots, not the ones with the models, the ones that show all the different colors a garment comes in. They were technically perfect with respect to color, lighting and exposure, they had to be, but they were not very good on their own as photographs. Anyway, my point isn't that they results are good or bad it's that the results achieved are less about skill with a camera and more about skill in compositing.
If that's your thing, great. My response is usually, "Ooh look!" followed by "Oh, it's Photoshopped." Yes, they're generally well done and show a good deal of skill with the computer, but in the end, they're too "in your face" unreal. There's no subtlety to the imagery. It's the eye-candy effect, amped up on crystal meth.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2014 10:14:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
(snip)As I said, the results of the expert challenges have more to do with Photoshop compositing skills than anything else.(/snip)...But it's not their photographic skill that wins in expert challenges. True, they create good source images, but the results of the challenge have far more to do with creating composite illustrations in Photoshop than their photographic skill. |
While I do agree with the latter half of this statement, I disagree with the first part. It most certainly IS about photographic skill!! The degree of photographic knowledge, in terms of exposure, lighting, perspective, posing, dof, and a whole host of other photographic details, required in the source images IS the reason the compositing of the winning entries works in the final image. One only has to view any of the "expert" challenges (and I completely concur on a change of term for the ruleset...) to see that there are numerous examples of good ideas, which didn't coalesce because the pieces did not match up, due to any of the aforementioned technical issues not applied uniformly. |
Technical perfection does not make a good photograph. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 10:19:59 PM · #32 |
| show don't tell arr arr arrrr |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 11:06:33 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you've seen the source images, most of them would not stand on their own as ribbon worthy photographs |
Of course not! They were not taken with that intent!!
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
(snip)As I said, the results of the expert challenges have more to do with Photoshop compositing skills than anything else.(/snip)...But it's not their photographic skill that wins in expert challenges. True, they create good source images, but the results of the challenge have far more to do with creating composite illustrations in Photoshop than their photographic skill. |
While I do agree with the latter half of this statement, I disagree with the first part. It most certainly IS about photographic skill!! The degree of photographic knowledge, in terms of exposure, lighting, perspective, posing, dof, and a whole host of other photographic details, required in the source images IS the reason the compositing of the winning entries works in the final image. One only has to view any of the "expert" challenges (and I completely concur on a change of term for the ruleset...) to see that there are numerous examples of good ideas, which didn't coalesce because the pieces did not match up, due to any of the aforementioned technical issues not applied uniformly. |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Technical perfection does not make a good photograph. |
I couldn't agree more. But you're implying that all you have to do is slap a bunch of images together and voila! A masterpiece. If those "creations" had been achieved with a single image, would you like it better or still dislike it? Perhaps your disdain is for a certain style of image, not for the technique used to create it.
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 23:06:52. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 11:38:01 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Perhaps your disdain is for a certain style of image, not for the technique used to create it. |
That's certainly true in MY case. I overdosed on fantasy in my misspent youth of consuming pulp science fiction, and it mostly doesn't move me anymore no matter how it's accomplished or how skillfully it's been done.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2014 11:47:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Perhaps your disdain is for a certain style of image, not for the technique used to create it. |
That's certainly true in MY case. I overdosed on fantasy in my misspent youth of consuming pulp science fiction, and it mostly doesn't move me anymore no matter how it's accomplished or how skillfully it's been done. |
Based on how it seems most of the flak is being directed at the work of very specific people, I think this is the case overall. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 11:58:12 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Based on how it seems most of the flak is being directed at the work of very specific people, I think this is the case overall. |
I don't even think of it as personally-directed "flak": pretty much everybody seems to acknowledge that our super-shoppers have mad skills. It's just the fact that the work, which is profoundly unappealing to some people BECAUSE of its gloss, is so damned GOOD on its own terms.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2014 07:37:34 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you've seen the source images, most of them would not stand on their own as ribbon worthy photographs |
Of course not! They were not taken with that intent!!
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
(snip)As I said, the results of the expert challenges have more to do with Photoshop compositing skills than anything else.(/snip)...But it's not their photographic skill that wins in expert challenges. True, they create good source images, but the results of the challenge have far more to do with creating composite illustrations in Photoshop than their photographic skill. |
While I do agree with the latter half of this statement, I disagree with the first part. It most certainly IS about photographic skill!! The degree of photographic knowledge, in terms of exposure, lighting, perspective, posing, dof, and a whole host of other photographic details, required in the source images IS the reason the compositing of the winning entries works in the final image. One only has to view any of the "expert" challenges (and I completely concur on a change of term for the ruleset...) to see that there are numerous examples of good ideas, which didn't coalesce because the pieces did not match up, due to any of the aforementioned technical issues not applied uniformly. |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Technical perfection does not make a good photograph. |
I couldn't agree more. But you're implying that all you have to do is slap a bunch of images together and voila! A masterpiece. If those "creations" had been achieved with a single image, would you like it better or still dislike it? Perhaps your disdain is for a certain style of image, not for the technique used to create it. |
I'm not implying anything. When I suggested that the ribbons in the are due mostly to Photoshop skills and not photographic skills, your reply was that the source images created displayed great photographic skill in certain areas, all of which were related to the technical aspects of photography. I remember in basic photography class, everyone creating an taken along a fence at different apertures to illustrate the concept of DOFâ€Â¦almost all of them were technically excellent and displayed technical skillsâ€Â¦none of them were decent photographs.
These resulting images have less to to with the skills needed to make a good photograph that they do with the skills to assemble a composite in PS. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:06:01 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
These resulting images have less to to with the skills needed to make a good photograph that they do with the skills to assemble a composite in PS. |
Yes, that is an argument against the expert ruleset. Are you suggesting it should be disbanded? Any other constructive suggestions?
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 08:07:52. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:32:41 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Urho:
Originally posted by Spork99:
These resulting images have less to to with the skills needed to make a good photograph that they do with the skills to assemble a composite in PS. |
Yes, that is an argument against the expert ruleset. Are you suggesting it should be disbanded? Any other constructive suggestions? |
I don't think I've suggested, or even implied that the "expert" challenges be eliminated. I do think they should be renamed as suggested earlier to reflect their focus on image compositing on the computer. I disagree with the notion as suggested by the name "expert" that these are the pinnacle of photographic skill. I also agree with the idea that many of these images are no longer "photographic in nature"
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 08:34:16. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:51:14 AM · #40 |
Ahaa, there we do agree. The names of the rulesets do suck, they do not mean anything to outsiders.
-"Yeah, had to do some expert editing as advanced would not let me" hmm what.. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 09:27:01 AM · #41 |
This is an interesting discussion. I have perhaps a different perspective being a beginning photographer.
The statement that in expert editing challenges, awesome Photoshop compositing skills are rewarded rings true. But I would submit that even in basic and advanced editing there are Photoshop skills rewarded, it's just not as obvious. I read terms like "curves" and "levels", yet even when folks post their original and edited versions often I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how they are different. I have truly began to wonder if my eyes are broken. (I suspect my eyes simply aren't trained yet in observing fine enough detail, but boy I find it frustrating not to see why a photo is considered improved.)
But is it really so different when someone is able to use layers, burning and dodging, or blending expertly as opposed to the person who can composite photos expertly?
|
|
|
|
05/13/2014 10:54:46 AM · #42 |
I guess I'm just stuck at the "photographic in nature" (aka "PIN") argument, which I find completely meaningless, as it seems to mean different things to different people.
Realistic? Then nothing blurred, warped, etc. would be PIN because that is not what the world actually, "realistically" looks like. SOOC? Then no pp'g would be allowed whatsoever. That it be taken with a film camera? Then you're on the wrong site, since this is DIGITAL Photography Challenge. That it be taken with any camera? All the "expert" images were taken with a camera. Truly, what is meant by "photographic in nature"????
And why should PIN continue to be defined by photography's earliest days? Even advanced darkroom techniques would have not been considered PIN when they first came along, since they altered "reality" as it was captured. Who are we to limit the use of a tool, or dampen someone's imagination? Evolve or die. It is the same with photography. Whether we dislike the process or the results, compositing IS "photographic in nature" because basically, it requires photographs.
That the best composited images win in challenges is a different argument.
@Jules1X - that's how I felt when I first joined. I couldn't figure out how people knew which filter had been used, or what pp'g steps had been done. I just couldn't see it. Like anything else, you'll learn to "see" as you learn more about photography and processing. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 11:58:47 AM · #43 |
I'm liking the feistiness Johanna :)
really though the photographic is nature argument is so old.
i think Gyaban has proven time an again he doesn't need expert editing to create something that looks like it was done in photoshop. If you spend enough money and time with makeup and wardrobe and set building you don't need photoshop.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:12:24 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Mike:
I'm liking the feistiness Johanna :)
really though the photographic is nature argument is so old.
i think Gyaban has proven time an again he doesn't need expert editing to create something that looks like it was done in photoshop. If you spend enough money and time with makeup and wardrobe and set building you don't need photoshop. |
Not to mention, a live-in assistant...
Thanks, Mike :) |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:21:25 PM · #45 |
Be stuck if you want. It's pretty clear to me.
By your definition, a painting made from a photo is "photographic in nature" too. Why not just drop it and say anything goes? How about just taking photographs of colored sheets of paper and warping bits of those into an image. You could make this and call it "photographic in nature".
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 12:23:03. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:59:20 PM · #46 |
Sticking bits of paper together...? You mean like this...?
Or pretty much anything Jan does? So his work is NOT photographic...?
Oh, and whatever argument you had just lost validity with the example you posted. If you think that clip art and drawing is the same thing as a composite created using actual photographs, then clearly you don't know what "photographic" means either. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:21:33 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Sticking bits of paper together...? You mean like this...?
Or pretty much anything Jan does? So his work is NOT photographic...?
Oh, and whatever argument you had just lost validity with the example you posted. If you think that clip art and drawing is the same thing as a composite created using actual photographs, then clearly you don't know what "photographic" means either. |
No, I don't mean like that. I mean taking photographs of paper, filling the frame with nothing but uniform surface in each frame and combining them in PS to create...well...whatever you desire.
And, that example displays every bit of the Photoshop skills that are on display in the expert challenges if not more. That image could have just as easily been created within the bounds you defined. I don't consider it to be any more or less "photographic in nature" than what typically ribbons in Expert challenges. For all you know, that image started with photographs just the way many of the "expert" entries do...the result is more cartoonish, but that's not relevant here. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:36:11 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Jules1x:
I read terms like "curves" and "levels", yet even when folks post their original and edited versions often I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how they are different. |
Try looking at some of the examples in the "How'd They Do That? section (under the Learn menu) where the processing is explained in detail ... my own best exammple is here -- turning this  into this  , though it shouldn't be that hard to tell the difference between them ... :-) |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:55:57 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Sticking bits of paper together...? You mean like this...?
Or pretty much anything Jan does? So his work is NOT photographic...?
Oh, and whatever argument you had just lost validity with the example you posted. If you think that clip art and drawing is the same thing as a composite created using actual photographs, then clearly you don't know what "photographic" means either. |
No, I don't mean like that. I mean taking photographs of paper, filling the frame with nothing but uniform surface in each frame and combining them in PS to create...well...whatever you desire.
And, that example displays every bit of the Photoshop skills that are on display in the expert challenges if not more. That image could have just as easily been created within the bounds you defined. I don't consider it to be any more or less "photographic in nature" than what typically ribbons in Expert challenges. For all you know, that image started with photographs just the way many of the "expert" entries do...the result is more cartoonish, but that's not relevant here. |
I truly do not understand the bolded phrase, above. Uniform surfaces in each frame? Who is doing that???? show me an example, because I cannot visualize what you are saying, whatsoever! And again, cartoonish??? Is this image "cartoonish"?
 |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 02:07:11 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Jules1x:
I read terms like "curves" and "levels", yet even when folks post their original and edited versions often I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how they are different. |
Try looking at some of the examples in the "How'd They Do That? section (under the Learn menu) where the processing is explained in detail ... my own best exammple is here -- turning this into this , though it shouldn't be that hard to tell the difference between them ... :-) |
Awesome. Thanks Paul. I agree, the difference is clearly visible. Oooh, and in the tutorial, even more photos with visible improvements. (I do know that I need to simply practice more with my photos - and be brave and try things like adjustment layers. I need more time in the day!)
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 14:12:37. |
|
