| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2014 12:59:51 PM · #76 |
Message edited by author 2014-12-04 10:36:13. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 01:15:10 PM · #77 |
Well, removing all the editing rules isn't gonna happen. We all know that. Speaking for myself only (this is NOT an SC "position") I think it would be a big step towards rationality in Advanced Editing to get rid of the "major elements" clause and let us clone OUT of our images, or otherwise obliterate, whatever we want to. I'd also be interested in sort of expanding the HDR composite/focus stacking composite idea to include the possibility of moving body parts from one frame to another. You know the sort of image, where everyone in the shot's smiling except this guy here? Or the model's got a perfect expression in this shot but her hand's awkwardly rotated? In the same vein, I'd like to see it allowed that we can use stacked exposures of a scene to eliminate moving elements, like people moving through St. Mark's square or something.
But that's just me. And it has little to do with the "throw out the editing rules and let people do as they please" position. I can't get behind that. Creativity flourishes when it comes up against limitations it must surmount. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 01:46:05 PM · #78 |
Maybe, like Mike, I'm in the minority. I want to see reality. I want to see power lines and red eye and zits. I want to share the thrill of your fortuitous timing in capturing something magical. I want to sit inside your skull and look out the windows and see where we stop. I don't want to see it after it's been reupholstered in Photoshop. I've never subscribed much to the "mind's eye" business, unless you can convince me that most people have an HDR visual implant...
I enjoy the work of a  gyaban, but not for the same reasons I enjoy a  nick_hinch. They're two different arts. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 02:19:52 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, removing all the editing rules isn't gonna happen. We all know that. Speaking for myself only (this is NOT an SC "position") I think it would be a big step towards rationality in Advanced Editing to get rid of the "major elements" clause and let us clone OUT of our images, or otherwise obliterate, whatever we want to. I'd also be interested in sort of expanding the HDR composite/focus stacking composite idea to include the possibility of moving body parts from one frame to another. You know the sort of image, where everyone in the shot's smiling except this guy here? Or the model's got a perfect expression in this shot but her hand's awkwardly rotated? In the same vein, I'd like to see it allowed that we can use stacked exposures of a scene to eliminate moving elements, like people moving through St. Mark's square or something.
But that's just me. And it has little to do with the "throw out the editing rules and let people do as they please" position. I can't get behind that. Creativity flourishes when it comes up against limitations it must surmount. |
While I would be fine with "do whatever you want", I realize that will not happen. I am also OK with rules. Bear, you asked what we would like to be able to do that we can't in Advanced, which never got addressed. I would say I would most like to clone out elements I find distracting. A close second would be making an HDR when one of the frames has something the others don't have (person, bird, car, etc.) Your list above is also good.
That's for Advanced. I have expressed my reasons for not participating in Minimal, so won't repeat that. However, people can try to get it perfect in-camera for any of the rule sets. You never HAVE to process anything to enter.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2014 02:26:41 PM · #80 |
8Originally posted by bvy:
Maybe, like Mike, I'm in the minority. I want to see reality. I want to see power lines and red eye and zits. I want to share the thrill of your fortuitous timing in capturing something magical. I want to sit inside your skull and look out the windows and see where we stop. I don't want to see it after it's been reupholstered in Photoshop. I've never subscribed much to the "mind's eye" business, unless you can convince me that most people have an HDR visual implant... |
Unlike Mike's position that we completely upend DPC to satisfy his vision of it, you can accomplish this with every image you enter. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 02:53:59 PM · #81 |
| oh heck. this being now in rant, there'd be no fun in saying what I want to say ... |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 02:54:26 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by bvy:
... convince me that most people have an HDR visual implant... |
The human retina has a dynamic range of about 12-14 stops, comercial sensors cover more like 6-8 stops. "Properly" used HDR processing allows reproduction of detail over a range of tones greater than what can be captured in any single exposure. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 03:00:27 PM · #83 |
Limiting your resources and still achieving a goal is the ultimate indication of mastering a skill.
Try it sometime.
Go out with one camera and one fixed focal length lens and come back with the shot.
Decide in advance that you will not crop an image and shoot with that in mind.
Shoot only in black and white.
This will force you to concentrate more on capturing the image than on fixing it.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2014 03:24:53 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
My prediction where this thread is headed ...
 |
Took a bit longer than I thought to find its' way into 'Rant'. :-) |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 03:53:47 PM · #85 |
I think sometimes we need to bitch about the rules, until they get changed, then we bitch about the new rules, or the change itself.
The one variable in the discussion is always "leave it to the voters" or "what will the voters do"- and we are afraid, and rightly so, that the Gyaban style glossy-finessed product will defeat the Nick Hinch every time, at least in score. And so we keep them apart. But that supposes, unfairly, that the "Nick Hinch" style product you view at any given moment, could not be created without any editing rules, as if it would be abandoned for the Gyaban style by everyone, all for the sake of score, perhaps. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 04:23:02 PM · #86 |
I use photoshop all the time. I love it. I create digital art as an ongoing hobby.
I used to enter challenges on DPC with the strictest rules, because they're a challenge. I loved that. It taught me a lot about how to get things right in camera, and make processing easier, if to comes to that.
Now most of what I see is a bunch of processed art that really rubs me the wrong way.
99% of my post processing winds up as an exposure tweak, a vignette, some sloppy dodge and burn, and cloning out dust. I can do this and still create a powerful image BECAUSE I spent so much time creating work I wasn't allowed to fix with a bunch of crutches or by piling on effects and composites.
This thread has it backwards.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2014 05:12:42 PM · #87 |
| Two expert challenges open right now! Go enter, Mike. Put your money where your argument lies! |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 05:31:38 PM · #88 |
Why is there an assumption that a Gyaban style image would win every challenge?
And what if that type of image did win every challenge? Gyaban spends a lot of time on his entries, from inception to submitting. His images fit the challenge and usually tell a story. Each part is a photo, so he has skill with the camera as well as the computer. I would assume anyone making such a detailed composite would spend a great deal of time on the project.
Are we going to ban something because it is hard to beat? Or would it be better for the rest of us to improve our skills, whether your preference is no processing or full blown composites, to better compete? A great image is a great image, regardless of how it was created. Perfect your craft to the point that you are satisfied with your results and see what can happen.
Edit to clarify: By "satisfied with your results" I meant that your images are exactly what you want them to be, and created in the manner you believe most appropriate for you.
Message edited by author 2014-12-03 17:33:11. |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 05:31:53 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Two expert challenges open right now! Go enter, Mike. Put your money where your argument lies! |
+1 |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 06:04:11 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Neat, you mentioned i haven't entered anything since august, this is true, my membership expired and i have yet to see a reason to renew and i really dont see this place as a challenge any longer. i dont want to compete against some ruleset, i want to compete against what i consider some really good photographers and their best efforts, not their best effort under a handicap. |
Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but my interpretation of what you are saying here is diametrially opposed to the suggestion you make that "youwant to compete against what i consider some really good photographers and their best efforts".
If the quality of photography is what you are after, the post processing really ought not form part of the equation.
Again, this is only my interpretation of what you said and I could be wrong.
I an assure you for a fact that if your suggestion is indeed implemented, that I will be the first one out of the door.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 06:26:16 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I an assure you for a fact that if your suggestion is indeed implemented, that I will be the first one out of the door.
|
I don't understand this. In an Expert challenge, anything can be entered, whether it is straight from the camera, or a multi-photo composite. The rules do not force you to do any editing at all.
I would ask this of everyone who opposes relaxing the rules. Do you just not want to see processed images? Do you think your work is lacking when compared to a composite?
|
|
|
|
12/03/2014 10:14:05 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
And what if that type of image did win every challenge? Gyaban spends a lot of time on his entries, from inception to submitting. |
And just how many of the people who now routinely enter have that kind of time, or the desire to spend it on an entry here? If it required "that type" of image to win every challenge, I'm sure the membership would collapse.
If you read about the history of the site, you'll find it was started to help people become "better" photographers, using the challenges only as a vehicle or mechanism to achieve that. Learning by challenging yourself to create something should be the goal, not winning a non-existent prize. Every competition -- NASCAR, the Olympics, NG photo contests, sadly even war -- has rules and limitations imposed on the competitors.
We try to have rules which are fair, reasonable, and reasonably possible to enforce with volunteer effort.
At that, we allow you to use the site to run your own challenges, which can have as many or few rules as you want ... you won't have the advantage of the built-in scoring system, but that shouldn't be necessary since with unlimited editing allowed all the pictures will be perfect ... |
|
|
|
12/03/2014 10:38:20 PM · #93 |
well said, GeneralE.
thank you, Mousie.
thank you, scarbrd.
and others. I am not quite so clear-minded as bvy, but I feel grounded with people who respect the astonishing machine that is the camera. I am not above the outrageous tweak, the seduction of double exposure/layers, but the essential will always be the camera, the time the place the lens the idiot/ecstatic person behind it. I have no desire to play chess. I have no desire to win. Nor have I any desire to be condescended to. I can't wait for peoples' daughters to grow up and show 'em what's what.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2014 11:26:09 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
I would ask this of everyone who opposes relaxing the rules. Do you just not want to see processed images? Do you think your work is lacking when compared to a composite? |
There exists a monumental amount of difference between what you are suggesting and the proposal initially made by the OP which is shown in the title of this thread.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 03:16:38 AM · #95 |
| This thread is no fun now that Mike has shut up. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 08:37:48 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I am not quite so clear-minded as bvy, but I feel grounded with people who respect the astonishing machine that is the camera. I am not above the outrageous tweak, the seduction of double exposure/layers, but the essential will always be the camera, the time the place the lens the idiot/ecstatic person behind it. |
It's a short drive from clear-minded to empty-headed! I do occasionally experiment, but the last time I entered an Expert Editing challenge in earnest, I misspelled ecstasy. My "reupholstered moments" referred to those where the power lines and pimples disappear. That's the good stuff. To the General's point, HDR is fine, but if I see HDR before I see anything in the frame, then it's too much. And I love double exposures, but I prefer to do them in camera, as I like the element of surprise -- it's usually better than anything I can assemble after the fact. Maybe it's time for another camera swap. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 12:48:23 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
I would ask this of everyone who opposes relaxing the rules. Do you just not want to see processed images? Do you think your work is lacking when compared to a composite? |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There exists a monumental amount of difference between what you are suggesting and the proposal initially made by the OP which is shown in the title of this thread.
Ray |
Yah, that.....
My biggest complaint is that here's another volatile thread that's trying to couch a well presented case for their demands, yet it's right on the heels of a drastic change & improvement.
Why are there these constant demands for more? It just comes across like all too many people just constantly want to demand more to suit their own personal agenda.
And not to pick on Mike so much specifically, but where does someone who's participated in 11 challenges for the whole freakin' year, the last one over three months ago, get so much sour grapes attitude?
And of course, this Rant is diametrically opposed to the "Real photographers do photographs, not digital art." crowd whose argument is often just as well supported.
Personally, I think that the various rulesets and occasional mild changes have made me a better photog simply because the level playing field does exactly what it's supposed to......it CHALLENGES you.
Personally, after eight years, I find I use less and less PP skills as after 400+ challenges I'm one heck of a lot better at getting what I want.....which I learned here, participating.
Obviously, YMMV, but to me, bitching less, and participating more would get you where you want to be.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2014 01:04:49 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by bvy:
To the General's point, HDR is fine, but if I see HDR before I see anything in the frame, then it's too much. |
I agree -- to me the idea of HDR is to make it look like what your eyes saw, not what the camera could capture in a single (more limited) exposure. Like sharpening, if it's perfectly done you can't tell ... |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 01:33:00 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And just how many of the people who now routinely enter have that kind of time, or the desire to spend it on an entry here? If it required "that type" of image to win every challenge, I'm sure the membership would collapse.
If you read about the history of the site, you'll find it was started to help people become "better" photographers, using the challenges only as a vehicle or mechanism to achieve that. Learning by challenging yourself to create something should be the goal, not winning a non-existent prize. Every competition -- NASCAR, the Olympics, NG photo contests, sadly even war -- has rules and limitations imposed on the competitors.
We try to have rules which are fair, reasonable, and reasonably possible to enforce with volunteer effort.
At that, we allow you to use the site to run your own challenges, which can have as many or few rules as you want ... you won't have the advantage of the built-in scoring system, but that shouldn't be necessary since with unlimited editing allowed all the pictures will be perfect ... |
Of course most people don't have that much time to spend on an entry. I don't, and couldn't create what Gyaban creates even if I did--not because I don't have the skill but because I don't have the vision. I'm challenging the assumption that a composite or heavily processed shot would always win.
I've also stated I am not opposed to rules. My optimum rule set would be somewhere between Advanced and Expert, giving a little more freedom over cloning/removing distractions but not necessarily making composites. The current rules sets will not cause me to rant or leave. I think the SC does a good job of enforcing the rules and have always been supportive of their efforts.
Not sure anyone has said, or implied, that unlimited processing makes for perfect photos. In fact, my questions were asking about the exact opposite of this. If a person can create an awesome shot straight from the camera or with basic editing, why is there an assumption it cannot score well?
I have learned a lot since joining and am getting much closer to producing what I envision. I take far less photos when I am shooting because I no longer have to take 50 images hoping one will be usable. Still, my photos do not do well here. My scores have gone up a little this year, but I am not holding my breath for a ribbon. I stay for the community and for ideas when I need inspiration to shoot. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 02:00:11 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
I have learned a lot since joining and am getting much closer to producing what I envision. I take far less photos when I am shooting because I no longer have to take 50 images hoping one will be usable. Still, my photos do not do well here. My scores have gone up a little this year, but I am not holding my breath for a ribbon. I stay for the community and for ideas when I need inspiration to shoot. |
Likewise ... :-) |
|
