| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2022 11:36:27 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Originally posted by MeMex2:
I am interested in photography, rather than 'digital art'. |
DPC is about 'digital' photography and some of the entries are 'art' ;) |
True. But not all birds are robins. |
|
|
|
07/27/2022 11:56:13 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Originally posted by MeMex2:
I am interested in photography, rather than 'digital art'. |
DPC is about 'digital' photography and some of the entries are 'art' ;) |
True. But not all birds are robins. |
Yes, some are parrots |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 07:21:09 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Neat:
I think we have come to a consensus! |
"Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Coming to a consensus" involves debate and (usually) compromise, and that has not occurred here; the thread is specifically asking for opinions, not debate.
I'd agree that there appears to be agreement among the responders to this thread that 3D imaging without verifiable source images does not fit the DPC model.
I'm probably picking nits here but I just felt it was necessary to make the distinction... |
If that isn't trying to pick fly sh*t from pepper, I don't know what is....
You asked for opinions, you've been presented opinions and discussion to support them.
The majority of which share a common theme.
There have been respondents who represent a fairly solid group of active participants.
You *DO* have a consensus.....what you do with it from here isn't necessarily dictated by that, but you decidedly do have it.
From the site PhraseMix:
Come to a consensus on (something)
When a group of people "come to a consensus" it means that they agree on something like a decision or a conclusion:
A: Have you come to a consensus yet?
B: No, we're still trying to decide.
You can indicate what you're trying to agree on with the phrase "come to a consensus on ___":
I think we've finally come to a consensus on our team's name.
This phrase appears in these lessons:
âWe're trying to come to a consensus on where to go for drinks.â
|
|
|
|
07/28/2022 09:57:41 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You *DO* have a consensus.....what you do with it from here isn't necessarily dictated by that, but you decidedly do have it. |
Yup, that's what I said :-)
Originally posted by ibid:
there appears to be agreement among the responders to this thread that 3D imaging without verifiable source images does not fit the DPC model. |
And I *did* say it was picking nits, didn't I? But there's still a distinction: We *asked* for opinion, not debate, in the OP. We suggested there would be a further thread for debate, *if needed*, later on. So we haven't *come* to anything, we are just *seeing* something. I just wanted to make that clear, OK?
So, what's your point, Jeb?
Message edited by author 2022-07-28 09:59:23. |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 12:16:01 PM · #55 |
For the near future, I have a small suggestion.
If anybody wants to do 3D images or any other new technical endeavors, he/she shall open a SC and we will all be interested and this site will continue to be a learning one.
This means that there will be only comments and no marks and there are people for whom marks and ribbons count more than shearing.
And this will forever leave the options and debates open.
Back to work. |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 12:31:34 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
For the near future, I have a small suggestion.
If anybody wants to do 3D images or any other new technical endeavors, he/she shall open a SC and we will all be interested and this site will continue to be a learning one.
This means that there will be only comments and no marks and there are people for whom marks and ribbons count more than shearing.
And this will forever leave the options and debates open.
Back to work. |
Thanks, Mariuca, but it won't work for me, the voting challenge is what motivates me so Side Challenge won't cut it, and I am still learning myself so how could I teach others!
PS I hope you meant sharing rather than shearing! (the sheep!! :))) |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 12:38:41 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Originally posted by mariuca:
For the near future, I have a small suggestion.
If anybody wants to do 3D images or any other new technical endeavors, he/she shall open a SC and we will all be interested and this site will continue to be a learning one.
This means that there will be only comments and no marks and there are people for whom marks and ribbons count more than shearing.
And this will forever leave the options and debates open.
Back to work. |
Thanks, Mariuca, but it won't work for me, the voting challenge is what motivates me so Side Challenge won't cut it, and I am still learning myself so how could I teach others!
PS I hope you meant sharing rather than shearing! (the sheep!! :))) |
Mille tonnerres, Margaret! Yes, share - and I mean it.
On the other topic, all artistic endeavor shall stem from the necessity of the artist to create/make. Waiting for general public appreciation is more often than not a dead end.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2022 12:41:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Originally posted by mariuca:
For the near future, I have a small suggestion.
If anybody wants to do 3D images or any other new technical endeavors, he/she shall open a SC and we will all be interested and this site will continue to be a learning one.
This means that there will be only comments and no marks and there are people for whom marks and ribbons count more than shearing.
And this will forever leave the options and debates open.
Back to work. |
Thanks, Mariuca, but it won't work for me, the voting challenge is what motivates me so Side Challenge won't cut it, and I am still learning myself so how could I teach others!
PS I hope you meant sharing rather than shearing! (the sheep!! :))) |
Mille tonnerres, Margaret! Yes, share - and I mean it.
On the other topic, all artistic endeavor shall stem from the necessity of the artist to create/make. Waiting for general public appreciation is more often than not a dead end. |
I agree with that but I am not an artist. |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 12:52:56 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If that isn't trying to pick fly sh*t from pepper, I don't know what is.... |
Sorry, off topic. This is the best thing I have heard (read) in a long time. I spit my Iced tea out laughing when I read it.
Sorry to interupt the discussion. Carry on.
Tammy
Message edited by author 2022-07-28 12:53:15. |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 01:08:50 PM · #60 |
| I am pleased to see that the responses are back to this level. |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 08:43:08 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If that isn't trying to pick fly sh*t from pepper, I don't know what is.... |
Originally posted by tjbel05:
Sorry, off topic. This is the best thing I have heard (read) in a long time. I spit my Iced tea out laughing when I read it. |
You may use that no charge!
On second thought, you have to let me borrow your Z9 for the weekend!
LOL!
|
|
|
|
07/28/2022 08:57:33 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You *DO* have a consensus.....what you do with it from here isn't necessarily dictated by that, but you decidedly do have it. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yup, that's what I said :-) |
Sigh.....no, what you said was:"Coming to a consensus" involves debate and (usually) compromise, and that has not occurred here"
That was incorrect, and I was merely pointing out that you got a consensus and more for your money.
I don't believe anyone was thinking it was going any further than that other than discussion.....which there was.
You didn't think there wouldn't be discussion, did you?
Originally posted by ibid:
there appears to be agreement among the responders to this thread that 3D imaging without verifiable source images does not fit the DPC model. |
This seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw from the discussion.
That doesn't mean it's etched in stone, especially when you consider that it's just people having.......a discussion.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And I *did* say it was picking nits, didn't I? But there's still a distinction: We *asked* for opinion, not debate, in the OP. We suggested there would be a further thread for debate, *if needed*, later on. So we haven't *come* to anything, we are just *seeing* something. I just wanted to make that clear, OK?
So, what's your point, Jeb? |
I guess I'm just trying to figure out why it is that you seem so determined to, what seems like, limit discussion after you brought up the subject in the first place.
You stated in your OP: "we are interested in *hearing* those opinions right now"
Of course, then you stated: "Discussion will come later, in another thread where we offer up some proposals that seem to have broader support up for debate as we work to achieve consensus."
Okay.....that didn't wholly go as you'd planned, but it sure seemed like an interesting discussion, and something for y'all in the executive towers to chew on, right?
That's the trouble with groups of rabble......they're gonna tell you what they think.
Whatever...
|
|
|
|
07/28/2022 09:00:59 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
I agree with that but I am not an artist. |
Oh, puh-lease!!!
Biography:ViewBug, 500px, Official Top 50 Ribbons (highest on 3), Unofficial DPC Points and Ribbons (2nd 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, 8th 2021), 2013 TPL2 1st Place , Free Study Race (2nd in 2013) . 2015 DPL3 1st Place, Free Study Race (2nd in 2019)
Yeah, you just have a really good camera! LOL!
I'd give my eye teeth to have your skills and talent.
Bite me, Margaret!
LOL!
|
|
|
|
07/28/2022 10:26:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
I agree with that but I am not an artist. |
Oh, puh-lease!!!
Biography:ViewBug, 500px, Official Top 50 Ribbons (highest on 3), Unofficial DPC Points and Ribbons (2nd 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, 8th 2021), 2013 TPL2 1st Place , Free Study Race (2nd in 2013) . 2015 DPL3 1st Place, Free Study Race (2nd in 2019)
Yeah, you just have a really good camera! LOL!
|
Thatâs brilliant, Jeb. Even better than the fly quote! |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 10:47:04 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yeah, you just have a really good camera! LOL!
|
Thatâs brilliant, Jeb. Even better than the fly quote! |
 |
|
|
|
07/28/2022 11:02:59 PM · #66 |
| Jeb, I just didn't want people arguing with each other in this thread, because these things have a tendency to break down into ferocious back and forth noise that discourages others from voicing an opinion; we've learned this from past experience. If debate seemed/seems warranted, that could be set up. In the event, the only debate that's occurred is you calling me out and me responding to it, and all over a nit, so let's put it to rest, OK? |
|
|
|
07/29/2022 07:09:17 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jeb, I just didn't want people arguing with each other in this thread, |
Okay, then stop.
So far the majority of your content on this subject has borne an eerie resemblance to mansplaining.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2022 07:35:02 AM · #68 |
To reiterate the intention of this thread. If you have an opinion on the following subject matter, please contribute accordingly.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's worth taking a few minutes to ponder what have always been the 3 Core Principles of Digital Photography Challenge, the site we call home:
1. We are a *Challenge* site: we challenge our members to create images within a specific time frame and on a specific topic/theme.
2. We are a *Digital Photography* site: we are digital-camera based.
3. We enter images that *we* created and that we can objectively *prove* that we created.
There's a certain amount of angst floating around right now about how appropriate (or "legal") it is to use CGI/VR/3D Model-based images in entries into the DPC Extended Editing challenges.
From a historical perspective, bear in mind that when we first started working with Expert/Extended rulesets we began seeing entries that bore no obvious relationship to their "origin" images; that is to say, they had been morphed beyond all recognition in various ways. The most obvious examples are "Flip n' Blend" constructions, but that's just one form of extreme morphing. Now, jump forward to when a certain member named  Gyaban began creating absolutely amazing fantasy images by shooting literally DOZENS of images and painstakingly morphing and whittling them into elaborate scenarios. He wowed us all, and he was just beginning. Somewhere in that evolution, Gyaban entered an image in which he effectively used 3-D modeling/wireframes to create shapes which he then "skinned" with textures etc which were derived from photographs he had shot. At first, we disqualified that image, but there was backlash and he calmly and rationally convinced us that if we are going to allow morphing of photographs at all, it is not consistent to disallow the creation of shapes upon which the images may be molded, since that's a more efficient way of doing it.
So we went along with that, it made sense, and life went on as usual. And in roughly the same time frame as the above evolution was happening (broadly speaking) we adjusted the rules to allow the use of *textures* that came from sources other than the photographer's own images, and to lose the fuzzy differentiation between "major" and "minor" elements, thus allowing the cloning-out, in Standard Editing, of anything you didn't want to see in your final image, the only restriction being that what replaces the cloned-out object should be what one would see if the object were no longer there. So all of these changes, and others too numerous to mention, have been happening for some time.
Now, at the present moment, we have disqualified a member's entry in an extended-editing challenge because it was 100% created in 3D modeling software, and no actual photographs were part of its creation. There are a couple of issues there: for one, we can't actually *validate* the image because there is no EXIF data to show when it, or any of its components, was created, and DPC has always required valid EXIF to validate an image. Additionally, the image in question is not, in fact, a *photograph*: it's a masterwork for sure, but it isn't photography.
The member in question, understandably, is disappointed with our decision and has told us so.
*******************
So here we are. Think about all that. Is it time to allow computer-generated, non-photographic entries in Extended Editing? Should we create a new ruleset specifically for these sorts of images and run challenges using those rules occasionally? Are we becoming irrelevant because we don't allow that currently, or are we an admirable, steadfast bastion against the dilution of photography into something more generic? What does "photography" even mean these days, given that the root of the term is "Light" + "Write", writing with light? Should we embrace OTHER arts than photography, or take the approach that "if it has rules it is not art" and abandon rules entirely?
There are SO many ways to look at this. We're interested in hearing opinions.
This thread is NOT the place to argue against other peoples' opinions, please. We will erase responses that start arguing with other posters over their opinions; we are interested in *hearing* those opinions right now. Discussion will come later, in another thread where we offer up some proposals that seem to have broader support up for debate as we work to achieve consensus.
********************
Thanks in advance for listening and participating! |
|
|
|
|
07/29/2022 11:30:04 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Do it with a camera, not a computer would be my general position I think. |
In other words, let your camera do the processing... Because every capture is processed either by the camera or the computer. |
|
|
|
07/29/2022 11:43:52 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by Cory:
Do it with a camera, not a computer would be my general position I think. |
In other words, let your camera do the processing... Because every capture is processed either by the camera or the computer. |
If I understand what Cory is saying he means create / capture the image with a camera; meaning when the camera sensor gathers the light values. The camera collects the data. Doing it only with a computer (no camera involved) means creating the image from scratch (no light gathering of an image capture). |
|
|
|
07/29/2022 11:49:33 AM · #71 |
I believe that a lot of people here expressed a similar opinion on these three principles:
1. We are a *Challenge* site: we challenge our members to create images within a specific time frame and on a specific topic/theme.
2. We are a *Digital Photography* site: we are digital-camera based.
3. We enter images that *we* created and that we can objectively *prove* that we created.
As a read the opinions (ignoring the petty tiffs) the answer to the question
Is it time to allow computer-generated, non-photographic entries in Extended Editing?
is FOR NOW, NO
We might revisit this in the hazy future.
Can we get over this and not split hair? |
|
|
|
07/29/2022 12:23:08 PM · #72 |
| I agree with mariuca. And maybe we could have a "split hair" challenge. |
|
|
|
07/29/2022 02:56:04 PM · #73 |
This thread has been up for a week, and I imagine everyone who pays attention to the forums and has an opinion they want to express has already done so. Considering the near-unanimity of the responses, I think it's safe to say we won't be expanding our remit to include solely computer-generated imagery in the foreseeable future. We are a *photography* site and we want to keep photography in the center of the frame, so to speak.
As far as extended editing goes, there's a huge amount of freedom but the bulk of the image you enter needs to be provable as photographically sourced from images captured by you within the challenge time frame. As has been the case there's some leeway there for using photoshop and other tools etc to supplement/enhance the photography.
Thanks for all the feedback! |
|
