DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Please, please spell out the rules more clearly
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 94 of 94, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/13/2004 03:00:07 PM · #76
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by bmatt17:


I disagree, look at the last 2 first placr ribbons from Heida. They are both wonderfull images, and with a large degree of "digital manipulation". Lokk at the before and after of Angel. If photoshop work is done right, the results can be outstanding.


I don't consider this work from Heida digital art at all. Manipulated, yes. But the tools she's used have enhanced an already great photograph and she didn't superimpose image into her original photograph, she only altered the color of an already existing image.

I guess the degree of manipulation has a lot to do with where we all draw our own line of what is and isn't an acceptable edit. This is exactly why I am uncomfortable with my current entry. I've gone beyond my own limits, but I think it's within the rules. I'm not sure.


And I believe that is the kind of image that would get voted high, even in a 3rd ruleset that allowed much more in photoshop. This is still a photography site, so if I tweaked curves to make my image look like a bad acid trip, while even legal now, it would get voted very low. I personally would like to work on my photoshop skills as much as my photography skills, and would even consider paying more for membership to be able to participate in those challenges. You'd have the basic ruleset to work on your skill with the camera, the advanced to have a little more freedom post shot, and the photoshop to really let those skills show.
 07/13/2004 03:07:40 PM · #77
Originally posted by mbardeen:
If she didn't win two first place ribbons, would people even take issue with the amount of "manipulation"?

I highly doubt it. It seems like everytime someone starts winning too much, people start screaming that they're cheating or that they're bending the rules.

I personally have made photos that don't look anything like the original. Go look at my weather shot. That was with basic editing. I've also taken shots that people have assumed that were post-processed to hell and back but, in reality, were straight out of the camera (look at my Transportation shot). Neither were questioned because they didn't come close to winning, but they certainly didn't score badly either...

I think I'll scream if I have to see another one of those "not a photographer" rants. Enter your unpostprocessed shot in the advanced challenge if you wish. Or enter the basic editing challenges if you don't like the competition in the advanced editing ones. That's why they are there. Don't go forcing your views on what is photography and what isn't on everyone else.

-Matt


If this was aimed at my post, I think you mistook me. I think photoshop skills is as much a part of digital photography as is the skill behind the camera. I happen to really like heida's pictures, and would like to see more of the like.
 07/13/2004 03:12:29 PM · #78
My two cents. Like some I come from the film era. Burn and dodging were the basic editing techniques. The preparation of the unsharp mask was a tedious big deal and I considered it advance.
Here in basic editing, I understand that burn and dodging not allowed. Will someine explain to me what the reason is?
Yes, the use of layers gets very involved, so its limitation in the advance, provided it is used in normal mode, makes sense.
I feel that dodging, burning and selective saturation or desaturation should be allowe at basic level.
 07/13/2004 03:13:25 PM · #79
Originally posted by Britannica:
Right now, the most important key concepts that are not clearly defined are:

'photographic integrity': I know it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules anymore, but I see that as an indication it is not defined intentionally. Yet, it is still one of the most basic defining elements of the rules.

'exposure': This thread provided additional leeway to cameras that support the RAW format in terms of what is considered a single exposure. I personally have no problem with the technique used as an example, but it does cloud the definition a bit too much to be considered solid anymore.

'in-camera': I have heard in commented up (but not officially) that anything done to a RAW file is considered 'in-camera', which I find a bit hard to understand. It seems a lot like me argueing that I should be able to connect my camera to my computer, leave the card in it, open photoshop and edit the file on the card, save, remove the card and download the 'from camera' image.

The point I am trying to make is that the tools and techniques don't matter, the rules state this by saying that violations of the 'spirit of the rules' is grounds for DQ. Yet the spirit of the rules are not defined anywhere. Define this, and the task of determining what rules and techniques should or should not be allowed becomes much, much easier -- leave it undefined and it remains the mass of contridictions it has been for years (judging by this thread).

David


So, give us a clearcut definition of "photographic integrity", "exposure", and "in-camera". No. Wait. I'll make it even easier.

Define "photographic integrity" in a way that any person can take that definition, apply to the following photograph, and determine whether it is legal or not.

Challenge:


Original:


07/13/2004 03:13:46 PM · #80
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Gringo:

I guess the degree of manipulation has a lot to do with where we all draw our own line of what is and isn't an acceptable edit. This is exactly why I am uncomfortable with my current entry. I've gone beyond my own limits, but I think it's within the rules. I'm not sure.


The "degree" is where I always have problems. In advanced challenges, you might remove the telephone wires--but can you also remove the telephone pole? Or is that going too far? I can remove an object using the clone tool, or I can do it by creating a layer and erasing--which method is appropriate? Or are both acceptable methods?


KaDi, this is exactly where I struggle to stay within the rules as well. In my questionable image, I cloned and removed everything in sight, but the subject was left unscathed. Heida didn't manipulate her two fantastic blue ribbon winners even close to the degree I "enhanced" my (soon to be lowest scoring) awesome entry.

Art is so subjective! so are all the tools that get us there.
 07/13/2004 03:15:16 PM · #81
Originally posted by bmatt17:

If this was aimed at my post, I think you mistook me. I think photoshop skills is as much a part of digital photography as is the skill behind the camera. I happen to really like heida's pictures, and would like to see more of the like.


Naw.. it was just a general rant about rants.. nothing specific.
 07/13/2004 03:17:13 PM · #82
I think the spirit of the rules is basicly that the challenges are about photography and not about photoshop skills. It is hard to set strict rules for that, but I think a lot of people agree with this sentiment and have a gut feeling about where the photo ends and the ps-art begins. Heida's pictures are on the border of those two, and thus room voor discussion.
 07/13/2004 03:22:46 PM · #83
Well, Mbardeen, It's pretty clear you should have waited for a bolt of lightning to strike in front of the telephone wires. But you should probably put on a close-up lens for this shot and step back about 100 yards. Stand in a puddle of water and bite down on some tin foil while your at it. (good for the backlighting)
(just a little sarcasm to brighten up the day) ;)

Great shot by the way!

Is it integrity of the camera? or integrity of the image?

07/13/2004 03:24:13 PM · #84
Take pity on a newbie... are we allowed to change contrast, brightness, and details? Hue - add more red, take away some blue?
 07/13/2004 03:34:02 PM · #85
Originally posted by Allyrellia:
Take pity on a newbie... are we allowed to change contrast, brightness, and details? Hue - add more red, take away some blue?


Hi Allyrellia,
As a newbie, please understand that for the most part the rules are pretty well defined and can be read under the "challenges" dropdown list on the toolbar. There are two sets of rules and they are defined at the beginning of every challenge. You should make it a point to read them for every entry until you are familiar with them. And don't forget to check the date on your camera and make sure it is accurate.

All this squabbling about the rules is just a hashing up of some of the small gray areas within the wording of the rules.

Welcome to the site :)
 07/13/2004 03:36:37 PM · #86
I did read them, but I don't use photoshop... I use a cheap little program that calls everything by a different name, and as I'm still learning what's what, I'm not sure if what I'm reading is what I'm doing, and vice versa. Thank you though! :)
 07/13/2004 03:41:49 PM · #87
Originally posted by Gringo:
Well, Mbardeen, It's pretty clear you should have waited for a bolt of lightning to strike in front of the telephone wires. But you should probably put on a close-up lens for this shot and step back about 100 yards. Stand in a puddle of water and bite down on some tin foil while your at it. (good for the backlighting)
(just a little sarcasm to brighten up the day) ;)

Great shot by the way!

Is it integrity of the camera? or integrity of the image?


Thx. You should have heard the people I was with... "uhh.. it's getting closer." "I really think we should go now" "holy sh*t that was right above us!"

The killer was we were standing on a bridge and there was a big stone pillar right behind where the camera was sitting.
07/13/2004 03:46:21 PM · #88
Throw the question out there. The Site Council are all pretty responsive to question you might have. They will need to know what program you are using and which tool and technique you want to use too.

Good luck :)
 07/13/2004 04:00:28 PM · #89
Originally posted by Phileine:
I think the spirit of the rules is basicly that the challenges are about photography and not about photoshop skills. It is hard to set strict rules for that, but I think a lot of people agree with this sentiment and have a gut feeling about where the photo ends and the ps-art begins. Heida's pictures are on the border of those two, and thus room voor discussion.


I think you just said it here!
But I also think that Photoshop skill must be allowed, for those who know their way around it, so people can learn and improve. So why not assume this and divide the competiton in 3 major rules/blocks, or putting additional contest for those very manipulated shots?
 07/13/2004 05:47:33 PM · #90
Photographic Integrity is difficult to define but to leave out any mention of it in the Advanced rules seems to diminish it's importance. The first set of Advanced rules, before the 4/25 update, contained this sentence-

Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting.
(boldface is from the rules, not mine)

This was left out when the update came in April. Lack of a clear definition leaves it up to the Site Council to determine and enforce PI. Keeping it in mind while voting gave the voter a way to express their own idea about what has, and what has gone beyond, PI; thus allowing the voters to assist the SC in a way. But leaving it out of the new rules completely gives the impression that it is no longer as important as it used to be. And voters are no longer encouraged to express their own feelings with the scores they give. Perhaps it was not the intent but the result has been to take away two devices (the sentence in the rules and the lowered vote) that served to counterbalance the drift away from digital photography and toward digital art. Not at all surprising that ribboners are more processed and some are disatisfied about it. I'd like to see that sentence back in the Advanced rules the next time they are updated.
 07/13/2004 05:52:50 PM · #91
I am wondering if there will eventually be two DPC's. There are almost two different art forms emerging and maybe that will lead to each having its own niche at some point.
 07/14/2004 01:50:37 AM · #92
Yeah, but the solution is very simple. Basic editing, advance editing and digital art. With digital art there are no rules of manipulation, however, no stock photos, no recycling of old material. May even use modeling or deawing programs as part of composite.

Each of the above is entered with the range of revalent steps to help others achieve similar effects. Nothing wrong with digital art. DPC will just become more popular because the PS wizards wouldn't have to go else where.

Funny, I came here to give my Digital Art a rest. lol
 07/14/2004 03:46:23 AM · #93
Originally posted by Phileine:
I think the spirit of the rules is basicly that the challenges are about photography and not about photoshop skills. It is hard to set strict rules for that, but I think a lot of people agree with this sentiment and have a gut feeling about where the photo ends and the ps-art begins. Heida's pictures are on the border of those two, and thus room voor discussion.

And discussed it has been. :)

In fact, I noticed she pulled her original and photographic versions of 'Angel' very quickly after posting them. And the members of the site council, some of which have had much to say on this matter, fell strangely quite. I suspect it has been, and perhaps is being, discussed in more private channels as well. ;)

David
 07/14/2004 05:08:47 AM · #94
Originally posted by coolhar:
Photographic Integrity is difficult to define but to leave out any mention of it in the Advanced rules seems to diminish it's importance. The first set of Advanced rules, before the 4/25 update, contained this sentence-

Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting.
(boldface is from the rules, not mine)

This was left out when the update came in April. Lack of a clear definition leaves it up to the Site Council to determine and enforce PI. Keeping it in mind while voting gave the voter a way to express their own idea about what has, and what has gone beyond, PI; thus allowing the voters to assist the SC in a way. But leaving it out of the new rules completely gives the impression that it is no longer as important as it used to be. And voters are no longer encouraged to express their own feelings with the scores they give. Perhaps it was not the intent but the result has been to take away two devices (the sentence in the rules and the lowered vote) that served to counterbalance the drift away from digital photography and toward digital art. Not at all surprising that ribboners are more processed and some are disatisfied about it. I'd like to see that sentence back in the Advanced rules the next time they are updated.

I agree, it should never have been removed, its removal weakens the stated purpose of the challenges.

Its removal, as you stated, removes much, but it also adds. it adds the burden of determining whether or not photographic integrity has been maintain strictly on the site council. Even before, when it was a part of the rules, the better PS users were never suspected and those that were suspected were often innocent. If the reason for its removal was to remove the unfair voting based on a belief of cheating, I can see why some would want it removed. After all, any suspected cheating is to be turned over to the SC as a DQ request, [.]and then voted on as if legal[/i]. It is only possible to determine the validity of the image, with absolute certainty, if you have access to the original and the exact steps taken to achieve the results. The damage was not done by the SC removing the line from the rules, it was done by them not then shouldering the burden of the additional responsibility they voted upon themselves -- by them not taking the required effort to ensure it is enforced in a consistent manner.

--

Earlier in the thread, a few posts up, I was challenged to define 'photographic integrity'. I want to thank mbardeen for the vote of confidence he has expressed in me with this request. For the record, however, I am not in a position of authority on this site, and for the definition to be of use it must be adopted by those running the show. A good discussion of it, preferably in its own thread, will no doubt lead to many interesting views that would otherwise not get expressed.

So, to get the ball rolling, here is my definition of photographic integrity, in narrative form: A good photograph has something to say, and says it by communicating on an emotional level. Many of the better photos express their message on many different, sometimes very subtle, levels -- this is generally referred to as the art of photography. However, the communication with the viewer, whether deemed worthy of the title of 'art' or not, is the effect of the photo. Thus, photographic integrity is maintained when the entirety of the effect of the photo, its communicated impact upon the viewer, is achieved by what is within the photo itself and is violated when the effect is achieved by elements (tangible of not) that are added to the photo. Any tool, and I do mean any tool, can be used to strengthen the effect as long as the effect is coming from the captured light itself.

I personally think the majority of the violations to this definition of photographic integrity are victims of a loss of confidence in their own ability to achieve the desired effect with the capture of the light itself. As an example of what I mean, and without the intention of picking on those who have had their works severely discussed in these forums, I will take up a couple of examples. The first is, of course, labuda. In his photo 'Butterlying Knife'


he created a blade from scratch. In a forum thread he mentions that he was not able to get it to give the stand-still effect he wanted -- so he created the effect in photoshop. In his photo 'Peeping Through a Polarizer'


he re-created the rim of the polarizer when it 'had no depth'. In both, after failing to capture the effect in the light, he created it in PS. The second is the most recent photo to get an uproar, heida's 'Angel'.


In this photo, the effect is created by her burning the sky except for a patch around her model. To me it was immediately obvious she had captured the effect she wanted in the light, but why she chose to obscure it by burning the sky, only to add back in a pale substitute is something I may never know. Perhaps it was a desire to maintain her trademark 'style' of over-burned skies. But the point is, the effect she created in the image was not brought out of the light, any more than the rim of labuda's polarizer was. What makes it so tragic is that they both came so close to producing the desired effect in the light; labuda was a single pen-light away from capturing the blade as he desired, and hieda did capture the effect very subtlely in the light, but chose to obscure it, only to then recreate it in a very obvious manner. Hieda posted an alternate edit, which was apparently an edit she had not spent a lot of time on, but the effect was very prominent in the light. She pulled the photo very quickly after posting it, soon after I added it to my favorites as an example of capturing a visualization in the light. Granted I don't know that my adding it to my favorites was the reason for her suddenly removing it, but I fully expected her to do so when I did. I just noticed that she has also edited the photographer's comments on 'Angel' to remove her exclamation of how much she loves to burn. It is just sad, so very sad.

David

/edit: formatting

Message edited by author 2004-07-14 05:11:14.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 10:27:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/30/2025 10:27:03 AM EDT.