| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2004 02:36:13 PM · #26 |
| Hopper - I'm not advocating a complete removal of editing rules. Adjustment layers, layer masks, dodge & burn are a few key ones that I'd leave in. Just no effects. If I'm paying for membership I still want to compete where I want, but there's no harm in trying to make a positive difference to what I see as a flawed sytem. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 02:37:32 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Hey,
I thought for sure you would ribbon! But you did come in 4th. How do you figure you got voted down for whatever reason? |
It's a presumption I would make based on the 'tip of the iceberg' principle! |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 02:41:35 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Hopper - I'm not advocating a complete removal of editing rules. Adjustment layers, layer masks, dodge & burn are a few key ones that I'd leave in. Just no effects. If I'm paying for membership I still want to compete where I want, but there's no harm in trying to make a positive difference to what I see as a flawed sytem. |
While I'm sympathetic to the idea that you want recognition for things you do in camera, without the assumption that its photoshopped - having had this problem a few times myself (for stars on long exposure, small aperture shots, for DoF control and for motion blur) my concern is that
removing features that allow anyone to recreate these effects furthers the rift between the 'haves' with the expensive, changeable lens, large sensor DSLRs and the 'have nots' in this case, with standard digi-cams.
Does the end result matter more than the means used to create it ?
Would educating the voters be more useful than restricting the tools that can be used ?
Does removing these features level the playing field more or less for all users - particularly in 'sports' challenges or macro competitions.
On the flip side, digi-cam users have advantages for landscape challenges...
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 03:07:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Does the end result matter more than the means used to create it ? |
No - if you're learning but, yes, if you want to hang it on the wall.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Would educating the voters be more useful than restricting the tools that can be used ? |
Yes - there's plenty of help for software in the Help menus and manuals - not to mention other web sites and here in the forums.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Does removing these features level the playing field more or less for all users - particularly in 'sports' challenges or macro competitions. |
Certainly it's better that people take the best shot they can without cloaking it in Photoshop effects. Doing this for personal satisfaction is fine, but in competition it helps no one by fooling voters that their shot represents 'photographic integrity'.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 03:46:19 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Certainly it's better that people take the best shot they can without cloaking it in Photoshop effects. Doing this for personal satisfaction is fine, but in competition it helps no one by fooling voters that their shot represents 'photographic integrity'. |
These are my thoughts as well. I thing the problem is not the use of the tools, its the abuse. I think it simply not clear where the line is drawn. I like removing glare and glitches from my work. But regardless, I try to start with the best photograph I can create.
Maybe a third challenge would allow everyone to express their creativity and learn on the final level.
-Basic rules
-Advanced rule set (no filters)
-Full edit, (filters available)
Moving large elements of the original and making things that aren't there is more like an artist painting than a photographer. (There are other contest sites available to do that) |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 04:13:19 PM · #31 |
I wrote a very long post just few minutes ago. Turns out, I typed so long it timed out, and everything was lost.
Iâm going to sum it up.
There are those of you out there who, for whatever reason, are on one side or the other of the Editing vs. Photo Purity Melee, that apparently came to a head once before (See jmsetzlerâs thread named âRemove my Tutorials). There are also those of us, like me, who are in the middle. We understand the need for rules that keep people from submitting imaginary items within a photo or totally falsified photographs, but we also understand that editing is an integral part of the photographic process. There are things that can be/are done in the darkroom that can be mimicked with an editing program, and when theyâre done with film, it isnât seen as cheating, or turn it into âdarkroom artâ.
Ideally weâd have 4 contests: Raw from the Camera, Basic Editing, Intermediate Editing, and Advanced. Personally, I have not had a chance to learn how to use advanced computer editing techniques on photographs, but I would like the chance to learn how and try it. And to enter an edited photo into a challenge someday. But if tools are taken away one by one, by the time Iâm ready to try it, it wonât be allowed.
I also understand the lure of Challenges. I want to enter my pictures into challenges not because of a digital ribbon, though it would probably be cool, but because itâs the only way on this site to get nearly every active user to look at your picture (and sometimes comment on it). That means more than a ribbon: The input. Whether through the vote or comments, I will find out if I took a âgoodâ picture. Or if I need to alter my budding technique. This includes editing technique. They say a good photo editor (The person, not the program) uses few tools and gets maximum effect. Effect, in this case, is an improvement of the photo, within the rules. This ALSO means the picture needed to be pretty good to begin with. The two go hand-in-hand. If you take a bad picture, you have to make up for it with heavy editing (Iâve not seen many people mention Heavy Dodging & Burning in their creation notes, but I have seen a few) As you get better with the camera, you have less need for the editing tools. At a certain point the camera skill is much better, and what editing you need to do is to correct the imperfections inherent to your camera and unexpected factors.
But by cutting the new photographers off from the chance to compete by disallowing the tools they need, youâre alienating them right off the bat. Hereâs my example: I see the lovely pictures in the contests, and I think, âHow the hell am I supposed to compete with THAT!?! As a novice, I canât yet. As someone without a good grasp on photo editing software, I canât yet. And if Iâm never allowed to use editing tools to enhance (not alter, or rearrange, even, just enhance) my photos, I may never learn how to get a photo to the point where I believe I CAN compete. Yadda Yadda Yaddaâ¦. And I never enter a challenge, and donât receive the input I need to help me grow as a photographer.
Yes, this is an extreme case, but there are a LOT of extremely shy, or extremely self-conscious, or extrememly self-critical people in the world. And this is the Worldwide web, so DPC is going to get some of those people. Donât stifle them too much, or weâll lose them.
This is just one manâs viewpoint. I see both sides and understand their merits. I believe in MORE choices, not less, being the route to improving things. More choices might just mean 4 challenges and a longer voting/review process. It might mean a sister site.
Maybe we can tackle this from a different angle.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 07:18:36 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by computerking:
But by cutting the new photographers off from the chance to compete by disallowing the tools they need, youâre alienating them right off the bat. Hereâs my example: I see the lovely pictures in the contests, and I think, âHow the hell am I supposed to compete with THAT!?! As a novice, I canât yet... And I never enter a challenge, and donât receive the input I need to help me grow as a photographer... |
I don't see my original suggestion as cutting anyone off. I had no spot editing available to me from the outset when I joined this site, yet I still entered, 'failed' and learned. What's the worst that can happen anyway? It's not as if your face will be plastered over the newspapers front pages announcing that your image didn't make the cut and that you should be cast into shame for the rest of your life!
Why should the removal of some artificial-distorton editing tools limit a novice or a seasoned amateur? The playing field is still level, it's just that one photographer may have more experience and has completed more learning curves than the other. Practice makes perfe...., etc.
I believe some of the editing tools such as motion blur are simply the equivalent of a pocket calculator in a maths exam.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 07:42:32 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Again, I pose the question: these people lacking ap and sp are not likely to make a clean selection and employ the ps tools or equivalents to achieve this result in a convincing manner. |
Did I read this correctly? Are you saying that everyone with low-end digital cameras lack the skill and ability to do something in an editing program? That is an extremely big assumption and generalisation, not to mention quite insulting.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 08:05:29 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
this system gives you licence to select a halo around her head, which has no real existence in the image and then make the halo a glowing effect. |
Thats not actually true. Creating objects that are not there in the original photo will result in a DQ, as will anything that the SC deems to be in the realy of Digital Art. |
I seem to recall a recent outcry from just such an effect not resulting in a DQ.
---
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Okay: how many digital camera lack aperture or shutter priority. Again, I pose the question: these people lacking ap and sp are not likely to make a clean selection and employ the ps tools or equivalents to achieve this result in a convincing manner. |
In terms of shallow DOF, with most non-SLRs it is more a matter of the sensor size than wether or not they have ap/sp. While I don't read your statement as stating those with low-end cameras are incapable of being skilled, but rather a more general statement of the difficulty of creating a bluring that convincingly increases with depth into (or out of) the image. I will say that those of us with cameras with which we spend as much time fighting to get it to do what we want as we do post-processing, it is a ready temptation to just do it all in PS where a lot of the effects are so much easier to do. It is much the same (although on a larger scale) as those with RAW capabilities not bothering to make certain they have exposure and WB correct when they click the shutter; after all, as long as it was close, it is so much easier to adjust it afterward. The temptation is present, but it is not something that is only present to those with less than capable cameras.
David
/edit: formatting
Message edited by author 2004-08-16 20:06:24.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 08:14:12 PM · #35 |
| Looking at your shot I did not think it was P.Shopped (motion blur) at all! I gave you an 8, great shot! I don`t see your point in complaing with a 4th place finish? I think motion blur should stay IMO |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 08:33:14 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Again, I pose the question: these people lacking ap and sp are not likely to make a clean selection and employ the ps tools or equivalents to achieve this result in a convincing manner. |
Did I read this correctly? Are you saying that everyone with low-end digital cameras lack the skill and ability to do something in an editing program? That is an extremely big assumption and generalisation, not to mention quite insulting. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course not. I do not aim to imsult but consider: I have been using ps from its inception. I have made a good dollar with it, but guess what: all selections tools are not as good as they are made. There is a slight problem when you approach the perimeter of the subject, epecially a human form. I did heavy advertising work and none of this tools suffice to do a perfect job unless you go about the entire perimeter and make manual corrections. This applies to all tools. So, with my little experience if I had to do one, it would take me at least 2 to 3 hours to finish off by hand. The truth is that all these tools, including the extract command are only a beginning unless your standards are so low.
It then follows that technique in PS, good technique, because most efforts look artificial and processed, is beyond most amateurs. So much time is needed that I recommend getting that image as good as possible and spend the extra time in learning how to handle a camera.
Yes, post processing of levels, curves and color correction is a must, but outside of the gaussean blue and high pass filter and UM, I never use any other. They could be easily identified and they serve no purpose for a sight like DPC. An overly processed image or one badly processed looks terrible. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 07:38:50 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Looking at your shot I did not think it was P.Shopped (motion blur) at all! I gave you an 8, great shot! I don`t see your point in complaing with a 4th place finish? I think motion blur should stay IMO |
Why should it stay? Please xplain what merit it offers in light of the DPC ethos of photographic integrity. As yet, no one has.
An example of why I think it should go is this (note John Setzler's comment on it too):
Edit: I haven't complained about my placing.
Message edited by author 2004-08-17 07:39:25.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 07:47:20 AM · #38 |
I thought tabling a motion was setting it aside to be discussed later? So I'll give you my answer when it's in order. ;)
M
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 07:56:58 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
The playing field is still level, it's just that one photographer may have more experience and has completed more learning curves than the other. Practice makes perfe...., etc.
I believe some of the editing tools such as motion blur are simply the equivalent of a pocket calculator in a maths exam. |
The playing field isn't realistically level given the wide disparity of features between the various cameras used. motion blur/ lens blur allow a skilled user to bridge some of that gap. I used those tools when I had a small sensor digicam, because for example in portraits, I wanted a softly blurred background, but could not at the time afford an DSLR with fast lenses.
All of the many maths and engineering exams I've done allowed pocket calculators, once you got passed basic arithmetic. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 07:59:56 AM · #40 |
I kind of think it's fine as it is. It's an awful thing to say but why risk your camera, and equipment and spend many hours setting a shot up, when the same if not better results can be achieved via simple editing?
I can't see a difference between motion blur and levels myself a far as authenticity or integrity goes.
At the end of the day, surely the important thing is the vision and the end result of said vision?
I am in two minds about this.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:10:07 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I'm sure that many must have thought it was radial blur in Photoshop (and was probably marked down accordingly). |
Such is the effect of advanced editing.. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples too..
As I'm sure I've mentioned too many times before, advanced editing undermines practical (by which I mean camera in hand, twiddling knobs and pointing) photographic skill. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:17:05 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I'm sure that many must have thought it was radial blur in Photoshop (and was probably marked down accordingly). |
Such is the effect of advanced editing.. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples too..
As I'm sure I've mentioned too many times before, advanced editing undermines practical (by which I mean camera in hand, twiddling knobs and pointing) photographic skill. |
I agree that it does, but why do people wo say that seem to think basic editing doesn't?
For example, levels - try learning to expose well one may say, or learn how to use a filter. Or learn how to light a scene.
Another example, cloning - if your picture needs tidying up, tidy it before you shoot. Get a lifestyle artist or makeup person to dress the area / subject or go somewhere else and shoot something else.
Another example, cropping - learn how to compose in camera one may say.
I think you either have all or nothing with regrds to editing. I hate the way some effects are deemed OK and some are deemed cheating.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:18:44 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Why should it stay? Please xplain what merit it offers in light of the DPC ethos of photographic integrity. As yet, no one has. |
Why do dodging and burning have photographic integrity ? They have largely been used to allow 'pre-visualisation' of an end result and let the photographer get there in the darkroom.
If we assume that dodging and burning have this nebulous integrity, then motion and lens blur are more advanced, more modern, enabled only easily in digital photography, equivalents of those more traditional film techniques.
If I set out to have a photograph of a skateboard, with the background blurred as if the subject was moving. If I've pre-visualised this idea, then go and photograph it and finish it in an editing tool - does it matter when the motion blur appeared ? It was there right from the start when I came up with the concept - then I used a collection of the photographic tools and darkroom skills available to me to make it happen.
Is using a slow shutter speed to do it some how more pure than using motion blur ?
Is it some how harder ? Given that it takes good camera control to do it with a lens, or good finishing skills to do it in photoshop. (we've already had a self acknowledged expert and professional tell us how hard it is to do it in photoshop - I already know how hard it is to do in camera)
This isn't creating something that couldn't be done with a suitable camera.
This isn't cheating and doing something an easy way.
This isn't creating something that couldn't potentially exist in a photograph.
So how doesn't it have photographic integrity ?
(Note though, that I also stated that I can sympathise with the feeling that doing it originally is somehow 'better' based on my own preference for getting things right in camera in the first place. I'm just not sure that this emotional response stands up to logical thought. Are we voting on how 'hard' it might have been to get an image, or how good the end result is ?)
Message edited by author 2004-08-17 08:19:08. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:30:17 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
As I'm sure I've mentioned too many times before, advanced editing undermines practical (by which I mean camera in hand, twiddling knobs and pointing) photographic skill. |
I agree that it does, but why do people wo say that seem to think basic editing doesn't? |
I think it does, but probably to a lesser extent. Levels for example can sort out sloppy exposure, but can't sort out blow-outs. Cropping certainly allows for sloppy composition, but it won't help with perspective.
I'm all for the occasional no-editing challenge. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:33:17 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
An example of why I think it should go is this (note John Setzler's comment on it too):
|
Yep, I added the words "no edit" to the title, but would not do it again. Sometimes I just get too proud of my achievements. I wanted others to have a good look at the image and realise what could be involved in getting there. I think now that JMSetzler was right in his comment (although I would not have subtracted points because of it)
For me personally, I get most satisfaction from achieving results in camera. I get no satisfaction what so ever from achieving it with PS.
I have mixed feelings about editing. On one hand I find that too many images get voted up because it was a difficult image to achieve in camera, a clever solution to achieve an effect. On the other hand I find that getting most impact of the image by using PS is cheating (for example many images in the purple challenge). That is also why I find most partial desaturated images awful, too much relying on the desaturation to make a strong image.
The debate about allowed editing has beeen going on several times and resulted in advanced editing for member challenges and basic editing for open challenges, which I think is a good compromise.
You can still challenge yourself by achieving results in camera and get satisfaction from that. But forbidding others to achieve results in another way goes too far in my opinion, considering the compromise found after so many discussions.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:35:34 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Are we voting on how 'hard' it might have been to get an image, or how good the end result is ?) |
Excellent point Gordon! |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:36:21 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
As I'm sure I've mentioned too many times before, advanced editing undermines practical (by which I mean camera in hand, twiddling knobs and pointing) photographic skill. |
I agree that it does, but why do people wo say that seem to think basic editing doesn't? |
I think it does, but probably to a lesser extent. Levels for example can sort out sloppy exposure, but can't sort out blow-outs. Cropping certainly allows for sloppy composition, but it won't help with perspective.
I'm all for the occasional no-editing challenge. |
But then twiddling nobs and doing everything in camera undermines true photoshop skill? ;)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:41:39 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
As I'm sure I've mentioned too many times before, advanced editing undermines practical (by which I mean camera in hand, twiddling knobs and pointing) photographic skill. |
I agree that it does, but why do people wo say that seem to think basic editing doesn't? |
I think it does, but probably to a lesser extent. Levels for example can sort out sloppy exposure, but can't sort out blow-outs. Cropping certainly allows for sloppy composition, but it won't help with perspective.
I'm all for the occasional no-editing challenge. |
But then twiddling nobs and doing everything in camera undermines true photoshop skill? ;) |
Ahhhhhhh, but this is a photography site...not a photoshop site! :) |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:43:03 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by willem:
For me personally, I get most satisfaction from achieving results in camera. I get no satisfaction what so ever from achieving it with PS.
|
I see where your coming from, but would you not have been more proud or excited if you photograph of the car represented the same quality as a photograph used in a real car advert? Say being taken at night with lushious motion blur and sharp edges and spinning wheels all perfectly exposed? Even if you used photoshop to acheive that? To me that vision and application takes even more skill if not only for the fact that you would be a master of two mediums. And I would much prefer to end up with a high quality photograph at the end of the day.
Originally posted by willem:
On the other hand I find that getting most impact of the image by using PS is cheating |
Cheating who? Yourself or the voters on DPC? I don't understand who is being cheated..
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 08:43:26 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Are we voting on how 'hard' it might have been to get an image, or how good the end result is ?) |
Well, Setz voted by taking off points for a title. Some subtract for borders. Others have no artistic taste or any talent whatsoever. Some vote on how hard it is to achieve. Some on the stairs method. Either way, the rules are good as they are.
M
|
|
