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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> I want to table a motion...
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 87, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/17/2004 08:48:34 AM · #51
I have to also state in all of this my position on 'art vs. craft'

Overall, I'm interested in creating great art, using a camera. I strive to do this, using the best camera skills that I have and the best photoshop skills that I have. I always try to do the best I can in camera (standard GIGO) and then further make the best of that in post-processing, to suit what I am trying to achieve.

I'm not taking pictures to demonstrate how great my camera craft is. I'm not shooting to show people how difficult a shot I managed to achieve. I care more about the end result than the steps taken to achieve that photographic end result.

I see these 'no edit!!!' titles, or see prints for sale with comments about how the photographer 'did nothing at all to the image' and wonder why people want to claim as little responsibility for the end result as possible. I was there. I pointed my camera. Here it is. Nothing of me involved.

I actually don't tend to do much in the way of editing or complex finishing any more. I've learned more how to do things in camera, mainly because it saves me a lot of time. My results look pretty good, straight from the camera. They look a lot better when I (hopefully subtly) finish editing them. They look how I imagined they should in the first place. I'm happy to use any and all techniques available to achieve this, though I have my own personal ethical boundaries about things I would or wouldn't change.

As I'm sure I've gone on about at length. Tools are tools. A camera, photoshop, filters - all tools. You can create crappy, tacky, horrible images with cokin prismatic glass filters. You can create crappy, tacky, horrible images using motion blur and clone tools.

Blame the workman. Not his tools.
08/17/2004 08:56:55 AM · #52
Originally posted by jonpink:

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.


No, I would not get much satisfaction from such a result. That's just me.

Originally posted by jonpink:


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..


Cheating myself, clearly. Maybe cheating is not the right word, sounds that someone is trying to mislead the voters, which is not what I intended to say. It comes back to the same point above, I would find myself that I would have cheated upon myself, not having succeeded in getting the result straight away, but having to fully rely on PS to get there. This is not to say I don't edit images. Especially the curves command I use a lot to increase contrast/impact also where I have failed to get it right in the first place, but I don't like doing it.
08/17/2004 08:59:40 AM · #53
My original post discusses only the motion blur filter as an amendment to the existing rules. It's the only filter I can think of that dramatically alters the pixels (and actually adds pixel data in the process) in an image. It's a technique that, if abused by a PS filter renders panning shots far less impressive and interesting if cheated with filters - and those who do it have not learned how to pan the camera successfully. SO what have they gained?

A miniscule bit of Photoshop awareness (dupe layer, select area, apply filter and mask, then - bingo! cheating complete!) instead of photo technique.

---

BTW, Jon - this is a photo site not Photoshop tuition, etc.

---

Gordon - your points back up the reason why it should be outlawed. Globally, the answer to your points is that anything done in camera is better than post-processing because the net result is that you're a better photographer for it.

Dodge and burn is an enhancement (normally) rather than fundamentally changing the perception of the method by which the shot was taken.

For example, how is a novice photographer supposed to learn if they view the settings of a shot that's been heavily motion-blurred in Pshop (without it being mentioned) if those same settings will not deliver the foundation for a similar shot in camera? A pointless exercise for everyone - the voters who think it was expert camera work - the people who knock it for being false.

The only person who gains is one who doesn't give a damn about this particular site's objectives.

Message edited by author 2004-08-17 09:00:50.
08/17/2004 09:04:57 AM · #54


craft creates the art. you have to master the craft to produce good art. the craft could be superb camera work - or as labuda has shown a couple times - the craft could be post processing mastery. in both cases if the result is quality the votes are higher.

no matter what you do - someone is going to vote it low...

personally i would prefer to be able to do what ever i want to an image - so long as the end result is pleasing to look at. i tend to try to do as much work with the camera as i can - because as mentioned above - it saves time.

i would have to agree to leave the rules as they are. tightening what's allowed is only going to spiral out of control.

similar to the idea of ' lets have a checkbox to hide nude, spiders, snakes, babies, and cats ' because i don't like those subjects. might as well look at a page full of empty thumbnails.


08/17/2004 09:14:54 AM · #55
Originally posted by soup:

Personally i would prefer to be able to do what ever i want to an image - so long as the end result is pleasing to look at. i tend to try to do as much work with the camera as i can - because as mentioned above - it saves time.

This to me - is the wrong attitude and at odds with the intention of DPChallenge. After all you can upload heavy edited, digital art to a portfolio. Why put in a challenge where people are expecting to vote on photos but are in fact totally cheated?
08/17/2004 09:32:55 AM · #56
But it is a digital photography site, and like it or not, a big apart of digital photography is digital editing. Part and parcel. The same as film and darkroom and bread and cheese.

I too prefer to do as much in camera as possible, simply for my own satisfaction. But if editing is done properly then one can't tell if it has been edited or not via photoshop. Which kind of renders the cheating argument void.

You say "Why put in a challenge where people are expecting to vote on photos but are in fact totally cheated?"

Why is this cheating? It's still a photograph. Sometimes I use manual focus, does that make your auto focused shot less of a photographic merit? Does it mean you cheated because your using a tool?

Heavy editing can be done with just levels to render a picture into pure digital fantasy, whilst 10 hours of editing can be so subtle that noone would ever know the difference.

I agree that heavily edited pictures stink and are not photographs any more, my point is it's not certain tools that should be ruled out it's the way and degree in which they are used.

08/17/2004 09:37:28 AM · #57
Originally posted by Imagineer:

Originally posted by soup:

Personally i would prefer to be able to do what ever i want to an image - so long as the end result is pleasing to look at. i tend to try to do as much work with the camera as i can - because as mentioned above - it saves time.

This to me - is the wrong attitude and at odds with the intention of DPChallenge. After all you can upload heavy edited, digital art to a portfolio. Why put in a challenge where people are expecting to vote on photos but are in fact totally cheated?


Imagineer, I understand you wanted to have one tool disallowed because someone can use it to achieve what you could with a tripod and some secure way to attatch it to a skateboard, correct?

Currently I can't afford a tripod. I just recently spent $300 on the only good-quality (IMO) digital camera I could afford. Yes, only $300. It was anearly birthday present to myself, and my finances will be shaky for the rest of the month. Were I to attempt (specifically) your 'blur trick' using what I have on-hand (Namely duct tape) I could reasonably expect to wreck my one and only, may not have the money to replace for a looong time, camera. No, I don't have Photoshop. No, I can't afford Photoshop. But I sure as hell can't afford a new camera. So under the Imagineer-created new ruling, I could NEVER hope to submit a picture with Motion Blur in a similar setting. So I could NEVER expect to make first place against someone who can afford a Tripod, or a new Camera, even if I managed to get a good editing program that could pull it off. The playing field is made even more uneven than it was before.

I still say the solution would be a middleground challenge level, Intermediate Editing or Light Editing. Under the current rules, you can't submit "Digital Art", as you have just postulated. Placing more restrictions might result in more frustration, for other people, not just yourself. And it won't stop the comments. But instead of "Did you use PS Radial Blur?" comments, you'd get "If you used PS Radial Blur, I'll be happy when you're DQ'ed" comments. One rule isn't going to change the fact that people thought it was an edit, it'll just make them more hostile toward you BECAUSE they think it's an edit.

If you want recognition for lightly edited photos, enter the Basic challenge, and not the challenge that encourages editing.

(Edit- Before anyone questions my finances, Yes, I know a cheap sony Tripod is $20 bucks, but you're looking at someone whose finances are so tight he's planning ahead to become a member....in December, maybe...)

Message edited by author 2004-08-17 09:42:12.
08/17/2004 10:11:11 AM · #58
Originally posted by computerking:

Imagineer, I understand you wanted to have one tool disallowed because someone can use it to achieve what you could with a tripod and some secure way to attatch it to a skateboard, correct?

Not quite - any motion blur shot as I mentioned at the top of the thread.

Originally posted by computerking:

So under the Imagineer-created new ruling, I could NEVER hope to submit a picture with Motion Blur in a similar setting. So I could NEVER expect to make first place against someone who can afford a Tripod, or a new Camera, even if I managed to get a good editing program that could pull it off. The playing field is made even more uneven than it was before.

So sit it out rather than fudge a shot together just for what - to fool some voters and win a Gif? Some of the photgraphers here have far more advanced kit than me. What does entering a challenge that's beyond your equipment gain you - false kudos because it finally looked good thanks to software? Why is the result so important anyway?

Originally posted by computerking:

I still say the solution would be a middleground challenge level, Intermediate Editing or Light Editing.

One of the better suggestions.

Originally posted by computerking:

If you want recognition for lightly edited photos, enter the Basic challenge, and not the challenge that encourages editing.

Again, this is against DPC principles. I paid and want to enter challenges with a shot that's honest and authentic.

---

Mavrik - that's why I hate politics - delays, delays... : )
08/17/2004 10:11:37 AM · #59
the wrong attitude?

how so - i am stating that i tend to use the camera mainly to acheive my goals, but will not rule out other means if what i envisioned isn't possible with the camera. have i used motion blur in a photo entered here or otherwise - no. will i, probably not. have i used gaussian blur to remove grainy bokeh in an entered photo - yes. the cause of which was needing to use a higher ISO than i would have liked, and still be able to freeze motion. then i repaired that grain as best i could with the blur tool.

on the other hand i could go out and by a higher end faster lens - and probably get the result i wanted with the camera only - but alas i can't afford it at the moment.

what's the difference?

Originally posted by Imagineer:


This to me - is the wrong attitude and at odds with the intention of DPChallenge. After all you can upload heavy edited, digital art to a portfolio. Why put in a challenge where people are expecting to vote on photos but are in fact totally cheated?



08/17/2004 10:16:23 AM · #60

blurred in camera - or in photoshop?


08/17/2004 10:20:25 AM · #61
Originally posted by soup:

blurred in camera - or in photoshop?



More critically- does it matter?

Clara
08/17/2004 10:20:46 AM · #62
Originally posted by Imagineer:


Again, this is against DPC principles. I paid and want to enter challenges with a shot that's honest and authentic.


DPC Principles ? To me, and based on the 'About' the site, and principles are just it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week

To me, being a better photographer starts well before the shutter is clicked and ends some time after the print drops out of the printer and is framed. Certainly post shot optimisation is a huge part of that.

Having good camera craft is certainly required to be a good photographer
So is having good photoshop craft.

For my personal idea of what a 'good photographer' is, both camera and darkroom skills are required.

Not one without the other.


08/17/2004 10:26:22 AM · #63
Originally posted by Imagineer:


So sit it out rather than fudge a shot together just for what - to fool some voters and win a Gif?


Why do you assume anyone is being fooled ?

You know what the rules are, and you know motion blur filters are allowed.

The effect may, or may not have been achieved when the shutter was open, or when the image was being finished. The end result (assuming suitable skill level in both cases) will look the same. The original idea was the same. Different tools may have been used in the process, but nobody has been 'fooled' unless they jump to assumptions that are not supported by the final result and the potential methods available.

Now, if you believe that camera skills should score more highly than how the picture looks, then I can understand the point. But that wouldn't be an argument about photography or integrity, it would be about giving higher marks for a particular way of doing things over other ways of achieving exactly the same end result. Again - to me, good photography is camera skills + darkroom skills + talent + creativity, in roughly equal amounts. To be good, you need good camera skills, you need to capture what you mean to capture. Then you need to be able to finish it how you wanted to finish it. Neither is somehow 'better' than the other, to me - though it is to many.

There seems to be a peculiarly modern malaise in the art world that the process is more important than the end result. Sure, we used to care if an artist suffered, if the end result was good. Now I wander around some modern art galleries and see exhibits of junk, but then I hear how the artist cliped each pubic hair off their body to create this junk, so somehow it should be good.

As a photographer, I might take particular pride in a good panned shot, captured well in camera.

As a photographer, I often look at images and want to know how they are achieved (camera effects, post processing skills, lighting skills) I'll try to work this out to learn from it.

As a viewer of an image - I don't care if it looks good. If it is obviously badly done either in camera or in photoshop, it looks bad to me. If I can't tell - why should I care as a viewer of the image ?

The camera never tells the truth anyway.

Message edited by author 2004-08-17 10:31:53.
08/17/2004 10:30:54 AM · #64
Originally posted by Imagineer:


Not quite - any motion blur shot as I mentioned at the top of the thread.

OK, A set of tools. I understand better now.

Originally posted by Imagineer:


So sit it out rather than fudge a shot together just for what - to fool some voters and win a Gif? Some of the photgraphers here have far more advanced kit than me. What does entering a challenge that's beyond your equipment gain you - false kudos because it finally looked good thanks to software? Why is the result so important anyway?


I wouldn't call it fudging, as editing is part of the photographic process. I assume, though, that similar contests with film photos don't make restrictions regarding darkroom editing. If my assumption is incorrect, I understand further the reasons behind your argument.

Originally posted by Imagineer:


One of the better suggestions.


Thanks. I brought it up yesterday, but I think it got lost in the backand forth. Another suggestion I had was someone starting a sister site, perhaps DEChallenge.com, for heavier editing of photos.

Originally posted by Imagineer:

Again, this is against DPC principles. I paid and want to enter challenges with a shot that's honest and authentic.


Here's where my understanding differs again. The Basic challenge is for strictly limited editing, and therefore fits the anti-editing supporters' needs more. The difference that I lean toward, ie, the reason why I am considering becoming a member, is the more interesting variety of Challenge Topics. Were the two Editing formats reversed, I would still want to become a member in order to try my hand at things like Feet, or DPC Album Cover, or Freedom. Aside from a few really good Open challenge Topics, the Member Topics have been more interesting to me, hands down. It's my understanding that many believe Basic Editing to be for the most "honest and authentic" photos, since the editing is at a minimum. I'm pretty sure a lot of people became members partially to be allowed to use Advanced editing (perhaps including the Motion blur set) in challenges. Does the money you spent put your desires over theirs?
08/17/2004 10:41:45 AM · #65
Originally posted by blemt:

More critically- does it matter?

Yes. Imagine you take your photography further and want to be a photojournalist - and you want a panning shot from a racetrack. You need to know how to achieve this kind of thing right? Some shots may need to be sent to press without even being processed, so how would you cope if all you did was stick it through a filter?

If we assume this site aids photography then I say lose the motion blur filter.

---

Originally posted by Gordon:

Why do you assume anyone is being fooled ?

That's the purpose of the filter!!!! Otherwise it would look shit and exposed for the fake it is. :D

Originally posted by Gordon:

Now, if you believe that camera skills should score more highly than how the picture looks, then I can understand the point.

I do - because that's why we're all here.
08/17/2004 10:48:35 AM · #66
Originally posted by Imagineer:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Now, if you believe that camera skills should score more highly than how the picture looks, then I can understand the point.

I do - because that's why we're all here.


That is why you are here, it might not apply to all.

Also the site has moved on from it's original start. For member challenges, editing has become an allowed part of the image production process (whether you call it photography or not).
08/17/2004 10:49:00 AM · #67

what about these heavily burned photos - what's the difference there?
in a photojounalistic sense.

that isn't reality as seen by the naked eye. my point is either let all the tools be available and used as the editor deems fit - and let the result speak for itself - or remove ALL the tools - and see what folks can do with the camera only.

also i highly doubt any major publisher - publishes photos that have not been run past a graphic editor and optimized for print.

08/17/2004 11:00:35 AM · #68
Originally posted by Marjo:


Ahhhhhhh, but this is a photography site...not a photoshop site! :)


Ahhhh, but this is a DIGITAL photography site. Photoshop (or any other post-processing application) is as critical to digital photography as a darkroom is to film photography. Everyone tends to forget that.

I'd be willing to wager that very few film photography contests have been won by a participant who submitted a photo that was developed at their corner drugstore. Film images are manipulated quite a bit.

I'll give you the fact that digital manipulation is a lot easier to achieve -- and it's WAY easier to make "extreme" edits. But eliminating post-processing from the equation is completely short-sighted.

You want to get better at film photography, you learn in the darkroom. You want to get better at digital photograpy, you learn on the computer. Simple as that.
08/17/2004 11:02:53 AM · #69
here's another example:



real or photoshop?

does it matter?
08/17/2004 11:12:41 AM · #70
Originally posted by muckpond:

I'll give you the fact that digital manipulation is a lot easier to achieve -- and it's WAY easier to make "extreme" edits. But eliminating post-processing from the equation is completely short-sighted.

You want to get better at film photography, you learn in the darkroom. You want to get better at digital photograpy, you learn on the computer. Simple as that.

Can one achieve motion blur in a darkroom after the film is developed (not like Gerald Scarfe's work with Polaroids)?
The point you make about digital phots being easier to manipulate is why the genre lacks quite a lot of credibility as an art form - but why this site could go some way to redressing the balance.

Still - as Willem said, the site's irrevocably changed, so I'll say no more : )
08/17/2004 11:13:02 AM · #71
Originally posted by muckpond:

here's another example:



real or photoshop?

does it matter?

Yes. : )
08/17/2004 11:14:28 AM · #72
Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by Marjo:


Ahhhhhhh, but this is a photography site...not a photoshop site! :)


Ahhhh, but this is a DIGITAL photography site. Photoshop (or any other post-processing application) is as critical to digital photography as a darkroom is to film photography. Everyone tends to forget that.

I'd be willing to wager that very few film photography contests have been won by a participant who submitted a photo that was developed at their corner drugstore. Film images are manipulated quite a bit.

I'll give you the fact that digital manipulation is a lot easier to achieve -- and it's WAY easier to make "extreme" edits. But eliminating post-processing from the equation is completely short-sighted.

You want to get better at film photography, you learn in the darkroom. You want to get better at digital photograpy, you learn on the computer. Simple as that.


I still say taking photos and processing photos are separate.
Yes, I want to learn how to photoshop or process my photo to the best possible finished product. I joined DPC to learn "in-camera skills".
Though I will admit the photoshop and editing I'm learning is a bonus. I, personally, like to see what the photographer can do with just the camera.
08/17/2004 11:17:25 AM · #73
Originally posted by Imagineer:

Originally posted by muckpond:

here's another example:



real or photoshop?

does it matter?

Yes. : )


so which is it?

08/17/2004 11:19:21 AM · #74
Photochopped?
08/17/2004 11:19:53 AM · #75
Originally posted by Marjo:

I, personally, like to see what the photographer can do with just the camera.


Hey, that's your perogative. I just have a feeling you'd be disappointed if you knew how much was in-camera and how much was post.

I prefer to judge based on the entire package. Diff'rent strokes.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 07:30:58 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: 07/18/2025 07:30:58 AM EDT.