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 76 - 87 of 87, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/17/2004 11:20:17 AM · #76
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Originally posted by muckpond:
here's another example:



real or photoshop?

does it matter?

Yes. : )


Why? I don't happen to like the effect (no offense muck). Knowing how it was achieved is not going to make me like the effect. I may say, woo- shallow DOF. Not liking it. 5. I'm not going to say, hmmm shallow DOF- might be done in PS, so I need to give it a 2...

Motion blur, same thing. If it's done well- awesome! If not, then I'm gonna say not so good here. Plus, any image that ribbons has to prove that they did not create a major element and move too many pixels in making the motion blur.

On a more practical note, there's a good reason to keep the advanced rules as is. The more you start saying, "this filter is okay but this is not" the more chances you create for honest confusion. As they stand, the rules work hard to stay as simple as possible. People have enough trouble following the rules as is. ;)

Why start adding exceptions?

Clara
 08/17/2004 11:24:36 AM · #77
I think the problem is not so much the fact that the motion blur tool can be used legally in some challenges but the fact that most voters instantly assume it was done in an editing program and reduce their votes accordingly. Furthermore that mostly strengthens the theory that voters base some of their vote on how they think someone achieved something rather than the final photograph as presented. Although with a final score of 7 they couldnt have voted down the particular image in question very much.

As with everything else concerning how people vote ... you learn through challenges how people seem to vote and for the most part it is quite consistent. You can either shoot what scores well, shoot for yourself and not worry about scores, or just not enter. You can change the rules all you want but it wont change the voters.
 08/17/2004 11:25:22 AM · #78
the for the record the shot i posted was in camera solely.
levels and curves slightly


08/17/2004 11:32:51 AM · #79
Originally posted by muckpond:
here's another example:



real or photoshop?

does it matter?


i'm with soup. this shot was done completely in-camera as well, with a special lens intended to produce this exact effect.

and i 100% agree with moodville: people are going to vote based on 1,000,000 things other than what the final photograph looks like. personally, i'm sick of playing that game and that's why i've not entered a challenge in many many months.

if someone is going to look at my photo and critique it based on the way they THINK it was produced, then their opinion really doesn't matter to me. i would much rather hear what people think about the FINAL RESULT, and i've found that in other photo communities online. DPC is just too catty anymore.

rob

ps -- no offense taken, Clara. btw, all of your photos suck. j/k.
 08/17/2004 11:33:39 AM · #80
Originally posted by moodville:
I think the problem is not so much the fact that the motion blur tool can be used legally in some challenges but the fact that most voters instantly assume it was done in an editing program and reduce their votes accordingly. Furthermore that mostly strengthens the theory that voters base some of their vote on how they think someone achieved something rather than the final photograph as presented. Although with a final score of 7 they couldnt have voted down the particular image in question very much.

As with everything else concerning how people vote ... you learn through challenges how people seem to vote and for the most part it is quite consistent. You can either shoot what scores well, shoot for yourself and not worry about scores, or just not enter. You can change the rules all you want but it wont change the voters.


That was quite a presidential speech Moodville :D Most enjoyable to read!

Ps: Wheres your profile picture gone too? :D
08/17/2004 11:36:00 AM · #81
Originally posted by Imagineer:
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.


Suppose you wanted to do advertising photography and had to be able to work with an editing team to produce a final shot and didn't know how to pre-visualise results that would be finished in photoshop. Now all of a sudden advanced editing helps with your future career opportunities - in other words - this is a specious argument.

I take shots that I expect to modify and shoot it appropriately. This is also a camera skill - e.g., filtering for B&W conversion or shooting because I know what effect I'm going to add. I would shoot very differently if I was doing photojournalism or when I don't expect to edit it later. There are things you do pre shot that can help the editing process too. Camera skills. Post processing skills. pre visualisation skills. All digital photography.

If you do want a future in photojournalism, I totally agree that you need to be able to take great pictures, in camera. Having the opportunity to use the motion blur filter doesn't not stop that future aim being possible and I'd heartily recommend that you focus on getting it right in camera and not using editing.

This is not a proving or training ground for photojournalists. If someone is looking for that, I'd suggest a local paper.

Here's an example from the weekend.



Is the blur done in photoshop ?
Is the soft focus done in photoshop ?
Did I fix the colour in photoshop ?
Where does the 'camera skills' end ?

I took this shot, specifically to look the way that it does. I happened to use a shutter speed of 1/8th a second to softly blur the image. I happened to use a fairly open aperture and deliberatly defocused it slightly to further that effect. So there, the camera modifications are evident. I also though shot it at a very low contrast setting, because I wanted to control the contrast in photoshop. I also shot it using particular colour balance which looks bad initially, because I knew I was going to be channel mix it to black and white.

I added the grain and contrast and duotones in photoshop - I could I guess have used a camera with a 'greyscale' option. I could have shot it sharply too, but that didn't suit my personal intention. A sharp shot could be processed to look like this - would that be cheating ? It just varies where in the process you decide to do things. The idea for this shot was what I started with and I made a various choices in camera, based on how I planned on finishing it. One doesn't stand in isolation to the other. The shot half way through (from the camera) doesn't look anything like what I was trying to achieve.

Message edited by author 2004-08-17 12:29:44.
 08/17/2004 11:38:59 AM · #82
Originally posted by Imagineer:

Can one achieve motion blur in a darkroom after the film is developed (not like Gerald Scarfe's work with Polaroids)?


Yes - but why does that matter. Are you doing film photography or digital photography ? They are different in fundamental ways.
 08/17/2004 11:56:38 AM · #83
Ok. I take another look at more posts, and I realize that Idon't have PS, I don't have an SLR, and currently I don't have a computer at home until it gets fixed.

I'm thinking I'll stay out of it. The aggravation isn't worth it. I started logging on here to read about Digital photography(and the editing thereof) and not to participate in a debate that seems at times to be just a stone's throw away from a flamewar.

As they say, It's an A-B conversation. I'll 'C' my way out of it.
 08/17/2004 12:26:07 PM · #84
computerking - when I first came to this site with my Kodak, I learned alot by reading the tutorials. One that helped me alot was by hbunch7187. How to get the most out of your low-end cameras. You might want to check it out.
edit: tried to do a link...

Message edited by author 2004-08-17 12:31:15.
 08/17/2004 02:13:09 PM · #85
Originally posted by computerking:
Ok. I take another look at more posts, and I realize that Idon't have PS, I don't have an SLR, and currently I don't have a computer at home until it gets fixed.

I'm thinking I'll stay out of it. The aggravation isn't worth it. I started logging on here to read about Digital photography(and the editing thereof) and not to participate in a debate that seems at times to be just a stone's throw away from a flamewar.

As they say, It's an A-B conversation. I'll 'C' my way out of it.

I don't think it's a flamewar - just strong views either way. Anyway picking up from your earlier post and this one, I think it would be a shame for you to back out based on equipment and an exchange in a thread. My tripod cost me about $15 and some filters are pretty cheap too. You could jsut hold one over your lens and be more resourceful, etc. : )
 08/17/2004 02:28:44 PM · #86
Originally posted by computerking:
I'm thinking I'll stay out of it. The aggravation isn't worth it. I started logging on here to read about Digital photography(and the editing thereof) and not to participate in a debate that seems at times to be just a stone's throw away from a flamewar.


I don't think you should bail on the site entirely. I do think you should realize that "photography" often encompasses more than just taking a photo with a camera. For digital photography, that probably means some tweaking in a post-processing program.

You don't HAVE to go out and spend $1000s of dollars to compete here. Many people do spend that money (myself included), but it's not because better equipment = better pictures. I've got nice equipment now and I still produce PLENTY of stinkers.

Instead, focus on technique and visualization. Work on composition and cropping, and ESPECIALLY lighting techniques.

And if you need help with the post-processing, you don't need Photoshop. GIMP, which is a free program, does quite a bit. Even a software package like Paint Shop Pro will probably do just about everything you need it to.

Fact of the matter is, you're going to spend SOME money. Most any hobby requires that you do. If you were interested in film photography, you'd spend money on film and development costs.

But don't give up altogether. Just turn off the forums for a while. ;)


08/17/2004 06:12:57 PM · #87
Originally posted by Imagineer:
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.

Sorry for saying you were complaining Jon!Regardless your picture is really good!!
;-)

Message edited by author 2004-08-17 18:27:26.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 01:06:33 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 01:06:33 AM EDT.