|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2004 02:12:05 PM · #51 |
When the advanced rules were clarified, the undefined term 'photographic integrity' was buried even deeper into an even less clearly defined term 'spirit of the rules'; and that the same time, the tools available were given greater detail and clarity.
As long as this is the case, the DPC public will continue to be 'hoodwinked', as moodville put it. Continueing to refuse to define what makes a photograph a photograph (for the challenges) while more clearly defining more and more tools will just continue to make the issue of photographic integrity the spirit of the rules even more inconsistent and incomprehensable than it currently is -- and continue to give us even more and more reasons to not trust the SC to represent the 'spirit of a photographic challenge'.
David
|
|
|
|
09/25/2004 05:25:48 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Note that I did not move, create or delete any pixels in my submission -- all of the "elements" in my original image existed as you see it -- some elements just have a different tint in the submission. There are literally thousands of other challenge entries that have had their pixels tinted, untinted, or even drastically altered -- even in Classic Editing challenges:
 
|
The difference in my two shots is that I didn't actually create any elements in the image. I changed the colours of existing elements.
There is a rich history of just such darkroom manipulation of images, such as solarisation, sabbatier processing and so on. Just because you claim that 'elements' or objects aren't defined by their colour, or more specifically the boundaries of an element isn't defined by its colour, doesn't actually make it so - and there is an entire body of scientific study on images that disagrees with you, btw.
From your viewpoint, I could take a picture of a white wall, paint anything I like on it and claim I just shifted the colours around - after all, colours have nothing to do with elements. In many ways this is essentially what happened. You took a photo of some white smoke and then created 3 new blocks of coloured smoke by painting on top of the white. You might want to reconsider your understanding of what compositional elements are, if you don't think colour has anything to do with it.
I wouldn't disagree that it meets the letter of the rules, as the SC obviously see it. After all, you all define what is or isn't valid within the rules with your votes. But that doesn't make it good photography. Creative art certainly, no doubt something that could be used as a graphical product for an advertising client, but it left photography behind sometime when you decided to paint 3 new elements where you had one before.
The blue piano key is another fine example of something that has moved beyond photography too.
Message edited by author 2004-09-25 17:39:37. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 09:26:35 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The difference in my two shots is that I didn't actually create any elements in the image. |
Me neither. The smoke was already present in my photograph, I didn't need to create it. It was just colored shades of gray.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I changed the colours of existing elements. |
So did I. From gray to shades of red, green and blue.
Originally posted by Gordon:
There is a rich history of just such darkroom manipulation of images, such as solarisation, sabbatier processing and so on. |
Right. I'm not arguing that your images are somehow "illegal". I was simply using them as examples of how the color of a photographed image can be manipulated, even under the Basic Editing rules to something that is drastically different than what was captured by the camera.
Originally posted by Gordon:
You took a photo of some white smoke and then created 3 new blocks of coloured smoke by painting on top of the white. |
And how is this any different than putting three pieces of graduated colored glass (see the reference to the RGB filter set in my earlier post) in front of my lens to color that smoke, other than that in one case, the color is captured "in camera"? (Of course the matchsticks themselves would get colored, but I could have selectively shifted those back to yellowish tones.) I've already shown plenty of examples where the color captured by the camera was not what was submitted -- even in challenges that dealt with a specific color.
"It's funny because there are many photographers who feel that what makes them photographers is capturing everything perfectly in a single instant. That's the skill they bring to the table. Whereas I'd argue that what makes me a photographer is my ability to envision in my mind's eye what the image needs to look like and then achieve it. And I don't care how I achieve it. To me, the real skill is understanding what the image needs to be in order to communicate the concept effectively ... If it's a situation where you can capture everything in one moment, great. We try to give ourselves the freedoom to look at the problem and take that whole arsenal of tools that we have at our disposal and figure out the best solution without limiting ourselves by some kind of philosophical structure." -- Judy Herrmann, Herrmann + Starke Studios |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 09:17:31 PM · #54 |
never mind.
Message edited by author 2004-09-27 21:31:47. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 11:18:31 AM  |
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: 09/17/2025 11:18:31 AM EDT.
|
