| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2004 05:07:05 PM · #26 |
I can`t believe this one didn`t get DQ`d.
Rules:
Cloning, dodging, and/or burning to remove imperfections and minor distracting elements is permitted, however using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not.
Nearly half the photo here doesn`t exist.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:09:53 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Be that as it may, but consider the following: Basic editing hurts because we can not clone or remove minor imperfections. I believe this should be changed to allow only the removal of minor imperfections such as spots and microscopic hairs ar artifacts that do not belong in the image.
Advance editing should allow the above plus sponge, dodge, burn and sharpen along with the use of copies in different modes than normal. Of course both have access to gb and um. This should be it for advance editing.
Creative editing: then uses all the above plus filters.
The above would make more sense to me than what we currently have. What we have is a system that fails to deliniate these three divisions. |
I agree with that to some extent. I would love to see the current advanced editing rules become the 'basic' editing rules. Then I would love to see a totally new category of digital art that has unlimited editing rules available to the photographer.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:12:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by marbo:
I can`t believe this one didn`t get DQ`d. |
The image didn't place in the top 5, nor does it have a "verified" note on it. Maybe nobody requested a DQ? |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:14:08 PM · #29 |
| Im not trying to get this photo Dq'd, I love the photo... I was just trying to clarify the rules, because I used the same filter he did. Let Sponge Bob alone, he is just an innocent bystander!! |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:15:30 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by bobdaveant:
Let Sponge Bob alone, he is just an innocent bystander!! |
Sorry, Squidward. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:21:48 PM · #31 |
my original question was asked with this challenge in mind. There are filters in photoshop that give the impression a photo was "painted" and Impressionism is obviously a style of painting.
Since this challenge is clearly asking us to produce a photo that incorporates Impressionism, I've looked online and have found several examples of Impressionistic photography, and most every one was obviously manipulated in one form or another, either by painting over the image, manipulating the emulsion on polaroid film during the processing, or by using photoshop (or a similar program) to do the manipulations.
from webmuseum Paris: "The impressionist style of painting is characterized chiefly by concentration on the general impression produced by a scene or object and the use of unmixed primary colors and small strokes to simulate actual reflected light."
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:25:03 PM · #32 |
It's not necessary to use filters to do impressionistic photos. There are lots of tricks--one of them being camera movement:
 
and cpanaioti's excellent work:
When I proposed this challenge, it was meant for basic editing (that's all there was at the time). There are other ways too, some of the same tricks used for soft focus like David Sidwell's winning photo:
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:53:17 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:57:01 PM · #34 |
They are great photos neil,
but with impressionistic paintings, you can tell what it is you are looking at. Look at any of monet's paintings, and you can see that small strokes were used to create the impressionistic effect. the photos you are showing contain large broad "strokes" of strong colors.
this is the best example of impressionism i've seen, yet it was obviously created using filters in photoshop.
 |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:10:21 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
They are great photos neil,
but with impressionistic paintings, you can tell what it is you are looking at. Look at any of monet's paintings, and you can see that small strokes were used to create the impressionistic effect. the photos you are showing contain large broad "strokes" of strong colors.
this is the best example of impressionism i've seen, yet it was obviously created using filters in photoshop...snip.. |
Eric, you are right that the examples I have posted are "in between" being abstract and impressionistic. However, I disagree that you have to be able to see the scene in an impressionistic painting/photo. One difference in impressionism versus traditional painting when it emerged was that it was no longer going for the same "realism" where strokes were hidden, and the fact that it was painted was supposed to disappear.
And while I've used more extreme movement to create more abstraction in mine, you can see cpianotti's trees are more towards a more typical impressionistic painting. When I began my own experiments with movement, I was inspired by Andrew Chambers work, which is again, less "extreme" than the ones I favored to display here. Actually, though I can't participate in the challenge, I've been researching and doing impressionistic photos all week. I won't post any yet, because I may use one in the Calendar challenge. And I've done it without photoshop (and more typical, as you say).
The one thing I would like to add from photoshop which I believe is illegal is to use the canvas effect to give it a canvas like texture. I believe it's illegal because you are rendering something with PS.
Good luck to you all, I've said it before, but I sure wish this topic had been used for a regular challenge instead, and even an open challenge, since impressionistic art is fantastic and everyone should take the time to visit the various impressionistic web galleries and tutorials.
Edit: Just went to find a quick example of a work that's not "realistic" in impressionism (or not very realistic):
Monet
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 18:13:58. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:27:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
There are other ways too, some of the same tricks used for soft focus like David Sidwell's winning photo: |
This is photoshop, though, but the same is doable with two shots, one in focus, one totally out of focus, and practically w/o photoshop at all.
..snip..
|
Yes, it's photoshop, but IT DOES NOT use any special effects filters. It only uses Gaussian blur, which is legal in open challenges even.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:44:26 PM · #37 |
Neil: Your images are very nice.
The problem here is that photography and painting are totally different. We are not using brush strokes and there is no need to lean on ps to get cheap painting stroke effects. There is also the poster effect which reduces variation and strengthens colors, again a typical effect.
I think Neil's approach is better received and I agree with him that in camera effects can be obtained in many different ways. The voters are not going to say, wow, look at the smart use of these filters that I always hated but hey here is my 10.
I suggest that each photo should indicate how it was done to spare those who did the in camera effects.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 07:03:27 PM · #38 |
if it's decided they are fine to use, and folks put them to good use, those filter users eventually will be receiving high marks.
edit: in my mind detracting from the photographic emphasis of this site.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 19:04:12.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 07:08:17 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by soup:
if it's decided they are fine to use, and folks put them to good use, those filter users eventually will be receiving high marks.
edit: in my mind detracting from the photographic emphasis of this site. |
But it is "Digital Photographer" for a purist, there are forums and competitions that are for only chrome shooters.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 07:14:42 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by soup:
if it's decided they are fine to use, and folks put them to good use, those filter users eventually will be receiving high marks.
edit: in my mind detracting from the photographic emphasis of this site. |
I would second that. We need more basic challenges, and less filters of any kind, normal or artistic. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 07:18:54 PM · #41 |
with time the site will evolve further. Allowing any filter or plugin is only going to make for more and more photos with those options applied in both a good and a bad manner.
i am not arguing for a straight off the camera rule set by any means.
disallowing 'artistic' filters i would argue in favor of.
Originally posted by eroclimon:
But it is "Digital Photographer" for a purist, there are forums and competitions that are for only chrome shooters.
|
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 07:23:10 PM · #42 |
i would disagree here, in that the use of unsharp mask and gaussian blur are important tools for the 'digital' photographer.
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
I would second that. We need more basic challenges, and less filters of any kind, normal or artistic. |
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 19:23:29.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:47:01 AM · #43 |
How about those in camera shots that look so convincingly done that voters will assume special effects filters were applied ?
I think next week might get messy :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:09:04 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
How about those in camera shots that look so convincingly done that voters will assume special effects filters were applied ? |
Yeah, I'm worried about this one. My photo definitely looks like I used artistic filters, but I didn't. I could be clobbered in the voting, then get a lot of "Oops, sorry!" comments afterward. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:14:27 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
How about those in camera shots that look so convincingly done that voters will assume special effects filters were applied ? |
Yeah, I'm worried about this one. My photo definitely looks like I used artistic filters, but I didn't. I could be clobbered in the voting, then get a lot of "Oops, sorry!" comments afterward. |
Same here, but I'm not going down the tragically sad 'stick a disclaimer in the title' road. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:44:02 PM · #46 |
| This may be a very exciting challenge simply because voters will be presented with quite an eyefull. It is going to be a totally different type of challenge. I have avoided the use of filters, but filters are in play. Keep in mind that many voters hate conventional filters and this will challenge will either make them love some applied in creative manners or hate them even more. I am ready to take my hits. lol |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:56:56 PM · #47 |
Anyone have numbers on how many people could even potentially enter ?
With 9 so far after a week and a half it isn't looking like a huge number!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:59:18 PM · #48 |
| I'm guessing there are probably only 70 or 80 people eligible, and some of those won't enter (especially since it's a difficult subject). |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 05:03:27 PM · #49 |
Given the difficulty of actually pitching an idea to the punters (with the attendant task of assessing the voters' ideas, etc.), I'd expect entries from under half those eligible. It's not a challenge where one can immediately approach a kind of obvious 'this one'll get 'em' approach.
I've made my own judgement, and whilst i'm not completely happy with my source shot, I think I may have found a parallel to the impressionists' techniques that few if any others will have considered. I strongly suspect, however, that it will be wildly voted down. Still, at the present rate, I should finsih in the top 30 or so :-)
E |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 05:04:45 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm guessing there are probably only 70 or 80 people eligible, and some of those won't enter (especially since it's a difficult subject). |
If memory serves, there were about 90 eligible for the previous masters. I would exxpect that the maximum is around 65 for this, and that around half of those won't enter.
E |
|
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: 09/18/2025 11:00:01 AM EDT.
