| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2004 02:25:43 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I decided not to be a martyr on this issue and just sent the original file in. It was voted as third and am proud to add yet another ribbon to the collection. Besides, I like the shot the way it came out. |
I'm glad that you sent in your original file. My intent on this was not to drag you or your entry through the mud, but unfortunately that is what happens in these instances.
As far as the shot goes, for public record, I do like it and have picked it as a favorite. Half of me hopes that you do not get a dq. The other half of me wonders what will happen in future challenges if it doesn't get dq. It's an awesome piece of work. My question is does it truly fit within the spirit of the rules and is the Site being consistent...
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 14:26:41.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:38:15 PM · #52 |
May I suggest reading this tutorial for vertical borders... it would solve any argument :-)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:39:28 PM · #53 |
I have no qualms with BradP. The more power to him and I am even glad that now we have a new expression form of presenting one image in three slices.
Do you all not see where all this is leading? In this particular case, if such frames are allowed then the circular simple frame will come into being and you have images with three cirlular frames. Then you will see them with ellipses and then a combination of ellipses and rectangles.
Yes, I want all of these freedoms but not under the current editing rules which are inviting all of these innovations. From this moment on an image sliced can be presented with two frames, three frames, soon circles and then their combinations and how can the council with a straight face say no circle frames are not allowed.
The solution to this unending nightmare is very simple yet it is not addressed in its full dimension. First, let us define the final objective:
First and foremost basic editing and advance editing should bear rules to preserve the full integrity of the image. Basic editing should include the removal of minor imperfections, such as hairs, dirt and sensor dirt artifacts. Advance editing is simply to allow the use of tools to help deliniate contrast and tonal values. Use of copies of background in other modes than normal to enhance lighting, contrast and again tonal values. That is it for advance. In short, basic and advance have as the primary concern the preservation of the integrity of the image.
Then you have creative editing. Here the object is not to preserve the integrity but rather to allow creative artistic expression. In this form filters are allowed. No moving of elemenst are allowed, but the indroduction of frames, or dedicated special effects.
Then you have: Digital Editing which is totally open but elements must all bear the date required.
Examine the above and you will see that this will solve the current problem. Because right now what the rules say isL go wherever you want within these guidelines and if you go too far we will stop you! If you are super creative and introduce a new strain that we can not refute then it becomes practice. In short, take your chances. This is no way to run a show.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 14:48:33. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:47:49 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I have no qualms with BradP. The more power to him and I am even glad that now we have a new expression form of presenting one image in three slices.
Do you all not see where all this is leading? In this particular case, if such frames are allowed then the circular simple frame will come into being and you have images with three cirlular frames. Then you will see them with ellipses and then a combination of ellipses and rectangles.
Yes, I want all of these freedoms but not under the current editing rules which are inviting all of these innovations. From this moment on an image sliced can be presented with two frames, three frames, soon circles and then their combinations and how can the council with a straight face say no circle frames are not allowed.
[snipped]
If you are super creative and introduce a new strain that we can not refute then it becomes practice. In short, take your chances. This is no way to run a show. |
Once again, another member has voiced my concerns in a much more eloquent and clear way...
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:58:58 PM · #55 |
Due to the nature of how this could get out of hand, possibly an edit to the borders rule to read that borders may be applied, but only to the outer edges, ie. circumference of the image.
I had no idea this would have cause this much controversy. I did expect to get hit hard during the voting and held my B**ls firmly when submitting it. LOL
Yank it and be done with it. (the picture, not appendages...)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:00:25 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I have no qualms with BradP. The more power to him and I am even glad that now we have a new expression form of presenting one image in three slices.
Do you all not see where all this is leading? In this particular case, if such frames are allowed then the circular simple frame will come into being and you have images with three cirlular frames. Then you will see them with ellipses and then a combination of ellipses and rectangles.
Yes, I want all of these freedoms but not under the current editing rules which are inviting all of these innovations. From this moment on an image sliced can be presented with two frames, three frames, soon circles and then their combinations and how can the council with a straight face say no circle frames are not allowed.
The solution to this unending nightmare is very simple yet it is not addressed in its full dimension. First, let us define the final objective:
First and foremost basic editing and advance editing should bear rules to preserve the full integrity of the image. Basic editing should include the removal of minor imperfections, such as hairs, dirt and sensor dirt artifacts. Advance editing is simply to allow the use of tools to help deliniate contrast and tonal values. Use of copies of background in other modes than normal to enhance lighting, contrast and again tonal values. That is it for advance. In short, basic and advamce have as the primary concern the preservation of the integrity of the image.
Then you have creative editing. Here the object is not to preserve the integrity but rather to allow creative artistic expression. In this form filters are allowed. No moving of elemenst are allowed, but the indroduction of frames, or dedicated special effects.
Then you have: Digital Editing which is totally open but elements must all bear the date required.
Examine the above and you will see that this will solve the current problem. Because right now what the rules say isL go wherever you want within these guidelines and if you go too far we will stop you! If you are super creative and introduce a new strain that we can not refute then it becomes practice. In short, take your chances. This is no way to run a show. |
Sorry, but IMO, this will not solve the problem. It fails to define what is meant by the portion, "preserve the full integrity of the image". The advanced rules had a statement in them, referred to this as "photographic integrity", but it was removed and hidden within the more ambiguous statement, "the spirit of the rules."
Without defining what is meant by "photographic integrity" (or whatever it is called today) the problem remains; and will keep coming up over and over again dividing the site more and more each time. From past threads the defining of this term falls down because of a few insisting any such definition is an attempt to control their artistic expression. But, for the purpose of the challenges, it does need to be defined (along with other terms like 'photograph'). Without the definitions to anchor them, the rules just drift about aimlessly.
***
BTW: to those who don't feel this site is heading away from photography; when a person submits an image for comments and suggestions, how often are the suggestions about changes in f-stops, lighting or any number of other factors that are present when the camera is in their hands (on tripod, etc)? Or have the sugestions become almost completely PS based?
David
/edit: too many thoughts going in opposite directions.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:02:29.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:01:07 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
First and foremost basic editing and advance editing should bear rules to preserve the full integrity of the image. Basic editing should include the removal of minor imperfections, such as hairs, dirt and sensor dirt artifacts. Advance editing is simply to allow the use of tools to help deliniate contrast and tonal values. Use of copies of background in other modes than normal to enhance lighting, contrast and again tonal values. That is it for advance. In short, basic and advance have as the primary concern the preservation of the integrity of the image.
Then you have creative editing. Here the object is not to preserve the integrity but rather to allow creative artistic expression. In this form filters are allowed. No moving of elemenst are allowed, but the indroduction of frames, or dedicated special effects.
Then you have: Digital Editing which is totally open but elements must all bear the date required.
|
I don't disagree, in principle. But from having experienced trying to 'legislate' this in the past, it isn't as cut and dried as you assume. For example, under your definition of 'advanced editing' BradP's image is fine. You can achieve it with the rules you describe, just by changing tonal values.
It is very difficult to come up with a workable set of rules that actually describe your intent - I have a similar view as yours, I think, but in practical terms, it isn't easily described in a workable rule set.
Much like pornography, I recognise digital art when I see it, but you aren't going to write a bullet proof ruleset to preclude it.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:01:57 PM · #58 |
I vote for graphicfunks set of rules.
Basic editing
Advanced editing
Creative editing
Digital Editing
Has there been a member challenge with basic editing rules?
I think it would be a refreshing change to have a member challenge with basic or no editing.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:03:40 PM · #59 |
Hey brad: your image even passed the voters' clearance. Our subject is merely to deal with the current rules which say: Do as you will according to out guidelines, but if you go too far we will chop you off. If you succeed and we accept then you introduce another twist which will be allowed.
Look at my port and you will see that I welcome all of this innovation, only I think it should fall under different editing rules. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:06:43 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
when a person submits an image for comments and suggestions, how often are the suggestions about changes in f-stops, lighting or any number of other factors that are present when the camera is in their hands (on tripod, etc)? Or have the sugestions become almost completely PS based?
|
Many times I see badly exposed images that have lots of comments on how to fix it in Photoshop. The correct answer should be to expose it correctly in the first place.
GIGO
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 04:02:59 PM · #61 |
It could be any set of rules, really, as long as those rules are clearly defined, with examples of what's allowed or what's denied.
For instance, can you do spot editing or desat under advanced rules? Or can you clone out minor imprefections under basic? I guess so, because i see a lot of pics that could not be done otherwise, but that is not specifically stated in the rules.
As long as everyone plays by the same rules, that's cool. As it is, everyone has to assume this and that, and not everyone's assumptions are the same or agree with the others'. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 05:24:42 PM · #62 |
| Photographic or image inregrity is not hard to define. The image must remains within the realm of purity. Simply put, the image can not look doctored in any way either by pushing individual channels, or any adjistments which breaks up the natural harmony of the pixels. This means no banding artifacts, no color contamination. Anyone can see an image and conclyde whether it is natural or pushed. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 05:28:47 PM · #63 |
| So this new "standard" graphicfunk is proposing would, for the "photographic integrity" levels, eliminate altering the color of the picture (to b/w, sepia, cyanotone, etc.)? I think we need to figure out the difference between digital darkrooming and photoshop graphical editing. There certainly is a place for both here. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 05:56:09 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Anyone can see an image and conclyde whether it is natural or pushed. |
Only if it's overdone. In many cases there is simply no way to know for sure until you see the original. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 06:10:25 PM · #65 |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:02:50 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Photographic or image inregrity is not hard to define. The image must remains within the realm of purity. Simply put, the image can not look doctored in any way either by pushing individual channels, or any adjistments which breaks up the natural harmony of the pixels. This means no banding artifacts, no color contamination. Anyone can see an image and conclyde whether it is natural or pushed. |
Totally disagree here. If any of the above is done in camera, by creative means, everything above would be high scoring points with me. Regardless of how unreal, pushed, distorted, twisted, etc the final result is. Especially so, if you can't tell what it is. But as long as it's visually appealing.
Not forgetting, that minor tweaking needs to be done with the image almost in every case, of course.
Do the same in photoshop -- and i couldn't care less for such mods. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:23:12 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Do the same in photoshop -- and i couldn't care less for such mods. |
So I should have to go out and buy a physical "soft focus" diffusion filter, a motion blur filter, a radial zoom filter, a graduated neutral density filter and a plethora of special color filters and other "gizmos and gadgets" instead of doing it in Photoshop, even though the end result is the same? Sorry, but I disagree completely.
That is the beauty of the digital darkroom... even high-end filter companies like Schneider-Kreuznach are coming out with software versions of their filters so you don't have to buy them in various thread sizes for all your different lenses, don't have to carry them in your bag just in case you need them, etc.
It makes much more sense to make many types of adjustments and "enhancements" in software. The only time "in camera" effects are beneficial is if you need a certain "look" for a huge number of shots and individually post-processing them would be too time consuming.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 19:29:04. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:32:19 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Do the same in photoshop -- and i couldn't care less for such mods. |
So I should have to go out and buy a physical "soft focus" diffusion filter, a radial zoom filter, a graduated neutral density filter and a plethora of other "gizmos and gadgets" instead of doing it in Photoshop, even though the end result is the same? Sorry, but I disagree completely.
That is the beauty of the digital darkroom... even high-end filter companies like Schneider-Kreuznach are coming out with software versions of their filters so you don't have to buy them in various thread sizes for all your different lenses, don't have to carry them in your bag just in case you need them, etc.
It makes much more sense to make many types of adjustments and "enhancements" in software. The only time "in camera" effects are beneficial is if you need a certain "look" for a huge number of shots and individually post-processing them would be too time consuming.
|
Not to me. It's not fun to me... Perhaps i've been dealing with computers far too much in my life i want something more pure.
Why even bother photographing anything, when given sufficient dedication pretty much anything can be done on a computer? Don't get me wrong, i like computer graphics too, though can't do any myself, i'm not an artist. The images in the Expose book, for instance, are absolutely breath taking. But this is a photography site, not a CG site.
So, to answer your question, yes, if you want to score extra points and make your _photographs_ appeal to people like me, you should go get the filters, tweak white balance to achieve nice color shifts, and do all the other fun tricks.
If you do any computer graphics, i would love to look at that too, at a computer graphics related site.
Edit: Ballistic Publishing's CG books
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 19:36:49. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:35:40 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Konador:
...e301's winning photo was a full on painted window frame with lighting effects and the lot. Also, being in the 'Window Frame' challenge, we decided it was most definately a major element as without it it would have been 100% off topic and would probably not have come close to winning. |
While I agree with the SC decisions in both cases, I'm curious to know how the creative use of legal tools to make a crucial element was allowed in this example:
It was a good shot, but probably wouldn't have ribboned without the brush strokes. |
The best answer I can give is that the Advanced Editing rules were very new then, and did not yet contain the major elements clause.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:37:30 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
So, to answer your question, yes, if you want to score extra points and make your _photographs_ appeal to people like me, you should go get the filters, tweak white balance to achieve nice color shifts, and do all the other fun tricks.
If you do any computer graphics, i would love to look at that too, at a computer graphics related site. |
How can you tell the difference if the person does not post it? Especially in a challenge? You may be praising ones that use PS and punishing the ones that do have filters and or use vaseline, etc. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:46:36 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
So, to answer your question, yes, if you want to score extra points and make your _photographs_ appeal to people like me, you should go get the filters, tweak white balance to achieve nice color shifts, and do all the other fun tricks.
If you do any computer graphics, i would love to look at that too, at a computer graphics related site. |
How can you tell the difference if the person does not post it? Especially in a challenge? You may be praising ones that use PS and punishing the ones that do have filters and or use vaseline, etc. |
During the challenge i can't, really, although sometimes it shows one way or another. That's why i sometimes have a dilemma whether to rate an image higher or lower. Because, yes, at least my perception does change depending on how it's done and sometimes i regret not giving a high enough score or lowering the score...
That's also why i am advocating the basic editing ruleset, to be sure... |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:49:46 PM · #72 |
this is so stupid. I get the consistency part but with or without the border the shot by BradP looks great & prolly would have scored just as high.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 08:01:25 PM · #73 |
I don't get it. We have heard now from four (4) Site Council Members and only one of them has even attempted to address the issue and his answer is that it was addressed before the challenge started and therefore isn't even an issue.
Is this the official answer then?
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 08:14:42 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Is this the official answer then? |
The original was officially requested and has been sent.
Guess much is pending the review.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 08:16:56 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Is this the official answer then? |
The original was officially requested and has been sent.
Guess much is pending the review. |
An official we are looking into/discussing it would have been nice! :-)
|
|
