| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/31/2011 08:44:01 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm curious as to where your line is. What if it didn't look conceptual or cartoonish? For example, what if the boy (or one of the other people) in muur88's photo was added in post and it was submitted in an expert editing challenge. Not that it was but lets assume. Would it change anything? |
my lines are blurry, it's age thing :). But I guess I would likely be in much less awe of  muur88 as an amazing street photographer with uncanny sense of "decisive moment". Largely, his images work for me because of this amazement, how real, chaotic, mundane life can hold such strangeness and perfection, and how one can see and capture it in a fraction of a second. If such perfection is created by an artist's imagination, well, it can still be a great image, but the amazement is gone. |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:18:42 PM · #52 |
Frankly I wish this challenge were Minimal Editing. Hope that people remember that this is meant to be a competitives photography site, not a digital art one.
*ducking* |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:20:34 PM · #53 |
IMO a CRAZY edit can do good or bad. Look at the last winners of an expert challenge. Very heavy.
EDIT: Sorry...the #2 was heavy but good !
Originally posted by snaffles:
Frankly I wish this challenge were Minimal Editing. Hope that people remember that this is meant to be a competitives photography site, not a digital art one.
*ducking* |
Message edited by author 2011-05-31 22:22:08. |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:26:43 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Frankly I wish this challenge were Minimal Editing. Hope that people remember that this is meant to be a competitives photography site, not a digital art one.
*ducking* |
Bah. I've never found it to be a competitive anything!
(by which i mean i find the whole 'competitive' thing the very least of whats interesting about the site)
Message edited by author 2011-05-31 22:32:41. |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:43:03 PM · #55 |
I have a silly question because I just don't get it:
can we use multiple pictures taken within the time frame indicated to create one image?
Like a collage made of more than one image.
Thank you |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:44:05 PM · #56 |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:44:15 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
I have a silly question because I just don't get it:
can we use multiple pictures taken within the time frame indicated to create one image?
Like a collage made of more than one image.
Thank you |
yes |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 10:44:24 PM · #58 |
oops! Sorry. I was reading the Advanced editing instead of expert editing. Silly me!
Sorry. I GOT IT! |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 11:40:56 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by LevT:
And my problem is that most of what has been produced as "digital art" is exceedingly conceptualized, cartoonish, an illustration rather than art, really. Of course, there are exceptions, as in anything. |
most things are rather than art. otherwise, art would be too easy. most of less-than-expert editing is exceedingly representational, subject-enslaved, conceptually stagnant, a snapshot rather than art, really.
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
|
|
|
05/31/2011 11:49:51 PM · #60 |
Alas, my photo has no man-boobs (expertly added or otherwise)...so I'm going to ignore all the expectations and just have some fun! Is it possible that photography or art or ::fill in the blank:: may ever be as simple as that?!
|
|
|
|
06/01/2011 12:10:20 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Is it possible that photography or art or ::fill in the blank:: may ever be as simple as that?! |
Maybe. It's 5am here and i've just got in after walking down the road in front of a hedgehog in the pre-dawn light. I imagine a camera would have spoilt the moment to be honest. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 12:38:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Is it possible that photography or art or ::fill in the blank:: may ever be as simple as that?! |
Maybe. It's 5am here and i've just got in after walking down the road in front of a hedgehog in the pre-dawn light. I imagine a camera would have spoilt the moment to be honest. |
Mmmmmm...somehow Clive, you are pure poetry. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 12:53:15 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
How do you recognize it? From all previous discussions there is no consensus!
PS I am all for Expert Editing. To me Digital Art includes computer-generated graphics while Expert Editing does not. As I understand the rules you can only use your own photographs taken in prescribed time (plus a mysterious pattern :). That means no Digital Art objects other than combining multiple photos in any imaginable way plus ability to distort the ingredients. No non photographic material is allowed.
PS2 I used to do photorealistic 3D graphics so to me there is a clear distinction from that to what Expert Editing allows. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 02:56:40 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LevT:
And my problem is that most of what has been produced as "digital art" is exceedingly conceptualized, cartoonish, an illustration rather than art, really. Of course, there are exceptions, as in anything. |
most things are rather than art. otherwise, art would be too easy. most of less-than-expert editing is exceedingly representational, subject-enslaved, conceptually stagnant, a snapshot rather than art, really.
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
Absolutely TRUE.
let's repeat : "art surpasses its category, whatever that category might be"
(yes, art is always recognisable from sheer craftsmanship especially in painting)
Damn if we do, damn if we don't. We complained about the minimal editing for HCBresson, we dislike expert editing.
Minimal editing is closer to the medium (we shall include cropping perhaps and as an exception some curves every so often, pretending we are as close to thedark room processing) Expert editind might create a batch of quasi-artisitc-abstract-"interesting"- confusing images and a slew of commercial photography, illustrations and jokes.
It's certainly salutary to have both types in "our school" |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 06:43:56 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Is it possible that photography or art or ::fill in the blank:: may ever be as simple as that?! |
Maybe. It's 5am here and i've just got in after walking down the road in front of a hedgehog in the pre-dawn light. I imagine a camera would have spoilt the moment to be honest. |
Mmmmmm...somehow Clive, you are pure poetry. ;-) |
Ha! T'was the hops talking there i'd say. 'Walking in front of a hedgehog.' What was i thinking! I was walking behind a hedgehog on my way back last night not in front. First time i've seen a hedgehog in years so i was mighty impressed! I do like moving back to the country.
Anyway, back on topic. Yes to this...'art surprises its category, whatever that category might be.'...of course! |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 07:36:51 AM · #66 |
For the record, Clive, I held the description in my head, not as you said it, but as you meant it.
Carry on...;-)
Message edited by author 2011-06-01 09:45:44. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 07:38:02 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LevT:
And my problem is that most of what has been produced as "digital art" is exceedingly conceptualized, cartoonish, an illustration rather than art, really. Of course, there are exceptions, as in anything. |
most things are rather than art. otherwise, art would be too easy. most of less-than-expert editing is exceedingly representational, subject-enslaved, conceptually stagnant, a snapshot rather than art, really.
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
I would have to discuss this with my cultural attaché |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 09:55:19 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
No non photographic material is allowed. |
Drawing is allowed. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 09:56:08 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Frankly I wish this challenge were Minimal Editing. Hope that people remember that this is meant to be a competitives photography site, not a digital art one.
*ducking* |
Bah. I've never found it to be a competitive anything!
(by which i mean i find the whole 'competitive' thing the very least of whats interesting about the site) |
But if we aren't competing, then why do only three members get pretty rbbons and the rest of us don't? (Yeah I know we get stars for the top 10 and HM for 4th and 5th too). We don't all get a 'participation' ribbon, all of the same colour, regardless of how well we did. Personally I am not hyper-competitive but I like to take part and yes, see how well I do against others...anyway the competition thing is not of much importance to you, that's fine. Not trying to start a fight. We can still get along :-) |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 10:08:52 AM · #70 |
Well, sacrilegiously, some members may place value in comments and favs.
Shameful...I know.
Message edited by author 2011-06-01 10:11:22. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 10:12:59 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Frankly I wish this challenge were Minimal Editing. Hope that people remember that this is meant to be a competitives photography site, not a digital art one.
*ducking* |
Bah. I've never found it to be a competitive anything!
(by which i mean i find the whole 'competitive' thing the very least of whats interesting about the site) |
But if we aren't competing, then why do only three members get pretty rbbons and the rest of us don't? (Yeah I know we get stars for the top 10 and HM for 4th and 5th too). We don't all get a 'participation' ribbon, all of the same colour, regardless of how well we did. Personally I am not hyper-competitive but I like to take part and yes, see how well I do against others...anyway the competition thing is not of much importance to you, that's fine. Not trying to start a fight. We can still get along :-) |
Oh, i was just being a bit tongue in cheek really. Not being serious. I just meant that i find the actual scoring, placing and ribbons to be less interesting than other aspects of the site such as the co-operative taking part, critiques and side challenges etc. I take the 'challenge' aspect to be a challenge against ourselves to create something within the topic, timeset and rules not really a challenge against others to compete. That's just me though. And i'm glad we're not going to fight. You'd trounce me! I've seen that photo of you with that whip!! :)
Message edited by author 2011-06-01 10:13:31. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 11:08:31 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by posthumous:
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
How do you recognize it? From all previous discussions there is no consensus! |
Art is as difficult to recognize as it is to create. It would be disingenuous of me to say that consensus plays no role in art. After all, I would not be able to still see Michelangelo's art if there were no consensus about it. But we can say there is no *universal* consensus about art, nor does art require a high *average* opinion. All art needs is a following, of any size.
My original point is that an editing ruleset is not in itself uncreative or unartistic. And of course, the opposite is true! No ruleset is inherently artistic.
But now I sound like someone who wants to shut down discussion. I hate that! Let's just say critiques of rulesets should be more specific, including how they relate to the challenge topic.
And Clive, it was your inner poet who switched positions with you and the hedgehog. It's much more interesting to think you were walking in front of a hedgehog in the darkness...
Message edited by author 2011-06-01 23:50:29. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 03:14:21 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LevT:
And my problem is that most of what has been produced as "digital art" is exceedingly conceptualized, cartoonish, an illustration rather than art, really. Of course, there are exceptions, as in anything. |
most things are rather than art. otherwise, art would be too easy. most of less-than-expert editing is exceedingly representational, subject-enslaved, conceptually stagnant, a snapshot rather than art, really.
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
that is certainly true. My point though is that not all good, enjoyable, interesting photography is "art" in the traditional sense, as something created from the imagination of the artist. A lot of great photography is the product of the "art of seeing" combined good technical (photographic) skills. What is in the frame is the creation of Nature, God, or Chance, whatever you want to call it. My job as a photographer is to see it, recognize its beauty, and be able to capture it.
"Digital art", or "creative edit" as it is called on 1x, on the other hand, by definition goes beyond that. It is supposed to be a creation of the artist's mind, something not present in our world as we know it. It is certainly possible to create alternative reality convincingly, but it is a rare gift, I think rarer than taking good pictures. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 04:14:15 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by posthumous:
art surprises its category, whatever that category might be. |
How do you recognize it? From all previous discussions there is no consensus!
PS I am all for Expert Editing. To me Digital Art includes computer-generated graphics while Expert Editing does not. As I understand the rules you can only use your own photographs taken in prescribed time (plus a mysterious pattern :). That means no Digital Art objects other than combining multiple photos in any imaginable way plus ability to distort the ingredients. No non photographic material is allowed.
PS2 I used to do photorealistic 3D graphics so to me there is a clear distinction from that to what Expert Editing allows. |
I agree totally. :)
Message edited by author 2011-06-01 16:16:09. |
|
|
|
06/01/2011 04:15:36 PM · #75 |
.
Message edited by author 2011-06-01 17:13:46. |
|
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: 08/06/2025 08:41:30 PM EDT.
