| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2004 08:51:41 AM · #1 |
Please excuse me if this topic has been discussed before. DISCLAIMER - I am not challenging the validity of any individual's technique, or style. This is a "Newbie" thread.
I have noticed that lately there has been a trend of amazing, but very over produced and polished ribbon winners. Some of the images I have seen in the recent challenges are starting to pick up certain attributes of these winning images, not by photographic composition, but by the effects added in post processing.
It seems to me that since the majority of us vote by "Gut" - our initial impression of the image and that the most striking image will get the higher vote nomatter how much work goes into the photograph in post production.
Granted there are some of us who vote by strict sets of criteria, but even I am guilty of scoring a beautiful image highly based on my initial impression of it's outcome in final editing.
When I was first introduced to this site, I was told by my friend that the more overproduced a picture looks in the end, the greater the risk of it being disqualified... but this really isn't the consensus is it?
When I take a picture of something, I try to keep my editing very basic, like brightness, cropping and border, but that's just me. I am not trying to impress anyone here, I am just here to learn. I am learining about post-processing too...
Should I feel less guilty in photoshop from now on?
Is post production really a big part of the Criteria for what makes a good digital photograph?
Lets get a discussion going on the 2 schools of thought. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:07:27 AM · #2 |
From a photography standpoint, I try to get the best possible picture out of the camera. In other words, pay attention to composition, exposure, impact etc getting as close to the picture I want straight from the camera. Using the histogram on the camera helps with this though is not completely foolproof.
From a post processing standpoint, starting with the best possible picture will generate the best final results. If I find myself trying to save a picture with post processing then I feel something was missing in the original. I use this as a learning tool by determining what I find myself doing to try and save the picture and figure out what I could have done differently to improve the shot.
I think both tools, camera and image editing software can be used to improve the final product. What people have been doing in the digital darkroom has been done for decades in the traditional darkroom, ie. dodging and burning.
Film processors constantly adjust the film they are processing to provide the customer with the best possible results (in their opinion). Unless you tell them to process as is with no adjustments, any prints you get are post processed. Slide processing is slightly different as there is much less leeway in processing though there is some.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:15:27 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From a post processing standpoint, starting with the best possible picture will generate the best final results. If I find myself trying to save a picture with post processing then I feel something was missing in the original. |
Agree.
We are not trying to make some documentary just something visualy interesting and original.
Of course it´s possible to overdo things and distroy images with to much processing but in many cased processing can add interest to images.
Message edited by author 2004-07-22 09:16:02. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:21:40 AM · #4 |
I agree that you should strive for the best possible picture right out of the camera. I also agree that post-processing can help make a good image better. Going beyond that, I have seen some beautiful digital art (a photo made to look like a painting, etc.). However, this being a photography site and not a site promoting digital art, I don't always like some of the extreme post processing I see. For example, I see a lot of images processed with Neat Image - when used with a light and graceful hand it can really help bring out the best in a photograph. But too often it's effects are too over-the-top for my tastes.
At the risk of pissing everyone off (which is NOT my intention) lets take Heida's latest ribbon winner for example. It is a beautiful image and it conveys freedom very well. The lighting and composition are both gorgeous and it succeeds at having that quality that almost transports you to the scene. However, it's painterly quality makes it look more like digital art than a photograph to me. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:22:20 AM · #5 |
*climbs up onto soapbox*
I may or may not stand alone in this line of thinking, but here is goes ...
People (myself included) can and do learn a great deal about photography here, but the site itself is a CONTEST. The object of a contest is to win. Everytime I enter a contest, the goal is to win a ribbon (though, admittedly there are times I submit a photo knowing full well it has no chance). So for me this site is a game. As long as everyone plays the game by the rules, all is well.
If someone knows photoshop better than me, well then they have an advantage ... sucks for me :) But you nailed it in your post, "our initial impression of the image and that the most striking image will get the higher vote no matter how much work goes into the photograph in post production".
There's purists here and photoshop guru's here, but in the end - the most striking final image is going to win. How you produce that image (within the rules) is up to you.
*climbs down from soapbox* |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:29:19 AM · #6 |
| Thank you, Hopper, for your comments. I agree with you that it really doesn't matter how you get there as long as you follow the rules. I'm afraid my earlier post might have sounded as if I'm one of the 'purists'. I'm not - just sharing my opinion about initial impressions. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:40:22 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
At the risk of pissing everyone off (which is NOT my intention) lets take Heida's latest ribbon winner for example. It is a beautiful image and it conveys freedom very well. The lighting and composition are both gorgeous and it succeeds at having that quality that almost transports you to the scene. However, it's painterly quality makes it look more like digital art than a photograph to me. |
Heida is a good example here. She is a good photographer but she is a absolut genius in processing which is what makes her great succes her for the last weeks and months. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 11:21:56 AM · #8 |
| As time goes by I am beginning to think the the prohibition against using methods that don't apply to an entire image, as in the Basic rules, was really a good line to separate digital photography from digital art. The only exception would be use of clone tool to clean up flaws, but not to remove major elements. The fact that a certain effect was acheivable in traditional chemical darkroom has been a misleading argument. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 11:40:56 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The fact that a certain effect was acheivable in traditional chemical darkroom has been a misleading argument. |
I completely agree.
I saw a really old photo taken of about 100 russian soldiers. Not all their uniforms are in focus, but their faces can all be seen clearly. The photographer literally used a paintbrush to clean up the faces of the soldiers by hand. This must have taken hours, but todays effects of airbrushing in photoshop was reproducable even when photography was relatively primative.
There is even a famous photographer who super imposes 2 or more images into one all in the darkroom, or uses multiple exposures to create very surreal pictures.
Since we can't multiply our images, mix multiple exposures, or move major elements of our images, it can even be said that we are restricted more as digital photographers on this site than manual or "Darkroom" photographers would be.
The raw definition of digital art is where the image in part or in whole is computer generated, using computational algorythm instead of strict human input.
That pretty much settles it for me, I am going to photoshop all my pictures to death from here on out. :) |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 11:44:05 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 12:14:14 PM · #11 |
I'm out of order?! You're out of order! THIS WHOLE COURT IS OUT OF ORDER!
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 12:26:35 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
this is so ridiculous |
Originally posted by wwwavenger:
I'm out of order?! You're out of order! THIS WHOLE COURT IS OUT OF ORDER! |
What does this add to the discussion?
Originally posted by coolhar:
The fact that a certain effect was acheivable in traditional chemical darkroom has been a misleading argument. |
How do you see this as misleading? Maybe it hasn't been explained very well or you may have valid points, you just haven't stated them.
edit: just trying to understand any points put forward
Message edited by author 2004-07-22 12:31:24.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 12:44:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The fact that a certain effect was acheivable in traditional chemical darkroom has been a misleading argument. |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
How do you see this as misleading? Maybe it hasn't been explained very well or you may have valid points, you just haven't stated them.
edit: just trying to understand any points put forward |
The argument that something can be done in a darkroom is not justification for going hog wild in photoshop, because everything that you can do with your PC can be accomplished (arguably) in a darkroom.
And yes, it is rediculous and confusing, which is why I posted to begin with. If you want to discuss it, just add your 2 cents.
GriGriGirl, if you think it's foolish for me to discuss this, I challenge you to tell me exactly why you think so. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 12:53:01 PM · #14 |
Noone said anything about going hogwild in photoshop, at least I didn't. I guess the answer to my question 'How do you see this as misleading?' is 'maybe it hasn't been explained very well'.
I would think people would use some common sense when using photoshop equivalents of darkroom techniques by applying them sparingly. If you have to go hogwild in photoshop maybe something was missing from the original and a retake is in order.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 02:17:48 PM · #15 |
I see photography as an art form, and like any other art form, there are hundreds of ways to manipulate the canvas to get a finished product. Musicians have special machines that can smooth out voices, remove distracting noises, and give instruments a more surreal sound. Painters use different colors, chemicals, textures, mediums, etc. to achieve different effects in their artwork. I understand that the line between digital art and photography can be difficult to see, but I don't think the two must be mutually exclusive. Hardcore photographers would probably dismiss heida's Free Study winner, but digital artists probably would, too. It falls somewhere in between, with a foot on either side of the line.
Seeing a great photograph that hasn't been post processed is like hearing an amazing piano piece, and then learning that the pianist played it with his toes. The methods used make it especially cool, and you might turn to your friend and say, "Hey! Look! With his toes!" but at the end of the day that doesn't make it any more or less valid as a work of art than a piece played with his hands. Different strokes for different folks, you know?
Just my duo denari.
-Stacy |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 02:38:50 PM · #16 |
Back when there was an ongoing discussion about editing techniques leading up to the institution of the Advanced rules those who were in favor of relaxing the original rules (which were similiar to the current Basic rules) argued that if an effect was acheivable thru old fashioned chemical darkroom techniques it should be allowed. Those against relaxing the rules claimed that such a standard would lead to more digital art type entries. Most everyone agreed that a movement away from digital photography and toward digital art was neither the intent of relaxing the rules nor a desirable outcome. The other major arguement used was that we needn't worry about too much digital art because the voters would discourage it by voting such entries low.
Now we are faced with an increasing number of high scoring and ribbon winning images that move ever closer to the dreaded digital art while neither of the arguments cited are effective to stem the drift. The voters seem to have embraced a fairly high level of manipulation and we are seeing the images defended as something that was always acheivable in the old fashioned chemical darkroom.
Take dodge & burn as an example. These were used in the film darkroom before there was digital. And they can be done in some editing programs. Before the rules relaxation they were banned as violative of the rule that required any technique used to affect the entire image. Now they are allowed in the member challenges under the Advanced rules. However there is no agreement at all about how much dodge & burn can be used before the image crosses over into digital art; or, to put it another way, before it loses it Photographic Integrity. The lack of agreement becomes a source of friction in the dpc community and a difficult issue for the admins and Site Council to deal with. There was one less point for disagreement, one less problem for the seemingly overwhelmed SC, and less digital art, before dodge & burn were allowed.
These are my observations and opinion and are not directed toward any particular image or photographer. Your milage may vary.
Message edited by author 2004-07-22 14:45:17. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 02:58:16 PM · #17 |
50 years ago, all those techniques done in the darkroom were considered photography. Now, they are done on computer, and people are calling them digital art, and specifically not photography.
What about an analogy to other things? What about math? I just happen to have a college degree in mathematics. 50 years ago (or in the case of math, 100, 500, or even 5000 years ago), what they were doing is called math. Now, I do it all on a computer in seconds. Am I no longer doing math? Then what am I doing? The medium has changed. That's all.
For the record, the big argument towards the Advanced rules was not just "if an effect was acheivable through old fashioned chemical darkroom techniques, it should be allowed." The overriding argument was, and still is, that we should all be able to produce our best images, while maintaining photographic integrity. The advanced rules do this very nicely. Heida's shots are wonderful - she is a fantastic photographer, and is able to take her photography and make it the best possible in post processing. This is exactly what the Advanced rules are for.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 03:03:52 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by wwwavenger:
I'm out of order?! You're out of order! THIS WHOLE COURT IS OUT OF ORDER! |
What does this add to the discussion?
|
I was trying to add some humor, as heated topics like this need a cool island song... er, a laugh or two.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 03:22:00 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
50 years ago, all those techniques done in the darkroom were considered photography. Now, they are done on computer, and people are calling them digital art, and specifically not photography.
What about an analogy to other things? What about math? I just happen to have a college degree in mathematics. 50 years ago (or in the case of math, 100, 500, or even 5000 years ago), what they were doing is called math. Now, I do it all on a computer in seconds. Am I no longer doing math? Then what am I doing? The medium has changed. That's all.
For the record, the big argument towards the Advanced rules was not just "if an effect was acheivable through old fashioned chemical darkroom techniques, it should be allowed." The overriding argument was, and still is, that we should all be able to produce our best images, while maintaining photographic integrity. The advanced rules do this very nicely. Heida's shots are wonderful - she is a fantastic photographer, and is able to take her photography and make it the best possible in post processing. This is exactly what the Advanced rules are for. |
I couldn't have writen this better if my life depended on it. My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 03:36:10 PM · #20 |
When I started out in digital photography I didn't care for the idea of post-processing at all. I think that was mostly because *I* didn't know how to do it. The more I learn about photoshop though, the more I love what can be done with it. (I'm still really early on the learning curve!) It's almost as much fun as taking the photos themselves!
I like images with obvious photoshopping if it's been done well and helps the image in my eyes, the past few ribbon winners included. My top choice for the balance challenge is an obviously processed photo too, but it's wonderful! There are plenty of images I think are hurt by photoshop too, usually oversaturation and over-sharpening and smoothing.
It's just really not a black and white issue for me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's just one aspect of the whole digital photography process in my opinion. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 03:54:03 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by wwwavenger:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by wwwavenger:
I'm out of order?! You're out of order! THIS WHOLE COURT IS OUT OF ORDER! |
What does this add to the discussion?
|
I was trying to add some humor, as heated topics like this need a cool island song... er, a laugh or two. |
But why is this such a heated topic? Photography... Digital Art... they are both art and how one arrives at the final piece is really here nor there. One person might thrill to the experience of doing everything by hand in the darkroom while another will be creatively freed by weilding a stylus over a Wacom tablet. Who cares?!? Both techniques can yield beautiful or shitty results depending on the skill of the artist. It comes down to personal taste and I don't think anyone has the right to say which is the right way. Any individual who has the misguided notion that they know the way and that their way is the only way should realize that another individual has every right to tell them to go pound salt.
Of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way :-D
That being said, I don't personally enjoy looking at photos that have been 'Neat Imaged' to the point that they look plastic. In fact, I hate them. But it's not my photo and I don't have to look at it so more power to the folks who use that technique. |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 04:08:49 PM · #22 |
I didn't see the discussion as heated at all. I saw it as a discussion. All I was doing with my later posts was trying to get people to explain their statements so I could get a better understanding of where they are coming from. Obviously some took that as an attack on their opinion.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 04:36:20 PM · #23 |
There are many great points here and I think this has been discussed very calmly and appropriately.
Here are my thoughts. Comparing our editing rules to traditional darkroom techniques does not accurately define anything. Traditional darkroom techniques can easily be over-manipulated as well to what I would label as photography art. It is still rooted in photography but it has been manipuated in order to become something comletely new. Definitions and categories are important otherwise we will lose all basis for comparisons. By the very definition of this site, which is about photography only, we are required to keep our images within the specific parameters as outlined in the rules. Without these parameters the actual contests would essentially become meaningless and only serve to showcase a vast range of photographic and artistic styles. So I don't agree with the notion the it is only about the final image, at least, when it comes to a photography site like this that has a specific intent. If you are simply showing your work as purely art than I would agree that it is only about the final image. That just isn't the case here, though.
In response to the original question I agree that many of the winning images have obviously been enhanced or heavily edited but, for the most part, I find these acceptable. Most are quite stunning. They are mostly stylized to be made more beautiful which I find very different from moving elements around or adding major elements that significantly change the structure and integrity of the original image. The fact that some editing techniques are obvious and other techniques are hidden is completely irrelevant. What is important is what has been changed as compared to the original image.
T
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 04:38:35 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Now we are faced with an increasing number of high scoring and ribbon winning images that move ever closer to the dreaded digital art while neither of the arguments cited are effective to stem the drift. The voters seem to have embraced a fairly high level of manipulation and we are seeing the images defended as something that was always acheivable in the old fashioned chemical darkroom. |
I haven't seen any images that I'd consider approaching 'digital art'
I see many good photographs winning. There are some winners I don't personally like, due to heavy handed application of filters, saturation or various other techniques, much in the same way there is plenty of photography in galleries that personally doesn't appeal to my own aesthetic sense. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't photography. There is plenty of landscape photography I find that is garish, unsubtle and over the top, simply due to the use of velvia slide film for example - no darkroom manipulations, no post processing, just very saturated, colourful film.
Message edited by author 2004-07-22 16:53:19.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 07:26:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
It comes down to personal taste and I don't think anyone has the right to say which is the right way. Any individual who has the misguided notion that they know the way and that their way is the only way should realize that another individual has every right to tell them to go pound salt.
Of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way :-D |
But isn't this -exactly- what we do every time we vote?
My turn for a parralel:
My favorite musicians are Radiohead and Sigur Ros. Both bands are notorious for being over-produced on their albums (like digital photography & post processing is seen as "Digital art"). Some people can't stand to listen to them because it sounds sometimes like they aren't even playing guitars when they actually are.
While playing live, however, both bands include elements like orchestras and accoustic instruments - the difference to me is that if there is a catastrophic failure on stage, it could destroy the whole thing just because there is no computerized synthesis to fall back on(darkroom).
I am a fan of overproducing things, in art, in photography and in music. It's a performance from artist to audience. To me, any tool used to "Sparkle" up a song or picture is just another paintbrush or camera. It's (at least closer to) what the photographer saw when they took that picture. I am not challenging anyone's style, at all. Just because someone used a computer to make something beautiful, it's still beautiful in the end. Even though a similar powerful image can be created manually.
Timj351 makes an interesting point: "By the very definition of this site, which is about photography only, we are required to keep our images within the specific parameters as outlined in the rules. Without these parameters the actual contests would essentially become meaningless and only serve to showcase a vast range of photographic and artistic styles. "
I am very new to this site, but looking over challenges from the past, even with the rules we have- it looks to me that this is exactly what is happening.
We all have different opinions about right and wrong, and that comes out when we vote. It's all about the finished product if you want to win. This is the behavior of the voters... the way the herd moves :) It's just one newbie's observation. |
|
