I want to table a motion... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

08/16/2004 01:08:26 PM · #8

Originally posted by Imagineer:

... to ban the Motion Blur filter in all challenge entries. I don't see the point of allowing it, when so many other less dramatic editing effects are banned.

The only argument for using it would be to dramatically change the overall appearance of the shot or to suggest that the motion was captured in camera, which is not in the spirit of the contest. As a result of some comments on my Feet entry, I'm sure that many must have thought it was radial blur in Photoshop (and was probably marked down accordingly).

II'm not disgruntled but I'd be interested if anyone owns up to having made this assumption. I've had those comments a few times now and I really don't want to have to lengthen my titles to include 'No Edits!' as some have had to do to prove their integrity. Any thoughts?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I back this suggestion 100 percent. I would also do away with artificial dof done by selecting a subject and blurring the rest. My reason here is simple: This flies in the face of the artistry of photography and the use and selection of lens, aperture and shutter speed. There is amother big danger involved and it goes like this:

Once you are allowed to select a shape, the definition may be spelled out as simply selecting pixels which in turn means that you can defined any arbitrary shape merely because you are selecting pixels. Take a shot of a woman with a shawl on her head....this system gives you licence to select a halo around her head, which has no real existence in the image and then make the halo a glowing effect.

I believe Imagineer is on the right course. Consider, you go through the trouble of creating an effect on the camera, therefore a similar effect should not be allowed in post processing, otherwise why bother to create the image in the camera.

I think that advance editing should only allow clone, burn and dodge as specified and using the selection tool not to define, but to select only objects in an image.

Then there should be advance editing 2 which allows using the selection tool to select non exintent shapes such as defining a perimeter and creating a fade or darkening.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

08/16/2004 01:14:30 PM · #9

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

this system gives you licence to select a halo around her head, which has no real existence in the image and then make the halo a glowing effect.

Thats not actually true. Creating objects that are not there in the original photo will result in a DQ, as will anything that the SC deems to be in the realy of Digital Art.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/16/2004 01:16:51 PM · #10

I read over the comments made on your shot, and really I can't see anything that implies that many voters misinterpreted the blur. You did score a 7.226, with only 8 votes below a 5!
Scoring above 7.0 and still missing a ribbon is tough to take, granted (been there, done that) but I don't see how that translates to a need to make a PS-applied blur illegal?

melismatica

Minolta DiMAGE F200

08/16/2004 01:24:11 PM · #11

It is annoying to get comments regarding editing that wasn't done. I got a couple of those for my Everyday Objects entry. One commenter suggested I added an image digitally (illegal editing) and then the CC crit referred back to that comment in a way that seemed to affirm the assumption, although the critiquer was being sympathetic in her comment.

The comments I really get annoyed by are the ones that suggest that no prior planning or thought went into the shot. Comments that suggest that the photographer never takes his/her camera out of auto mode, for instance. That bugs me because I always use the manual mode on my camera. My favorite manual function is the EV bracketing setting. In a similar vein, comments that don't give the photographer credit for having had some kind of creative vision when making the photograph. If I see that a photo shows a certain amount of competence on the part of the photographer I will make a comment along the lines of, 'I think this might have been your intention' and proceed from there. That way, if I have something negative to say about something the photographer may have done intentionally, it is simply a matter of my own taste and I've aknowledged the photographer's personal vision.

I'm not saying we shouldn't offer suggestions for improvement. I'm just suggesting that we do so without being condescending.

Gringo

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/16/2004 01:28:33 PM · #12

Originally posted by grigrigirl:

It hasn't stifled my creativity at all. I still get to express my other work in other places. What it has done is take away the desire to share the work "here". It seems like a waste of time for everyone to enter a photograph in a contest if you know it isn't going to do well. I wouldn't enter a flower or a cat in a pie contest, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who would. That doesn't mean a flower or a cat wouldn't taste as sweet, it just means there are too many who wouldn't be able to get past the psychological elements and they wouldn't be able to give it high marks. So what would be the point of entering it in that contest. Enter it where it will be appreciated .

melismatica

Minolta DiMAGE F200

08/16/2004 01:30:49 PM · #13

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

I back this suggestion 100 percent. I would also do away with artificial dof done by selecting a subject and blurring the rest. My reason here is simple: This flies in the face of the artistry of photography and the use and selection of lens, aperture and shutter speed. There is amother big danger involved and it goes like this:

I didn't think you could use gaussian blur on a selective part of the image. Is this actually legal? If it is, keep in mind that some people have cameras that don't have a large aperature (for that matter, aperature priority) and it can be very difficult to achieve shallow DOF. Not everyone has digital SLRs. Fortunately, the more affordable digital cameras now offer a degree of aperature priority functioning so it is easier now then it was.

Message edited by author 2004-08-16 13:31:35.

grigrigirl

Nikon D3

Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

08/16/2004 01:38:05 PM · #14

Originally posted by Gringo:

Originally posted by grigrigirl:
seems pretty sad that you should let the voting of this site stifle your creativity. Is it all about a ribbon? A high score? And what is the purpose of having DPC mass appeal? Does it earn you money? Does it make you a great photographer? I think not.

It hasn't stifled my creativity at all. I still get to express my other work in other places. What it has done is take away the desire to share the work "here". It seems like a waste of time for everyone to enter a photograph in a contest if you know it isn't going to do well. I wouldn't enter a flower or a cat in a pie contest, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who would. That doesn't mean a flower or a cat wouldn't taste as sweet, it just means there are too many who wouldn't be able to get past the psychological elements and they wouldn't be able to give it high marks. So what would be the point of entering it in that contest. Enter it where it will be appreciated .

But..I thought this site was about learning and exploring photography. The ribbons are just a side line thing. How am I to be inspired by cookie cutter pretty? I need people like you to enter your experiments. I need inspiration to try something I had not thought of on my own. If your only concerned with votes and mass opinion...then it becomes an attempt to soothe your ego. I guess the question remains...what is the purpose of having mass appeal on DPC? What does it prove to you? Have you seen those ice chests in walmart with the little photos on the sides of them? They have pictures of eagles and flags and such. When I saw those..I immediately thought of DPC. If you concern yourself with cookie cutter perfect...thats what you get. Generic walmart ice chest art. :)

peecee

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/16/2004 01:40:18 PM · #15

I tend to agree with Melissa on this, I have had a few comments on my dof not being shallow enough on certain shots.The shallow dof is just not possible on my camera unless I am at full zoom, this then increases the noise, whilst I would never us the gaussian blur etc. in a challenge, it has a "false" appearence.

Gringo

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/16/2004 01:49:24 PM · #16

Originally posted by grigrigirl:

I like your thought pattern here. I don't see much of my work as mainstream even in the ones I do choose to enter here. Mass appeal is important to me because it shows me I have hit the target audience as expected. (not always intended for first place) If I enter a shot that I know will hit last place and it doesn't, it just means I didn't understand my audience well enough. It doesn't take from the photo at all. (thinking of Jacko's brown target)he nailed that one with excellence and with class.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

08/16/2004 01:53:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by melismatica:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

I back this suggestion 100 percent. I would also do away with artificial dof done by selecting a subject and blurring the rest. My reason here is simple: This flies in the face of the artistry of photography and the use and selection of lens, aperture and shutter speed. There is amother big danger involved and it goes like this:

I didn't think you could use gaussian blur on a selective part of the image. Is this actually legal? If it is, keep in mind that some people have cameras that don't have a large aperature (for that matter, aperature priority) and it can be very difficult to achieve shallow DOF. Not everyone has digital SLRs. Fortunately, the more affordable digital cameras now offer a degree of aperature priority functioning so it is easier now then it was.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Advance editing allows this. I would never used it. A person with a camera in which they can not determine dof, will not likely be found creating this effect with software. 90 percent of the cameras have aperture priority. The basic controls of a photographer is exposure, dof, white balance and focusing. Strictly manual operation imply, you determine exposure and an incident reading does a better job, you do manual focus. Then there are all the combinations of using an incident reading and using a particular mode of auto focus. Some images are shortchanged by using the auto features of the camera. Bracketing, per se, when the camera does it is not a manual function, it is simply an extra step or setting.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/16/2004 02:14:32 PM · #18

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

I would also do away with artificial dof done by selecting a subject and blurring the rest. My reason here is simple: This flies in the face of the artistry of photography and the use and selection of lens, aperture and shutter speed.

That's great if you can afford a camera that allows you to do this, and while we are at it, control the shutter speed to do motion blurs as well.

We haven't quite got to DSLRChallenge yet, though it does increasingly feel that way.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/16/2004 02:17:26 PM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

It's happened before (and in this challenge) that voters generous enough to comment have mentioned to me that they assume an effect has been used. In those instances I have PMd them because it bugs me! As a result the comments have changed (quite rightly perhaps) but I don't want to have to do this. I do it because they ought to know that it's camera technique and not software filters. It may then at least give them some hope photographically, rather than imagining that they have to purchase some software to get similar results.

However, I think you may have missed the point of my thread which is why use such an effect anyway? Why not ban it? Give me a reason to leave it in place.

I have raised the point about the editing rules before so its not sour grapes about my shot not getting a ribbon - on the contrary, I'm grateful that so many valued my shot, but I just don't like some of the editing freedom. That also goes for the noise saviour that is NeatImage - it is so overused and abused here. Why not try to reduce noise during the set-up - and learn how?

The spot-editing rules have introduced a level of suspicion, doubt and mistrust of submissions - so much so that we have titles explaining technique. Some are better at Photoshop than others - which begs the question: is this site for photographers or Photoshop aficionados?

Some people don't mind editing their shots to the point of unrecognition from the original. Personally I think why do that? I try to get what I want from a photo not Photoshop. A cut-down of spot-editing techniques would offer much more learning potential.

Incidentally, winning really doesn't matter to me, although I'd love to add some variety to the winners' rostrum! In fact I've grown rather accustomed to keeping a low profile and have no intention of breaking the habit of what seems like a lifetime!

As Grigrigirl says: "I thought this site was about learning and exploring photography. The ribbons are just a side line thing." It's getting better at producing work you like that matters, rather than trying to win the appreciation of voters who are attracted to eye candy like moths to a flame.

08/16/2004 02:18:41 PM · #20

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I would also do away with artificial dof done by selecting a subject and blurring the rest. My reason here is simple: This flies in the face of the artistry of photography and the use and selection of lens, aperture and shutter speed.

That's great if you can afford a camera that allows you to do this, and while we are at it, control the shutter speed to do motion blurs as well.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not familiar with EOS-D60. It has no aperture prioity to control dof?
We haven't quite got to DSLRChallenge yet, though it does increasingly feel that way.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/16/2004 02:22:00 PM · #21

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I would also do away with artificial dof done by selecting a subject and blurring the rest. My reason here is simple: This flies in the face of the artistry of photography and the use and selection of lens, aperture and shutter speed.

That's great if you can afford a camera that allows you to do this, and while we are at it, control the shutter speed to do motion blurs as well.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not familiar with EOS-D60. It has no aperture prioity to control dof?
We haven't quite got to DSLRChallenge yet, though it does increasingly feel that way.

I'm not referring to my camera.