| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2014 09:45:42 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
@Mike. I agree. And I find it a tragedy that you felt you had to enter less than your best. That should never happen.
I would be happy if every challenge was Expert. |
no, its still has to be a challenge, lets not forget that fact but lets at least explore the option to open free studies to expert or expand the editing rules for them.
free studies are meant to be your best work for the month, they don't meet a topic so why do they need they need to fit into a editing restrictions? |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 11:23:17 AM · #77 |
| ooo I would jump for joy if free studies were Expert! |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 11:38:08 AM · #78 |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:00:24 PM · #79 |
The "photographic in nature" clause was put there for emotional reasons, so that people with arbitrarily limited ideas about what photography is, people who've never heard of Man Ray or photograms, could comfort themselves while people who want to make heavy metal album covers could happily go about their business.
The phrase is genius in its lack of objective meaning. "Photographic in nature" will shift with the voters' perceptions and desires of what photography is.
It's the only anchor on expert editing, it's there for the voters, not the photographers, and it's funny to me that Cory wants to remove it. I suppose he's hoping that if he does, expert editing will float away and never come back.
I also think it's funny to score a Heavy Metal album cover low because it's not photographic. Why not vote it low because it's bad, because it's silly, because it's irrelevant and meaningless? And if it's none of those things, if it's relevant and meaningful and beautiful, then vote it high. That's what I do, and people think I vote strangely.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:05:28 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
ooo I would jump for joy if free studies were Expert! |
No. That would suck! No, no, NO to Expert Free Studies. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:08:20 PM · #81 |
| we have no idea if it would suck if we never tried it. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:10:05 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The "photographic in nature" clause was put there for emotional reasons ... |
... and I thought that was put there to keep us (DPC) from turning into Worth1000.com.
I don't know why we don't just give in and come up with a ruleset called "Digital Collage" and let people get the wacky stuff out of their system. Unfortunately, the Top Twenty for DPC in general is starting to turn that way irregardless. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:13:33 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
@Cory
I would be very interested in your definition of 'photographic in nature' is. ... |
In the end, I think the difference is fairly obvious. It should look like a digital photograph, something that looks realistic, as though it might really have been seen that way. (without the use of LSD or methamphetamine). |
Bravo Cory! 
|
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:19:28 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The "photographic in nature" clause was put there for emotional reasons ... |
... and I thought that was put there to keep us (DPC) from turning into Worth1000.com.
I don't know why we don't just give in and come up with a ruleset called "Digital Collage" and let people get the wacky stuff out of their system. Unfortunately, the Top Twenty for DPC in general is starting to turn that way irregardless. |
Dpchallenge would never be worth1000. I have no interest in that site because not only do your photos have to be taken within a certain amount of time they can be other peoples photos. I think that is what sets dpc apart the fact that there are time constraints and that the photos have to be your own. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:26:41 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The "photographic in nature" clause was put there for emotional reasons ... |
... and I thought that was put there to keep us (DPC) from turning into Worth1000.com.
I don't know why we don't just give in and come up with a ruleset called "Digital Collage" and let people get the wacky stuff out of their system. Unfortunately, the Top Twenty for DPC in general is starting to turn that way irregardless. |
Dpchallenge would never be worth1000. I have no interest in that site because not only do your photos have to be taken within a certain amount of time they can be other peoples photos. I think that is what sets dpc apart the fact that there are time constraints and that the photos have to be your own. |
Jennifer, I agree with your point. For me, however, the expert ruleset still leads to fantasy type work that in many cases is a collage of numerous pieces put together, not representing a real scene whatsoever ... regardless of where the pieces come from (in DPC's case, none other than the photographer's). |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:53:49 PM · #86 |
Who would say that "Blade Runner", "Star Wars" or "Lost Highways" are not movies, because they don't show things that happen in reality?
Who would say that "Pink Floyd", "Magma", or "Iannis Xenakis" are not musicians, because they heavily tweak their sounds or don't follow established rules?
"Non-realism" (to use the terms written here), is a genre, not a medium, as Posthumous said. Almost any "non-realistic" picture could be created in "reality", with time, budget, talent and work. You can always construct things, use extreme make-up, prepare some incredible set with an army of technicians (think of Hollywood sci-fi movies 30 years ago, for example). Software simply gives the possibility to have fun with that genre, even if you don't have access to such means.
That being said, I personally really, really don't care at all what some given persons think is or is not photography. I have found what I like to do, take great pleasure on the way: no one can alter that. Heck, I even won several awards in international PHOTOGRAPHY contests: looks like not everyone has a narrow definition of photography. I am just a bit sad to read those threads, because I think about beginners, that still are not sure of how to express themselves: they may choose to close doors without even trying out things, under such influence. So please, if you read this, always consider that there is no so-called "right way" in art. Do what you want, and let them talk. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 01:19:57 PM · #87 |
| Yay! very well said, Christophe! |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 01:30:32 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Carry on with your assumptions and flawed epistemology. |
So instead of just letting things be different amongst different people, because they don't agree with you, you have to attack their point of view? Why?
Now who's got a narrow perspective?
If you don't like Expert Editing, don't enter Expert Editing challenges. I know that I have neither the talent nor the vision to come up with anything remotely like the images I've seen from the likes of Christophe and Samantha. I don't feel any need to pigeon-hole it either. I don't give a rat's ass what you call the beautiful creations I've seen in Expert challenges.......I admire them and their creators.
I would truly hate to see that type of work go away. I also think that these reaches into different arenas inspire people to go places they never have before. How can that be a bad thing?
There truly is something for everyone here when you look at the range between Minimal and Expert. Why split hairs and get all worked over dumb stuff? Go shoot.....enjoy, and think that maybe telling people they're wrong because they don't buy your opinion. And that's all it is.....your two cents.
Originally posted by posthumous:
The "photographic in nature" clause was put there for emotional reasons, so that people with arbitrarily limited ideas about what photography is, people who've never heard of Man Ray or photograms, could comfort themselves while people who want to make heavy metal album covers could happily go about their business.
The phrase is genius in its lack of objective meaning. "Photographic in nature" will shift with the voters' perceptions and desires of what photography is. |
Hmm......
Brings to mind the old "Digital quality will never be what film is." discussion.
Now it's what is "photographic in nature'.
When you open your eyes, heart, and mind, you will see great beauty as there are no longer blinders on......
|
|
|
|
02/15/2014 01:43:05 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Cory:
Carry on with your assumptions and flawed epistemology. |
So instead of just letting things be different amongst different people, because they don't agree with you, you have to attack their point of view? Why?
Now who's got a narrow perspective? |
Oh, Jeb, you've misunderstood me... I was just politely calling out pixelpig's ignorance, and noting the effect it has apparently had on her methods of understanding the world.
Posthumous has completely mischaracterized my position here. For fucks sake people, I've advocated either following the rule, on the assumption it was put there for a reason, or simply REMOVING THE GODDAMNED RULE. My problem is the fact that the rule is being ignored by the voters, or call it a guideline, whatever. Pull your heads out.
Message edited by author 2014-02-15 13:51:25. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 01:53:15 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[...]I would truly hate to see that type of work go away. I also think that these reaches into different arenas inspire people to go places they never have before. How can that be a bad thing?[...]
|
Originally posted by glad2badad:
[...] Unfortunately, the Top Twenty for DPC in general is starting to turn[...]. |
That top 20 is starting to be dominated by some very outlandish stuff.
And just to be VERY clear, people keep dropping Samantha's work into this discussion... I don't at all find her stuff to be in 'violation' of the spirit of the 'photographic in nature' clause. In fact, I love most of what she produces and would LOVE it if expert editing challenges regularly ended up with work like hers at the top. My problem is with the images that are completely unrealistic, which, to me, is not 'photographic in nature'.
There are just MILES of difference between those two images in terms of how much they strike me as being photographic in nature. And yet, DPC consistently gives a higher score to the non-realistic. It baffles me, given that this is still a photography website, and even more so, given that there is a 'rule/guideline' suggesting that the former should be rewarded.
Message edited by author 2014-02-15 14:11:27. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 02:32:52 PM · #91 |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 03:19:02 PM · #92 |
Is 'photographic in nature' decided by the content, the subject, the technology, the medium? Does 'photographic in nature' mean it must look like a photograph printed on paper? Is that why borders are unpopular with photographers?
If 'photographic in nature' means anything an individual can see with the unaided eye, then the assertion is that all individuals see the same thing, & that what human vision can see is all there is to see. Not true. It is well known that human eyes are light sensitive, but that what an individual perceives is a result of the brain interpreting information sent to it by the eyes. And it's interpreted in the context of past experience, so that no two individuals will see exactly the same thing. Believing is seeing.
Is there a valid relationship between reality as the photographer knows it and a photograph? In the instant the camera captures some light, does that image accurately & dependably represent reality as the photographer knows it? Reality is a continuum. A photograph is a subjective abstract of that continuum. Why should photographers aspire to accurately represent reality when the most that is possible is a subjective abstract of that reality?
Reality is not an objective thing, independent of us observing it. Reality only exists because we observe it. By observing it, we change it as our brain interprets the information gathered by the eyes. By photographing it, we distort it as we subtract a subjective abstract of that reality. Photojournalistic documentary photography is a convenient hoax. You can't pin life down like a dead butterfly.
Nothing I see at DPC looks anything like what I see out of my own two eyes. Especially the landscapes. The way my brain interprets the information gathered by my eyes is unique to me, & only similar to what anyone else would see. If I could stand in your footprints I could never take the exact same shot. To me that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 04:17:33 PM · #93 |
(For the record, I have no one particular person or image in mind when typing this post.}
As I am one of those not as versed in photo manipulation, and coming from the camp of more the purist photographer camp, I"m going to throw something out there and it may go totally ignored (such is everyone's choice). The purists here are VERY unpopular.
I came to this sight to learn and develop (cheezy pun) my photography skills, not my skills at creating alternate universes and things that I've never and will never see. We got rid of basic editing as many thought it too limiting to the photographer, but there are still some photographers that strive to better themselves with the images they take rather than 'fixing it in post process' to become the images they create. Don't get me wrong, post processing images can enhance a photograph one takes, and has always been used in the tradition darkroom, but since when has it become the crutch some use? Therein is my struggle and thus I will admit to voting lower those images that feel created as opposed to taken. Yeah, I'm the geek that loves minimal editing and there is rarely a challenge of such anymore, yet THAT is far more of a challenge than expert with manipulations abound. I think! :)
There is definitely a talent to creating those images who's subject matter I will never (nor will anyone else) see, but... I'm going to get booed off the stage for this...the entire reason I came to DPC was to better my camera created images, not necessarily my post processing skills. Developing one's post processing skills is a bonus, but I fear the love of "artistic license" is causing this place to get off track. Perhaps the constant creation of and rewarding of more fantasy in nature images is what's driving some away from DPC. I'm in the camp that does not vote highly on more of the "created feel" images. Devian Art is a great place for that and if you look at their photography area, much of that stuff is still 'photographic in nature'. (My definition is: something that looks like a plausible subject matter that could have been taken from one or multiple REAL world subjects and could actually exist.)
I love this sight, but IMHO it appears that there is a trending away from what I consider great photo taking skills and more encouragement of processing to create distorted images skills. The reason I say this is because every so often a thread pops up stating: "Can we change this rule to include doing X?" There seems to be more and more of a trend in the rulesets to include more allowable steps to create images and less toward taking good images. How the heck can the voters keep track and I agree, many voters don't even bother to read the rulesets and familiarize themselves with acceptable steps within the ruleset.
(IMHO): This sight was originally setup as a photography site. We have consistently asked for more and more creative license, often ignoring the ruleset placed on a challenge and then been rewarded for it, thus setting a new precedent with each new envelope push. They bitched about having to include a title, but, if memory serves me, back in the day the rules used to state that a title was part of the requirement. That has since gone away or I cannot find it in any of the rulesets now. That WAS part of the challenge.
Perhaps the greatest challenge of this site that IMHO, many just choose NOT to want to accept is that we HAVE rulesets. This constant trying to manipulate or find a loo-pole in the definitions to allow for more creative images is nuts. Yes, the site needs to evolve, but the nitpicking of what should be in rules and what isn't allowed is silly. Develop a wonderful skill at post processing! I encourage you to, but making this site all about that is not necessarily the answer!
THE CHALLENGE IS TO WORK WITHIN THE CHALLENGE RULES! If people would concentrate more on the rules and challenge THEMSELVES to abide by said rules instead of always looking for ways to 'beat the system' or 'work around', I think we would be a better site. There are tons of places on the web for this (IMHO) manipulated photos and DPC was unique in that there were rules to follow for the challenges. Constantly changing the rules to accommodate ones level of skill isn't the way to do things. If the rules don't allow for something, better yourself and try to figure out how to take the photograph so that your elements are legal! If it isn't possible, why are you entering that photo?? If DPC decides to keep changing rules to accommodate those wanting more freedom, then I agree that not showing to anyone but the photographer, what their voting record is would be beneficial. But don't complain when your over worked to create a perfect version of 'something' that you are limited to because of rules, doesn't garner you all 7+ votes!!! Voting will always be subjective. Rules are meant to be broken, e.g. special flags for special rules. Yet, the voter will always vote on what appeals to them, screw the ruleset.
Perhaps we create a new gallery for the images that get manipulated like crazy as everyone wants others to see and appreciate their work, but I'm not sure changing the rules to accommodate is the way to go. I rarely enter challenges anymore because the prevalent mindset of the site seems to be that photos that aren't over the top aren't as good. BS!!!
I propose leave the rules alone, more MINIMAL CHALLENGES and...oh, yeah...a Master's Challenge - Minimal Editing!! Show us what you can really do with a camera, not a computer! Votes would be interesting as I'd bet many wouldn't garner the huge scores they usually do.
*Gets off soapbox and hides from the bullets.*
|
|
|
|
02/15/2014 04:25:26 PM · #94 |
| Kat, basically we stopped using the Basic Rules because they didn't make sense. There's very little you can do in advanced that you can't do in basic, with the exception of cloning out distractions. All the Basic Rules were actually doing was reinforcing other-than-best practices for post-processing. The Minimal Rules are much closer to what "basic" ought to be, IMO. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 04:27:59 PM · #95 |
| Agreed, I love minimal editing. The timeframe mentioned with Basic Editing, I didn't remember Minimal even being in place yet. It was Straight out of the Camera. Don't mind me, I"m old... |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 04:54:07 PM · #96 |
| People who enjoy post processing are not exempt from getting it right in camera. I don't know where the idea came from that if you are post processing your image then you must be making up for faults in the original image. Everyone knows that no amount of post processing can turn a terrible image into a ribbon winner. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 05:36:57 PM · #97 |
| I'm all for more minimal editing challenges. We have so many challenges, just make a balance between minimal, advanced and expert. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 05:53:02 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm all for more minimal editing challenges. We have so many challenges, just make a balance between minimal, advanced and expert. |
No one is required to "over-edit" ΓΆ€” I have often chosen to enter images which would be valid under Advanced, Basic, or even Minimal editing, when Expert was allowed.
If this is a learning site, then the main benefit to any photographer is the exercise of taking an image they like within the given rule set, and learning something thereby which they can apply to future situations, not some colored pixels on their profile page.
The contest format is intended to spur people to action with the promise of potential public acknowledgement of their superior creativity and expertise, but as far as learning, we could as easily call it Digital Photography College and consider the challenges as your homwork (pass/no-credit), without all the voting BS ... |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 06:40:08 PM · #99 |
Kat, I think it's a combination of everything. And I think when someone has been here long enough they go through the whole gambit of trying to perfect each part.
I know I have. it started with getting it right in camera. Moved to processing. Moved to trying to fix awful images with some pretty cool results. Then to move creative editing simply to create what I wanted the photo to be -- changing lighting that I couldn't control in camera. And now I've just purchased a light meter in order to get things more right in camera.
It's a whole process, and I think it's a mistake to ignore any part of it. It's a big mistake to depend on your post processing and not do the best you can on the shot. But I also think it's a mistake to ignore what you can do with the processing. Ansel Adams did both and the results were incredible.
You just have to keep in mind your final goal. Are you trying to create something extremely believable as a photograph? Are you going for a more artistic, less photographic look? If you play around with every aspect, you get more shots. I've had some really lousy shots that really processed into something cool. I've had some incredible shots that needed almost no processing. I'm thrilled to have both options. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 07:34:07 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
...To ribbon, you would need to know how to get what you want/need from the camera and how to edit it to best advantage. The two go together.
[eta]And to ribbon, of course, you also need to know how to please the voter. The three go together on any competition website. |
Uh yeah, I agree with you on the first two points...but totally and wholly on the third. If I were here only to please peeps, well, I've been here long enough to see what pleases everyone else.
But what pleases me as a person and photographer rarely ribbons.
However, I've proven - three times now, thankya verramuch - that it IS possible to ribbon without grabbing your ankles and sacrificing your principles. Especially if those principles focus on entering an image that pleases YOU as a photographer first and foremost, and NOT the vox populi.
*dusting off hands* |
|
