| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2014 03:31:46 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't get it. We already have all of this in Expert. If you want to add scenery or delete people, you want Expert. |
Nope, I think you misinterpret the objective. Expert allows pretty much wholesale "scene creation." What we are talking about here are relatively simple techniques for imaging a single, real scene in creative ways. |
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. Maybe we need something between Advanced and Expert. |
its not about simplicity, its about whether we should be allowed to.
if you have a reason why we should not be able to do for what we submit on dpc, we should discuss it. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 03:57:06 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. |
It can't be that hard. Maybe Detroit could post a tutorial. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 04:07:39 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. |
It can't be that hard. Maybe Detroit could post a tutorial. |
very like, very like. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 06:19:09 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't see removing tourists, cars and houses as a simple technique. |
It can't be that hard. Maybe Detroit could post a tutorial. |
It's actually a fascinating technique: you shoot a bunch of same-exposure frames from a tripod of a busy scene, then in Photoshop you stack them and tell it to cancel out everything that's not a constant across all frames. You can also do it by hand, laboriously :-) |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 06:19:36 PM · #30 |
Now we're edging towards changes that are way beyond Mike's original suggestions. It's a slippery slope, expanding allowable processing steps. Filling in the edges left by distortion correction is one thing. Eliminating pedestrians via multiple images in advances is not something I even envision being up for discusstion. It defies the "scene change" portion of the ruleset.
However, it is a very cool technique to use in Expert. Or on vacation photos :) |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 06:36:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Now we're edging towards changes that are way beyond Mike's original suggestions. It's a slippery slope, expanding allowable processing steps. Filling in the edges left by distortion correction is one thing. Eliminating pedestrians via multiple images in advances is not something I even envision being up for discusstion. It defies the "scene change" portion of the ruleset.
However, it is a very cool technique to use in Expert. Or on vacation photos :) |
SC Debate! To the trenches! Personally I see no reason not to allow this. It's getting harder and harder to get a decent shot of a popular place. It's so easy, with a little patience, to fix it in post with multiple exposures. Why the heck NOT? How much different is that than HDR, really? The one fixes an intolerable light range, the other fixes a visually polluted scene :-) |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 06:41:21 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Now we're edging towards changes that are way beyond Mike's original suggestions. |
Sure, we are adding to what was originally suggested.
Originally posted by tanguera:
It's a slippery slope, expanding allowable processing steps. |
That it certainly is.
Originally posted by tanguera:
Filling in the edges left by distortion correction is one thing. Eliminating pedestrians via multiple images in advances is not something I even envision being up for discusstion. It defies the "scene change" portion of the ruleset. |
Actually, I don't see it that way at all... it goes to intent. If my intent is to show the inanimate elements in a scene, then shooting it without people is desirable, but often not possible. So, shoot the same scene several times, and eliminate what moves. It's still the same scene (view). Likewise, a panorama is a single scene, no doubt about it, even though individual component images are "different scenes." There's no real conflict with the Advanced Rules there.
Message edited by author 2014-12-20 18:41:52.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 07:24:28 PM · #33 |
| aargh. if you don't want to shoot them pesky tourists, just shoot them. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 07:40:53 PM · #34 |
| Either the tourists and cars and houses are part of the picture, or there is no picture. For me, photography is about connecting with the real world -- whatever it offers up. Such is the challenge and the reward of the photographer. Sitting in front of a computer screen adding backgrounds and erasing "distractions" constitutes something else. If that's your thing, great. It's not my thing. And I don't think I can make comments on images without knowing to what extent they've been doctored. If such liberties are going to be integrated into the House rules here, then I probably don't fit in anymore. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 07:54:28 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Either the tourists and cars and houses are part of the picture, or there is no picture. For me, photography is about connecting with the real world -- whatever it offers up. Such is the challenge and the reward of the photographer. Sitting in front of a computer screen adding backgrounds and erasing "distractions" constitutes something else. If that's your thing, great. It's not my thing. And I don't think I can make comments on images without knowing to what extent they've been doctored. If such liberties are going to be integrated into the House rules here, then I probably don't fit in anymore. |
just so. and they be missing all the fun too. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 09:12:31 PM · #36 |
| It would make an interesting single challenge (populated scenes unpopulated), but I agree it's not something that should be incorporated into the rule set. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 09:45:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Either the tourists and cars and houses are part of the picture, or there is no picture. For me, photography is about connecting with the real world -- whatever it offers up. Such is the challenge and the reward of the photographer. Sitting in front of a computer screen adding backgrounds and erasing "distractions" constitutes something else. If that's your thing, great. It's not my thing. And I don't think I can make comments on images without knowing to what extent they've been doctored. If such liberties are going to be integrated into the House rules here, then I probably don't fit in anymore. |
I tend to agree with Brian. I'm more interested in what is seen than created. The number of members with this perspective is dwindling on DPC. Changing the advanced editing rule set won't help. I can picture comments like "nice photograph but you should have cloned out the birds on the telephone line." I doubt this person would give me a very high score but I know what to do next time.... remove anything that could be considered out of place. Seems like a slippery slope.
Would I leave the birds? Probably, but newer more ambitious members might not.
If these changes are made please don't call it advanced editing anymore. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 11:43:48 PM · #38 |
Honestly I think there should be more Basic challenges and more Expert.
I am finding some techniques that would require Expert, but I respect the pursuit of excellent and "real" photos that are still good within Basic rules. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 09:50:05 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Either the tourists and cars and houses are part of the picture, or there is no picture. For me, photography is about connecting with the real world -- whatever it offers up. Such is the challenge and the reward of the photographer. Sitting in front of a computer screen adding backgrounds and erasing "distractions" constitutes something else. If that's your thing, great. It's not my thing. And I don't think I can make comments on images without knowing to what extent they've been doctored. If such liberties are going to be integrated into the House rules here, then I probably don't fit in anymore. |
whether the photographer wants them there is what matters not whether the viewer does.
you have to remember that just because we may have the ability edit an image a certain way, doesn't mean that everyone will or wants to.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2014 10:03:25 AM · #40 |
in addition to removing natural objects, this would extend to removing things like toothpicks or strings to hold objects in place like has been done and caused dq's and to add to my previous arguments here are some other examples of dq's that should not happen.
 a reflector lost in a vignette.
 not sure the exact reason but i suspect it was from removing some aspect of the background.
 - this is what im talking about painting in to enhance something that is already there.
all were minor infractions and didn't do anything to help really alter the image. this is the kind of stuff we should allow.
Message edited by author 2014-12-21 11:01:31. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 10:52:48 AM · #41 |
I don't know how many people here are in the same boat as me but time is more of an issue and altering the advanced rules to make them a bit more lax would help.
I don't have a lot of time to shoot and even less time for PP. I bring my camera everywhere I go and try to find something to fit a challenge. I'll take a walk on my lunch break or pull over for a quick shot.
I don't get to choose from dozens of shots usually I have 1 or 2 to choose from. Having a little more wiggle room to PP out some distractions would be a big help. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 12:57:57 PM · #42 |
I still think Mike's suggestions are on target, more so with the brillianr examples he posted. All three of those incredible images involving such care and attention to detail, DQ'd for such tiny, senseless infractions. It's akin in law to letting off a murderer because there was a typo in the search warrant.
On the matter of allowing the elimination of people and other distractions via PS, I still feel it exceeds the spirit of the advanced ruleset. It can currently be done in expert, which is where I fell it should remain. However, having a side challenge to play with this technique, or even an advanced challenge with special rules to allow this, certainly is acceptable. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 01:18:19 PM · #43 |
To keep it simple why not just have more expert editing challenges. Would that encourage more participation? I'm not sure but it solves the problems some have with editing restrictions. To start, change the name from "expert" to "digital art". DPChallenge works for Digital Processing Challenge or Digital Photography Challenge so we're in good shape. How about adding a digital art monthly free study?
It seems there should be a way to coexist without stepping on one another. DPC needs to do what is best for the community. Did we once have a survey to collect member opinion? Anything to increase member participation would be a good start. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 01:29:42 PM · #44 |
Henry, yes, increasing participation is definitely a goal, but let's try to stay on the topic of the thread, which is amending the advanced rules set.
Increasing the number of expert challenges, and renaming the rule set deserve their own thread (although the former already has vast numbers of threads dedicated to it). |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 01:40:40 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by insteps:
To keep it simple why not just have more expert editing challenges. Would that encourage more participation? I'm not sure but it solves the problems some have with editing restrictions. To start, change the name from "expert" to "digital art". DPChallenge works for Digital Processing Challenge or Digital Photography Challenge so we're in good shape. How about adding a digital art monthly free study?
|
if you would like to see more, so would I but not because it encourages digital art, but because of the freedom it allows. changing the name of expert to digital art is a bad idea, it would encourage digital art only and that's not the point of having a more relaxed ruleset.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2014 01:48:01 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I still think Mike's suggestions are on target, more so with the brillianr examples he posted. All three of those incredible images involving such care and attention to detail, DQ'd for such tiny, senseless infractions. It's akin in law to letting off a murderer because there was a typo in the search warrant.
On the matter of allowing the elimination of people and other distractions via PS, I still feel it exceeds the spirit of the advanced ruleset. It can currently be done in expert, which is where I fell it should remain. However, having a side challenge to play with this technique, or even an advanced challenge with special rules to allow this, certainly is acceptable. |
if you don't want to allow the removal of people from a scene for example i can live with that and can understand why, but in the case of the examples i posted, we ought to be able to remove objects that we used to create or were unable avoid including the scene that obviously are not part of the scene. strings, reflectors, lights stands etc..
fwiw, there is an example of an image that a person was removed, it was a rock formation in the western US, i forget by who or when the challenge was ( a few years back..) we had a discussion on it and the image was validated. the person wasn't prominent but he was present. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 01:52:10 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Henry, yes, increasing participation is definitely a goal, but let's try to stay on the topic of the thread, which is amending the advanced rules set.
Increasing the number of expert challenges, and renaming the rule set deserve their own thread (although the former already has vast numbers of threads dedicated to it). |
It was not my intention to confuse or go off topic. I don't think I can state my opinion clearer so I'll leave it at that. Cheers! |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 04:07:49 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Mike:
if you don't want to allow the removal of people from a scene for example i can live with that and can understand why, but in the case of the examples i posted, we ought to be able to remove objects that we used to create or were unable avoid including the scene that obviously are not part of the scene. strings, reflectors, lights stands etc.. |
This is where it gets slippery. I can live this with this, even in Advanced, as long as it's clear from the context that it's a set-up shot. If you want your woodies to fly, then cloning out the wires seems fine. Hanging birds over a birdless landscape and cloning out the wires, not so much.
Again, part of me thinks we need something between Advanced and Expert. The other part thinks we have too many rulesets already.
Message edited by author 2014-12-21 16:10:18. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 04:19:08 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Either the tourists and cars and houses are part of the picture, or there is no picture. For me, photography is about connecting with the real world -- whatever it offers up. Such is the challenge and the reward of the photographer. Sitting in front of a computer screen adding backgrounds and erasing "distractions" constitutes something else. If that's your thing, great. It's not my thing. And I don't think I can make comments on images without knowing to what extent they've been doctored. If such liberties are going to be integrated into the House rules here, then I probably don't fit in anymore. |
If you saw a well done photo of an empty intersection, how would you know whether someone waited for it to be empty or eliminated the cars and people? And why would it matter how it was done? We vote on the end product--what we see on our computers. I do not think removing people, cars, birds, etc. is against the spirit of the challenge. It would simply allow the photographer to enter the image he/she has envisioned. |
|
|
|
12/22/2014 09:20:28 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by bvy:
Either the tourists and cars and houses are part of the picture, or there is no picture. For me, photography is about connecting with the real world -- whatever it offers up. Such is the challenge and the reward of the photographer. Sitting in front of a computer screen adding backgrounds and erasing "distractions" constitutes something else. If that's your thing, great. It's not my thing. And I don't think I can make comments on images without knowing to what extent they've been doctored. If such liberties are going to be integrated into the House rules here, then I probably don't fit in anymore. |
If you saw a well done photo of an empty intersection, how would you know whether someone waited for it to be empty or eliminated the cars and people? And why would it matter how it was done? We vote on the end product--what we see on our computers. I do not think removing people, cars, birds, etc. is against the spirit of the challenge. It would simply allow the photographer to enter the image he/she has envisioned. |
part of me wonders if it would be beneficial to this place to if the original image was shown after voting, im sure lots would find it interesting to see what the photog accomplished in post and others would probably lament it. |
|
