DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Realistic revisons to the adv editing ruleset
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 65 of 65, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/22/2014 06:19:50 PM · #51
Some people like to see what the camera sees; that in itself is the adventure, the goal. Others have a vision or something they want to show, and they use the camera and their computer as tools toward that end. In my opinion, those two camps generally don't view photographs or photography the same way - not in DPC rulesets, or in DPC voting, or in real-world choices of which photographs to hang in their own homes. That's not a bad thing and in fact the world has plenty of room for both camps, but I don't think there's a common ground for rulesets between the two.
 12/22/2014 06:48:57 PM · #52
Originally posted by Melethia:
Some people like to see what the camera sees; that in itself is the adventure, the goal. Others have a vision or something they want to show, and they use the camera and their computer as tools toward that end. In my opinion, those two camps generally don't view photographs or photography the same way - not in DPC rulesets, or in DPC voting, or in real-world choices of which photographs to hang in their own homes. That's not a bad thing and in fact the world has plenty of room for both camps, but I don't think there's a common ground for rulesets between the two.

+1
 12/22/2014 06:53:27 PM · #53
Originally posted by Melethia:
Some people like to see what the camera sees; that in itself is the adventure, the goal. Others have a vision or something they want to show, and they use the camera and their computer as tools toward that end. In my opinion, those two camps generally don't view photographs or photography the same way - not in DPC rulesets, or in DPC voting, or in real-world choices of which photographs to hang in their own homes. That's not a bad thing and in fact the world has plenty of room for both camps, but I don't think there's a common ground for rulesets between the two.


sure there is, the problem is if we open the rulesets then one side may get alienated if the majority of the votes doesn't fit their view, i think that's the fear. the trend has been going in this direction as software gets more and more powerful, however that's not a reason to disallow certain edits. forcing one side to conform to a view the don't want to will lead to a drop in participation. unless of course both sides can learn to appreciate what the other has to offer.
 12/22/2014 07:44:50 PM · #54
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Some people like to see what the camera sees; that in itself is the adventure, the goal. Others have a vision or something they want to show, and they use the camera and their computer as tools toward that end. In my opinion, those two camps generally don't view photographs or photography the same way - not in DPC rulesets, or in DPC voting, or in real-world choices of which photographs to hang in their own homes. That's not a bad thing and in fact the world has plenty of room for both camps, but I don't think there's a common ground for rulesets between the two.

+1


+2

Right now we're discussing Mike's original suggestions. Although I would likely use the remove-people feature in real life, I'm not yet ready to entertain that process as part of the advanced rule set on DPC.

However, as the difference between cell phone cameras and DSLRS continues to reduce, and specialized filters and other stuff continues to be added to the former, the line between "advanced" and "expert" will be further blurred. We'll cross that bridge if and when we're still here to get to it. In the meantime, I believe the current rules (with the original reasonable changes) does a pretty fine job of bridging the two camps Deb has described.
 12/22/2014 08:05:53 PM · #55
I think given the differences between cell phones and Instagram and built in filters... well, I don't think there's a lot of room left for the "what the camera sees" group, really. And since I am one of those, I will say on my own behalf that I'll keep doing what I do, because I enjoy it. I don't have visions, nor would I even begin to know how to realize them if I did!

I think for the majority of the people here, the revised ruleset is just fine. It no doubt would have aided my "Best of 2007" entry to have removed that pesky telephone line:



And yes, the new ruleset definitely benefits Camp 2 more than Camp 1, but does not prevent Camp 1 from persevering in the face of relentless mid to sub 5 level scores. :-)

Strike that last bit - we have some very talented photographers in Camp 1 who score quite well!

Message edited by author 2014-12-22 20:13:07.
 12/22/2014 09:03:48 PM · #56
This place can't evolve if it doesn't change.
I'm willing to bet if small changes were made in the advanced rule set you would see campers sleeping in different tents from time to time.
 12/22/2014 09:06:20 PM · #57
Advanced Editing I (used between December 2003 and August 2004)

Advanced Editing II (used between April 2004 and December 2004)

Advanced Editing III (used between December 2004 and January 2005)

Advanced Editing IV (used between January 2005 and December 2006)

Advanced Editing V (used between November 2006 and December 2007)

Advanced Editing VI ("Time Lapse") (used between December 2007 and January 2008)

Look at all these changes and we all survived.
12/22/2014 09:13:19 PM · #58
Well, I don't think we exactly "survived" VI -- it had to be euthanized as a neonate ...
 12/22/2014 09:18:30 PM · #59
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, I don't think we exactly "survived" VI -- it had to be euthanized as a neonate ...


BUT they tried.
 12/22/2014 11:18:27 PM · #60
Originally posted by Melethia:
Some people like to see what the camera sees; that in itself is the adventure, the goal. Others have a vision or something they want to show, and they use the camera and their computer as tools toward that end. In my opinion, those two camps generally don't view photographs or photography the same way - not in DPC rulesets, or in DPC voting, or in real-world choices of which photographs to hang in their own homes. That's not a bad thing and in fact the world has plenty of room for both camps, but I don't think there's a common ground for rulesets between the two.

Yes. A ruleset for picture takers, and one for picture makers. The reason they can't live together was hinted at earlier -- nothing will drive me away faster than getting comments to the effect that I should've cloned this or that out of my picture.
 12/23/2014 12:05:50 AM · #61
Originally posted by bvy:
nothing will drive me away faster than getting comments to the effect that I should've cloned this or that out of my picture.


True - to a point. If there was something I overlooked which really adds nothing to the photo at all, I'd like it to be pointed out. I wouldn't want the expectation to be set that everything but the main subject would be gone, though.

I don't usually clone much (except expert editing, but then I cut one thing and paste it into another scene which is totally another story). But I try to look at photos and decide if stray lights or very small things really need to be there, and if it's on a surface that makes it easy I'll probably try taking it out. If it turns out to be much trouble, screw it.
 12/23/2014 03:39:16 AM · #62
I think what Brian was expressing was that for some, a photo is a happy accident done intentionally, and that everything that happens to be in the field of vision for the instant the shutter blinks at it, is meant to be there.
 12/23/2014 05:11:04 AM · #63
I know that Johanna is trying to keep this thread tightly on discussing Mike's suggestions but I think we can't help but broaden it. We can't just look at one rule set, we need to look at them all because it is what they achieve together that forms the boundaries of our practice.

Expert is (in my mind) named wrongly. It should be called 'Unlimited' - the underpinning rules are fit for purpose. Gyaban and a few others are experts, the rest of us aren't. It shows and that gulf defines the participation profile of those challenges. Renaming may change nothing but the tacit expectation of what 'qualifies' as 'Expert' is (I would contend) different to 'Unlimited'.

Advanced is (in my mind) named wrongly. It should be called (something like) 'Liberal' - the underpinning rules should be expanded to allow for pretty much anything short of compositing (with HDR, time lapse and focus stacking exceptions). This is the one we really need to get right.

For me, the digital medium has the affordance of digital manipulation - it should be used. I see no difference between the photographer who uses digital techniques to change contrast characteristics to an artistic decision to remove something from the scene. The current crop of photos as paintings make much more fundamental changes to 'reality' than do some DQ-able techniques. The one case that people get most defensive about is people being able to 'write' in the sky (for example) with a brush and thus creating a 'new image area' - but really, that's obvious where it's done and will be self-policing through voting - try to stop guarding against that and I think a lot of (largely unproblematic) freedom may emerge.

I think we do need a third ruleset - something just above Minimal. Allow rotation, sharpening by any technique and the ability to add a vignette (please!). Still call in Minimal.

I don't buy the two camps hypothesis. In the end there is just the photo that is put in front of us.

For those who want to give us unenhanced reality, please continue - you are already (literally) framing what we see, you choose what to include and what to not include and I would contend you have some responsibility to live with those choices - those choices are part of the offering. Run more (of the new) Minimal though, that'd be cool too.

Apologies Johannah for talking about the other rule sets but I strongly believe we should seek to manage the whole editing ecosystem in a holistic way to ensure we have coverage across the piece in a way that is as embracing and inclusive as possible. To talk about 'Advanced', we first need to define where it sits within the rule sets and the role it has among them. What is the overall philosophy of each rule set? Get that agreed first and go from there.

I do believe we are seeing some philosophical positions being articulated here - this whole discussion is a good thing.

This post emerges from my personal view as a (fairly) long-term member rather than as a (very recent) member of SC.
 12/23/2014 07:42:09 AM · #64
Originally posted by bvy:
nothing will drive me away faster than getting comments to the effect that I should've cloned this or that out of my picture.


This is a good point but to be honest we get the same thing now only worded differently.

Now people say "This is distracting or that is distracting". They are right and if I was to hang the same picture on my wall I would clone out the distractions.
 12/23/2014 08:36:28 AM · #65
DOWN WITH CHANGE! BURN THE WITCH! GRAB THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!
RRRAAAAARRRGGGHHHH! CHANGE BAD!!!

*ahem*

Excuse me while I clone out that part of my psyche.

okay, that's better.

I think the suggestions for the ruleset changes are not without merit - as digital cameras have advanced, so have the rulesets on the site, as has the mindset of those who take, judge, appreciate and naysay photographic art.
As a "low range scorer" here on the site, I feel no sense of "oh dear God, now I'm going to be in the 3's and my hopes of getting a ribbon are even Further dashed by this". I know that I've had a lot of images that have been taken in burst mode to see if I can find the *one* image that is the best of them due to changing elements in the scene (car/pedestrians/etc) moving through the frame. Hell, for this image I stood outside for an hour or more on the side of a winding, narrow road as cars whizzed past me, often times close enough that they were shaking the tripod. if I was able to take half a dozen pictures, framed identically by using a tripod, and then remove the cars from the scene, well that would've made for a lot less close calls for me and my gear, and I KNOW I'm not alone in that sentiment.
It's not even a fantastic picture. Nice, but not great, and even still this scene could've been greatly improved upon by allowing panoramic imaging to show the entire bridge, but due to the winding road and narrow range to shoot the bridge from, it's virtually impossible to do in a single capture if you want to keep a decent angle on the scene.

Anyways, bit of ranting aside, I think that the ruleset should be looked into and perhaps given a 1-month "see how it works" grace period. If people truly have issues and start commenting about "you should clone that *thing* out" or "would've been better if you took 9 exposures to make sure you got rid of all possible elements" then we can come back and revisit how we feel about the ruleset after a trial period.
I'm willing to bet most members will enjoy it, and those who don't "enjoy" it either won't care because they're not using the features, or because they're still fantastic photographers whose spot at the top of the dpc pile isn't really in question because of these changes anyways. (that truly is not intended as a slight, and may not actually be a fear of any of the higher rated photogs here, just if it is the case, im sure they'll realize after a little while it's going to allow them the same lenience to create wonderful images as everybody else)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 09:12:19 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/23/2025 09:12:19 AM EDT.