| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2004 12:29:44 AM · #1 |
I only wanted to note that their were comments about how it was set up or edited to appear that a leaf was falling in front of a dog. This is in no way a comment on the ones who made the comments. I just find it sad that photography has reached the point that we figure that something was artificailly created or edited to make it appear a certain way. I congratualte the photographer for the great photography he actually created.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 03:38:17 AM · #2 |
I agree with you Kylie. After all, does it really matter how the shot was achieved? (other than to maybe learn from it) There are probably many ways it could have been done. Maybe it was just a great capture, maybe strings, maybe an assistant out of frame dropping leaves, whatever, so what??? Is scoring dependant on the method? Not IMO. Awesome photo. Great shot. Well deserving of the ribbon.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:20:47 AM · #3 |
does it really matter how the shot was achieved?
I think to some people it really does. Taking photographs and creating images are not necessarily the same thing anymore. There will always be "purists" out there who won't even touch a digital camera, much less edit a photo in an editing program. I think that a lot of people reject editing as a valid means of altering a photo. I suspect this opinion is borne of a limited understanding of what it takes to successfully (and convincingly) edit a photo. The purists who have spent hundreds of hours in a darkroom perfecting the craft of printing pictures probably imagine their digital brethren simply pressing a couple of buttons, and then WHAM!: Here is your completed photo.
The reality is it is not that simple. A lot of work goes into editing a photo properly. I'm not very good at, I'm just good enough to know that it... takes a lot of work. But I think that people (and there are many) who don't know this are likely to think it is quite simple. And somehow this supposed simplicity becomes grounds for dismissal of the creative effort. "Sure the leaf looks cool, but you just stuck it in there! It wasn't there to begin with. That's cheating."
I suspect I am in danger of rambling on here. That last bit about cheating addresses the same topic. It's all about validity. Not everyone will consider creating an image (as opposed to taking a photograph) a valid means of producing a photograph. Whether this results from a "purist"-based bias, a misunderstanding of digital editing, or some other point of view is a different debate for a different time.
I just wanted to say that even if the leaves were put in the photo digitally, what difference does it really make? It is part of the image regardless of how it got there. (Incidentally, it didn't look digitally created to me. Quite natural looking; good timing)
Whew. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:42:10 AM · #4 |
I guess I have this little niche of thinking in my own mind that photogrpahy and digital art are both wonderful and creative pursuits, but that they are different. I agree we have to have the digitl darkroom to "correct and develop" our images, but if your pursuit is photography, then I like to keep it to that and appreciate it as that. When one is creating "digital art", then I want to embrace it as such. Somewhere in my confused mind, I simply wish the two were kept a little more separated here as each an art unto its own. I have a feeling I haven't found the right was to express this yet.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 12:17:40 PM · #5 |
Looks like there was only one comment that really seemed (to me) over the top. Given some of the other bizzarre effects work we regularly see on DPC it was pretty surprising to see someone complaining about over processing on this image. Never did it cross my mind that this was anything but great photography. In fact, if I hadn't just finished a spotless leaf-removal job on my lawn I'd be tempted to go out and try something like that myself!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 12:24:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Looks like there was only one comment that really seemed (to me) over the top. Given some of the other bizzarre effects work we regularly see on DPC it was pretty surprising to see someone complaining about over processing on this image. Never did it cross my mind that this was anything but great photography. In fact, if I hadn't just finished a spotless leaf-removal job on my lawn I'd be tempted to go out and try something like that myself! |
I've got 15 bags of leaves sitting next to my garage - how many would you like? |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 12:33:36 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I've got 15 bags of leaves sitting next to my garage - how many would you like? |
If you're offering to remove 'em after I'm done, I'd say 4-6 bags ought to cover a frame. If not, I'm afraid my wife might kill one or both of us after how hard we worked to remove them in the first place!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 12:50:09 PM · #8 |
I'm confused. Has the people commenting on the fakeness of the image never used a backdrop or a light kit? Those are "fake" too. Have they never dodged or burned or even lightened an imge during developing? Isn't that "unnatural"? And don't even get me started on white balance or color adjustments.
I guess I'll be removing my CD macro picture since the 1's and 0's are printed on paper then held over the cd to give the effect of it being written on the cd. |
|
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: 10/17/2025 03:56:05 PM EDT.
