Attention Site Council - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/23/2005 08:43:02 PM · #54

Given this original-

Using Photoshop tools to create objects (hey, where did those clouds come from?) is illegal-

...but using the same tools to lighten or darken what was already there (even if the change is just as drastic) is generally OK (the featureless sky is still a featureless sky)-

This is a good example... even though the colors are the main feature here, no new objects were created-

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/23/2005 09:17:08 PM · #55

Tommy's picture used dodging to create clowds that werent originally there. Totally different than enhancing elements already present. And like someone said, the rules say that is illegal.

Not a big deal. If THAT gets you THAT pissed, I'd be afraid for my life if I cut you off in traffic. Do you carry a gun in your glove box?

lol

sorry, don't mean to pour salt on the wound. It was a good shot originally.

casualguy

Canon EOS-20D

01/23/2005 09:34:57 PM · #56

Originally posted by TommyMoe21:

This is one of my favorite images here. It was not taken during a storm. It was slightly overcast. I don't think it should be DQ'd either. But to me, this was far more MAJOR than what I did.

Also, this has nothing to do with what it was scoring.

Also, thanks DSA157. But with the new rules, subjective interpritations will get me suspended.

Just out of curiousity, it would be interesting to see the original and edited versions of this in a side by side comparison as well.

01/23/2005 10:07:37 PM · #57

Heida, was sporting enough to post the original of that shot a while back - kudos to her for being brave enough to open herself up to potential criticism. I'm guessing it's probably not on the site any more. Suffice it to say that the difference is dramatic - the original image would likely have been in the low fives if up for voting, and, as most agree, the end result is really quite stunning.

Basically in the original image the entire sky was a very flat grey, almost white colour.

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 22:10:05.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/23/2005 10:10:35 PM · #58

Originally posted by samtrundle:

Basically in the original image the entire sky was a very flat grey, almost white colour.

True, but as I recall the levels adjustment alone yielded an image considerably closer to the final result. The actual burning wasn't as much as you might think.

01/23/2005 10:17:24 PM · #59

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by samtrundle:
Basically in the original image the entire sky was a very flat grey, almost white colour.

True, but as I recall the levels adjustment alone yielded an image considerably closer to the final result. The actual burning wasn't as much as you might think.

Yeah I seem to remember that too, I'm not saying Heida's image should have been DQ'd (I'm all for fairly flexible boundaries - though 'Angel' is coming close to breaching even those), but I should probably point out that as a few people have said - it's not the tool you use it's how you use it - so by that reasoning even a selective levels adjustment could result in a DQ :).

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 22:20:03.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/23/2005 10:18:21 PM · #60

For what it's worth, by the standards that some are applying to suggest that Helga's photo is more digital art than photography; by that reasoning, I say; Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" is not a "legal" photograph. I know this for a fact, because I had the privilege of PRINTING that image in his darkroom one day.

//www.geh.org/taschen/m197400820001.jpg

Robt.

heida

Canon EOS-5D

01/23/2005 10:24:07 PM · #61

I think its funny how my picture always comes up in cases like this
There are many more on this site that use dodge and burn too :p
Everybody has seen my original and people were calling me names when I showed it ;) hehe but there is nothing you can do in photoshop that cant be done in a traditional darkroom so easy on the digital art word ;)
Here is my picture with only levels adjustments so you can see better

I did spend a lot of time on it I had almost a month ;)

01/23/2005 10:26:49 PM · #62

It seems almost every time this discussion comes up someone points to Ansel Adams' work, and, as per usual the argument made is a fairly compelling one. It is always amusing (and somewhat saddening) that so many people are of the opinion that as long as it is done through an 'authentic' darkroom process any amount of editing is fine, but the second someone touches a spot editing tool on a computer an image ceases to become photography and is relegated to the 'sin-bin' that is digital art.

01/23/2005 10:30:57 PM · #63

Hehehe... well that's because you are arguably the best at that type of work on this site Heida :P.

I should also point out, as an interesting aside, that just because a manipulation could be replicated in a traditional darkroom setting does not mean that said manipulation cannot violate the bounds of the dpc editing laws as they stand. (Please note before lynching me that I have already noted that I most likely would not have voted to DQ Heida's shot if I'd been a site council member - this is intended more as a comment on the editing laws than on Heida's image).

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 22:34:15.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/23/2005 10:32:24 PM · #64

Sam,

That's SO true. Really burns me up. I was doing this stuff decades before there was such a thing as photoshop, or digital imaging for that matter. At least digital imaging for normal people... Speaking for myself, I keep bringing up Adams simply because he is held, by a LOT of people, as an ultimate example of a "pure" photographer, which he was of couse. But he had a vision, and he pursued it with whatever tools were available to him or that he could devise. He was, for example, oen of the very first people of stature, if not the first, to work with the Polaroid Corporation on their instant imaging processes, and he had a measurable impact on their acceptance in the art and professional photography worlds. And of course, I was acquainted with him so I am familiar with his processes.

Heida, you've just made the point very eloquently; the picture just posted is worth way more than 1,000 words of argument...

Robt.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/23/2005 10:53:19 PM · #65

Originally posted by Britannica:

Per the new rules it will be back in a few hours, right?

David

It will be back, I'm just not sure if it will be in a couple hours. I think the coding for that is still in process.

-Terry

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/23/2005 11:02:05 PM · #66

Originally posted by bear_music:

I say; Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" is not a "legal" photograph.

Then no wonder Mr Adams has yet to win a ribbon here! We had better watch closely to ensure he makes no attempt to do so in the future, as there might be the odd question asked about when the photo was taken, in addition to his obviously questionable use of dodging and burning.

;)

Joking aside .....

I am mixed on the issue of this particular DQ. However, one thing that got me off side was the initial comment of:

"To whoever requested the DQ: Get a life. You may feel like a big man now, but in reality, you're a little man, a weasel, a loser. "

I find that very childish indeed, and to me reflects upon yourself as the author of that comment far more so than the person who requested the DQ. Who knows what reason the person put in a DQ request.

What, people should not dare to even question the validity of a photo in case they are deemed to be a *gasp* loser? Also, can you tell from a DQ request if the requester is male or female? Or maybe this is a female who wants to secretly be a little man ;)

I have no idea who put in the request, and to be honest do not care, but as the site council agreed with them they did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, as it turned out, going by the judgement of the SC, if anything the person who did the DQ request is actually in the right and you in the wrong.

I personally think they deserve an apology, as I am sure what was said originally was said in the heat of the moment.

Without the vindictive attack on whoever made the request I might have cared a little more about the DQ, but voiced the way it was ... *shrug*

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 23:10:03.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/24/2005 12:16:06 AM · #67

Originally posted by bear_music:

Was that at his house in Carmel? I got to visit there a few years ago, but it was before I started actively shooting photos.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/24/2005 12:17:31 AM · #68

In the carmel Highlands, yes. We lived across the canyon from him...

Robt.

Fibonacci

Fujifilm FinePix S7000

02/01/2005 04:07:23 AM · #69

Congratulations on POTD at photoshowdown.com Tom

Well deserved honour.

Bob

BooZon

Canon EOS-20D

02/01/2005 04:37:01 AM · #70

Originally posted by Fibonacci:

Congratulations on POTD at photoshowdown.com Tom

Well deserved honour.

Bob

Congrats Tom. I agree, well deserved. I love both versions of your photo. I am sorry about the ill fate of the photo here. I guess this honour at another site shows just how subjective the decision was. Better luck in the future. You have a talent so please don't let this situation rob us of seeing you compete.