New Name - DPChallenge Forums

05/10/2005 11:57:00 AM · #1

Just checked out a recent winner. Great work, however, DPChallenge should change their name to DEChallenge. Digital Editing Challenge.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

05/10/2005 12:12:09 PM · #2

Which one?

There are some pretty amazing techniques that can be done with minimal to no editing.

05/10/2005 12:23:24 PM · #3

Originally posted by theSaj:

Which one?

There are some pretty amazing techniques that can be done with minimal to no editing.

You're joking, right. It's obviously digital art!

Plexxoid

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/10/2005 12:23:57 PM · #4

I agree, that picture is way more digital art than photography. Shouldn't zoom blur be illegal?

Anger Unleashed
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=171632

Would Joey Lawrence please post the original here?

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 12:25:14.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

05/10/2005 12:26:23 PM · #5

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

I agree, that picture is way more digital art than photography. Shouldn't zoom blur be illegal?

In basic editing yes, but in advanced, the SC decided by a small majority that in this specific case it was not adding a major element and that it was legal, although we are currently trying to clarify the rules for future challenges.

Plexxoid

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/10/2005 12:28:04 PM · #6

For the sake of keeping advanced editing challenges from focusing on the editing, shouldn't digital art be DQ'd?

Edit: It's a nice picture, it really does convey anger, but its success is based almost entirely on it's editing.

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 12:29:10.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

05/10/2005 12:30:58 PM · #7

In this case, the SC deemed it to be more photographic than digital art. It won the majority vote after 12 of us voted.

05/10/2005 12:37:58 PM · #8

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

For the sake of keeping advanced editing challenges from focusing on the editing, shouldn't digital art be DQ'd?

Edit: It's a nice picture, it really does convey anger, but its success is based almost entirely on it's editing.

That's a very provocative statement. "Almost entirely"? I can't buy that. The framing of it, the expression, the moodiness of the background, the harsh lighting, all are part of the original shot. I suspect that if Joey had used plain-vanilla gaussian blur he'd have had basically just as strong a shot, and (without seeing the original) I suspect it would be a strong image with no blur used at all.

I think he did a hell of a job and I have no problem accepting this as "photography", plain and simple.

Robt.

05/10/2005 12:44:50 PM · #9

I think he did a hell of a job but I have a problem accepting this as "photography", plain and simple!

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

05/10/2005 12:46:24 PM · #10

And on that we will have to agree to disagree :-) I have seen shots ribbon here that I think are WAY more into the realm of digital art than this one, personally.

Robt.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

05/10/2005 12:47:39 PM · #11

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I agree, that picture is way more digital art than photography. Shouldn't zoom blur be illegal?

In basic editing yes, but in advanced, the SC decided by a small majority that in this specific case it was not adding a major element and that it was legal, although we are currently trying to clarify the rules for future challenges.

Odd.. this specifically was questioned before and zoom or radial blur was not allowed, and gaussian blur when applied to the whole image was. Moving of pixels was the no no.
No disrespect on Joey's shot though - it's awesome!

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 12:51:09.

Plexxoid

Canon EOS-30D

05/10/2005 12:50:13 PM · #12

Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:

dodging and burning, heavy contrast, a duotone of black+red+yellow, an abused unsharp mask for a funky glowing effect, zoom blur with history brush and ect ect...

Originally posted by bear_music:

The framing of it, the expression, the moodiness of the background, the harsh lighting, all are part of the original shot.

Ahh yes, we have differing opinions and that's what makes this worth discussing. Without seeing the original, I can't argue with some of those but I can say that Photoshop can frame it with cropping/rotating; dodging, burning, and levels can easily change the harsh lighting and "moodiness" of the background. I believe its blue ribbon was won for its editting much more than for its photography.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/10/2005 12:56:18 PM · #13

I think in the past (correct me if I'm wrong), DPC voters decided what was acceptable by their vote. Seeing as this one won, and it's obviously manipulated ... that leaves submitters with a decision to make:

1 - digitally manipulate and get a higher score
2 - don't manipulate and get a lower score

It's been my experience here that the desire for a ribbon outweighs pretty much everything else (including myself in this statement). People vote high on burned skies, so guess what submitters do?

05/10/2005 12:57:00 PM · #14

Originally posted by bear_music:

And on that we will have to agree to disagree :-) I have seen shots ribbon here that I think are WAY more into the realm of digital art than this one, personally.

Robt.

;) If you don't think this particular image is DA, could you hint to which ones you think are? I'm curious.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

05/10/2005 01:02:06 PM · #15

Originally posted by Marjo:

Originally posted by bear_music:
And on that we will have to agree to disagree :-) I have seen shots ribbon here that I think are WAY more into the realm of digital art than this one, personally.

Robt.

;) If you don't think this particular image is DA, could you hint to which ones you think are? I'm curious.

I'd rather not because someone's bound to think I am disrespecting those images, which I'm actually not. My only point is, I don't think this particular example is the most extreme of its type. And there are other things that are done, IMO, that are more "digital art" than this type of contrast/blur manipulation. This sort of image LOOKS a lot like someone messing around with zoom and blur in a film camera. I don't see it as being especially "digital" in its manipulation, is what I mean. Not conceptually, anyway.

Robt.

Robt.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/10/2005 01:02:11 PM · #16

Increasing contrast, cropping, dodging, burning and applying a duotone are traditional darkroom editing techniques. The zoom blur could be achieved in camera using a traditional technique, though I accept that it was not here.

The only controversial part should be the zoom blur application in PS, rather than by using a zoom lens and zooming mid exposure. I can see why that might be ground for disqualification, though if PS blur is permitted generally, I do not see a significant issue with permitting zoom blur as opposed to other forms of blur.

The use of multiple darkroom techniques does add up to leave a very processed look to a shot. Normally that takes a hit in the voting stages, unless, as here, done very well.

I woudl agree that this is very arty, but I would still class it as photographic art rather than digital art.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/10/2005 01:05:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by hopper:

I guess that's why I'm saddened. I always thought that photography skills and uniqueness would win on this site.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

05/10/2005 01:15:54 PM · #18

I thought it was a great shot, and deserved to win. It was great Photography! I am however uneasy with zoom and motion blur that has been added in Photoshop. I would vote to clarify the advanced ruleset to ban motion and zoom blur in future shots.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/10/2005 01:17:10 PM · #19

Originally posted by BradP:

Odd.. this specifically was questioned before and zoom or radial blur was not allowed, and gaussian blur when applied to the whole image was. Moving of pixels was the no no.

Sounds like that might have been a Basic Editing challenge.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

05/10/2005 01:17:39 PM · #20

Currently, the rules allow Radial and Motion blurs. We are seeing some cases where this appears to be being abused, and as Ben stated, we are currently talking about a reword on the rules regarding that situation.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/10/2005 01:17:50 PM · #21

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I am however uneasy with zoom and motion blur that has been added in Photoshop. I would vote to clarify the advanced ruleset to ban motion and zoom blur in future shots.

We're discussing something to that effect.

05/10/2005 01:19:27 PM · #22

The manipulation of images to attain a desired result is a time-honored photographic skill. It would be truly ironic if we now, in the digital age (where such manipulation is within the reach of anyone) we tred to enforce a definition of "photography" that eliminates such manipulation in favor of the unadorned capture. Surely there's room for both points of view, and surely it's ok for the voters to make the decision with their fingers? We have plenty of examples of spectacular "straight" photography winning challenges here. Why are so many feeling threatened by the occasional breakthrough of a visibly-manipulated image?

I do a LOT of manipulation of my work. But on my profile page, of the 6 images that show as my highest-scoring ones, only one is visibly manipulated, and it's pretty tame. So I don't see what the fuss is about. The site's pretty well enforcing its standards on me, as far as which of my images it gives the stamp of approval to. And that's ok with me.

Robt.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/10/2005 01:24:06 PM · #23

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

If it was accomplished in-camera, I would consider it to be great photography. As it is, I consider it to be a wonderfully edited version of the original photograph.

I agree that clarification is needed.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

05/10/2005 01:24:33 PM · #24

I agree there's an argument to allowing this in PS, but speaking personally as a photographer, I always feel a little conned when I see that motion/zoom blur has been carried out in PS. It may look exactly the same, and express some artistic vision, but I admire the skill that goes into producing this in-camera.
There is no right or wrong here, only personal feeling and I personally believe that on DPC (which is primarily in existence to help people learn the skills of Photography) this should be achieved in-camera.