| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2005 11:38:06 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think a lot of people around here have a pretty skewed understanding of the Basic rules challenges. They are not supposed to be about finding fancy workarounds, they are supposed to about the best images you can produce with just the most basic of tools, the kind of tools that beginners are comfortable with. |
If at all referring to my post.. I wasn't trying to work around anything. I only used calculation to get a nice B&W effect. Basically a fancy Desaturation tool.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 11:41:53 PM · #27 |
Only disappointment really was that there is so much construction going between work & home normally while widening the freeway, 4 days in a row there was no activity.
Monday night, I stayed here at the shop really late (2:30AM) and on my way home (17 mile commute) the construction crews were out in force - then it hit me - the SM card was at home - CRAP!
Drove home, got the card, drove back to the freeway to get the shot, only to find out there was no shoulder on the right side and had to jump over 4 lanes to get to the center median. Tried a few shots from there, but needed better (3x zoom)- Ah Ha! A quick sprint across the 4 lanes should be no problem, especially because it was 3:30AM and there was little traffic - Geez.
Filled the card - all 8 shots that the 8MB card holds, and was home by 4:00AM.
Oh the things we do for a picture...
At least it will always have a pretty pink banner to make it really special.
Anyone know the number for a good shrink?  |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 11:49:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think a lot of people around here have a pretty skewed understanding of the Basic rules challenges. They are not supposed to be about finding fancy workarounds, they are supposed to about the best images you can produce with just the most basic of tools, the kind of tools that beginners are comfortable with. |
Let me ask you something, sir. If this were a carpentry site, and we had basic and advanced carpentry rulesets, and the basic ruleset allows only chisels and screwdrivers, while the advanced ruleset allows virtually all tools: IF that were the case, I say...
Then would you be busting peoples' chops for trying to do the best they possibly could with those chisels to realize their carpentry vision?
Under what possible rationale do you tell an artist that he should limit his vision because it's harder for him to attain it with a primitive set of tools? If you don't mind my saying so this is ludicrous. Take a look at my portfolio; do you find my work consistently off-the-wall, over-the-edge, artificial, "digital art", whatever you want to call it? I don't think you can. I am a very conservative photographer. I also happen to be (or to have been) a master darkroom technician, and I have transferred that skillset to the digital darkroom. This site tells me what tools I can use. My eye tells me what vision i can achieve. My job is to use the legal tools to accomplish that vision.
Why do you have a problem with this? I am honestly bewildered. With the limited tools in basic rules, I work harder than I do in an advanced challenge. Why is this surprising? The whole POINT of improved tools is to reduce the time necessary to accomplish a job...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-06-09 23:50:27.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 11:54:11 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Why do you have a problem with this? I am honestly bewildered. With the limited tools in basic rules, I work harder than I do in an advanced challenge. Why is this surprising? The whole POINT of improved tools is to reduce the time necessary to accomplish a job...
Robt. |
Woohoo! My thoughts exactly.. I try to limit anything digital to anything that can be done in a darkroom. I just don't know if DPC will see it that way..
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 11:56:35 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Anyone know the number for a good shrink? |
Relax, sink into your comfortable computer-desk chair, and watch the screen. Slowly close your eyes and exhale. You're feeling sleepy. Focus on a bright point of light. That's right, you see Slippy. You suddenly feel better...When I count to three, you will awake, feeling refreshed and ready to take on the next challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:00:51 AM · #31 |
To save myself from the usual panic of what is allowed in basic, I NEVER LAYER in PS. I only use USM, LEVELS, CURVES, DUOTONE/TRITONE/QUADTONE, and NEVER TOUCH THE SELECTION TOOL!!!
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:01:59 AM · #32 |
You had me going pretty good until I saw sLiPpY !
Now I know I'll never be right!  I may never come out into the light again!!
ROFL |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:02:32 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Only disappointment really was that there is so much construction going between work & home normally while widening the freeway, 4 days in a row there was no activity.
Monday night, I stayed here at the shop really late (2:30AM) and on my way home (17 mile commute) the construction crews were out in force - then it hit me - the SM card was at home - CRAP!
Drove home, got the card, drove back to the freeway to get the shot, only to find out there was no shoulder on the right side and had to jump over 4 lanes to get to the center median. Tried a few shots from there, but needed better (3x zoom)- Ah Ha! A quick sprint across the 4 lanes should be no problem, especially because it was 3:30AM and there was little traffic - Geez.
Filled the card - all 8 shots that the 8MB card holds, and was home by 4:00AM.
Oh the things we do for a picture...
At least it will always have a pretty pink banner to make it really special.
Anyone know the number for a good shrink? |
Ummmmmmmmmmm I think this was a sign... |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:05:52 AM · #34 |
For what it's worth, here are:
the original, resized only:
A quick levels, options, default of 0.5 & 0.5,
Shadow/Highlight adjustment, saturation boost and resize only:
All saved at max file size under 150K.
Have fun and play nice.
Message edited by author 2005-06-10 00:06:27. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:06:03 AM · #35 |
sorry bradp, but it looks like ur little d600l couldn't ribbon this time
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:08:46 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by art-inept:
sorry bradp, but it looks like ur little d600l couldn't ribbon this time |
Noticed that huh?
Quite a challenge with no camera controls - point & shoot.
I will get in top twenty with it - mark my word. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:20:22 AM · #37 |
| Nice going, Art. You had to provoke him, didn't you? |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:32:16 AM · #38 |
Just proves it is not the camera but the photographer. It is a good piece of work Brad, I think I gave it a 4, LOL.....
Cannot remeber what I gave it.
Ribbon with it! You have to, honour and such stuff.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:42:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Nice going, Art. You had to provoke him, didn't you? |
You however, are off my payroll..
In the words of - Donald - you're fired!
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:08:13 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Let me ask you something, sir. If this were a carpentry site, and we had basic and advanced carpentry rulesets, and the basic ruleset allows only chisels and screwdrivers, while the advanced ruleset allows virtually all tools: IF that were the case, I say...
Then would you be busting peoples' chops for trying to do the best they possibly could with those chisels to realize their carpentry vision?
Under what possible rationale do you tell an artist that he should limit his vision because it's harder for him to attain it with a primitive set of tools? If you don't mind my saying so this is ludicrous. Take a look at my portfolio; do you find my work consistently off-the-wall, over-the-edge, artificial, "digital art", whatever you want to call it? I don't think you can. I am a very conservative photographer. I also happen to be (or to have been) a master darkroom technician, and I have transferred that skillset to the digital darkroom. This site tells me what tools I can use. My eye tells me what vision i can achieve. My job is to use the legal tools to accomplish that vision.
Why do you have a problem with this? I am honestly bewildered. With the limited tools in basic rules, I work harder than I do in an advanced challenge. Why is this surprising? The whole POINT of improved tools is to reduce the time necessary to accomplish a job...
Robt. |
I really hate it when people call me sir.
Robert, please don't get so upset at the things I say. They are not directed at you personally, or any other particular poster. More at the general tone of the thread.
I think many of us have gotten themselves so far into the editing techniques and so deeply involved with the programs that they have lost their objectivity. Many seem to be no longer capable of producing a challenge entry without heavy dependence on extensive editing regardless of whether it be basic or advanced. It might be beneficial for some among us to try it the other way. Just as BradP has picked up the gauntlet of trying to ribbon with an older, relatively unsophisicated camera, why not see what you can do with just the really basic editing tools? That's probably what you used when you first started in digital photography. You should be able to get at least a little more milage out of them now that you have developed your skills to a higher level. We always like to say that it is the photographer not the camera. Doesn't that apply to software too?
As always, just my two cents. Not intended to offend but hoping to provoke open minds to thought.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:36:11 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Let me ask you something, sir. If this were a carpentry site, and we had basic and advanced carpentry rulesets, and the basic ruleset allows only chisels and screwdrivers, while the advanced ruleset allows virtually all tools: IF that were the case, I say...
Then would you be busting peoples' chops for trying to do the best they possibly could with those chisels to realize their carpentry vision?
Under what possible rationale do you tell an artist that he should limit his vision because it's harder for him to attain it with a primitive set of tools? If you don't mind my saying so this is ludicrous. Take a look at my portfolio; do you find my work consistently off-the-wall, over-the-edge, artificial, "digital art", whatever you want to call it? I don't think you can. I am a very conservative photographer. I also happen to be (or to have been) a master darkroom technician, and I have transferred that skillset to the digital darkroom. This site tells me what tools I can use. My eye tells me what vision i can achieve. My job is to use the legal tools to accomplish that vision.
Why do you have a problem with this? I am honestly bewildered. With the limited tools in basic rules, I work harder than I do in an advanced challenge. Why is this surprising? The whole POINT of improved tools is to reduce the time necessary to accomplish a job...
Robt. |
I really hate it when people call me sir.
Robert, please don't get so upset at the things I say. They are not directed at you personally, or any other particular poster. More at the general tone of the thread.
I think many of us have gotten themselves so far into the editing techniques and so deeply involved with the programs that they have lost their objectivity. Many seem to be no longer capable of producing a challenge entry without heavy dependence on extensive editing regardless of whether it be basic or advanced. It might be beneficial for some among us to try it the other way. Just as BradP has picked up the gauntlet of trying to ribbon with an older, relatively unsophisicated camera, why not see what you can do with just the really basic editing tools? That's probably what you used when you first started in digital photography. You should be able to get at least a little more milage out of them now that you have developed your skills to a higher level. We always like to say that it is the photographer not the camera. Doesn't that apply to software too?
As always, just my two cents. Not intended to offend but hoping to provoke open minds to thought. |
I'm not upset, I'm befuddled. I'm not taking it personally, I'm just using myself as an example because I fall readily to hand. And I consider myself a very objectiuve human being, and I STILL don't comprehend your point.
Let me explain: you say, "Why not see what you can do with just the basic editing tools?" But, that's exactly what I do; and I work my ass off. So, in essence, you seem to be saying "Use the basic tools, but don't try to get everything you can out of them." I don'tunderstand that. It's not that I'm trying to morph images beyond recognition or anything. I see the way i want the colors, the contrast, the tones, whatever, to look, and I use the tools to make it happen. That's what it MEANS to be a photographer, for me at least.
Now, if I have the whole Photoshop toolbox at my disposal, I can do this absolutely lickety-split. A little layering, some fussing with the modes, soem selections and feathering, 5 minutes and I've GOT it, man. Take those tools away from me, you make me WORK. 30 minutes, 45 minutes, maybe more. Because I know what I want, I know it's attainable, my CHALLENGE is to make it happen.
 
These are my 2 most recent basic entries. Fundamentally, they look exactly as I'd have 'em look in advanced editing, though in the granular one I's have been able to produce a more pronounced sense of luminosity. But both of them are essentially what I visualized when I was framing the shot, and although neither of them was that hard to accomplish in basic, each could have been done in a fraction of the time with the full toolbox available.
And that is my only point: it's not that I want to rely on "filters" or distortions or anything else to make my photos work; just that I want to achieve a certain level of saturation, sharpness, luminosity, all-around liveliness, in my work, and that's a real challenge under the basic ruleset. With the basic tools. And I feel I can be PROUD that I have accomplished this. Hue/sat, levels, USM, selective color, aren't these the basic tools to which you are referring? Well, this is what I do with them.
Re: BradP, I think we can be quite certain he'll be using his considerable PS skills extensively with his "new" old camera; as well he should be, since it's all part of the process.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:15:39 AM · #42 |
Just for the fun of it, here's a very quick-and-dirty application of a basic-editing-legal glow effect. Hue/sat and selective color applied to bring up yellows. Image flattened. Gaussian blur applied and faded. USM applied and faded. Repeat as needed. Your settings may vary. Sloppy work, I know, but it shows that glow can be attained without resorting to the hi-tech shenanigans of Feivel's awesome action.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 08:18:04 AM · #43 |
Maybe we should have new criteria:
1. NO EDITING
2. BASIC EDITING
3. ADVANCED EDITING
4. ANYTHING GOES!
Message edited by author 2005-06-10 08:18:27. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 10:49:04 AM · #44 |
Again with all due respect to you and your viewpoint, Robert - by what you have said in this thread and others, you are far too close to the forest to see the trees. I submit, as my opinion, that you are not nearly objective on the subject of editing tools and manipulation. Your mind is made up and your position has crystalized. Nothing will change that. More power to you.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 12:25:43 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Again with all due respect to you and your viewpoint, Robert - by what you have said in this thread and others, you are far too close to the forest to see the trees. I submit, as my opinion, that you are not nearly objective on the subject of editing tools and manipulation. Your mind is made up and your position has crystalized. Nothing will change that. More power to you.
Just my two cents. |
Not as crystallized as you think, Har. Just rational. The ruleset says "You may use the following tools, with the following restrictions." I believe that it is almost demeaning to characterize those who push that defined envelope as somehow working contrary to the "spirit" of those rules. This is my beef: not that you wish to see an even MORE basic ruleset applied (I'd support that, if one could be defined) but that you criticize the intentions of those who don't share your particular view of the "spirit" of those rules.
Are we clear on that?
Let me repeat it: I'd have NO objection to a third ruleset, for example, that was TRULY basic, if one could be rationally defined. I'd even have no objection to redefining the current basic ruleset to make it more limiting.
And once more: My objection is to ANYONE whose agenda seems to be to belittle as "contrary to the spirit of DPC" those members who produce legal edits of their images within either ruleset that somehow manage to cross the belittler's self-defined concept of what that spirit is.
To me, it smacks of the inquisition. It rankles me. I don't see any need to be so judgmental.
But your mind is made up and your position is crystallized. Nothing will change that. More power to you.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:05:32 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Relax, sink into your comfortable computer-desk chair, and watch the screen. Slowly close your eyes and exhale. You're feeling sleepy. Focus on a bright point of light. That's right, you see Slippy. You suddenly feel better...When I count to three, you will awake, feeling refreshed and ready to take on the next challenge. |
Hey, who wouldn't feel better after seeing me? Well, unless you caught me walking nekkid out of the shower or something.
:-P
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:18:02 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Not as crystallized as you think, Har. Just rational. The ruleset says "You may use the following tools, with the following restrictions." I believe that it is almost demeaning to characterize those who push that defined envelope as somehow working contrary to the "spirit" of those rules. This is my beef: not that you wish to see an even MORE basic ruleset applied (I'd support that, if one could be defined) but that you criticize the intentions of those who don't share your particular view of the "spirit" of those rules. |
But the "spirit" of those rules was to try and level the playing field - to keep the challenge as "pure" as possible in terms of it being about TAKING the photograph not MAKING the photograph, without disadvatanging those users with less capable cameras.
That "spirit" is simple; advanced editing for making the best photographs with all those loverly tools and basic editing for taking the best photographs with the camera.
Just because there are people who try and push that envelope to the limit doesn't really change that spirit. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:48:37 PM · #48 |
I think we should have a thread that's locked and where the first post is periodically updated in which we users can "state" which programs or filters: modify originals, or are NOT applicable for basic or advanced rules.
I think it's too much to ask SiteCouncil to maintain such but a user thread that's sticky (and periodically updated) would be nice
-----------------------------------
Besides Brad, that photo was just an 'average score' (for you...it'd be great score for me) but with your average at 5.8990 it'd have little affect and if it went down any it'd lower your average. And you know there's the last minute drop so just look at this as "beneficial to your overall average"
:P
Naw...i'm just kidding, this bums - sorry bro, it was a pretty nifty shot. Hey maybe you can re-enter a non-modified version into the "darkness" challenge. And if you only took a picture of a crane instead of an excavator you could have been eligable in "birds" challenge as well.... ;)
Message edited by author 2005-06-10 13:53:59.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:53:40 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Not as crystallized as you think, Har. Just rational. The ruleset says "You may use the following tools, with the following restrictions." I believe that it is almost demeaning to characterize those who push that defined envelope as somehow working contrary to the "spirit" of those rules. This is my beef: not that you wish to see an even MORE basic ruleset applied (I'd support that, if one could be defined) but that you criticize the intentions of those who don't share your particular view of the "spirit" of those rules. |
But the "spirit" of those rules was to try and level the playing field - to keep the challenge as "pure" as possible in terms of it being about TAKING the photograph not MAKING the photograph, without disadvatanging those users with less capable cameras.
That "spirit" is simple; advanced editing for making the best photographs with all those loverly tools and basic editing for taking the best photographs with the camera.
Just because there are people who try and push that envelope to the limit doesn't really change that spirit. |
The "spirit" may be clear to you, and to har, and to countless other people. That isn't really my issue. My problem is with the demonizing of people who don't share that particular take on it. The solution is to make the "spirit" somehow explicit within the ruleset, NOT to go out slyly putting down people who use legal tools in a legal way to attain their desired results.
You mention not "disadvantaging" those with less-capable cameras. This is precisely right: the more "capable" your camera is, the less you may NEED to use the tools to finish your picture. NeatImage, for example, is a great field-leveler, not really needed by the dSLR gang but a godsend to those, like me, who have noisy cameras, given the penchant of DPC to vote WAY down any images that show visible noise.
But the basic issue of "spirit" arises when a shooter (for example) uses neatImage to produce an artificially smooth image. Even GRANTED that this is contrary to the "spirit" of the site (for the sake of argument, in other words), where do we draw the line? It's not a simple task to define how much NeatImage is too much NeatImage, but it disadvantages the P&S people to forbid NeatImage outright.
So we leave it up to the voters to draw the line with their votes.
This being the case, I am (as I am saying repeatedly) disturbed by this tendency to criticize, even demonize, people who simply use legal tools in the manner that best suits their concept of what their image should be.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:10:58 PM · #50 |
so um.... how do you really feel Robert? ;0)
(please don't skewer me!!!) |
|
I may never come out into the light again!!
