| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/01/2003 04:40:58 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There are a lot of dead horses. |
donkeys, mules, and hinnies too! |
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:41:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by photogirl66:
I would like to see a challenge with photos submitted straight out of the camera... NO EDITING at all, I think that would settle this whole dilemma and we could really see how good a photographer you are not how well you master photoshop |
This has been mentioned before, and no offense to you, but I don't think it would prove anything and is a ridiculous idea.
Most digital cameras besides P&S expect the image to be post proccessed. Take the 10D for example. Images straight from the camera are pretty soft. They purposely made it that way so the user can have more control over the amount of sharpening done in whatever method they see fit.
IMO the average photo straight out of the camera will be mediocre at best.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:44:01 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There are a lot of dead horses. |
You sure it's a horse? I can't even recognize what it once was.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:45:02 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by photogirl66:
I would like to see a challenge with photos submitted straight out of the camera... NO EDITING at all, I think that would settle this whole dilemma and we could really see how good a photographer you are not how well you master photoshop |
Nothing is preventing you (or anyone) from doing this right now for any challenge.
The fact that few do implies (to me) that most people consider some degree of editing to be an essential component of their photography. Asking 200+ people to agree on "where to draw the line" is like asking them which of the 4 million or so shades of red is the "best."
Signed,
A Neigh-Slayer
Message edited by author 2003-07-01 16:46:11. |
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:46:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by greenem2:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There are a lot of dead horses. |
You sure it's a horse? I can't even recognize what it once was. |
At one time, it was indeed a horse. Now, it is not much more than a maimed mass of goo that used to be called a horse. We continue to beat the horse, even though it's dead. If we beat it harder, it doesn't have a chance of coming back :)
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:47:15 PM · #31 |
| It's a good thing this is done via text and not orally or my voice would be getting hoarse .... |
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:48:46 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by greenem2:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There are a lot of dead horses. |
You sure it's a horse? I can't even recognize what it once was. |
At one time, it was indeed a horse. Now, it is not much more than a maimed mass of goo that used to be called a horse. We continue to beat the horse, even though it's dead. If we beat it harder, it doesn't have a chance of coming back :) |
I am now starting to wonder where the meat for this hamburger came from !
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 04:48:53 PM · #33 |
| you can lead a dead horse to water but there's no way in hell that it's going to drink... |
|
|
|
07/01/2003 05:11:23 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
I am now starting to wonder where the meat for this hamburger came from ! |
Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made.
Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898)
In high school, we read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. However, I don't recommend it unless you're planning to become vegetarian .... |
|
|
|
07/01/2003 05:14:50 PM · #35 |
just and FYI... My highest scoring photo is NOT edited AT ALL!
Originally posted by greenem2:
This has been mentioned before, and no offense to you, but I don't think it would prove anything and is a ridiculous idea.
Most digital cameras besides P&S expect the image to be post proccessed. Take the 10D for example. Images straight from the camera are pretty soft. They purposely made it that way so the user can have more control over the amount of sharpening done in whatever method they see fit.
IMO the average photo straight out of the camera will be mediocre at best. |
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 05:16:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by JasonPR:
you can lead a dead horse to water but there's no way in hell that it's going to drink... |
I'm beginning to hear the repetitive sound of a deceased horse being flogged...
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 05:19:24 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by photogirl66:
just and FYI... My highest scoring photo is NOT edited AT ALL! |
Just think how much better it could be if you did edit it a little.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 05:25:33 PM · #38 |
'scuse me folks.. this cant get much worse, but.. David have you taken any Art History courses? Photography is a medium, such as watercolor, pastels, or charcoal. Period... Would you ask a artist who uses pastels not to blend his colors? A sculpter not to soften his rough edges?
With the advent of Digital photography( note the capitol D) All photographers have at their fingertips the tools that cost hundreds of dollars and hours (days?) of time that where unavailable to us in a film format. Should we not use them???
Whew now I'm out of breath.
Mark |
|
|
|
07/01/2003 06:11:58 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
Editing in the "spirit" of photography is not wrong. When will people here learn this? |
Freakin Bravo Gary!!!
Message edited by author 2003-07-01 18:13:12.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2003 09:37:19 PM · #40 |
I think those people that have come from a long history of film cameras tend to have a mind set that Film cameras (FC) do not use post editing.. Digital cameras (DC) involves post editing just like a FC uses a darkroom for post editing.. I guess the FC buffs that took pictures and sent them off to the lab to be printed, thought that the print looks just like the scene they took... How they are wrong!! color balance dodging and burning, masking and many other techniques are used in a darkroom to get the right looking shot!!!
So whats the big deal with DC digital editing (just because we can all do it, and it is reasonably easy to do)!! |
|
|
|
07/02/2003 09:27:04 AM · #41 |
Exactly brentg3. Photography is photography. Which camera you use as your tool, and subsequently which "darkroom" you use to accompany it is merely the capture.
It comes down to a difference of:
a) Taking pictures and sending them to your "one day developer" at Walmart/CVS/etc is equivalent to taking pictures with your digicam, and then printing them out from the card or computer, or uploading them to a print site and ordering a stack.
and,
b) Taking photographs and developing them in a darkroom, and working each negative individually into a print being equivalent to taking photographs, working each image individually into a print in the "digital darkroom".
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 10:11:51 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by DavidLevin:
If a photo is converted to greyscale, it's still the persons work, he or she didnt change the actual original, anything like that I think is fine, but when you change a photo to make it something other then that, it's too much, in my opinion of course. |
So if I remove a dust mark or dirt spot from a photo its no longer my work. Or the original is less without the dirt mark then with it. I dont understand this idea.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 10:14:02 AM · #43 |
Dead horses are approaching extinction. We need to find some other dead animal to beat.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 10:28:16 AM · #44 |
| It would be good to see a dpc challenge with unlimited editing BUT you had to enter your starting image. Be interesting to see the difference between the two.. |
|
|
|
07/02/2003 10:28:27 AM · #45 |
I always find this a particularly silly argument, mainly because people usually forget to mention which particular aspect of photography they are referring to.
It seems clear that almost everyone holds photojournalism (or any that claim to show the 'truth') to a higher ethical standard than any other type of photography (fine art, fashion). However, beyond that, personal ethical boundaries are completly arbitary and often just based on experience of different media.
In the fine art sense, it doesn't make sense to me to say 'you can't do this' or that is 'too far' - its supposed to be a form of expression or communication.
Last night I walked around a gallery and looked at some Ansel Adams prints - some of them are fairly boring but occassionally some are just luminous - its amazing and never comes out in the reproductions I've seen, even in expensive coffee table type books. The quality of printing is exceptional, even though I don't believe the scene ever really quite looked the way he has created the print to show.
In another part of the gallery are a series of photographic collages, that look at first glance to be fairly typical photoshop layering, except the photographer had taken 8x10 negatives, cut them up, layered them in front of a view camera and rephotographed them to create a final negative with an amazing amount of detail even in a large (6ft side) print. Yet something like that entered here would be quickly ripped to pieces as just so much more digital editing and completely false.
If you want to buy a 11"x14" Ansel Adams prints I can suggest a place to get them, but they start at $42,000.... Not bad for someone who over edits and creates unreal photographs.
Message edited by author 2003-07-02 10:29:34. |
|
|
|
07/02/2003 11:41:33 AM · #46 |
Heh, Adams used to charge about a whopping $20 for his prints and people thought it was expensive at the time :)
Originally posted by Gordon:
I always find this a particularly silly argument, mainly because people usually forget to mention which particular aspect of photography they are referring to.
It seems clear that almost everyone holds photojournalism (or any that claim to show the 'truth') to a higher ethical standard than any other type of photography (fine art, fashion). However, beyond that, personal ethical boundaries are completly arbitary and often just based on experience of different media.
In the fine art sense, it doesn't make sense to me to say 'you can't do this' or that is 'too far' - its supposed to be a form of expression or communication.
Last night I walked around a gallery and looked at some Ansel Adams prints - some of them are fairly boring but occassionally some are just luminous - its amazing and never comes out in the reproductions I've seen, even in expensive coffee table type books. The quality of printing is exceptional, even though I don't believe the scene ever really quite looked the way he has created the print to show.
In another part of the gallery are a series of photographic collages, that look at first glance to be fairly typical photoshop layering, except the photographer had taken 8x10 negatives, cut them up, layered them in front of a view camera and rephotographed them to create a final negative with an amazing amount of detail even in a large (6ft side) print. Yet something like that entered here would be quickly ripped to pieces as just so much more digital editing and completely false.
If you want to buy a 11"x14" Ansel Adams prints I can suggest a place to get them, but they start at $42,000.... Not bad for someone who over edits and creates unreal photographs. |
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 11:45:17 AM · #47 |
I wonder if Ansel Adams owned any dead horses? If he did, I wonder if he beat them.... hmmm... food for thought...
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 11:52:50 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if Ansel Adams owned any dead horses? If he did, I wonder if he beat them.... hmmm... food for thought... |
I almost fell out of my chair. I needed that Setz, thanks...
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 12:00:20 PM · #49 |
Guess who, in the past I have been one of the biggest supporters of no change in the editing rule, but I grew, I developed. I have had 3 photos in recent weeks where being able to merely edit out a small spot in the photo would have done a great deal for my entry, and yet if I was working with 35mm I could have airbrushed the negative and no one would have said a word.
I guess you could say I have had a big change of heart on the matter and I do think we need more editing abilities.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 12:11:19 PM · #50 |
taking out a dust grain doesnt destroy the spirit of the photograph.
also, i do not agree with those who think that continuing this discussion is 'beating a dead horse' or redundant. there is nothing wrong with communication on a topic. it's only through dialog, and clarification of unknowns, that people are going to start to learn and understand and perhaps gradually come to accept as a 'good thing' something that they fear. let's try not to taint that process of understanding.
if one has lost patience with the discussion, then one can exercise one's right to withdraw from it. or one can continue to contribute in a positive fashion :).
|
|
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: 06/13/2025 06:02:49 PM EDT.
