| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2005 03:04:41 PM · #1 |
This is an invitation to all members and S/C to join in trying to clear the air regarding some vital points. One is regarding the S/C and the other is regarding the recent thread, " Advance editing questions" I am nursing a cold and under Nyquil, so please forgive any minor logic deviations.
In my recent thread, "A plea for the rant forum" I unveiled some minor frustrations. There were multiple. I did say that my plan to try to join the S/C was to rock the boat. Please let me explain exactly what I meant. Now, all I am saying here is being said in good faith and I trust it will be received in the same spirit.
The S/C tells us that there is nobody in charge. Of course, it is understood that D&L oversee it all, but I think that D&L needs to have more freedom to accomplish their aims. My aim was to persuade the powers that rule to consider naming one S/C in charge. From here it would follow that a policy manual would be written with the input of all S/C members. This would result in a unified code of ethics, along with the day to day policies.
The above would then bring a consistency which will be highly appreciated by all. The job of the S/C supervisor would be along many other laundry task, is to help maintain the integrity of the house rules. I believe that this is needed.
My second intention was again to convince the powers that rule, to solicit from inside DPC or outside, a well rounded professional photographer. Pay him or her a fee, if need to, I will be happy to absorb the cost, to lay out a solid manual of the rules in bold headings and then in finer detail. Why is this important?
Because if you read the recent thread, "advance editing questions" it appears that we are going backwards and that folks are making arguments that defy not only logic but attack the very principles that govern the art of photography. The end conclusion is that any image is liable to suffer a DQ!
It appears that the culprit is "selection" It is not defined. There is an inconsistency in the understanding of the most basic principles by both members and the S/C. Logic is thrown out in favor of emotional responses.
Allow me to define a selection in the classical term: It can select objects or portions of objects. Let us use a red grape in a white flat background. The oldest selection tool is the marqui. We can select the grape, but note that this primitive selection, while useful for rectangular or square items, is bringing us more than we want. The next evolvement was the polygon where you click around. Primitive, but useful with many objects. Next the lasso which is more flexible but harder to control than the polygon. Then the magnetic which clings to a defining edge. Then follows selection by colors etc, etc. The most difficult and yet the most accurate tool is the pencil. But not many can handle it unless you are mathematically inclined.
Of course, the oldest selection is the mask and brush. Now, we can select, depending on our purpose, the grape with some background and the grape itself. But now, you must understand that PS is basically finding digital ways to accomplish the task in a film based darkroom.
Suppose the photographer wants to enhance this luscious grape. He wants to add a series of glazes to make the grape really come to life. He may choose to select the entire grape in one case and apply a tint that will only have an effect on the tonal and color value. he applies this tint in color mode or any other mode he so wishes. He then returns and selects a lesser area of the grape and adds another tint layer. He then returns and selects even less and adds another tinted layer. He again returns and selects the little highlight and adds another tinting layer.
He now looks at the background and makes an oval selection with a 60 percent radial spread encompassing the grape. He then applies levels just enough to fade into a suggestion of darkening at the edges. He now makes another glaze layer (tinting, it is called a glaze because it is always applied in light transparant values) and then this gentle hint of color is applied to the fading background.
Consider: all that has been done here is simply to change tonal and color values. You see, the secret of glazes is not to apply the same color you want. That is, you reach out to the complementary which is green and then you alternate with glazes of green and red and add other color you deem essential to paint the grape.
Can anybody disqualify this image? Only color and tonal values have been altered. No elements have been moved and no elements added. Now look at BearMusic's examples. Only color and tonal values have been altered. Look at the works of Ansel and observe the tonal beauties. No camera can capture that, the artist bridges the gap between the real and the mimic of the camera. Read the thread "advance editing question" and here the above is questioned by the S/C.
Another image that is mentioned with split opinions is the EddyG "RGB Smoke" Allow me to defend it again: He selects different parts of the smoke and he either shifts the color, or he adds a tint, or paint brushes. He is allowed all of these. He does this three times. Now, how can anyone say that the color represents a major element. The color is only an attribute of the object. We are confusing elements with their attributes and this makes us sound very unprofessional and throws out logic out the window. It is like I said, do not think it is easy to determine what a major element is.
The same applies to portraits where the photographer selects to fade into black or into white the edges as they recede from the subject. Or the great landscape wherein the plain blue flat sky is aided to darken or lighten as it meets the water or up in the frame. These are only tonal adjustsments and are perfectly legal and not as open to interpretation as many suppose. The natural fading into dark or light is also allowed.
My suggestion is to have the S/C speak with one voice. Photographic integrity is not rocket science. There is a lot of good talent in this place that can help us achieve our end. You have a heavyweight talent out there in BearMusic. Hey, the guy understands photography and he is also meticulous in applying logic. There is of, course, a wealth of talent out here in DPC and there are some in the S/C that meet this criteria. Look at EddyG, he understood the rules the same with kirbic. The talent is here so why not make a determination to empoy it for the best.
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 15:39:32. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:08:52 PM · #2 |
...step away from the Nyquil!!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:12:34 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:21:32 PM · #4 |
| Someone's been into the "taking things too seriously" juice again. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:25:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...step away from the Nyquil!! |
<<--professional photographer gives an opinion....
edit: Those arrows are supposed to point at the quote and not the box with my name in it.
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 15:25:45.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:25:37 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Someone's been into the "taking things too seriously" juice again. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If it is a joke it missed me. Look at the discussion in "a.e. questions" |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:26:50 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Someone's been into the "taking things too seriously" juice again. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If it is a joke it missed me. Look at the discussion in "a.e. questions" |
IMO, that thread shows a whole bunch of people taking things far too seriously too.
Sorry. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:28:51 PM · #8 |
Seriously, now, I think there are a number of good suggestions in Dan's post. We constantly see calls for clarification, examples, and slightly harder lines drawn to define what can and can't be done. Maybe it *is* time to set a few things straight(er).
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:34:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Someone's been into the "taking things too seriously" juice again. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If it is a joke it missed me. Look at the discussion in "a.e. questions" |
IMO, that thread shows a whole bunch of people taking things far too seriously too.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You may be 100 % but when ever you have the s/c arguing on both sides regarding rules, it sort raises it above the frivolous.
Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:35:03 PM · #10 |
i think i just went blind, but i got the basic ideas of what u were saying. and it doesn't seem so bad i gess. i'm still confused myself at the inconsistency of the SC on certain things, so i hate to say this but i discided to take a break from the challenges untill things became more clear to me. editing and such.
(this is of corse following my 3rd dq)...for what i though was leagle and i have submitted in the past with no problems.
anywho i don't want to bring all that up kerep the focus on what graphicfunk is sugesting....it seems ok to me...
_bran(ok i'm having trouble focusing i think i'll go and read less now)do_ |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:36:02 PM · #11 |
Maybe there should only be one SC member. Then they wouldn't have to be in charge, they could just be it, the sole voice. Whatever they said would be the absolute rule.
(And they wouldn't have time to go meddling around in the rant forums.) |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:37:13 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Seriously, now, I think there are a number of good suggestions in Dan's post. We constantly see calls for clarification, examples, and slightly harder lines drawn to define what can and can't be done. Maybe it *is* time to set a few things straight(er). |
In my opinion, this is very emphatically so. Things seem to be getting muddier instead of clearer, over time.
R. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:38:10 PM · #13 |
I always take Daniel's comments seriously, his record speaks for itself.
Many points he raised do need concideration,especially by the admins and sc, who, after all are supposed to understand the rules more than the rest of us.
Down to you guys,
Paul. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:39:07 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Seriously, now, I think there are a number of good suggestions in Dan's post. We constantly see calls for clarification, examples, and slightly harder lines drawn to define what can and can't be done. Maybe it *is* time to set a few things straight(er). |
Discussions are happening all the time about clarifying certain areas of the rules.. I have no problem with it. This isn't about *that* though.. it seems there are some people that won't be happy unless they're simply allowed to do whatever they want.
Part of this site for *me*, is having to work within the boundaries set. That's kind of what makes it fun. I can go photoshop crazy with my photography outside of DPC (which is most of my photography), and do whatever I need to to get the vision I want.. but DPC is about the challenge. About getting what we want with the limitations set for us.
If they said, "No editing allowed", it'd be just as fun, but if they let anything go.. well.. it's not much of a real challenge anymore.
Hiring a "professional photographer" to write the rules? please. There isn't a photographer out there that will have an opinion everyone can agree with.. and having *one* leader for the SC? that's looking for trouble. The fact that there is a multi-talent, multi-opinion SC is what makes this site great. As in any situation, mistakes can and are made, but 99% of the time, results are accurate and consistent.. on a scale that is exceptional for a site of this size.
The changes suggested here just seem to be the result of the frustrations of a minority of photographers that want more. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not exactly what DPC needs either. This is a good site for people to come in and cut their photographic teeth on.. try some new techniques, get a feel for photography and what people enjoy and like, and maybe use that to further themselves off the site.
It's supposed to be about having fun, about working within limits and guidelines, and enjoying our cameras and equipment.. Lately, it's been less about that and more about people complaining about everything and trying their best to push agendas not very many other people really seem to want, or care either way about.
So yes, I think people are taking things too seriously. Take a deep breath, sit back, relax, and try and realize that this site itself isn't photography, but is only one small aspect of it.. one that should be taken in good humor and a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:47:58 PM · #15 |
This is a digital photography challenge site. Most of the rules act as if your shooting with a disposable 35mm film camera. Most people want to shoot digital for enhanced creativity and freedom.
Keep the open challenges for limited editing, but the paying members should be able to edit there photos to the extent of their own ability. I could do more in the darkroom by hand, then what is allowed here with the computer.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:49:30 PM · #16 |
To Artyste:
With all due apologies I believe you are misconstruing what I am saying in order to vent a frustration you have which goes..."what do they want? They don't stop asking they just want more and more"
My object in life is not to beat anybody for anything. I always play within the rules and I do not need help to create any type of image. I find the way within the rules. Look at my basic editing entries.
My point is that I like a set of rules that remain a constant and not subject to a different interpretation by each member because of loopholes. Everybody pretends to understand photography and we all speak about its integrity. All this is well provided we now what we are talking about. It bothers me when two s.c disagree on the basic rules.
Obviously, nothing is that serious to you and this is okay. To me rules are the guiding light and opinions fall by the wayside. To me rules are very important and things I take very serious.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:49:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
This is a digital photography challenge site. Most of the rules act as if your shooting with a disposable 35mm film camera. Most people want to shoot digital for enhanced creativity and freedom.
Keep the open challenges for limited editing, but the paying members should be able to edit there photos to the extent of their own ability. I could do more in the darkroom by hand, then what is allowed here with the computer. |
This is a digital photography challenge site with a time honored tradition.
I'd be all for another editing tier, but I don't think the advanced editing rules need anything more than a slight modification in clarity, which would never be done to everyone's satisfaction, and which I find quite solid myself, personally. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:53:28 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
This is a digital photography challenge site. Most of the rules act as if your shooting with a disposable 35mm film camera. Most people want to shoot digital for enhanced creativity and freedom.
Keep the open challenges for limited editing, but the paying members should be able to edit there photos to the extent of their own ability. I could do more in the darkroom by hand, then what is allowed here with the computer. |
This is a digital photography challenge site with a time honored tradition.
I'd be all for another editing tier, but I don't think the advanced editing rules need anything more than a slight modification in clarity, which would never be done to everyone's satisfaction, and which I find quite solid myself, personally. |
As technology improves so should the site. HDR should be allowed in advanced, and cloning out dust spots in basic.
I don't see why there should be more than 2 tiers of challenges.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:56:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
To Artyste:
With all due apologies I believe you are misconstruing what I am saying in order to vent a frustration you have which goes..."what do they want? They don't stop asking they just want more and more"
My object in life is not to beat anybody for anything. I always play within the rules and I do not need help to create any type of image. I find the way within the rules. Look at my basic editing entries.
My point is that I like a set of rules that remain a constant and not subject to a different interpretation by each member because of loopholes. Everybody pretends to understand photography and we all speak about its integrity. All this is well provided we now what we are talking about. It bothers me when two s.c disagree on the basic rules.
Obviously, nothing is that serious to you and this is okay. To me rules are the guiding light and opinions fall by the wayside. To me rules are very important and things I take very serious. |
What is worrisome is that in order to have what you seem to want, the rules would have to be 500 pages long explaining every single tool on every single editing program there is, in every single situation.. unless it's suddenly turned into, "There are no rules, no editing is illegal whatsoever".
That may be fine for a new *tier* of editing, but to turn the advanced editing into that? No. Having an elected SC leader won't be much help either. Their opinion would *still* come in to play, and as mk said, you may as well just have *one* SC member then, and good luck finding someone that is willing to memorize those 500 pages of rules.
The very thought of it just exhausts me. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 03:58:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
This is a digital photography challenge site. Most of the rules act as if your shooting with a disposable 35mm film camera. Most people want to shoot digital for enhanced creativity and freedom.
Keep the open challenges for limited editing, but the paying members should be able to edit there photos to the extent of their own ability. I could do more in the darkroom by hand, then what is allowed here with the computer. |
This is a digital photography challenge site with a time honored tradition.
I'd be all for another editing tier, but I don't think the advanced editing rules need anything more than a slight modification in clarity, which would never be done to everyone's satisfaction, and which I find quite solid myself, personally. |
As technology improves so should the site. HDR should be allowed in advanced, and cloning out dust spots in basic.
I don't see why there should be more than 2 tiers of challenges. |
I'm all for things like this, and have supported efforts in the past. However, I also see and agree with the potential for abuse and the extra load it'd mean for the SC to have to deal with cloning *only* dust spots.
It's never so black and white. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:02:40 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by mk:
Maybe there should only be one SC member. Then they wouldn't have to be in charge, they could just be it, the sole voice. Whatever they said would be the absolute rule.
(And they wouldn't have time to go meddling around in the rant forums.) |
No, but maybe a Chief Justice of the supreme SC might not be so bad. ;O)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:03:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
To Artyste:
With all due apologies I believe you are misconstruing what I am saying in order to vent a frustration you have which goes..."what do they want? They don't stop asking they just want more and more"
My object in life is not to beat anybody for anything. I always play within the rules and I do not need help to create any type of image. I find the way within the rules. Look at my basic editing entries.
My point is that I like a set of rules that remain a constant and not subject to a different interpretation by each member because of loopholes. Everybody pretends to understand photography and we all speak about its integrity. All this is well provided we now what we are talking about. It bothers me when two s.c disagree on the basic rules.
Obviously, nothing is that serious to you and this is okay. To me rules are the guiding light and opinions fall by the wayside. To me rules are very important and things I take very serious. |
What is worrisome is that in order to have what you seem to want, the rules would have to be 500 pages long explaining every single tool on every single editing program there is, in every single situation.. unless it's suddenly turned into, "There are no rules, no editing is illegal whatsoever".
That may be fine for a new *tier* of editing, but to turn the advanced editing into that? No. Having an elected SC leader won't be much help either. Their opinion would *still* come in to play, and as mk said, you may as well just have *one* SC member then, and good luck finding someone that is willing to memorize those 500 pages of rules.
The very thought of it just exhausts me. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, your defensive strain is creating nightmares that do not exist. I have pointed out that the main problem is in the definition of the selection. The freedom that follows. It does not require the many pages you suggest. It can be done in sevral paragraphs. Just a moment ago an s/c suggested that darkening a plain blue sky could be questionable. Is this the way you want the rules. If the S/C unite and speak with one voice, wouldn't that be better? In short the solution is not as big as it looks. But hey, if you are happy, then all the more power to you! |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:06:43 PM · #23 |
I just want to make great images and look at great images to be honest I realy think that it doesn't matter how someone brings things together. It seems that a certian portion of the DPC poplulation is affraid of this in a sick way. Why does it matter if your a great on the camera or if your great on the post side all that matters is the final product.......... To further yourselves we need to accept any tool that we can us and abuse it to its full extent.
Suggestion....
Make a chalenge type that allow no post work (it seems so people will love that) but then again I think all of us have come to enjoy PS is some way or manner even if it is curve (isn't curve something in the film days you would chioce before you went shooting)
Make a challeneg type that allows you to do what ever you please.....
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:07:00 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
To Artyste:
With all due apologies I believe you are misconstruing what I am saying in order to vent a frustration you have which goes..."what do they want? They don't stop asking they just want more and more"
My object in life is not to beat anybody for anything. I always play within the rules and I do not need help to create any type of image. I find the way within the rules. Look at my basic editing entries.
My point is that I like a set of rules that remain a constant and not subject to a different interpretation by each member because of loopholes. Everybody pretends to understand photography and we all speak about its integrity. All this is well provided we now what we are talking about. It bothers me when two s.c disagree on the basic rules.
Obviously, nothing is that serious to you and this is okay. To me rules are the guiding light and opinions fall by the wayside. To me rules are very important and things I take very serious. |
What is worrisome is that in order to have what you seem to want, the rules would have to be 500 pages long explaining every single tool on every single editing program there is, in every single situation.. unless it's suddenly turned into, "There are no rules, no editing is illegal whatsoever".
That may be fine for a new *tier* of editing, but to turn the advanced editing into that? No. Having an elected SC leader won't be much help either. Their opinion would *still* come in to play, and as mk said, you may as well just have *one* SC member then, and good luck finding someone that is willing to memorize those 500 pages of rules.
The very thought of it just exhausts me. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, your defensive strain is creating nightmares that do not exist. I have pointed out that the main problem is in the definition of the selection. The freedom that follows. It does not require the many pages you suggest. It can be done in sevral paragraphs. Just a moment ago an s/c suggested that darkening a plain blue sky could be questionable. Is this the way you want the rules. If the S/C unite and speak with one voice, wouldn't that be better? In short the solution is not as big as it looks. But hey, if you are happy, then all the more power to you! |
And you're suggesting something happening that has never happened in the history of humanity.. everyone agreeing on something, simply because it's a strongly defined "rule" |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:09:10 PM · #25 |
Speaking as karmat, and not SC, (I am allowed to do that, aren't I?), it seems the more we try to clarify, the muddier it gets. It's kind of like that legal smallprint at the bottom of something. Instead of saying "buy at your own risk" it takes like a gazillion words.
As far as having "one" chieftan among the council, I think that while it may make things simpler in the short term, it the long term it would just make them worse. And I don't see it addressing what I see to be graphicfunk's concern (the need for more clarification, but if that is too simple, blame it on sleep deprivation)
|
|
