|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2005 04:52:15 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
Right, but I think this whole thing is just a misunderstanding. I think what that S/C member was trying to say was that if used to extremes, any edit can in fact create a major element that was not present in the original.
If I took a blown out white sky, and coloured it using levels and hue/saturation with various different areas to a nice red and yellow sky, not many people would argue about the fact that I was creating a major element by turning the blownout sky into a sunset, even though I was only changing colours and brightness values. Now, there has to be a sliding scale, as subtle changes are, rightfully, legal under the current rules.
There is no definate line.
I can not see a way to create a definate line.
That is why there are 18 individuals who cast a vote on each DQ request, so that we can attempt to make the fairest descision possible in keeping both with the spirit of freedom of editing, and the spirit of DPChallenge.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:52:18 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
All I see here is you contradicting yourself. You say all you want is clarification in the rules. Rules which you yourself say are the most important thing to you. Under the current ruleset, it is *very* clear that *adding* an element is illegal, where enhancing or changing an element isn't. If you have a blown out sky, there *is* no sky element there. Adding a gradient to *make* a blue sky would be illegal.
However, if you have a dull pale sky, and you simple enhance the color that is there, that is ok.
I don't see how this is unclear?
What you seem to now want is to be able to add that element under the disguise of fancy wording and convoluted logic.. Which is your perogative, but please for the sake of the whole arguement, decide what it is you actually want. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 04:54:50 PM · #53 |
I see complaining and whining all the times in the forums, and temper tamtrums... That comes from being unhappy in my eyes... If they're unhappoy enough to make long winded statements, then they should be able to tell me why they're still here... WHAT GOOD THINGS are here... and keeping them here??
I've seen excuse after excuse for cvomplaining... but NOONE answered my question...
I stay here for the learning, and teh improvement i see in my photograpahs. AS a matter of fact6 i've learned from you in the forums Mavrik...
If they're still here there much be a redeeming quality...
WHAT is keeping them here? if they cant answer wiht a positive statement... then maybe this site isnt for them
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by di53:
Thats not an answer to my question.. |
Your question is about someone being "unhappy" - the post is about people wanting improvements to the site - being unsatisfied.
Why are we unsatisfied is the question we can answer - and "because we would like to see improvements" is the answer.
Nobody said they are "unhappy" with the site - those are YOUR words.
Why would we want to improve the site? That's a sort of silly question. |
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 16:57:28. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:00:54 PM · #54 |
I would like to officially nominiate myself as the main member of the s/c...no, seriously, I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:08:52 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
All I see here is you contradicting yourself. You say all you want is clarification in the rules. Rules which you yourself say are the most important thing to you. Under the current ruleset, it is *very* clear that *adding* an element is illegal, where enhancing or changing an element isn't. If you have a blown out sky, there *is* no sky element there. Adding a gradient to *make* a blue sky would be illegal.
However, if you have a dull pale sky, and you simple enhance the color that is there, that is ok.
I don't see how this is unclear?
What you seem to now want is to be able to add that element under the disguise of fancy wording and convoluted logic.. Which is your perogative, but please for the sake of the whole arguement, decide what it is you actually want. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What are you saying? You are off a deep end in the I got you game. I am not playing word games. Read my original post and you will see that there is no disagrement between us. I am not the indivudual you despise that wants more and more.
It follows logic that if you have a plain white sky, the most that you can add a faint tint of a feathering effect. You can not add clouds nor can you give it a vibrant color. To do so is to adversely affect the integrity. But to say that adding the above faint feathering and tint is illegal is incorrect.
And then, go look at my port and see where I have used gradients or the sort. I just don't use them, however, the rules allow me if I want to and many other members may have similar questions. I said i was presenting this in good faith and suddenly a defensive wall arises. According to you everything is okay. A few of us are not as bright as you and we are disturbed when an s/c members speaks against techniques that have been employed for so long.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:12:42 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by di53:
You arent answerign my question, Dan... the question was
why are you still on this site if you are unhappy here?
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....
If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here? |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
If you join a shoe club and members suggest a better way to make the shoes, does this indicate that they are unhappy or perhaps that pooling all the knowledge you can to produce a better shoe. Is this bad? And then if i were so unhappy whu would i want to commeny on so many images? |
|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
You have created your own incorrect premise. I am very happy in this site and wish you and the entire site the very best. Everything in life evolves and DPC is no exception. Each member becomes a link and small as their voices are they can still be felt. Again, me and many others are happy to be part of this experience but we do not believe in remaining idiots with no voice or expression.
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 17:15:30. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:13:17 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
All I see here is you contradicting yourself. You say all you want is clarification in the rules. Rules which you yourself say are the most important thing to you. Under the current ruleset, it is *very* clear that *adding* an element is illegal, where enhancing or changing an element isn't. If you have a blown out sky, there *is* no sky element there. Adding a gradient to *make* a blue sky would be illegal.
However, if you have a dull pale sky, and you simple enhance the color that is there, that is ok.
I don't see how this is unclear?
What you seem to now want is to be able to add that element under the disguise of fancy wording and convoluted logic.. Which is your perogative, but please for the sake of the whole arguement, decide what it is you actually want. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What are you saying? You are off a deep end in the I got you game. I am not playing word games. Read my original post and you will see that there is no disagrement between us. I am not the indivudual you despise that wants more and more.
It follows logic that if you have a plain white sky, the most that you can add a faint tint of a feathering effect. You can not add clouds nor can you give it a vibrant color. To do so is to adversely affect the integrity. But to say that adding the above faint feathering and tint is illegal is incorrect.
And then, go look at my port and see where I have used gradients or the sort. I just don't use them, however, the rules allow me if I want to and many other members may have similar questions. I said i was presenting this in good faith and suddenly a defensive wall arises. According to you everything is okay. A few of us are not as bright as you and we are disturbed when an s/c members speaks against techniques that have been employed for so long. |
Sorry, it's apparent you aren't even reading anything I say. You just attribute it all to my having some phantom problems. Whatever.
Good luck in your quest for your personal DPC utopia, where the rules are loved and nobody questions anything, and the SC sings in a rapturous single voice.
I sort of hope you achieve it, it'd be a first for mankind. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:16:13 PM · #58 |
If this about generally clarifying the rules, then that's fine. We're always trying to improve clarity and hash out a way to best convey what we're looking for and what we feel like is a good ruleset for the site.
If this is about what one SC member said, then I think it's going overboard. We aren't a single voice. We are a group of 18 individual, unique people with our own opinions. We make mistakes. We don't each know everything about everything. We aren't all experts in the time-honored darkroom practices. But together, we work pretty well. The SC was originally started to serve as a voice for the site, to bring to light issues that the site audience was facing and to generally help keep things under control. We don't exist as an encyclopedia or a single document of rules. This is why we vote. One single person's opinion really has little value. That's why we don't offer guaranteed photo validation ahead of a challenge - we give an opinion with the disclaimer that it's just that, an opinion. It's the vote that means something - our collective opinions. We all have our own opinions and those frequently differ and we discuss and we argue and we fight but in the end, it's the whole body that balances us out.
Having a professional write the rules isn't going to change this. There isn't going to be a single document that is translated the exact same way among a group of 18 people, let alone a site of thousands. The only way to have a single opinion is to have a single person. Maybe that's what you'd like, rather than a "head" Site Council (the point of which I'm still not really sure I understand). Even then, not everyone is going to agree with their opinion.
It seems odd to me that you keep saying that your intention was to "rock the boat" but that your "rocking" seems to be an urging for us to all act and think the same...SC bots, perhaps? To me, the value in the SC is that we aren't drones. We all think for ourselves and we voice those thoughts. What I feel is important is the end result. If you think that the end result of the SC's work is inconsistent then yes, let's discuss that. But to start all this because of what one member said in one thread is a little too much. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:16:51 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
Right, but I think this whole thing is just a misunderstanding. I think what that S/C member was trying to say was that if used to extremes, any edit can in fact create a major element that was not present in the original.
If I took a blown out white sky, and coloured it using levels and hue/saturation with various different areas to a nice red and yellow sky, not many people would argue about the fact that I was creating a major element by turning the blownout sky into a sunset, even though I was only changing colours and brightness values. Now, there has to be a sliding scale, as subtle changes are, rightfully, legal under the current rules.
There is no definate line.
I can not see a way to create a definate line.
That is why there are 18 individuals who cast a vote on each DQ request, so that we can attempt to make the fairest descision possible in keeping both with the spirit of freedom of editing, and the spirit of DPChallenge. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please read the thread 'a.e questions' and you read nothing about the exploration of the outer limits that you are refering. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:20:26 PM · #60 |
I like graphicfunk's idea about having a single person in a position of authority among the SC. I have often felt there is a leadership vacuum there. I would not pretend to be smart enough to define the duties of such a person (perhaps Chairman would be a good title) but I think they should lean more toward the organizational, and not be to be sole interpreter of fine points in administering the rules. The Chairman should be responsive to a majority of the SC, not the other way around. And the chairmanship ought to be rotated every three months, or six months. It might even be a good idea to have some organized turnover among the membership of SC itself, such as a three-year term limit with one third of them being replaced every year.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:22:31 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Konador:
Artyste is right in my opinion. Adding a gradient in the place of a sky is a no-no, but using gradient effects to enhance the sky already present in the original photo is absolutely okay. Thats just the way I see it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course you are right. This is what we understand. But a recent post by an s/c placed this very step into question. The way that you accomplish the gradient in not important. You can select the sky area and apply apply levels or color shifts. In short the sky is the object and it is remaining as the object, only the tonal and color values have been modified. We call the sky the object and the color and tonal values the attributes.
But an s/c has argued that if the sky was plain then adding the shades might make it illegal.
Also, some folks do not even understand what a gradient is. That is they keep it locked up in the gradient box. It is a uniform apllication in increments towards a dark, light or transparant end. However, when you select an area and use a feathering of any high value a gradient is employed to achieve the result, such as used with levels, curves or color shifts. |
Right, but I think this whole thing is just a misunderstanding. I think what that S/C member was trying to say was that if used to extremes, any edit can in fact create a major element that was not present in the original.
If I took a blown out white sky, and coloured it using levels and hue/saturation with various different areas to a nice red and yellow sky, not many people would argue about the fact that I was creating a major element by turning the blownout sky into a sunset, even though I was only changing colours and brightness values. Now, there has to be a sliding scale, as subtle changes are, rightfully, legal under the current rules.
There is no definate line.
I can not see a way to create a definate line.
That is why there are 18 individuals who cast a vote on each DQ request, so that we can attempt to make the fairest descision possible in keeping both with the spirit of freedom of editing, and the spirit of DPChallenge. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please read the thread 'a.e questions' and you read nothing about the exploration of the outer limits that you are refering. |
If you are talking about the things Scalvert said, here he clarifies himself:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This image has existing gradients which are accentuated in post-processing -- I agree it should be legal. |
Me too. I was referring to replacing a completely flat background with a gradient (white sky to blue gradient). |
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:23:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
I would like to officially nominiate myself as the main member of the s/c...no, seriously, I'm not kidding. |
We're not taking nominations, currently. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:26:20 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by mk:
If this about generally clarifying the rules, then that's fine. We're always trying to improve clarity and hash out a way to best convey what we're looking for and what we feel like is a good ruleset for the site.
If this is about what one SC member said, then I think it's going overboard. We aren't a single voice. We are a group of 18 individual, unique people with our own opinions. We make mistakes. We don't each know everything about everything. We aren't all experts in the time-honored darkroom practices. But together, we work pretty well. The SC was originally started to serve as a voice for the site, to bring to light issues that the site audience was facing and to generally help keep things under control. We don't exist as an encyclopedia or a single document of rules. This is why we vote. One single person's opinion really has little value. That's why we don't offer guaranteed photo validation ahead of a challenge - we give an opinion with the disclaimer that it's just that, an opinion. It's the vote that means something - our collective opinions. We all have our own opinions and those frequently differ and we discuss and we argue and we fight but in the end, it's the whole body that balances us out.
Having a professional write the rules isn't going to change this. There isn't going to be a single document that is translated the exact same way among a group of 18 people, let alone a site of thousands. The only way to have a single opinion is to have a single person. Maybe that's what you'd like, rather than a "head" Site Council (the point of which I'm still not really sure I understand). Even then, not everyone is going to agree with their opinion.
It seems odd to me that you keep saying that your intention was to "rock the boat" but that your "rocking" seems to be an urging for us to all act and think the same...SC bots, perhaps? To me, the value in the SC is that we aren't drones. We all think for ourselves and we voice those thoughts. What I feel is important is the end result. If you think that the end result of the SC's work is inconsistent then yes, let's discuss that. But to start all this because of what one member said in one thread is a little too much. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rules and regulations is what keeps, maintains and fences one enterprise from the others. The company policy of many enterprises are quoted openly. This does not mean that every member is a drone. It simply means that that to maintain integrity and consistency rules are born and followed by those in the enterprise. Why present multiple and often erroneous views when it is just as easy to unite and decide on a set of rules. Again, with all due respect, I do not see the problem, except to say that when any s/c speasks, out of respect I listen. You are asking me to ignore the ones I do not agree with.
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 17:28:16. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:26:28 PM · #64 |
| Well said and very good points... |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:26:52 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I like graphicfunk's idea about having a single person in a position of authority among the SC. I have often felt there is a leadership vacuum there. I would not pretend to be smart enough to define the duties of such a person (perhaps Chairman would be a good title) but I think they should lean more toward the organizational, and not be to be sole interpreter of fine points in administering the rules. The Chairman should be responsive to a majority of the SC, not the other way around. And the chairmanship ought to be rotated every three months, or six months. It might even be a good idea to have some organized turnover among the membership of SC itself, such as a three-year term limit with one third of them being replaced every year. |
Maybe it's because I'm too close to the forest to see the trees, but I can not really see the advantage to have a "chair." Of course, I understand that I have seen how SC "works" and it would take far too long to explain all of it (and that is just the saner parts). I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really just don't see the point.
As far as rotating a third every year, that would have some advantages, I guess, but again, having seen the "workings" I can see how it could really slow some things down.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:38:25 PM · #66 |
For those that want to keep the system as is, and are happy with the inconsistancies lets play poker, but with me making the rules as we go.
Bring lots of money.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:40:10 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
For those that want to keep the system as is, and are happy with the inconsistancies lets play poker, but with me making the rules as we go.
Bring lots of money. |
Sure, give me your account numbers and I'll go get some.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:44:04 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
For those that want to keep the system as is, and are happy with the inconsistancies lets play poker, but with me making the rules as we go.
Bring lots of money. |
Azrifel goes all-in
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:48:13 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
For those that want to keep the system as is, and are happy with the inconsistancies lets play poker, but with me making the rules as we go.
Bring lots of money. |
One of the most inaccurate analogies I've ever seen.
#1. there isn't one person making up rules. There is a body of 18 site council members and 2 administrators that collaborate on rule changes and make them if they are deemed appropriate after a vote and discussion.
#2. The inconsistencies are generally verbal *only*, and aren't usually reflected in the final tally. There *have* been some, but they are few and very far between.
#3. Very few people are actually fighting to keep the website "as it is." Most people are perfectly fine with the site evolving, but argue about the nature of said evolving. Nothing wrong there.
So for your analogy to be accurate, you would need to find 19 people plus yourself to collaborate on the rules, and designate two of those to ratify and finalize them. If you do that, I'll gladly join in. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 05:50:47 PM · #70 |
Regarding the gradient...dodge & burn...etc. There are clearly some gray areas
Below is a simple solid gray image, however, using dodge & burn I was able to create elements not originally in the image. If this were a gray sky then the net effect is that major elements have been obviously created by the mere dodge & burn application.
So what it really seems to hinge on, is something more than whether a valid tool or method was used. Now, we come to a different perspective major element. And what constitutes a major element. I believe many people feel the rules were emplaced to maintain photographic integrity. So as to prevent the challenges from becoming more concerned with digital art than with photography.
And where as I might first see the reason in the gradient issue, and say "yes, it is sorta creating something new"...I also placed myself in the position of old timers (sorry, yes...now EVERYONE hates me) who applied such gradients in a dark room. Their feeling is this is not really a major element but a more akin to a tonal adjustment, a development technique to enhance to photo but a very traditional application of said technique. And IMHO, I see very little difference between adding a gradient to a sky and dodging/burning in general.
This may stem from my total lack of film based photography. In fact, when I first came to this site I did not know what dodging and burning was. At first I thought it kinda cheating. And felt like whoa, here I was taking "true photos" (nothing more than re-cropping/re-sizing and some sharpening to address the re-sizing softness). And I felt I could compete. Just recently I discovered "curves"...wow, if I knew that a year ago my average would be a solid 1/2 point higher. Now I find I can easily get the photo to the right levels I intended...or at least a lot more often.
But I learned these were are derived from dark room photography techniques. Understanding that, I can see how the gradient vs dodge/burn issue is a very overlapping gray issue.
And where as I disagree with the need for a supreme leader "add in swoosh of old 80's chrome dome cyclon red lights"...I do believe there are some issues that repeatedly arise and that are very gray, and depending on which SC members you talk to can go in various degrees.
Therefore, I think it may be time for the SC to address some of these issues with some additional clarification and justification. (ie: review such concepts as sky gradients and for specific recurring gray areas give us a general stance).
An Addendum of sorts. (Of course, now I feel bad because I am asking the SC to give me even more of their time....sorry) ;)
I know that no one likes being caught in a gray area, especially with the potential of being DQ'd. And sometimes it does seem odd to me. The fact, that a gradient is worthy of a DQ but I can use hue to totally change the color of my photograph without any issue. I don't understand what quite makes one acceptable and the other not.
But just something to consider, if perhaps not so much a "leader" but perhaps a call upon the SC to make some declaration and addendum to the rules. This being useful in that instead of having to decide each DQ case individually. And having to take a vote (and if I am correct on my assumption said vote could swing different ways depending on which group of SC are available to conduct the vote). It would seem wise and prudent to me if the SC addressed some of these gray areas with a full SC vote (perhaps 2/3 majority requirement) and then laid that as an establish framework. And if it is decided that gradients and full hue adjustments (making your blue photo red) should be considered major elements changes or excessive editing, than to address such in the addendum. And then if a photo should arise that is in breech, it will be clearly established.
This should I would think, make things easier in the long run. Gradient sky = DQ or != DQ. It would then be more akin to "hey, sorry we don't allow the addition of text" or "sorry, photo must be taken within x date time"
- Saj
PS - I do hope the SC doesn't think I am being harsh, I am just trying to be constructive and address the matter from a perspective of neither the grieved nor the SC.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 07:26:02 PM · #71 |
Okay, I am going on the assumption that goodwill prevails. From the replies of Artyste and the s/c we gather that having clarification is not really essential because everything is open to a different interpretation. So, with this reasoning there is no point in fine tuning anything because more clarification means more reading and then more new interpretations. So what is the use?
On the aspect of having one s/c in charge is also no good because such a move would equal order and consistency and would turn each s/c into drones.
We want no policies to show a united front.
If this is what it is then fine. As usual we will continue to be beset with nagging minor problems with some S/C members not sure about images like EddyG's RGB Smoke. I find this image to be valid. According to the latest reasoning if is okay to select the object of smoke and add the attribute of colors to the smoke, then what is the difference in adding color to a plain white sky. This is not something that I would do, but consider, the color in the RGB may have been added with a gradient. So, why can a white monotonous smoke have color and a plain white sky not with a gradient to boost?
You see, these questions loom in the horizon and the s/c voting team will have to decide on the merit of these applications. This is why we all need a clear understanding of what an object is and what an attribute is. To say that each s/c member team works in the mysterious realm of their personal judgment means that one team may pass something while another rejects it. Such possibilities means that the lucky photographer gets the good team while the other photographer gets a dq.
It matters little to me how you resolve these issues which may not even be a problem to any of you. Since I have joined this site there has been a clamor for more detailed instructions and the reply is that no mortal can master the English language because what is written and what is understood are two different things. We are all different, we think different...it is a wonder we manage our primitive form of communication.
To someone watching from outside the problem is not as big as it sounds. There are two main problems in the editing rules. These are the selection and the clone. These two can be defined but nobody believes that it is possible to do so. They just require a limitation.
My apologies to those who have become offended. This was not the intention. My aim was to address some real problems but like in the past, you have proven me wrong again. You state that all is well and that my suggestions will not solve anything. I can live with that as I have no monetary investment in this entity known as DPC.
Also, I am aware of the time you freely give, but then I too give of my time for the same end as you and that is to make this a better place. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 07:59:33 PM · #72 |
Here lies the problem from my perspective anyway. There are a multitude of different software programs out there that edit. I have PSP8, some have Photoshop, and there are others that have others.
Unless you list exactly what can be used by name and specifics in editing, there will ALWAYS be questions. What graphicfunk refers to as "old methods of paint brush,etc", are the only methods I use and know. I don't have or even know what half the other things is he mentioned in the original post about enhancing the grape. I don't use masks, etc. I only use "tools" - ie, light/dark, saturation, smudge, soften, sharpen, crop, etc. The basics. Then I have "adjustments" - ie, brightness/contrast, color, soft focus & halo, add or remove noise, etc. Then I have "effects", in which are a mulitude of choices from turning to b/w, to sepia, to artistic tones, to paint brush looks, to waxed looks, to penciled looks, and the list goes on. I also have paint brush, air brush, etc. These are some I use, but I don't have "glazing" and all the others he mentions.
To me this is all very confusing. It is like trying to teach me to use a DVD player by way of a VHS tape. I get lost in the entire translation. This is why "I" have so many questions in editing. My questions lie in what I can and cannot do with my psp8, and not in photoshop.
As to adding and taking away elements themselves, I still don't see the difference between enhancing a waterline with burn, to enhancing the outer part of a subject with dodge. In another example, I still don't see the difference between enhancing the clouds with burn, but not the sky line. I am not talking about adding or taking away gradients, I am talking about enhancing the photo WITHOUT taking away the major elements. What IF I wanted to make someones hair lighter or darker. What the heck is the differnce between that and turning white smoke to green smoke? I am just not getting the difference in changing colors in one and not the other. If smoke is white, then what gives anyone the right to make it blue? If hair is black, then why shouldn't we have the right to give it white highlights then when it IS just adding a color element and not ridding of or adding any "major element" of the photo?
I mean, I hate these novels. My hands hurt as it is in work I did on props today for an upcoming photo shoot, but geez, no matter how many times I read these threads, they still are contridicting to me.
Look, not a lot of people tend to have questions on their entries in processing allowances. Therefore, for those that do, maybe it IS best to be able to get validation BEFORE one enters a contest then. Instead of entering it and taking chances, OR getting opinions that may not be accurate before entry by handing it over to S/C for a look. Obviously if you think there would be too many to do if that option was open, then that means there are a hell of a lot of people out there entering photos that have no idea if it is legal and are taking chances which lead to "dq" punishments.
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 20:02:11.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 08:04:06 PM · #73 |
when does a photo cease to be a "photo" and become a "photo illustration"?
Seems to me like that's what's really being asked. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 08:06:30 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
when does a photo cease to be a "photo" and become a "photo illustration"?
Seems to me like that's what's really being asked. |
Ask 100 people... |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 08:06:44 PM · #75 |
Man what a thread... I can't believe I read the whole thing. ;)
I guess my thoughts on the matter don't amount to a hill of beans, but I'll provide them anyway. I don't understand exactly *what* about the current rules is unclear. I understand them. I'm not a genius and I'm rather new to photography, all things considered, and I get the general gist. If I, a simple redneck from Texas, can understand them, why is it so hard for others, with much more knowledge and experience than me, to understand them? Maybe I just don't know enough about processing techniques to be dangerous yet. ;)
As far as having a single person becoming the SC "chairman" or whatever, that's a little much. With great power comes great responsibility, and I doubt anyone (except dpaull) really wants that headache. As it is, responsibilities are handled by delegation and communication, not through a dictatorship. You get someone in there that's a little power-hungry and that's what you'll wind up with eventually.
As it stands, I think the more folks try to "clarify" the more insanely muddied things become.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:28:05 PM  |
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: 08/02/2025 12:28:05 PM EDT.
|
