| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2006 11:08:24 AM · #26 |
I think it would be a good idea as a lot of people have issues with the constraints already in place. The problem is how to stop this category been completely removed from the original photo (if there is one).
Personally, I would prefer a MUCH more restricted category in addition. "straight from the camera" is not it because there are a lot of things some cameras can do and since I shoot RAW there is really no such thing for me. I wish I could suggest a sensible way to have "rules" for something like this but I cannot - without seriously cutting out a lot of camera models (i.e. submitting RAW files and having the conversion with a standard set of parms in a standard RAW converter - too hard to implement anyway and not practical). |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 12:46:46 PM · #27 |
A reasonable, "educational" version of "straight from the camera" would be "uncropped"; basic editing rules, but NO cropping allowed, period. This would get people in the mindset of using the entire image, and thus planning their shots very carefully.
R. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 01:07:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A reasonable, "educational" version of "straight from the camera" would be "uncropped"; basic editing rules, but NO cropping allowed, period. This would get people in the mindset of using the entire image, and thus planning their shots very carefully.
R. |
Yeah I think no cropping would be a good idea but I would like to add no playing with the colours (subjective I know and I don't want to open that can in this thread), no noise reduction e.t.c. - obviously you need USM and maybe levels due to the digital nature of things [and... and this is part of the problem since where do you stop] - a real back to basics. Problem is that none of these are really enforcable..... and I doubt it would have much appeal anyway....
My issue is that I want to learn more then I know about the photography and this site is good for that. There are a lot of other sites for photoshop techniques e.t.c., so if DPC strays to far into the post world, it would not be as useful for me - selfish yup but just my view. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 02:15:05 PM · #29 |
| How about another Challenge ruleset called, Catalog/Montage (basic editing, multiple images) This would be good for ones like, Holiday Catalog. It would also open up some fun such as doing scavenger hunts. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 02:57:58 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A reasonable, "educational" version of "straight from the camera" would be "uncropped"; basic editing rules, but NO cropping allowed, period. This would get people in the mindset of using the entire image, and thus planning their shots very carefully.
R. |
In principle I agree with the idea of getting people used to the idea of shooting 'full frame' and getting away from the idea of cropping later. It is certainly a better approach and will serve you well if and when you move in to commercial photography or need larger prints.
However, there is an underlying assumption that I disagree with. That is that the arbitary aspect ratio that your particular camera shoots with is somehow 'right' for any given picture.
Square format hassey's, 4x5s, 35mm, digital 3:2, xpans, et al.
/me goes off to play with my 16:9 P'n'S (which has a switch for 3:2 & 4:5 ratio crops on the lens barrel too)
Message edited by author 2006-01-11 15:02:00. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:00:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A reasonable, "educational" version of "straight from the camera" would be "uncropped"; basic editing rules, but NO cropping allowed, period. This would get people in the mindset of using the entire image, and thus planning their shots very carefully.
R. |
Yeah I think no cropping would be a good idea but I would like to add no playing with the colours (subjective I know and I don't want to open that can in this thread), no noise reduction e.t.c. - obviously you need USM and maybe levels due to the digital nature of things [and... and this is part of the problem since where do you stop] - a real back to basics. Problem is that none of these are really enforcable..... and I doubt it would have much appeal anyway.... |
The trouble with "no playing with the colors" is that you can use the CAMERA to do that; you can change the white balance, you can change the saturation, many cameras allow "toned" images, etc etc. And of course many of us shoot in RAW, which means we can do all that AFTER the exposure (in fact, we have to).
I suppose this "no crop, no edit but sharpening" ruleset could require a jpg original, which would slam that door...
R. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:35:47 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I already get plenty of comments from people who gave me a 2 or 3, then realize after the challenge that it really WAS a photo and would have given me a much higher score. Maybe I'm being petty, but at least by not allowing "anything goes" editing there is some assurance that the image isn't just a Photoshop composite or filter. |
Thanks Scalvert for saying that. Sadly, that does happen. And usually when people state such I'e watched them get jumped down the throat. But it is really frustrating when you take a naturally composed photo and get nailed for digital art when what you really did was compose a novel or creative shot.
BTW...I think you have a proficiency for such and your photos are always great encouragements to me in that area. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:38:37 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just another thought on this idea of an "uber advanced" category. What if the photog were required to post a resized version of the original as a prerequisite for entering this category. The original would only be visible after voting. Now *that* would make it both interesting and educational for those watching and learning. |
I was thinking similarly, but thought...that both should be posted for viewing. This way, the voters could see the original and determine for themselves if it was too much digital art and not enough photo.
Thus, if Scalvert posted his original of say the hand and glove reaching thru the picture frame and a touched up version. People would realize it was an actual photo and judge accordingly (or request validation). Likewise, if they see the original photo and then tons of stuff were added. And the viewer feels the entry went beyond "perfection of photo" into "digital content creation" then they will vote accordingly.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:58:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just another thought on this idea of an "uber advanced" category. What if the photog were required to post a resized version of the original as a prerequisite for entering this category. The original would only be visible after voting. Now *that* would make it both interesting and educational for those watching and learning. |
I was thinking similarly, but thought...that both should be posted for viewing. This way, the voters could see the original and determine for themselves if it was too much digital art and not enough photo... |
From a voter's perspective this might seem be good at first blush, but a photo should be judged on its own as a completed work. As a photographer, most probably would not want their end product judged against how it looked in its original state. We do specifically ask that voters always vote as if a photo is legal, and ask for a DQ review if they question something. I do know that some don't follow this, and that can be frustrating.
There is also a technical issue; displaying both would essentially double the bandwidth needed during voting. There would also be no room on many folks' screens to display both images, and the best arrangement would depend on the image shape (landscape, portrait, square, etc.) so implementation would be very difficult.
Taken together, these issues would make it much more workable and desirable to reserve display of an original until after voting.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:15:00 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Thanks Scalvert for saying that. Sadly, that does happen. And usually when people state such I'e watched them get jumped down the throat. But it is really frustrating when you take a naturally composed photo and get nailed for digital art when what you really did was compose a novel or creative shot.
|
The interesting question to me is - what's the difference ? Why does the process mater ? In most cases it would be harder to do in photoshop anyway - so why is that considered 'cheating' yet setting it up (which is possibly easier) and shooting it correctly is considered the more skillful option ?
Both require good skills to carry off well - different skills, but I don't really see why one is held high and the other decried.
It increasingly seems totally arbitary to me - shouldn't the end result matter more than the means of achieving it ? Otherwise you are off in to the twaddle of a whole lot of modern art, where the process is more important than the end result. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:29:24 PM · #36 |
This pops up periodically and I have to say that aside from just drawing an entire image in PS without a camera, there is very little that PS can do that cannot be done in a darkroom by a skilled technician. What PS accomplishes, for the most part, is that it puts that capability in the hands of a much wider crowd. Unsharp Mask is actually named after a darkroom technique. People have been re-touching film, altering prints and the like, almost from the day photgraphy was born. Why is leveraging this enhanced capability wrong? It's like if I'm creating an image for display or an image for a client, I have free reign in PS, but to create an image for DPC, I have to tie my hands behind my back and type with my feet.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:40:42 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
This pops up periodically and I have to say that aside from just drawing an entire image in PS without a camera, there is very little that PS can do that cannot be done in a darkroom by a skilled technician. What PS accomplishes, for the most part, is that it puts that capability in the hands of a much wider crowd. Unsharp Mask is actually named after a darkroom technique. People have been re-touching film, altering prints and the like, almost from the day photgraphy was born. Why is leveraging this enhanced capability wrong? It's like if I'm creating an image for display or an image for a client, I have free reign in PS, but to create an image for DPC, I have to tie my hands behind my back and type with my feet. |
I still think DPC should keep the basic and advanced editing rules, but the addition of a third tier would let you and others be more creative. I don't see why there couldn't be a weekly challenge at this level, and it's not like anyone would be forced to do a lot of post processing--just whatever the photographer felt was necessary to make his/her shot the best it can be.
edit because I can't type!
Message edited by author 2006-01-11 16:41:53. |
|
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: 09/01/2025 01:44:38 AM EDT.
