DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> "Road" results recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 151 - 159 of 159, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/25/2006 07:29:00 PM · #151
larus made a faulty assumption, but all of the clues provided do indeed indicate that there were no limitations on raw editing. this is not his fault; it's ours.

that was my argument during the discussion of his image. there seems to be too much "learned knowledge" around here that really isn't that well-informed. it's like a gigantic game of telephone where you say something and then i repeat it and tell the next person and by the end of it the message is completely garbled. that's the issue with making these decisions in the forums only.

this is alleviated in a teeny tiny bit by showing dq'd images now instead of removing them from the site completely. however, i am personally frustrated with the lack of documented knowledge and am strenuously advocating that we (the sc) provide some kind of clarification to these things in general.

some are advocating changes to the ruleset to help clarify things. that might mean that some images that were legal before would not be so now (and vice-versa). i personally don't care HOW it's done, but we need to be more forthcoming with what is and is not allowed. i'm as frustrated by this situation as much as anyone, and i'm pushing for clarifications for everyone.
 01/25/2006 07:29:10 PM · #152
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO: Get rid of basic editing and make it all advanced.

Nah. It would be easier for the SC to administer the rules if we went the other way and did away with Advanced rules.

On a more serious note, it continues to amaze me how much difficulty some film photographers have in adjusting to this site. And how hard some users here try to bend things to fit their own personal tastes.

Here's a clue for some of you old time film guys - there is no darkroom anymore and nothing you ever did there should dictate what we do here in this digital photography community.
01/25/2006 07:30:52 PM · #153
Originally posted by coolhar:
Here's a clue for some of you old time film guys - there is no darkroom anymore and nothing you ever did there should dictate what we do here in this digital photography community.


i don't think that's fair. photography is photography. instead of burning our fingernails off with chemicals, we're inflicting carpal tunnel on ourselves with photoshop. the end result should still be relatively close.
 01/25/2006 07:39:53 PM · #154
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Here's a clue for some of you old time film guys - there is no darkroom anymore and nothing you ever did there should dictate what we do here in this digital photography community.


i don't think that's fair. photography is photography. instead of burning our fingernails off with chemicals, we're inflicting carpal tunnel on ourselves with photoshop. the end result should still be relatively close.

If your getting CTS you may want reconsider how much editing you do. Maybe your body is trying to tell you something. ;) My wrists are fine.

I say that in jest so as not to offend, but there is a serious message hiding in there. The site is suppose to be about educating people in the ways of digital photography. Why should we be tied to techniques used in the past in a previous medium? That stuff just doesn't apply the way some posters are trying to put it on us.
 01/25/2006 07:47:24 PM · #155
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Here's a clue for some of you old time film guys - there is no darkroom anymore and nothing you ever did there should dictate what we do here in this digital photography community.


i don't think that's fair. photography is photography. instead of burning our fingernails off with chemicals, we're inflicting carpal tunnel on ourselves with photoshop. the end result should still be relatively close.

If your getting CTS you may want reconsider how much editing you do. Maybe your body is trying to tell you something. ;) My wrists are fine.

I say that in jest so as not to offend, but there is a serious message hiding in there. The site is suppose to be about educating people in the ways of digital photography. Why should we be tied to techniques used in the past in a previous medium? That stuff just doesn't apply the way some posters are trying to put it on us.


I'm all ears Coolhar. Please tell me how techniques used in the past don't help with digital retouching today.

I wasn't. If he has extensive photographic knowledge about this topic, I'm all ears. Quit editing my damn posts. ;o)

Message edited by author 2006-01-25 20:08:58.
 01/25/2006 07:52:21 PM · #156
Originally posted by muckpond:
this is alleviated in a teeny tiny bit by showing dq'd images now instead of removing them from the site completely. however, i am personally frustrated with the lack of documented knowledge and am strenuously advocating that we (the sc) provide some kind of clarification to these things in general.


How about a database of all available DQ'd images? That would provide a great casebook, so to speak.
 01/25/2006 08:01:57 PM · #157
Deep breath, everyone.

While you are absolutely permitted and encouraged to debate the topic at hand, please try to do so without resorting to personal attacks, condescension, or namecalling.

For the most part everyone is adhering to that, and in the interest of a productive discussion I'd like to see that continue.

Thanks,
Terry
 01/25/2006 08:13:52 PM · #158
basic should be just that - basic.
download image - crop - rotate - curves - levels - resize - USM.

advanced editing - robust.
anything goes with the sole downloaded image - let the voters decide.

fewer grey areas, less frustration, less debate on rule interpretation.

i'll add that Laurus's image should be re-instated on grounds that his image falls in the midst of a previously undiscovered, yet very wide grey line, in hopes that in the future that line will be much narrower.

on the other hand - the 1st place image ( now DQ'd ) was in serious violation, and knowingly to boot. That should be a 'major' rule violation.

Message edited by author 2006-01-25 20:14:39.
 01/26/2006 06:58:30 AM · #159
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I just want to ask some questions here to demonstrate the difficulty in creating clear and understandable rules, or in trying to improve the wording of the rule set we have. The questions below are presented not to pick apart Robert's work here but to demonstrate some of the complexities involved. Robert, I trust you'll read these questions in that spirit and not take them personally.

- If I clone out a rock in a lake, replacing it with the water behind it, I removed a rock, but didn't I also add water? If I added water, isn't that illegal?

- If I crop to remove an object, can I then expand the canvas to add to the background and change the composition of the image?

~Terry

I hope you don't mind if I jump in on this -- but it just doesn't seem that difficult from these questions. From your questions I am assuming you are referring to the advanced editing rules, so I will restrict my answers to them. Specifically, they seem to center around the major elements clause -- this, I feel, is an understandable approach to what is otherwise a very vague rule. Please bear with me while I try and get my thoughts out as clearly as they are in. Also, keep in mind that I am aware this is not how major elements are currently determined -- but more on that later.

[cloning/removing]
There exists a canvas and on that canvas sits the image. In this case, the image contains a lake with a rock in it. The lake is an expanse {for lack of a better word}, and the rock an object within the expanse. Removing the object and filling the void with the expanse (or having the expanse encompass the object, if you prefer) is perfectly ok -- provided the object is not in use by the rest of the image.

What do I mean by 'in use'?
-- If a boat was moored to the rock -- it would be in use. The boat would be moored to water if it was removed -- that changes the image.
-- If a person was standing on the rock -- it would be in use. The person would appear to be standing on water (or levitating above it) without the rock. The removing fo the rock would make the image -- it wouldn't be physically possible without it being there.

In short, we (as photographers) take up the task of seeing a photographic opportunity while life marches forward. In the moment we raise the camera to the eye and snap the picture, we are rarely aware of every detail that is going on around us. It has been said that photography is a subtractive art form -- the photographer subtracts from the scene until it shows only what he intended it to show. So, by what is left in, the photographer's intention is clear -- at least in as far as he succeeds in portraying his intention. Removing anything and replacing it with the expanse it is within doesn't change the image as long as what remains is not dependant upon what was removed.

There are of course layers of expanses, each an object within a larger expanse -- but the over-riding criteria would be 'do the elements of the final image depend upon the element removed for their current state', as the photographer intended to display it.

Yes, as I said, this is different than it is now, but this is understandable. The current definition of major element as 'that which an average person would mention if asked to describe the original' invites everyone to try to guess what each of the SC consider an average person -- and then guess what they will consider that average person to mention if asked to describe the original. What I have outlined allows a few things that have not been allowed, but disallows a few that have as well.

A few examples of the differences, that may also serve to clarify my thoughts;
-- Softbox. The subject is the young lady -- that is what he took the picture of; he made that clear by removing the softbox. The subject, while being lit by the softbox, does not depend on the softbox being exactly where it is -- it could have been further back and still lit her in that manner if a stronger light was used. Removing the softbox did not change the obviously intended image. However, if the light had been placed between two models, with the source of the light on them obviously being within the frame -- removing it would not have been ok.
-- Juggling fruit. The subject is the gentleman and his fruit -- that is what was left in the image. However, if once the wires were removed, the image changed from hanging fruit to flying fruit. You can argue the wires were barely visible -- but their removal made the image what it was. Besides, if they were barely visible, why remove them. This also applies to the ladder suspended by ropes. The removal of the ropes made the image what it was.

[canvas]
The canvas holds the image -- it is not a part of it. Removing a part of the image to show the canvas beneath is adding the element of the canvas to the image. This would hold true regardless of if a portion of the image was erased to reveal the canvas (such as the pedicure that erased the livingroom) or the canvas extended beyond the edge of the image. The exception to this is a border -- but a border is a bounding object, distinctive from the image. If it is indistinguishable from the image it isn't a border.

Well, that is essentially my view of how to answer your questions -- which I'm sure will raise a few hackles. In any event, I'm off to bed.

David
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 08:03:49 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/07/2025 08:03:49 AM EDT.