| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2006 12:50:06 AM · #26 |
Let put Ansel Adams apart from this discussion.
Here is an interesting thread, there are some samples that cannot be qualified as photographs in my opinion.
thread before & after
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 12:55:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bridog:
How about a true Digital Photo challenge. Not a Photoshop challenge. Set your camera on 640X480 take a pic and post it. Maybe ad a subject mater to keep us focused. |
We did that already and all I did was go to a perfectly great place to take pictures and screwed most of them by taking a bunch of lousy sepias, solarized and reversed imaged shots that would not need editing but would work in a challenge. I kick myself now for all those wasted frames.
In the digital world post processing IS photography. Best to own up to that fact. Digital cameras are lousy at capturing rich colors. The results are flat images. I suppose teaching that lesson again is OK, but I don't need it.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 08:00:15 AM · #28 |
Message edited by author 2006-02-11 08:02:47. |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 08:03:23 AM · #29 |
| just plain bad idea sorry mate:( |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 08:15:49 AM · #30 |
An idea that has come up so many times must have at least some merit to it.
Personally, I like the idea. I don't think it matters what your camera is capable of vs. someone else's camera...after all, we're certainly not on "equal footing" in any challenge, are we? Those with fancy lenses and great zooms or macros or fast speeds already have an advantage over those who don't. I know, I know "it's not the camera, but the photographer." I'm just trying to point out that the argument about camera capabilities really isn't a consistant or logical argument against the OP's suggestion.
I don't know if we'll ever see such a challenge, but there does appear to be many folks interested. Those who aren't interested in the suggestion don't have to enter (just like any other challenge.) That doesn't make the suggestion any less valid. |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 08:29:29 AM · #31 |
| I like the idea. It would be nice for us point and shoot owners to have the upper hand in equipment for a change! I'd probably still bomb out but it would be fun to try it. |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 08:33:03 AM · #32 |
Because my camera doesn't shoot at 640xsomething pixels I just resized it to 640wide from the 6mp original and added a little bit of sharpening to correct for the resampling softness and the fact that my camera has the sharpening set to very soft. I even used the basic jpeg for this, not the original raw file.
The challenge idea: why not? You can run it as a basic challenge and when someone doesn't want to participate he can pick the other challenge. But you should allow resizing and USM. There is no point in creating a great photo, only to have it as a 640px file, that is a total waste of time.
How are you going to enforce the special challenge rule? People already feel the need to cheat in the normal challenges......
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 08:54:07 AM · #33 |
"How about a true Digital Photo challenge. Not a Photoshop challenge. Set your camera on 640X480 take a pic and post it. Maybe ad a subject mater to keep us focused."
I think that's a marvie idea! Once you go to any Photoshop manipulations, the playing field becomes tilted. It's worth a try.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 09:16:33 AM · #34 |
Hmmm... No offense intended in the least but...
I find it amusing that anyone assumes that someone who is good at photoshop is not good at taking a decent image out of camera. In fact, I would argue that some of the best photographers here are photographers first, editors second. Making a challenge no editing does not make it a more even playing field and in fact, I would argue that it unbalances the playing field even further. The best photographs here are composed and lit (or shadowed if you prefer) well. The creator may enhance the image with photoshop but the bones are there to start with. I don't think there will be much change in the scoring or placement of anyone.
Also, cameras which allow 'in camera' tricks/edits like IR, B&W, Sepia, color balance correction, etc. are edits none-the-less. Just because it occurs in camera doesn't make it any less of an edit.
Gauging photographer skill by the amount (or lack of) post editing he/she does is like gauging a writer's skill by a hand written rough draft. It might be better than a less skilled person but a rough draft is a rough draft.
If you are going to have a no-edit challenge you have to make the playing field completely level: no in-camera color balance, no in camera sharpening, no special in camera gimmicks. Then all images will be judged solely on composition, subject matter, and use of light. |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 10:01:33 AM · #35 |
I have to disagree with you dahkota. I just think that it is OK to use the options of the camera. Contrast, sharpening, hue and WB are not what I called intensive PP. At least to a certain extent, of course, it depends on the weather conditions, on the subject, on the lighting. Nowadays, I strongly suspect that people does not seem to care about those parameters, and think it is OK to make the photo look very different after PP with Photoshop (or other computer tools). I think people became more dependent on those artifacts, and could not find their way out. Look at the thread posted above, there are some great samples.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 10:45:13 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
I have to disagree with you dahkota. I just think that it is OK to use the options of the camera. Contrast, sharpening, hue and WB are not what I called intensive PP. At least to a certain extent, of course, it depends on the weather conditions, on the subject, on the lighting. Nowadays, I strongly suspect that people does not seem to care about those parameters, and think it is OK to make the photo look very different after PP with Photoshop (or other computer tools). I think people became more dependent on those artifacts, and could not find their way out. Look at the thread posted above, there are some great samples. |
Okay, if contrast, sharpening, hue, and WB are acceptible edits for a challenge, what difference does it make if its done in camera or out?
I can take 100 images of the same thing changing my in camera editing a little bit at a time to get exactly what I want to show in camera or, I can take 1 shot and do the same editing in any image processor. Since, in many circumstances you only have one chance at a shot, you are better off in post-editing than in pre-editing.
I take pictures for a newspaper. I cannot tell people, particularly in the middle of a speech, a dunk shot, or any other activity, to hold the pose for 3 minutes or stop the action (mid-air even) while I get my parameters adjusted so I don't have to edit after the fact. I set them as best I can (I work in RAW so all I mess with is exposure and aperature), say a little prayer, and start shooting.
Assuming that all post processing is extreme does many photographers a disservice. Some people do use a lot. Others don't. Some people use a lot of make-up, others don't. Some people use a lot of ketchup, others don't.
I would be all for a no editing challenge. I just want it to be truly no editing. I don't accept the idea that post processing done in camera is somehow better, truer, or more real than post processing in an image editor. Post processing is post processing.
I can post process in my camera as well as anyone else. I choose not to as I think I have better vision and understanding of what I want then my camera does. That's all. |
|
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: 09/19/2025 07:07:34 PM EDT.
