| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2006 09:11:27 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by Falc:
If you go look at my pbase portfolio I don't think you will call it a digital art portfolio. |
Well it all depends on what the definition of "digital art" is? One of your photos called "Bluebells Abstract" looks like digital art to me. Yeah you did it in-camera, a "digital" camera as opposed to accomplishing it in photoshop, but who cares? If you think that isn't digital art then at the very least you have to agree it's "camera art". The scene you saw didn't look like that and the net effect looks like a painting not a photograph.
Which leads me to reiterate as I have before that this whole issue isn't about what is or isn't digital art because MOST of the photos on this site are digital art images to some degree. The only exceptions are the ones that depict what was actually seen when the photo was taken. Making adjustments to boost the accuracy of the photo is not digital art but that's the extent of the editing you can do. Anything more and your image starts to become digital art. That's where the line in the sand needs to be if the goal is to restrict digital art. Otherwise you get into a personal preference debate on how much is too much and for that you might as well allow everything and just let the voters decide. And btw, the voters do a great job. Last time I checked they are 100% effective in awarding top rankings to worthy images. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 09:27:33 PM · #277 |
Seems pretty simple to me.
Digital art starts, and has most of it's basis beginning on the computer.
Digital photography starts, and has most of it's basis in a Camera.
The line gets blurry between those two extreems, thus the need for defined and clear rules.
When the final product is more a function of the computer than a function of anything you captured in camera, you've turned your photography into a digital creation. Where that line is in question as soon as you download and start editing.
The point is, Digital Photography and Digital art do intersect, are not mutually exclusive, but are not fully inclusive of each other either.
Your argument about the scene not actually looking like that or whatever doesn't wash, because you can to the same thing with films. And those are not digital art to begin with are they? I think you'd have to say no, not until you take it, scan it, and beat it into submission in PS.
- edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 21:36:32. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:33:52 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Your argument about the scene not actually looking like that or whatever doesn't wash, because you can to the same thing with films. And those are not digital art to begin with are they? I think you'd have to say no, not until you take it, scan it, and beat it into submission in PS.
- edited for clarity. |
I agree with your other points. To clarify on this one, no that wouldn't be digital art. My point is more general and not medium specific. I refer to digital art because that's what we are concern with here. If this was film, I'd be saying the same thing about extreme uses of dodge/burn, applying paint on film or whatever. The second you decide that I rather make my image more pleasing to the eye than accurate it becomes art, IMO. And that's fine but if the goal is to draw a line in the sand as to when a digital photo becomes digital art that's where it would need to be placed. Personally, I think basic editing does that which is why changing the advance rules makes little sense in this regard.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 01:38:22. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 08:00:01 PM · #279 |
Sensor dust!
It's a real problem in Basic Editing for those of us with fixed lenses. If I could just clone that little imperfection away, the world would be a better place :)
Otherwise, I think the rules are fine. I agree with others who believe basic editing should stay basic. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 02:31:16 PM · #280 |
I would like to see the submission size increase from the current 640 pixels... even 800 would be better.
It can be really difficult to see the finer details in the small image size.
Just my 2 cents...
Kevin. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 02:39:28 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by luv2flyfish:
I would like to see the submission size increase from the current 640 pixels... even 800 would be better.
It can be really difficult to see the finer details in the small image size.
Just my 2 cents...
Kevin. |
Lets keep this to actual editing rules for now.... that is a whole other can of worms.
Basically, most people are still viewing/voting with 1024x768 resolutions. It's crazy, but true. So that won't change for a while. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 02:53:24 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by luv2flyfish:
I would like to see the submission size increase from the current 640 pixels... even 800 would be better.
It can be really difficult to see the finer details in the small image size. |
Basically, most people are still viewing/voting with 1024x768 resolutions. It's crazy, but true. So that won't change for a while. |
This is true... it is already hard to find enough screen real estate to properly view DPC images. Increasing the size now only makes that problem worse.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 02:54:50 PM · #283 |
I would like to see the draft rules circulated for a few days before they were implemented. There are a lot of able-drafters on the site, and you would be excluding a free resource if the rules were simply handed down as a fait accompli.
Message edited by author 2006-02-18 12:09:20.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 03:07:26 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would like to see the draft rules circulated for a few days before they were implemented. There are a lot of able-drafters on the site, and you would be excluding a free resource if the rules were simply handed down as a fête accomplis. |
Or even as a fait accompli, for that matter...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 03:09:25 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would like to see the draft rules circulated for a few days before they were implemented. There are a lot of able-drafters on the site, and you would be excluding a free resource if the rules were simply handed down as a fête accomplis. |
Or even as a fait accompli, for that matter...
R. |
I was trying to bite my tounge :-D |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 03:55:00 PM · #286 |
I would like to completely concur with wavelength here, and well said.
Further, the site does offer times for the extremes also -
Even on the matter of sensor dust, though I just as compassionate as any how it affects the shots we take, it would be just about impossible to control "rule wise" and, worse yet, the never ending having for admin to make judgements to every piece of dust. When it comes to dust its just the way it is.
You know one of the best shots I have ever blown up is from 6x7 film, its a 70x80 hanging in a famous hotel - who's too know that there was/is a huge hair thing right in the image. Short of doing extremely difficult neg air brush work, it is what it is.
In a nutshell - the basic editing rules are good spirited, it is in the light of the purist, and has its place. If on the other hand some want to be able to do the other editing tasks, well then you don't have to take part in every challenge - obviously not one of the rules!
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 12:12:09 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would like to see the draft rules circulated for a few days before they were implemented. There are a lot of able-drafters on the site, and you would be excluding a free resource if the rules were simply handed down as a fête accomplis. |
Or even as a fait accompli, for that matter...
R. |
I was trying to bite my tounge :-D |
Has been bothering me since I posted it - was in a hurry and didn't think that it looked right. Realised when I got home from work what the proper spelling was and slept badly as I was thinking about it...!
|
|
|
|
06/21/2006 02:14:46 PM · #288 |
| Just curious f this is still being worked on or if anything ever came of it all. |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 02:17:47 PM · #289 |
| OH dang...... you got me all excited there for a minute!!! ;-) |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 02:20:53 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
OH dang...... you got me all excited there for a minute!!! ;-) |
I knew I'd get a few people all stirred up when they saw the green.
Sorry follks, nothing to see here, move along ;) |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 02:21:05 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Just curious f this is still being worked on or if anything ever came of it all. |
Yes. |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 02:28:09 PM · #292 |
| Sorry, I don´t know if this has been mentioned: what about the removal of hot pixels in long expositions?. This things can´t be cleaned and can be easily checked by the site administrators (with a dark long shot). |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 03:11:26 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by anireno:
what about the removal of hot pixels in long expositions? |
That's being addressed in the rules update. |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 03:15:26 PM · #294 |
I agree!
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I'll take the opposite view and say no cloning of sensor dust should be permitted in basic.
If someone is concerned enough about sensor dust then they should clean their sensor. It only takes a couple of minutes.
Keep basic editing as basic as possible.
bazz. |
|
|
|
|
06/21/2006 03:20:26 PM · #295 |
| 4 months later. Is this still being debated within SC? Should be nearly ready to post (rules update) by now - yes/no? |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 03:23:02 PM · #296 |
yes, still being discussed/debated
dunno about when it will be "live" (karmat, the user, hopes SOON)
|
|
|
|
06/24/2006 04:46:20 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by fadedbeauty:
I saw that someone else suggested being able to put some kind of watermark on the images. I think this is a good idea as right now there is nothing to keep someone from stealing a photo. Not that it is a perfect solution since there are ways around it, but at least disable the right click function on the site. |
How would we do this and still have anonymous entries?
~Terry |
Well, you use the same watermark on all the entries on the site. An embedded watermark from one of the suppliers of this technology. Some of these suppliers crawl the web looking for violations of copyright by finding photos with these watermarks. The WM could be the same on all pictures, then only one account is needed for all of DPC. Then the only cost factor is the volume pricing of this WM service.
Obviously this would be provided only to paying members. Cheapskates like myself would have to do without.
Walt |
|
|
|
06/24/2006 04:50:25 PM · #298 |
This may be off topic but:
Is there any chance of a no "price policing" rule for FS/FT type threads? Buying and selling should be between the seller and the potential buyers, and those who don't like the offered deal should not be trying to disrupt the sales or bargaining process.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
06/24/2006 04:55:23 PM · #299 |
As long as there is a call for suggestions....
How many times have you taken a photo that you really like and then a challenge is announced which would fit that photo perfectly? But, darn it, you took the photo too soon! Suppose the grace period for 'date taken' was extended to include one week prior to the challenge announcement? Now there would be a two week window; still announce a challenge every week so there are the same number of challenges.
Any thoughts, pro or con? |
|
|
|
06/24/2006 04:55:48 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
This may be off topic but:
Is there any chance of a no "price policing" rule for FS/FT type threads? Buying and selling should be between the seller and the potential buyers, and those who don't like the offered deal should not be trying to disrupt the sales or bargaining process.
Thanks. |
I half agree with you?
I think the price should be listed but no one is allowed to bitch about the price publically.
Message edited by author 2006-06-24 16:55:55.
|
|
