| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 09:22:17 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
If dodge, burn and masking is to be allowed under a set of rules then completely dodging, burning and/or masking out what now is called a "major element" probably should be allowed to. I did it in my little darkroom. |
IMO, what you did or didn't do in your darkroom is irrelevant. Just because you can do something in the darkroom does not mean it should be legal here at DPC. It's possible to sandwich two negatives together in the enlarger to make a composite, but that's not legal here at DPC, and shouldn't be. Editing in the "digital darkroom" is completely different and should be treated as such.
------------------------------------------------------
In my view, tools that enhance the original photograph without creating/removing a major element should be allowed, and not much else. Minor cloning of imperfections and dodging/burning are fine for Advanced editing.
I would like it to be illegal to significantly shift color values. For example, I saw this before-and-after series in a recent "How was it done?" thread:
 
I cite these photos merely to discuss my view. Personally, I would consider this digital art. The color was not present in the original even in the least degree and new color was created in its place. I think there should be something in the major elements clause concerning when and to what extent color shifting is ok. When the added/shifted color creates the entire impact of the shot, I would consider that a major element, such as EddyG's "RGB Smoke."
Thoughts? |
Then B/W photography would be illegal also. After all you are adding shades of grey in place of color. |
Converting to B/W is perfectly fine (removal of color alltogether)- but taking a B/W photo and "painting" in colors is digital art, IMO.
For example, what if I converted a landscape photo to B/W, then changed the grass to blue, the sky to green, and the trees to purple with yellow spots. Then I inverted the colors. I'm pretty sure under the current rules this would be legal. Although no objects are changed (only the attributes), I would still consider it digital art. I don't like the idea of "alter the attributes of the objects all you want so long as no objects are added or removed." There needs to be limits concerning the alteration of an object's attributes. |
I was just responding to the comments I quoted and according to that black/white photography wouldn't be allowed unless it was an "exception" to the rule.
Oh and btw, black and white photography IS art and if you convert it in photoshop to black/white guess what? It becomes digital art! It's no different than your example:
Green grass converted to pink = digital art
Green grass converted to gray = not digital art?
That makes no sense. What makes sense is both are digital art as neither represent reality.
Lets face it, when you pull your photo into photoshop and do more than just fix the white balance or clone out the sensor dust you are turning your photo into digital art. Plain and simple. I know how nasty that term has become but that's what it is. Use neatimage, it's digital art. Use USM (that's noticable) it's digital art. Use dodge/burn (that's noticable), it's digital art, etc., etc.
Your beef, like everyone else on your side is that you just don't like certain styles and you want those banned. Which I don't understand since we already have basic editing. If you guys really wanted to be "traditional" get rid of advance editing altogether but I see nobody requesting that. It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Traditional photography and advance editing don't jive.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 21:24:44. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:32:21 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While you have shown a proof of concept here Shannon, I doubt it would matter in the real world. Neither picture you show would do well with the voters. Perhaps someone could gaussian a nice DOF background, but they never look as nice as the real thing and perhaps it's fine as many P&S are not capable of that type of DOF anyway (giving the dSLRs an advantage). I remain of the opinion that a yea or nay approach to filters will lead to the least complaining about SC decisions. |
Exactly, which is why it seems we are creating a mountain out of a mole hill. It's as if we don't trust voters to deterimine what is a good image. Might as well just have a few panel judges vote and nobody else. That would make it the easiest.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 21:33:20. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:32:53 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps someone could gaussian a nice DOF background, but they never look as nice as the real thing and perhaps it's fine as many P&S are not capable of that type of DOF anyway |
I did exactly that with one of my early entries and it finished in the top 20 (and I wasn't using a P&S camera). I'm just sayin' if it can be used, it can be abused, and the voters wouldn't necessarily know. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:34:11 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps someone could gaussian a nice DOF background, but they never look as nice as the real thing and perhaps it's fine as many P&S are not capable of that type of DOF anyway |
I did exactly that with one of my early entries and it finished in the top 20 (and I wasn't using a P&S camera). I'm just sayin' if it can be used, it can be abused, and the voters wouldn't necessarily know. |
So if the voters didn't know how is it getting abused? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:40:38 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So if the voters didn't know how is it getting abused? |
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:55:35 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
So if the voters didn't know how is it getting abused? |
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
personally I think that a good DOF using PS is harder than a good DOF using a dSLR. Getting a good separation from the subject is tough. With that said, I would be willing to allow this type of shot if it meant clear rules.
The problem as it stands is when you start with your original and then proceed to blur in 10% increments to your last one. Who is to say clearly which one qualifies as "over the line" and which doesn't? We are obviously having this problem with the motion blur filter, and I think the SC has egg on their face for it. The less the general user respects the SC, the worse we will all be. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:56:17 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
So if the voters didn't know how is it getting abused? |
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
But not everyone has cameras that can produce good DOF or motion blur. Also, there are a lot of things that are easier to do in-camera than outside of it so do those get a little more credit?
Obviously you guys can set whatever rules you want it's just the part about one way being better than the other that rubs me the wrong way. It's like I bought all of this photographic equipment and now some 16 year old can do the same thing at a fraction of the price all in post processing and now we need to stop him/her. Shouldn't the goal be to learn everything about photography and how to take a photo from A to B and not just teach us one way of doing it? I can understand if everyone here was a pro with pro equipment but that's just not the case here.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 21:59:53. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:10:13 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
So if the voters didn't know how is it getting abused? |
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
What's so hard about either DoF or Motion blur? Those are both BASIC camera skills!
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 22:16:23.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:23:27 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
I entirely agree with this sentiment.
The success of the camera effort depends greatly on the focal length and optics available to the photographer. Fortunately, for those not blessed with great optics, post processing can make up for it. That takes extra effort and deserves a little credit to IMO.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 22:24:12.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:29:25 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
I entirely agree with this sentiment.
The success of the camera effort depends greatly on the focal length and optics available to the photographer. Fortunately, for those not blessed with great optics, post processing can make up for it. That takes extra effort and deserves a little credit to IMO. |
It seems like you are contradicting the statement not supporting it. Scalvert was saying the in-camera effort should be rewarded, you seem to be saying that the extra effort it takes to created a DOF with PP should be given credit...am I missing something? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:32:37 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good use of DOF or motion blur can either be outstanding camera skill or a few minutes in PS. While I wouldn't necessarily punish the PS version, the extra camera effort deserves a little credit IMO. |
I entirely agree with this sentiment.
The success of the camera effort depends greatly on the focal length and optics available to the photographer. Fortunately, for those not blessed with great optics, post processing can make up for it. That takes extra effort and deserves a little credit to IMO. |
It seems like you are contradicting the statement not supporting it. Scalvert was saying the in-camera effort should be rewarded, you seem to be saying that the extra effort it takes to created a DOF with PP should be given credit...am I missing something? |
Yes... that is exactly what I am saying. I suggest that both require effort and should be equally rewarded. In this case post processing can make up for lack of superior optics.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 22:34:44.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:33:33 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What's so hard about either DoF or Motion blur? Those are both BASIC camera skills! |
I think some would rather learn how to post-process than shoot it right to start with. Too bad - the camera is the starting point for all masterpieces of photography. You have to get that right first.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:46:28 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What's so hard about either DoF or Motion blur? Those are both BASIC camera skills! |
I think some would rather learn how to post-process than shoot it right to start with. Too bad - the camera is the starting point for all masterpieces of photography. You have to get that right first. |
Some might. Some might also "choose" to add it in later since it gives you more options should you change your mind and decide less DOF is desireable. If you shoot it with a shallow DOF in camera there is no turning back unless you reshoot it again. It's all about work flow for some but I'll grant you there are probably some just looking for short cuts but who cares? As you said, those people aren't going to be producing masterpieces anyway.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 22:48:34. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:02:34 PM · #189 |
His aperture was set to f/3.2. For that camera, that's about as minimal as it gets.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:10:26 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What's so hard about either DoF or Motion blur? Those are both BASIC camera skills! |
I think some would rather learn how to post-process than shoot it right to start with. Too bad - the camera is the starting point for all masterpieces of photography. You have to get that right first. |
Some might. Some might also "choose" to add it in later since it gives you more options should you change your mind and decide less DOF is desireable. If you shoot it with a shallow DOF in camera there is no turning back unless you reshoot it again. It's all about work flow for some but I'll grant you there are probably some just looking for short cuts but who cares? As you said, those people aren't going to be producing masterpieces anyway. |
I was being a bit sarcastic about my post. Yes, they are both BASIC skills. But ... sometimes they don't work out in real situations. ie.. with a P&S camera shallow DoF is hard to get w/o using macro mode and motion blur is hard to achieve with a non-moving jet airplane.
In reality, post-processing such effect take much more time to do convincingly than it does to shoot the effect in-camera. DoF for example in a full-body portrait takes a bit more than blurring the whole background. You must, to make it convincing, decide on a plane of focus and then blur the background appropriately. The parts of the background that are on the same focal plane should be in focus. The background then should fade depending on the relation to the focal plane.
So yes, blurring backgrounds is easy, but doing it correctly is very difficult at times. I think voters would easily distinguish between real and fake (especially if the fake were not done very precisely).
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:18:05 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
So yes, blurring backgrounds is easy, but doing it correctly is very difficult at times. I think voters would easily distinguish between real and fake (especially if the fake were not done very precisely). |
Doing it well enough for you not to be able to tell is VERY hard and time consuming. There is no advantage to doing it in PP.
Some PP work is done very easily, but to do it well enough to fool people requires a real skill and lots of time.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:39:57 PM · #192 |
Why have editing at all? Why not let the photo speak for itself, untouched, in all its glory????
Simple. End of discussion, eh? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:42:00 PM · #193 |
here's just a thought but it think its practical.
anything and everything in raw can be used, this means things that are already allowed, and things like vignetts (only done in raw editing mode), and under both basic and adv. edits of corse.
_bran(edited to make more sence)do_
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 23:45:24.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 11:58:07 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Bosborne:
Why have editing at all? Why not let the photo speak for itself, untouched, in all its glory????
Simple. End of discussion, eh? |
Because a truly unedited photo looks like MUD, is why; it's a RAW file. ALL cameras that produce jpg files are producing edited files; you set the parameters of the editing in the camera's menu. There is no such thing as an "unedited" digital photograph, or not one that looks good anyway.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:05:47 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Bosborne:
Why have editing at all? Why not let the photo speak for itself, untouched, in all its glory????
Simple. End of discussion, eh? |
Because a truly unedited photo looks like MUD, is why; it's a RAW file. ALL cameras that produce jpg files are producing edited files; you set the parameters of the editing in the camera's menu. There is no such thing as an "unedited" digital photograph, or not one that looks good anyway.
R. |
To further expand on Bear's post ... there is no such thing as uneditted photography, period. All processing processes have some form of editting involved.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:08:18 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Bosborne:
Why have editing at all? Why not let the photo speak for itself, untouched, in all its glory????
Simple. End of discussion, eh? |
I think very few people would stick around if you had no editing. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 01:13:26 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
If dodge, burn and masking is to be allowed under a set of rules then completely dodging, burning and/or masking out what now is called a "major element" probably should be allowed to. I did it in my little darkroom. |
IMO, what you did or didn't do in your darkroom is irrelevant. Just because you can do something in the darkroom does not mean it should be legal here at DPC. It's possible to sandwich two negatives together in the enlarger to make a composite, but that's not legal here at DPC, and shouldn't be. Editing in the "digital darkroom" is completely different and should be treated as such.
------------------------------------------------------
In my view, tools that enhance the original photograph without creating/removing a major element should be allowed, and not much else. Minor cloning of imperfections and dodging/burning are fine for Advanced editing.
I would like it to be illegal to significantly shift color values. For example, I saw this before-and-after series in a recent "How was it done?" thread:
I cite these photos merely to discuss my view. Personally, I would consider this digital art. The color was not present in the original even in the least degree and new color was created in its place. I think there should be something in the major elements clause concerning when and to what extent color shifting is ok. When the added/shifted color creates the entire impact of the shot, I would consider that a major element, such as EddyG's "RGB Smoke."
Thoughts? |
Then B/W photography would be illegal also. After all you are adding shades of grey in place of color. |
Converting to B/W is perfectly fine (removal of color alltogether)- but taking a B/W photo and "painting" in colors is digital art, IMO.
For example, what if I converted a landscape photo to B/W, then changed the grass to blue, the sky to green, and the trees to purple with yellow spots. Then I inverted the colors. I'm pretty sure under the current rules this would be legal. Although no objects are changed (only the attributes), I would still consider it digital art. I don't like the idea of "alter the attributes of the objects all you want so long as no objects are added or removed." There needs to be limits concerning the alteration of an object's attributes. |
I was just responding to the comments I quoted and according to that black/white photography wouldn't be allowed unless it was an "exception" to the rule.
Oh and btw, black and white photography IS art and if you convert it in photoshop to black/white guess what? It becomes digital art! It's no different than your example:
Green grass converted to pink = digital art
Green grass converted to gray = not digital art?
That makes no sense. What makes sense is both are digital art as neither represent reality.
Lets face it, when you pull your photo into photoshop and do more than just fix the white balance or clone out the sensor dust you are turning your photo into digital art. Plain and simple. I know how nasty that term has become but that's what it is. Use neatimage, it's digital art. Use USM (that's noticable) it's digital art. Use dodge/burn (that's noticable), it's digital art, etc., etc.
Your beef, like everyone else on your side is that you just don't like certain styles and you want those banned. Which I don't understand since we already have basic editing. If you guys really wanted to be "traditional" get rid of advance editing altogether but I see nobody requesting that. It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Traditional photography and advance editing don't jive. |
Hmm...I think quite a few people here would disagree with you that B/W photography = digital art. I think it's hard to call shooting with B/W film "digital art."
And if I simply enhance what's already in a photo (adjust contrast, sharpen slightly, bring color out a bit) I would NOT call that digital art. It's called post-processing and has always been a fundamental part of photography.
I see nothing wrong with converting to B/W or even selective desaturation. All I'm saying is that I think there should be limits to color shifting. If the ENTIRE impact of a photo is brought out through color shifting, I would say a major element has been created that wasn't in the original. I'm not talking about color enhancement. I'm talking about complete color shifting.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 01:29:03 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
I see nothing wrong with converting to B/W or even selective desaturation. All I'm saying is that I think there should be limits to color shifting. If the ENTIRE impact of a photo is brought out through color shifting, I would say a major element has been created that wasn't in the original. I'm not talking about color enhancement. I'm talking about complete color shifting. |
Suit yourself, but this sort of stuff has been around at one level or another as long as there's been color photography. We used to do all sorts of weird things in color processing and printing. I don't know why this agitates people so. Let the voters have their say on the topic, why limit people on this? Is there no room for flights of fancy anymore?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 01:56:54 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't know why this agitates people so. Let the voters have their say on the topic, why limit people on this? Is there no room for flights of fancy anymore? |
I just don't understand why it is never considered a major element, no matter how far of an extent the shift is taken. And I'm not talking only about creating purple grass and a yellow sky and having the voters give it a 2. EddyG's RGB smoke certainly did quite well with the voters, and yet in my mind constitutes creation of a major element.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
but this sort of stuff has been around at one level or another as long as there's been color photography. We used to do all sorts of weird things in color processing and printing. |
I'm not buying this argument. I keep hearing "this effect is possible in the darkroom," but why should that even apply? Certainly there are effects achievable in the traditional darkroom that aren't and shouldn't be allowed on DPC. To say that a processing technique should be allowed on DPC simply because it can be done in the traditional darkroom is just plain silly IMO.
I'm not saying color shifting shouldn't be allowed at all. I just think there should be at least some limits - it should be done within reason and keep with photographic integrity. Certainly, if you want to shift the color of your sky from blue to violet, I have no problem with that.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:21:28 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Hmm...I think quite a few people here would disagree with you that B/W photography = digital art. I think it's hard to call shooting with B/W film "digital art." |
What I said was if you do it digitally it IS digital art. If this was film and you were converting it after you shot it then it would be film art for lack of a better word. It surely wouldn't be realism, which is what I'm getting at and the problem people have with digital art.
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
And if I simply enhance what's already in a photo (adjust contrast, sharpen slightly, bring color out a bit) I would NOT call that digital art. It's called post-processing and has always been a fundamental part of photography.
I see nothing wrong with converting to B/W or even selective desaturation. All I'm saying is that I think there should be limits to color shifting. If the ENTIRE impact of a photo is brought out through color shifting, I would say a major element has been created that wasn't in the original. I'm not talking about color enhancement. I'm talking about complete color shifting. |
And that's fine if you feel there should be limits based upon your personal preferences of which others share no doubt but lets end it there because then you go on and try to define what digital art is and we are suddenly back to where we started. Your definition also applies 100% to photos converted to black and white in photoshop. How is converting green, blue and pink in a photo to black, gray and white NOT color shifting? How is it not extreme color shifting? Black, gray and white are also colors, which was introduced after the fact. Also, if the entire image has color and you turn it all to black and white how is that NOT adding a major element to the photo as you define it? It surely wasn't there to begin with hence it was added.
And that's the whole problem. You can't define what digital art is without indirectly calling other things digital art. The line that separates a photo from digital art is different for EVERYBODY so trying to have a rule based on that is foolish, IMO. Either you call it digital art the way I see it (i.e. 99% of postprocessing in photoshop = digital art) or you stop trying to use digital art as a basis for setting the advance rules.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 02:24:37. |
|
