| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 04:19:10 PM · #1 |
i will start off by saying that i just started taking digital photos and am definitely an inexperienced photographer.
however, a lot of these photos that people are posting (and winning with) look very artificial due to all the digital editing that is being done to them.
what do you think????
Message edited by author 2006-03-30 21:54:20. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:20:52 PM · #2 |
Dodging and burning are allowed, just not under the Basic Editing ruleset.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:21:24 PM · #3 |
| Dodging and burning isn't allowed under the basic editing rules. It is perfectly accepteable in the member challenges however. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:21:39 PM · #4 |
| I think that the longer you are a member of this site, the better your own skills will grow as well as your understanding of what is and what isn't acceptable editing techniques for the challenges. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:25:31 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
... however, a lot of these photos that people are posting (and winning with) look very artificial due to all the digital editing that is being done to them. ...
what do you think???? |
I think you are right, a lot of them do look phoney.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:26:38 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
however, a lot of these photos that people are posting (and winning with) look very artificial due to all the digital editing that is being done to them.
what do you think???? |
I think it may be true for some, but isn't for others. For example:
Hopefully you will agree that's an excellent shot and deserving of the win. Scroll down in the comments to see a thumb of the original, complete with fencing over the bird's face. Only digital post processing could take care of that so effectively. And I think you'd agree that at the very least, that picture doesn't look artificial at all. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:32:57 PM · #7 |
Alot of photographers who never spent their weekends in a darkroom, imagine the good old days when people didn't do all this fancy editing, and a photograph was made in the camera by the skill of the shooter alone.
Of course those of us whose fingernails used to smell of fixative all the time know that there was just as much editing in the days of chemicals as there is today in the time of pixels. A "pure" Ansel Adams print looks natural because the artifice of the dark room was carried on at a very high level, and the same is true today. Good editing ought to be transparent.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:34:11. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:33:00 PM · #8 |
yes louis, but thats just what im talking about.
cloning out a fence????
thats like taking a Yugo, putting BMW decals over the Yugo decals, and calling it a BMW.
artificial right down to the core. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:33:03 PM · #9 |
There is no set way a photo "should" look. Black and white photography "looks" phony when you get down to it. It's certainly not accurate nor is sepia, E6 C-41 cross processing, etc. Some people strive for accuracy others strive for a more artistic look. It doesn't make any one better than the other. DPC is about digital photography and not just photojournalism.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:34:26.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:35:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
yes louis, but thats just what im talking about.
cloning out a fence????
thats like taking a Yugo, putting BMW decals over the Yugo decals, and calling it a BMW.
artificial right down to the core. |
Umm ok. He took a picture of a bird. Didn't realize removing the fence changed the fact that this is a picture of a bird.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:37:05.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:38:23 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
artificial right down to the core. |
We are talking about representing a three dimentional world by means of placing pixels or pigments on a two dimensional matrix. This whole medium of photography is artificial. There are questions of how much manipulation is allowable before the representation breaks down and no worthwhile information can be conveyed, but there is nothing natural about photography.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:42:15. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:38:47 PM · #12 |
| That brings up an interesting point. Is it the skill at taking the picture or the skill of the person manipulating "Photo Shop" I would like to see all the top three winners have to post the original afterward so people can learn that maby they dont suck taking pictures maby they just suck at "Photo Shop" Seeing the originals would be a great learning aid for most they can then see what potention there work may have with time and effort put into learning the tooles of the trade. But you must always remember if you like what you take then learn how to present it. Most of the people in here over 35 probably didnt grow up with computers and learning how to use them is a new world in its own. And untile you master the computer it is hard to win in here. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:41:23 PM · #13 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:42:04. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:41:33 PM · #14 |
For real. I wouldn't start judging other people's entries before you know the whole story. For instance this red ribbon winner of mine, was not edited one bit! See I set up this shot with my sextuplet brethren all taking there precious time to help me execute it. I want to publicly thank them for that. Digital manipulation sucks, Agreed!
note: this was ridiculously edited. I like photographs, whether simple, complex, hyper or pseudo-realistic. A good image resounds.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:43:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by holdingtime:
Most of the people in here over 35 probably didnt grow up with computers and learning how to use them is a new world in its own. |
Hey you are making me feel old. I turn 34 in July. :) Btw, I grew up using computers and had them in school. Those Apple IIe's were the bomb back then. lol
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:43:51 PM · #16 |
Now here is an opportunity for a new type challenge. A Free Study - NO EDITING - No photoshop except to resize for web purposes. Take it to the extreme just to see what people can produce with camera alone.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:44:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
thats like taking a Yugo, putting BMW decals over the Yugo decals, and calling it a BMW.
artificial right down to the core. |
I think your analogy is closer to "he took a picture of a sparrow and turned into a hawk" |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:45:10 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by holdingtime:
Most of the people in here over 35 probably didnt grow up with computers and learning how to use them is a new world in its own. |
Hey you are making me feel old. I turn 34 in July. :) Btw, I grew up using computers and had them in school. Those Apple IIe's were the bomb back then. lol |
Amen brother. 33 here. And will walk all over these boys in a text based enviroment.
How many under 25 know how to write BASIC for Apple IIe?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:45:53 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
i will start off by saying that i just started taking digital photos and am definitely an inexperienced photographer.
however, a lot of these photos that people are posting (and winning with) look very artificial due to all the digital editing that is being done to them. |
Welcome to DPChallenge. Basically what you are discovering is something that some people are still in denial about.
Image post processing is as intimate a part of the future of digital photography as developing and printing was to film photography. It is here to stay. It will never go away. If you ever want to become a skilled photographer then you need to study and learn image post processing.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:46:36 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by holdingtime:
I would like to see all the top three winners have to post the original afterward so people can learn that maby they dont suck taking pictures maby they just suck at "Photo Shop" Seeing the originals would be a great learning aid for most they can then see what potention there work may have with time and effort put into learning the tooles of the trade. |
Since I doubt that you've seen all the originals, be prepared for the possibility that you may learn that the winners are not edited nearly as much as YOU think :)
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:47:07. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:47:10 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
thats like taking a Yugo, putting BMW decals over the Yugo decals, and calling it a BMW.
artificial right down to the core. |
I think your analogy is closer to "he took a picture of a sparrow and turned into a hawk" |
Yeah. It's more like he simply removed the decals from an existing BMW. Note, however, that Crabappl's winner was entered before the major elements clause was in place, and the same editing could very well be DQ'd under the current rules. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:49:51 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Now here is an opportunity for a new type challenge. A Free Study - NO EDITING - No photoshop except to resize for web purposes. Take it to the extreme just to see what people can produce with camera alone. |
You ARE aware that in the digital world the camera itself is an "editor" right? I can use my 20D in jpg mode to shoot B/W, sepia, low saturation, high saturation, low contrast, high contrast, any white balance I choose to dial in, low sharpness or high sharpness, whatever.
Or I can shoot in RAW and program any of these variations in after the fact as if it WERE the original, which in fact it IS. RAW represents the original, unadjusted image and it looks like mud. Every digital camera "edits" pictures so the RAW data becomes visually appealing, and nearly all of them allow you to vary the "editing" they do to attain different effects.
How is this preferable to doing it after exposure, when you can exert more control?
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 16:51:11.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:51:42 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dizzydean3:
however, a lot of these photos that people are posting (and winning with) look very artificial due to all the digital editing that is being done to them.
what do you think???? |
I think it may be true for some, but isn't for others. For example:
Hopefully you will agree that's an excellent shot and deserving of the win. Scroll down in the comments to see a thumb of the original, complete with fencing over the bird's face. Only digital post processing could take care of that so effectively. And I think you'd agree that at the very least, that picture doesn't look artificial at all. |
This brings up a good example of removing major elements...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:52:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by nards656:
...be prepared for the possibility that you may learn that the winners are not edited nearly as much as YOU think :) |
On the other hand, there have been a few that truly shocked me at how much beauty can be pulled from a modest original. Photography doesn't stop when your image is written to a media card any more than it did when you had a film negative. The capture is the most important part, but it's still just a part. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:53:45 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Every digital camera "edits" pictures so the RAW data becomes visually appealing, and nearly all of them allow you to vary the "editing" they do to attain different effects.
Robt. |
Same thing happens when you drop off your 35mm film to be processed too. 35mm negatives are flat compared to prints.
|
|
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: 06/27/2025 07:47:37 PM EDT.
