| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2003 05:24:28 PM · #1 |
It is my understanding that the rules of DPC are in place to promote actual photography rather than Photoshop-graphy.
Still, it seems that more and more these rules have been stretched to the degree that the question 'how did they do that?' has boiled down to 'how did they Photoshop that?'
I found strong proof for that point with my last submission to 'dreams and nightmares'.
I have taken this picture of a tall sailship through my telescope, as is clearly visible. Since I have a simple compact type digital camera I cannot apply a long-focus telelens (would have been much easier).
Almost all commenters supposed that the round vignetting effect (and other effects that are due to the telescope) were Photoshop results. To start with, they supposed that this was a circular crop. I don't know how to do a circular crop within the rules of DPC. Still no one has asked for a DQ (to my knowledge).
What is happening here? Are we here to improve our photography or to learn how to manipulate pictures?
I do not want to suppress the use of Photoshop or like programs, I use it myself, I have learned a lot here on the site how to improve my pictures by adequate use of Photoshop. Still, I would like to think that the submissions to DPC are what they should be: pictures of reality rather than fictitious results where pictures have been entered into a workflow, ending up as masterpieces of digital art.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2003 05:41:50 PM · #2 |
I just looked at the comments. I couldn't find one commenter that mentioned "Photoshop" - perhaps you were thinking of a different picture?
I've used this effect many times. Nobody has commented about Photoshop to me. |
|
|
|
10/14/2003 06:05:22 PM · #3 |
I used 'Photoshop' to mean any editing program (it is the one most used one this site). Fact remains:
How can you do a circular crop within the rules of DPC?
Furthermore, look at the following (edited out) comments that all imply that the telescope effect was an effect obtained by editing rather than just what it is, a view through a telescope:
"in some ways i like the circular crop, because it looks like looking through a looking glass. but at the same time i think it would look better if it weren't cropped on the top and bottom."
"Interesting effect; I like it. The view through the 'telescope' is dream like and engaging."
"Very cool.... reminds me of a pirate on a ship looking through his "spyglass" at another pirate ship. Excellent coloring to make it even more realistic!!"
"There's too much haze in this photo which is enhanced by the circle formed by the large black areas. I think it would be better cropped to remove the circle and the contrasts enhanced."
"Maybe if you coulda moved around a bit or done more with the 'cropping'... "
"is a nice ship. Wish the circle had not been cropped. feels like it is in the mist though."
See my point?
|
|
|
|
10/14/2003 06:19:39 PM · #4 |
John,
Please understand that the following is only a guess and opinion as I am not one of the individuals who commented.
I think you and your commenters may be using the same word(s) to define things differently.
In each case where they speak of the "circular crop", I think they simply mean the way that the main portion of the image is seen in a circle -- the vignetting -- not that they think you actualy cropped anything using a circular tool in photoshop. The telescope itself is doing the cropping and they're recognizing this.
In other cases, I think some of them want you to either crop in tighter to remove the vignetting completely (legal Photoshop practice at DPC), or to have taken the shot from far enough away that the camera itself includes the entire circle created by the telescope, thus including the entire vignette.
But, as I said, I'm not one of these people and can't speak definitively for them. |
|
|
|
10/14/2003 06:32:29 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by johnmk:
"Interesting effect; I like it. The view through the 'telescope' is dream like and engaging." |
The person wouldnt know it was a telescope just by looking at it. There are numerous ways you could get the same effect, including either a telephoto lens or even a piece of black card in front of the camera. Just because the person used the word 'effect' does not mean that person was referencing an editing program effect. That said, they could have been referencing an editing program effect. It's ambiguous.
Originally posted by johnmk:
"Very cool.... reminds me of a pirate on a ship looking through his "spyglass" at another pirate ship. Excellent coloring to make it even more realistic!!" |
Again, the person saw what it was meant to represent, a spyglass. That does not mean they are implying it was done with the help of an editing program. The even more realistic comment could have even been because the person thought you had cut out a black circle and put it on top of a magazine/book picture of a ship.
Originally posted by johnmk:
"Maybe if you coulda moved around a bit or done more with the 'cropping'... "
"is a nice ship. Wish the circle had not been cropped. feels like it is in the mist though." |
The top and the bottom of the circle is cropped, whether by a crop tool or the limitations of your camera view. The circle does not form a complete circle. To me that does not mean they are saying you did a circular crop, but that the square cropping of the circle cut off the top and the bottom arc of the circle.
Originally posted by johnmk:
See my point? |
Almost every week someone comes up with a unique (or at least unique to me) way of photographing something. A glass upside down in a water tank and the picture turned upside down to give the view it is toppling over, or a previous photograph placed inside a glass to make it look like someone is trapped inside it, mashed potato used in a picture of a sundae instead of ice cream to stop it from melting.. and many many others.
I would much rather people thought that other people on DPC are being clever with their unique takes on how to accomplish images than instantly assume they cheated by using editing software.
You admit to using a telescope to produce the effect you wanted and you are complaining that people didnt request a DQ? If someone thinks a photograph was taken in such a way that there is no way it could have been done without an editing program then I'm sure they request a DQ.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2003 07:05:15 PM · #6 |
Isaac used a similar effect on one of his old entries, but we tried to make sure people knew it was a telescope 
Message edited by author 2003-10-14 19:06:00. |
|
|
|
10/14/2003 07:23:59 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by johnmk:
"There's too much haze in this photo which is enhanced by the circle formed by the large black areas. I think it would be better cropped to remove the circle and the contrasts enhanced."
See my point? |
This was my comment. I don't see anything in it referring to a circular crop. I couldn't remember the word vignetting when I was doing the voting, so I called it black areas. I thought it was caused by a telephoto lens. In any case, I didn't think it was 'Photoshopped' in any way. I was suggesting you remove the vignetting by cropping to bring the focus on the ship. I feel the vignetting just distracts from the photo.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2003 08:18:32 PM · #8 |
I was pretty sure when I saw it that it was done by looking through a telescope and not in Photoshop. I never implied otherwise in my comment and voted accordingly. I only wished that the entire image circle had been present.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2003 10:34:22 PM · #9 |
Not to open a can of worms, but I actually used a circular crop, had a DQ request, submitted the original (circular) uncropped image for verification, and was not DQ'd.
If the original image is circular, e.g. circular fisheye or circular vignette such as this photo, then it's narural to use a circular, not rectangular crop.
I think this image would be best with the entire circle within the frame. I'm conflicted as to whether a circular crop would add to the photo or not...
|
|
|
|
10/14/2003 10:49:06 PM · #10 |
seems you need to give the folks here a little more credit:)
Message edited by author 2003-10-14 22:50:12.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2003 04:13:27 PM · #11 |
OK, this is not to bump the thread but to end it gracefully, since I started it. The discussion on the New side of the Ocean went on longer than I could follow, I try to sleep when the server time goes beyond 6:30 pm or so.
I see your points and I think that Patella made a good observation: words may not mean what they seem to mean in a different setting.
My mistake, I'm sorry. I did not intend to be rude to those that commented on my picture, I just tried to get into their eyes and minds to understand what they saw (or did not see) in the picture and what their thinking was. Obviously I couldn't. End of story.
|
|
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: 09/20/2025 07:00:23 PM EDT.
