DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Expert editing - Compare and contrast
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 72, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/22/2006 01:38:45 PM · #26
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ursula:

Are you saying you think it is "photographic in nature" because it met the deadline/agenda?


Well, both elements are photos, niether of which have any special editing on them. Each element (minus the zoom blur to the sky) is pretty much straight from the camera.


So the building blocks were photographs. It doesn't mean the end result is.

If you you built a house out of bricks, is the end result a brick ?
 12/22/2006 01:41:23 PM · #27
Originally posted by Gordon:

If you you built a house out of bricks, is the end result a brick ?


If you put together two blobs of clay is the end result not a blob of clay? ;-)
 12/22/2006 01:41:57 PM · #28
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ursula:

Are you saying you think it is "photographic in nature" because it met the deadline/agenda?


Well, both elements are photos, niether of which have any special editing on them. Each element (minus the zoom blur to the sky) is pretty much straight from the camera.


So the building blocks were photographs. It doesn't mean the end result is.

If you you built a house out of bricks, is the end result a brick ?


Keep your analogies straight.

If you build a house out of houses, is it still a house? Yes.
 12/22/2006 01:43:37 PM · #29
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:

If you you built a house out of bricks, is the end result a brick ?


If you put together two blobs of clay is the end result not a blob of clay? ;-)


Why is it that you don't want to come out straight and say, "Yes, I think it is photographic in nature." I'm not trying to start a fight, but I'm wondering why your answers are qualified.
 12/22/2006 01:47:47 PM · #30
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Keep your analogies straight.

If you build a house out of houses, is it still a house? Yes.


The analogy is straight. If you put photos together and produce a composite, its a collage, not a photo.
 12/22/2006 01:49:32 PM · #31
Originally posted by ursula:
but I'm wondering why your answers are qualified.


Yes I do. :-)

But, what sort of debate would we have if I just said that? ;-)
 12/22/2006 01:51:49 PM · #32
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Keep your analogies straight.

If you build a house out of houses, is it still a house? Yes.


The analogy is straight. If you put photos together and produce a composite, its a collage, not a photo.


Interesting. So all composites in the challenge were violations of 'photographic in nature' then?

I really don't understand this debate, though it is fun to watch the pot boil.

It was good to see the ribbon winners were advanced editing photos with the sole exception to that being a photo that would be adv aediting if the multiple expousre injustice was addressed.
 12/22/2006 01:52:39 PM · #33
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ursula:
but I'm wondering why your answers are qualified.


Yes I do. :-)

But, what sort of debate would we have if I just said that? ;-)


Oh, still the same debate, "compare and contrast ....". But we'd know exactly where you stand. :)

I might add, if I were being totally, totally picky, I'd consider the ":-)" a qualifier. :-)

12/22/2006 01:52:54 PM · #34
Originally posted by Gordon:

The analogy is straight. If you put photos together and produce a composite, its a collage, not a photo.


collage:
An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted over a surface, often with unifying lines and color.

hmmmm, nothing in that definition says not a photo to me...

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:53:34.
 12/22/2006 01:53:48 PM · #35
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Interesting. So all composites in the challenge were violations of 'photographic in nature' then?


Well their constituent parts were all photographic in origin. What photographic in nature actually means is something for smarter people than me to work out. I don't really know what it is supposed to mean.
 12/22/2006 01:54:11 PM · #36
I am going to ask this here as well

is this real or fake?



I mean to say is it a Photograph?
 12/22/2006 01:54:46 PM · #37
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

collage:
An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted over a surface, often with unifying lines and color.

hmmmm, nothing in that definition says not a photo to me...


House: noun. a building in which people live; residence for human beings.

Nothing says it is not a photograph...
 12/22/2006 01:55:01 PM · #38
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

collage:
An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted over a surface, often with unifying lines and color.

hmmmm, nothing in that definition says not a photo to me...


Nothing says it is either, because its a collage, not a photo.


12/22/2006 01:56:41 PM · #39
hahaha... this post is degrading FAST!
 12/22/2006 01:56:52 PM · #40
Originally posted by candlerain:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

collage:
An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted over a surface, often with unifying lines and color.

hmmmm, nothing in that definition says not a photo to me...


House: noun. a building in which people live; residence for human beings.

Nothing says it is not a photograph...


Now THAT was funny :-D
 12/22/2006 01:58:57 PM · #41
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

collage:
An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted over a surface, often with unifying lines and color.

hmmmm, nothing in that definition says not a photo to me...


Nothing says it is either, because its a collage, not a photo.


OK, what materials or objects did I use? What surface did I paste them over? Where are my unifying lines or colors?
 12/22/2006 01:59:09 PM · #42
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Interesting. So all composites in the challenge were violations of 'photographic in nature' then?


Well their constituent parts were all photographic in origin. What photographic in nature actually means is something for smarter people than me to work out. I don't really know what it is supposed to mean.


Oh goodness. Smarter than you? You have like a dozen doctorates or something like that, and you're still a kid.

Seriously. I can't figure out what "photographic in nature" means. My inclination is to say something totally dumb, like, "go make pictures of trees and rivers". But it's not that. I don't know what it is.

However, the original answer by John ( jmsetzler) comes quite close to how I think (or feel) about it at this time.
 12/22/2006 02:11:11 PM · #43
I gave it a 5. The challenge was "Sky" and frankly I thought you were more of the subject than the sky was. And to be honest there isn't anything particularly fascinating about the sky part of your photo. So I guess according to some of your commentors I am a "stupid voter".
 12/22/2006 02:41:54 PM · #44
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
So I guess according to some of your commentors I am a "stupid voter".


Nah, now those 1 -3 voters ... ;-)

But, I read, "Make the sky a key element of your photograph." as not meaning it had to be the subject...

Either way, I wasn't really wanting to discuss my score or placement as much as just compare it to what can be done in Basic Editing.


12/22/2006 03:15:51 PM · #45
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I am going to ask this here as well

is this real or fake?



I mean to say is it a Photograph?


I don't think the question is relevant, really. I take "photographic in nature" to mean "it looks like a photograph". This looks like a photograph. Of course, if it is a computer rendering or something, then it won't pass validation; but that isn't the voter's problem.

R.
 12/22/2006 03:22:24 PM · #46
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Of course, if it is a computer rendering or something, then it won't pass validation; but that isn't the voter's problem.




I was messing around with these for that challenge. I never submitted a ticket, but I'm not completely sure this would be illegal.
12/22/2006 03:28:32 PM · #47
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

No apologies needed. Anyway, I really didn't have an objective other than a discussion of the "photographic in nature" clause of the EE rules.


Do you believe your submission was photographic in nature?


Yes, in that it could be done in-camera with either a backdrop as scalvert used or in that I suppose I could have jumped from a plane (which might have been more fun than bar stool surfing). :-)

Maybe I should say it is "photo realistic".


But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature?


Both were created by a camera except one required two clicks of the shutter and the other only one. He then used his digital darkroom to combine the two images. Had he done this with film would you be asking this question?
 12/22/2006 03:30:38 PM · #48
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I am going to ask this here as well

is this real or fake?



I mean to say is it a Photograph?


I don't think the question is relevant, really. I take "photographic in nature" to mean "it looks like a photograph". This looks like a photograph. Of course, if it is a computer rendering or something, then it won't pass validation; but that isn't the voter's problem.

R.


I think it would have if another "real" photo was included in the composition say a beautiful woman put next to the car?
 12/22/2006 03:50:25 PM · #49
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Of course, if it is a computer rendering or something, then it won't pass validation; but that isn't the voter's problem.




I was messing around with these for that challenge. I never submitted a ticket, but I'm not completely sure this would be illegal.


You might want to re-read those rules then. I see several statements which would disqualify this image.
 12/22/2006 03:57:26 PM · #50
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I am going to ask this here as well

is this real or fake?



I mean to say is it a Photograph?


I don't think the question is relevant, really. I take "photographic in nature" to mean "it looks like a photograph". This looks like a photograph. Of course, if it is a computer rendering or something, then it won't pass validation; but that isn't the voter's problem.

R.


It is relevant to the discussion. Cuz what does photographic in nature mean? A real photo? looks like a photo? has part of a photo in it? what? The term means nothing ...

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 15:57:41.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/15/2025 10:19:26 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 10/15/2025 10:19:26 AM EDT.