| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2006 04:19:54 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature? |
Doesn't that depend on whether you consider "the photograph" to be the negative or the print?
If you consider the photograph to be the negative, the scalvert's is (slightly) more "photographic in nature" simply because the final image exists as a single negative/capture.
But if you consider the photograph to be the finished print, then they are equal, as composite printing is a phtographic technique almost as old as printing from negatives itself.
Plus in this case, as the OP pointed out, each photo consisted really of two separate images -- only the technique used to combine them was different -- so there's even less reason to argue for one being "more photographic" than the other.
I don't think there's any greater "validity" to either position, since it's a matter of personal opinion about which factor is more important. I think it's common to have a greater appreciation for a single-frame image if comparing two otherwise-similar photos.
I attribute this to a tendency to vicariously experience what the photographer went through to get it. I might also typically have a greater appreciation for a landscape photo taken from a mountain summit than from a roadside "vista point" for the same reason, but that's just how I feel about it -- someone else may have completely different criteria for evaluating landscapes. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:44:48 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by mk:
You might want to re-read those rules then. I see several statements which would disqualify this image. |
I saw those, but ...
You may:
apply a full range of editing tools to all or part of your entry.
I could (read could, but won't) argue that Terragen is an editing tool.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:55:18 PM · #53 |
Ok lets just end this debate now and say anything with Leroy in it is not photographic in nature. mmkay? :P
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 16:55:43. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:57:09 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok lets just end this debate now and say anything with Leroy in it is not photographic in nature. mmkay? :P |
pornographic in nature?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 05:08:27 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok lets just end this debate now and say anything with Leroy in it is not photographic in nature. mmkay? :P |
pornographic in nature? |
Now why didn't I think of that!
Btw, I can't wait for the day when photoshop or at least camera raw gets completely integrated into cameras. You'll be able to produce full blown digital art in-camera! That will be the day when we start banning some in-camera functions... |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 05:18:22 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Doesn't that depend on whether you consider "the photograph" to be the negative or the print?
|
Do you not understand the intent of 'photographic in nature'? I thought that since you were on the site council and part of the group that coined that phrase on this site, you would be one of the few who does understand.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 05:19:37 PM · #57 |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 05:24:21 PM · #58 |
i was surprised at the low # of pano's
that said, i find even with 'expert editing' the format doesn't suit panos
hard to deal with a 3or4 to 1 ratio picture with a max of 640/720 in one direction.. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 05:43:20 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by ralph:
i was surprised at the low # of pano's
|
I was too.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:04:35 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
... you would be one of the few who does understand. |
I'm flattered ... : )
However, we do not all share one viewpoint on almost anything -- that's why we have to discuss and vote. If we were ants and could "vote" the hive mind, any one of us could DQ a photo immediately.
My personal interpretation of that phrase would be something like:
The image should look like an image which could have been captured and printed using analog photographic techniques available at any time up to the present -- a pretty flexible definition. Something which (inappropriately) crosses the line into "illustration" or "painting" might earn a lower vote from me, but I wouldn't DQ it unless the editing or date rules had been broken.
Note that this phrase is not part of the DQ-able "May Not ..." section of the rules, but rather, like the phrase "keep the challenge topic in mind," it is more a guide to the voters to let their own definition of the phrase be reflected in their vote. The final placement of the image will determine the site's collective interpretation of that phrase far better than this discussion. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:12:49 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
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 06:14:46 PM · #62 |
I suppose photographic in nature is pretty much a free-for-all then. There isn't much that can't be done in the dark room when you really think about it.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:27:32 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suppose photographic in nature is pretty much a free-for-all then. There isn't much that can't be done in the dark room when you really think about it. |
Well, the idea is to let people submit pretty much whatever they want, and for the voters to vote it however they want.
Techniques which push the limiits will probably rate either very low or (rarely) very high; I expect the vast preponderance of entries will more likely resemble previous highly-rated (at DPC) photos in style and content. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:29:57 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suppose photographic in nature is pretty much a free-for-all then. There isn't much that can't be done in the dark room when you really think about it. |
Well, the idea is to let people submit pretty much whatever they want, and for the voters to vote it however they want.
Techniques which push the limiits will probably rate either very low or (rarely) very high; I expect the vast preponderance of entries will more likely resemble previous highly-rated (at DPC) photos in style and content. |
I was noticing the opposite... There are 4 composites in the top 10 of the sky challenge.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:34:51 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Techniques which push the limiits will probably rate either very low or (rarely) very high; I expect the vast preponderance of entries will more likely resemble previous highly-rated (at DPC) photos in style and content. |
I was noticing the opposite... There are 4 composites in the top 10 of the sky challenge. |
Well, since composites are (were) very rarely allowed in challenges, we don't have much to base that on, but 6/10 of those images look much like previous DPC high scoring images.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:37:51 PM · #66 |
I'm not gonna argue on the issue. I think the majority (a large majority) of DPC is probably more interested in creating with photoshop, which is fine... it's just not my preference. I have my own path.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:42:15 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm not gonna argue on the issue. I think the majority (a large majority) of DPC is probably more interested in creating with photoshop, which is fine... it's just not my preference. I have my own path. |
And with that, I will say this:
You do very well on your path!
Awesome work.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2006 04:48:03 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, the idea is to let people submit pretty much whatever they want, and for the voters to vote it however they want. |
Well said. Having several categories of rules allows everyone to enter the challenges that suit them - the photoshop fanatics can go all-out in an expert editing challengs, and the purist photographers can leave the PP to a minimum with the basic rules. Either way, so long as all entries in a challenge use the same rules then the voters are comparing apples to apples.
I'd hate to try and rate the two circular-panoramic-type images in the recent Sky challenge versus images created under the basic editing rules. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 12:46:05 AM · #69 |
For expert editing is it ok or not to combine two photos into one. I read this entire thread. and my understanding is that it is ok, as long as it is photographic in nature. What is photographic in nature just the fact that a photo could be beliveable? My feeling is that expert editing should be considered exactly what it says it is.
Can we send a copy of our submission to the site councel? will they be able to determine it?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 12:49:44 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Snake:
For expert editing is it ok or not to combine two photos into one. I read this entire thread. and my understanding is that it is ok, as long as it is photographic in nature. What is photographic in nature just the fact that a photo could be beliveable? My feeling is that expert editing should be considered exactly what it says it is.
Can we send a copy of our submission to the site councel? will they be able to determine it? |
Originally posted by The Rules:
You may:
combine multiple photographs to produce your entry. All additional photographs must be taken by you after the challenge is announced with a digital camera that records EXIF data. |
I've noticed you have lots of questions about things that are listed in the rules. You might want to take some time to read through them. And judging from the recent results of the Sky challenge, believable doesn't matter at all. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:00:00 AM · #71 |
| Hey I've read all the rules several times and I'm sure they can be interpreted in many different ways. I'm just new to photography the lingo and I am trying to learn the ropes around here. Thanks, Snake |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 06:32:07 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm not gonna argue on the issue. I think the majority (a large majority) of DPC is probably more interested in creating with photoshop, which is fine... it's just not my preference. I have my own path. |
I and I honestly believe the more realistic majority here, prefer to use Photoshop the same way they have or would have used the "traditional" darkroom.
I fail to see why anything you can do in the "traditional" darkroom is "NOT" allowed in advanced editing. |
|
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.
