Expert Editing - Beyond Photography or not.

02/02/2007 12:45:49 PM · #5

mine went too far and i paid for it, but i knew that going in:)

of course I also made some bad editing errors.

overall I think the challenge produced mostly photographic pictures.

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 12:50:25.

Rob O

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/02/2007 12:52:15 PM · #6

IMHO the Expert Editing rule set simply allows me to take near full advantage of PS to enhance an image visually through post processing techniques off limits even to Advanced Editing challenges. It is not an invitation to start creating composite images -- graphics based on photographs -- nor do I read it as a mandate to do so if you hope to place among the top in challenges employing this rule set.

The key to using EE rules, to me, is doing so such that the image doesn't look clumbsily assembled. Rather, it should have natural appeal that stems from the processing applied ... even if it's obvious the image has been manipulated.

Even though I can "photochop" with the best of 'em --

-- here's an example of something I did recently that would have only been permitted under Expert Editing rule set that visually describes how I see using these rules in future challenges.

mikephotomike

Canon EOS-1D Mark IIn

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/02/2007 01:03:49 PM · #7

i think many of the entrants have turned to outrageous editing which leave you with a product that looks more like a computer generated image or something. i'm sure people still care about the realistic side of photography, but i think people have just gotten carried away with the fact that they now have the ability to do these types of things to photographs in PS, that it's taken emphasis off the actual photograph and placed it on the editing.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/02/2007 05:05:32 PM · #8

I thought a lot of the entries were very strong, but did find that this challenge produced the most disparity I've had yet between my ratings and the averages (albeit in the brief time I've been a member). Those who are talented in post (I don't count my self among you) can use those talents to make some amazing and arresting images that still remain "photographic," but I do believe that life rule #1 also applies in this situation: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Elvis_L

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/02/2007 06:34:14 PM · #9

Originally posted by EdScott:

I do believe that life rule #1 also applies in this situation: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

if no one ever did, many things would never happen.

Citadel

Nikon D7500

02/02/2007 06:51:05 PM · #10

Originally posted by Gordon:

I think this image is a great example of what the expert rules should be about

Yes it is more than a photo and has been pushed beyond what would be possible with a lens, but it is still true to the basic underlying ideas of photography.

Here is another image that I think fits with Gordon't words:

Honestly I like all of our different rulesets. Personally I don't do things a whole bunch differently between the basic and advanced rulesets but its really cool to see what can be done.

There was an article in Photolife that had a good paragraph about this whole subject. On the one hand there are instances, such as photo journalism where you want the end result to look exactly as it came out of the camera. On the other extreme are images that use photograhy as the starting point only and are then edited to become art. The original picture is both canvas and palette with photoshop being the brush.

I think its all part of your end goal.
Is it Art?
Or is it a visual document?

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 18:51:31.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/02/2007 06:54:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by Rob O:

Well the rules make it quite clear composites are allowed so that seems like a strong invitation to me. Fact is composites are doing quite well whether they are obvious or not. Looking at the top ten in Fill the Frame I count 4 obvious composites or at least they look obvious to me.

What isn't doing well is stuff that looks cartoony or anything with heavy use of filters but that's always been the case because many view that as digital art and not photographic in nature. Basically if you are creating elements best make it photorealistic as those also have done well.

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 18:56:07.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

02/02/2007 06:57:05 PM · #12

Originally posted by yanko:

photographic in nature.

LOL :-P

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/02/2007 06:59:00 PM · #13

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
photographic in nature.

LOL :-P

I'm slow today. What am I missing?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

02/02/2007 07:01:51 PM · #14

Nothing, I am just sticking to my opinion that the term "Photographic in nature" means nothing. So I gave it the :-P

:-D

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 19:03:21.

02/02/2007 07:05:20 PM · #15

Ahhh!

fotomann_forever

02/02/2007 07:38:22 PM · #16

I with wazz, that term means absolutely nothing.

FWIW, DPC voters will decide what they like. It's not like we don't have FOUR different rules sets. If we had only one ruleset, I could understand the bitching, but with FOUR, everyone should be able to find something to fit their needs, desires, lusts, whatever.

Now, if we could have an all nudes ruleset, I'd be happy :-)

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/02/2007 08:35:43 PM · #17

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Now, if we could have an all nudes ruleset, I'd be happy :-)

Ya right...keep dreaming. Somehow I doubt there will be another nude challenge for many years.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/02/2007 08:45:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Don't you mean "photographic in nature" does exist but it's trapped "inside the box" which curiously enough doesn't exist?

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/02/2007 08:46:03 PM · #19

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

Originally posted by EdScott:
I do believe that life rule #1 also applies in this situation: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

if no one ever did, many things would never happen.

Absolutely. Sometimes that's a shame, sometimes that's for the best. The real trick is distinguishing between the two.

Elvis_L