| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2003 04:18:30 PM · #126 |
Yes Gordon. That might have something to do with it. But it only took me 6 months to decide I needed a dslr. I learned more about ps before I bought it.
Why don't we have another vote? There are a lot of new members that joined after the other one was done. I resent the fact that everyone keeps saying it was voted on before as if the new members don't even exist. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:21:19 PM · #127 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:30:47 PM · #128 |
| Yes lift them, post-processing is a part of photography - especially digital. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:00:49 PM · #129 |
there is no need for this discussion.
all ya have to do is print out a copy of your post processed finished pic, taken by you or someone else, digital or film, during the dates or not, and then photograph it with a digital camera within the challenge dates. Apparently it's legal.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:38:00 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by joannadiva:
there is no need for this discussion.
all ya have to do is print out a copy of your post processed finished pic, taken by you or someone else, digital or film, during the dates or not, and then photograph it with a digital camera within the challenge dates. Apparently it's legal. |
Read the rules more carefully. This is use of existing artwork and is not DPC-legal. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:18:27 PM · #131 |
yes
How about somechallenges specifically using some of these features, best use of clone stamp or montage? |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:50:21 PM · #132 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:53:20 PM · #133 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:21:19 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by joannadiva:
there is no need for this discussion.
all ya have to do is print out a copy of your post processed finished pic, taken by you or someone else, digital or film, during the dates or not, and then photograph it with a digital camera within the challenge dates. Apparently it's legal. |
Read the rules more carefully. This is use of existing artwork and is not DPC-legal. |
Agreed but check the current and last few challenges
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:51:53 PM · #135 |
Seems soooo long ago that I read the beginning of this thread...
If I recall correctly, we had a vote some time ago, the majority voted not yes or no, but lets have occasional open-edit challenges. And we've been doing that. (Maybe not as regular as even I'd like - they always seem to come at times where I can't enter for some reason or other.) So, why not step back and have a look at how that's turned out.
Those who are for open editing: Are you happy with how these challenges have turned out. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like Gordon hasn't been happy with them. If not, why not? If so, why. How would eliminating all editing rules be the same as or differant than the current occasional challenges?
Those who are against open editing: Are you disappointed in the results of these challenges? What do you see in the results of these challenges that keeps you resolved to keep editing rules as they are? Is there anything positive in the open editing challenges that you might accept in all challenges?
Or, any other thoughts on the current open edit challenges? I mean, its not like its a big, black unknown any more. We have some experience now. What can we learn from it?
Or is it just funner to argue? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:57:33 PM · #136 |
| The recent unlimited-editing challenges have been for topics which strongly encouraged the use of "special effects," rather than ordinary challenges where you can just fix up the photo a little better. I don't consider them valid "typical" examples of what we should expect from a broader suspension of the editing rules. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:05:25 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The recent unlimited-editing challenges have been for topics which strongly encouraged the use of "special effects," rather than ordinary challenges where you can just fix up the photo a little better. I don't consider them valid "typical" examples of what we should expect from a broader suspension of the editing rules. |
with all due respect...
that's not what I was refering to
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:10:44 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by joannadiva:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The recent unlimited-editing challenges have been for topics which strongly encouraged the use of "special effects," rather than ordinary challenges where you can just fix up the photo a little better. I don't consider them valid "typical" examples of what we should expect from a broader suspension of the editing rules. |
with all due respect...
that's not what I was refering to |
Sorry -- my post was more in response to ScottK's question about the state of the debate.
Unfortunately, the issue of "use of existing artwork" is the one area where a subjective evaluation by the Site Council is a most unfortunate necessity. That said, if the photo remains available for voting, you must assume that the Site Council considers it legal by site rules. How good it is then becomes a subjective assessment which rests with the voters. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:23:42 PM · #139 |
i agree with GeneralE. the recent unlimited-editing challenges are poor examples of what we should expect. along with the fact that the recent challenges tend to lean towards editing, i feel that these challenges happen so infrequently that people go nuts with PS while they can.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 09:13:07 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Those who are for open editing: Are you happy with how these challenges have turned out. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like Gordon hasn't been happy with them. If not, why not? If so, why. How would eliminating all editing rules be the same as or differant than the current occasional challenges? |
As I think I've worn my keyboard out repeating, it isn't about the tools. Its about the intent. Just saying 'open editing' is a very small part of what it should actually be. It should be phrased somehow to state that what is desired is good, photography. E.g., "Keep in mind that the intent of any modification is to produce a more natural looking photograph rather than an obviously manipulated one."
So no, just throwing away the editing restrictions is not what I have ever been interested in. I care more about the intent of the photographer than the tools used.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 10:47:53 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
As I think I've worn my keyboard out repeating, it isn't about the tools. Its about the intent. Just saying 'open editing' is a very small part of what it should actually be. It should be phrased somehow to state that what is desired is good, photography. E.g., "Keep in mind that the intent of any modification is to produce a more natural looking photograph rather than an obviously manipulated one."
So no, just throwing away the editing restrictions is not what I have ever been interested in. I care more about the intent of the photographer than the tools used. |
I agree completely with this. I would also like to see open editing rules do away with a lot of the extreme post processing that we already see in that are within the limits of the current rules. We already have enough latitude to trash a photo if we want to, but we don't have enough latitude to properly finish one.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 10:48:11 AM · #142 |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 12:43:55 PM · #143 |
No.
"People that are against changing the rules seem to feel,imo, that we would be creating pictures that are so for over the edge that they would be unpleasant to look at"
This statement shows a continued misunderstanding by those who incessantly try to promote loosening the rules. Trying to characterize what others are thinking is not an easy thing to do. Trying to judge their position by your own desires is all to tempting. The reason I wish to see the rules remain as they are is not because I am afraid of looking at digital art. I trust the voter's instincts to skim the cream from the crap. But what I want to preserve is the teaching aspect of the site, teaching us to use the camera to it's maximum. If we were not trying to learn to use the camera to it's best advantage, couldn't we save ourselves a lot of money by just using the cheapest point and shoot camera around? An important element of learning in the dpc system is the motivation we receive from competing, and I want to keep that competition on as level a playing field as possible. There already are too many inequalities among the contestants. We don't need to introduce photo editing software skills as another varible factor into the equation. I prefer to compete on the basis of who can take the best picture with his/her digital camera, do some mild sprucing-up within the current rules, and see which entries appeal most to the sometimes vague tastes of our ever-changing constituency; and, hopefully, pick up some pointers along the way from the comments left during the voting phase. I acknowledge that these entries are almost always not the very best photographs that can be made from the original image. I acknowledge that there are many here who are superior to me in both camera use and software use. I acknowledge that to get the very best possible photographs from the shots I take I will have to learn more software skills. I pretty much agree that software cannot make a terrible image great. But the learning and competition here was intended to be about perfecting your camera skills while holding the software use the same for all. If you want to compete on the basis of who can come up with the best possible photograph using a combination of all your skills, there are many, many other sites that invite you to do just that. (I take pleasure whenever I hear about dpc members doing well elsewhere.) If you want to compete on the basis of software skills alone you could start a site where all contestants begin with the same flawed image. Neither of those are what was intended here.
I really wish this topic would stop coming up again and again in the forums. Until the admins/site council decide to take some action, this really is a dead horse. And by "take some action" I don't mean further discussion, debating, voting, surveying or polling. The lack of action indicates that the rules will not change soon. I'm getting used to it.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 12:44:08 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Gordon:
As I think I've worn my keyboard out repeating, it isn't about the tools. Its about the intent. Just saying 'open editing' is a very small part of what it should actually be. It should be phrased somehow to state that what is desired is good, photography. E.g., "Keep in mind that the intent of any modification is to produce a more natural looking photograph rather than an obviously manipulated one."
So no, just throwing away the editing restrictions is not what I have ever been interested in. I care more about the intent of the photographer than the tools used. |
I agree completely with this. I would also like to see open editing rules do away with a lot of the extreme post processing that we already see in that are within the limits of the current rules. We already have enough latitude to trash a photo if we want to, but we don't have enough latitude to properly finish one. |
YES!! What Setzler and Gordon said...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 01:08:13 PM · #145 |
I just posted this in another thread, but is applicable here too:
There seems to be a large group of people here that believe digital photography is closly related to point and shoot-drop your film off at the drug store- style photography. I think alot of people here also believe the restricted editing rules here give them hope of winning also.
Ribbon winning on this site has nothing to do with the editing methods. There are way too many other important factors that carry more weight like. ie: photographers experience, camera equipment ( to some extent ), some luck, etc.
Rules or no rules, you still need to know how to use your camera, understand exposure, have the ability to make a pleasing composition, etc....these are far more important to you to win, than the restrictive editing rules.
These rules here did not make me a better photographer....learning how to use my digital camera and the software did. The challenge format has made me shoot things I may never have, but these rules, didnt force me to learn my cameras capabilities....Wanting to be a better photographer did that!
Dont use the crutch of the rules being your reason to become better at using your camera. The current rules allow you to create crap too. Take advantage of the people here wanting to help, and learn all there is to learn.
To summarize: The current rules, do not, make you learn your camera better. You need a good image to start with from the camera. Knowing how to use your camera makes that process happen! You need to know how to use and make a photo before you learn editing. So the editing rules dont come into play while making the picture. Im getting tired of hearing that the rules are making people take better photos.
You should and need to know how to use your camera first. Then you need to know, lighting, exposure, composition, etc. See, how many other things are way more important, than the last step of editing.
If you can master all these things above, then it doesnt matter what the editing rules are. You already have an advantge. Thats why even if the editing rules are open, the people who can take interesting and compelling photos are still going to win.
The rules should be open, it will promote, a greater learning experience here, than anyone could imagine. There is a great group of people here. Lets help each other.
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 13:12:09.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 01:19:37 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Those who are for open editing: Are you happy with how these challenges have turned out. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like Gordon hasn't been happy with them. If not, why not? If so, why. How would eliminating all editing rules be the same as or differant than the current occasional challenges?
|
Happy? No, absolutely not.
Why? Because it allowed everything. Putting in elements from outside, distorting the elements in the pic to give it a unnatural appearance, entering impossible things. It had little to do with the open editing rules that I have in my mind and talk about.
It was photoshopping, not photo-enhancing. I didn't like to participate in them and I didn't like to vote on them.
And you shouldn't eliminate all editing rules, but broaden them to allow for perfactly normal (digital) darkroom edits that maintain the integrity of your photo.
It is about stuff that is perfectly normal to do before you create a print or before you get it published in a book or so. Does anyone honestly think that any photo in the newspaper or in National Geographic is done without DPC-illegal editing? Check out sportphotojournalists, I have looked at one doings his work before he sent it to the newspaper. He shot some cyclists that crossed the finishline, but the winners face was in the shadow........ "No way, can't have that," said the pg. Bit of dodging here, bit of burning there, dust spot taken out, great pic, resize, save, sent.
And on another note.... Why is it not allowed to use software to mimmick hardware? I am especially talking about colored filters here. It can be applied to the whole pic, no spot editing at all. The only thing you need is to be allowed to use a layer in color mode.
No need to buy a set of filters for each lens you own, no need to carry them around.
Edit: And what scab-lab just said
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 13:22:03.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 02:04:55 PM · #147 |
I think I speak for a large number of people on this site when I say:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank you. now please continue your conversation normally.
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 14:06:03. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 02:11:50 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
I think I speak for a large number of people on this site when I say:
A...U...G...H...!
thank you. now please continue your conversation normally. |
I just do it for fun these days - I have no expectation of things improving :)
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 02:51:54 PM · #149 |
I don't use Photoshop. Why? Partly, because I have Graphic Converter to do what I need and can do, at this point. Partly, because I like the idea of excluding a distraction or flaw via the camera as opposed to post-processing, which would make me a bit of a purist. Partly also, because I abhor images which have cloned a whole giftshop into one frame.
Yet, I have seen breathtaking images with an authentic and natural feel to it, images where the raw shot has inspired processing. I would very much like to learn how to do this and have the best of two worlds, with Photoshop and relaxed rules.
The fear, here, is, from what I see, that if we relax the rules, the good may come with the ugly. I cannot imagine that this would be very different from debating the pros and cons of what has come to be known as 'civilisation' or the use of, say, a computer or hair brush instead of five fingers.
Relax the rules and choose your poison.
Message edited by author 2003-11-14 14:53:10. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 03:29:06 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
and we're missing a whole other side of the argument here: people who are against the changes are missing out on a wealth of opportunities to learn these software tools that they're so afraid of.
there's a large group of people here who ARE photoshop gurus and WOULD be more than willing to explain features and show examples.
but they don't now (i don't, for instance), because it's no fun to do a big example and then say "oh...but it's not dpc legal, so forget it." |
Why is it that if I don't want to change the rules, I'm either new, a snob about photography, afraid of photoshop, or think that the only way I'll get a ribbon is if NO-ONE can use post editing techniques? I AM a little new to photography but not to computers. I understand what a computer can do to digital files of any sort. I also watch DVD movies, television shows on technology (ever see tech tv) and read photography, computer, and other magazines. I'me well versed in what can be done, even if I don't know how to do it myself! I SIMPLY LIKE THE FORMAT WE HAVE HERE FOR CHALLENGES! It's not like we (in the challenges) are posting 5 meg print ready files of images that we are intending to sell for mega bucks on some art site. We are creating 640x640 max images with a top file size of 150k, to be voted on in a challenge with NO CASH PRIZES, NO CONTRACTS AWARDED, NO PENALTIES FOR EARLY WITHDRAWAL!!! It's for FUN and to improve our photography skills by shooting stuff that we might not ordinarily shoot!
In fact right now (when I have time to post them) I have a million photoshop questions I want to ask the 'photoshop gurus' about things like adjustment layers and the like. I have ALREADY posted questions about swaping out a dull grey sky with a nice blue one! I've also started a thread about fixing my cats (oh no not another cat pic hating thread) reflection in a window! I think photoshop is the next best thing to sliced bread, but don't think it's necessary in these challenges. That's my final word on the subject untill someone else who wants things changed accuses me of being something else that I am NOT!!!
|
|
