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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> A personal view of 'expert' editing
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/27/2007 09:12:39 PM · #1
I voted the recent Landscape III challenge and it triggered thoughts how the new expert rules can affect DPC submissions.

Normally, when voting, we don't give much consideration to the rule set under which the challenge is operating. A good picture is a good picture regardless of the DPC rules involved. Why should that matter?

Understandably, if a challenge allows expert rules then it is natural for photographers to try to take advantage of them and come up with ideas to apply in it. You really don't need to use newly allowed editing tricks with expert rules to submit to any submission, but it gives you an excuse to try. That is a good thing.

'Expert' rules allow things never before allowed at DPC specific to landscapes:
1-"True" HDRI with multiple images which is all the rage at DPC these days.
2-Sky replacements.
3-Composites with more than one picture combined to create a unique composition.
4-Panoramas that require multiple images stitched together.

These are problematic issues in landscape imagery that have been around for a long time and now can be addressed under expert rules.

All of these situations in some fashion or other were applied in the Landscape III challenge. Some folks went to a LOT of work to apply 'expert' techniques but might not have done as good a job with them as they may have. That is all part of the learning process, but low scores for failed attempts requiring a lot of work are not fun to get and are hard to take. If you are one of those folks then buck up and resolve to do it better next time.

Personally, I like it best if I can't tell if any ANY special technique whatsoever was used in the treatment of an image, but that is a personal preference.

One of the things that has come up in discussions regarding expert rules is drawing. True you can draw something into a web graphic that works for DPC but a print is more unforgiving. It never occured to me to hand draw anything into a photo, but then I don't have any talent for such things. An alternative to drawing is to take a picture of the real object and include that in your composition as a composite. The down side of that approach, of course, is you have to match lighting intensity and direction as well as blending and that can be hard.

The bottom line, though, is that if we use a new and difficult technique in expert editing then we have to work double hard to get it right.

The first version of 'advanced' rules were for a December free study several years ago. That was when I finally decided to buckle down and learn Photoshop. I worked all month on images and learning PS. I never entered that challenge but learned the fundamentals of effective image post processing.

Expert rules allow delving into image processing at the next level.
 04/27/2007 09:36:09 PM · #2
Some interesting conversation regarding this topic here as well ==> Rules Revision Test Results and Expert Editing (Trial) Discussion

Personally, I still think this level of photoshop manipulation is best left to places like Worth1000.com. That being said, there were some nice applications of the ruleset in the recent Landscape III challenge - and some that belonged somewhere other than a photography site.

ETA (related conversation) - Remove Trial from Expert editing

Message edited by author 2007-04-27 21:53:48.
 04/27/2007 09:39:08 PM · #3
hmm, an honest post that neither condemns nor glorifies a hot button issue on DPC, simply states an opinion without any attack towards one style. I am not sure how to respond to something like this... :P

I agree that the more complex the image processing technique, the harder you have to work on it and practice to have no one notice you used it. good post.

04/27/2007 09:47:16 PM · #4
Very well written, Steve.

However, If I was still posting about this issue, I would say something just like this. ;)

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Personally, I still think this level of photoshop manipulation is best left to places like Worth1000.com. That being said, there were some nice applications of the ruleset in the recent Landscape III challenge - and some that belonged somewhere other than a photography site.
04/27/2007 10:30:47 PM · #5
Umm has anybody been looking at the advance and basic editing results lately? Those have been more like worth1000.com than expert editing has. At least the stuff deemed "digital" art in expert editing has been done well unlike some of the monstrosities I've seen in advance and basic challenges where tonemapping has gone completely awry yet voters give them high scores.

Message edited by author 2007-04-27 22:32:02.
 05/01/2007 12:46:14 PM · #6
Originally posted by stdavidson:
'Expert' rules allow things never before allowed at DPC specific to landscapes:
1-"True" HDRI with multiple images which is all the rage at DPC these days.
2-Sky replacements.
3-Composites with more than one picture combined to create a unique composition.
4-Panoramas that require multiple images stitched together.


I think all of these, but maybe minus #2, are still photography based edits. I like them. I'm not saying I don't like other kinds of edits...I love all kinds of art and the media it takes to create it. I just don't want to see expert editing taking over more of the advanced editing challenges. This makes it harder to feel I have a fair chance of competing, not that I really have a chance all the other times. Is there a way to make a side expert challenge but not take away the weekly advanced challenge? They could be treated like the 24-48 challenges and pop-up whenever or have an expert challenge every week. I do want to get more into HDR so I'm not asking to take expert editing away...just don't take away the other options to make room for it.
 05/01/2007 01:09:44 PM · #7
Evidently there are only a few DPC'ers that can use Expert processing. But, there are people like me who love the images and try to learn Photoshop even better from these people and from other sites. After all these techniques are really used in the real world of photography. Take a look at Photoshopuser magazine, Outdoor Photographer, Rangefinder and Aftercapture. Thanks,Langdon, for gambling and allowing this opportunity, and please make it permanent with more challenges.
 05/01/2007 01:20:23 PM · #8
Originally posted by dfstevenson:
... Take a look at Outdoor Photographer ...

Really?! Wow! That would surprise me. Usually there is a code of photographic "ethics" that persists in that realm of photography and combining images (creating collages) or altering the reality of the scene in major ways is kind of frowned upon. Maybe it's just strictly wildlife photography (and photojournalism of course) that still tells a story with a true photo?
 05/01/2007 01:26:42 PM · #9
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Usually there is a code of photographic "ethics" that persists in that realm of photography... Maybe it's just strictly wildlife photography (and photojournalism of course) that still tells a story with a true photo?


There was an issue of Popular Photography or Outdoor Photographer (I don't remember which) that I received around the same time as the last Wildlife challenge. The cover photo for an article on shooting wildlife was a tiger photographed at a zoo. :-/
 05/01/2007 01:32:35 PM · #10
Hmmmm. Thread started by Steve Davidson and continued by David Stevenson.

Coincidence? *grin*
 05/01/2007 01:34:17 PM · #11
Originally posted by levyj413:
Hmmmm. Thread started by Steve Davidson and continued by David Stevenson.

Coincidence? *grin*

Nah...it's this whole site, getting all twisted around today. It's the heavy dose of 'expert editing' lately. Hard to digest. :)
 05/01/2007 01:48:17 PM · #12
True, if you are real good with Photoshop, you can really enhance a picture beyond what any camera performance will ever give you, and that would look great, in a magazine. But, when I'm taking pics, I'm looking to get prints for myself, not put in a magazine. That's why myself personally, I prefer a lightly edited photo from the camera, as it gives you a true feeling of what the photographer saw and what he/she was trying to capture. Hence, my photos will probably always fair in the middle of the vote scale, as this is what I do. I seem to like my pics a little brighter than most, which is another reason I will sit around the middle.
 05/01/2007 02:06:56 PM · #13
Originally posted by levyj413:
Hmmmm. Thread started by Steve Davidson and continued by David Stevenson.

Coincidence? *grin*

What is funny to me personally is that I have spent my whole life being called Dave Stevensen. I can introduce myself to someone and immediately have them reply, "Nice to meet you Dave!". I always thought that was because I don't enunciate well. ;)

But this I can assure you, I am singularly responsible for anything I write. :)

Here is my perspective...
Under 'expert' rules you can produce a realistic looking image addressing issues I identified above or produce digital art. Some techniques of digital art are perfectly acceptible forms of traditional photography such as texturing filters.

If you want to explore the full range of photography than something like 'expert' rules is needed. It is how individual photographers apply those rules that makes it acceptible to a group like DPC. Some prefer 'natural' images and some prefer 'digital art'. Neither is better than the other.

Message edited by author 2007-05-01 14:15:04.
 05/01/2007 02:08:57 PM · #14
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Hmmmm. Thread started by Steve Davidson and continued by David Stevenson.

Coincidence? *grin*

What is funny to me personally is that I have spent my whole life being called Dave Stevensen.

A living Spoonerism ... : )
 05/01/2007 02:31:38 PM · #15
Some good points Davidson â€Â¦ take it from another Davidson (not a Stevenson) â€Â¦
The irony of my name is that my Birth Father's name is David â€Â¦ my last name became Davidson through my mother's remarriage when I was 8 or so â€Â¦ So my last name actually calls me my first father's son â€Â¦ even though his last name was different (David's Son). Does that make any sense - it seems ironic to me but it might just be a coincidence.

Sorry for the semantic thread-jacking â€Â¦

but Anyway, I'm probably pretty much reitertating your point with different language but I believe some people are just turned off by the idea of expert editing because of its loose boundries â€Â¦ However, even in a conventional dark-room it was possible to create masks and burn multiple exposures from different negatives onto one print â€Â¦ as well as use 1 image at multiple sizes repeatedly or multiple images on top of eachother etc.
I think this approach is possibly more appropriate to conventional photography rather that what some call "digital art" which would refer to content that is stylized beyond the realm of something that could be done in the dark room and only results from funky effects that someone else designed and are as easy as clicking a few buttons (not that i am inherantly opposed to that but I can see why some images would be considered not photographic in some minds.

Message edited by author 2007-05-01 15:02:19.
 05/01/2007 02:40:15 PM · #16
Originally posted by rugman1969:
I prefer a lightly edited photo from the camera, as it gives you a true feeling of what the photographer saw and what he/she was trying to capture.

In a controlled lighting situation or a studio, maybe, but in real life, rarely. There hasn't been a camera that can ever capture what we "see" and doubt ever will be, as what we "see" has been edited in our brains already.

Don't believe me?
Try this - stand in a normally-lit room and look outside where it's bright. Our brain adjusts the highlights and shadows so we can get the best of both worlds, still seeing details in the shadows. Now try that with any camera - you can can one or the other or somewhere in-between, but will never capture what we "see". This is the true value of editing, especially HDR, when an image's editing is transparent in a way and doesn't go beyond the reality of what we really saw, that is unless a special effect was desired.

Here is an example of what HDR was intended for:
3 exposures:
merged in HDR: (ignore my choice on the B&W/toning)

A couple other examples of rendering a scene much as our eyes saw it,
but can never be done in a single click with our cameras:


Things come in waves, like grunge was a while back. The heavily tone-mapped and cartoon-like edits are cool in their own way on certain kinds of images, but will in time, fade back a bit as did the grunge fad in my opinion.
 05/01/2007 03:01:32 PM · #17
My name used to be Steve Davidson too, But so many people called me David Stevenson That I just changed it :)
 05/01/2007 03:52:39 PM · #18
Another name coinkidink - your last name is my birth last name: Harrison.

Anyway, please give what you are saying some thought. The best images are those that stir emotions and give people a type of understanding or discovery that moves them. They may not be at the top of the heap but they will get many comments and feedback. This site is for learning - so if you have problems with your photos being too light, or if you want to know how you might improve if you did a re-shoot, start a forum thread and I'm certain you will get assistance.

Being competitive helped me improve by "seeing" better.

Originally posted by rugman1969:
Hence, my photos will probably always fair in the middle of the vote scale, as this is what I do. I seem to like my pics a little brighter than most, which is another reason I will sit around the middle.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/24/2025 10:16:40 PM

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: 06/24/2025 10:16:40 PM EDT.