| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2007 01:02:39 PM · #1 |
I like photography. I want my pictures to look like photographs and not like digital art. That is my preference now and probably will be in the future.
Expert editing, for the first time, opens the door to all sorts of new techniques never before allowed to improve photographs in traditional photographic ways. Those methods, when properly applied, create compositions that are "true" photographs.
But it also opens the door to digital art at DPC.
Is this a bad thing? I dunno. What I do know is that digital art is a legitimate form of photographic expression and, as such, should be allowed in some challenges. Though I may never chose to express myself in this way I feel it is wrong to discourage others from exploring the possibilities. That is the the stuff of true genius.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 01:18:31 PM · #2 |
It's not a bad thing. It's just a different thing. When the two are combined into one, we see what happens regularly.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 01:22:28 PM · #3 |
| I like both, but each has their place. I prefer to participate here as a photographer and not a post processing guru. I would not like to see DPChallenge broadened to be much more than a photography site. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 01:24:36 PM · #4 |
Uggh. Here we go again.
ETA - links of very recent threads, same subject.
Steve - Here's one you started last Friday: A personal view of 'expert' editing
...and some others:
Remove Trial from Expert editing
Rules Revision Test Results and Expert Editing (Trial) Discussion
Message edited by author 2007-05-04 13:36:34. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 02:07:34 PM · #5 |
The thing is, every step of the way, going back to cave-painting, we have always embraced any new methods of creating art. I daresay when the first cameras were freely available, all the portrait painters dismissed them as a fad and not a true `artform`. It was the few who thought outside the box and experimented with this new medium that progressed it and, quite rightly, recieved recognition. Now move forward a few generations, the introduction of the digital camera. The old-boys club of film photographers said it was a fad and would never meet the quality of film cameras, we now know they were wrong, and again, it was the few who embraced this technology who were eventually recognised by their peers. Now we have tools on the desktop to take digital photography to the next level. There are the old school (which sounds strange when talking about digi phtography) who say its not an art and not really photography, but it will be the pioneers again who push this until it is embraced as the norm..
I myself for instance completely hated the idea when DPChallenge went from purely basic editing and bought in `advanced` editing rules. I was with a group on here who ranted and raved in the forums how it wasnt photography in its truest sense and doesnt have a place on the site.. ditto for the expert editing rules. The reason for this was becuase I didnt have a very good knowledge of photoshop and felt us `purists` would be left behind..
So I decided to evolve, knuckle down and learn some photoshop skills (and boy did I trawl through tutorials and walkthroughs on a million different webpages, as well as hassling people on here) and not be left behind, and now I have my first entry in an expert editing challange, and boy have I gone to town on my shot, it aint doing badly, a 6.82 score with 20 comments is a bit of a boost. I think you will be surprised at the shot I entered as its nothing like anything I have entered before. (trust me, a year ago I sucked on photoshop, all I could do was crop and change levels & colours and stuff).
So I think expert editing does have its place on DPC. 3 months ago I would of been in the "Burn the witch" camp for anyone suggesting a set of expert rules, but as a photographer I dont want to be left behind, not just in a DPC sense, but in a real-world working photographer sense.
I believe in evolution not revolution... I think we need to `evolve` and not... ummm.. revolve?? lol (that was for you, Alan Partridge fans)..
Anyway, I managed to get through that post and dont think I have insulted or abused anyone, so maybe I am mellowing in my old age.
Peace! (?!)
Message edited by author 2007-05-04 14:09:16. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 02:32:25 PM · #6 |
Ehh..
I personally think that DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CHALLENGE dot com should be for digital photography.
Perhaps there could be a side site or other challenges for digital art,
but its just.. It isn't photography after its been coated with layers and tools and fancy things. It becomes an image of other sorts.
Often the original picture hardly looks a thing like the over-edited result..
I don't like it one bit. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 02:47:28 PM · #7 |
Ok. Looks like this is going to spin up again...
You make a valid point Mark about how having the skillset to produce an end product with expert editing rules can be important in the world of commerce.
My beef is that the expert editing rules allow the combination of multiple images to create pieces of fiction. I know, I know, nothing in photography is ever "real" or "true" anymore from the standpoint of the final product (photo) matching what the photographer saw with his/her own eyes. Digital or film darkroom, photos have been manipulated via color tones, masking, etc...
Allowing multiple images that introduce an entirely new set of subject elements into one collage is not photography in the true sense.
What makes it worse IMO is mixing true photos with digital compositions in one challenge. A person gifted with post-processing skills can combine multiple photos into a piece of art that is beautiful, but also is fantasy. Kudos to them. I'm sure it takes a lot of work to do this.
Fine, give the digital artists a place to play - have their own challenges, etc... but also give the photographers that want to continue to pursue more traditional methods of obtaining fantastic imagery a place to compete equally as well.
Example - this past month's Free Study. Nearly 600 images, and quite a melting pot of photographs and digital art creations in there. With a challenge of this size (all Free Study and Yearly Best Of challenges are large) why not run them in a dual format, one for digital artists and one for photographers?
Putting them together isn't fair to the participants, and isn't fair to the voters. There is always that lingering question of is this real, or is it fake - and that certainly takes away from the photos that obtained a fantastic image outright.
Think about it. You see a wonderful image that appears to have involved some incredible timing and skill to capture. Did it come about by good photography skills and great planning to be in the right spot at the right time, with proper lighting, etc... - OR - Did it come about by spending a lot of time working the digital magic to make the image come together? Both are deserving of praise in their own way, but to judge them together doesn't feel right to me. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 02:54:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Uggh. Here we go again.
ETA - links of very recent threads, same subject.
Steve - Here's one you started last Friday: A personal view of 'expert' editing |
The discussion I initiated last week was about expert editing, not digital art. Though they have a relationship they are two distinctly different subjects.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 03:06:41 PM · #9 |
Processing Liberation Organization (P.L.O.)
Society Against Processing (S.A.P.)
Who do you support?
:-D
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 03:08:49 PM · #10 |
Barry,
you always express things so well.. screw my photoshop skills, I goota work on my komuneekayshun a bit better.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Ok. Looks like this is going to spin up again...
You make a valid point Mark about how having the skillset to produce an end product with expert editing rules can be important in the world of commerce.
My beef is that the expert editing rules allow the combination of multiple images to create pieces of fiction. I know, I know, nothing in photography is ever "real" or "true" anymore from the standpoint of the final product (photo) matching what the photographer saw with his/her own eyes. Digital or film darkroom, photos have been manipulated via color tones, masking, etc...
Allowing multiple images that introduce an entirely new set of subject elements into one collage is not photography in the true sense.
What makes it worse IMO is mixing true photos with digital compositions in one challenge. A person gifted with post-processing skills can combine multiple photos into a piece of art that is beautiful, but also is fantasy. Kudos to them. I'm sure it takes a lot of work to do this.
Fine, give the digital artists a place to play - have their own challenges, etc... but also give the photographers that want to continue to pursue more traditional methods of obtaining fantastic imagery a place to compete equally as well.
Example - this past month's Free Study. Nearly 600 images, and quite a melting pot of photographs and digital art creations in there. With a challenge of this size (all Free Study and Yearly Best Of challenges are large) why not run them in a dual format, one for digital artists and one for photographers?
Putting them together isn't fair to the participants, and isn't fair to the voters. There is always that lingering question of is this real, or is it fake - and that certainly takes away from the photos that obtained a fantastic image outright.
Think about it. You see a wonderful image that appears to have involved some incredible timing and skill to capture. Did it come about by good photography skills and great planning to be in the right spot at the right time, with proper lighting, etc... - OR - Did it come about by spending a lot of time working the digital magic to make the image come together? Both are deserving of praise in their own way, but to judge them together doesn't feel right to me. |
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 03:16:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Simms:
...screw my photoshop skills, I goota work on my komuneekayshun a bit better. |
I'd say your photoshop skills are just fine (Mr. 7+ across the board on PB's), but your spelling skills... :P |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 03:47:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
There is always that lingering question of is this real, or is it fake - and that certainly takes away from the photos that obtained a fantastic image outright.
Think about it. You see a wonderful image that appears to have involved some incredible timing and skill to capture. Did it come about by good photography skills and great planning to be in the right spot at the right time, with proper lighting, etc... - OR - Did it come about by spending a lot of time working the digital magic to make the image come together? Both are deserving of praise in their own way ... |
Why not take the same approach as with other photos which need "validation" and vote them as if "legal" -- then, if something you like turns out to be a "work of fiction" by a skilled post-processor, go back and say something about it. I'm sure that feedback will be useful to the photographer. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:02:49 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
There is always that lingering question of is this real, or is it fake - and that certainly takes away from the photos that obtained a fantastic image outright.
Think about it. You see a wonderful image that appears to have involved some incredible timing and skill to capture. Did it come about by good photography skills and great planning to be in the right spot at the right time, with proper lighting, etc... - OR - Did it come about by spending a lot of time working the digital magic to make the image come together? Both are deserving of praise in their own way ... |
Why not take the same approach as with other photos which need "validation" and vote them as if "legal" -- then, if something you like turns out to be a "work of fiction" by a skilled post-processor, go back and say something about it. I'm sure that feedback will be useful to the photographer. |
Hmmm...perhaps I wasn't clear. I see your point Paul and I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying.
My point is when viewing/voting a large collection of images - it doesn't seem right that the viewer should even have to wonder if the image is real or fiction.
It's almost like the assumption is made that if your photo is astonishing that you had to have done something in PP to get that result rather than actually getting a darn good shot in the first place.
Keep them separate: Photographs in one challenge. Digital Art/Fantasy/Fiction in another.
In the long run both camps would get a fairer shake. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:11:05 PM · #14 |
I'm saying make the assumption that they captured a fantastic shot and vote accordingly, then lash out at offer criticism to anyone you feel has fooled you. That way, no one who actually captures a fantastic shot need be penalized.
I think our duty as voters is to rate the images themselves, assuming they are made within the stated rules. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:11:38 PM · #15 |
I'm curious whether THIS is DIGITAL ART.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:12:59 PM · #16 |
OK I realize that it isn't digital but to me it's still photography â€Â¦
He uses mutiple enlargers and used film in a "dark room" â€Â¦ albeit an extensive darkroom but there's nothing digital about it! Just because it's easier to do on a computer doesn't mean it's not a photograph. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:16:17 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm saying make the assumption that they captured a fantastic shot and vote accordingly... |
I can agree with this. The assumption part is the fly in the ointment. Wouldn't even be a question - period - if the Digital Art/Fiction/Fantasy and Photographs weren't put together in the same challenge in the first place. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:18:49 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by metatate:
I'm curious whether THIS is DIGITAL ART. |
Nope, they are fictional montages (collages) - even the site says "Other Realities". :)
edit - typo
Message edited by author 2007-05-04 16:19:32. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:20:28 PM · #19 |
Just my humble opinion here: If I take a photo with a digital camera, it is digital art, or am I mistaken?
By creating an image in a camera, then downloading to a computer, it is 'art', albeit very poor art in my case. Without using any software to enhance it, I feel it is still 'Art', just as someone who records a scene with paint and canvas.
Now whether this would satisfy those pompous critics who claim that a photo cannot be art is another matter. To me, as I have created an image, it is ART, regardless of what PP I have used, just as I would with canvas and paint or charcoal. Of course, I could use PS to enhance - modify - tart up, my shot, but would that make it more 'Art' than the original or just another perception on the same scene?? |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:26:08 PM · #20 |
OK -so much for sounding smart â€Â¦ I know what they are, but they were done using a dark room before people had photoshop. So they used the photogrphic process to create what would be called DIGITAL ART if someone did it in Photoshop! NO?!
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by metatate:
I'm curious whether THIS is DIGITAL ART. |
Nope, they are fictional montages (collages) - even the site says "Other Realities". :)
edit - typo |
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:35:11 PM · #21 |
I did something different and out of the box for a recent challenge. It was an actual photo, its been verified and its artsy. I have been watching my score and its way up and way down some think its artsy and some think I will be scored low because of what I did. But, photos are art. When you add elements that weren't there in the first place, for example the flood filter, does that negate the photo? No, its just how the photographer wanted to process it. I look at magazines now in a totally different way when I look at the photos of women in ads. They are so changed and "photoshopped" to enhance what we perceive is beauty in the ad itself. Skin is way too smooth, necks are elongated, blemishes are cloned out. But part of the original photograph is there. Its all art, its just how we each look at it.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:43:02 PM · #22 |
I don't think people will disagree with the "it's all art" â€Â¦ I think this is a case of enjoying using the camera vs. enjoying the "dark room" now that I think about it. The filter effects like "flood" are another level altogether where even I'm not sure if I like it because you are using something created by another artist and adding it -- I think that's different than what I refer to as the digital "dark-room", personally.
edit for clarity
Message edited by author 2007-05-04 16:46:16. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 04:50:42 PM · #23 |
To clarify: One can montage photos in a darkroom and overlap negatives etc. I think this is what Expert editing is meant to represent.
IMO, Once you add funky filters that are essentially the work of a programmer rather than emulating / simulating the dark-room experience, then it becomes this "digital art" of which we speak.
Does that make sense? â€Â¦ I used to have a dark-room in my basement and i'd always be doing funky things with the enlarger, negatives, and found objects etc. â€Â¦Ã‚ strictly photogrpaphic things of course.
Message edited by author 2007-05-04 16:53:14. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 05:29:28 PM · #24 |
 Simms, you lay out a perfect argument and in my opinion have captured the spirit of what this site is meant to be. I'll take your lead and attempt not to offend by stating that what seems to be lacking at times is acceptance that we're all here for a variety of reasons. I for one have rarely tried my hand at composites and was turned onto the idea by trying to study and emulate the beautiful works of people like Kiwiness. When the EE rules were introduced, I thought great, another avenue for me to explore.
This place is great for feedback, and in the end that's what we're all looking for in the way of scores and comments and based on the feedback, we can guage our progress.
For me, Digital photography is ANYTHING that starts with a camera. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 05:49:07 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Qart:
For me, Digital photography is ANYTHING that starts with a camera. |
Amen to that!!
|
|
