| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2004 03:25:12 AM · #1 |
I had plenty of commemnts on my picture and they asked if I had used a non-stationaey light source, yes I did  I used the Glowing filters plug-in in PS to give the finished look. I probably was a bit heavy handed with the filter :)
I was looking to give this picture a digital art look, I didn`t realise that digital was frown upon :)
This is not a complaint as I`m happy with the picture and the final placing 23/120
Just wanted to let people know that it started out as a painting with light picture.
Thaks for your time.
George
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 03:30:25 AM · #2 |
I didn't vote on PWL, but I much prefer your original. I can see that having done better, myself...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 03:54:33 AM · #3 |
| I agree, I prefer the original as well. To be honest, I'm rather surprised that you scored as well as you did, given the frequent complaints about digital art in the forums. I guess there are plenty of people who do like it. Congrats on the finish. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 04:18:55 AM · #4 |
| Another vote for the original. I don't particularly like those types of effects but am not opposed to heavier editing in general. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 07:13:58 AM · #5 |
| I agree. Your original probably would have placed in the top 10. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 07:44:26 AM · #6 |
I know I mentioned this to you already, but I much prefer the original shot. I think it still scored well because it is a strong shot, inspite of the effects you applied - rather than because of them (IMHO, YMMV, etc)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 07:45:42 AM · #7 |
I concur with the rest about the original.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 07:51:02 AM · #8 |
There is a book about still life setups, which show many photographs then go into a detailed tutorial on ho it was taken and lit etc.
This is the 3rd image i have seen on DPC from that same book, not suggesting you did the same, but do you also have that book?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 07:54:22 AM · #9 |
A more interesting one to consider the 'ethical' implications of would be the 4th placed shot. You can read the description for details.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 08:06:03 AM · #10 |
quite.
I didn't vote or look at any of the images in that challenge, had I have done then the 4th place would have gotten a 3 from me.
I keep harping on about this - and realise I am in the minority, but to me the editing should enhance the image. Now with the 1st place photograph, had that been all Photoshop it would still get a high mark from me because it has enhanced the image to a high degree. However, with the 4th place shot, with the red line, I dislike it quite a lot. Without the red line I would rank it very high.
So I think it's more about how you use the free reign on editing, rather than how much editing one does and see the scores reflect upon that.
But - being that it placed 4th, I am surely one of the few that think that way.
Nevertheless, it adds interesting fuel to the 'lets view users comments whilst voting' debate.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 08:06:45 AM · #11 |
I voted the submitted image lower because it was obviously a PS filter. I would have voted the original higher, definately a better result IMHO.
I think the finish score was as high as it was, after reading the comments, is that quite a few people did not know the effect was done in PS.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 12:29:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
There is a book about still life setups, which show many photographs then go into a detailed tutorial on ho it was taken and lit etc.
This is the 3rd image i have seen on DPC from that same book, not suggesting you did the same, but do you also have that book? |
No I don`t have the book, but would be interested in the name of it.
The picture was inspired by a similar picture I saw in a magazine a few months ago.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 12:50:56 PM · #13 |
Just wanted to add my vote for the original.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 03:41:40 PM · #14 |
you know, i understand not approving editting in PS, but voting a picture down just because it has photoshop efects on it is trully bizarre and i dont know which "ethics" book this kinda ethics is explained in...so much for "photographic integrity".... what is "photographic integrity" anyways? can someone please explain? did god send a revelation about preserving "photographic integrity" and i missed it or something...
noone should claim someone else's artwork as his: thats integrity
noone should just color a blank canvas in photoshop and pose it as photography: thats integrity
everyone should fallow the site's editting rules since they were agreed by majority: thats integrity
and using any desired filters is allowed in advanced editting...
hammering someone else's artwork by voting ridiculusly because they used allowed filters in photohop: THAT'S NOT INTEGRITY!!!.
if i am being stupid to understand this kind of behaviour, please ,someone explain it to me!!...
Message edited by author 2004-02-04 16:34:33. |
|
|
|
02/15/2004 05:09:58 PM · #15 |
| I agree with theodor38 completely. Geesh! |
|
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: 07/30/2025 10:40:46 AM EDT.
