photos that looks photoshopped but they arent...

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

02/04/2004 06:44:12 PM · #1

gordon's entry to PWL:

nsoroma79's entry to PWL:

here are definitions of cetain member's explaining what photograph they think is against "photographic integrity:

Gordon: "for me it means does it look like a photo or does it look like the output of a filter from photoshop. One would be a photograph, faithful to what comes from a camera, the other would look like the product of digital editing and would be more in line with digital art than a photograph."

Jmsetzer : "I believe that 'photographic integrity' means that the image i'm viewing looks like a photograph and has no evidence of digital manipulation"

sn4psh08: "I didn't vote but had I done so I would have voted a 1 as there is no integrity here in my eyes" explaining that an image that looks photoshoped has no integrity in his eyes....

Tomlewis1980: " I think the level of editing removed photographic integrity", he thought the apperant editting that was done in photoshop has removed the integrity, therefore, he rated "1". he also has 2 more reasons behind his vote and i will list them here for objectiveness purposes:
"2. I think the effect removed the PWL aspect, therefore the shot did not meet the challenge in my opinion.
3. I don't like the glowing edges effect and therefore the image that was entered."

analysis: gordon's photograph looks like the gorgeous effect has been established by heavy photoshop editting. but in fact it is trully a great camera and lighting work...so according to gordon's and jmsetzer's and sn4psh08's and Tomlewis1980's definitions and voting standars Gordon's photo and Nsroma79's photo had to be voted low because they resembled something that is more likely to be made in photoshop, thus, lacking any integrity whatsoever...

even gordon expressed his worries that his work might have been perceived as a heavily editted photograph...

this tells me that certain definitions of Photographic integrity has grounds to cause prejudice thus eliminating any value it has to bring to the table...

to further enhance my point i will like to make some anologies to clear what photshop is to digital photography:

perhaps:

using tractors in farming is against: " agriculture integrity" since hard work and things that are done by intensive labor are the traditional way and resembles more like the nature of men...

using turbo chargers in cars is against: "performance integrity" since naturally aspirated engines are more fuel efficient and resembles a more honest performance...

using electronic stability controls is against: "traction integrity" since it eliminates a true driving factor, and electronic controls take over driving experience...

using microwave is against: "appetite integrity" since microwaved food never tastes the same and food that is cooked from scratch resembles the nice and cozzy feelings of being human...

using shoes is against: "walking integrity" since it destroys and alters the whole walking experience by changing the sensation felt by the foot. it removes efectiveness of toes...

wearing clothes is against: " outfit integrity" since push up bras is false advertisement and things we wear looks nothing like our body as far as colors and textures are concerned.. wearing clothes is like photoshopped version of our body which came out naked when we were born.

Message edited by author 2004-02-04 18:49:34.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

02/04/2004 06:50:38 PM · #2

To me, Gordon's effect looked like it was done by painting with light. The photo you mentioned in the other thread looked as though it was 100% a filter in photoshop (which doesn't look like a photo at all). This is why Gordon's has photographic integrity and the shoe-lace photo does not.

Your comparisons to "walking integrity" etc make no sense to me, and seem completly irrelivent.

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

02/04/2004 06:53:30 PM · #3

must we keep opening new threads on the same subject? it just gets outrageous to follow the conversation.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

02/04/2004 06:57:35 PM · #4

i am sorry for the inconvinience karen.. i feel very strongly about this subject and this is the last attempt of me trying to explain my point as well as i could... i am resting my case after this one..

MadMordegon

02/04/2004 07:01:03 PM · #5

LOL theodor38

"using shoes is against: "walking integrity" since it destroys and alters the whole walking experience by changing the sensation felt by the foot. it removes efectiveness of toes..."

thats friggin great hahah. and true, toes work much better when accually touching the surface there walking on ;)

great analogies

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

02/04/2004 07:01:37 PM · #6

resting your case was not my point.. just wanting to keep the conversation in the same thread.

:)

e301

02/04/2004 07:13:51 PM · #7

great analogies indeed - perhaps it should be noted that the use of turbochargers is not allowed in F1 ... or perhaps that would cloud the issue.

Andd Gordon's score doesn't seem to have been harmed any by those opinions.

Ed

tomlewis1980

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/04/2004 07:14:21 PM · #8

Mehmet,

Gordon's and Lorrie's entries scored very highly with me, they DO have photographic integrity and are both beautifully taken photographs, whereas the photograph from the other thread was, as far as I could see, purely a PhotoShop filter and therefore in my opinion it lacked photographic integrity.

I'm sorry that my interpretation of what makes a good photograph is not the same as yours, but there is little I can do about that.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/04/2004 07:21:27 PM · #9

i am aware that gordon's score wasnt efected,, i was merely trying to point out a contradiction...

soup

Canon EOS-30D

02/04/2004 07:26:42 PM · #10

if one person voted a photo any score at all the total score is affected - is there a point here?

tomlewis1980

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/04/2004 07:34:21 PM · #11

Originally posted by theodor38:

using shoes is against: "walking integrity" since it destroys and alters the whole walking experience by changing the sensation felt by the foot. it removes efectiveness of toes...

The point of walking is to get from point A to point B, shoes help you do this.

The point of DPC is to help you improve your photographic skills, running an image through a predefined filter that has little input from the user does not (in my opinion) help you to take better photographs.

nsoroma79

Nikon Coolpix P7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/04/2004 11:22:21 PM · #12

Personally I don't use photoshop if I don't have too. If you look at alot of my challenge comments, you will see that alot of people tell me to up the contrast, or fix the levels.... but, I take my photos as if PhotoShop didn't even exist. If it don't look right in the camera, then I take it until I get it right. It makes me a better photographer, and helps me learn to use light. Not pulling it from a program on my hard drive. I learn more from my mistakes... not photoshop.

I however don't give people less of a vote if they did. I do think that the shoelaces were a good idea, but I can take any image I have and make it look like that. I also believe that when you do altering in photoshop, it kinda goes twords digital art. You have to tinker with it digitally to get a finished product. (Just think did photographers back in the day have photoshop? It was from the camera and what they knew.)

And please don't think this is a shot at you, it is just MY feelings on the WHOLE PhotoShopping thing that has been floating around here.

I think I am talking in circles... please forgive me. I had 9 hours of school today! :)

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

02/04/2004 11:30:56 PM · #13

Maybe I dense, but what is your point Theodor? Everything arounds us evolves even fotography. Both your examples ribboned so obviously people liked them regardless of the 1's they might have gotten. Your analogies are great but seem kinda of wierd since most of the standards for integrity was established before industrialisation. Are we to revert back to barefootedness for the sake of walking integrity? Maybe I missed something important in the other thread 'cause I don;t get it? How come the glowing edges fliter shot of shoes (which scored better than my shot!) was not used as an example bc IMHO I thought it was a bit over done (especially since the original was posted & looked much better).

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

02/04/2004 11:39:15 PM · #14

well you actually magnified my point with your own words:

"Are we to revert back to barefootedness for the sake of walking integrity?"

the face of photography is changing and the methods of shooting are improving and more and more cameras now have built in special effects.. i am just saying we are in a constant spin of evolution and some of us i think have a problem adopting..

5 years ago noone could have guessed digital photography was going to kick off this fast that even kodak i think now removed their 35 mm cameras from production...

this part is in response to nsoroma79's comment:

in the good old days photographers had plenty of tools in their disposal in their darkrooms trying to create what photoshop offers us today.. and "beware the irony" that we are not being greatfull....

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

02/04/2004 11:47:05 PM · #15

theodor,

I wasn;t trying to make or break your point, just trying to understand what it is. I didnt read the first thread (ther was a hint by karen that there was another). I think I missed some vital info from the other thread.

If you are saying what I think you are then I state my opinion in that I agree with you. U just can;t fight evolution!

Brooklyn513

Sony DSC-F505

02/05/2004 12:22:13 AM · #16

I'm new around here, but I am going to wade right in anyway. I am currently trying out Photoshop and I know that I have no intention of getting a copy of it. Very useful but overloaded for my needs. I only used the saturation and unsharp mask (slightly). I would prefer that my photo came out of the camera perfectly or as close to it as possible.

By the way, thank god for shoes, hiking throught the rocky, rocky trails in the Catskills would be murderous without them.

02/05/2004 12:28:41 AM · #17

hey rooster here is the link tot he other thread if you are interesteed in reading:

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=69122

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/05/2004 08:22:41 AM · #18

Originally posted by theodor38:

using turbo chargers in cars is against: "performance integrity" since naturally aspirated engines are more fuel efficient and resembles a more honest performance...

using electronic stability controls is against: "traction integrity" since it eliminates a true driving factor, and electronic controls take over driving experience...

The F1 racing authorities certainly agree with you - they banned all these features to be back to actual racing...