| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2004 12:21:41 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Using a laptop with a color on it is no different than using a cloth background, paper background, etc. |
I agree!!!
Interesting how those on the verge of innovation always create controversy...... |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:23:06 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by BigSmiles:
I dont think it's really a problem....but I think there's more merit in learning how to do it with actual lights. While I think there's nothing wrong with photoshopping an image, I do think learning the conventional way of doing some stuff is important. |
Of the 20 things here I could debate, I'm going to choose this one: (no offense Carolle ;))
No way is there more merit in doing it with lights or any other method for that matter. The photographers job is to capture an image and with any luck have it perceived by the viewer as he/she had intended. If this were a shoot for a client rather than a contest, why would it matter? For the sake of the contest, we are required to stay within the rules, but there's no more (or less) merit in using another technique (other than the fact that this is simpler).
No one complained about  <---this, yet it's essentially the same technique (and don't bother trying to differentiate between using a photo of a face vs a spot created in PS, since that part is irrelevant).
My hunch is that this doesn't really bake Gordon's noodle, rather he brought it up to make a very valid point, and to challenge people's current (mis)conceptions about the implements of Photoshop.
From here on in, I'm not posting my methods for any entries. This would never come up if Eddy didn't mention how he achieved this DPC Basic Editing Rules Legal effect.
P-Ness |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:26:11 PM · #28 |
I think Eddy did a nice job using creative lighting. Ive been using this technique for quite awhile, and I think its wonderful. The actual picture I used for my monitor bacjground is an actual picture, that I manipulated prior to the set up of the glass ball.
I dont think a photo has to represent a moment in time or have actually happened. That would be journalistic type photography. A photograph to me has to grab my interest, thats all.
I do notice that some of the PS naysayers, shoot in the journalistic style. Meaning, they happen upon a scene, maybe use some creative framing, and then capture the image. That is just one style of photography, there is so much more out there and I dont think one type of photography has more weight than any other.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:27:51 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Using a laptop with a color on it is no different than using a cloth background, paper background, etc. |
... or a layer in photoshop ?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:31:01 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
My hunch is that this doesn't really bake Gordon's noodle, rather he brought it up to make a very valid point, and to challenge people's current (mis)conceptions about the implements of Photoshop.
|
I wonder if I'm being misunderstood, somewhat I don't have a problem with the shot or how it was done. I'm sure I tried to make that really clear up at the top of this thread when I started it. [The 'bake your noodle' is a matrix quote about things that are hard to get your head around btw]. I just figured this image really highlights the idea of the intent of the photographer, no matter what tools they have available or are restricted to using.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:31:09 PM · #31 |
I guess some people won't be satisfied until the entire site has relaxed rules.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:33:28 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I guess some people won't be satisfied until the entire site has relaxed rules. |
I'd be happy with more restrictive, but sane rules.
I'd much rather see the advanced rules more restrictive than they currently are for example.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:38:28 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Pedro:
My hunch is that this doesn't really bake Gordon's noodle, rather he brought it up to make a very valid point, and to challenge people's current (mis)conceptions about the implements of Photoshop.
|
I wonder if I'm being misunderstood, somewhat I don't have a problem with the shot or how it was done. I'm sure I tried to make that really clear up at the top of this thread when I started it. [The 'bake your noodle' is a matrix quote about things that are hard to get your head around btw]. I just figured this image really highlights the idea of the intent of the photographer, no matter what tools they have available or are restricted to using. |
I'm agreeing with you entirely. I meant that I didn't really think you were having trouble getting your head around this issue, as much as you're trying to get your head around others' perception of the issue.
Here's another fabulous application of the technique  that went similarly unchallenged, though is in spirit the same as Eddy's.
The issue with editing is (or should be, IMO) about whether the image was manipulated after the fact. If not, the fotog was merely capturing a scene he/she created, by whatever means. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:40:42 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by orussell:
I guess some people won't be satisfied until the entire site has relaxed rules. |
I'd be happy with more restrictive, but sane rules.
I'd much rather see the advanced rules more restrictive than they currently are for example. |
But does that bring the two sets of rules closer to converging into one set?
I think the site administrators and site council have the right idea (and this was backed by popular vote) to have the two distinct set of rules that now exist.
One thing that is also clear to me is that there is a financial support advantage to having two set of rules: it increases interest in membership. This site cannot survive without membership, so this makes a whole lot of sense to me. Those that wish to submit to more challenges, as well as a set of challenges that have more flexible rules, must become paying members. That is a strong, smart carrot in my opinion, and definitely one I support.
Rich.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 12:41:42. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:41:24 PM · #35 |
| Imma enter a screen capture of this thread for "Conflict". It was created on a computer, but that was before I captured it. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:43:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
One thing that is also clear to me is that there is a financial support advantage to having two set of rules: it increases interest in membership. This site cannot survive without membership, so this makes a whole lot of sense to me. Those that wish to submit to more challenges, as well as a set of challenges that have more flexible rules, must become paying members. That is a strong, smart carrot in my opinion, and definitely one I support.
Rich. |
I agree with you Rich, however ironically some don't want to enter member challenges because they're scared of the editing rules :) |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:50:24 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
But does that bring the two sets of rules closer to converging into one set?
I think the site administrators and site council have the right idea (and this was backed by popular vote) to have the two distinct set of rules that now exist. |
You are quite correct, that was one of the original motivations when we wrote the rules. I think there is plenty of scope for two sets of rules that both are true to the idea of a photograph.
Currently however, we have two sets of rules that easily encompass all sorts of digital art and creative filter application, while not doing a whole lot to encourage entry of photographs created using best practice editing technique at the high level, or even basic good camera technique at the low end. That's always been my issue with the rules both when I was part of the site council and afterwards. As phrased they don't do much to encourage people to learn good camera technique - which I think the open challenge rules should encourage, nor do they much to encourage a great photographic editing workflow for the more advanced rules.
Right now, you can fix sloppy technique with the open editing rules, and you can do all sorts of wacky and horrible digital art with both sets of rules, but some standard photographic techniques are illegal under the advanced rules. Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 12:53:24.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:04:07 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by richterrell:
But does that bring the two sets of rules closer to converging into one set?
I think the site administrators and site council have the right idea (and this was backed by popular vote) to have the two distinct set of rules that now exist. |
You are quite correct, that was one of the original motivations when we wrote the rules. I think there is plenty of scope for two sets of rules that both are true to the idea of a photograph.
Currently however, we have two sets of rules that easily encompass all sorts of digital art and creative filter application, while not doing a whole lot to encourage entry of photographs created using best practice editing technique at the high level, or even basic good camera technique at the low end. |
Gordon,
Honestly, I think that should be left in the hands of the voters - and peer voting is what this site is all about. So, barring all of us being art majors or otherwise qualified critics (I obviously am not) we are subject to the interpretation of our submissions by our peers.
In the case of EddyG's photo as an example, I not only think it is a technically good shot that more than meets the theme of the challenge, I also am impressed with his creative use of props in carrying off the shot under strict rules. You may interpret this photo differently, and the next person, and so on. Thus the bell curve is born :-) and we all hope the center of that bell is higher rather than lower when the voting ends :-)
I think artisitic quality can be maintained just as the rules are - it is up to the voters (and that means us, really) to determine what they like and do not like.
Thanks,
Rich.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:07:10 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Gordon,
Honestly, I think that should be left in the hands of the voters - and peer voting is what this site is all about. So, barring all of us being art majors or otherwise qualified critics (I obviously am not) we are subject to the interpretation of our submissions by our peers. |
I absolutely agree it should be left in the hands of the voters. I've often posted in support of just that point. I don't see why voters would have voted any differently on this image if the blue was done in photoshop after the shutter was clicked, or done in photoshop before the shutter was clicked, as is the case here. I'm sure some would have voted differently - but I still don't rationally understand why. Maybe that's the issue - I'm trying to understand it as a rational point of view.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 13:07:50.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:07:36 PM · #40 |
How fun it is to have this photographic technique discussed in the context of my challenge entry. =] Thanks for all the nice comments from those who liked the shot.
For those of you who didn't like the blue color... I didn't just create a blue spotlight effect, but I also created red, yellow, white, etc. I loaded them all into a simple slideshow program and used the arrow keys to toggle amongst the various choices. Here are a couple out-takes, including one with a plain black background:
I just liked the blue one the best (the old "you can please everyone" thing). I "painted" the rope with a flash light, which is why the illuminiation changes from shot to shot. I also tweaked how "messy" the frayed ends should be in various shots.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 13:13:11. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:13:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by richterrell:
Gordon,
Honestly, I think that should be left in the hands of the voters - and peer voting is what this site is all about. So, barring all of us being art majors or otherwise qualified critics (I obviously am not) we are subject to the interpretation of our submissions by our peers. |
I absolutely agree it should be left in the hands of the voters. I've often posted in support of just that point. I don't see why voters would have voted any differently on this image if the blue was done in photoshop after the shutter was clicked, or done in photoshop before the shutter was clicked, as is the case here. I'm sure some would have voted differently - but I still don't rationally understand why. Maybe that's the issue - I'm trying to understand it as a rational point of view. |
I see what you mean - we have sort of strayed from the original topic of why this effect had to be created the way it was, as opposed to just layering in PS.
All I can say is that the rules were created with a wide degree of separation, and I certainly can live with them. I was not aware that you had originally had a hand in their formation.
You raise some very interesting points, that much is certain.
Rich. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:15:24 PM · #42 |
So, other than quick and bad technique, in an old version of Photoshop (5.0 LE) how does this differ ? Yes I know its yellow and not blue.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:30:33 PM · #43 |
My 2 pence worth:
I for one am fairly happy with the advanced challenge rules, not much I would want changed apart from banning NeatImage maybe...
However, the open challenge, I would like to see many actions removed, such as: Hue adjustments, channel mixer, selective colour, invert, and posterize. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:34:49 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, other than quick and bad technique, in an old version of Photoshop (5.0 LE) how does this differ ? Yes I know its yellow and not blue.
|
One was photographed, the other wasn't. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:39:34 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, other than quick and bad technique, in an old version of Photoshop (5.0 LE) how does this differ ? Yes I know its yellow and not blue.
|
One was photographed, the other wasn't. |
So if I print out a copy of Gordon's 'Painting with Light' winner, take a photograph of it and submit it to the mundane challenge will you mark accordingly - being that it's a genuine photograph and all....
Oh one more rule i would scrap is the 640 pixel maximum image size. This is the year 2004, no one uses tiny monitors any more. (Or is it cost related)
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:40:14 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by richterrell:
But does that bring the two sets of rules closer to converging into one set?
I think the site administrators and site council have the right idea (and this was backed by popular vote) to have the two distinct set of rules that now exist. |
You are quite correct, that was one of the original motivations when we wrote the rules. I think there is plenty of scope for two sets of rules that both are true to the idea of a photograph.
Currently however, we have two sets of rules that easily encompass all sorts of digital art and creative filter application, while not doing a whole lot to encourage entry of photographs created using best practice editing technique at the high level, or even basic good camera technique at the low end. That's always been my issue with the rules both when I was part of the site council and afterwards. As phrased they don't do much to encourage people to learn good camera technique - which I think the open challenge rules should encourage, nor do they much to encourage a great photographic editing workflow for the more advanced rules.
Right now, you can fix sloppy technique with the open editing rules, and you can do all sorts of wacky and horrible digital art with both sets of rules, but some standard photographic techniques are illegal under the advanced rules. Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. |
Gordon,
Do you have some examples of standard photographic techniques that are illegal under the advanced rules? I am confused there, but I have no real formal education in photography, I am still feeling my way along in a lot of ways.
Also, in what way does the advanced rules limit photographic workflow?
Thanks,
Rich. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:41:18 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It seems people expend a whole lot of effort to get around the restrictions imposed by the challenge, to do things in a way that is less than optimial, compared to the current solutions available. Are we wasting creative energy finding ways around the rules to do things that people already want to do ? Is that something to be praised, or something to recognise as a deficency in the current rules ? |
Why is it "less than optimal" to do it the way EddyG did it, as opposed to doing it entirely with software? He came up with a fine image, the voters approved, and because it was in an Open challenge they knew it wasn't overly edited. But suppose it were an Advanced rules challenge, would it be more "optimal" to do it with software?
Personally, I don't think saying things like "wasteing creative energy", "get around the restrictions", or "they're scared of the editing rules" really help. These type of remarks tend to cloud the issue, and probably are more reflective of the maker's own perspective rather than of objectivity.
Originally posted by richterrell:
One thing that is also clear to me is that there is a financial support advantage to having two set of rules: it increases interest in membership. This site cannot survive without membership, so this makes a whole lot of sense to me. Those that wish to submit to more challenges, as well as a set of challenges that have more flexible rules, must become paying members. That is a strong, smart carrot in my opinion, and definitely one I support. |
I hope Rich is right on this point but it may turn out to be a two-edged sword. Those who prefer the Basic rules will have less incentive to join or to renew their memberships. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:41:50 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Oh one more rule i would scrap is the 640 pixel maximum image size. This is the year 2004, no one uses tiny monitors any more. (Or is it cost related) |
I'd be willing to bet that is more an issue of bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:44:59 PM · #49 |
If it's a question of bandwidth then they should simply delete those images that fall into the bottom 60% of every challenge - make it a bit more exciting.
[joke]
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:45:29 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by KarenB:
Using a laptop with a color on it is no different than using a cloth background, paper background, etc. |
... or a layer in photoshop ? |
From EddyG's Details under the photo:
Blue spotlight effect was simply a blurred circle I created in Photoshop. I placed my laptop (turned on its side to "portrait" orientation) behind the rope and displayed the "background" I created to accentuate the "breaking point".
The rope was "painted" (as in "painting with light") with a moving flashlight during the exposure.
Captured with the Canon 50mm/1.4 lens.
Perhaps I have not read enough of this thread, or have misunderstood.
I do not see anything in this description that is out of bounds or over using Photoshop, etc. He created a backdrop, and used it. He did not paint it in on the photo afterwards.
Layers? What are you saying?
|
|
