Author | Thread |
|
02/18/2004 01:49:09 PM · #51 |
Karen your post has made just me laugh ;)
Hohoho |
|
|
02/18/2004 01:54:18 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jonpink: 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.... |
of course not (Lemme quote the rules in case you haven't read them)
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions"
any other questions? |
|
|
02/18/2004 02:01:09 PM · #53 |
It was sarcasm, however what if I stuck a fly on it?
|
|
|
02/18/2004 02:06:40 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by jonpink: Karen your post has made just me laugh ;)
Hohoho |
no comprendo.. elaborate?
|
|
|
02/18/2004 02:20:23 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by jonpink: It was sarcasm, however what if I stuck a fly on it? |
that would help, but i'd still give you a low score because his picture wasn't mundane ;). now if you were to print out a copy of this thread, tape it to the back of the fly and THEN stuck it on the picture, it would come closer to meeting the challenge, and maybe enough of a departure from the original artwork to be considered a creative interpretation of his work (which IS legal).
:) |
|
|
02/18/2004 02:36:12 PM · #56 |
lol.
by the way your submission isn't supposed to be mundane, just the object, but make it exciting ;)
|
|
|
02/18/2004 02:42:32 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by jonpink: lol.
by the way your submission isn't supposed to be mundane, just the object, but make it exciting ;) |
Then you could set fire to it, paint it with a flashlight, and perhaps capture a water droplet hitting the flames as you take it.
;) |
|
|
02/18/2004 02:43:10 PM · #58 |
In the end it is what the photograph looks like that should be what is appealing, and not always the method used to accomplish it.
In basic editing he used the photoshop layer on a computer physically behind the rope. People knew it to be a basic editing challenge and so assumed he either cheated or cleverly created the effect.
In advanced editing he could have shot the rope and then added the blue spot layer and accomplished the same final image. From a generalisation and what I've seen/read, it is possible that people would have seen his shot as 'too much PS' and voted it down because the 'cleverness' is not apparent nor looked for.
My personal opinion is that as long as the final image looks appealing I dont really care what method is used. That said, I do have some issues where the challenge topic is meant to use a photography technique and people decide to make it a photoshop technique instead. If the challenge topic was photograph a blue light and someone created a blue light in photoshop then I would see that as a failure to learn and capture a technique. It is disappointing to the viewers to learn afterwards, but in the end it is really only cheating themselves from missing out on the opportunity to explore and learn a technique.
I would enjoy it greatly if the differences between basic and advanced were what Gordon suggested earlier. Basic editing putting the emphasis on basic photography techniques and the elements of what makes good photographs - light, color, tonal ranges, composition, lines, texture, and the like. Advancing editing allowing for more creative images with a better workflow and the opportunity to learn basic to advanced editing techniques and expand on the already mastered basic photography elements.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 03:03:43 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by moodville: In the end it is what the photograph looks like that should be what is appealing, and not always the method used to accomplish it. |
Wholeheartedly agree, which is why from now on I'm not going to tell what editing techniques were used.
A few challenges ago people were hacking on Danny (crabappl3) for removing a fence from his winning photo - if he didn't tell them, they'd never have known. |
|
|
02/18/2004 03:11:07 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by KarenB: Layers? What are you saying? |
Gordon is asking WHY it should make a difference if Eddy made this backdrop, or if he'd just made the same blue spot as a layer in his photo and submitted the composite.
Whether the backdrop is a laptop monitor or a piece of black cloth with a blue dot painted on it is irrelevant (to me, anyway).
As Gordon's yellow-spot example shows, doing this as a Photoshop layer would probably have involved an extremely complicated masking job, and would have been a lot HARDER than just photographing the subject against the desired background as was done here.
But also, the fact that this could be created "naturally" actually validates the idea that you SHOULD be able to do this in a PS layer. |
|
|
02/18/2004 03:31:19 PM · #61 |
When I voted on it I gave it a 10, now that I know how he did it , I probably would have scored it even higher, if I could have. It was a great crystal clear shot. and he used a digital camera.... what seems to be the problem?????
|
|
|
02/18/2004 03:49:19 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Pedro: 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. |
To filter out the noise, I don't think anyone (so far) has complained about Eddy's technique. So no real point in showing other examples.
On the other hand, when you say the issue is "whether the image was manipulated after the fact", isn't that against what Gordon is saying? |
|
|
02/18/2004 03:53:57 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by StevePax: Originally posted by DJLuba:
Purpose - This is the key point. For myself, the purpose of a photograph is to capture a real moment in time and share it. As a viewer of photographs, my enjoyment of a good photograph comes from my belief that a moment in time existed and I can experience that moment through the photograph. My enjoyment increases the more the photo moves me emotionally, provokes thought, inspires me, or humors me. A basic human emotions.
|
This brings up the same old argument - most famous photographs are touched up to the point that they do not represent a moment in time. In fact, look at the entire "Painting with Light" challenge. Not one of those photos, even the fantastically moving ones, represents a moment in time. Gordon's 1st place shot really never existed except on his computer. He used "photography" to create it. A combination of camera technique and darkroom technique. That moment in time never existed. Neither did many of the moments represented by many famous photographers who, even in the film media, use dodging and burning and other editing techniques. |
Very well said.
Photography is art, that is something we all need to keep in mind.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 04:02:43 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by dtouch1: When I voted on it I gave it a 10, now that I know how he did it , I probably would have scored it even higher, if I could have. It was a great crystal clear shot. and he used a digital camera.... what seems to be the problem????? |
This isn't really a discussion of that photo (bad forum choice?), but a debate on the technique and why achieving the same effect in PS isn't allowed, but doing it in "real life" is. Especially since PS was a part of doing it in "real life".
Or something like that... |
|
|
02/18/2004 05:14:00 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by coolhar: 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.
|
I was referring here more to examples like Kiwiness's ice floe shot. The convoluted means he uses to remove dust spots within the rules speaks to this more obviously than any other example. The selective desaturation that is also often used is another fine example of something done in a poor way because of the rules, that would be better achieved using other technqiues (that are illegal)
The underlying intent is obviously there to do these things, regardless of what the spirit or letter of the rules actually say.
In the case of Eddy's shot, I think they are equally easy to do. I think his is a fine example of a case where he decided he wanted a blue spot behind the subject, and went ahead and did it in photoshop. The fact that he did it before or after the shutter was pressed is largely irrelevant to me - he decided he wanted that effect in his shot and did it in photoshop. I think both ways should be equally valid and can't find an intellectual reason why there is any actual difference in the two approaches - give that the end result would be the same, the tools used are the same and it is just the order of application that is different.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:19:03 PM · #66 |
Same tools yes. But it is a "photograph" the way that he did it, not a "composited" version of a photograph. Sorry Gordon if this doesn't fit with your idea of what photography is, was, or will be; some people like it just fine the way it is.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:19:35 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
This brings up the same old argument - most famous photographs are touched up to the point that they do not represent a moment in time. In fact, look at the entire "Painting with Light" challenge. Not one of those photos, even the fantastically moving ones, represents a moment in time. Gordon's 1st place shot really never existed except on his computer. He used "photography" to create it. A combination of camera technique and darkroom technique. That moment in time never existed. Neither did many of the moments represented by many famous photographers who, even in the film media, use dodging and burning and other editing techniques. |
I don't quite understand why you put 'photography' in quotes there. The shot existed in front of my camera. It just happened to exist in time as well as space - as it was a 30 second exposure. It was probably one of my least photoshopped images for a long time.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 17:20:00.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:21:18 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by orussell: Same tools yes. But it is a "photograph" the way that he did it, not a "composited" version of a photograph. Sorry Gordon if this doesn't fit with your idea of what photography is, was, or will be; some people like it just fine the way it is. |
Its not so much that it doesn't fit, its just that nobody has yet managed to define it very well. If it was well defined, obviously it would be easy to point to a definition. Feel free to provide one then we can all put this to rest quickly...
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:30:33 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
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. |
Illegal under the advanced rules:
expanding dynamic range through image combining
expanding depth of field through image combining
panoramic stitching
multiple exposures/ sandwiches
all considered advanced, but certainly photographic, techniques, while at the same time allowing someone to shoot a blank sheet of paper and paint everything in using the brush tools (as long as it starts from a photograph and ends up looking like a photograph, apparently)
It is the open challenge rules that promote the investigation and investment in suboptimal workflows. E.g., selective desturation using hue/saturation sliders, or selective colour + hue/saturation for dust removal, while still encouraging sloppy technique by using levels to fix bad white balance and poor exposure choices. I think a lot could be done to have basic rules that encourage great in camera photographic capture and advanced rules that encourage developing and learning world class photographic editing and workflows. Currently we have a mostly random mix of allowed and disallowed techniques, which ignore what the photographer is actually trying to achieve, but tries to tie it together with the woolly term 'photographic integrity'. It makes as much sense as banning hammers because they might be used to break in to safes, or making crowbars illegal because they could be used to hijack buses.
As it is they currently do neither well, but the dead horse has started decomposing. I should know when to stop flagellating. So I will.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 17:34:36.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:42:27 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by orussell: Same tools yes. But it is a "photograph" the way that he did it, not a "composited" version of a photograph. Sorry Gordon if this doesn't fit with your idea of what photography is, was, or will be; some people like it just fine the way it is. |
Its not so much that it doesn't fit, its just that nobody has yet managed to define it very well. If it was well defined, obviously it would be easy to point to a definition. Feel free to provide one then we can all put this to rest quickly... |
If you feel that photography is taking a picture and compositing to create better looking backgrounds or whatever, that is your perogative. Photography is many thing to many people. Bottom line you have your definition of photography, and even if anyone could provide the ultimate definition (I certainly don't profess to be that scholarly about all things photographic), I doubt you would adopt it without question.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:46:53 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by orussell:
If you feel that photography is taking a picture and compositing to create better looking backgrounds or whatever, that is your perogative. Photography is many thing to many people. Bottom line you have your definition of photography, and even if anyone could provide the ultimate definition (I certainly don't profess to be that scholarly about all things photographic), I doubt you would adopt it without question. |
There has to be a better one than 'preserves photographic integrity' though.
It is very difficult to define something by saying that it should be what it is. It is a tautology and largely useless.
I'm still waiting to hear some reason why doing the photoshop before you press the shutter or after you press the shutter is somehow more photographic one way than the other.
Several people have said 'because it is' but that is mostly unhelpful too. Note that I didn't say it was either, I asked you why it is not.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 17:48:05.
|
|
|
02/18/2004 06:07:36 PM · #72 |
I have no problem with this shot and I have no problems with photoshop. Photoshop is a great tool for making your pictures better. Awhile ago I made some comments regarding a picture that won a challenge that may or may not be part of this.
My original fear and complaint has been showing up very high on a lot of recent challenges. (note: no disrespect is ment towards the photographers of the pictures to be mentioned). In one shot someone deleted out much of the picture to leave a pure white background, covered a bald spot, and touched up a fish and turned a snap shot into a ribbon winner. Great job in photoshop (and well within the rules), but I thought this was a photography challenge? How does a snapshot win a photography challenge? In another shot someone took a lot of time and effort to set and light a scene, but then used photoshop to add the painting with light element to make it fit the challenge. It wasn't the painting with photoshop challenge. In yet another example someone photoshopped brush strokes into their shadow. These were all within the rules, but well beyond removing a glare or a spec of dust or a bird that got in the way of the shot. These were all pictures created in photoshop, not created with a camera. They are closer to being a painting then a photograph.
Thats why I feel the members challenges have become photoshop contest and why I'm against the advanced editing rules. |
|
|
02/18/2004 06:23:30 PM · #73 |
|
|
02/18/2004 07:19:59 PM · #74 |
To me, the fact that he created the blue dot in Photoshop is wholly irrelevant - he captured the image, blue dot and all, with his camera.
The argument that with a mere change in when you use Photoshop you can create the same image puts undue significance on the fact that the blue dot was created with Photoshop. I understand this to be a base fact in the integrity of photography posts, not just some nebulous "integrity of photography" feeling without substance.
In one instance, the end result is faithful to what he physicaly saw through his camera, without regard to how any element in the scene was generated. In the other, the end result is not faithful to what could be seen through the camera. May be faithful to what the photographer intended, but that's another issue I think.
Does anything other than the end result matter? |
|
|
02/18/2004 08:58:59 PM · #75 |
Gordon, I admire your tenacity in this thread, and again, I go back to my original point: If Eddy had printed out the blue dot on paper and hung it behind the rope would this forum thread exist right now? How is a paper different from a laptop screen in this scenario? Both are backdrops, both have been created in PS, both cause the same effect. |
|