| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2004 06:41:51 PM · #1 |
it came up in a number of the comments re: my entry in the magazine challenge that i would have done better without the filtering effect on my entry:
which i mocked up into a magazine format and include here with an actual magazine cover that i lifted from another website:
 
and like this without the filter
i am new to dpc and i guess the filtering effects are not popular here but am just hoping for some feedback/commentary on my attempt to be authentic and it's general unpopularity...
should i have just submitted it as a still life without the flimflam?
|
|
|
|
03/29/2004 07:11:30 PM · #2 |
| I like it better with the filter |
|
|
|
03/29/2004 07:38:41 PM · #3 |
Absolutely better "with". There is much more impact with the filter, you applied just the right amount to achieve the mood. Don't let the "photo-purists" dissuade you, you have a very good eye for what works.
You may get scored down by some, but even one of your commentors that said "...it's not photography" gave you an 8. Your average score is irrelevant. Great work.
Disclaimer:
I just might be biased, I gave you a 9 =)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2004 10:06:13 PM · #4 |
thanks heida and kirbic!!
|
|
|
|
03/29/2004 10:08:51 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
03/29/2004 11:51:31 PM · #6 |
You'll find that in general the voters here won't like filters. I personally like PS'd images to a point if the effect somehow enhances the image to fit the challenge topic. I think yours fits the challenge well. I think the unfiltered photo would probably have done better.
The reason a lot of voters don't like the filters is reasonable: It makes it harder to judge your image against others if a filter is "disguising" the actual technical qualities of the photo.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 12:25:48 AM · #7 |
| I think for the magazine cover, which looks good, it looks better unfiltered. And this is coming from someone who definitely likes photos which are painterly. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 12:47:43 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
You may get scored down by some, but even one of your commentors that said "...it's not photography" gave you an 8. |
Immediately before that, I did say that I felt "that this kind of processing takes the final product away from photography and into graphic art. You've produced a very fine image, but it's not photography. 8"
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 01:00:47 AM · #9 |
I think it looks like a good image and very similar to the real magazine that you got the inspiration from. I did vote it low though, as I don't personally feel it comes even close to the idea of maintaining photographic integrity, mentioned in the challenge rules.
You obviously made the decision to take your photograph and make it look like it was painted - to me that isn't trying to maintain it as a photograph. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 01:18:36 AM · #10 |
Really nice Phtograph, completly professional in terms of compostion and placing of subject.
Personally i love without filter
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 08:27:15 AM · #11 |
The without filter version would have gotten a vote at least one point higher from me.
Message edited by author 2004-03-30 08:28:01. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:20:23 AM · #12 |
| I think it really fit the challenge perfectly especially that this is the type of picture that your magazine of choice generally features in its covers. Its the ignorance of the viewers who gave it a low score because of the 'graphic arts' treatment that hurt you. But as to the picture itself, the composition is quite good, the lighting is absolutely beautiful, the colors are warm and overall is very attractive for the kind of audience that the magazine wants. Of course this is just my opinion. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:23:06 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by flip89:
I think it really fit the challenge perfectly especially that this is the type of picture that your magazine of choice generally features in its covers. Its the ignorance of the viewers who gave it a low score because of the 'graphic arts' treatment that hurt you. |
Its now ignorant to follow the rules ?
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:57:25 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by flip89:
Its the ignorance of the viewers who gave it a low score because of the 'graphic arts' treatment that hurt you. |
Hold on a minute here. You used my phrase, and I gave an 8. Besides which, it seems that you are calling me ignorant. Not only is your interpretation of the facts completely wrong, your manner is insulting. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 10:17:50 AM · #15 |
From RULES: "This means you are free to use dodging and burning tools to correct exposure issues, use the clone tool to remove dust spots, use third-party image enhancement filters, etc. to make your photo "the best it can be". You are encouraged to list all of the post-shot editing tools that you used in the "Photographer's Comments" section of your submission."
i think "photographic integrity" is quite subjective. i think the blur challenge is a perfect (117 examples!) of the subjectiveness of this phenomenon. my goal was to take a photo that captured the mood of the magazine it was trying to cover. with this in mind, i used filters to make my photo "the best it could be."
that said, i do appreciate the in-put from all. being a newcomer, i'm just getting to know the "style" of this site which as has been discussed elsewhere, is self-propagating.
best regards,
(edited for clarification of quote from rules)
Message edited by author 2004-03-30 10:19:16.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 10:21:48 AM · #16 |
My point, about photographic integrity, is just that your picture looks like an image that has been run through a photoshop filter. It is a good approximation of a painting, looks heavily processed, is a great image, but doesn't look anything like a real photograph, to me.
Almost all of the motion blur shots look like they came from a camera. They look like photographs. To me that's the difference and what that particular exhortation in the rules is driving at.
The bit in particular is
Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting.
To me, at least, photographic integrity means looking like something that could be produced with a camera or in a darkroom - no matter how much photoshopping work that's been done to it. The photoshopping in this context should enhance the original, not create something radically different. Again, just to me, your image crosses that line by quite a large degree.
It doesn't make a bad image - in fact I think it looks great. It just doesn't look like a photograph, or something that would be done in a darkroom, in general.
Message edited by author 2004-03-30 10:24:27.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 11:23:19 AM · #17 |
| So If I scewed a filter on the lens that made the image have the same effect, does that keep the photographic integrity? |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 11:36:18 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
So If I scewed a filter on the lens that made the image have the same effect, does that keep the photographic integrity? |
Not really, to me. As someone else mentioned, even the idea of photographic integrity is a fairly personal thing. It doesn't look like a photograph to me, no matter how it was made. I don't have a great deal of interest in looking at shots that are obviously heavily filtered or manipulated, when I vote here - though my opinion on this varies over time as my own personal style and taste develop.
I also think Cokin produce some of the tackiest products in the world. Again, just a personal opinion.
That's the good thing about having such a wide open voting scale and such a broad cross section of voters - you get lots of opinions on the popularity of your shot.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 11:54:03 AM · #19 |
I have to agree with Gordon on this one.
I did not vote on Daisy's photo, but I would not have given it an exceptionally high score.
The original is a lovely photo and done very nicely, the lighting is great and the composition is pleasing to me.
The edited version is very nice also and Daisy did a great job at attaining the affect she wanted.
However for the challenge it does look to over edited, maybe a softer touch on the editing would have resulted in a higher score, who knows.
Daisy, good luck on the upcoming challenges....
James
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 02:39:06 PM · #20 |
When the site council decided on the wording of these rules it was agreed upon that the term "photographic integrity" primarily meant that the image must still look like a photograph. Just because this term is not explained clearly doesn't mean that this is not what we specifically mean. It is not always easy to convey in writing the true spirit of an intent or idea but, nonetheless, the spirit is still there. If you are not following the rules of these challenges you are either making an honest mistake or you are intentionally changing the meaning to fit your own personal ideas. Either way, there is only one true meaning and that is the one represented by the rule makers. Admittedly, there is SOME gray area in where a photo stops being photographic and becomes digital art but that doesn't make it all subjective because, in most cases, it is very clear when an image has been turned into digital art. I personally don't care about images in that gray area it's the ones that have clearly crossed the line that I might take issue with. The image that is the focus of this forum clearly crosses into digital art and thus is a perfect example of what we are trying to avoid on this site. That may be a little hard to accept because it is a beautiful image and was well executed. Fortunately no images are being DQ for not adhearing to this part of the rule. We are just trying to make it clear to everyone what we mean. It may take an expansion to the current rules to properly explain it and reduce the confusion.
T
|
|
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: 10/16/2025 11:12:30 PM EDT.
