Creating Elements to Add to a Challenge Entry

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/12/2004 06:49:28 PM · #1

Just curious how folks feel about a "photographer" or a "photograph" which employs such a technique.

I'm not talking about cloning one area of a photograph to another. I'm talking about creating something that wasn't there in the first place using a photo editor.

There is nothing specific in the rules which prohibits such a thing so long as the creation does not come from a different photograph, but it would seem to fly in the face of "maintaining photographic integrity."

Message edited by author 2004-04-12 18:51:12.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/12/2004 06:55:44 PM · #2

You mean taking out the Wacom and drawing something to include in a photo?

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/12/2004 07:03:10 PM · #3

Originally posted by faidoi:

You mean taking out the Wacom and drawing something to include in a photo?

Yes, something along those lines.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/12/2004 07:04:12 PM · #4

Shari do you have an example or what you mean?
Cloning
Cut & Paste
Drawing
?

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/12/2004 07:08:21 PM · #5

Done on paper then photographed, but not sure if anyone has drew anything digitally.

Message edited by author 2004-04-12 19:32:04.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

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

04/12/2004 07:09:39 PM · #6

Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled.

04/12/2004 07:11:04 PM · #7

I think he means adding things that aren't in the shot or from another shop, just entirely made up by photoshop to "enhance" the image. The best example I can think about is adding that sun glare.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/12/2004 07:12:28 PM · #8

By the way, for a site like this, and in general really, I believe I would frown upon it. But hey, that's just one man's opinion.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

04/12/2004 07:16:56 PM · #9

Originally posted by Konador:

Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled.

I was tricked into giving out a "10". That's not cool.

04/12/2004 07:20:58 PM · #10

Originally posted by faidoi:

Originally posted by Konador:

Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled.

I was tricked into giving out a "10". That's not cool.

Dude, you speak my language!

Prof_Fate

04/12/2004 07:29:08 PM · #11

It goes back to 'what is art'? I have read that painting is adding things to a picture, photography is leaving things out.

I often see or do cloning to cover (remove) things (wires, poles, etc). I hav enot added anything, unless it is to move a bush to hide something.

Background blurring, can be done with the camera useing DOF, or in the computer using gaussian blur. Is the second method wrong?

Since one cannot photograph one's own artwork for an entry, would making a drawing in the picture be the same or not?

After much thought, i lean toward the 'do anything you can' school. I think some folks don't like this for two reasons - they are not skilled enough to do it themselves so feel they cannot compete, and have some belief that a photo has some documentary quality that dare not be messed with. A photo cannot capture reality - it only captures what the photographer wants it to, so the 'reality' is subjective to start. We all modify the image in an editor in some way (contrast, saturation, cropping, etc), so it becomes a personal decision on how far to go. A little this time, a little more next time, then as one's skills progress the 'line' not be crossed is moving every farther out the limb.

I consider my photography to be art ( i did not say fine art or even good art LOL), not news coverage or of other historical significance, so the only rules in art are those that are self-imposed.

chris

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/12/2004 07:32:39 PM · #12

Originally posted by bestagents:

I consider my photography to be art

I tend to agree with a lot of the things you've said, but the question I'm left with is that in the end, is it photography ? It might have started there, but by the end it is some sort of mixed media, computer generated art/ photography hybrid.

So yes - it is art, but is it photography ? and more relevantly, digital photography?

04/12/2004 07:34:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by bestagents:

I consider my photography to be art

I tend to agree with a lot of the things you've said, but the question I'm left with is that in the end, is it photography ? It might have started there, but by the end it is some sort of mixed media, computer generated art/ photography hybrid.

So yes - it is art, but is it photography ? and more relevantly, digital photography?

I believe I take your position on this issue.

Prof_Fate

04/12/2004 07:41:50 PM · #14

Cut and pasted from here

"Is Digital Imaging Photography?

A photograph is an image produced on a light-sensitive surface by the action of light. The sensitive surface is affected by light either chemically or electronically. The essential criteria is the use of light in at least one step of the image forming process. A photograph modified in a computer is still a photograph, like a photograph modified in a darkroom. However, if a new image is created by assembling various components in the computer, the image is no longer a photograph because light is not used to form the new composition. Although some of the components may have been produced by a photographic process, the image thus created is an entirely new composition and not a modified photograph.

Photographic art without "photo" (light = photons) becomes graphic art. The boundary between photographic art and the graphic art is not sharp and depends on the significance light has in the image creating process. Photography may be considered to be one of the many graphic art forms, but the opposite is true only when the image is created by light. How well a graphic image that is not really a photograph is accepted in photographic contests and exhibitions depends entirely on the judges. This has been the criterion in the past and will be always the rule in the future.

Submitted by Erik Kissa, EPSA
Wilmington, DE

COPYRIGHT 2002 Photographic Society of America, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group"

Does that help? I can agree with it.

Message edited by author 2004-04-12 19:43:31.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/12/2004 08:44:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by Konador:

Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled.

Ben,

This is exactly what I meant. And I agree with your assessment.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/12/2004 08:44:47 PM · #16

Originally posted by goinskiing:

I think he means adding things that aren't in the shot or from another shop, just entirely made up by photoshop to "enhance" the image. The best example I can think about is adding that sun glare.

That is exactly what SHE meant.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2004 09:34:50 PM · #17

Originally posted by Konador:

Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules.

I disagree -- I think an element created on the computer constitutes "clip art" within the meaning of the rules. It makes no difference whether the art is rendered on a layer within the same file within the photo, or in a separate file and imported -- it is a distinct and separate element created digitally and not photographically. It is specifically NOT created from the same image by cloning, dodging, or burning. I don't see any way to consider it legal under our rules.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/12/2004 10:00:23 PM · #18

i enjoy a good rendition of light in a digitally created image, but here ( at DPC ), i would have to say that the photograph itself is king, and though creating an image to fool the eye is a skill in itself, photographs are the overall theme here.

Repairing a photograph is alright, but creating a photograph digitally is not. props to labuda for the well done image. lets find a way to prevent the same sort of thing in the future possibly.

JPR

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

04/12/2004 10:49:16 PM · #19

Anyone notice labuda did it again with his Bar Fight photo? I respect the photoshop ability and it doesn't bother me personally but I definetely agree that it is a blatant violation of the rules.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2004 10:51:14 PM · #20

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Anyone notice labuda did it again with his Bar Fight photo? I respect the photoshop ability and it doesn't bother me personally but I definetely agree that it is a blatant violation of the rules.

The "Bar Fight" photo was created differently and is legal IMO.