| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2004 05:14:46 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think it would be a good thing if, as a group, we made a consious effort to avoid entering photos that look like they have been edited using illegal methods. To me, this means we should restrain ourselves from trying to find a legal means to acheive the look of an illegal method. We all ought to be a little more alert to the possibility of illegal methods when voting, but don't go overboard. Would this approach squelch anyone's creativity? |
The problem with the "illegal method" concept is that an illegal method in one program, is a legal operation in another. In PS, it was legal to use the gaussian blur and fade effect, which reduces the amount of gaussian blur applied to give you a nice soft focus. In PSe, the only way to do this is to apply a gaussian blur to a layer above, and then adjust transparency, then merge layers. Both are doing the same thing. One is legal, the other is not, under basic editing rules.
This is just an example of why the "rules" should be stated in terms of the "result", not the method. Not to get into the whole debate, just thought I'd point out that it's sometimes unfair to make discrete "operations" illegal, when in fact some legal "effects" use the same operations.
Lastly, my favorite restriction: I can't under the current rules take a bracketed exposure and combine the identical images with differing exposures (on a tripod) to get more dynamic range. Even though the picture is more representative of what my eyes see than the single frame. But I can draw in a frame and pretend it's a window view!
The solution in my book is to come up with scene integrity rules.
And Gordon, the real issue is that people should not be scoring you down, even if they generate a DQ request. There should be no problem getting the DQ requests since you are within the rules (perhaps a little "hassle") The problem is simply people should not be taking away points because they think you edited it. |
You make a lot of valid points there Neil, and I in no way want to get involved in the "photoshop" debate..all I am trying to illustrate is that people are scoring down images because they suspect that enhancement has taken place.."Sea of Tranquility" was a good example and I actually received apologies for low scores from some people after the challenge when I posted the original and they realised it hadn`t been "created". |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 05:33:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by geewhy:
...all I am trying to illustrate is that people are scoring down images because they suspect that enhancement has taken place |
Interesting... I've gotten a comment re: photoshop on one of my images for the Silhouette challenge (never had that happen before) ... seems folks are over-sensitive to it and feel compelled to comment on the photoshop technique they think they see -- like a "Name That Technique" challenge within a challenge. (of course I didn't use the photoshop technique called-out in my shot -- several others but not that one)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 05:35:48 PM · #28 |
I got a personal comment on my Eyes.jpg picture, that the colors were totally created in photoshop. Sometimes I get the feeling that I have to tone the photograph down in photoshop to make it more believable so people will believe it was shot that way.
I´m against too much photoshop work but the paranoia is clearly too much. And the photoshop overuse is clearly too much also. So it holds hands. |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 05:41:25 PM · #29 |
I got a comment in the Silhouette challenge commending (I think) me for not oversaturating my image.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 05:58:11 PM · #30 |
If people entered photos that did not make voters think about illegal editing methods, they would not have to worry about getting voted low by suspicious voters. In addition to getting better rules for advanced editing, and better enforcement (a major step was taken yesterday in this regard), we need to educate the voters. Let's get back to competing with our images and retreat from competing on who can push the limits of the rules and/or exploit loopholes the most and not be detected/get caught.
Some people say it makes no difference as long as the viewer can't tell. I don't accept that. It's the equivilent of saying you can do any kind of editing you want to as long as you are very good at it; but if you are not quite so good and people detect what you are doing- then your are DQed. People who are good enough to use illegal editing methods wihtout getting caught have still given themselves an unfair advantage over the people who stay within the rules.
When we adopted the Advanced rules, and especially in the debate leading up to the change, we were told, ad nauseum, that we needn't worry about digital art taking over the site, voters would score them low. Now we have had a spate of digital art taking ribbons in the last few challenges with some of them being DQed subsequently. If relying on the voters is going to be a viable element in controlling the digital art entries, we need to educate the voters so that they can do their part. |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 06:46:06 PM · #31 |
Hmmm, how about just voting the image & sending in a DQ request if you think it's PS'd...that IS what the DQ instructions say to do! Let the Admmins do their job & just honestly vote on the images for cryin out loud. Why inadvertently make someone elses score suffer because everyone got parnoid now?
|
|
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: 09/05/2025 08:40:45 PM EDT.
