DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> CONSIDER MODIFYING THE RULES
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/22/2002 01:53:50 AM · #1
I was going to submit images to the"Your Corner Of The World" challenge this week until I read something in the Basic Rules:

"Post-shot Adjustments may be made to your image in a
photo editing program, so long as the modification is
applied to the whole image.... Absolutely no spot-
editing is allowed."

And I thought to myself, "What silliness -- like telling Jimi Hendrix, 'Sorry, acoustical guitars only.' "

And the point is not to compare myself to Hendrix, but rather to point out how creatively limiting such rules are. And all the more so in a digital age.

Ansel Adams once compared photography to music when he said the negative is the score and the print is the
performance. And from where I sit, it suggests a lack
of forward thinking when folks who make the rule
for such digital challenges don't see the "score" and the "performance" still go hand in hand. And perhaps
even more so today than in Adams day.

CJ (shaking his head)
 09/22/2002 02:24:44 AM · #2
I think the idea behind the rule about no spot editing is that the goal of this site is to work on the part of photography that comes before the computer. For me, it's too easy to fix things with the clone tool, which makes me a lazier photographer, because I know I can clean up mistakes later. Also, when you allow spot editing, you have to define the difference between digital photos and digital art. If I can clone out a telephone pole, can I clone someone's head on top of it instead?

That said, in the recent poll about the use of spot editing and filters, I voted to allow it. I'm finding it very frustrating to work around certain kinds of limitations due to my lack of equipment, such as lights. (I can do a lot with standard room lighting, but I'm starting to want to do things where it just doesn't work without post-processing.)

One possibility is to have rule like the other DPC where any spot edits "are permitted for the purpose of improving the appearance of a photograph and to give it a more natural look".
 09/22/2002 02:34:21 AM · #3
There are lots of places to submit modified work. It is good to have a place such a sthis which concentrates on the photography and not on the post-production.


* This message has been edited by an administrator on 9/22/2002 4:29:19 AM - Signature was breaking the page.
 09/22/2002 02:36:08 AM · #4
The rules in general, and the spot editing rule in particular, are one of the best things about this site.

You're right, your creativity is limited. It's limited to what you can create in a reasonable about of time with, basically, what's available to you at the camera. It's not a contest to see who can spend a month crafting the perfect image with a few dozen hours of PS time. There are other sites for that. That's what makes this site fun... you can test your ability to produce a relatively raw, unpolished image.

If you want to take your challenge image, edit the hell out of it, and use it for other contests / prints, you're free to do that - and many people do. But don't come trolling along with your 0 entries and 2 forum posts telling the rest of us what kind of competition we should be interested in. If you're not up for the one we're all happily enjoying then there are plenty of other photo sites.

And by the way, your Hendrix analogy is completely bogus. Working images until they're the prefect rendition of the artists imagination is akin to studio recording; playing by the rules here is akin to performing live. Would you tell Hendrix he shouldn't play live because he might play a few wrong notes?

Chris
 09/22/2002 02:49:12 AM · #5
Originally posted by jakking:
There are lots of places to submit modified work. It is good to have a place such a sthis which concentrates on the photography and not on the post-production.


I totally agree with you.
 09/22/2002 07:45:03 AM · #6
Agreed. This is why we come here ... and stay.
 09/22/2002 08:14:17 AM · #7
I really hope that the contest continues the way that it is in accordance with the editing rules. I agree that there are certainly other places you can go for editing contests.

Part of the real frustration here is attempting to get that "perfect" shot. That's what makes it fun. I have six different shots I'm looking at for the Corner of the World Challenge. Each of them have at least one small flaw. Trying to decide which detracts least from the shot is half the fun.

The main reason that I am here is to become a better photographer. Shooting from the hip and minimizing the editing are things that contribute to better shots in the long run. That is the way I want to learn.
 09/22/2002 08:18:57 AM · #8
yup, if they start allowing more editing, i'm outta here...partly because i've only got access to free editing programs and therefore can't do spot editing and won't stand a chance against those photos that have been touched up -- but mostly because the challenge to the photographer to use their skills to compose a good picture will be gone if the photog can just take a snapshot and edit out the unwanteds, might as well call it photoArt instead of photography...Ansel Adams aside, photography is about what you can do behind the camera, not what you can do in an editing program. Personally, i'm in the process of accumulating lights'n materials so i can have a small knock-down in-home studio versus looking to buy an editing program ...'course there could always be two category contests, one for photoArt and one for photography ;o)


 09/22/2002 09:04:52 AM · #9
cjmorgan59,
DPC is fine as it stands! You still have time to go out and take a picture for "Your Corner Of The World". This time try to take the picture you are going to enter without ANY post editing. If you find it needs some editing that is allowed, go for it. That's what its all about here. Most of us have learned what a wonderful tool our cameras are from this approach and boy is it fun.
Keep Shootn'
Autool
 09/22/2002 10:32:51 AM · #10
No spot editing! I'm challenged by creating a good photo. I don't want to work on my photoshop skills! This is not a creative editing site, it's a digital photography site.
 09/22/2002 10:56:57 AM · #11
Originally posted by Amphian:
I think the idea behind the rule about no spot editing is that the goal of this site is to work on the part of photography that comes before the computer.

That's truly sad because, even as Adams pointed out, camera work and post production go hand in hand like a musical score and performance.

*********

> For me, it's too easy to fix things with the clone
> tool, which makes me a lazier photographer, because
> I know I can clean up mistakes later.

You know, how you get there is never quite so important as just getting there. Imagine the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's album if George Martin hadn't been mixing in the studio. Or imagine just about anything written by Ernest Hemingway if the editors told him he could only submit first drafts (keeping mind his famous line that "The first draft of anything is shit."). Or -- and here's one that really hits home for us photographers -- imagine if someone said to Adams, "Sorry Ansel, no burning or dodging of images."

Look folks, if someone else has to set the rules to keep you from taking the supposed "lazy man's way out," then it's not an external voice you need, but rather something else... self-discipline.

But beyond that, in as much a craft faculity liberates creative expression, a stifling of craft application simply leads to a stifling of creative expression.

********


> Also, when you allow spot editing, you have to
> define the difference between digital photos and
> digital art. If I can clone out a telephone pole,
> can I clone someone's head on top of it instead?

Truly, the only folks who need to make that difference are journalist, so that news and fiction can be separated. But you and I, we don't have to define that
difference. We simply need to make images which communicate with clarity, directness and impact.

*********

> That said, in the recent poll about the use of spot
> editing and filters, I voted to allow it.

And kudos to you for that. Quite genuinely, kudos.

*********

> I'm finding it very frustrating to work around
> certain kinds of limitations due to my lack of
> equipment, such as lights.

Well there it is, case in point -- there are a great multitude of things I can do now with digitial imagine which were quite difficult (if not next to impossible) in more olden day (read film days) unless we had a good assortment of expensive lightings. And so it is once again absolute silliness to say, "Yes, you can do that if you go out and get the expensive lighting, but no you can't do that just with a bit of Photoshop work" It absolutely and totally defies common basic sense.

So if we're going to say "no Photoshop spot editing", for example, then in the spirit of what's fair is fair, it should equally be said that "nothing except natural lighting of shots is acceptable."

But truly, do not limit those folks who have the common horse sense to avoid the cost of expensive lighting when some Photoshop will just as efficient (and at a great deal less cost of both time and money) do the trick.

Here, you can quote me on this: "If Ansel Adams were alive today, he'd be rolling in his grave."

**********

One possibility is to have rule like the other DPC where any spot edits "are permitted for the purpose of improving the appearance of a photograph and to give it a more natural look".


That is certainly a good step in the right direction.

CJ
 09/22/2002 11:33:29 AM · #12
I would probably be OK with allowing the Dodge/Burn tools, but once you get into cloning and artistic filters you hit a slippery slope. I'd love to be able to take out dust spots or a piece of paper which blew into my scene, but I don't think even Ansel Adams made composited images or cloned-out someone he didn't like. And if we allowed any spot editing, we'd spnd TONS of time dealing with/arguing about disqualification requests; whether something is an "allowed" modification or not.

Another part of the "no editing" rule is to "level the playing field" for members with limited editing software and/or lower-end cameras.

For members who don't know, there is a site revision in the works (part of the purpose of that poll), and there should be a draft of the new rules released for comments fairly soon.
 09/22/2002 11:39:33 AM · #13
Originally posted by chrisab:
...And by the way, your Hendrix analogy is completely bogus. Working images until they're the prefect rendition of the artists imagination is akin to studio recording; playing by the rules here is akin to performing live. Would you tell Hendrix he shouldn't play live because he might play a few wrong notes?

Chris


Great point -- entering here is akin to playing at Open Mic night at your local club...and I've never seen a club with a "Demo Tape Night" (although I'm going to talk to a couple of clubs I know about the idea, now that it's come up!).
 09/22/2002 11:42:46 AM · #14
Originally posted by chrisab:
If you want to take your challenge image, edit the hell out of it, and use it for other contests / prints, you're free to do that - and many people do. But don't come trolling along with your 0 entries and 2 forum posts telling the rest of us what kind of competition we should be interested in.

Trolling? LOL. Look, you wouldn't see me with 0
entries if I'd put up what I was going to put up
before reading about these very limiting rules.
Even at that, I had a had full of images ready
to go this morning except when I go to post them
I keep getting a message back that they're not
the right size (even thought I've tried several
times to re-size them and re-submit them).

Beyond that, I've got a wealth of experience to
offer in terms of posting and being helpful, so
you might just a tad foolish to prematurely be
sushing off someone who could potential help be
of help to you as well.

******

And by the way, your Hendrix analogy is completely bogus. Working images until they're the prefect rendition of the artists imagination is akin to studio recording; playing by the rules here is akin to performing live. Would you tell Hendrix he shouldn't play live because he might play a few wrong notes?

No, I wouldn't. And I wouldn't also limit his creative performance by insisting that he only use an acoustical guitar. So would I tell the Beatles that there will be no mixing on the Sgt. Pepper's album. Nor would I tell Hemingway that he can only submit first draft. No would I tell Ansel Adams that his images are welcome but no burning and dodging.

For some of us at least, post-production work isn't so much about "fixing mistakes" but rather part and parcel of the very way we pre-concieve and image as we're doing our camera work. Indeed, the very way we shoot keeps this very integrated part of the process in mind.

This morning, for example, as I was looking at the basic rules here again, I noticed one more which seem silly: that everything has to be the same proportioned ratios in terms of height and width. It's, well, silly. In the most practical of terms, form follows function, and that means that unless there is a very specific reason for doing so (like fitting the proportions of a magazine format) that the creative of an image while sometimes be different depending on the content of the image and the photographers intent. Sometimes the image will be more panoramic. At other times, more square. But the underlying design principle stands: the form the images takes follows the fuction the photographer is trying to get served.

So here to is a second rule which strike me as needing amending: making the dimensional ratio of any given image fit the purpose of the photographer's intent in communication, and not as it stands right now where -- for truly no good reason that I can image -- all images are seeming required to be fit only one dimensional ratio size.

Look Chris, you might be right. Perhaps this isn't the place for me. But I'm telling you what my years of learning have taught me with regards to photography, and I'm cocky enough at this point in my career to think it's a voice worth considering.

I've had my D-60 camera for 15 weeks now. In my second week with the camera I made these images (which hopefully exemply some of what I've talking about in this thread):

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?.view=t&.dir=/Algonquin

And these from a wedding in August:

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?.dir=/Hanna+%26+Tom%27s+Wedding+(Aug.24th)&.view=t

And these flowers (mostly shoot one afternoon):

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?.dir=/Flowers&.src=ph&.view=t

So at the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I'm not just a newbie to photography, and what I've been saying here has not been without a good number of years of both study and self-reflection. So it just might be worth considering. Just maybe.

CJ

[/i]

 09/22/2002 11:51:50 AM · #15
I think, CJ, you are simply not listening to what the people here are saying.

There are a ton of sites where you can do anything you want, exactly as you describe. I submit to those, successfully at times, on a regular basis. Why does this site have to be just like all those others?

To be honest, it sounds like you have a very limited view of what is good and/or right and want everything to be the same.
 09/22/2002 12:02:25 PM · #16
Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
Originally posted by chrisab:
If you want to take your challenge image, edit the hell out of it, and use it for other contests / prints, you're free to do that - and many people do. But don't come trolling along with your 0 entries and 2 forum posts telling the rest of us what kind of competition we should be interested in.

Trolling? LOL. Look, you wouldn't see me with 0
entries if I'd put up what I was going to put up
before reading about these very limiting rules.
Even at that, I had a had full of images ready
to go this morning except when I go to post them
I keep getting a message back that they're not
the right size (even thought I've tried several
times to re-size them and re-submit them).

Beyond that, I've got a wealth of experience to
offer in terms of posting and being helpful, so
you might just a tad foolish to prematurely be
sushing off someone who could potential help be
of help to you as well.

******

And by the way, your Hendrix analogy is completely bogus. Working images until they're the prefect rendition of the artists imagination is akin to studio recording; playing by the rules here is akin to performing live. Would you tell Hendrix he shouldn't play live because he might play a few wrong notes?

No, I wouldn't. And I wouldn't also limit his creative performance by insisting that he only use an acoustical guitar. So would I tell the Beatles that there will be no mixing on the Sgt. Pepper's album. Nor would I tell Hemingway that he can only submit first draft. No would I tell Ansel Adams that his images are welcome but no burning and dodging.

For some of us at least, post-production work isn't so much about "fixing mistakes" but rather part and parcel of the very way we pre-concieve and image as we're doing our camera work. Indeed, the very way we shoot keeps this very integrated part of the process in mind.

This morning, for example, as I was looking at the basic rules here again, I noticed one more which seem silly: that everything has to be the same proportioned ratios in terms of height and width. It's, well, silly. In the most practical of terms, form follows function, and that means that unless there is a very specific reason for doing so (like fitting the proportions of a magazine format) that the creative of an image while sometimes be different depending on the content of the image and the photographers intent. Sometimes the image will be more panoramic. At other times, more square. But the underlying design principle stands: the form the images takes follows the fuction the photographer is trying to get served.

So here to is a second rule which strike me as needing amending: making the dimensional ratio of any given image fit the purpose of the photographer's intent in communication, and not as it stands right now where -- for truly no good reason that I can image -- all images are seeming required to be fit only one dimensional ratio size.

Look Chris, you might be right. Perhaps this isn't the place for me. But I'm telling you what my years of learning have taught me with regards to photography, and I'm cocky enough at this point in my career to think it's a voice worth considering.

I've had my D-60 camera for 15 weeks now. In my second week with the camera I made these images (which hopefully exemply some of what I've talking about in this thread):

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?.view=t&.dir=/Algonquin

And these from a wedding in August:

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?.dir=/Hanna+%26+Tom%27s+Wedding+(Aug.24th)&.view=t

And these flowers (mostly shoot one afternoon):

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?.dir=/Flowers&.src=ph&.view=t

So at the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I'm not just a newbie to photography, and what I've been saying here has not been without a good number of years of both study and self-reflection. So it just might be worth considering. Just maybe.

CJ



[/i]

CJ - you sound like me :) I've been having this same discussion with
a similar perspective on it since I started here. In the next
revision of the site, the submission dimensions thing is going away -
it will be something like 'no larger than 640 pixels on the long side'
or similar.

On the editing point, a lot of the people who enter the challenges
here are new to photography and certainly new to digital image
manipulation. So making it a more pure 'lets see what comes out
of your camera' challenge is the idea to try and lower the barrier
to entry.

The other piece of this that I think we've struggled with here is that
in general people want it to be a photography site, and not about
photographs which have been digitally altered 'too much'

And that 'too much' is the crux of the problem - I know what I mean
when I say that I spot edit my pictures but still try to remain true
to the original image - but I don't quite know how to codify that into
a competition rule.

I tend to clone to remove unattractive elements, say seaweed on a beach,
or the annoying couple in the bright red towel ruining my landscape
shot and so on - I'd take out traffic cones, or power lines - but I
wouldn't add things in, unless say it was moving a bush to cover some
unattractive scrub, etc etc.

But someone else might think an acceptable place to stop is adding
someone in from another picture, or compositing two together, or drawing
something from scratch or ... I assume you get the idea.

So by limiting to a really small set of of allowed adjustments, we end
up with a challenge at the lower end of digital photography, and certainly
doesn't encompass all the normal tools I use to make the final prints
that I make, or the final images I stick in my web gallery, but it still
means it is a challenge about photography and not about great editing
skills.

If you could come up with a good, easily understandable, enforcable
definition of what you think should be allowed, that wouldn't open us
up to lots of 'digital art' then I think people would be interesting
in hearing it - I for one would be interested.


 09/22/2002 12:16:06 PM · #17
CJ, I think you make many good points. Since you joined fairly recently, you may not be aware that many of these issues have ben discussed before, and a site revision incorporating many of these changes is "in the works."

For example, the restriction to fixed proportions will be lifted. I believe blurring as well as sharpening will be allowed. Members will have an opportunity to comment on the revised rules before they are implemented.

I think the "spirit" of this site is to concentrate on the development of our skills with the camera, and the ability to evaluate composition, lighting, etc. at the time the photo is shot. The "print" should pimarily be the record of that effort for others to evaluate. I think the rules (especially as they are about to be) adequately mimic the basic tools/techniques we'd have available in a traditional darkroom -- although as I recall, few people have ever had their own color darkrooms...should we restrict entries to grayscale?

Try going to the main forums page and searching for topics which concern you so you can see what folks have already had to say...
 09/22/2002 12:26:17 PM · #18
cj - I looked at some of your photos, and they're lovely. HOWEVER, even if the rules were changed here to allow you to enter photos like those, the fact of the matter is the majority of the voters here wouldn't like them. I've hung around here long enough to know that. The rules here have been thrashed out many times in many discussions, and have evolved over time, and the way they stand is a good reflection of what the voters want to see. They want photos that look like photos, and not "digital art". Hang around and vote on a few challenges and see how your opinions correlate with the results over a few weeks, it will be enlightening.
 09/22/2002 12:26:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I tend to clone to remove unattractive elements, say seaweed on a beach,
or the annoying couple in the bright red towel ruining my landscape
shot and so on - I'd take out traffic cones, or power lines - but I
wouldn't add things in, unless say it was moving a bush to cover some
unattractive scrub, etc etc.

But someone else might think an acceptable place to stop is adding
someone in from another picture, or compositing two together, or drawing
something from scratch or ... I assume you get the idea.

So by limiting to a really small set of of allowed adjustments, we end
up with a challenge at the lower end of digital photography, and certainly
doesn't encompass all the normal tools I use to make the final prints
that I make, or the final images I stick in my web gallery, but it still
means it is a challenge about photography and not about great editing
skills.

If you could come up with a good, easily understandable, enforcable
definition of what you think should be allowed, that wouldn't open us
up to lots of 'digital art' then I think people would be interesting
in hearing it - I for one would be interested.


I think these modifications are -- and should stay -- outside the limits of THIS site, although I'd support our maintaining a gallery of before/after photos, where we could post a "final" version of our DPC entry, maybe even with the raw frame capture as well, to show the progression from shutter to print.

I think we should allow the Dodge/Burn tools, but not any irregular selection tools*, nor cloning. Dust & Scratches filter sounds legal, and should be enough so we don't need to use the Clone tool.

*I think we should allow elliptical as well as rectangular cropping. And, we should consider allowing the selection to be feathered to create a vignetted image. I think these are traditional, simple printing techniques used fo artistic effect.
 09/22/2002 12:58:35 PM · #20
Um.... be NICE to CJ :) I think you'll learn a lot from him.

I don't think he's talking about spot editing, he's talking about things you can do in the FILM darkroom -- burning and dodging, darkening parts of the image. Not like introducing or removing elements.

And i think if he decides to submit, he'll give Setzer a run for his money :)

Tony


Originally posted by chrisab:
The rules in general, and the spot editing rule in particular, are one of the best things about this site.

You're right, your creativity is limited. It's limited to what you can create in a reasonable about of time with, basically, what's available to you at the camera. It's not a contest to see who can spend a month crafting the perfect image with a few dozen hours of PS time. There are other sites for that. That's what makes this site fun... you can test your ability to produce a relatively raw, unpolished image.

If you want to take your challenge image, edit the hell out of it, and use it for other contests / prints, you're free to do that - and many people do. But don't come trolling along with your 0 entries and 2 forum posts telling the rest of us what kind of competition we should be interested in. If you're not up for the one we're all happily enjoying then there are plenty of other photo sites.

And by the way, your Hendrix analogy is completely bogus. Working images until they're the prefect rendition of the artists imagination is akin to studio recording; playing by the rules here is akin to performing live. Would you tell Hendrix he shouldn't play live because he might play a few wrong notes?

Chris


 09/22/2002 01:04:41 PM · #21
What are you talking about?

His photos look like they are from a magazine!

Yeah, you're probably right though -- most people on here doens't know what a good photograph looks like, much less how to judge it. His photographs appear to be 'art like' because CJ knows the lighting of his subject material and he captures well (see the waterfall for the example)

He hasn't changed anything in his photograph other than darkening part of the image or lightening part of it (burning and dodging)which film photographers have been doing for years.



Originally posted by lisae:
cj - I looked at some of your photos, and they're lovely. HOWEVER, even if the rules were changed here to allow you to enter photos like those, the fact of the matter is the majority of the voters here wouldn't like them. I've hung around here long enough to know that. The rules here have been thrashed out many times in many discussions, and have evolved over time, and the way they stand is a good reflection of what the voters want to see. They want photos that look like photos, and not "digital art". Hang around and vote on a few challenges and see how your opinions correlate with the results over a few weeks, it will be enlightening.


 09/22/2002 01:12:33 PM · #22
looks like you've got some great pictures there, but I can hardly see
them - they are all about 2 inches by 3 inches - its annoying!
Probably just yahoo.com - seems a load of the images are broken too.

A question though this pic : 020610-0163-D60-69

Green plants/ white flowers - is the fading/ zooming effect on the
edges from in camera or post processing - I can't see enough of the
picture to tell, but it's really effective.


* This message has been edited by the author on 9/22/2002 1:11:55 PM.
 09/22/2002 01:17:28 PM · #23
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
CJ - you sound like me :) I've been having this same discussion with
a similar perspective on it since I started here. In the next
revision of the site, the submission dimensions thing is going away -
it will be something like 'no larger than 640 pixels on the long side'
or similar.

Good. That makes good sense. And truly
regardless of whether one has been shooting
for sometime or just a little while, that
flexiblity as you describe it above
makes good sense.

********

On the editing point, a lot of the people who enter the challenges
here are new to photography and certainly new to digital image
manipulation. So making it a more pure 'lets see what comes out
of your camera' challenge is the idea to try and lower the barrier
to entry.

Yes, I'm starting to see that none. And all the
more so in light of feedback which has come down
the pipeline in this thread.

*********

The other piece of this that I think we've struggled with here is that
in general people want it to be a photography site, and not about
photographs which have been digitally altered 'too much'
And that 'too much' is the crux of the problem - I know what I mean
when I say that I spot edit my pictures but still try to remain true
to the original image - but I don't quite know how to codify that into
a competition rule.

Yes, and I think I know what you mean as well. And I
appreciate that something like that is hard to define
in quantitative terms because of the degree subjectivity
involved.

Nevertheless, there are those folks here who seem
to have a good variety of ligthing tools to work with
and those who don't (Consider last week's winner, for
example. My guess is that body and food item wasn't
shot with daylight so some newbie Micky Mouse flash).
And it seems to be an unfair advantage to those who
just do not have the resources for such lighting equipment. In other words, a little bit of Photoshop
kind of levels the playing field a bit matter, if you
know what I mean.

Yes, yes, I hear you already... define "a little bit
of Photoshop."

Okay, here's the suggestion: burning and dodging
is okay. As are clean ups of people's faces. As are
the removal of telephone poles and telephone wires.
And that's it.

That afford better fleibility in creative expression,
it better levels the playing field for the who just
don't have whole of ton of money to buy lighting for
every lighting situation, and it has the kind of limiting
boundary on it which keeps things pretty true to the way
they were (i.e. you're not much likely to see someone
who's gone to town with Photoshop work to the point where
they're created surreal graphic images.

**********

I tend to clone to remove unattractive elements, say seaweed on a beach,
or the annoying couple in the bright red towel ruining my landscape
shot and so on - I'd take out traffic cones, or power lines - but I
wouldn't add things in, unless say it was moving a bush to cover some
unattractive scrub, etc etc.

But someone else might think an acceptable place to stop is adding
someone in from another picture, or compositing two together, or drawing
something from scratch or ... I assume you get the idea.

Yes, I do indeed get the idea. And I agree, that's
going too far for this type of "challenge.". And hence the suggested of a limited modification of the rule to
one which says: burning and dodging is okay: clean up
of people's faces are okay. As are the removal of telephone poles and telephone wires. And that's it.

************

If you could come up with a good, easily understandable, enforcable
definition of what you think should be allowed, that wouldn't open us
up to lots of 'digital art' then I think people would be interesting
in hearing it - I for one would be interested.

Well, I imagine much can be accomplished with just
the tweaking of two rules: the one concern size
ratios aspects (this line of "no larger than 640 pixels on the long side" sound excellent, and a vast improvement over the rule which currently stand).

And the other one is that I'd allow burning and dodging (to the limitations I've mentioned twice now). I mean hey, fair is fair. Let's level the playing field
for those who ain't got a professional's amount of
money to use to buy lighting equipment.

And there is nothing self-serving for me in making
this recommendations. Indeed, I'll gladly bow out
of the callenges (I mean, I truly get no satifaction
from going head to head with those who are new to
photography or only been shooting for a few brief
years -- I would much sooner bow out and otherwise
go head to head with my professional peers).

So that's my two cents. And those in charge can
consider it or disregard it as they see fit.

But I appreciate that -- at least from reading what
I have of this thread so far -- that the majority
of folks seems to be happy with the way things are
and that they don't want to see a mostly digital
photography forum turn into a most Photoshop type
of forum. And I can appreciate that. And far be it
from me to go against the will of what the great
majority want and come to DPC for.

So I stand by all that I've said, but at the same time,
I can appreciate why folks want the focus to remain
mostly on the camera work rather than getting too
carried away with post-production effects, and I'm just
as happy not to make further about the matter if -- as seems to be the case -- I seem to majority want things
otherwise.

So that's the opinion and recommendations, and I'll now
leave the matter alone for others here to decide what
the majority is most happy with. And I mean that genuinely -- take or leave the counsel as you best see
fit and I'll gladly throw my vote in with whatever the majority wants.

And beyond that, thank-you for your post Gordon -- all
extremely well said.

CJ

[/i]

texttext
 09/22/2002 01:26:57 PM · #24
Its amazing what you can do with cheap lighting in a digital world
that you can't get away with on film.

My current 'lighting setup' consists of $20 500W work lights from
Walmart - softbox is a pillow sheet stretched over a shoebox - but
it works.

Sure you get all sorts of weird and wonderful colour casts, that
can be fixed with some application of curves in photoshop. I'm
certain that was also the case for the winning picture in the fruit
contest too - I know John has almost the same amount of investment
in lighting that I have :)


 09/22/2002 01:33:06 PM · #25
PS Excuse my major writing errors today --
I've been up for way too many hours at this
point and in review see I'm making a bit more
than my normal share of silly writing mistakes.
But hopefully the essense of the post isn't
lost.

With regards,
CJ
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 03:43:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 03:43:13 AM EDT.