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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> CONSIDER MODIFYING THE RULES
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 51, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/22/2002 10:43:56 PM · #1
Originally posted by jakking:
My local grocery store has a sign that sums up this thread ...

Internet Slush



And with that, let's try to move things back in a positive direction. Someone start a thread about cookies or something. ;)

Drew
09/22/2002 10:30:46 PM · #2
My local grocery store has a sign that sums up this thread ...

Internet Slush


* This message has been edited by the author on 9/22/2002 10:32:14 PM.


* This message has been edited by the author on 9/22/2002 10:34:17 PM.
09/22/2002 10:16:15 PM · #3
Hey mci....

I don't think you have to apologize for being pissed off or nothing...we aren't machines...but its very cool of you to come on here and clear up your response.

Sometimes the internet just does not give us the opportunity to have differences without them seeming life and death. It's the nature of the written word..its short and to the point where face to face stuff gives us a chance to shape our communication to the situation better.

If we could just all let our photography take the lead here and be glad that we are here versus playing bingo on one of those horrible all game web sites >:-D
09/22/2002 09:37:49 PM · #4
CJ -

I want to apologize to you and the others on this thread for coming across so harsh. Your type of personality classicaly clashes with mine, and I'll admit that I got overly flustered and defensive when reading your posts. I'm never going to be a fan of the way you present yourself, but that doesn't mean that I have to speak out against you. Your photographic work is very nice, and I actually like a lot of it. However, I'm currently trying to formulate opinions on what actually constitutes "photography", and I'm not sure that your work fits. I think it spills over into art which uses a base photographic medium, which I'm wholeheartedly all for, but I'm not sure it has a place on this site.

I don't know.. this is the first internet community in years that I have participated in, and it's starting to remind me why I stopped reading message boards all those years ago. I'm hot tempered and don't really get along with people. heh.

Anyway, I hope you can consider participating in our challenges with some non-edited images. You've got talent and I think you'd do well. Please accept my apology for the way I behaved.
09/22/2002 08:37:25 PM · #5
Originally posted by paganini:
I don't hate anyone on here. I just don't agree with a lot of BS rules, regulations, etc. and how when someone such as CJ came on here to offer some of his advices, all the people can do is calling him names, etc. I am pissed about that.

Funny, I thought my reply to his post was polite.

As far as dpchallenge: i am not going to submit anything that i'll work on for a while on here because of the general attitude, etc. that people have on here. It's funny, most other sites, people actually have some constructive comments to make about your image. Here, all you get is (for example my Childhoo submission) a bunch of personal opinion without merits. Some people hated my childhood submission even though it evoked strong emotions out of them and they gave low score for it. Now, if a photograph evoked strong emotions, even if it's depression or sadness, it is a successful photograph and the score should reflect it. Screw the score, the COMMENTS should reflect it, but it does not.

Such as my forum post in your thread about your childhood submission?

My two favorite photos in the challenge are "Childhood Spent Locked in Closet, Rays of Hope" and "Carefree". The former is an emotionally (and somewhat physically) accurate portrayal of my childhood. Kudos to whomever had the guts to submit it. It won't do well in the score, but it made my hair stand on end when I saw it. This epitomizes for me the "powerlessness and fear" end of the spectrum, where as "Carefree" epitomizes for me the "wonder and delight" side.

Look, I understand your frustration. You have submitted two photos, both of which I have rated above eight, and your scores are in the fives. I don't get it either, but going on a multi-thread spree ranting about everything from overweight women to spot editing isn't likely to improve anything. Many of the people that downgrade photos aren't the kind of people who read these forums, and most of the people here are attempting to disagree without being disagreeable. (There are exceptions, but getting into a flame war merely escalates the situation.)

Not submitting for a while may not be a bad idea. I'm going to be offline for about a month starting this week, but even if I weren't, I'd probably take a break anyway. It's very difficult to work hard to come up with a good idea and execute it well, only to end up with an "average" vote and no useful feedback as to why.
09/22/2002 07:48:59 PM · #6
Pag - your defense of CJ was stirring. Frankly, though, I'd rather have seen CJ defend himself. I found his original suggestion and subsequent recognition that these issues had already been addressed to be those of a reasonable and intelligent person. He didn't seem to require your assistance.

However, in almost every one of your posts in this thread you have demonstrated your disdain for this site and those that submit/vote here. And yet you continue to hang around. You seem to be either a masochist or a troll.

Sure, it makes for good soap opera but it's not teaching us anything about photography. I'll just go back to looking at CJ's (and others) work now.

John
09/22/2002 07:48:22 PM · #7
Well, The treatment CJ received was a bit harsh so I won't go into that. But it's usually a good idea to spend some time at a site contributing, getting to know a few folks before trying to change everything. I think many folks just get the impression cj wanted to do more changing than learning how THIS site works. But thats all done and maybe we can all move on. :-)

As far as BS rules.... The site is growing and it does evolve in order to encourage more folks to participate. One thing I applaud Drew and Langdon on is trying to be very cautious about changing too many things too quickly. This site has become very popular pretty quicky and that in itself tend to make me believe the rules work pretty well for here.

And the general attitude is a competition. That by itself tends to make things more tense than just a site where you post photos for people to talk about. That happens in anything where people are competing..whether for money or just recognition.

DP Challenge should be seen as only 1 part of a successful photographic hobby. Other sites can be combined with this one to build a more complete photographic experience and face to face interaction like photo clubs are ultimately the best. I am joining the Blue Ridge Photographic Society which goes a bit further in trying to help photographers develop their skill to actually get into exhibitions.

Anyway, maybe everybody could lighten up and just take the site for the good stuff it offers (and it does do that a lot).


Originally posted by paganini:
I don't hate anyone on here. I just don't agree with a lot of BS rules, regulations, etc. and how when someone such as CJ came on here to offer some of his advices, all the people can do is calling him names, etc. I am pissed about that.

As far as dpchallenge: i am not going to submit anything that i'll work on for a while on here because of the general attitude, etc. that people have on here. It's funny, most other sites, people actually have some constructive comments to make about your image. Here, all you get is (for example my Childhoo submission) a bunch of personal opinion without merits. Some people hated my childhood submission even though it evoked strong emotions out of them and they gave low score for it. Now, if a photograph evoked strong emotions, even if it's depression or sadness, it is a successful photograph and the score should reflect it. Screw the score, the COMMENTS should reflect it, but it does not.



09/22/2002 07:34:27 PM · #8
I don't hate anyone on here. I just don't agree with a lot of BS rules, regulations, etc. and how when someone such as CJ came on here to offer some of his advices, all the people can do is calling him names, etc. I am pissed about that.

As far as dpchallenge: i am not going to submit anything that i'll work on for a while on here because of the general attitude, etc. that people have on here. It's funny, most other sites, people actually have some constructive comments to make about your image. Here, all you get is (for example my Childhoo submission) a bunch of personal opinion without merits. Some people hated my childhood submission even though it evoked strong emotions out of them and they gave low score for it. Now, if a photograph evoked strong emotions, even if it's depression or sadness, it is a successful photograph and the score should reflect it. Screw the score, the COMMENTS should reflect it, but it does not.



Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Wow, I am actually in agreement with Gordon! ;)

A really good FREE software is GIMP, it has just as many stuff as photoshop but it's free (the interface sucks compared to PS though but it's workable). You can even do *gasp* layering there which would be in violation of current rules. Layering with mask is the most incredible feature in Photoshop. Oh well, i guess i'll do that for presentation that really counts (i.e. not on Dpchallenge)



paganini...I think you have some decent information and ideas to share but why do you continue to insult a site you frequent so often?

Basically when you end comments with slights it totally erases the potential good of your post.

I mean..if you hate so many here and we suck so bad..why even stay with so many other sites out there?

[/i]

09/22/2002 07:25:10 PM · #9
Originally posted by paganini:
Wow, I am actually in agreement with Gordon! ;)

A really good FREE software is GIMP, it has just as many stuff as photoshop but it's free (the interface sucks compared to PS though but it's workable). You can even do *gasp* layering there which would be in violation of current rules. Layering with mask is the most incredible feature in Photoshop. Oh well, i guess i'll do that for presentation that really counts (i.e. not on Dpchallenge)



paganini...I think you have some decent information and ideas to share but why do you continue to insult a site you frequent so often?

Basically when you end comments with slights it totally erases the potential good of your post.

I mean..if you hate so many here and we suck so bad..why even stay with so many other sites out there?

09/22/2002 07:20:45 PM · #10
Wow, I am actually in agreement with Gordon! ;)

A really good FREE software is GIMP, it has just as many stuff as photoshop but it's free (the interface sucks compared to PS though but it's workable). You can even do *gasp* layering there which would be in violation of current rules. Layering with mask is the most incredible feature in Photoshop. Oh well, i guess i'll do that for presentation that really counts (i.e. not on Dpchallenge)



Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I thought we'd discussed this to death, but the idea that photoshop work should
be excluded because it is too expensive is a total strawman argument.

There are free tools available on every current computing platform that
do the type of editing people are talking about. The things that
you really are paying for in things like photoshop are a lot of features
that most photographers don't really need, like complex colour management
or pre-print proofing/ seperations and so on.

The basic dodging/ burning/ cloning and colour modification or filters
are all available for free or at more resonable prices in either freeware
suc as the gimp or shareware packages.


09/22/2002 06:13:45 PM · #11
CJ...I think you are a pretty good photographer..but help me out and edit your posts a bit better. >:-D

You don't have to quote entire messages..just give us your post..especially since you are mixing quotes and your own text all together...thanks :-)
09/22/2002 06:05:14 PM · #12
Originally posted by paganini:
Darkening the edges: it forces the viewer to concentrate on the image.

Just so, and that's just why it's use -- to direct and keep the view's eye into the image.

********

He hasn't added a tree/flower/etc that wasn't there. He couldn't change lighting that well with photoshop, though one can correct color and tint which is what Gordon was saying.

And that's mostly it. If I just wanted to record "reality" I perhaps would have become more a journalistic photographer. And I have made images in the past which are more like that, like these (for a scout trip some years ago):

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

But for me the excitement of this digital age is that we have so much more refined control over our craft -- more control than ever before. And I'm starting to push that (in a way which is most congruent with my own years of experience and in particular my own years of darkroom experience). And sometimes I'm sure I go to far. And sometimes I'm sure I fall off the creative edge. But hey, that's going to happen if you flirt with the creative edge... we're going to fall off sometimes. And even a lot of times. But from where I sit, those who eventually become masterful will not hesitate to push the envelope, will not shy back from the creative edge, and will not play it so safe that they just never fall off the edge. So I've had this D60 camera for 15 weeks.
And a lot of what I'm trying is new... or at the very
least new for me. So I'll make mistake. And I'll perhaps
fall of the edge now and then. And there will be images where I just go way to far in my processing.

But truly, it's the only way I know how to learn to live on the "edge" -- by having a willingness to push the limit and a willing to risk falling off the edge once in while (and sometimes often).

Or so it seems to me.

But if folks are looking for purely "natural", then I'm
the wrong person to talk to and the wrong person's work
to look at. Five summers of shooting black & white infrared film started shifting my thinking. And it's not
so much that there is any wrong with purely "natural" straight image making, but only that I like that kind
of photography AND what I have been doing this past summer (with these images which are often a kind of
amplified reality).

And that's the thing: I'm not just trying to take
pictures of things, but rather make images which
more closely resemble the way I see the world
around me with my mind's eye. And after some years
of working with black & white infrared film, the
way we see the world around us with our mind's eye
is, well, somewhat different than before beginning
that work.

And those who know me and know the images I've been
making over the years can well see how my work now
with digital is well... just a continued evolving
of things I had done earlier.

Some of the infrared images from years ago:

//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst?&.dir=/KASZUBY+INFRARED&.src=ph&.begin=9999&.view=t&.order=&.done=http%3a//ca.photos.yahoo.com/bc/cjmorgan59/lst%3f%26.dir=/KASZUBY%2bINFRARED%26.src=ph%26.view=t

Once seeing those images from years ago, it perhaps
becomes a bit more understandable as to where my
mind's eye is at these days as I begin working with
a digital camera.

And some folks won't like the current work. Mike apparently isn't keen about it. And that's okay
(because truly, if I'm pleasing all folks than it
probably means I've either reached genius status
(not likely) or else that I'm just not pushing
the creative edge enough any more (I've pulled back,
become "safe", too much an effort to please others).
And it's just not about playing it "safe" for me.

I'm trying to push and push what I can do with this
new camera. And my old influences and my old practices
will show up in my current work just as sure as we are
creatures of habit. And I will sometimes fall off the
creative edge because, well, it's thin edge, and easy
to fall off. And I do fall off. And often.

But, (shrug) I guess that's just the nature of the beast -- if we want to try new things, it will perhaps
be a while before we become very refined and proficient with it.

But I'm happy with the way things are progress. In fact
more than happy -- I'm juiced and excited about
photography right now with an excitement in my belly
which I just haven't had for years. So on the whole
it's a very happy and good time.

And if some folks don't like what I do in terms of the
images I make, well, (shrug) that's okay by me too.

CJ



09/22/2002 05:53:43 PM · #13
Well..to the point about spot editing...

I am mainly against the addition or removal of objects. That is a rule many other photo sites also follow and I like the fact you have to pay attention to whats in your photo before you push the button.

As far as dodging, burning, screens, layers, selective colors etd, etc,,...I could go either way. These tools seem to be o.k. if they are used to help save the original exposure and color values of the subjects.

Digital images suffer horribly from lack of contrast range and under/overexposure is much harder to control versus film. Saving a sky from being blown out AND trying to get proper exposure on foreground elements is about 2 stops harder with digital so some filters used to even the disparity between film and digital would be o.k. with me.

As far as adding other photoshop filters. That does tend to take us away from the photographing part and more into digital art..cool stuff but different from straight photography for sure.

I go along with that anolgy of this site being more like a live version versus studio version of music. We gotto go for what photos we can in a set time and with a limited amount of baggage. Thats what makes this site different than all the others.

* This message has been edited by the author on 9/22/2002 5:52:24 PM.
09/22/2002 05:47:48 PM · #14
I thought we'd discussed this to death, but the idea that photoshop work should
be excluded because it is too expensive is a total strawman argument.

There are free tools available on every current computing platform that
do the type of editing people are talking about. The things that
you really are paying for in things like photoshop are a lot of features
that most photographers don't really need, like complex colour management
or pre-print proofing/ seperations and so on.

The basic dodging/ burning/ cloning and colour modification or filters
are all available for free or at more resonable prices in either freeware
suc as the gimp or shareware packages.
09/22/2002 05:39:48 PM · #15
False modesty is the last refuge of the incompetent.
09/22/2002 05:26:43 PM · #16
Originally posted by mci:
My god. Is CJ's ego larger than life, or what?

LOL. Okay, I'll swallow that large pill.

But I'd prefer to think of it as self-confidence. And hard earned, and long in the making. I will freely
admit that I am quite terrible at a great many things
in life. I wouldn't for example, be a good banker,
or lawyer, or doctor. Any skills in pumbing are little
more than being about to change the washers of the
bathroom sink. So I have some humility. And I know
my limits about a great many things. But I'm a good
photographer. And I've worked hard at it for years.
And I can communicate well with this visual medium.

But if you wish to just see that as a big ego rather
than hard earned self-confidence, then you are certainly
welcome to hold to that perspective.

*********

I don't care if you've been a professional photographer for 15 years or 15 minutes, I will NEVER respond to your "teachings" if you put them across with an ego the size of China. You are not better than us. You are not a better photographer than us.

I am not better than all, but I am as good as many. And
if I contribute something and you choose not to
respond to that because you don't like my straight
forwardness (or whatever) then again, that's certainly
your choice. (shrug)

*********

You are simply another person with an expensive camera and an expensive photo editing package.

Actually no. There's at least a quarter century of learned skills and experiences behind that vision and
those images. But if it was as you've said there, then
I guess I wasted a lot of years and a lot of untold hours
in study and practice.

********

Your images are completely unnatural looking and totally overproduced.

Okay, then perhaps I'll avoid journalism.

********

You mention "leveling the field" by not requiring expensive lighting rigs, but you fail to realize that Adobe Photoshop is a $600 software package that most people just don't have access to. How does this level the field?

A person doesn't not necessarily needs the full extent
of a full blown program like Photoshop to do some basic
"darkroom work" to their images so they communicate with
effectively. Things like basic burning and dodging can be with a program which is much less expensive. And at
a fraction of the price of what good studio lighting might cost.

I only mention Photoshop because that's what I've been
using for a number of years now. But that is not to suggest that what I've been talking about here requires
such an expensive program. I don't know much about what
eles is available (after all, we don't go hunting for other programs when we already have what we need).

But I would imagine that some basic digital "darkroom"
work could be done with another less expensive program and that we all don't have to go the costly extent of
buying a full blown Photoshop program.

********

On a personal note, your analogies about Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, Hemingway and Ansel Adams are all lost on me, because I don't enjoy the work of any of them.

Okay.

********

Go post your images on photosig.com. They'll enjoy your heavily modified work.

I might look into it. Thank-you.

CJ



09/22/2002 05:07:40 PM · #17
I was going to post this earlier, but the connection crashed...

Please stop the psychoanalysis. It is inappropriate, irrelavant, and probably inaccurate.

This thread is about suggested rules modifications. A (newish) member offered some opinions about editing, and made some suggestions for rules changes, many of which have been previously suggested (and are being implemented).

If you have this much free time, answer some of the folks who commented on your last photo.
09/22/2002 05:01:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by GeneralE:

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.

And I appreciate that. I mean to an extent, you're preaching to the choir on that one because I can
certainly respect the importance of thoughtful and
deliberate work at the time we make our exposures.

However, I'm going by what I see. And what I see is
that if this were a boxing competition, the way
the rules currently stand, the follow who has
expensive lighting gear is given two good arms
and free rein to swing them all around, and the
fellow who use Photoshop (or whatever to do his
performance work) is told he can't use one of
his major tools, and effectively is told he'll have
to fight with one hand tied behind his back.

And the suggest is simple to level the playing field,
as it were. That after a quarter of a century of
darkroom work, it seems, at least from where I sit,
totally absurd that the fellow with his expensive
lighting gear can have free rein, while the other
fellow who's post production in his practices is told
he's not even allowed to do burning and dodging.

You know this morning, I went to make some images with
full in mind that my usual Photoshop work wouldn't come
into play (just to see what it was like, if for no other
reason). And then I got back to my computer, select a
few of them, and then did just the basics -- according
to "the rule". And I look at these images and I feel
like a boxer who's told he has to fight with one hand behind his back, or like a comedian who's told to be funny after first being subject to being up for 48 hours (i.e. nor rest, no sharpness of wit, resulting in dull
delivery, timing which is off, and essencially what looks like poor performance).

And that to me is the insanity of it all -- that the
rules as they currently exist deprive certain photographers, such as myself, from using the tools
that they most normally use to make their images
communicate with the greatest amount of clarity,
directness and impact. It's like tying one arm of
a boxer or subjecting a comedian to sleep deprivation
and then and then telling him to perform.

Now don't get me wrong. I appreciate all your saying
here. And I certainly appreicate the great importance
of being thoughtful and deliberate before the shutter
release is ever pushed.

But at that the same time, for at least some of us,
a good part of that pre-visualization that photographer's
use when they're starting by contructing the finish
image with their minds eye includes all aspects of
the performance, not just what happens before the
shutter is released, but what they will do with that
rather material -- and that's truly what it is for
some of us, raw material -- once they got to their
darkroom (or these days, once they sit down at their
computer).

When Ansel Adams use to make his images, for example,
a great amount of his pre-visualization (one of the
things for which is so famous in talking about) also
included what he would do with the image once he
was in the darkroom.

And the point is that for some of us, we learned that
the WHOLE of photograph isn't just about what happens
before the shutter is released, but what happens before
AND after -- the camera work AND the darkroom work, as
were. That these things go hand in hand, that they are
both an integrated part of the whole pre-visualization
process, and that the bottom line in all of this isn't
to do more camera work, or more darkroom work, but that
to do whatever it takes to make the photographers vision
in mind something which eventually translated to an
effective visual communication as a final photograph.

But hey, it's your forum, and I'm just a single voice.

And I will bow to the will of the majority on this issue.

But from where I sit it strike me as grossly limiting
to suggest to photographers that they confine their
pre-visualization work to only things done before the
shutter is released, that not even so simple as basic
burning and dodging be allowed as part of their craft
work for such competitions.

In any event, it's not that I'm unsympathetic to the
challenge to getting photographers to focus on their
"before shooting" work rather than just trying to
hid sloppy camera work with a huge ton of Photoshop
covering up (like trying to put a ton of butter on
the popcorn you let burn in the hope that it will just
mask the bad taste).

Nevertheless, for some of us at least, our post-shooting
work is so much more a part of our craft practice than just the hiding of poor shooting mistakes, or a failure
to be thoughful and deliberate before ever pressing the
shutter release. And for at least one of those
photographers -- myself -- it basically amounts to
saying, "Sure, you can be a boxer here. But this right hand of your (this one which normally does the darkroom
work), well that one we'll have to tie behind our back because here, we don't allow the use of that tool.

In any event, I've said my piece. And I've also heard
the view of a number of others here in this thread. And I thank-you all for your responses.

And if anything to the rules gets modified at this point, I humbly appreicate that it won't so much be
by what I say, but rather by what the majority wants
and (I presume) what the moderators themselves ultimately
decide (as they try their level best to try to keep
the majority of the membership happy -- an often
thankless job which is often a great challenge to best
balance the wants of the majority).

So good wishes to all. I'll try to submit something
for this week's challenge, but the rules being what
they are, and my own years of working practice being
what it is, it won't be images which I feel are
communicating as strongly as they other wise would
be.

Nevertheless, thank-you to everyone who kindly took the time to respond to this thread, and particularly to the moderators for their well demonstrated dipolmacy.

CJ



09/22/2002 03:58:16 PM · #19
The one thing I have learned from forums is to focus on what someone is saying and not to try to perceive any particular tone that I think the writer is displaying because I am usually wrong. Maybe he really does have a big fat ego, I don't really care. I think CJ is simply being honest and speaking his mind. There are lots of people that try to qualify what they are saying by stating some of their accomplishments. It doesn't have to mean that they have huge egos, they could just be trying to communicate something that may be worth listening to. I guess I just try not to judge people too quickly, that's all. Now, with that said, I'm not sure I agree with everything he said, either. I really like the rules the way they are. However, I am still a little undecided regarding the dodging and burning tools even though I use them quite a bit on my own work. I am strickly opposed to any kind of cloning for this contest. Adding or removing things would chnge this site too drastically. Even allowing any kind of cropping will probably introduce some pretty wacky images that force the viewer's attention on the ratio more then the image itself. But then if we are practicing our photogrphy we probably should be practicing with the presentation of our images as well.

T
09/22/2002 02:46:28 PM · #20

Looks like someone do have an ego problem, it's YOU. Look down at your little guy and cry somewhere else, OK?

Even Ansel Adams spot edit his prints. You're not saying you're better than him, are ya? Excuse me while I check the ego statement you've made earlier about how photographers shouldn't make spot editing.

All CJ did was make a SUGGESTION which for some reason got "little" guys like you all pissed off. He wrote: "CONSIDER MODIFYING THE RULES". He didn't tell you you should modify the rules and he stated his reasons WHY.



Originally posted by mci:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Darkening the edges: it forces the viewer to concentrate on the image. It's similar to how OUR EYES see things. You look at an object, the rest of the image is blurry and darker. Simple as that. in fact, that's how i tend to remember things as well, with the darker edges. that's all it is.

He hasn't added a tree/flower/etc that wasn't there. He couldn't change lighting that well with photoshop, though one can correct color and tint which is what Gordon was saying. CJ's images are far more publishable than most of our images, even if he doesn't use PS to post edit it. (Just look at the composition) That's just a way to enhance the image and that's what magazines do.

Are you talking about art in digital photography as it applies to DPChallenge? Uh, give me a moment while I laugh. I think you have come to the wrong forum for that. I am sure i'll get someone to tell me that my sky was TOO BLUE and you probably post edit it in PS (another neophyte question that i get nailed on) in my submission for next week, like someone asked about the childhood photo with the lighting, it look so "unnatural".

It only looks unnatural for people that hasn't seen lighting in that way. And at dawn and dusk, nature looks a lot like CJ's images, at least whenever I have the mental strength to wake up at 5 am.


I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I can't really make any sense of the words that you're using in this post.

As for dpchallenge, I never mentioned dpchallenge in any of my posts. My thoughts are universal, and mostly apply to print photography as well.

Also, if you're too good for dpchallenge, please leave. Really, I mean it. Nobody will notice or care if you do. Just sneak out the back.
[/i]


09/22/2002 02:36:12 PM · #21
Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
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)


Why do people have to be pansies? Like it or lump it.
09/22/2002 02:23:13 PM · #22
Originally posted by paganini:
Darkening the edges: it forces the viewer to concentrate on the image. It's similar to how OUR EYES see things. You look at an object, the rest of the image is blurry and darker. Simple as that. in fact, that's how i tend to remember things as well, with the darker edges. that's all it is.

He hasn't added a tree/flower/etc that wasn't there. He couldn't change lighting that well with photoshop, though one can correct color and tint which is what Gordon was saying. CJ's images are far more publishable than most of our images, even if he doesn't use PS to post edit it. (Just look at the composition) That's just a way to enhance the image and that's what magazines do.

Are you talking about art in digital photography as it applies to DPChallenge? Uh, give me a moment while I laugh. I think you have come to the wrong forum for that. I am sure i'll get someone to tell me that my sky was TOO BLUE and you probably post edit it in PS (another neophyte question that i get nailed on) in my submission for next week, like someone asked about the childhood photo with the lighting, it look so "unnatural".

It only looks unnatural for people that hasn't seen lighting in that way. And at dawn and dusk, nature looks a lot like CJ's images, at least whenever I have the mental strength to wake up at 5 am.


I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I can't really make any sense of the words that you're using in this post.

As for dpchallenge, I never mentioned dpchallenge in any of my posts. My thoughts are universal, and mostly apply to print photography as well.

Also, if you're too good for dpchallenge, please leave. Really, I mean it. Nobody will notice or care if you do. Just sneak out the back.
09/22/2002 02:16:44 PM · #23
Darkening the edges: it forces the viewer to concentrate on the image. It's similar to how OUR EYES see things. You look at an object, the rest of the image is blurry and darker. Simple as that. in fact, that's how i tend to remember things as well, with the darker edges. that's all it is.

He hasn't added a tree/flower/etc that wasn't there. He couldn't change lighting that well with photoshop, though one can correct color and tint which is what Gordon was saying. CJ's images are far more publishable than most of our images, even if he doesn't use PS to post edit it. (Just look at the composition) That's just a way to enhance the image and that's what magazines do.

Are you talking about art in digital photography as it applies to DPChallenge? Uh, give me a moment while I laugh. I think you have come to the wrong forum for that. I am sure i'll get someone to tell me that my sky was TOO BLUE and you probably post edit it in PS (another neophyte question that i get nailed on) in my submission for next week, like someone asked about the childhood photo with the lighting, it look so "unnatural".

It only looks unnatural for people that hasn't seen lighting in that way. And at dawn and dusk, nature looks a lot like CJ's images, at least whenever I have the mental strength to wake up at 5 am.


Originally posted by mci:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]$600 in PS is nothing compared to thousands you can spend in studio lighting.

Have you even looked at his photographs? They're mostly outdoors and they have less spot editing than you think. Mainly it was contrast adjusted and darkened near the edges of the photograph, which is the standard thing to do if you ever LOOK at a magazine.

It's not CJ's ego is huge, it's that people on this site has a sensitivity level to that of a 4 year old.


$600 in PS is still too much for a lot of people. It doesn't matter if it's a thousand dollars too much, of a hundred dollars too much. It's still not a better solution. For the record, I have and use Photoshop every day of my life. But I'm very much against its constant use in the digital photography world. People just don't generally know how to use it with an objective eye.

And yes, I did look at just about all of CJs photographs. I found many of them to be completely unnatural looking. You mentioned "darkening near the edges of the photograph", and yes, this is one of the big things I noticed. It does absolutely nothing good for the photo accept make it look unnatural. I'm not even going to comment about looking at magazines. I typically don't look through magazines to find art.

CJs ego is huge, by every measurable standard I can think of. I don't think anyone on this thread has acted with the sensitivity level of a 4 year old. It's all just a difference of opinions. Whichever way you slice it, CJ is talking down to us. He's up on his professional photographer pedastal and thinks that everything he says is gospel. I don't appreciate the tone. In my eyes, the best artists are humble. They appreciate differences in human opinion.
[/i]

09/22/2002 02:10:03 PM · #24
Originally posted by paganini:
$600 in PS is nothing compared to thousands you can spend in studio lighting.

Have you even looked at his photographs? They're mostly outdoors and they have less spot editing than you think. Mainly it was contrast adjusted and darkened near the edges of the photograph, which is the standard thing to do if you ever LOOK at a magazine.

It's not CJ's ego is huge, it's that people on this site has a sensitivity level to that of a 4 year old.


$600 in PS is still too much for a lot of people. It doesn't matter if it's a thousand dollars too much, of a hundred dollars too much. It's still not a better solution. For the record, I have and use Photoshop every day of my life. But I'm very much against its constant use in the digital photography world. People just don't generally know how to use it with an objective eye.

And yes, I did look at just about all of CJs photographs. I found many of them to be completely unnatural looking. You mentioned "darkening near the edges of the photograph", and yes, this is one of the big things I noticed. It does absolutely nothing good for the photo accept make it look unnatural. I'm not even going to comment about looking at magazines. I typically don't look through magazines to find art.

CJs ego is huge, by every measurable standard I can think of. I don't think anyone on this thread has acted with the sensitivity level of a 4 year old. It's all just a difference of opinions. Whichever way you slice it, CJ is talking down to us. He's up on his professional photographer pedastal and thinks that everything he says is gospel. I don't appreciate the tone. In my eyes, the best artists are humble. They appreciate differences in human opinion.
09/22/2002 02:01:04 PM · #25
$600 in PS is nothing compared to thousands you can spend in studio lighting.

Have you even looked at his photographs? They're mostly outdoors and they have less spot editing than you think. Mainly it was contrast adjusted and darkened near the edges of the photograph, which is the standard thing to do if you ever LOOK at a magazine.

It's not CJ's ego is huge, it's that people on this site has a sensitivity level to that of a 4 year old.


Originally posted by mci:
My god. Is CJ's ego larger than life, or what? I don't care if you've been a professional photographer for 15 years or 15 minutes, I will NEVER respond to your "teachings" if you put them across with an ego the size of China. You are not better than us. You are not a better photographer than us. You are simply another person with an expensive camera and an expensive photo editing package. Your images are completely unnatural looking and totally overproduced. This is exactly what we're trying to avoid with the current rules.

You mention "leveling the field" by not requiring expensive lighting rigs, but you fail to realize that Adobe Photoshop is a $600 software package that most people just don't have access to. How does this level the field?

On a personal note, your analogies about Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, Hemingway and Ansel Adams are all lost on me, because I don't enjoy the work of any of them.

Go post your images on photosig.com. They'll enjoy your heavily modified work.


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:56:04 PM

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: 03/28/2024 07:56:04 PM EDT.