| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2004 09:47:01 PM · #1 |
Sorry.. didn't mean to make you think that.
I just wanted to comment/clarify....
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:38:03 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
The only thing the Site Council "enforces" (your word, not mine) is the actual written rules set out by the administrators. We partake in discussions both with the admins, and here in forums to protect the integrity of this site, and what it is about...and that means a multitude of things. |
Karen - I was not trying to make disparaging remarks about the site council or the admins. On the contrary, it seems to me that the new editting rules are a direct result of the feedback from members in the recent poll, so we can tell that our input is valued. You all do a wonderful job and I appreciate your efforts.
I personally am an advocate of relaxed editting rules - I think the final image speaks for itself. (Photojournalism being the exception). I have participated at sites that try to enforce a strict set of submission rules and seen them fail time and again. Then, these same discussions and complaints surface about how the rules are not evenly applied or how so-and-so's image is better just because s/he is better in the digital darkroom or blah, blah, blah.
I just look at the image and say, "Man, how cool! I wish I had created that!"
I think DPChallenge is wonderfully self-regulating because of the large number of partipants voting. In general, the great shots rise to the top and the not so great shots sink to the bottom. (Yes, of course, there are exceptions. That's life.) All the rest are somewhere in between.
Dave
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:14:51 PM · #3 |
Photoshop is to digital what the darkroom is to film.
Well put.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:10:03 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
I really hope this issue of how one arrives at a final image is not one that will be strictly enforced by the Site Council or some other official groups of rulemakers. One of the strengths of this site is that the community can enforce community standards through voting.
|
The only thing the Site Council "enforces" (your word, not mine) is the actual written rules set out by the administrators. We partake in discussions both with the admins, and here in forums to protect the integrity of this site, and what it is about...and that means a multitude of things. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:08:51 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
My take on this photoshop vs photography debate is that it's not photoshop's editing possibilities which create new possibilities, it's the immediacy of digital feedback. We're seeing lots of new, different, wonderful photographic images because of digital's teaching potential. |
Very good take on the debate!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:03:09 PM · #6 |
A thought occurred to me while reading this thread. Allow me to share it with you.
When I was preparing my shadows entry, I took about 40 shots just to get the one I wanted just right. My pwl entry, 4 shots. My garage art, 1 shot. None of them were photochopped beyond the usual cropping, tones, levels and so on.
Why did the shadows entry take so long and the others hardly any time? It's a fiddly subject while the others were more traditional. The digital screen helped me choose between shadow opportunities, and as a learning tool, I benefitted immensely from using it. I would never have done this on film. The processing costs, the time, the sheer frustration at not knowing the effect of a slight change, not being able to build up an image from immediate experience, basically not being in control.
My take on this photoshop vs photography debate is that it's not photoshop's editing possibilities which create new possibilities, it's the immediacy of digital feedback. We're seeing lots of new, different, wonderful photographic images because of digital's teaching potential. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 07:24:29 PM · #7 |
What's great about this site is that unspoken rules are created through voting. What's also great is that we are mixing several different views and geling them into new concepts. For example, we are mixing the worlds of purist photographers, artists, software gurus and developing something in-between pure digital art and pure photography. What's interesting though is that it really is a place that we haven't really tread, for all we know, it could open up a whole new world of possibilities. Granted, there is always someone who abuses this, but I think on the whole most people are trying to explore their limits and explore greater hieghts through experimenting. Everything here though is leveled out by the voting and not neccassarily the editing rules.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 07:15:18 PM · #8 |
[quote]On the flip side, if you are skilled enough to make an image that convinces voters that it is ribbon worthy or otherwise high scoring, more power to you. That happened in the PWL challenge where the glowing edges shoelace picture scored very highly. So what? People found aesthetic value in that image and rewarded it accordingly. I think that is the exception, rather than the rule and as such, nothing to get upset over.[/quote]
The electric laces is my third highest score on here, I have only had one score over 6 :). Yes, the laces was heavily PS and it seems as though the original may have scored higher.
I think the reason why the ps version scored as high as it did; was because it was different and with the lifting of the editing restrictions that kind of picture hasn`t been see on here before (I could be wrong :))
I said in the photographers comments that I thought it would do badly (shows that I know) and get a low score but some people liked it.
I think that, this particular challenge lent itself to more pictures being PS`ed not saying that there were loads but it was a good one to try out ps techniques.
Geo
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:57:06 PM · #9 |
photography like i said earlier is an illusion (or rather a simulation) of reality. an image is not the reality that it pictures, it is a composition of light, shadows and the reality's twisted manifestation in the image's creative illusion. so even the image it self has to implode in its perception of reality to define itself..
to some it seems photograph is what they see in reality.this is partially incorrect because the lens and the image sensor is what intercepts reality and we can only hope to rely on its interpretation. and by using our best judgement and employing different techniques we can guess what the outcome is going to be. but this never is a solitary effort and it relies heavily on the coldness of camera and its passion of reality..
photography itself can be critisized by its own purpose. doesnt matter what this purpose is, it penetrates to the realm of what is real. one may say photography is "pretentious" in its act of trying to be something which it is not: "reality", or a perfect "dublication of reeality". but we dont see photography as a dublication, we moslty define it as a artistic interpretation...
when someone is trying to create an effective photograph, doesnt matter what his subject is, he is ultimately stiving on to capture the moment which contains the most intensified version of reality.. we can clearly see this in macro photography. almost anything given that it has nice focus and lighting will look somewhat striking to an human eye at extreme closeups.. couple of gums:
a word:
some screws:
so we are already intruding the world of reality by any means possible..
by changing the lighting:
, by getting closer to things than we were meant to see:
, by applying filters to avoid reflections, by positioning things artificially:
, by capturing emotions which are not there:
, slowing down time which meant to flow:
.. it is all staged and manipulated and sadomized.. photography is "raping of reality" in anycase..
that is why it is a sweet tasting artform and that is why we are interested in doing it. it is a crime against the nature's law... we steal moments fromt he hands of time for our own pleasure and call it art.. and yet try to create "ethics" around it...
in its extreme meaning photography is the image one wants to create from a piece of reality. trying to make a distinctions in methods of doing so is just a futile attempt of denying..
ps: i apologize to anybody my post might offend, and these pictures i used as samples are all great photographs and i just used them to illustrate my points..
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 19:16:49. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:56:47 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
people need to realize that you must start with a good base to end up with a good picture.
an excellent point.
I really hope this issue of how one arrives at a final image is not one that will be strictly enforced by the Site Council or some other official groups of rulemakers. One of the strengths of this site is that the community can enforce community standards through voting.
If you get enough low scores because people don't like the fact that you keep creating poor "digital art" rather than "digital photography", you might get a hint and try something different or go somewhere else where making great digital art is the purpose.
On the flip side, if you are skilled enough to make an image that convinces voters that it is ribbon worthy or otherwise high scoring, more power to you. That happened in the PWL challenge where the glowing edges shoelace picture scored very highly. So what? People found aesthetic value in that image and rewarded it accordingly. I think that is the exception, rather than the rule and as such, nothing to get upset over.
I challenge anyone to find someone on this site who consistently scores high and is not a good photographer. If they use additional tools to improve their images even further, then that's just raising the bar for the rest of us, which is a good thing.
Dave |
I completely agree with you.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:35:08 PM · #11 |
people need to realize that you must start with a good base to end up with a good picture.
an excellent point.
I really hope this issue of how one arrives at a final image is not one that will be strictly enforced by the Site Council or some other official groups of rulemakers. One of the strengths of this site is that the community can enforce community standards through voting.
If you get enough low scores because people don't like the fact that you keep creating poor "digital art" rather than "digital photography", you might get a hint and try something different or go somewhere else where making great digital art is the purpose.
On the flip side, if you are skilled enough to make an image that convinces voters that it is ribbon worthy or otherwise high scoring, more power to you. That happened in the PWL challenge where the glowing edges shoelace picture scored very highly. So what? People found aesthetic value in that image and rewarded it accordingly. I think that is the exception, rather than the rule and as such, nothing to get upset over.
I challenge anyone to find someone on this site who consistently scores high and is not a good photographer. If they use additional tools to improve their images even further, then that's just raising the bar for the rest of us, which is a good thing.
Dave
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:03:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nborton:
adding in a painted laser in photoshop that looks just as or more believable than the real deal is difficult. the real laser will look better.
i think people are worried that people are taking pictures that would be scored a 1 and are turning them into 8s, 9s, and 10s with photoshop. and because of this they are being left in the dust.
people need to realize that you must start with a good base to end up with a good picture. |
This is not the worry here at all.
The "worry" is how we want DPChallenge to progress, and the philosophy behind great Photographs vs. Digital Art. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:38:42 PM · #13 |
adding in a painted laser in photoshop that looks just as or more believable than the real deal is difficult. the real laser will look better.
i think people are worried that people are taking pictures that would be scored a 1 and are turning them into 8s, 9s, and 10s with photoshop. and because of this they are being left in the dust.
people need to realize that you must start with a good base to end up with a good picture. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:24:38 PM · #14 |
Ah, now I see the precipitant of this thread. I agree that a painted in laser violates the spirit of the site, particularly when the painted in laser was the anchor to the title of the challenge.
These are the kinds of things the anti-advanced rules crowd was afraid of. (I myself wasn't part of that crowd, but I certainly shared their concern.) |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:15:50 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Do you think the new rules have leveled the playing field? I don't. |
I think they've improved the opportunity to create great photographs.
I would use my PWL as a fine example of that. I used the best photographic technique I could, to make what I consider a pretty exceptional image.
I used photoshop to enhance it further (as can be seen by comparing the pre-photoshop and post photoshop images)
I didn't create something in photoshop.
I didn't add things in photoshop.
I did finish the original photograph I created.
where I object to additional editing is just that - creating something new in photoshop. I think that's where my own personal boundary on what should be acceptable or not should lie.
I think we should be able to remove blemishes and dust and small imperfections - thats just good photography to me. I don't think rendering new light effects or painting in lasers is good photography.
It might make good images, but I don't think it is good photography.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:10:21 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So from this, I take it you mean they are poor examples, because the advanced editing rules actually level the playing field ? I think in this sense 'poor' is a reflection of your own particular bias rather than a comment on the rules. |
No, that's not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that the PWL challenge is not the best one to use to make judgements about the new rules, such as whether they have lead to too much digital art, because it is difficult to determine whether the entries were acheived by a lot of manipulative editing, or by methods that would be legal in a Basic rules challenge. I was not thinking of your winner in particular, rather the challenge as a whole. Your statement in the next post -- "I even worried that I'd be voted down for 'photoshopping' too much even though there was almost none used." -- seems to support my point. A challenge that had a more conventional theme (such as Vehicles, National Geographic, or After Dark) would be better than one which is about a technique (such as PWL and Shallow DOF) as a comparison in evaluating the effect of the new rules.
Do you think the new rules have leveled the playing field? I don't. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:01:30 PM · #17 |
mmm... Looking back at my experience here, I think that conversation like this one (and others) are the true strength of DPC.
Even when they take different and confused directions still they are inspirative descriptions of scenarios and, in this case, struggles.
Let's open another can of worms, then.
What I see, IMHO, is a crisis of real photographers; and the digital artists have little to do with it.
Yes, there may well be photos which are taken with Photoshop in mind, already knowing how to achieve their maximum effect in post-elaboration,
but that's just one of the many techniques available to produce a final output.
The only wrong thing I have seen, so far, is to insist in comparing different techniques.
Maybe some people blame Photoshop to mask their poor skill both with the software and the camera, because I still cannot believe that good photography should be afraid of digitally manipulated photography.
A truly great photographer would laugh at who describes Photoshop as a menace to him...
Much likely I am walking on a solitary line in this case because (I maybe be wrong in this) DPC's community has an the extreme focus on technique while nearly completely ignores the role and importance of the content.
Edited to remove some errors.
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 17:04:13. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:27:52 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
There are some great photographers here but bad Photoshop users .
And most of the winners here are the software GURU's ,where great talents like Mona are not noticed at all! |
I thought you were serious at first but the more I re-read this the more I think this is supposed to be humorous or pot stirring. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:15:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Dunno if my picture is what people are whining about or not, though I posted the pre-photoshop image earlier in this thread.
|
My assumption is based on timing (most recent winner). You are also known as a person who is quite adept at using PS. Just added them together...
And your lack of PS work with that image solidifies my argument. Talent and effort is what matters here, not how much PS you know. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:04:23 PM · #20 |
| I think that the open editing is just settling in, and the discussion isn't about a particular photograph, but more about philosophy. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:03:30 PM · #21 |
yes, it is a different talent.. but so is macro photography a different talent than landscape photography or than taking photos of portraits...
my main concern is exactly what gordon was concerned about his spectacular photo.. "would it get voted down if conceived as a photoshopped image"... it is a sad thing that there actually is a fear of such kind...
people should just look at the image and consider it as how well it was executed not how it was executed...
there are always new ways emerging to create anything in all aspects of life...and that the idea of a person having the slightest fear of being burnt down because he used some unconventional techniques (even thou when he didnt) is a shame on everybody who aided in the creation of that fear..... |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 03:47:33 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Davenit:
Stop whining about software GURU's and learn from what they do. Gordons light image is the bomb. Instead of denigrating him (and other PS users) because he knows how to use a program and try learning from him. He is a pretty talented guy who (in my experience) has always been very open with helping people. |
Dunno if my picture is what people are whining about or not, though I posted the pre-photoshop image earlier in this thread.
To me that Fantasia shot is strange. It looks like my most photoshopped image ever. Yet it is one of my least manipulated shots that I've entered. I struggled with how unreal and damn good it looked after I took it. I even worried that I'd be voted down for 'photoshopping' too much even though there was almost none used.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 03:43:43 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I'll try. I think the results of the technique PWL could be approximated using editing, perhaps a lot of editing, on a photo that was not taken with the "non-stationary light source" detailed for the challenge. I haven't gone back to find the post but I think this was pointed out in an earlier thread in reference to Techno's red ribbon shot in Roads Signs Re-Re challenge. In Shallow DoF the desired technique can be approximated by blurring the background, and maybe foreground too, in editing software as well as by taking the wide open apeture shot. In my mind this makes these challenges poor examples but it may be that is why they were chosen. Hope no one finds this offensive, just my humble two pennies. |
So from this, I take it you mean they are poor examples, because the advanced editing rules actually level the playing field ? I think in this sense 'poor' is a reflection of your own particular bias rather than a comment on the rules.
Maybe the applicability of a particular set of rules and boundaries around the idea of integrity is actually a mutable concept, based on the particular photographic theme we are considering
E.g., PWL vs. documentary or photojournalistic challenges
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 03:39:07 PM · #24 |
but it is a very different talent isnt it?
Originally posted by theodor38:
believing that "photoshop" is cheating or that it doesnt require talent would be an unfortunate misbelief.. |
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 03:33:34 PM · #25 |
i think this is an infertile arguement where no consensus can be reached.. but as a person who has done both black and white darkroom photo production and digital photo editting by photoshop, i would say they are different experiences and there are dfferent joys to be extracted from both of them..
anything that can be done in photoshop theoretically can be done in a traditional darkroom also.. on the other hand it would take tremendous effort and would be an excessively time consuming process.. that is where photoshop shines, by letting you manipulate images faster and more accurate with realtime feedback than never before imagined...
believing that "photoshop" is cheating or that it doesnt require talent would be an unfortunate misbelief..
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 15:33:58. |
|
