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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Military Challenge winner....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 69, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/28/2010 11:43:48 AM · #1
I posted this in the comments, but figured this might be a better place to put it....
Original: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/80000-84999/83313/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_921614.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/80000-84999/83313/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_921614.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Edited entry: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1299/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_920450.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1299/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_920450.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
I don't want this to come out the wrong way... I've not entered a challenge in a long time, but this seems to be one of the reasons why... Although the image is amazing, it is a great copy and a great edit. I don't think that the editing preserved the "image integrity." In fact the editing to me added an element that was not in the photo to begin with. I mean if anyone can look at the original and say 'I see fire in it', or looked at the post image and say, 'I see smoke in it', I will withdraw this post and apologize most profusely. Had this been advanced editing I wouldn't have as much problem (although still some). To me the editing didn't just change the color of the smoke, it changed it into fire which was not there originally. As I look at the comments the vast majority talk about either the editing or the post-processing of the image. But fantastic image outcome.

This is the section in the Basic Editing that applies I think:
You may:
use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur.

Message edited by author 2010-11-28 11:46:42.
11/28/2010 11:48:10 AM · #2
I found the photo to represent the strength of digital photography. The photographer had an eye to see an image, and w/ technology was able to create an effect that was already present in the photo - but not apparent visually.

The heat of battle, perhaps? I didn't see fire, but rather, felt an emotion that was immense due to the post-processing.

I think it takes a talented artist to use photography in this way, and wish more people would.
11/28/2010 12:00:13 PM · #3
I think there is nothing wrong with the editing in this photo. By changing the colours in the photo Steve took this from a battle reenactment photo, to something very convincing of an actual battle. I didnt see fire in the shot, and no elements where added... but the mood of the photo certainly did. This is something that is completely acceptable in all forms of editing.

We get too caught up with editing at DPC. Post processing has been a part of photography since the dark (room) ages, we should learn to accept it.
11/28/2010 12:01:40 PM · #4
*shrug*

I figure it's a case of the fact that you typically don't take a great photo, that happens very, very rarely and only when fate, karma, and serendipity conspire together to make it happen... The rest of the time it's up to the photographer to make a great photo out of whatever it is that they happened to take.. Like it or not, most great photos are edited, and the definition of integrity around here is somewhat different than National Geographic's definition of integrity...

I think it was a brilliant edit of a somewhat mundane image, creating a piece of work that deserved the placement it received..

But, that being said, I do think we should have more minimal editing challenges, they're fun and challenging to get it just right in the camera...
11/28/2010 12:09:52 PM · #5
Look at it this way, Skief: how would you feel if he'd put an orange filter in front of the lens to capture this scene? Because that would be pretty much the same effect. The color shift is just made after the fact, so it's possible to experiment with many variations, instead of being stuck with whatever filter had been in front of the lens at the time of shooting.

R.
11/28/2010 12:10:27 PM · #6
Would it have bothered you if he had shot the original image with a #81 warming filter to impart the orange tones? Yes there is certainly a shift in the drama by the use of post processing, both is shifting the tones and in framing, but in film both could have been achieved through different methodology.

I saw smoke or dust through evening light rather than the fire you saw, certainly more dramatic than what is in the flat light original image, but one of the joys of digital photography is the ability to shoot knowing how you will edit to get the effect you want in post processing.
11/28/2010 12:13:30 PM · #7
Originally posted by northebound:

I found the photo to represent the strength of digital photography. The photographer had an eye to see an image, and w/ technology was able to create an effect that was already present in the photo - but not apparent visually.

The heat of battle, perhaps? I didn't see fire, but rather, felt an emotion that was immense due to the post-processing.

I think it takes a talented artist to use photography in this way, and wish more people would.


I agree with this.

we can complain all we ant about what basic editing and what advanced editing is, digital editing is here to stay and yo_spiff did a great job of navigating those rules to create a great image.

to add, i like to see original images edited like this, it gives me something to strive towards.

Message edited by author 2010-11-28 12:16:20.
11/28/2010 12:13:46 PM · #8
Originally posted by skief:

I mean if anyone can look at the original and say 'I see fire in it', or looked at the post image and say, 'I see smoke in it', I will withdraw this post and apologize most profusely.

Where there's smoke there's fire, no? ;)

To me this is a great example of a photographer who used all the possible tools to create an extremely impressive image. I'd wager he had this in mind at the time of capture.
11/28/2010 12:17:48 PM · #9
In my opinion it does violate the rule as the rule is currently written, however it seems most people are saying the rule shouldn't apply for various reasons (if you can do it with a filter the rule shouldn't apply, or photographers have to make the best of what they shoot and all photos are edited. etc.)

I think the shot is great and have no desire to see it disqualified but not enforcing the rules does put photographers who follow the rules more strictly at a disadvantage. There's a reason why we have basic and advanced editing.

11/28/2010 12:30:29 PM · #10
Originally posted by ttreit:

In my opinion it does violate the rule as the rule is currently written, however it seems most people are saying the rule shouldn't apply for various reasons (if you can do it with a filter the rule shouldn't apply, or photographers have to make the best of what they shoot and all photos are edited. etc.)



I dont think anyone is saying a rule shouldn't apply, i don't see where any rule was broken.
11/28/2010 12:32:42 PM · #11
"must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature"

It seems very clear to me that the feature of fire was added with the filter. What else would a feature be?
11/28/2010 12:44:35 PM · #12
Lesson learned... never post an original, after validation :P
11/28/2010 12:49:13 PM · #13
What about this rule from basic editing:

You may not:
use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as vignettes, lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture.

Now, all of three of these things that are listed there are able to be done in a camera if you take the picture that way. However, they are not allowed in Basic Editing. It seems like we are saying, "If you can do it in the camera without editing, then you should be able to do it in a Basic editing challenge." Is that the way you want it to be.

I also thought it was the spirit as much as the letter of the rules.

To Brennan: No it would not have bothered me had he used the #81 filter to accomplish the same thing. Although I really doubt a #81 would have done the whole trick without making the rest of the image orange as well. The problem comes in the rules themselves.

Here's the purpose of "Basic Editing" italics mine...
Basic Editing permits overall adjustments to help polish your captured image. These rules are intended to allow you to fine tune your entry and correct basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc. No selections or spot editing tools are allowed, with the sole exception of cloning out sensor dust or hot pixels. Restrictions on post-processing apply to all edits performed after the image is captured, whether performed in image-editing software, during RAW conversion, or using image-editing software built into the camera.

Message edited by author 2010-11-28 12:53:16.
11/28/2010 12:53:22 PM · #14
Originally posted by bohemka:


To me this is a great example of a photographer who used all the possible tools to create an extremely impressive image.


I couldn't agree more...I think it's a great shot and a great use of processing.

Tom
11/28/2010 12:55:28 PM · #15
Please do not misinterpret me in that I am NOT saying that it is not an amazing image, for I agree that it is.
11/28/2010 12:58:21 PM · #16
Wow. I'm impressed. This is why I don't like to see originals. Takes some of the magic out of it. Definitely became a feature, but this has been done many times.. <just one example IMO>
11/28/2010 01:00:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by binarysmart:

Originally posted by bohemka:


To me this is a great example of a photographer who used all the possible tools to create an extremely impressive image.


I couldn't agree more...I think it's a great shot and a great use of processing.

Impressive, yes. The OP's question was about integrity.
11/28/2010 01:02:56 PM · #18
Originally posted by bvy:


Impressive, yes. The OP's question was about integrity.


Digital era to a certain degree. Look at the purple challenge I posted. WB and Hue/Sat can go a long way to change an image.
11/28/2010 01:05:32 PM · #19
I think it's a great picture and I love the edit and I know it's within the basic editing rules.
But ... I think the basic editing rules, in general, should be reviewed.
IE: you can't do a minor correction for lens distortion but you can do this?
I would have no problem with an orange filter screwed onto the lens at the time he took the picture (and I realize it would have the same result) but to do this with pp is not basic editing anymore, IMO.
Even Steve said "that's when the magic happened".
A simple lens correction is not "magic" it's necessary. To not allow it doesn't make sense to me.
11/28/2010 01:15:01 PM · #20
If we continue to go this route - does black & white become a violation of the rule? It's as much an effect to the photo as turning it orange. I guess you could have your camera record in B&W, but that's a lot of information lost that would not have been in a pre-digital era.

11/28/2010 01:15:40 PM · #21
I also saw smoke & dust not fire, there are few ways in which yo_spiff could have achieved this effect and he chose one which did not break the basic editing rules, more credit to him. I'm often astounded at the difference off a before and after basic edit, the trick is not to show your wife the difference then she thinks your great and makes you a wonderful tartiflette just like mine right now.
11/28/2010 01:16:42 PM · #22
The PP blended the trees and smoke to look like flames and explosions for many people. As mentioned, the treatment I used was only a color and contrast change. I did feel it was a risky entry partially for those reasons, and it did get called up for validation during the challenge. I'm sure SC had some debate over it, but they ended up validating it. I certainly pushed some limits to the edge with this one. I also didn't think it was something that could ribbon, until voting started and it started off strong and stayed that way.

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' bspurgeon is probably correct that I should have avoided this stink by not posting the original, but I know that I like to see what others started with. If it hadn't already been validated during the challenge, I would have waited or not posted it at all, rather than have SC's decision influenced by a forum discussion.

Message edited by author 2010-11-28 13:17:49.
11/28/2010 01:19:06 PM · #23
I saw a fiery battlefield in the challenge entry, and a routine military exercise in the original. I was more than a little surprised and admit to being somewhat uneasy about it. A warming filter by itself would certainly have added drama but not to the extent shown in the finished product.

To Ben's point, sometimes it's best not to know.
11/28/2010 01:26:54 PM · #24
In taking a second look, I think the tight crop also goes a long way to achieving the effect. This might get overlooked amdist the smoke vs. fire aspect of this debate.
11/28/2010 01:31:57 PM · #25
Originally posted by bvy:

In taking a second look, I think the tight crop also goes a long way to achieving the effect. This might get overlooked amdist the smoke vs. fire aspect of this debate.


Yeah, good point. Bottom line, it's not the first time a ribbon winner has pushed the basic ruleset to the limits.

Penny brings up a good point, but somewhat off topic. Seems odd to not allow lens corrections for horizons and buildings, etc.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/11/2019 07:35:30 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 © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/11/2019 07:35:30 AM EST.