| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/10/2014 06:18:48 AM · #26 |
|
|
|
05/10/2014 07:46:32 AM · #27 |
.
Or, make one up, as in the Dirds challenge.
Message edited by author 2014-05-10 07:48:11. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 12:26:56 AM · #28 |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 06:03:32 AM · #29 |
Great! Wacked out, fantasy collages, here we come.
Can't wait to employ the "You should:" aspect of the "Expert photo-collager" ruleset, where it states:
"You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly." |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 06:24:42 AM · #30 |
Hope Christophe hasn't still got these wings in his dress up cupboard:)
 |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 06:32:24 AM · #31 |
sooo I take it with the expert editing, we are free to do with what we wish!!! Should be interesting but I think I would need more than 6 days
What is your favorite software to edit stuff like this?
This is where I think my photoshop will come in handy because of layers, cropping and masking
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 07:23:02. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 08:20:18 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Hope Christophe hasn't still got these wings in his dress up cupboard:)
|
You beat me to the punch.
Great minds think alike. Let the fiery naked Gyaban challenge commence. A la Cuisine! |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 08:53:57 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Hope Christophe hasn't still got these wings in his dress up cupboard:)
|
I thought this kind of show, after a challenge has been announced, was not allowed. Good image, but why should any of us mortals submit to a challenge like this? It's discouraging. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:34:33 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Great! Wacked out, fantasy collages, here we come.
Can't wait to employ the "You should:" aspect of the "Expert photo-collager" ruleset, where it states:
"You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly." |
It says "photographic in nature" not *realistic*.
Help me out here -- what does "photographic in nature" mean to you? And what is the category for an image that is not photographic in nature? Whacked out? I googled that phrase -- it's roughly the equivalent of fu**ed up.
I'm honestly asking. I really want to know, because I've given it a lot of thought myself & spent quite a lot of time trying to use my camera in ways that result in an image that is not photographic in nature. It's difficult to take creative control of the technology of the camera & to avoid being dominated by it. An image captured with a camera will always be photographic in nature, & a digital image will always be digital in nature.
For me, the image that is the most photographic in nature is the snapshot. What about you?
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 09:45:40. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:47:13 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Great! Wacked out, fantasy collages, here we come.
Can't wait to employ the "You should:" aspect of the "Expert photo-collager" ruleset, where it states:
"You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly." |
I says "photographic in nature" not *realistic*.
Help me out here -- what does "photographic in nature" mean to you? And what is the category for an image that is not photographic in nature? Whacked out? I googled that phrase -- it's roughly the equivalent of fu**ed up.
I'm honestly asking. I really want to know, because I've given it a lot of thought myself & spent quite a lot of time trying to use my camera in ways that result in an image that is not photographic in nature. It's difficult to take creative control of the technology of the camera & to avoid being dominated by it. An image captured with a camera will always be photographic in nature, & a digital image will always be digital in nature.
For me, the image that is the most photographic in nature is the snapshot. What about you? |
Very good question, and worth examining oneself upon reading the question.
To me, "photographic in nature" and "realistic" are very similar. To me, it means that it looks like it could have been created in camera (realistic) instead of fully created via software (not realistic).
I'm going to pick on some of gyaban's images, because he is a master of both sides of photography (in camera and editing).
Photographic in nature:
    
Not photographic in nature:
    
Of course, this is my opinion, I don't expect anyone to 100% share it. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 10:00:19 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
...
For me, the image that is the most photographic in nature is the snapshot. What about you? |
The term "snapshot" is pejorative. There are many images which are photographic in nature, which are much more than "snapshots". |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 10:37:58 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Great! Wacked out, fantasy collages, here we come.
Can't wait to employ the "You should:" aspect of the "Expert photo-collager" ruleset, where it states:
"You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly." |
I says "photographic in nature" not *realistic*.
Help me out here -- what does "photographic in nature" mean to you? And what is the category for an image that is not photographic in nature? Whacked out? I googled that phrase -- it's roughly the equivalent of fu**ed up.
I'm honestly asking. I really want to know, because I've given it a lot of thought myself & spent quite a lot of time trying to use my camera in ways that result in an image that is not photographic in nature. It's difficult to take creative control of the technology of the camera & to avoid being dominated by it. An image captured with a camera will always be photographic in nature, & a digital image will always be digital in nature.
For me, the image that is the most photographic in nature is the snapshot. What about you? |
Very good question, and worth examining oneself upon reading the question.
To me, "photographic in nature" and "realistic" are very similar. To me, it means that it looks like it could have been created in camera (realistic) instead of fully created via software (not realistic). |
All digital images are created by software (some of it in-camera). I think maybe you mean "photographic in nature" is something you believe you could see with your own eyes. If you were to by chance see a naked man with burning wings, you would expect to see some collateral damage, as it isn't logical for only the wings to burn. If it is Icarus, & he was burned by the sun, he should be burned all over. So, is there a 'logic test' as well as a 'could I see it with my own eyes' test?
For purposes of a "photographic in nature" discussion, it would help to stay away from the anti-photoshop discussion. That's a different, more emotional, discussion.
This image is straight from the camera. It's an iPhone shot of the TV screen. I did see it with my own eyes. Is this "photographic in nature"? Does it pass a 'logic test'?
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 10:42:54. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 12:13:25 PM · #38 |
Good examples and my thoughts are pretty much in line with what you've put forth. I'm glad you did because I wanted to respond but couldn't take time for the research while at work. :-) |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 12:37:23 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I thought this kind of show, after a challenge has been announced, was not allowed. Good image, but why should any of us mortals submit to a challenge like this? It's discouraging. |
The discussion's useful, as long as it stops once voting begins. It exposes people to how others view the challenge, which IMO can't be a bad idea.
As far as "why bother?" goes, I'd submit that it's FUN to try to crack the top-ten in an expert challenge with an actual photograph. You're GOOD with birds, Richard, and you have a ton of them around. Give it a go! And you could use the expert ruleset to your advantage here if you could get a stop-action series of a bird in motion and work it into a single "sequential" image...
|
|
|
|
05/12/2014 01:06:45 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Good image, but why should any of us mortals submit to a challenge like this? It's discouraging. |
As far as "why bother?" goes, I'd submit that it's FUN to try to crack the top-ten in an expert challenge with an actual photograph. You're GOOD with birds, Richard, and you have a ton of them around. Give it a go! And you could use the expert ruleset to your advantage here if you could get a stop-action series of a bird in motion and work it into a single "sequential" image... |
I finished 12th in the recent "Beauty" expert editing challenge with an advanced edited bird. (and later, sorting through my pictures from the same day, found one that probably would have scored even better). In fact, I was quite impressed by how few blatantly "expertly" edited images there were in that challenge.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of expert editing challenges, for the same reasons many here aren't.
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 13:08:20. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 01:15:29 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
If you were to by chance see a naked man with burning wings, you would expect to see some collateral damage, as it isn't logical for only the wings to burn. If it is Icarus, & he was burned by the sun, he should be burned all over. |
Icarus was never "burned" -- the warmth of the sun softened/melted the wax adhering the feathers to the frame of his wings, and he fell into the sea and drowned. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 02:22:02 PM · #42 |
"why bother"
This attitude is anathema of this site. I'm not near an ocean, why bother entering an ocean challenge. I live in a city, why bother entering a landscape or wildlife challenge. I'm shy, why bother entering a portrait challenge. I hate bugs, why bother entering a macro challenge. I'm afraid of the dark, why bother entering a night challenge. I live in the country, why bother entering an architecture challenge...
And so it is for any "expert" challenge. Although there are some very successful proponents of fantasy imagery, they are by NO means the only examples of excellent photography that take advantage of some or even any of the expert ruleset. Like it or not, compositing is part of the photographic landscape in the digital photography age. And this is a "digital photography" site. It would be illogical to exclude this type of challenge. Everyone has their strong suit - some are master street photographers; some are landscape maters, or wildlife masters, etc. If we enter only those things we're best at, what are we here to learn? And to further pick on poor Christophe, he has proven to be a master in every ruleset.
Again, I point to my recent Beauty entry which is basically one photograph, but it would have been DQ'd under Advanced because I had to replace one small element from another take, and clone out an element in the corner. Thus, it is as "photographic" in nature as it is possible to be, but it was created using some of the manipulations allowed under the "expert" editing ruleset. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 02:49:22 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
"why bother"
This attitude is anathema of this site. I'm not near an ocean, why bother entering an ocean challenge. I live in a city, why bother entering a landscape or wildlife challenge. I'm shy, why bother entering a portrait challenge. I hate bugs, why bother entering a macro challenge. I'm afraid of the dark, why bother entering a night challenge. I live in the country, why bother entering an architecture challenge...
And so it is for any "expert" challenge. Although there are some very successful proponents of fantasy imagery, they are by NO means the only examples of excellent photography that take advantage of some or even any of the expert ruleset. Like it or not, compositing is part of the photographic landscape in the digital photography age. And this is a "digital photography" site. It would be illogical to exclude this type of challenge. Everyone has their strong suit - some are master street photographers; some are landscape maters, or wildlife masters, etc. If we enter only those things we're best at, what are we here to learn? And to further pick on poor Christophe, he has proven to be a master in every ruleset.
Again, I point to my recent Beauty entry which is basically one photograph, but it would have been DQ'd under Advanced because I had to replace one small element from another take, and clone out an element in the corner. Thus, it is as "photographic" in nature as it is possible to be, but it was created using some of the manipulations allowed under the "expert" editing ruleset. |
Well stated Johanna.
My goal is to whoop Christophe in this challenge! |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 03:09:23 PM · #44 |
Wow, I say bring this thing on!!!
I am soo stoked about this challenge, so this is right up my alley.. I spent those last three weeks learning about something I had no clue about.. symmetry.. ( I am still learning about it)
If this challenge will make me have a better eye on photography and how something is done with the details, colors and composition, bring it on..I think this challenge will push limits on what photography can do.
I am here to learn and to master my camera and its settings.. was so not expecting to have talked to some very wonderful people here on these forums which have turned into wonderful mentors and friends for me building my knowledge and helping me trying to make sense of things of why certain things are done, why are things called this or that..I am thinking this may have to be a paid position soon hahahah!
The abstract thing is another thing which totally out of my league because I had no idea even the first thing to go about how to make something abstract, how to compose something or even go about trying to make it different with the camera.. my mind is still on symmetry. I plan on mastering abstracting one day baby step at a time..
If anything else I think this subject is making me learn photography and to keep a keen eye on detail and lighting. So much to learn and behold and its like a whole new world being open to my senses.. Come to say its pretty damn addicting too... I have a lot to learn yet and I am just starting, but its a great learning curve for me.
I know for a fact its forcing me out of my little comfy cubby comfort zone and away from my wildlife and nature subjects. By all means .....Drag me out..
How I roll is that I don't wanna go through life or my learning normally.. I wanna ride in life sideways, skidding making marks, getting broken bones and bruises, this learning is just firing my passion to do more and to do better, I want my pictures to do better than what I have taken before.. pushing the envelope with my camera and editing skills. I want my Critiques to have honest brutally remarks and comments, if somethings good ok, but why.. if something is bad.. why.. bring it on.. I have a tough neck and back. Its how I learn. I am learning from pictures that you all take as well.. by watching what you do, you are kinda like raising me up LOL
I have seen some awesome talent here and it only gets better and I haven't even dug through the past pictures and contests yet... blows me away. I think it can be done with nice taste..
+1 on what Johanna Said too!
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 15:15:31. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 05:26:16 PM · #45 |
+1 on everything Johanna said in her post, the 'Why bother?' mentality that pervades this site can easily result in complete inaction! A friend of mine owned horses, including a couple of perfectly nice, well-mannered, sound, sensible, bombproof Quarterhorses. But whenever I suggested that we go for a ride, and we're just talking the equivalent of a leisuely stroll down a quiet dirt road of less than an hour in duration, she always had an excuse to NOT go.
If it wasn't too hot, too humid, too dusty, too rainy in the spring and summer; in the fall and winter it was too breezy, too cold, too damp, too snowy. Having had to ride multiple horses, in all these conditions in order to make a living, meant that she won scant sympathy from me. (FWIW...I should mention that in more extreme heat/humidity and cold, rides were kept short, but still about 30 min duration.) Anyway she rarely ever rode her horse outside the safe confines of her indoor arena.
Sooo...just the usually  snaffles roundabout...;-) But it should also be noted too that some people clearly have much more free time to go out and shoot the subjects of their choice. I own and run a small business, so in addition to everything else, the time to go shoot for 4-6 hours like I used to, is now at a premium. I enter a lot less and try to choose my challenges much more carefully now.
@ jgirl57, you can always request critiques on any image you enter. Having said that I have no idea how active the Critique Club is these days, but you at least stand a chance of getting an honest critique which looks at the entry from both artistic and technical sides.
Or if you're fearless you can put up your entry, post-challenge, in a thread entitled 'What's wrong with this image?' or 'Why didn't this image do better?' If you get an overall consensus on why the image didn't do as well as expected, from as many different DPCers as possible, then that's a useful starting point.
Message edited by author 2014-05-12 18:03:02. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:02:05 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
+1 on everything Johanna said in her post, the 'Why bother?' mentality that pervades this site can easily result in complete inaction! ... |
"begin rant" This used to be a photography skills emphasis contest site. That is what I signed up for, in March of 2006.
Now, the emphasis seems to be much less on photography and much more on creative photoshop skills. Well, OK then. Not everyone wants to sit at a computer all day and manipulate pixels. The real world is interesting to me. I love photography. I make a living from landscape and wildlife photography. My market is not interested in heavily processed images. They want to buy and take home a memory of their experiences in my area. I would be cutting my own throat to show fantasy images at my gallery, when the demand is for realism and documentation.
There is certainly a growing intolerance by DPC voters for what I do. The best image I've photographed all year is currently scoring 5.2 in Symmetry V. It meets the challenge well. It's real. It's not cooked. But, it's hated by current voters who think it's DNMC relative to the rest of the field. I am out of sync with current voters. I know what they would prefer. But, I prefer to photograph what I truly love and enjoy. It will always be my preference to spend my time 90% photography and 10% processing. If I wanted to create cartoons, I'd learn to paint and draw in other media. "end rant" |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:14:31 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
"begin rant" snip "end rant" |
Yup, and all that's your choice :-) Everyone chooses their own path, both in what they do and in what they like/score highly. It's a fun place to hang out though, as I know you'd agree, or you wouldn't still be here, now would you? Nor me, for that matter. Heck, I just signed myself into indentured servitude despite that the voters and *I* are drifting further apart also :-) |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:26:02 PM · #48 |
I didn't think anything was really photographic in nature in the abstract challenge.
Yet I didn't hear any complaints. |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:28:59 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I didn't think anything was really photographic in nature in the abstract challenge.
Yet I didn't hear any complaints. |
Well, I've seen the ORIGINALS of the top 5 (to validate) and there's not a ONE of them that's not a quite literal rendition of what the camera saw. So all of THOSE are "photography" for sure, right? |
|
|
|
05/12/2014 09:51:27 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I didn't think anything was really photographic in nature in the abstract challenge.
Yet I didn't hear any complaints. |
Sure they were. Motion blur, creative defocusing ... all techniques easily done the exact same way with a film camera.
Substantially different than the flying pigs and fantasy winged angels that will be a total fabrication - more like graphic or digital art, rather than photography.
I hope many of you DO enter "regular" photos without all of the digital collage fantasy crap ... I will certainly reward you with a decent vote versus what I hand out for entries that aren't "photographic in nature". |
|
