| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2002 07:20:02 PM · #1 |
A reason often quoted for having editing restrictions (and keeping them under the new proposed rules)is to level the playing field and accommodate those submitters that don't have access to Photoshop. That doesn't hold water at all since submitters make images with a variety of cameras, from inexpensive to expensive and from those with limited features to ample features. Since we don't limit the type of camera that can be used nor the camera features that can be used why do put those restrictions on the use of Photoshop.
Besides the "leveling the playing field" rationale, there is this tremendous fear that if there would be no editing rules a large number of highly manipulated images would start to appear in the challenges. Is that really so likely? At Photosig, where there are no editing rules, the number of Photoshop manipulated images submitted is quite small and they don't get by definition a higher score. At Bestfoto, the Open Category, you really don't see images that are "weird" or "outrageously manipulated". It seems to me that dpc voters will indicate quite clearly with their vote whether highly manipulated images would go over very well or not. If they don't like it and give low scores, one will think twice of continuing to submit highly manipulated images. And so what if which each challenge there would be a few manipulated images? Right now, we look every week at a few images that are very grainy or very badly out of focus and we all survive that nicely. We vote according to whether we like what we see. Our appraisal does not take into account the quality of the camera with which the image was taken. Why couldn't our appreciation be enhanced by being allowed to do some spot editing if the image were to gain from that.
I actually believe that the fear of those "highly manipulated images" is grossly overstated. What's the big deal if someone wants to clone out a small area that mars an otherwise fine picture? What's the big deal if someone wants to remove some hot pixels? We should appreciate the image and not worry whether some minor spot editing was carried out to arrive at that fine image.
A big advantage, beside more polished and finished submissions, is that cheating, or the suspicion thereof, would cease to be an issue. That alone seems a very important consideration to me. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 07:31:53 PM · #2 |
Most of the Photoshop (or equivalent) procedures which are allowed are specifically to allow duplication of in-camera techniques.
This specific site is intended to develop folks' image capture/compositional skills, not the ability to produce a finished piece for print. Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to propose a workable guideline for allowing a "little bit" of editing, so we've stuck with none instead of all. But it would not surprise me to see at least an occasional "completely open" challenge sometime... |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 08:06:13 PM · #3 |
The purpose of photography is to create an image. Taking the picture with the camera is only the first step.
If the purpose of this site is only to develop image capture and compositional skills, then it is really limiting itself, and the photographers.
Image capture with digital is fairly automatic, and compostion can, and should be adjusted in editing software.
I have never seen anywhere that this site is only aimed at a certain audience, or is only here to teach specific things. Is this written somewhere?
Everything that I have learned on this site falls outside the limited purpose GeneralE stated (such as desaturating my apple photo-something I cannot do on my camera).
I am not sure how I feel about full edting, as usually the only spot editing I do it to remove wrinkle, or remove dust and scratches. I do not have to worry about D&S with digital, since that is not a problem for a sealed digital camera, but I would like to be able to remove wrinkles, or little bits of food or a stray hair.
When I think about all the adjustments that can be made within the rules, the limits seem a little arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 08:40:07 PM · #4 |
If we allow more editing than what is currently allowed, we can replace backgrounds, Take out "distracting" things from our photos, and completely change the color, lighting and copmosition all with the work of editing. This is a photography challenge, not an art contest. The purpose of this is to TAKE a good photo, not edit a good photo. Photography, not artistry. There are lots of places you can edit photos and enter them. I like this just how it is. It shows the ability of the photographer to take a raw photo. I say, keep it the way it is. If you don't, you might as well change the name to Digital Photography ART challenge. Take the digitally altered photos to photosig or something.
There...that's my 2 cents on the subject.
~Heather~
*welcoming all hate mail* :)
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 08:42:30 PM · #5 |
To be clear, I'm speaking only as to MY OWN interpretation of the purposes and philosophy of this site, certainly not in any "official spokesperson" capacity.
It's all updating soon anyway; maybe reviewing the "Comment on New Rules" and "If You Could Have One Thing" threads would be useful. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 09:45:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
This is a photography challenge, not an art contest. The purpose of this is to TAKE a good photo, not edit a good photo. Photography, not artistry. ...you might as well change the name to Digital Photography ART challenge.
hmmm...I'd like to think of some of my photography as ART. I think of most published photography as ART. I think that's one of the major problems..scratch...issues on this site. The audience here (voters) for the most part don't seem to appreciate art (heck, they might not even know it when they see it) and would rather see 'pretty' pictures...you can tell by who finishes on top (i'm not dissing anyone..you're all great!). This bothers me to a certain extent because I've seen photos here that I would buy and hang up on my wall but they finish middle to bottom. (this is when you think to yourself: 'if you don't like it, leave!')
But I might not leave, because I'm proud of what I do and like...scratch..love to see that 20-40 voters do apprecitate my photos (8-10)and the rest of the votes don't count. I will leave when a photo of mine gets 5 and under votes only.
But if you (general you..i'm not picking on anyone) think that photography is not art then maybe this isn't your cup of tea. I like to think that the last 3 entries of mine were someone artful, creative, and clever...perhaps too clever for my own good.
...and, oh, please...don't take it the wrong way and start fighting with me :-) i'm a nice guy...really
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 9:44:32 PM. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 09:55:46 PM · #7 |
While I certainly wouldn't want to site the site turn into what Heather envisions would happen if we loosened up on the edit rule, I think I'd have to agree with Journey that it wouldn't be very likely. I would guess that 90% of those here would not even try to 'change a background' or clone in Nixon and Mao dancing on a table. And of the 10% that might try, I'd further guess that 90% of them would simply butcher their image and condemn it to the lowest of all scores. This would leave 10% of 10% (1% for the Math challenged) that might be able to improve their image with radical editing. Personally I would look forward to their tutorials on the subject more than I would fear their corruptive influence.
And this would free a lot of folks from throwing away otherwise wonderful submissions or possibly even leaving the site due to un-editable hot pixels in their camera.
I'm here to stay, hot pixels and all... I tried to leave... Really I did... But I know now that I can't. But others may never submit here because their camera is getting on in years and we won't allow them to select a small section of their photo and run Dust/Scratch to get rid of it. Does this make it a better site?
Posters Notice : The statistics used in this post where calculated by someone that wears a "93.7% of all statistics are misleading" button.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:03:37 PM · #8 |
This kind of thinking is very misguided in my opinion.
There is not such thing as a true photo. What you see on your screen is not what you took. It is an interpration of the data, and the data itself has been altered. The light range is adjusted, the color and saturation are adjusted. We can also alter the saturation, the color balance, the contrast and brightness, as well as remove color. Photographers that think a photograph is a literal interpretation of the world around them are deluded. And those that think a weak image can be made great are also deluded. The art of photography is displayed through the print, and there are more means of manipulating the prints than can be cataloged.
How about turning off the white balance, everyone shooting at the same F-stop and 35mm lens equivilant lenght, plus no cropping, color, brightness, or contrast adjustments?
It takes as much skill to masterfully edit a picture as it does to take a great photograph, and you must have an eye for what makes a great photograph to be successful in either (you can only remove a distracting element if you know it is distracting).
If someone wants to spend the time to edit out a background, and can do it so I cannot tell it was done, ok, let them do it. Especially if both elements of the photo were taken during the challenge. How is that really any different than someone that has an expensive studio set up? Most heavily edited works that I have seen are monstrosities, and would probably not do well here. You probably do not realize that most of the landscape photos you see with a beautiful large moon were compositions, two slides put together.
Photography is an art in my book.
Just what is a raw photo? There is no such thing. No film or CCD has ever captured life like it is. Our eyes and brains even make interpretations for us.
I love this site as it is too. But if you are not learning how to post process, you are missing the majority of what photography is about. The image capture is only the first of many steps. One of the great things about digital is: it give you all the best darkroom tools to use in the light real-time, why through that away?
And Zadore,
I hope you do not leave, I like lot of what you say. But I also think the winners earned their places.
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
If we allow more editing than what is currently allowed, we can replace backgrounds, Take out "distracting" things from our photos, and completely change the color, lighting and copmosition all with the work of editing. This is a photography challenge, not an art contest. The purpose of this is to TAKE a good photo, not edit a good photo. Photography, not artistry. There are lots of places you can edit photos and enter them. I like this just how it is. It shows the ability of the photographer to take a raw photo. I say, keep it the way it is. If you don't, you might as well change the name to Digital Photography ART challenge. Take the digitally altered photos to photosig or something.
There...that's my 2 cents on the subject.
~Heather~
*welcoming all hate mail* :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 10:05:28 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 11:07:06 PM. |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:41:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I like this just how it is. It shows the ability of the photographer to take a raw photo. I say, keep it the way it is. If you don't, you might as well change the name to Digital Photography ART challenge. Take the digitally altered photos to photosig or something.
There...that's my 2 cents on the subject.
~Heather~
*welcoming all hate mail* :)
So, you submit your pictures raw from the camera? No cropping? No levels? No curves? No sharpening? And you also think that all the other submissions under the present scheme are raw photos? They certainly aren't. In other words, the editing rules, as allowed at present and as proposed, are just arbitrary. Like Zadore and others I see photography as a form of art as well. Art and rules don't go together all that well.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 10:58:48 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Journey:
Art and rules don't go together all that well.
Try entering your acrylic and pastel work into the next oil painting competition, or your charcoal sketches into a sculpture exhibition, and let me know how well you get on.
PS: I have changed my mind on this issue and would now support open editing rules. I just thought the quote was less than well-thought out.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 10:57:48 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/1/2002 11:00:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 11:04:57 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jakking:
I have changed my mind on this issue and would now support open editing rules.
May I ask what brought you over to the open edit side of the fence? I'm curious :) |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 11:09:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Photography, not artistry.
There...that's my 2 cents on the subject.
~Heather~
*welcoming all hate mail* :)
Art isn't so much a matter of the medium used as the person using it. Crayons in the hands of my daughter makes a nice picture to hang on the fridge... In the hands of some folks I know, the same crayons make a work of art worthy of a museum.
And so you don't see this as part of the hate mail, I have to tell you that I think THIS is art...
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 11:14:22 PM · #13 |
I had opposed open editing because, in my limited thinking, I believed we would be swamped by bizarre images. I also considered the site to be one where almost-"raw" pictures took preference over PS mechanics.
The arguments here have convinced me, primarily, that my first point is incorrect. Or, rather, that heavily (and obviously) manipulated images will receive low scores and that, evolution being what it is, they would be driven out by force of public opinion as expressed by the vote totals.
I have also been convinced that, allowing cropping, levels adjustments, curve-based changes, de-saturation, etc., it is dumb to disallow spot-editing in other circumstances.
Mostly, I am convinced that public opinion will keep this site displaying well-taken images that have been modified to be better "art".
|
|
|
|
10/01/2002 11:34:28 PM · #14 |
OK...I guess I should have said a DRAWING contest...I certainly think of photography as art. What I meant is all the nice drawing and stuff people could do with their photos....
And to answer the question about MY photos...I JUST got a photo editing program, and YES, my first submissions WERE straight out of the camera.
Sooo...To clarify, I don't want this turning into "the best photo editor" contest. I guess that's what I was saying.
So, sorry to everyone who took what I said the wrong way...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:03:09 AM · #15 |
| I'm pretty opposed to open editing (not just because I'm not good at, but that is probably a contributing factor). I gotta agree with a lot of what you folks are saying here, for and against. I've seen some cool stuff on photosig with obvious PS influence. Some of it is pretty creative, some of it is not. Some of it is pure crap with some different hues and saturation to make something bizarre out of something mundane, and then posting it. Some of it I feel outright embarrassed for the people who took the shots. I think by allowing open editing, it compromises the way we take pictures by making the composition of a photo less valuable than good editing skills. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:37:22 AM · #16 |
I'm very good at spot editing. Been doing outragious things with many differnt programs for years. Probably could kick butt without the restrictions. But I agree with and like the restrictions. I've come to know and handle my equiptment better because of them. Here is how I see it: The original photograph is the drawing upon which the painting is based. The better the drawing, the better the painting. Simple as that.
It is not about winning a contest. It is about making my equiptment do as much as possible, forcing my mind to creative focus, and framing my vision into a powerful statement. With as little help from a computer program as is humanly possible. As a digital photographer I am tied to the computer, but I don't need to be dependant on it for my artistic vision. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:37:26 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
I love this site as it is too. But if you are not learning how to post process, you are missing the majority of what photography is about. The image capture is only the first of many steps. One of the great things about digital is: it give you all the best darkroom tools to use in the light real-time, why through that away?
I know I haven't been here very long but let me speak from the other side of the issue. I am brand new to photography. I don't believe that I am missing out on anything RIGHT NOW by not jumping into the post processing end. I'm having enough to do learning the camera basics.
I entered a picture here, fresh out of the camera, and I almost didn't. At my level of expertise I was awed by the level that you guys are on and didn't feel worthy of entering. I did anyway and while my score is low it is better than I had expected and the responses have been great. It has really encouraged me to do more and I'm having even more fun learning than I expected and this site has been a big part of that.
If I was now going to be submitting against even better pictures that I am light years away from reaching this has the potential to be bad and heres why. What happens when the bar is raised is that the lower end loses the one thing that keeps us going, positive encouragement. I don't think many people here would consciously try and downgrade others works but it is inevitable. As you are judging higher quality pictures the glaring inadequacies of the non edited novice shots start looking worse and worse and let me tell you, I've seen a lot of cruel comments already ( not on my pic yet fortunately ) and this would just be begging for that to increase. It certainly would drive me off if I were to submit, get a low score AND put up with scathing comments as well.
As a number of good commenters are already saying that they're cutting back on commenting due to the number of entries it seems that they'd reserve their comments to stuff that looked more promising which again a post processed piece would likely look that way. There would really be no time for people like me. There are already a slew of sites like this. This one drew me because it was different.
Now, I realize that this isn't necessarily a beginners site and it doesn't pretend to be. It is a community, a vibrant one and one I am beginning to like very much. As such, it really behooves it to cater to its members wishes and these seem to be leaning towards a more open editing. I have no problem with this. I just wouldn't feel comfortable playing in the reindeer games. I just wanted to put my 2 cents in.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:39:27 AM · #18 |
Inspzil, most of what you described having seen at photosig can be said about dpc as well without the PS editing. So, what's really the difference?
As to hbunch's comment that this should not turn into the best photo editor contest: why don't we limit then the type of cameras that can be used here for challenges to .... level the infamous playing field. Case in point, the three best pictures this week were taken with a Sony DSC F707, a Canon DS 060, and a Canon DS 030. All outstanding cameras. Most winning pictures are taken with good cameras (disclaimer: I'm NOT saying that the quality of the image is only a function of the quality of the camera). If you are saying that it is unfair that some have better editing software than others then why aren't you saying that it is unfair that some have way better cameras and studio set-ups? Why not say then that pictures can only be made with camera features that all cameras, from the low end to the top of the line, have in common? |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:50:10 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Journey:
Inspzil, most of what you described having seen at photosig can be said about dpc as well without the PS editing. So, what's really the difference?
As to hbunch's comment that this should not turn into the best photo editor contest: why don't we limit then the type of cameras that can be used here for challenges to .... level the infamous playing field. Case in point, the three best pictures this week were taken with a Sony DSC F707, a Canon DS 060, and a Canon DS 030. All outstanding cameras. Most winning pictures are taken with good cameras (disclaimer: I'm NOT saying that the quality of the image is only a function of the quality of the camera). If you are saying that it is unfair that some have better editing software than others then why aren't you saying that it is unfair that some have way better cameras and studio set-ups? Why not say then that pictures can only be made with camera features that all cameras, from the low end to the top of the line, have in common?
A while back (late Spring, early Summer, maybe) someone did an "analysis" of the ribbons and respective cameras. At that time, the results were rather surprising. IF I remember correctly, most of the winners were in the 2 - 3 mp range. The higher cameras had not faired that well, at that time. Could have changed by now, though.
Anyone else remember that thread?
Just for the record -- I like the editing rules as they are. as mentioned earlier, it forces me to take the best possible picture BEFORE I get to my computer.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:56:43 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Journey:
[i]Inspzil, most of what you described having seen at photosig can be said about dpc as well without the PS editing. So, what's really the difference?
As to hbunch's comment that this should not turn into the best photo editor contest: why don't we limit then the type of cameras that can be used here for challenges to .... level the infamous playing field. Case in point, the three best pictures this week were taken with a Sony DSC F707, a Canon DS 060, and a Canon DS 030. All outstanding cameras. Most winning pictures are taken with good cameras (disclaimer: I'm NOT saying that the quality of the image is only a function of the quality of the camera). If you are saying that it is unfair that some have better editing software than others then why aren't you saying that it is unfair that some have way better cameras and studio set-ups? Why not say then that pictures can only be made with camera features that all cameras, from the low end to the top of the line, have in common?
A while back (late Spring, early Summer, maybe) someone did an "analysis" of the ribbons and respective cameras. At that time, the results were rather surprising. IF I remember correctly, most of the winners were in the 2 - 3 mp range. The higher cameras had not faired that well, at that time. Could have changed by now, though.
Anyone else remember that thread?
Just for the record -- I like the editing rules as they are. as mentioned earlier, it forces me to take the best possible picture BEFORE I get to my computer.
[/i]
The thread is here for those who are interested. The numbers fromt he first 14 challenges were
1 to 1.5 mpix: 2 photographers, 2 image
1.5 to 2 mpix: 10 photographers, 13 images
2 to 2.5 mpix: 1 photographer, 1 image
2.5 to 3 mpix: 2 photographers, 2 images
3 to 3.5 mpix: 8 photographers, 12 images
3.5 to 4 mpix: 6 photographers, 9 images
Over 4 mpix: 2 photographers, 3 images
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:59:32 AM · #21 |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:11:51 AM · #22 |
Leveling the playing field? So tomorrow we are all either suposed to suck, or be experts. How are you going to level the experience and training of the members? If the playing field were level, it wouldn't be much of a challenge, would it?
I personally have a sucky camera, quite a sucky camera, and was able to make it to the 20's with a photo that came straight out of my camera. I didn't even own a photo editing program.
I'm here to improve my photo taking ability, not my photo editing ability. I've got an extensive art (drawing,painting) background, and could probably make a masterpiece every time with editing. However, I really want to learn to use my camera here, not the photoediting software. If it turned into a editing contest...I'd probably plant my roots on another site. That's all I'm saying.
I guess I don't even see how spot editing will level the field. Anything that can physically be done with the camera is allowed here. Brightening/contrast adjusts your light levels. Sharpen/soften does focus. Black and white, sepia, those are allowed.
Spot editing wont "level" anything.
Oh, I guess you're right. Spot editing will allow the people who have NO photographic skill what so ever to create beautiful masterpieces.
"I really liked the shot, but the people, and the powerlines, and the horrible motion blur of the kid in the front ruined the photo...but that's OK...cause I can EDIT it alllll away." And BAM! A great "photographer" is born.
I guess you're right after all. Editing WILL improve everyones ability to take a great photo.
Good grief.
You know what...this is rediculous.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:41:21 AM · #23 |
| Many can and do create great images with editing programs. What a wonderful new tool for the artist! But here we are doing photography. that is all. Want to do something else? Go someplace else. That is not meant to be a mean statement. It is a big world. There are other places to participate. Do raw photos here, edit there. It is really so simple. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:14:49 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
Many can and do create great images with editing programs. What a wonderful new tool for the artist! But here we are doing photography. that is all. Want to do something else? Go someplace else. That is not meant to be a mean statement. It is a big world. There are other places to participate. Do raw photos here, edit there. It is really so simple.
couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:16:30 AM · #25 |
I agree that this site should remain with the editing restrictions. However for anyone interested in using the many features of Photoshop a good site is
//www.worth1000.com/
|
|
