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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Allowable Alterations
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 85 of 85, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/14/2002 12:46:05 PM · #76
I also agree that the new adjustments suggested fall well under the definition of 'limited modification'... that was the point I was trying to make in my last post. As far as I'm concerned they all fall under 'finishing' a photo and not 'editing' a photo, and in fact can do a lot to even the playing field by compensating for the varying image qualities introduced by different cameras. And they are not rocket science! This whole thread has been about where to set the arbitrary border between allowable and illegal adjustments. The argument that including a few more (basically equivalent) whole-image adjstments is going to give an unfair advantage to people who know how to use the software is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. People can already use the exisiting legal modifications to their huge advantage because they provide 95% of the power needed to fix a picture. The newly proposed adjustments aren't inherently more powerful, they're just different tools for tweaking the same settings in conveniently different ways.

I would really like to see this site used to educate more people about the simple ways in which they can make their 'pure' photography reflect the scene as it appeared to them at the time, and not reflect the technology of the camera used to take the pictures. The adjustments proposed at the top of this thread do just that... they allow everyone to compensate for the bad decisions and limitations of their camera no matter if it cost $150 or $5000. Yet a photograph can only be rescued so far... no amount of global alterations is going to take a weak 'pure' photograph and make it into a great 'pure' photograph. It is still imperative that you go out and shoot a good photo!

Whew.
04/14/2002 01:05:07 PM · #77
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I re-read this entire thread again today...

I would like to vote that all modifications be permissable except spot editing with tools like the paintbrush, blur, eraser, etc.

I personally don't do a lot of level editing in my photos but there are some who do. If it doesn't work out, the rules may always be changed.


Would blurring the whole image and overlaying it on the original layer be permissable? I've done it ona a few photos i've gotten from friends because the quality of the pictures come out really bad. All overlaying the blurred image on the original does is corrects the color quality and helps rid the hot pixels.
04/14/2002 01:35:15 PM · #78
Originally posted by Mousie:
I also agree that the new adjustments suggested fall well under the definition of 'limited modification'...
...
Whew.


Well said. I agree we should be aiming for photographs, not digital images that have been created in the computer. All the stuff that has been asked for are just basic adjustments done to finish a picture, not to edit mistakes.

I keep going on about this, but do you think Ansel Adams was fixing bad pictures when he did the adjustments that he made in the darkroom ? Or was he finishing his art ?

And no - I do not think I'm anywhere near as good as Adams was, but I still like to finish my photographs.



* This message has been edited by the author on 4/14/2002 1:35:57 PM.
04/14/2002 01:46:46 PM · #79
Generally, what most photo contests and photographers find to be acceptable in digital photography is anything you can do in a darkroom can be done to a digital photo. Included with these are sharpening and despeckle.
You shouldn't be able to add or delete anything from the photo however, I don't think a slight dodge or burn is a bad thing, but just none of the artistic effects are permissable, unless it is determined the catagory is to be photo art.
04/14/2002 03:18:50 PM · #80
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:


... we should be aiming for photographs, not digital images that have been created in the computer. All the stuff that has been asked for are just basic adjustments done to finish a picture, not to edit mistakes ... do you think Ansel Adams was fixing bad pictures when he did the adjustments that he made in the darkroom ? Or was he finishing his art ? ... And no - I do not think I'm anywhere near as good as Adams was ...


Gordon, I agree that we should be aiming for photographs, not digital creations. If the proposed rule change permits uniform adjustment on a channel by channel basis, as your earlier post suggested, then people will be free to make huge changes to the image (imagine inverting the red channel and flattening the level of the blue) that are not really photographic either. Changes like these, although comparable to bizarre darkroom techniques like solarization and processing in the wrong chemicals are not anything Ansel Adams, or Edward Weston or even Lee Friedlander ever did. [br]

Interestingly the current rules and the proposed changes fall short of allowing us to employ the same basic darkroom technique most of our 19th and 20th century photographic ancestors routinely used, namely to selectively lighten and darken areas of an image, ie; dodge and burn. The proposed change would not allow this fundamental adjustment and that is a shame. If we are going to change the rules to allow "image finishing" then why not offer simple dodging and burning and put us on a technological par with the past two centuries of photography?[br]

BTW, Gordon you certainly have the potential to be every bit as good as Ansel Adams. :0

04/14/2002 04:33:32 PM · #81
Originally posted by Speigner:

Interestingly the current rules and the proposed changes fall short of allowing us to employ the same basic darkroom technique most of our 19th and 20th century photographic ancestors routinely used, namely to selectively lighten and darken areas of an image, ie; dodge and burn. The proposed change would not allow this fundamental adjustment and that is a shame. If we are going to change the rules to allow "image finishing" then why not offer simple dodging and burning and put us on a technological par with the past two centuries of photography?


I personally think you are correct in how you describe it. The challenge for Drew & Langdon is how do you describe it in terms of 'rules'. If you do go for 'standard darkroom' techniques, then you let in all the solarisation things that you suggested you didn't want because you don't consider them realistic - and so on. it's quite hard to actually define well what the limits should be, unless you want to do it fairly loosely and just trust the voters to decide.


BTW, Gordon you certainly have the potential to be every bit as good as Ansel Adams. :0

I couldn't possibly reply to such a blatent lie :)

[/i]

04/15/2002 10:41:01 AM · #82
Okay, so what's allowed for "Transitions"?
04/15/2002 12:12:10 PM · #83
In terms of adjusting hue, you can do that with your camera without photoshop. Just change your white balance manually. Now, people with cameras that have manual white balance will have an advantage over people without, so shouldn't hue changes be allowed?

I used to participate in digitalphotocontest.com before they went subscription, but they have a pretty good set of rules that you guys should consider reviewing: //www.digitalphotocontest.com/rules.asp

These are actually fairly new in that they used to only allow spot editing in the digital art section, but now they allow it in all sections. I think what you propose is pretty good (ie no spot editing). Anyway, just my two cents.

* This message has been edited by the author on 4/15/2002 12:20:46 PM.
04/16/2002 09:30:10 PM · #84
Well, I guess I see where the rules are trying to draw the line.

Photo editing to save or enhance what was available in the field.

I think any enhancements that correct goofs in the field should be allowed ie. saturations, hues, light miscues.

As long as artistic brushes, lense and lighting effects or manipulating the compositional elements by cutting and pasting etc all other photo corrections should be allowed to bring the life back into a messed up but otherwise excellent field shot.

I have an entry right now that I am thinking about that was the result of a total lighting goof. My flash misfired and created a natural grain with an unusual color effect. I tried simple leveling to bring the photo into visibility and ..Voila!! A non repeatable photo that looks like a manipulated photo. So my point..even weird post production effects can happen in the field which makes it harder to draw lines of what is acceptable.
04/16/2002 11:45:09 PM · #85
Originally posted by Reuben:
Okay, so what's allowed for "Transitions"?

The rules have been updated, and they are in effect for the current challenge. Users who have already submitted should double-check their submissions to make sure they don't violate any of the rules.

I'm going to lock this thread, since it's already deathly long. The rules discussion should continue here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.asp?action=read&FORUM_POST_ID=2792
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 09:52:07 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 09:52:07 AM EDT.