| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2005 05:48:18 PM · #26 |
| I seriously thought that typologic positioned a model and the bubble acted to focus her. When I read the method he used, I was surprized but in the end I stand by my 10 vote. |
|
|
|
09/28/2005 05:49:39 PM · #27 |
My bad donniev, it was grainman9's image I was referring to... (will fix in prior posts)
Message edited by author 2005-09-28 17:50:13. |
|
|
|
09/29/2005 03:36:38 PM · #28 |
|
|
|
10/01/2005 10:46:27 PM · #29 |
There is a wide difference between an image composed for the camera with all elements in it than one put together in photoshop as a composite. In other words the composed camera image can mimic a digital composition provided you stick to the rules.
In digital composites you can combine two images. In camera effets can mimic this by use of the double exposure.
Typologic's image is 100% legal because all the components are brought in as an in camera effect.
You must engage your thinking to differentiate between post processing and in camera results otherwise you will be mixing apple and oranges in logical arguments.
It is just that some voters suffer a let down when they learn how an image was achieved. It is like the artist put one over on them. No my friend, the artist wants to create an interetsing work and uses their imagination for the end result. The viewer either likes it or hates it, but hardly do we care how it was done as long as it remains legal.
In the old film days all effects were in camera effects and so the facade of a town was built to give the illusion of a town.
There is a big chunk in DPC which deals with camera illusions. Illusions is part of the photographic technique because of the result of converting a 3 dimension scene into its two dimension counterpart. Have you not unintentionall photographed someone walking and then find a tree growing out of their heads? From this simple observation rise many special effects that employ glueing the foreground and background into a seamless image.
Yes, I understand that there is a school of purist that want no association with special effects nor with compositions unless discovered in their natural state. This is merely one aspect of photography: the photographer seeking an existing image and waiting for the right time. There are other schools that are not interested in seeking but rather they create the image by intent and purpose. This is the only way that art is expressed. No need to argue who is right and who is wrong as no one can lay claim to what photography is or should be. Photography is only a tool used by the person either to record in a pristine state or by an artist to express his vision. Both have great merit. |
|
|
|
10/01/2005 11:16:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...(snipped)
Yes, I understand that there is a school of purist that want no association with special effects nor with compositions unless discovered in their natural state. This is merely one aspect of photography: the photographer seeking an existing image and waiting for the right time. There are other schools that are not interested in seeking but rather they create the image by intent and purpose. This is the only way that art is expressed. No need to argue who is right and who is wrong as no one can lay claim to what photography is or should be. Photography is only a tool used by the person either to record in a pristine state or by an artist to express his vision. Both have great merit. |
I am not suggesting that I am a purist (if this was intended for me?). I edit many of my images heavily, and I am unashamed of making panoramas from multiple images at pixel ratios that you coulldn't crop off of a 1dsmkII. Blurring, gradients, dodge/burn/sponge. I'm all for it. The digital age of photography is here and I embrace it.
I sir, am no purist. But the challenge rules have the seeming intention of encouraging purist photography be used on open challenges, to emphasize the basics over digital trickery and eye-candy.
My point was that using this technique in the open challenge proves the hipocrisy of the no spot editing rule. If you can take the parts of the image that you know need to be spot edited, put them through photoshop and display the image behind the rest of your composition, this sort of negates the whole rule IMO. Technically, what this is say is that I can shoot a landscape shot, edit it beyound recognition, display it on a rear projection screen, place some trees and rocks in front of it, or maybe a fake wall with a window or soemthing, take a picture, and call it un-edited in camera goodnes.
Again, I'm not arguing the purist, non-purist. I'm arguing the SPIRIT of the rule against the technical letter of the law.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 07:39:16 PM · #31 |
I'm enjoying this thread strictly from a perspective of "Wow, I'm so delighted to see people disagreeing, staying civil, and doing it all, using relatively good grammar and no 'computer speak.' " HURRAY
I see both sides of this coin and it's just one of those things, whether you agree with it or not, it is what it is. But it does bring up some interesting questions and I find this verbal exchange quite interesting and entertaining.
Judy |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:26:54 PM · #32 |
The rules should be changed to "one snap of the shutter".
Let's say that there is a contest called..."Space". I take a photo of a full moon and shade it a nice pink. I print out that photo in 8x10. I then take another pic of the same moon. Shade it a nice "blue"....
....I then print it out....I cut out the blue moon and lay it on the 8x10 picture of the pink moon. I then set up the lighting and take a 3rd photo of the setup....now I have a pic of two moons...a pink and a blue and call it "Unknown Sex of Baby Moon Photo."
...I enter that photo.
...That is 3 snaps of the camera. What is so bad about using "layers" in PS to lay one moon next to the other? That is exactly what was done with the "cut out" setup. All I did was LAYER one moon on top of another photo of the moon....
The above should be allowed or both should be disallowed...IMHO...
Thanks,
KenSkid
Originally posted by donniev:
Is anyone else concerned that this is really a composite of two images? I understand that it is legal under the definition but somehow taking one image, displaying it on a monitor or as a print and then using that as a background for another image is really no different (in spirit) than combining two images in photoshop. It is a great shot but imo this shouldn't be allowed in challenges. |
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 10:26:36 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
staying civil, and doing it all, using relatively good grammar and no 'computer speak.' |
I is be Linuxing you're post if say not you this thing!!!1
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 10:50:28 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
The rules should be changed to "one snap of the shutter".
Let's say that there is a contest called..."Space". I take a photo of a full moon and shade it a nice pink. I print out that photo in 8x10. I then take another pic of the same moon. Shade it a nice "blue"....
....I then print it out....I cut out the blue moon and lay it on the 8x10 picture of the pink moon. I then set up the lighting and take a 3rd photo of the setup....now I have a pic of two moons...a pink and a blue and call it "Unknown Sex of Baby Moon Photo."
...I enter that photo.
...That is 3 snaps of the camera. What is so bad about using "layers" in PS to lay one moon next to the other? That is exactly what was done with the "cut out" setup. All I did was LAYER one moon on top of another photo of the moon....
The above should be allowed or both should be disallowed...IMHO...
Thanks,
KenSkid
|
that IS disallowed under the 'kiteral artworks' rule. the crux is: you can't take a straight picture of a picture (or 2 pics of moon, side by side) but you CAN use an image (printed out/on monitor/your own/on a billboard, whatever) as a PART of a creative composition. eg you COULD hav a pregnant woman peering at 2 pics of the moon, pondering its sex
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 11:14:15 AM · #35 |
Whatever happens before you press the shutter is irrelevant from a validation standpoint. The editing rules ONLY apply to the final, captured image because a file straight out of the camera is, by definition, unedited. Of course, you can't simply take a photo of a monitor or print by itself because that would be literal artwork, but incorporating media as elements of a larger composition is legal- and always has been.
      |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 09:18:05 PM · #36 |
There is another point that is overlooked. The novice assumes that you can print out a picture and combine it with a real live subject. Not so easy. There is what is called a quality gap and herein lies the talent to combine both images. Consider the following. A monitor has a refresh rate and if you shoot under this cycle you will see the moire pattern. printed art work has its own problem with the reflective qualities and also the coloration. While may of these problems can be greatly altered under advance editing it is a fixed image in basic editing.
The other oversight is thinking layers and composites in creating an image for the camera lens versus post processing. The same language does not apply. That is, in the camera effects can not be compared to anything which takes place in post processing and it is the post processing which the rules are aimed at. Think about it.
Message edited by author 2005-10-04 21:21:10. |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 10:24:10 PM · #37 |
| Once the monitor photo technique is mastered, there is nothing to prevent someone from taking a photo, processing it in any fashion he chooses, including multiples, composites, etc. and using that as a background for a photo of his thumb, a pinhead, or whatever. The background is entirely what makes the photo, and it is perfectly legal. Nice way to get around any restrictions that basic editing rules impose. Go for it! |
|
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: 04/25/2024 03:08:02 PM EDT.
