| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2003 12:44:31 PM · #51 |
I tend to go back and forth in my opinion on this ever so popular topic.
These days I am quite happy with the rules even though my last pic got lots of comments about a damned orange flag.
But instead of thinking damn rules I instead thought, should have removed that flag (or noticed it on my small display when doing the shot).
I have removed the flag for my own gallery. I feel that if we changed the rules and allowed some editing it would allso complicate them and open endless dores for disqualification, arguments and such. This would allso mean that the PS buffs would have a deffinite advantage.
So I say, KISS, keep it simple stupid, lets keep the rules and carry on building this great site.
...allthough I wouldn´t mind a once in a while editing contest for the PS savy to show of.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 12:55:08 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
taking out a dust grain doesnt destroy the spirit of the photograph.
also, i do not agree with those who think that continuing this discussion is 'beating a dead horse' or redundant. there is nothing wrong with communication on a topic. it's only through dialog, and clarification of unknowns, that people are going to start to learn and understand and perhaps gradually come to accept as a 'good thing' something that they fear. let's try not to taint that process of understanding.
if one has lost patience with the discussion, then one can exercise one's right to withdraw from it. or one can continue to contribute in a positive fashion :). |
Yer right... sorry :)
I can't put forth any comments on this discussion though. I think this discussion is going rather well because I'm staying out of it and I hope it does continue and becomes fruitful :)
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 01:45:13 PM · #53 |
i think even tho you got those comments, i dont think they changed your score that much because of it.
also if you're going to edit the flag you should also edit the street lamp behind the house on the right :).
Originally posted by finnur:
I tend to go back and forth in my opinion on this ever so popular topic.
These days I am quite happy with the rules even though my last pic got lots of comments about a damned orange flag.
But instead of thinking damn rules I instead thought, should have removed that flag (or noticed it on my small display when doing the shot).
I have removed the flag for my own gallery. I feel that if we changed the rules and allowed some editing it would allso complicate them and open endless dores for disqualification, arguments and such. This would allso mean that the PS buffs would have a deffinite advantage.
So I say, KISS, keep it simple stupid, lets keep the rules and carry on building this great site.
...allthough I wouldn´t mind a once in a while editing contest for the PS savy to show of. |
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 01:45:47 PM · #54 |
:)
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
taking out a dust grain doesnt destroy the spirit of the photograph.
also, i do not agree with those who think that continuing this discussion is 'beating a dead horse' or redundant. there is nothing wrong with communication on a topic. it's only through dialog, and clarification of unknowns, that people are going to start to learn and understand and perhaps gradually come to accept as a 'good thing' something that they fear. let's try not to taint that process of understanding.
if one has lost patience with the discussion, then one can exercise one's right to withdraw from it. or one can continue to contribute in a positive fashion :). |
Yer right... sorry :)
I can't put forth any comments on this discussion though. I think this discussion is going rather well because I'm staying out of it and I hope it does continue and becomes fruitful :) |
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 03:59:27 PM · #55 |
Well I sure love playing with PhotoShop! On the other hand, not being allowed to spot edit and do other things has really helped me improve my photography immensely, and for me, that's key.
I have plenty of other projects that allow my to fiddle with PS a lot. |
|
|
|
07/02/2003 04:13:45 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Well I sure love playing with PhotoShop! On the other hand, not being allowed to spot edit and do other things has really helped me improve my photography immensely, and for me, that's key.
I have plenty of other projects that allow my to fiddle with PS a lot. |
Just out of curiosity.... Do you believe that your photography would not be as good if DPC had always allowed unlimited editing? I agree with your statement though... It does make you think a lot more when you know you only have limited editing tools at your disposal.
I, for one, do not believe that my skill with the camera would have suffered any if the editing rules were non existant.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2003 04:26:11 PM · #57 |
Last thought: I think not allowing spot editing is the biggest dis-service this site could do to a person who is at the beginning to intermediate level of photography. Darkroom skills are as important as knowing how to control shutter speed.
No amount of editing will make a bad picture great. The foundation must be there. I know how to edit. Took me as long (if not longer) to learn Photoshop well than to learn how to control my camera. Why delay the lengthier part of the process? I have worked in PS since the beginning. I was in their initial Beta program before it was even called Photoshop. It took me years to master (well master might be a little strong.. LOL) the program. I consider good color manipulation of vital importance to pushing the shot over the top or to just bring out what is in the digital image. Todays digital sensors are good at picking up the data but not to good at bringing to the human eye correctly. The data is there, it is just hidden. Image manip is necessary to get it out.
I have seen seminars by Wolfe, Shaw, Peterson and lucky enough to have met Butcher in Florida. They swear by good darkroom skills so who am I too argue... Just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 01:30:50 AM · #58 |
Well I will "beat this dead horse" one more time. :) I think that site is about becoming a better photographer, and that not only means composing and shooting a good foundation picture, but also should include using all means that FILM photographer would have at their disposal. I don't know much about what film photographers have but from what I've read here and elsewhere, that includes mixing xyz chemical with abc chemical to create a "burned" effect and a "dodged" effect, and probably others as well, so why not allow the same techniques in PS?
So I will say again, that I think the rules should allow similar techniques (as a film photographer would have) in PS or whatever your software is, because it's part of a photographer's arsenal of methods he/she uses to make the best photo possible... PS and chemicals are the same thing really but just different means to "get the job done". I'm opposed allowing PS filters (in normal challenges) because I don't think film photographers would be able to achieve those "extreme" changes.
My counter-arguement to people against any type of photo modification is, you probably aren't really interested in learning more then just composing the shot and adjusting the camera correctly to get the best image. But there IS more to photography then that... it's called photo development (for film photographers), and it's called PS editing for digital photographers. :) Am I right?
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 04:15:43 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Just out of curiosity.... Do you believe that your photography would not be as good if DPC had always allowed unlimited editing? |
I've had tons of practice masking and retouching photos, so I do think having the limitations helped force me to think about the original composition and technique more. But I'm also in favor of allowing more editing in general, at least extending it to the traditional dodge/burn tools. I think the group is perfectly capable of penalizing any photo which is over-processed. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 08:04:03 AM · #60 |
I confess, I'm a darkroom junkie. My eyes light up at the thought of hours spent in a small dark room, red light overhead, with noxious chemicals in the air. I love the smell of fixer and stop. I consider the hours I;ve spent in the dark, fiddling with that last bit of burning to be some of my favorites. I agree that the darkroom is a critical component of photography. That's where a good chunk of the art comes in. In a perfect world, I'd love DPC to mirror the real world dark room-having spot editing and dodge/burn would be incredibly helpful.
But the problem is- how do you get it to stop there? Do you have people submit both before and after images so the admins can check for what you did? That's a bit of a hassle for people on dial-up. What do you do when someone edits out a whole building that totally changes the feel of the image? Is that a spot edit? Is removing a flag a spot edit? Where do we draw the line, and how do we prevent the rules from becoming even more complex?
One key advantage to the editing rules as they stand is that people with all types of cameras have a fairly level playing field. Even someone with a 2MP camera can compete against someone with a 6+MP camera and have a good chance at winning. Not everyone can afford Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. I'm sure there are people here using basic imaging software. Is it fair to compromise their ability to compete so that a select few can push their photography to the next level.
If you are thinking "yes", then ask yourself something-when's the last time you ribbioned? If you can't answer that (like I can't) I'd argue that you still haven't mastered the format as is and may benifit from continued work within the rules as they stand.
My 2 cents, your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 08:39:09 AM · #61 |
Much of the beauty in many real photos is created by chemical (or photochemically) tweaking after the shot is actually taken. I would suggest that such tricks possible with 'real' photos are guilt-free in digital photography (they're just easier and you get VERY fast and CHEAP trial and error results)
did he cheat when in his old age, he began microwaving his prints? |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 08:49:21 AM · #62 |
the only flaw in your explanation blemt is that you dont need to buy any software (lots of free good ones out there..).. so no one is really left out.. we wouldn't be comprimising anyone into competing, unless they choose not to edit, and i probably wont even use these editing tools for every pic so it's not like it's a "if you dont edit you'll lose" kinda deal (granted i havn't "won" yet :P)...
And say what you will, but you have to be pretty good to win with a 1.2 mp cam :) (it's been done.. but most pics out of those cams are notoriously fuzzy and low quality..2mp is on the edge, and most of the time you cant crop it without damaging the quality of the final image..while a 6mp can be cropped alot and still keep it's quality).. Ever since i got my 717 i can feel the difference it's making in my shots.. the DOF, the crispness.. the zoom.. i'm getting shots i'd never be able to get with my kodak... in a way it gives me an advantage, but no one's about to penalise me for that..
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 09:00:15 AM · #63 |
| I have entered two challenges thus far---- and with no editing. this makes me holy. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 09:48:32 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by blemt:
One key advantage to the editing rules as they stand is that people with all types of cameras have a fairly level playing field. Even someone with a 2MP camera can compete against someone with a 6+MP camera and have a good chance at winning. Not everyone can afford Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. I'm sure there are people here using basic imaging software. Is it fair to compromise their ability to compete so that a select few can push their photography to the next level.
|
Is there any chance that we can stop trotting out this untruth every time this thread emerges ? Last time it started, over 16 free, fully featured alternatives were proposed, for Windows, Mac and Linux. It is simply untrue to say that equivalently powerful tools are not available.
There are features missing in those tools compared to say photoshop, but they are not relevant features for this discussion (print separation for printing, colour management, etc). So any chance we can bury this strawman next to the flogged horse ? |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 09:51:29 AM · #65 |
ok, here's yet another flogger bellying up to the corpse of this remnant of a poor beast of (our) burden ...
I am simply a peron who feels the need to express myself through what I like to think is my art ... operative here folks - "my art" - there are at least two planes of discussion here - contest rules, and the ethics of creativity.
IMO the creative debate can be put to bed right now, because it is ART, and there are no rules - Do we really have the audacity to imagine that we can judge the validity of the ethics of an Adams, or a Picasso, or that they would give a rat's @#$ what we think of their process? Do we dare to question the validity of how each instant in time or emotion was captured, and had the feel or flavor that told them it was mature? There is only one person who can say when a work is finished and how that end should be arrived at, and that is the artist - period.
Regarding the ethics of contest competition - follow to the letter the rules of your chosen contest, if you don't agree with the rules, choose another contest.
Again, all in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:06:33 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by pcgaz:
Regarding the ethics of contest competition - follow to the letter the rules of your chosen contest, if you don't agree with the rules, choose another contest.
|
Cuz it isn't the same as "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen" .. that's why. No one wants to "change" things, so much as "evolve".
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:08:42 AM · #67 |
| Yet, I understand where you and others might think this way, cuz when one mentions "digital photography", the receiver generally interprets that as "digital art" like montages and what not. That is because they are less experienced, and don't understand that montages, multiple image composites, etc have been done already with film. This is not the direction here, and never will be. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:15:41 AM · #68 |
I believe that there may be some rhyme and reason to why there is such a division in the for/against editing groups...
Evaluate yourself as a photographer... what are your personal goals as a photographer? Do you simply shoot for fun? Do you shoot for the purpose of hanging photos of your kids and pets on your refrigerator? Do you shoot hoping to come up with something that you can decorate the walls of your home with? Do you shoot hoping to win widespread appreciation of your photo? Win a contest?
As I have read through these debates on editing, I believe that I can see some division in the types of photos being produced that seem to match up with the level of editing that people are willing to allow and support.
The casual photographer doesn't seem to care much for expanding editing rules. The photos that they make don't require any/much editing to produce satisfactory results for the photographer who made them.
The serious photographer seems to be supportive of more leniency on editing restrictions. This group of photographers seem to care a lot more about the finer detail in their photos. The would like to be able to present better than average work to these challenges.
The photographic artists want to have any necessary tools to create a finished work of art. A work that is flawless... something that is perfect in every way (in the eyes of the artist).
When these three groups of people converge into a competition where all groups are competing together, the 'rules' don't seem to work well for any specific group.
This is one of the reasons that I suggested earlier that the challenges be broken into some sort of 'levels' where you can participate in whatever group seems to suit your own style and taste. With this idea, you could limit yourself to whatever level of photographic 'purity' that you like. Everyone who believes that a photograph is not ethical when it is edited could participate in a challenge where no or very minimal editing is allowed. Those who like to work to create something that fits some artistic vision would be able to participate with a group who shares similar interests.
Breaking up into groups based on 'rules' was suggested by someone in an earlier thread in response to my 'levels of accomplishment' post. I think this is an excellent idea. This could also be used to introduce a 'digital art' category to the site as well.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:21:04 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by blemt:
One key advantage to the editing rules as they stand is that people with all types of cameras have a fairly level playing field. Even someone with a 2MP camera can compete against someone with a 6+MP camera and have a good chance at winning. Not everyone can afford Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. I'm sure there are people here using basic imaging software. Is it fair to compromise their ability to compete so that a select few can push their photography to the next level.
|
Is there any chance that we can stop trotting out this untruth every time this thread emerges ? |
And the megapixel myth. 2MP cameras are more than capable of producing very good photos. This particular shot needed absolutely no post-processing beyong resize & USM - which is more than can be said for most of my entries!
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:33:18 AM · #70 |
Ok I am on the "Let us edit our Photos" side but I have one question. This is serious and I am not being a smart ass by asking. How was cloning used in the orginal darkroom? I'm clueless.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 11:40:56 AM · #71 |
Here's a thought too...
Relaxed editing rules would not REQUIRE that anyone actually take advantage of them. Just because someone has a tool available doesn't mean they have to use it.
This being the case, I wonder why it makes such a difference to some to have relaxed rules?
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 11:43:55 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
Ok I am on the "Let us edit our Photos" side but I have one question. This is serious and I am not being a smart ass by asking. How was cloning used in the orginal darkroom? I'm clueless. |
When people are talking about cloning for photo finishing, typically it is for spot touch-ups. In the traditional darkroom this is done with pens/ paint and brushes and knives to touch up the negative, cover spots, or scrape off spots. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 12:19:00 PM · #73 |
ever seen any fashion or men's magazine?
those images go through tons of airbrushing and blurring and painting to make the models look 'perfect' - whether it's a dark circle, a mole, a sunburn, even shadows caused by slightly off lighting. sometimes a shot will be the great but there will a shadow that's in just the wrong place or too dark, so they fix that stuff, too, rather than throw away the whole pic. :)
Message edited by author 2003-07-03 12:20:41.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 02:34:19 PM · #74 |
[quote=jmsetzler]
The casual photographer doesn't seem to care much for expanding editing rules. The photos that they make don't require any/much editing to produce satisfactory results for the photographer who made them.
I agree with this but I would like to add some thoughts. Growing up as an artist I would considered myself to have always been pretty detail conscious. I always wanted my images to look as good as I was able to make them. As I moved into photography I still fealt the same way and, as with my artwork, I didn't know just what I could accomplish at first. Of course I was also limited from doing much photographic editing anyways. I would just send the negatives in to some place and get prints back and would except them as final. I would just blame myself for all the screwups. As I learned more about photography I realized what photographers were able to accomplish behind the camera and in the darkroom beyond the original image. I was years away from producing much that was any good but at least I was becoming more aware of what could be accomplished. So, in my case, I don't think I was much less serious about the quality of my photographs I was simply and naturally ignorant to much of the photographic processes. This is why proper education is so important and through discussions like this we can share many of the possibilities and techniques involved with photography. Of course, how you chosse to use that knowledge is up to you.
T
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 03:51:25 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Here's a thought too...
Relaxed editing rules would not REQUIRE that anyone actually take advantage of them. Just because someone has a tool available doesn't mean they have to use it.
This being the case, I wonder why it makes such a difference to some to have relaxed rules? |
At last someone has spelt it out, this is a discussion about the relaxing of the rules not the reversal. No one is going to be forced to edit a picture because it is allowed.
What are people afraid of? Is it that they feel they don't have as much editing experience as others? Do they feel they'll be at a disadvantage in the challenges and 'unfairly' beaten?
Look at the ongoing thread about how people vote, it isn't necessarily the 'perfect' image which gets the votes.
The reason for using techniques/tools in the dark/lightroom is to give you a choice. I guess that most people here have never used a darkroom (myself included) and their involvement with the photographic process used to end when they handed the film over. We all now have, in the lightrooms most basic form, a Polaroid camera, if you have a image editing package you have a darkroom in a box, but without the smell of the chemicals, loss of space, cost of equipment, etc.
If you want to post a 'raw' image that's what you'd do, you wanted to replicate standard darkroom techniques you'd do that, and hopefully they'd be a few of us who'd produce something new and give people ideas.
Can a 'bad' picture be turning into a 'great' picture by editing? I don't think so. Can a 'great' picture be ruined? Definitely.
End of ramble...
...more ramble
If more editing were to be allowed I would hope that details describing what was done would be available during the voting phase, that way if there was, for example, a 'Speed' challenge you would know who captured or who added a motion blur.
Message edited by author 2003-07-03 15:57:12. |
|
