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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> 'Off-Centered Subject II' Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 243, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/08/2006 01:16:48 PM · #101
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.

I don't have much to say about editing techniques vs. photographic techniques. I do however, take issue with the concept of being rewarded for doing something the 'hard' way. While sometimes it is immediately obvious that the photographer had to go through a great deal of trouble to make a particular image, there is nothing to say that a difficult shot is necessarily a good one, or an easy one a bad one. If a shot is good, it's good. I don't think that how difficult the photographer found that shot to take (or edit), or how difficult one perceives that the shot was, is relevant at all.
02/08/2006 01:19:07 PM · #102
From all of the forum activity around this kind of thing (not just this thread), it's clear that there is a lot of confusion about the rules in this area and the way they are interpreted and applied seems arbitrary.

Several different SC members have tried to explain the rules and how they are applied, but those explanations have, so far, only muddied the waters further.
02/08/2006 01:21:41 PM · #103
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it?


Here's my question to you muckpond. How, as SC, do you reward something more? It seems to me you can either reward something (allow it) or penalize something (DQ it). It's not like you can dock someone half a point for using PP techniques and we don't have a "difficulty factor" like diving or figure skating. So your question is irrelevent. Whether or not people think it's better or worse to use PP techniques to mimic harder in-camera methods, they really just want a set of rules which are a) easy to interpret and b) equally applied.

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 13:22:40.
02/08/2006 01:33:34 PM · #104
Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by ladymonarda:

Now I am concerned about this blur rule. What denotes major element? I am looking at entering an image where in reducing the noise of the background, it appears now to be blurred. I spot edited the background, but the original image has a much more defined background. The rule states that you can spot edit in advanced editing to enhance your image. The editing enhances the image by making the background less noticable. Now I am thinking it might be dq\'d.

This sounds like the perfect example of a case where the photog should check with the SC before entering. They have suggested that we do that several times recently if we are wondering about the legality of an entry.


Why would you wonder about the legality of it when the rules are very definitive about the use of filters. Then on the other side of the coin, I think this part of this rule:
However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted)

contradicts this rule:

Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the \"look\" of your photograph with an \"effects\" filter is often not well received by voters.)
It\'s the \"whole or part\" that messes the rule up. You either add it to the whole image or none. When you add it to part of the image, that\'s when things start to get questioned.
If you\'re gonna let people use filters, then let them use them as the rule states. If you\'re gonna let individual SC interpretation of the contradicting rules be the sole determining factor of whether something is valid or not, then the filter rule either needs to stand as is or be gone and the same with the the moving of and/or creating major elements part of selective editing rule.
02/08/2006 01:38:29 PM · #105
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.


Hmmmmm, you can extend that argument to shallow DOF (as was done in an earlier challenge). In the shallow DOF challenge, it was widely accepted that for many entries, the shallow DOF effect would need to be done in PS and not by shooting with a wide aperture. So should doing that effect in PS be legal or not?

How about the soft focus effect? It's easily achieved in camera with some diffusion over the lens. In the soft focus challenge, I used the cellophane from a CD. Yet most of the other entries achieved the effect through Photoshop. Does that mean the other entries are somehow less acceptable than mine? I remember several forum postings where the advantages of achieving the effect in PS were extolled. Some nonsense about being able to control it better. Doesn't the same argument apply to a bit of motion blur?

If an effect is applied poorly, it WILL get punished in the voting. If it's done well, the image will be judged on its merits.

Currently, it seems the standard is a moving target.
02/08/2006 01:41:15 PM · #106
Originally posted by muckpond:

... say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc? ...

I think the attempted point is; is this "fair"? Meaning, given the example, one person takes a motion blur photo using the camera - someone else takes a static image and puts it in "motion" using a filter that takes no time at all to apply.

I, for one, would feel like the other person "cheated" by creating something entirely different than originally captured. Same goes for "zoom", "lens flare", "fish-eye", etc...

Now while I might feel that way, the way the rules are written does make some things rather fuzzy (without any filter!). I think the biggest thing to ask yourself when editing an image is to honestly ask yourself the question; "How would I describe this image?". Ask it before and after editing, if the answer has changed (Airplane sitting on the runway - vs. - Airplane coming in for a landing), you may have "added a major element", or substantially changed the context of the image.

Just "thinking" out loud. ;^)
02/08/2006 01:51:16 PM · #107
This DQ decision is worst than the last one. That motion blur is minimal, especially compared to the seagulls, and only adds a minor element.

Voters didn't like it, so why bother with the DQ?

Goodman's photo (which I don't think should be DQ'd either) removes the background completely, but yet still remains. I would like the SC to quit this petty DQ'ing until they get the new rules in place. Because under the current rules set, this shot is totally legal.
02/08/2006 01:53:25 PM · #108
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Currently, it seems the standard is a moving target.

... which is why it's blurry. : )
02/08/2006 01:58:19 PM · #109
Have you ever seen a football game where a player got flagged for a face-mask, then argued with the ref that somebody else did that in another game 5 weeks ago and didn't get flagged for it? ...I haven't either. :-)
02/08/2006 02:02:14 PM · #110
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.


I have several problems with this sort of thing, roughly along the lines of

1/ assuming it is harder to do it in camera, as effectively.
It isn't. Try it some time. Shoot a stationary car and make it look like it is moving - convincingly.

From an educational standpoint, if you want to learn how to be a good photographer, learning how to do it well both ways is exceptionally important. In many ways I think the current dpc rules cripple the learning process on how to be a good photographer - which is a shame, given the original goals of the site.

2/ assuming darkroom/ photoshop skills aren't 'photography' or 'photographic'

My basic questions:

Why does the means to the end matter ? Doesn't the end photograph matter ?

Why do some people think that 'photography' ends when they click the shutter - is it just ignorance of the history of photography ? This seems to be the root cause of 90% of these discussions. If anyone wants to respond to this post - this last paragraph is the bit I'd love to hear responses to, more than anything else.

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 14:03:35.
02/08/2006 02:02:18 PM · #111
Originally posted by muckpond:

the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques.


Here's a load of crap. People don't even read their own rules. Advanced editing Rules state:
The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent.

02/08/2006 02:05:09 PM · #112
Originally posted by Telehubbie:

Have you ever seen a football game where a player got flagged for a face-mask, then argued with the ref that somebody else did that in another game 5 weeks ago and didn't get flagged for it? ...I haven't either. :-)


No, but face-mask is prohibited in the rules, period. What if there was no clear rules against face-mask, everyone was doing it, and then you get flagged for the same thing because of a different interpretation of a rule that is not even made yet.
02/08/2006 02:05:48 PM · #113
How is shooting a major element printed out or on a computer screen more excepted by the SC than this?

Does printing it out or having it on a comuter screen suddenly make the whole thing different then just merging two photos in photoshop?

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 14:25:43.
02/08/2006 02:12:44 PM · #114
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

How is shooting a major element printed out or on a computer screen more excepted by the SC than this?

Does printing it out or having it on a comuter screen suddenly make the whole thing different then just merging two photos in photoshop?


Out in the real world you can shoot a model against a billboard and you have "artwork" as a background and a major element of your photo. It would be almost inpossible to draw the line to prohibit this in the case of intentionally manufactured-and-inserted artwork. Nobody is going to argue that you shouldn't be able to create a "set" for your photograph out of anythign you care to use, so why shouldn't the "set" be a computer display instead of a printed-out image?

R.
02/08/2006 02:17:27 PM · #115
I think it would be great to have a challenge where the only editing alowed would be cropping,just to see how talented some of the photographers here really are without relying on their editing software.
02/08/2006 02:22:13 PM · #116
Originally posted by autohuff:

I think it would be great to have a challenge where the only editing alowed would be cropping,just to see how talented some of the photographers here really are without relying on their editing software.


Adjusting contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc in-camera takes more "talent" than doing it in post-processing? When one of the great virtues of digital photography is the ability to shoot RAW and make fine-tuned adjustments of these things in the RAW processor? Which is NOT considered post-processing currently?

R.
02/08/2006 02:23:36 PM · #117
Originally posted by autohuff:

I think it would be great to have a challenge where the only editing alowed would be cropping,just to see how talented some of the photographers here really are without relying on their editing software.


We have had at least one like this ( this one.
02/08/2006 02:32:21 PM · #118
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

as time goes by, more and more tools will appear (even in-camera ones) as the software and firmware developers think outside the "film" box.


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)
02/08/2006 02:34:37 PM · #119
Originally posted by jimmythefish:

The answer for me is yes...that's a huge piece of the background, and a major element. There's no way this should be allowed. Put your money where your mouth is and set it to a poll on the front page.

Originally posted by ursula:

So another way to think about this is: "is eliminating this little bit of background elimination of a major element?", or "is the blurred bit of zipper a major element?"

I think for many the answer would be no.


In my view you're wrong. It is not a huge piece of background. And posting a poll on the issue is a ridiculous idea (IMO). Like that's going to solve anything.

02/08/2006 02:35:08 PM · #120
Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

as time goes by, more and more tools will appear (even in-camera ones) as the software and firmware developers think outside the "film" box.


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)


Wow! I want one :)

Question, when you overlay these images in camera, do you have a choice of blending modes?

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 14:35:41.
02/08/2006 02:36:56 PM · #121
Originally posted by ursula:

Wow! I want one :)

Question, when you overlay these images in camera, do you have a choice of blending modes?


No unfortunately not, but maybe in the next version :)
02/08/2006 02:39:19 PM · #122
This is an interesting point Brent, and I have to admit it bothers me to find out someone created most of a submission on a printer and then photographed it ...

... but, a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE ... do you agree? Or do you think dpc should take an ALL or NOTHING approach to the rules?

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

How is shooting a major element printed out or on a computer screen more excepted by the SC than this?

Does printing it out or having it on a comuter screen suddenly make the whole thing different then just merging two photos in photoshop?
02/08/2006 02:42:23 PM · #123
Originally posted by kiwiness:


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)


Interesting. So what does the EXIF data look like compared to either shot alone?
02/08/2006 02:42:35 PM · #124
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

How is shooting a major element printed out or on a computer screen more excepted by the SC than this?

Does printing it out or having it on a comuter screen suddenly make the whole thing different then just merging two photos in photoshop?


Out in the real world you can shoot a model against a billboard and you have "artwork" as a background and a major element of your photo. It would be almost inpossible to draw the line to prohibit this in the case of intentionally manufactured-and-inserted artwork. Nobody is going to argue that you shouldn't be able to create a "set" for your photograph out of anythign you care to use, so why shouldn't the "set" be a computer display instead of a printed-out image?

R.


so to follow along with that train of thought, why shouldn't the 'set' be dropped in behind the subject as a layer in photoshop ?

Is film-making suddenly not film-making if the movie uses a blue/green screen set ?

Is still photography not the same ?
02/08/2006 02:44:51 PM · #125
Originally posted by autohuff:

I think it would be great to have a challenge where the only editing alowed would be cropping,just to see how talented some of the photographers here really are without relying on their editing software.


Why do you assume photography has nothing to do with post processing ? Why is talent equated in your mind with everything that happens before pressing the shutter, but nothing to do with what happens afterwards ?

Most of the camera manufacturers would disagree with you, both film and digital.
Most of the darkroom masters in the history of photography would disagree with you.
Most of the master printers in the history of this art would disagree with you.

Is it just a point and shoot mentality that means photoshop != photography, just like darkroom == walmart ?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/04/2020 03:00:39 PM

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 © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/04/2020 03:00:39 PM EDT.