| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2006 02:15:32 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that, often, what the photographer "saw" when they pressed the shutter and what the film/sensor "saw" are two very different things. |
Given that the human eye and a mechanical lens/sensor capture very different things, that's almost a moot point. Even a simple B&W or Sepia transformation is very likely not what your eye saw.
Having seen the original, I can say that a color shift and Levels adjustment would get close to Ursula's entry. Reading all her steps just says one thing to me: "Attention to detail," and I commend anyone who puts that much time and care into her work. |
I did not in any way seek to diminish the work Ursula has done on this image, nor disparage post processing in any way. It's an essential part of creating an image.
Some of the most significant work in creating a photograph is what happens after the shutter is pressed. That's when the photographer picks up where the camera left off and turns the data that the camera recorded and uses that to create their vision.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 02:22:02 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
It is not the participants job to police the challenges. |
It disturbs me how many people at DPC want to be police. Isn't the vote power enough?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 02:50:30 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
... It is not the participants job to police the challenges. ... |
Hmmm...while I'm not quite with the OP's position on questioning the amount of post-processing done on Ursula's winning entry (meaning I don't agree with the overall tone taken in questioning this ribbon winner) - I also don't think it was the OP's intent in any way to take on the role of "police".
I don't believe any "policing" has taken place here at all. What was brought up was, in essence, questioning/commenting on how far DPC has swung on post-processing of images. Yes, the post-processing debate comes up now and again, but she (the OP) wasn't questioning any legalities on whether the image was valid. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 02:54:10 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
... It is not the participants job to police the challenges. ... |
I don't believe any "policing" has taken place here at all. What was brought up was, in essence, questioning/commenting on how far DPC has swung on post-processing of images. Yes, the post-processing debate comes up now and again, but she (the OP) wasn't questioning any legalities on whether the image was valid. |
p.s. I wasn't referring to the OP in my post, more to validation requests and what-not, sorry to drift off topic...
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 02:59:28 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
As cameras become more and more advanced, your question will become more irrelevant. This site is already behind the times with its editing rules. Post-processing is part of photography. It always has been. And now processing is getting so advanced that the difference between photography and digital art, which was shaky to begin with, will eventually disappear. |
Don, I, at the same time, agree and strongly disagree with such point of view. I recently read a very good article that helped me make sense of this problem of finding a fine line between a snapshot, a Photograph, and a digital painting. The kicker is that the article is in Russian. I am going to translate a few paragraphs from it into English and post them in a separate thread later today. This is a very important and interesting topic, but deserves a thread of its own. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:02:53 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
I am going to translate a few paragraphs from it into English and post them in a separate thread later today. This is a very important and interesting topic, but deserves a thread of its own. |
I look forward to it!!
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:09:49 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Bosborne:
First off, congrats to Ursula on a beautiful shot. And this leads me to my questions....
....is this a photography site, or a "Let's see how well I can post process my shot in order to win" site? |
If you have been around here for any length of time, you will find that this is a very redundant issue.
It's not a bad issue or a case of right and wrong. Photographers seem to come from different 'schools.'. One group of photographers treat photography as a documentary science and others treat it as an art. In the school of documentary science, editing and post processing to change the image in any significant way is generally unnecessary and unwanted. They want to see what they saw. In the school of photographic art, the original capture is a canvas upon which a photographic artist creates what he or she wants to see.
Neither side is right or wrong. The problem is that the two schools don't seem to mix well. Each has it's place. This happens to be a place where both coexist. |
I really like the way you worded this i think you hit the nail right on the head which begs the orignal question----is this a processing site or a photography site and i believe it is the former not the latter |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:17:01 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by rider:
... I really like the way you worded this i think you hit the nail right on the head which begs the orignal question----is this a processing site or a photography site and i believe it is the former not the latter |
I agree with your sentiment on the wording of  jmsetzler's post. However I disagree with your summation of this (DPC) site. I think if anything there is a current swing back to less processed (or at least more naturally processed) images making the front page. The current show of ribbon winners (minus the Gary Larson special) is fairly evident of that. Not so long ago half of the front page would have been all grunged up and heavily dodged/burned. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:21:50 PM · #34 |
| The thing I don't get in discussions like this is people who don't like much post processing tend to have no problems with "pre-processing" or "in-camera processing". If you believe photography is just about recording history (i.e. photojournalism) than you shouldn't be altering that reality in-camera by using polarizers, warming filters let alone multi-exposures, long exposures or anything else that produces an image that simply wasn't "there" to begin with. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:27:44 PM · #35 |
| possibly you are right but its my feeling that this site leans much farther to the art side wich is not to say that that is a bad thing! I just think a lot of people get involved, like my self for example, with a joy of simple photography and the they are thrust into the world of photoshop to try to compete. i think ursula's photo is quite lovely and deserving of a ribbon its just that, and i'm making an assumption for others, but for my self i know that i probably would not be able to compete on this level because i just don't have the time to become this good with photoshop and i think many people feel the same way. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:30:15 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by rider:
I really like the way you worded this i think you hit the nail right on the head which begs the orignal question----is this a processing site or a photography site and i believe it is the former not the latter |
It's a photography site. Photography includes processing. They go hand in hand.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:30:18 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The thing I don't get in discussions like this is people who don't like much post processing tend to have no problems with "pre-processing" or "in-camera processing". If you believe photography is just about recording history (i.e. photojournalism) than you shouldn't be altering that reality in-camera by using polarizers, warming filters let alone multi-exposures, long exposures or anything else that produces an image that simply wasn't "there" to begin with. |
I agree with you. I thought it was funny when how people were saying that alfresco's shot was so unnatural and over processed yet it was all done preprocess with on camera filters and such. (I love this shot BTW)
Message edited by author 2006-09-25 15:31:34. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:37:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by rider:
possibly you are right but its my feeling that this site leans much farther to the art side wich is not to say that that is a bad thing! I just think a lot of people get involved, like my self for example, with a joy of simple photography and the they are thrust into the world of photoshop to try to compete. i think ursula's photo is quite lovely and deserving of a ribbon its just that, and i'm making an assumption for others, but for my self i know that i probably would not be able to compete on this level because i just don't have the time to become this good with photoshop and i think many people feel the same way. |
This makes perfect sence. Isn't that why there is basic and advanced options? You have to be able to do some basic processing on digital images. It is just the way digital imaging records it. Raw digital images (as of yet) really cannot compete with film.
I do appreciate the basic because it makes you think more before you shoot instead of being dependant on the processing to 'fix' sloppy shooting. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:43:24 PM · #39 |
Ursula, I think the are looking too much into it and are sad they didn't get a ribbon. It's a wonderful photograph and that's all you need to know. If the majority of the voters didn't think so you wouldn't have gotten a ribbon!
Message edited by author 2006-09-25 15:54:24.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:53:40 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by rider:
possibly you are right but its my feeling that this site leans much farther to the art side wich is not to say that that is a bad thing! I just think a lot of people get involved, like my self for example, with a joy of simple photography and the they are thrust into the world of photoshop to try to compete. i think ursula's photo is quite lovely and deserving of a ribbon its just that, and i'm making an assumption for others, but for my self i know that i probably would not be able to compete on this level because i just don't have the time to become this good with photoshop and i think many people feel the same way. |
I totally see where you're coming from and I can completely sympathize but the thing is that works in other ways also. I think I'm ok in photoshop and that probably gives me a great advantage over others (in the challenges) who are probably better photographers than me but don't know any photoshop. However, there are other advantages people have over me. For example, I wish I had the money right now to travel but I don't. Those that can travel or happen to live in parts of the world that are more photogenic have an advantage over me. Then there are people that are much more creative than me and those people need to die! :P
Message edited by author 2006-09-25 15:54:43. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:55:41 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by rider:
possibly you are right but its my feeling that this site leans much farther to the art side wich is not to say that that is a bad thing! I just think a lot of people get involved, like my self for example, with a joy of simple photography and the they are thrust into the world of photoshop to try to compete. i think ursula's photo is quite lovely and deserving of a ribbon its just that, and i'm making an assumption for others, but for my self i know that i probably would not be able to compete on this level because i just don't have the time to become this good with photoshop and i think many people feel the same way. |
I totally see where you're coming from and I can completely sympathize but the thing is that works in other ways also. I think I'm ok in photoshop and that probably gives me a great advantage over others (in the challenges) who are probably better photographers than me but don't know any photoshop. However, there are other advantages people have over me. For example, I wish I had the money right now to travel but I don't. Those that can travel or happen to live in parts of the world that are more photogenic have an advantage over me. Then there are people that are much more creative than me and those people need to die! :P |
I'm gonna sick judi on you!!!!!!!!!!!lol |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 03:58:54 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
It is not the participants job to police the challenges. |
It disturbs me how many people at DPC want to be police. Isn't the vote power enough? |
Not when you're like a former user who bought his votes!
Message edited by author 2006-09-25 15:59:17. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 04:12:32 PM · #43 |
I always thought that this was one of the strictest communities with regards to editing, and for me I think they have the balance just right.
As far as the editing debate goes, I would have advanced editing in every challenge if I could choose. Editing is massive part of photography these days.
The large portion of the editing steps in this image are all very basic stuff that would have been done in the darkroom before Photoshop.
Seems some people aint happy unless they have something to gripe about |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 04:14:01 PM · #44 |
No!!! I will resist the urge to step back onto this well trodden path. Life is too short so I'll just use the time to go take another photograph and then power up CS2 ;-)))
Oooops !! darn I shouldn't have pressed the post button - aaaargh!!
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 04:20:49 PM · #45 |
Jerry Uelsmann makes his images in a darkroom, NOT on a computer...some pretty incredible things can be achieved in a darkroom. Be sure to read the interview section, a very interesting read to be sure. Like jmsetzler said...photography includes processing, they do go hand in hand. How and where we choose to do our processing is all a matter of taste, experience, our influences and the environment we are in at the particular moment. We are individuals, so why should we be expected to do everything the same mechanical way?...I never understand this way of thinking.
There is no one "right" way...to each their own. Be creative and be yourself.
..and Ursula, I only gave out 2 10's in this challenge, and your lovely image got one of them...beautiful works as always.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 04:46:41 PM · #46 |
i dont know, i think photography is like writing, you have rules to follow, but to show a quick perception of your thoughts, you break the rule to make a poem, in this case a picture.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 05:17:20 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Jerry Uelsmann makes his images in a darkroom, NOT on a computer...some pretty incredible things can be achieved in a darkroom. ... |
Sometimes, following the links can be more rewarding than the discussion. Jerry Uelsmann's work is spectacularly surreal. I looked at every bit of it, and read every scrap of information.
Then I looked at his wife's: Maggie Taylor. Now SHE uses Photoshop all the way in the making of her images. Again, a fabulous set of images.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 05:20:09 PM · #48 |
| I for one support full on post processing everything. If I could photoshop my food at home to make it look and taste better I would. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 05:26:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that, often, what the photographer "saw" when they pressed the shutter and what the film/sensor "saw" are two very different things. |
and I think this covers about half of the points of view that exist when the shutter closes.
Add to that how you envisaged the final version in your mind's eye when you took the shot. Then add how the shot may have evolved as you work with the raw material of the capture. Translation to B&W is one of the more obvious examples of both of these additional viewpoints. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 05:29:40 PM · #50 |
Even the "greats" like Ansel Adams used post processing. He didn't have Photoshop, but I'm sure he used every other tool he could get his hands on. Regardless of how much post processing you do, if you start out with a crappy picture, you'll still end up with a crappy picture. So in the long run, you still need to know what you're doing in order to have a winning shot.
|
|
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 04:59:16 AM EDT.
