Not pickin' on anyone, but I have a question...

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

09/28/2006 11:15:56 AM · #151

Originally posted by agenkin:

As for the benefit of availability of photography and digital darkroom to the masses, as a farm to grow future photographers... One of the problems is that those newly equipped photographers come to sites like this, where pretty pictures often (but not always) rule over real photographs. I am afraid that they will be brough up on this primitive material, easy techniques to achieve visual appeal in their shots.

You may have a legitimate pont here..but..(you knew there was a but here :-/ )

When you take a photography class or study under any instructor they usually teach you the basics. Frame and isolate your subjects, look for the light, etc, etc

And the books they ask you to read? Ansel is at the top of the list along with any number of historical and contemporary photographers. Usually the photos up for discussion are the most popular or common. Not because they represent the ideal..but because they offer a point of immediate introduction and are easier to understand than some of the more complex photographers or complex photos.

The same is true here. Pretty photos win photographic contests ... end of story. We are a photo contest site. Yes DPC has a different take on the "Digital Photo Contest Site" model but we are a photo contest site none the less.

More to the point, DPC is a viewer judged photo contest site..not juried. Thus, the emphasis is even greater toward the "Pop Culture" image than the "Artistically Intrigueing" image. I like this aspect of DPC. I like the mix. Mainly because I am into advertising and marketing and I have a strange interest in Pop Culture images..it helps me know what sells.

It would be a mistake to hold DPC up to be the savior or the satan of the digital photographic world. DPC is what it is and other sites are what they are. DPC is no more a reflection of the total spectrum of entry level photography than any other site or magazine.

Pretty pictures rule on sites like this and anything that helps make them prettier...if it bothers you..you really need to find another site because this site will never change dramatically and nor does it need to.

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 11:17:33.

agenkin

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

09/28/2006 11:39:05 AM · #152

Originally posted by hokie:

The numbers cited in industry reports, the expositions by photographers, the growth of the photographic industry in all respects

This speaks only that the photo-related technology is on the rise. There is no argument about that.

Originally posted by hokie:

the amount of professionals at my disposal for publication in advertising and editorial work,

How many ads do you see where people are not mutilated to the mostly featureless, plasticised state, or where products are not depicted as an unrealistic reduction to bright packaging? Advertising is not about photography; it may be an art in its own right, but not photography.

Originally posted by hokie:

and the opinions of people who make it their business to know such things all point to one thing.....more photographers of all ilks..including the photographers who specialize in capturing the real world in real time.

To me this is speaking that a whole lot of new art forms are emerging right now. Digital processing is truly empowering, and I am not saying this as a negative thing. It's great that there are new artists who take the current technology, master it, and produce creative images, graphical art. It is not enough to capture real world in real time, I've already made this point.

I am sorry, Hokie, you keep trying to convince me with numbers, quantity, while what I seek is quality, the essence, which is vanishing. I agree with you that now there are more people who call themselves photographers than before. But are most of them really Photographers?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

09/28/2006 11:57:55 AM · #153

Originally posted by agenkin:

.... One of the problems is that those newly equipped photographers come to sites like this, where pretty pictures often (but not always) rule over real photographs. I am afraid that they will be brough up on this primitive material, easy techniques to achieve visual appeal in their shots.

Ouch! That hurts.

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/28/2006 12:01:05 PM · #154

why are they not photographers? because you don't think they are worthy of that moniker? to be honest that comment comes across as elitist

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 12:03:01.

09/28/2006 12:04:45 PM · #155

i've been following this for a few days now, and am becoming concerned.

i'm afraid this is beginning to smack of intolerance and totalitarianism, in a similar way that intolerant religious people fulminate against those who do not agree with them (religious of all stripes, and i'm NOT geting into that discussion)

there is no reason to insult or attack people's views or work, simply because one does not agree with the method of making. art is fluid. once one learns the rules, it only grows if one begins to experiment and break those rules.

pretty well all and anything is valid in art. to restrict validation through one's own subjective viewpoint is not the way to growth of any sort.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/28/2006 12:07:36 PM · #156

Originally posted by agenkin:

This speaks only that the photo-related technology is on the rise. There is no argument about that.

No..this speaks to the accessability which leads to the growth of people using the technology which leads to the growth of the community..and the growth all shapes of people in that community from tradionalists to contemporary photographers and styles.

Originally posted by agenkin:

I am an editorial as well as advertising person. My years with newspapers, including a stint with The Washington Times, has given me experience in all types of photography..and the growth of all types. It may be true that advertising photos are highly manipulated but not as much as people suppose..you would be amazed at what a professional studio can produce without having to resort to photoshop.

Originally posted by agenkin:

I heard your point and you are wrong is all I am saying. I live it and I see it everyday and what you describe ( the death of tradional phographic artistry) is simply not true. The fact you cannot accept this regardless of who tells you is the only difficulty facing you right now.

Originally posted by agenkin:

I am sorry, Hokie, you keep trying to convince me with numbers, quantity, while what I seek is quality, the essence, which is vanishing. I agree with you that now there are more people who call themselves photographers than before. But are most of them really Photographers?

I am trying to tell you, as a person who makes their living for 23 years in this very world you are trying to talk about. If my personal experience is not going to convince you I doubt anyone will. It is like going to a doctor saying you have cancer and they keep telling you that you dont and you keep going back telling them you do. Perhaps the pain you feel is something else, but it is not cancer. I don't know what else to say.

And, BTW, Ursula, thank you for posting your original. I wish all ribbon winners posted their originals. This goes a long way in helping everyone become better photographers. What I like about your photography is not how nicely you process your images (which you do)..I like the simple way you look at subjects and make them more complex and interesting.

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 12:09:33.

fracman

Nikon D50

09/28/2006 12:07:55 PM · #157

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by Elvis_L:
just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand.

I am lamenting that the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time.

Unfortunately, photography's link with The Real has been tenuous, at best. The Real World is comprised with at least three dimensions. The Real World surrounds a person in 360 degrees. The Real World includes textures, smells, tastes, and sounds. At it's absolute purest, photography captures a two-dimensional approximation of a subset of the field of view from a given perspective for a particular timescale. Photography has ALWAYS been an approximation, and even the much-lauded Film Camera introduces distortions that simply don't exist in The Real.

Take, for example, a fisheye lens. If the goal is to capture The Real, then either you must only shoot with a fisheye, since a fisheye captures a field of view that is close to normal human vision. On the other hand, though, using a fisheye is not Photography, since the fisheye introduces linear distortions that do not exist in The Real. Oooh! A conundrum!!!

Take, as another example, film grain. When I look at The Real, I don't see Tri-X grain. I don't even see Kodachrome grain. I see continuous color, continuous gradients, and a contrast range far in excess of what even the best film can record.

I've seen this same conversation all over the place in places where one group is trying to establish their superiority over the riffraff. In computer programming, Visual Basic wasn't programming, since anyone could do it. Real programers write in Assembler, which is complicated, close-to-the-hardware, obscure, and painful to write. The only people making these arguments, however, are the ones trying to defend Assembler and trying to assert that, because of their knowledge of an arcane and increasingly irrelevant system, the Assembler Programer was qualitatively better than everyone else.

Here, in this forum, photography is an art. DPC is not about photojournalism, nor forensic photography, nor scientific photography. DPC is about using digital cameras to produce visually pleasing images. If I can do that with a pinhole lens on a D200 and produce an unedited image that is beautiful, fine. If it takes throwing thousands of dollars at a hassie, fine. If it takes using Photoshop, fine. If, however, my lack of skill when capturing the image or modifying the image produces a final form that is not visually pleasing, then I, as a photographer, have not succeeded.

If Film Purisim and Capturing The Real is what you care about, then take your hassie and go snort chem fumes. If you care about using digital cameras to produce art, then let's get over ourselves and move on, shall we? All this bellyaching about "post-proc isn't art" or "digital isn't photography" is just horsehocky, and the infighting interferes with our ability to fight the true enemy: painters ;-)

Djabordjabor

Nikon D3

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

09/28/2006 12:24:18 PM · #158

I don't understand this. Why don't people want edited photos. I thought the challenges was supposed to make beautiful photographs, edited or not edited. I thought it wouldn't matter if the picture was edited or not edited, the only thing that mattered was that we get good pictures that inspire us.

I think this is jealousy towards people that really can use tools like photoshop.

09/28/2006 12:29:00 PM · #159

Originally posted by hokie:

And, BTW, Ursula, thank you for posting your original. I wish all ribbon winners posted their originals. This goes a long way in helping everyone become better photographers. What I like about your photography is not how nicely you process your images (which you do)..I like the simple way you look at subjects and make them more complex and interesting.

Thank you. I think I am shy about posting originals because I worry about people trying to find something wrong with them, or getting yelled at. Now that I'm trying to say why I'm shy about it, I can't come up with a good reason. Weird.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

09/28/2006 12:32:44 PM · #160

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by hokie:

And, BTW, Ursula, thank you for posting your original. I wish all ribbon winners posted their originals. This goes a long way in helping everyone become better photographers. What I like about your photography is not how nicely you process your images (which you do)..I like the simple way you look at subjects and make them more complex and interesting.

Thank you. I think I am shy about posting originals because I worry about people trying to find something wrong with them, or getting yelled at. Now that I'm trying to say why I'm shy about it, I can't come up with a good reason. Weird.

Well, the first thing I did was download both photos so I could experiment. I learn more by doing than reading.

I understand what you mean about showing originals. Wasn't it Ansel Adams that said he wanted his originals destroyed ..I guess for fear of weakening the illusion he created so well with his prints.

agenkin

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

09/28/2006 12:35:08 PM · #161

I feel that I am becoming a nuisance in this thread. Most counter-arguments I see either see only one side of my point, or reduce it to tehcnological conservatism, or simply make ad hominem attacks. I am going to retire from this thread; perhaps, in a couple of days I'll start another. This thread was the wrong place for this discussion, from the beginning - my apologies to Ursula that this has all been going on under her image (which I happen to like, by the way).

09/28/2006 12:36:27 PM · #162

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by hokie:

And, BTW, Ursula, thank you for posting your original. I wish all ribbon winners posted their originals. This goes a long way in helping everyone become better photographers. What I like about your photography is not how nicely you process your images (which you do)..I like the simple way you look at subjects and make them more complex and interesting.

Thank you. I think I am shy about posting originals because I worry about people trying to find something wrong with them, or getting yelled at. Now that I'm trying to say why I'm shy about it, I can't come up with a good reason. Weird.

Well, the first thing I did was download both photos so I could experiment. I learn more by doing than reading.

I understand what you mean about showing originals. Wasn't it Ansel Adams that said he wanted his originals destroyed ..I guess for fear of weakening the illusion he created so well with his prints.

That's probably it. The fear that people will think less of you if they see your original. :)

09/28/2006 12:39:32 PM · #163

Originally posted by agenkin:

No, you're not a nuisance. It was OK here IMO. I think though that it is important to remember that ideas such as yours are debatable, and that others may not agree with them - and that's the beauty of conversation, how you can discuss different points of view without getting angry at each other. I love it that way. Nobody in this thread has gotten angry.

Added: Now, if we can just keep the guy who burns down villages from coming here ..... :)

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 12:42:11.

09/28/2006 01:00:49 PM · #164

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by agenkin:
I feel that I am becoming a nuisance in this thread. Most counter-arguments I see either see only one side of my point, or reduce it to tehcnological conservatism, or simply make ad hominem attacks. I am going to retire from this thread; perhaps, in a couple of days I'll start another. This thread was the wrong place for this discussion, from the beginning - my apologies to Ursula that this has all been going on under her image (which I happen to like, by the way).

No, you're not a nuisance. It was OK here IMO. I think though that it is important to remember that ideas such as yours are debatable, and that others may not agree with them - and that's the beauty of conversation, how you can discuss different points of view without getting angry at each other. I love it that way. Nobody in this thread has gotten angry.

Added: Now, if we can just keep the guy who burns down villages from coming here ..... :)

I agree..the discussion is appropriate to the original post.

I think the only major disagreement I have is with this kind of statement.

I am lamenting that the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time.

Your lament is not supported by anything in the current world of photography. The addition of new technology and technique would not naturally equate to a loss of peoples connection to the real world and real time. As a matter of fact, it has INCREASED a photographer's touch with the real world because now they can spend more time taking photos rather than processing photos.

Do you actually read any interviews of current photographers? The main feeling I see over and over is how much more energy they spend getting in touch with their subjects now that the technology has allowed them a more synergistic approach to photography. This is a reflection of both technology but also basic, contemporary thought.

They don't talk about how much they change their photo or photoshop. They talk about the ability to get immediate feedback and see how their photos actually appear and then go back and re-examine their subjects again and again.

Editorial photographers I know and work with ..you know..photo-journalists...say this all the time. How they spend more time exploring their subjects now that their costs of processing have been eliminated.

I say that, if anything, peoples "touch with the real world and the real time" has increased over the last few years. And this is reflected in every thing I see everyday from the internet to magazines to museums to photoclubs.

I hope the fact that people just think you are wrong in your statement of "the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time." is not an attack.

I imagine once again that you will not change your opinion based on any persons testimony to the contrary.

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 13:02:08.

09/28/2006 01:13:57 PM · #165

Originally posted by ursula:

this is something i've beenwondering about for a while. i don't upload my originals, as that would take up lots of portfolio space. could there be something so that originals of challenge shots aren't on you regualr portfolio limit? or something like that.

end of highjack...

09/28/2006 01:22:01 PM · #166

Originally posted by xianart:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by hokie:

And, BTW, Ursula, thank you for posting your original. I wish all ribbon winners posted their originals. This goes a long way in helping everyone become better photographers. What I like about your photography is not how nicely you process your images (which you do)..I like the simple way you look at subjects and make them more complex and interesting.

Thank you. I think I am shy about posting originals because I worry about people trying to find something wrong with them, or getting yelled at. Now that I'm trying to say why I'm shy about it, I can't come up with a good reason. Weird.

this is something i've beenwondering about for a while. i don't upload my originals, as that would take up lots of portfolio space. could there be something so that originals of challenge shots aren't on you regualr portfolio limit? or something like that.

end of highjack...

I think a lot of people would have problems making their real originals available. There seems to be a fair bit of problem already with image theft, and for users who either make their living with photography or aspire to do so, and for others too, it would probably not be a good idea to make the RAW/large JPGs available.

Some of the originals are on the server already. The top 5 of each challenge are required to provide originals, as are any other validation requests. But these originals are available only to administration and SC, not to all.

The idea to make it possible to upload originals at the time when you submit an image to a challenge has been tossed around. I am not sure right now what the discussion was, but it probably would be (1) a bit load on the server (2) slow down for all users. Something like that. I don't know much about hardware issues. At this time, it is not a feature. It is, however, something to keep in mind.

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 13:24:17.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/28/2006 02:02:15 PM · #167

i didn't really mean a full size original, as in for validation, just a regular one for the interest of those who are curious. could there be, for instace, a space within the upload page, after a challenge has finished, to upload a dpc sized version of the original, if wanted. it would display in the artist's comments section on the photo page. does that make any sense? ten, if you want to show the original, you can, but without using up 'folio space.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/28/2006 02:05:57 PM · #168

Originally posted by xianart:

this is something i've beenwondering about for a while. i don't upload my originals, as that would take up lots of portfolio space.

When I "upload an original" I am refering to a file which has been reduced to normal DPC entry size, but has otherwise had no cropping, tone adjustments, sharpening, or any other processing.

Originally posted by hokie:

I say that, if anything, peoples "touch with the real world and the real time" has increased over the last few years.

I agree. If nothing else, more people are taking more pictures, which means there will be more good pictures captured. Maybe more dreck too, but the last I heard "real photographers" (e.g. National Geographic) as a rule would shoot more pictures than would appear in the final piece, so I don't have a problem with being shutter-happy.

Just because the photographer wasn't successful at "capturing the moment and expressing it symbolically" doesn't mean they weren't trying to.

09/28/2006 02:16:29 PM · #169

Originally posted by GeneralE:

This a very good point. Even further, "Regular Joe's" who live in a world of immediate gratification now get that with digital. Heck, look at photographers, both pros and amatuers, who chimp every shot through the LCD.

We are in a renaissance of photography from everything I have seen. A resurgence that is not only driving art but driving commerce. Whole industries have developed around giving all photographers a better way to experience their photography.

Anyway, to take it back to the original poster

"Maybe it should be renamed to: dpppchallenge.com. (digital photo post-processing challenge)
It seems that some of the winning shots have major adjustments in Basic Editing and when it's Advanced editing, it's anything goes....
Just wondering what other folks think. "

The way I see it,Ursulas shots are lots of little changes that may read like a lot but are subtle and refined. Both her original and the final have the same feel and look, just the final is more "refined".

I hope that is what people can get from any type of editing, less is more.

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 14:17:13.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS STM

09/28/2006 02:19:17 PM · #170

Originally posted by xianart:

That's a good idea. Something to bring up.

floppychicken

Canon EOS-70D

09/28/2006 04:34:54 PM · #171

Being a newbie to photography and new to the site and all, I was wondering if there is, or has been, a challenge where no editing was allowed PERIOD. I mean, not even cropping... Has that ever been done ?

Would a monthly, or bi-monthly 'Post Processing Free challenge' satisfy and possibly 'curb' some of the frustration between purist's and "Post Processing Professionals" (PPP's) ??

Personally, I think that the Talent on this site is tremendous ! There is no doubt about that.. Never before have I had the pleasure to gawk at so many amazing photo's (both before and after processing..).

I do however agree with the original poster, that a LOT of images don't look anything like what came out of the camera. As a matter of fact, I find that some images no longer even 'look like' a photograph. That's not to say that they aren't good, or even GREAT for that matter, but he does present a very valid argument regarding 'Post Processing'.

/FC

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

09/28/2006 04:40:17 PM · #172

Originally posted by floppychicken:

the last straight from the camera challenge produced this shot

a very beautiful image that would probably ribbon in any regular challenge. I don't see the need for them (straight from the camera challenges) myself

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 16:41:15.

09/28/2006 04:42:02 PM · #173

Originally posted by floppychicken:

There have been a couple.
The most recent one was in July (straight from the camera).
Another one I remember off-hand is this one.

I wonder, though, why does it bother you that the finished images do not look like what came out of the camera? How would anyone even know? This has been discussed a lot here, but in the end it is the end product is what counts - not what came out of the camera.

Think of it this way. Some of the newer cameras are going in the direction of allowing in-camera editing. Now, would what you transfer to computer be what comes out of the camera or not?

Also, what the camera records is quite different than what you see. Sometimes, pictures are edited to look more like they came out of a camera rather than what really came out of it.

Anyway.