Abstract Macro II Results Recalculated

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/10/2006 04:44:59 PM · #53

Originally posted by posthumous:

I want a self-regulating photography site.

LOL! Your Eutopian site exists in a photoshopped world in the brightly colored recesses of your idealistic mind. ;-)

edit: cloned out a typo

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 16:45:57.

fracman

Nikon D50

10/10/2006 05:05:18 PM · #54

Originally posted by posthumous:

[quote=glad2badad]Might as well sign up over here (Worth1000.com) But I don't want a photoshop site. I want an art site.

I started at W1k, did the photoshop contests, tried the photography contests, then came here. The PS contests were just that, contests to see who could do the neatest, whiz-bang tricks with PS. The photography side, while being more "arty", felt unnecessarily restrictive because of the rules of things you couldn't do. DPC is better in that respect, and has a much better community, but I still struggle with the rules.

I want an art site, too. I use a camera and PS to create what little art I can because I can't draw a straight line with a ruler. If this is a photography site, then why can't I do all the techniques in Photoshop that are done with film and a darkroom?

Ansel Adams used dodging and burning. Jerry Uelsmann combined elements of multiple photographs into single images. I can use pastels on a black-and-white print to add selective color. I can use abrading needles on negatives and spotting dyes on prints to get rid of dust. Why can't I do those same things here, using the digital equivalents?

I understand that there has to be a line if the site is explicitly a photography site, otherwise those pesky painters would be all over this place, what with their swirly, stary skies and their funky melty clocks, but why should I, as a digital photographer, be forbidden from using the same basic techniques as my silver gelatin ancestors?

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

10/10/2006 05:35:22 PM · #55

Originally posted by fracman:

I understand that there has to be a line if the site is explicitly a photography site, otherwise those pesky painters would be all over this place, what with their swirly, stary skies and their funky melty clocks, but why should I, as a digital photographer, be forbidden from using the same basic techniques as my silver gelatin ancestors?

Every contest has rules. And just because YOU see the line drawn between your painting pastels or whatever, and melty clocks, does not mean others see that line drawn the same place.

It seems like you haven't had a whole lot of immersion into DPC so it probably would be a great idea to let yourself become more familiar with the site before you try to change the way that the owners and administrators have set DPC up to be.

And please, nobody yell at me. I said it "seems" - so I could be wrong.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/10/2006 06:52:44 PM · #56

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I want a self-regulating photography site.

LOL! Your Eutopian site exists in a photoshopped world in the brightly colored recesses of your idealistic mind. ;-)

edit: cloned out a typo

actually, I think it's the idealistic world of my photoshopped mind...

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/10/2006 06:55:25 PM · #57

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

That's funny, because when I'm out in the real world, dealing with a jerk at work or something, I often find myself reaching for the slider to fade the opacity of his layer....

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/10/2006 07:02:38 PM · #58

Originally posted by klstover:

And please, nobody yell at me. I said it "seems" - so I could be wrong.

fotomann_forever

10/10/2006 07:06:42 PM · #59

Originally posted by strangeghost:

when I'm out in the real world, dealing with a jerk at work or something, I often find myself reaching for the slider to fade the opacity of his layer....

I must learn that trick :-)

Leok

Pentax K10D

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for Pentax

10/10/2006 07:12:37 PM · #60

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by butch81385:
Can you tell me what dwterry took a picture of?

Sure, he took a picture of a blank gray screen. ;-)

Assuming you meant the other guy, he clearly took a photo of an image on the screen. If the entire screen was shown, there would be no discussion. At what point should the crop be considered legal or illegal?

Thats easy - at the point where there is no way of telling what the original was. As far as I can see the monitor image was DQ'd under a rule designed to stop people putting artwork on their screen and entering a literal shot of that as a challenge entry. In this case there is no way that anyone could tell what image the monitor was displaying - the shot is a study of the way the screen works, similar to a shot of the internal circuit boards... and therefore did not deserva a DQ in my opinion.

shanksware

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

10/10/2006 07:44:13 PM · #61

So, here's the original of my shot.

versus the submission

If I hadn't cropped so tightly and smoothed out the lighting that would have been ok? I guess I don't quite get it.

Not complaining here, just trying to get a handle on the rules. A DQ is a DQ.

Nokia N900

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

10/10/2006 07:52:50 PM · #62

Originally posted by shanksware:

So, here's the original of my shot.

versus the submission

If I hadn't cropped so tightly and smoothed out the lighting that would have been ok? I guess I don't quite get it.

Not complaining here, just trying to get a handle on the rules. A DQ is a DQ.

I hadn't realized Coca-Cola had started drawing 2D droplets with reflections onto their cans (it's been a while since I've had soft drinks I guess).

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

10/10/2006 07:57:35 PM · #63

Originally posted by strangeghost:

That's funny, because when I'm out in the real world, dealing with a jerk at work or something, I often find myself reaching for the slider to fade the opacity of his layer....

LOL! Why not just delete the layer? ...or use "Fire" and "Smoke" filters and flame the crap out of it.

I do things in the real world all the time and frequently scramble for the UNDO keys, only to realize I am in the real world.

Back on topic: I still say the monitor shot DQ (and the coke can for that matter) are consistent with the tutorial example of what is legal, unless the SC can measure the angle of the shot (on a curved surface no less) and say it is a straight on shot - which again seems highly subjective and arbitrary. And still I am wondering why such lengths to DQ shots the voters have already rejected.

I just think the whole literal artwork rule should only be used to DQ an image when it is a clear and obvious duplication of a complete object AND it has clearly swayed higher votes.

My two more cents.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

10/10/2006 08:02:19 PM · #64

I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art *High tails it out of the thread*

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

10/10/2006 08:02:29 PM · #65

Originally posted by yanko:

Hehehe.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/10/2006 08:04:58 PM · #66

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:

I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art *High tails it out of the thread*

"Artwork" is not the same as "art". It's a commercial arts term, referring to the originals provided to the printer.

R.

10/10/2006 08:05:41 PM · #67

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art *High tails it out of the thread*

"Artwork" is not the same as "art". It's a commercial arts term, referring to the originals provided to the printer.

R.

Still not Artwork to me >.>

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

10/10/2006 08:06:56 PM · #68

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

For me, "Artwork" is redundant. But my wife thinks it's an oxymoron. She's from Venus, ya know.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/10/2006 08:35:22 PM · #69

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:

I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art

Tell that to the illustrator who drew it!

Best-Buy Easy Point & Click

10/10/2006 08:36:41 PM · #70

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art

Tell that to the illustrator who drew it!

Where is he I will ^_^ lol Oh why did I get myself into this

fotomann_forever

10/10/2006 08:39:58 PM · #71

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art

Tell that to the illustrator who drew it!

Where is he I will ^_^ lol Oh why did I get myself into this

Who told you to get out from in front of your camera? Get back to shooting SP's young lady :-P

Really, commercial artists are some of the most unappreciated artists there are. We see thier work daily, but do we know who designed the front of the Tide box or who drew Mr. Clean?

I personally don't consider most of my portrait shoots art either, but would probably get offended if someone else said they weren't... LOL

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 20:59:06.

nfessel

10/10/2006 08:42:56 PM · #72

There are too many rules, which is one reason why I don't participate in many challenges here on DPC. Do these challenge rules make me a better photographer? No. They hinder my photographic decisions and make for an unpleasant experience.