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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Overprocessed trend...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 150, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/24/2007 12:35:15 AM · #1
.

Alright boys and girls...let's get back on track here...this was an older thread that was revived today by a question of what style was used on some photographs and how to reproduce them.

Is that style (Joey's style) based on HDR and tone mapping (with some grunge strokes)? and is this tutorial enough to come close to that style?

['cause I would really like to know, myself] . :-)
01/23/2007 10:12:14 PM · #2
I must add at this point for all of you that think overprocessing is taking DPC done the toilet, just take a look at the comments left on my current Best of 2006 entry...

Very nice shot but I think just a tad too soft.

Overprocessed.

image is a little soft for my taste.

Too soft for my liking.

Damn diffuse glow filter anyway...oh well...

Jack
01/23/2007 09:44:09 PM · #3
Oops, another overprocessed thread down the toilet. I'll go check out another thread. : P
01/23/2007 09:30:35 PM · #4
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by jpeters:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by jackal9:

Okay, I have a question...are we considering photography art?


EVERYTHING can be an art. That term is so losely translated nowadays that even sitting on a toilet bowl making chocolates can be an "art", hehe.

So, YES, photography is "art"


I prefer the former as opposed to the latter art... but I do really love my chocolate.


i hear floaters are the most healthy of "art" chocolates.


OMG, what have I done?? I have created a MONSTER!! LOL, but really I guess that was the point, to have fun and not take things too serious...
01/23/2007 09:08:28 PM · #5
I'm with Art (Ken) on this....
01/23/2007 08:58:09 PM · #6
Originally posted by jpeters:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by jackal9:

Okay, I have a question...are we considering photography art?


EVERYTHING can be an art. That term is so losely translated nowadays that even sitting on a toilet bowl making chocolates can be an "art", hehe.

So, YES, photography is "art"


I prefer the former as opposed to the latter art... but I do really love my chocolate.


i hear floaters are the most healthy of "art" chocolates.
01/23/2007 08:55:29 PM · #7
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by jackal9:

Okay, I have a question...are we considering photography art?


EVERYTHING can be an art. That term is so losely translated nowadays that even sitting on a toilet bowl making chocolates can be an "art", hehe.

So, YES, photography is "art"


I prefer the former as opposed to the latter art... but I do really love my chocolate.
01/23/2007 08:45:59 PM · #8
Originally posted by jackal9:

Okay, I have a question...are we considering photography art?


EVERYTHING can be an art. That term is so losely translated nowadays that even sitting on a toilet bowl making chocolates can be an "art", hehe.

So, YES, photography is "art"
01/23/2007 08:44:42 PM · #9
i'm nit-picky about super, hyper, overly processed images.
there are some very cool and funny (not forgetting interesting) ones out there on the site. But of course, as a balance of nature, there are also some poorly decided or done ones. Lets not generalize them like this.

over-processing is neither good nor bad - you might have been looking at the bad ones! :)

crayon
01/23/2007 08:43:17 PM · #10
Okay, I have a question...are we considering photography art?

I say yes, going with this assumption it would seem those on the "too much processing" side of the fence would say the only true art in painting would be Hyper-realism, and that Picasso and Dali were guilty of over processing...

My point is that there are different forms of photography as well as different styles of paintings, with the new challenge test rules for Minimalism II you have exacly what you are asking for, strait out of the camera no mods. Live and let live...there is something for everyone here.

Jack
01/23/2007 08:42:32 PM · #11
I don't think this site is pioneering anything new...it might even be catching on kinda late.

Not sure what the technique is called tho..maybe just a modern take on dodging and burning?

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 20:44:16.
01/23/2007 08:18:32 PM · #12
I always find it interesting that people assume this website and it's visitors are not part of the real world. "People on this site (almost 56,000 accounts) like a certain type of photo, but in the real world no one likes those types of photos." I see the same types of photos on this site as I do on billboards, CDs, and magazines (this includes photography magazines). I just looked through the most recent edition of Popular Photography and saw lots of "oversaturated," "oversharpened," and yes, even entirely "overprocessed" photos. The craziest part is they weren't even all digital! People are over processing film now! And it all started here... on DPC... exactly one year ago. Or did it?

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 20:20:21.
01/23/2007 08:16:28 PM · #13
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


Sorry, I'm on a bit of a rant - just sick of "My opinion = the only true/right opinion" elitist crap. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some overprocessing to do.


Hey Art, this is a fairly old thread that someone revived to ask a question... not a new rant ;-)

Yeah, well... I never got to blow my stack the first time around. ;-)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some old threads of my own to "rake" up...
01/23/2007 08:13:45 PM · #14
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


Sorry, I'm on a bit of a rant - just sick of "My opinion = the only true/right opinion" elitist crap. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some overprocessing to do.


Hey Art, this is a fairly old thread that someone revived to ask a question... not a new rant ;-)
01/23/2007 08:09:08 PM · #15
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Man, I want to start a thread bitching about underprocessing! What the hell is "over"processing??? I read a lot of posts in this thread that basically amount to "if it is not MY preferred amount of processing, it is overprocessed, poor quality, digital art, disparage, disparage, disparage"

What YOU consider OVERprocessed is as subjective as the voting on ANY other aspect of an image. The challenges inherently reward the mass-pleasers - duh. I see a lot of hypocrisy and sour grapes spewed here.

The only way to prevent these endlessly repetitive threads is to completely change the voting method to a jury based system. Then we can all strive to please the select few photo gods that are chosen to judge us.

Sorry, I'm on a bit of a rant - just sick of "My opinion = the only true/right opinion" elitist crap. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some overprocessing to do.


Me thinks your face is underprocessed :))))
01/23/2007 08:07:07 PM · #16
Man, I want to start a thread bitching about underprocessing! What the hell is "over"processing??? I read a lot of posts in this thread that basically amount to "if it is not MY preferred amount of processing, it is overprocessed, poor quality, digital art, disparage, disparage, disparage"

What YOU consider OVERprocessed is as subjective as the voting on ANY other aspect of an image. The challenges inherently reward the mass-pleasers - duh. I see a lot of hypocrisy and sour grapes spewed here.

The only way to prevent these endlessly repetitive threads is to completely change the voting method to a jury based system. Then we can all strive to please the select few photo gods that are chosen to judge us.

Sorry, I'm on a bit of a rant - just sick of "My opinion = the only true/right opinion" elitist crap. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some overprocessing to do.
01/23/2007 07:46:35 PM · #17
I think that one of the major factors here is the specific medium in which one has to work at DPC
Firstly we're limited to 64o x640 or 720 x 720 square.
Certain subtleties of detail and tone are simply never going to be an issue.

Secondly many people will have monitors of relatively low resolution, and so will never be able to view their entire image at more than 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 960 when they are processing.

Thirdly the calibration on monitors is varied.

All these factors combine to make saturated and dramatically processed images more consistently appealing, while subtler images struggle with the technical constraints of the website.

Personally I have no objection to these limitations, and I realise how hard it would be to fix any of these problems. As for the amount of visibleprocessing that appeals to me, I have to say it depends entirely upon the image. Looking through my favorites I see an even mix.

However there is a great deal of difference between visible processing and the kind of cack-handed, messy, ten minute, hack jobs that distinguish my own photos on this site; well, the obviously processed ones anyway.
01/23/2007 06:49:29 PM · #18
Originally posted by SecondCurtain:

What is the name of this style?...and was wondering if there are any tutorials on it (either on DPC or on the internet somewhere)?

Maybe s/he is talking about Joey Lawrence style of processing?

If so, I don't know for sure what he is exactly doing, but it certainly looks like HDR (High Dynamic Range) processing, coupled with tone mapping. Those images seem to also contain some grunge brushes/filters, as well as plenty of dodging and burning.

Photomatrix is one of the more popular tools dedicated to doing both of the above. Photoshop will perform both too, but it takes two separate tools (CS2 and Bridge).

Here is a tutorial for doing all of this with both Photomatrix and Photoshop.
01/23/2007 06:09:03 PM · #19
If wanting to know a workflow in one of Heida's images,
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/361/thumb/208619.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/361/thumb/208619.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
she was gracious enough to do a DPC Mentorship - Post Processing II workshop here on this site. About 1/2 way through that thread, is a step-by-step tutorial of what she did, showing examples of what the effects were.
Actually the whole thread is a wealth of information.
01/23/2007 05:55:40 PM · #20
Originally posted by SecondCurtain:


Besides "over-processing", how else is this referred to? I would like to experiment with this type of processing and was wondering if there are any tutorials on it (either on DPC or on the internet somewhere)?

Many thanks.


Without an example, it would be hard to pin a particular "style" to over-processed. Many "styles" an techniques can be considered over-processed by some viewers. Care to show an example of what you're looking for?
01/23/2007 05:37:21 PM · #21
Originally posted by mpeters:

I've been around for only a year but thinking back to some of the first member challenges i remember, the dodge/burn, hyped up processing was very evident. Look at some of Heida's ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' heidaentries for example. I use the member challneges only because they allow this sort of thing. Then it seemed to go the other direction with more realism and natural processing, now processing is taking center stage.

What is the name of this style?

Besides "over-processing", how else is this referred to? I would like to experiment with this type of processing and was wondering if there are any tutorials on it (either on DPC or on the internet somewhere)?

Many thanks.
11/02/2006 01:22:12 AM · #22
Had a good read here and thought perhaps I should say a couple of things since it appears that alot of the comments are directed in part towards the images I contributed in the past week or so.
I'm a little surprised by the general lack of tolerance expressed especially by the OP who states that his intent is not to offend on one hand then goes on later to state that images such as these are \'cheesy\' and not up to any proper standard. Wonder how the two go hand in hand... but that dosn't matter.
We all approach ideas diferently and in the end strive to come up with something that we can put our name to and be proud in the fact that we accomplished just a little something. How we get there, is OUR business and you can disagree if you want but why do you have to make so much NOISE about it. You went from a casual observation to a blatant attack in a few short posts.
There are as many different approaches to photography as there are people here and to suggest that anyone, ANYONE is wrong or 'cheesy' for what they do... well you guess the rest.
I'm a little surprised really. Upon opening your profile page, I expected to be greeted with an array of untouched, out of the camera images that scream purity. Instead I was surprised to discover an array of very heavily processed images that look just like the ones you seem to have a problem with.
Now I\'m not preaching because in the end, I tend to agree. Yes they are a bit overdone and in fact I think I mentioned something about that in my write up. Not my usual approach or cup of tea but, they are what they are and they did make me proud...
Rd

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 01:23:41.
11/01/2006 11:58:22 PM · #23
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:



Oh, absolutely. I have no quarrel with it. But the thrust of this thread is that people are "overprocessing" nature for dramatic impact. My point is that applying a sky gradient by a filter in front of the lens is no different than (and no "better" than) doing the same thing in post processing later.

R.


I will disagree on the "No Better Than" part concerning gradient filters applied to the camera "Pre-Shutter" versus Photoshop filters "Post-shutter"

Gradient filters applied "Pre-Shutter" preserve the detail, preventing loss of data due to blown out or completely under-exposed scenes as a result of the camaera's inability to resolve the dynaimic range.

Filters applied "Post-Shutter" can only work with the pixels actually captured in the photo and may not work at all if the data is lost.

So...I guess my point, building on my earlier comment about getting it right before the shutter is released, is use photography to capture the moment the best you can using the techniques pre-shutter. Later..if you want to snap up the photo by any photoshop or printing method known to mankind..cool. You are at least making choices based on artistic license and preference rather than trying to overcome poor photographic technique.


I agree with what you are saying and the larger the print the more what you say applies however for some things it's just better/easier to do it in photoshop where you have more control but not only is that often discourage many of those techniques are illegal in the challenges. Take the multiple exposures technique for example, more specifically the photo of the "eye in the hand" shot. I should know the name of that one but it escapes me at the moment. Anyway, that shot was well done in-camera but in the real world if such a shot was needed it would be done in post processing without much effort at all with results that mirrored or surpassed the in-camera version. The point being whatever yields the best results should be what is encouraged but unfortunately that isn't the case. Personally, I'd love to see more support in the rules for retouching in general to include resizing of various elements in the photo like what is done in commercial photography but currently only "corrective" measures can be applied.

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 00:01:31.
11/01/2006 11:23:05 PM · #24
Originally posted by hokie:


I think what some people are saying and what photography schools are saying and what art directors and editors are saying is that there is a hell of a lot that should go on BEFORE the shutter is pressed. And, there seems to be a desire to do a lot AFTER the shutter is pressed to make up for not doing a lot before the shutter is pressed.

Educating yourself about the basic structure of good composition, looking for the technical aspects and design characteristics within a scene, looking for the light rather than faking it later and waiting for the moment to happen rather than forcing the image to meet your time schedule. There is a lot to photography before the the shutter is pressed and the pixels start to become manipulated in the graphic design step..(which is different than the photography step).

Yeah..I said it and I stand by it...graphic design is not photography. Graphic design and even darkroom work are not "Photography" which is the art of capturing light and the moment and seeing. I am not saying Darkroom and photoshop technique are not integral to photography but they are not photography per se.

Here is another link to Sport Shooters judging of one of their photo contests and what you hear being discussed is not how well processed the photos are but how well they are created...before the shutter is released.

Sports Shooters Judging Video.


You make it sound like I was disagreeing with you ;)

I'd put journalistic photography off in its own particular box. Sportsshooter is most definitely a journalism site, with heavy emphasis on the 'nothing after the shutter is pressed' view of the world and true to what exactly was seen. That's a little ethical world within the range of what photography is.

There's a huge difference in my mind between taking a half arsed shot, with no thought before the shutter and then trying to turn out something half decent [i.e., this whole notion of 'fixing' stuff in photoshop] and
the way it should be done, which is the best possible technique prior to pressing the shutter and the best possible technique after pressing the shutter too. That then, is what photography is about for me. Then you could add beyond that the skills required to be a good printer. But lets stop before that point. Lets just consider the steps required to get a good image. Like I said before, from concept to jpeg. So that spans from pre-visualisation of the idea, capturing it as well as is possible or as well as is correct for the planned post processing and then working to achieve the pre-visualised result. Equal weight to the thought process and creativity before and after the shutter. Just the same way photography has been for the last 100 years or so.

I find it bizzare to hear people trying to redefine what the artform has always been about - as if they'd paid no attention to the history.

The turd polishing approach doesn't appeal to me. I've just about given up completely on bothering to 'save' or 'fix' mistakes in Photoshop - they just get binned. But that certainly doesn't mean that any given idea has to, or even should finish when the shutter was taken. There's a whole lot of pre-planned process that can be shot specifically for, right after the shutter is closed.

Message edited by author 2006-11-01 23:25:03.
11/01/2006 10:49:06 PM · #25
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:



Oh, absolutely. I have no quarrel with it. But the thrust of this thread is that people are "overprocessing" nature for dramatic impact. My point is that applying a sky gradient by a filter in front of the lens is no different than (and no "better" than) doing the same thing in post processing later.

R.


I will disagree on the "No Better Than" part concerning gradient filters applied to the camera "Pre-Shutter" versus Photoshop filters "Post-shutter"

Gradient filters applied "Pre-Shutter" preserve the detail, preventing loss of data due to blown out or completely under-exposed scenes as a result of the camaera's inability to resolve the dynaimic range.

Filters applied "Post-Shutter" can only work with the pixels actually captured in the photo and may not work at all if the data is lost.

So...I guess my point, building on my earlier comment about getting it right before the shutter is released, is use photography to capture the moment the best you can using the techniques pre-shutter. Later..if you want to snap up the photo by any photoshop or printing method known to mankind..cool. You are at least making choices based on artistic license and preference rather than trying to overcome poor photographic technique.


But I have those capabilities in PS also; it's called HDRI Imaging. My point still obtains, but it's more abstract; there's a tendency here to say that a given result obtained "in camera" is somehow superior to one obtained in PP. Given equal quality of the result, I can't buy that position. Certainly, in Terje's shot, with HDRI processing from the correct exposures I could avoid the unnatural darkening of the top of the rocks and still display the extreme tonal range. So it can be done "better (or at least more precisely) in PP. Plus you have a lot more control over working variations of it.

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/22/2020 11:29:54 AM

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: 10/22/2020 11:29:54 AM EDT.