| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2006 03:28:48 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
They probably don't break any specific rule in any of the 5 revisions of the rules that you could meaningfully point to. But to me, in my own little world, they violate the spirit of the challenges, or break some sort of moral/ethical pact with the voters that this is a challenge that has something to do with photography. |
I have to say that I AGREE with you very strongly, actually, in this paragraph. There are a lot of shots that come along, and I learn after the fact that I was "duped" into scoring them higher because of one editing trick or another.
I'm in that same "little world," I guess you could say, because there have been many cases that have come along that have made me angry because I have felt that my "moral/ethical pact" has been broken. One of those areas is with the literal art rules, which I think are getting tweaked in the right direction, by the way.
But I have had to come to terms with the fact that it's not that easy to DQ somebody on the grounds of "violating my moral/ethical pact." That would be a cool rule to implement, but it's simply not realistic. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:45:01 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by Gordon:
They probably don't break any specific rule in any of the 5 revisions of the rules that you could meaningfully point to. But to me, in my own little world, they violate the spirit of the challenges, or break some sort of moral/ethical pact with the voters that this is a challenge that has something to do with photography. |
I have to say that I AGREE with you very strongly, actually, in this paragraph. There are a lot of shots that come along, and I learn after the fact that I was "duped" into scoring them higher because of one editing trick or another.
I'm in that same "little world," I guess you could say, because there have been many cases that have come along that have made me angry because I have felt that my "moral/ethical pact" has been broken. One of those areas is with the literal art rules, which I think are getting tweaked in the right direction, by the way.
But I have had to come to terms with the fact that it's not that easy to DQ somebody on the grounds of "violating my moral/ethical pact." That would be a cool rule to implement, but it's simply not realistic. |
Some cases are worse than others. You pretty much know a pink rope or colored smoke has been edited in. The shots that really offend me are where a specific criteria has been "faked" such as an afternoon shot in the 4-5AM challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:47:22 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
You pretty much know a pink rope or colored smoke has been edited in. |
If that's the case, it's your right to vote accordingly... |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:57:48 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by ursula:
images that rely mainly on post-processing for their impact are not really photography but something else, and should be disqualified from the challenges. |
remove the word "impact" .... insert the word "content"
:) |
Right!
Yet, like Alan mentions,
Originally posted by alanfreed:
... I have had to come to terms with the fact that it's not that easy to DQ somebody on the grounds of "violating my moral/ethical pact." |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:59:19 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
The shots that really offend me are where a specific criteria has been "faked" such as an afternoon shot in the 4-5AM challenge. |
Me too, but unless there are special rules in place that actually require such specific criteria, the real goal is to enter a shot that APPEARS to meet the challenge. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 04:05:32 PM · #231 |
Everything in life is subject to some form of compromise. We all know the difficulty of writing rules. Washington uses tons of lawyers to write laws, rules and reglation and yet sippage always occurs.
The points being sparsed here are testament to how each of us can be sandbagged in a surprising manner. You see, you can enter any topic with a fixed stance and then realize that more creative minds have rendered your stance obsolete. I am always surprided, and I have been around a while, with many ultra clever entries into challenges. Never, in my world, would I have come up with that idea. Yet, the idea fits even if it broke the pace of our perception by altering reality.
Also, please do not spend much time debating how an image fooled you. That is part of what photography is. I mean, take a telephoto and tell me where the spatial distance is? Look at baseball games as you view the batters head and the pitcher right next to his nose. Extend all the tools and add the creative process and you have a hell of a show.
You see, while I admire some images and envy not their creators, I would never employ them. Yet, I see nothing wrong in presenting illusions. What bothers me more is when a challenge says use a 10 second exposure and a winner used only six.
The RGB smoke to me is a brilliant illusion and I have no problem with it, nor do I have a problem, like in a yellow challenge the winner painted the sails of the boats yellow. Yes, many people broke their nerves looking for a suitable yellow object but then we have already said there is no penalty for color shifting or adding spot color in a.e.
I will never do the RGB style image because that is in my direction, yet I enjoy presenting an illusion simply because it questions one perception.
There will be many surprises in the future because there is a natural desire to keep raising the bar and if they remain within the rules I will be okay with them. Some rules may require a rewrite because the old wording was unable to emcompass all the desired meaning. Yet, creative ways to mix will see alchemical creations come our way. Believe me, the creative mind can leap buildings in one sweep.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 16:07:48. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 04:44:29 PM · #232 |
Sometimes it just seems to boil down to a difference between people, where some feel the need to at least attempt to put everything down in rules, and then cite those rules to justify their actions, where others feel that's just not possible.
I've felt "cheated" on more than one occasion, not so much because of the illusions that Daniel refers to, but when something is presented as being real when it is nothing more than digital manipulation, no matter how legal or how easily it can be justified in words. By the same token, I often admire the vision people have to create these different realities.
It's sort of like this. When I look at the world, it doesn't look B/W to me, it looks colourful. But when I see a b/w photo I don't feel cheated, I know that the photographer made a b/w of something that likely was in colour originally. Same with the green stop signs. I know that stop signs are red, so if one shows up green, I can enjoy it for its greeness and for the creativity the photographer had in presenting it that way. On the other hand, if the challenge were "green", a green stop sign would feel like cheating to me. And there are other examples that bother me but I'd rather not bring up specifics.
What I don't think I can do is make a rule to somehow distinguish these situations. Rules aren't going to cut it here. But DPC challenges have artificial limits (digital/one shutter actuation/ownership/date limits/basic-advanced division), and because of that we have rules.
The old artwork rule is a fair example for this. I did not like the old artwork rule, it made no sense to me. I think we're going in the right direction now. But by the old rule there was a more clear-cut guideline, the new approach is more flexible.
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:03:34 PM · #233 |
The DPC community is the most fantastic and imaginative community I have come across. I am proud to be part of that community. The thing which keeps it fresh, keeps it alive and keeps is moving is the twice weekly effort to bring something new, or something better to the challenges.
The community is varied in geography, religeous affiliation, philosopy and attitude to life. This is one of the strengths of this community. I guess my stance is about as far away from Gordon's position as its possible to get. I have no problem with altering the raw image to better match what my visualisation saw when I took the shot. I stay within the rules to the best of my ability, but I do try to push the limits.
The new rules fit with my philosophy of reducing the legalistic burden and letting the community police itself, but I know others are uncomfortable with the liberal end of the scale. I am equally uncomfortable with the uber-strict ultra-regulated world which appears to be being argued for in elements of this thread.
We all have to make some compromises to be able to live together, just chill and lets see how this new rule set works. We can always tighten the screw half a turn if the community collectively think the rules are too lax.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:08:41 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I guess my stance is about as far away from Gordon's position as its possible to get. I have no problem with altering the raw image to better match what my visualisation saw when I took the shot. I stay within the rules to the best of my ability, but I do try to push the limits. |
Actually, that's about my stance too. But I also quite like photography on occasion too.
Originally posted by Falc:
and letting the community police itself |
In the cases of the images being discussed, the community isn't in a position to police itself, because it is being deceived. Hence the frequent use of the phrase 'felt cheated'
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 17:09:55.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:11:00 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In the cases of the images being discussed, the community isn't in a position to police itself, because it is being deceived. Hence the frequent use of the phrase 'felt cheated' |
Please note that it is, felt "cheated", not "felt cheated". There's a difference I think. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:15:13 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In the cases of the images being discussed, the community isn't in a position to police itself, because it is being deceived. Hence the frequent use of the phrase 'felt cheated' |
Please note that it is, felt "cheated", not "felt cheated". There's a difference I think. |
Well, then it would really be "felt "cheated"" I suppose :) I originally wrote just 'the phrase "cheated"' and changed it. I know people aren't saying the entries were cheating, but they felt cheated by thinking it was a photograph of something that they were looking at, rather than looking at something created in a computer on top of a photograph.
As can be seen by the frequent rehashing of this, it isn't an easy feeling to explain and plenty of people have no qualms at all about creating things digitally and calling it a photograph. That's fair enough too. We never have managed to draw some line and say 'digital art' vs 'digital photograph' and the boundaries ebb and flow for each of us.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:15:45 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In the cases of the images being discussed, the community isn't in a position to police itself, because it is being deceived. Hence the frequent use of the phrase 'felt cheated' |
Please note that it is, felt "cheated", not "felt cheated". There's a difference I think. |
Well, then it would really be "felt "cheated"" I suppose :) I originally wrote just 'the phrase "cheated"' and changed it. I know people aren't saying the entries were cheating, but they felt cheated by thinking it was a photograph of something that they were looking at, rather than looking at something created in a computer on top of a photograph.
As can be seen by the frequent rehashing of this, it isn't an easy feeling to explain and plenty of people have no qualms at all about creating things digitally and calling it a photograph. That's fair enough too. We never have managed to draw some line and say 'digital art' vs 'digital photograph' and the boundaries ebb and flow for each of us.
Maybe it would be better if the photographers comments were available during voting, so that the element of deception was removed.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:20:13 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dallasdux:
can someone in short tell me what a "Hot Pixel" is? |
It's a defect in the sensor that sometimes appears in longer exposures as an abnormally bright or white dot with dimmer edges in a cross shape. |
Thanks scalvert. :)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:21:03 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
As can be seen by the frequent rehashing of this, it isn't an easy feeling to explain and plenty of people have no qualms at all about creating things digitally and calling it a photograph. That's fair enough too. We never have managed to draw some line and say 'digital art' vs 'digital photograph' and the boundaries ebb and flow for each of us. |
:) Is photography art?
A quote from Freeman Patterson, from the latest issue of "Photo Life":
What's true of photography is just as true of dance, music, sculpture, and gardening. All of them are passports to different, but related, countries. As a photographer, I am deeply grateful for how, over the years, artists in these mediums have enriched and enlarged the dimensions of my career.
I think that's how I want to think of images where I felt cheated as a first reaction. I want to enjoy them for how beautiful they are, and I don't want to have rules to hinder the creation of such beauty.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:24:40 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by ursula:
:) Is photography art?
I think that's how I want to think of images where I felt cheated as a first reaction. I want to enjoy them for how beautiful they are, and I don't want to have rules to hinder the creation of such beauty. |
Maybe I just dislike kitsch ;)
"He [Hermann Broch] argued that kitsch involved trying to achieve "beauty" instead of "truth" and that any attempt to make something beautiful would lead to kitsch." -
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 17:26:19.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:28:50 PM · #241 |
Photography has a scale, just like the grayscale. At one extreme are the Recorders, at the other is inhabited by the Artists.
Recorders regard the process as being key to the outcome and are willing to accept the restrictions of the process
Artists veiew the end product as the key element and disregard process.
Find your spot along the scale and play nicely
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:29:06 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
:) Is photography art?
I think that's how I want to think of images where I felt cheated as a first reaction. I want to enjoy them for how beautiful they are, and I don't want to have rules to hinder the creation of such beauty. |
Maybe I just dislike kitsch ;)
"He [Hermann Broch] argued that kitsch involved trying to achieve "beauty" instead of "truth" and that any attempt to make something beautiful would lead to kitsch." - |
Ouch. I like the word beauty. Truth on the other hand seems so deceptive.
I need to look up Hermann Broch, I have no idea who that is.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:29:14 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by Falc:
...I have no problem with altering the raw image to better match what my visualisation saw when I took the shot. |
Sometimes I think that something that comes straight from the camera is the sketch and only after the editing it has become the photograph.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:29:31 PM · #244 |
Man so much going on in this thread its hard to keep it straight. So I have 2 questions kind of related.
1. If my camera has image overlay or double exposure I can use that in both basic and advanced yes/no?
2 If so then what you are saying is that it's a photograph if I do the overlay in camera but a DQ and digital art if I do it in photoshop? |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:31:11 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I have 2 questions kind of related... |
Yes to both questions. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:31:36 PM · #246 |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:31:53 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Falc:
...I have no problem with altering the raw image to better match what my visualisation saw when I took the shot. |
Sometimes I think that something that comes straight from the camera is the sketch and only after the editing it has become the photograph. |
But if you edit it too far, it becomes a cartoon ?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:32:36 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Man so much going on in this thread its hard to keep it straight. So I have 2 questions kind of related.
1. If my camera has image overlay or double exposure I can use that in both basic and advanced yes/no?
2 If so then what you are saying is that it's a photograph if I do the overlay in camera but a DQ and digital art if I do it in photoshop? |
#1 Yes
#2 DPC standards |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:32:55 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Falc:
...I have no problem with altering the raw image to better match what my visualisation saw when I took the shot. |
Sometimes I think that something that comes straight from the camera is the sketch and only after the editing it has become the photograph. |
But if you edit it too far, it becomes a cartoon ? |
And there is a problem with a cartoon?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:36:15 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Gordon:
But if you edit it too far, it becomes a cartoon ? |
And there is a problem with a cartoon? |
I've always been a big fan of DangerMouse.
|
|
