| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2006 12:48:38 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Distortion has never been allowed in Basic. Distortions would either involve a filter (Lens Correction) or a selection used for something other than cropping. That didn't change in the new rules, but hopefully we did make it clearer in the text. The DQ was really unfortunate though, as it was a great photo. :-( |
What about the PTlense filter used in this photo to correct barrel distortion.
I questioned SC about it at the time (not for DQ, but for clarification)and was told it was a grey area and was being discussed. I see the image is still there so in the interest of consistency, the image in question in this thread should be reinstated. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:03:11 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
What about the PTlense filter used in this photo to correct barrel distortion. |
Heh, you found an exception! ;-)
The gist of that discussion was that the distortion was used purely in a corrective manner, so it fell under "designed to preserve image integrity." It was a split decision, and the photographer got the benefit of the doubt. In David's case the distortion was not used correctively, so it's not a matter of consistency, and the reworded rules should prevent this issue in the future. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:27:01 PM · #128 |
Just a quick question (just for the sake of clarification). In GIMP (and this might be possible in Photoshop), you can scale an image but not keep the same ratio. So if I had 640 X 480 image, I can make the image narrower without making the image shorter (so 640 X 300 for instance). This would distort the image but not by using a filter, a selection etc.
Just to make sure I understand correctly, under the current rules this would be DQ'd (for basic and advanced)? Correct?
*edit for clarity*
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 13:29:06. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:39:52 PM · #129 |
| It would be illegal in Basic, but probably OK in Advanced unless the distortion itself became a feature (ie. the image looks stretched). Any other SC care to chime in? |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:40:22 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Just a quick question (just for the sake of clarification). In GIMP (and this might be possible in Photoshop), you can scale an image but not keep the same ratio. So if I had 640 X 480 image, I can make the image narrower without making the image shorter (so 640 X 300 for instance). This would distort the image but not by using a filter, a selection etc.
Just to make sure I understand correctly, under the current rules this would be DQ'd (for basic and advanced)? Correct? |
And these discussions go on ad infinitum. So probably always will....
I can see both sides of the argument. We need specific rules in order to be fair, but what should those rules be? Therein lies the rub. Our real question is, what makes sense and what does not?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:44:26 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It would be illegal in Basic, but probably OK in Advanced unless the distortion itself became a feature (ie. the image looks stretched). Any other SC care to chime in? |
That sounds right to me too ... in Advanced, a "slight slimming effect" should be OK, but a "fun house mirror" look probably not ... |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:55:13 PM · #132 |
I also agree with Shannon's analysis. The plasma ball shot was definitely a split decision, and had the distortion not been purely corrective it would certainly have been disqualified. The wording of the new rules does clarify this.
FWIW, when we work on rules wording, we are, unfortnately, faced with conflicting goals. One one hand, we need concise (short), easy to understand rules that are clear even to those for whom English is not a first (or even second) language. On the other hand, we must address complicated issues without creating loopholes.
On the whole, though the new rules are not a big change from the last iteration, they do clarify and refine the tests for legality in a number of areas. It's good to discuss interpretations and possible misunderstandings, but by the same token, it's not good if the discussion degenerates into a nitpicking debate. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 02:00:26 PM · #133 |
LOL. So now using transform tools were ok in the old basic rules but if used correctively? I think it's safe to say Falc, Keith Maniac, myself and others who represent Team Right won this argument. :P
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 14:01:08.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 02:08:44 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. So now using transform tools were ok in the old basic rules but if used correctively? I think it's safe to say Falc, Keith Maniac, myself and others who represent Team Right won this argument. :P |
LOL :P |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 02:39:37 PM · #135 |
does that mean we can stop discussing a rule set that is no longer valid, and has since been rewritten and clarified, then?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 02:55:52 PM · #136 |
| Especially when this specific issue has been covered in threads many, many times. I'm a relative newbie and a total PS idiot, but even I have learned I'm not allowed to distort in basic :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 03:38:29 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. So now using transform tools were ok in the old basic rules but if used correctively? I think it's safe to say Falc, Keith Maniac, myself and others who represent Team Right won this argument. :P |
Pick & jab all ya want. Facts are facts, and history is history. Yes, we have occasionally ruled in the past that slight, corrective application of "distortion" was legal. No, arbitrary distortion has never been legal, and never ruled legal.
This is not an area that is cut & dried. Yet again, we have tried to clarify this in the new rules.
Let's try to keep the discussion constructive, and not hash over, well old cold hash. The old rules are dead and buried. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 04:06:23 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Let's try to keep the discussion constructive, and not hash over, well old cold hash. The old rules are dead and buried. |
Fair enough. My only point was that this picture was taken during the transition from old rules to new rules and in fact, was taken while old rules were in effect. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 06:19:56 PM · #139 |
Thanks Steve! It was sure fun out in the Superstitions, wasn't it! We got some great shots at that bizarre sunset. I hope to come again soon! Perhaps this spring?
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Ohhhhh... Major Bummer!!!
David Sidwell is one of my absolute favorite photographers at DPC. I have had the distinct honor and pleasure of getting to go on a photo safari with him. I'm a groupie of his work.
David, my friend, it was a pleasant surprise to see your name once again on the winner's page. Bummer that rules changes got you. DPC is growing and changing.
No big deal. It isn't as if you need lots more ribbons. You proved your worth as a landscape photographer many, many, many times over.
You are blue ribbon in my book! |
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 06:40:32 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
it was a pleasant surprise to see your name once again on the winner's page. |
Absolutely! David was one of my very first favorites. :-) |
Thanks again!
About all of these rules: oddly, I'm one who favors FEWER rules on the one hand, going for a more "spirit of the law" approach, with questionable photos voted on by the SC. On the other hand, I can see how this could get very burdensome very quickly, and so I see the need for very clear rules all spelled out.
Some things the rules doesn't discuss are less tenable:
A photo is often MORE than what one sees initially. Even as a "record" or "document" of something seen, one must try to capture mood, atmosphere, the feeling inside oneself when viewing the photo, etc. This is what makes photography a pleasure and an art in my book, because most cameras do not see as our eyes and brains and hearts see, so we have to try to "capture" these hard-to-define elements by things like color, composition, etc. The current focus on DPC is largely on the VISUAL aspects of an image, while a truly great photo goes much further.
If you'll be patient with me for a moment, I can give you a short lesson on art history, and then I'll round off my comments with a conclusion.
During the Renaissance, the effort in art was to duplicate or capture verisimilitude (the appearance of truth) by doing what the classic masters from Greece and Rome did. This neoclassicism was expressed in art and in architecture; our many capital buildings in the U.S. are testaments to this ideal.
In the mid to late 1700s, artists began to question this paradigm, arguing that the Greeks and Romans were great, sure, but they didn't know EVERYTHING. They began looking for new paradigms on which to base their art. They found it in emotion, and the Romantic period came into being. Verisimilitude was now to be found and expressed through emotion, intuition, and nature.
In the mid 1800s, another art movement came into being when artists began questioning emotion as a spurious way to get a truth. In this great age of new science and the Industrial Revolution, science and observation became the watchwords, and a new kind of art based on these tenets flourished: Realism--and then the more extreme Naturalism.
Of course, reaction came to Realism as well in the forms of impressionism, symbolism, expressionism, surrealism, and a host of other "isms," each with its own philosophy of how to get at "truth" or "verisimilitude." Expressionism, for instance, is the idea that truth can be communicated by examining dreams and symbols. Surrealism posits that truth can be communicated through the subconscious. etc. etc. None of these paradigms is any more valid than another, in my opinion. What matters is the subject of ones art and how best it should be communicated. Welcome to Postmodernism!
On DPC, we seem to be hung up on Realism, which is okay. There are plenty of outlets for other isms, sometimes within various DPC challenges. "Soft focus," for instance, expresses a different kind of truth than sharp focus, and very few soft focus images will ever do well--except in a soft focus challenge.
I guess my point, in relation to rules, is that it's too bad that the more detailed we get with the rules, the more we'll promote photography as mere realism instead of the many other things it could potentially promote. However, at the same time, I do see the necessity of having clear and complete rules.
Thanks for letting me lecture again. I miss it with my new job!
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 18:43:08.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 06:54:45 PM · #141 |
| David, your gentle lecture poses what is perhaps the greatest challenge of all: to capture the emotions of the moment when the photograph was made. When we see our own photos they evoke a sense of what we felt at the time we snapped the shutter. But to capture that moment in such a way that it will evoke the same emotion in others is the essence of fine art photography. More of a challenge than most will ever master! |
|
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: 04/19/2024 04:38:25 PM EDT.
