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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Rules Revision Test Results and Expert Editing (Trial) Discussion
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/13/2006 10:07:43 PM · #101
Ahh semantics.

Call it Super Double Top Secret Advanced and be done with it.
12/13/2006 10:09:28 PM · #102
IMO, putting the word "expert" directly in front of the word "editing" indicates that the word "expert" is a modifier or adjective of "editing."

If it were to indicate expert photography, we would have to call it Expert Photography with Really Good Photoshop Skills or something equally cumbersome.

The site is about photography. The challenge is, as you have stated, there to enter or not at your discretion. I, personally, am not interested in such a beast (namely because my PS skills lack tremendously), but in the interest of a growing, dynamic site, I think it is important to allow those with this kind of interest to pursue it. And, I further think that this site is the very place for it. I have visited many, many photography sites, and I do believe, very earnestly, that this is the best around. This extra, non-regular challenge just allows more people to have fun.

12/13/2006 10:18:44 PM · #103
Originally posted by karmat:

in the interest of a growing, dynamic site, I think it is important to allow those with this kind of interest to pursue it. And, I further think that this site is the very place for it.


Like you, I don't really care one way or the other.

However it is odd that a growing, dynamic photography site doesn't implement a new set of rules that caters to people who, and this is purely an example, would like a chance to compete on more purist grounds. No crop, straight-from-camera editing (or lack of editing) for instance. It can't be argued that the Expert rules are anything less than a step away from photography and towards digital art.

12/13/2006 10:19:57 PM · #104
I need to as my 1.5 cents to this ...
I think that the new ruleset is FANTASTIC...
why? not because I am a PS god or anything like that ... but because most of the stuff that I do in studio I cannot submit because they are 90% composite - (backgrounds and the such) and special techniques that would not be allowed under advanced. So I really applaud the SC for taking this evolutionary step!


12/13/2006 10:23:52 PM · #105
Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by kirbic:

not talent or experience as a photographer.

Did I write anything about talent or experience?

"Expert" rule set on a photography site implies expert *photographic* methods. However, this rule set allows for major non-photographic modifications (even though it "discourages" images of non-photographic nature, whatever that means). Calling this "Expert" on this particular site is the wrong choice of a word, IMO.


I did not misunderstand. Perhaps I wasn't clear. As karmat posted, "expert" functions as an adverb, modifying "editing." It's called expert editing since the editing techniques that differentiate it from advanced are clearly techniques that are acquired after a great deal of editing experence. Thus "expert."
You seem bent on insiting that it implies expert photographic skills as well. It toes not. It says nothing in that regard.

Message edited by author 2006-12-13 22:24:19.
12/13/2006 10:26:10 PM · #106
Originally posted by routerguy666:

It can't be argued that the Expert rules are anything less than a step away from photography and towards digital art.


I am classically trained ... (BFA Photography in 1982) and yes there is the digital art component... but the craft has indeed evolved. The fusion of classical photography and new media has happened ... ain't no going back. The perfect storm is upon us we either embrace the way things are going on become like a bunch of old school photographers. Great Glorious and very talented dinosaurs.

Message edited by author 2006-12-13 22:26:49.
12/13/2006 10:26:41 PM · #107
I think the new rules are great! It gives those who are good in Ps a chance to show their skills while still staying on track with photography. It also allows those who are not too good in PS to work on their skills and try new things. We have the same old challenges for those who wish to steer clear of the PS challenges.

I think it's a nice change. Also... think of it this way. This is DIGITAL photography challenge. Part of Digital Photography is using PS. This is just an extra bonus! :)
12/13/2006 10:29:33 PM · #108
Originally posted by routerguy666:

However it is odd that a growing, dynamic photography site doesn't implement a new set of rules that caters to people who, and this is purely an example, would like a chance to compete on more purist grounds. No crop, straight-from-camera editing (or lack of editing) for instance. It can't be argued that the Expert rules are anything less than a step away from photography and towards digital art.

You don't know everything we have in mind ...
12/13/2006 10:30:49 PM · #109
Originally posted by GeneralE:


You don't know everything we have in mind ...


Ah, THERE's a provocative statement :-)

R.
12/13/2006 10:50:28 PM · #110
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


You don't know everything we have in mind ...


Ah, THERE's a provocative statement :-)

R.


To quote from the OP:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Ultimately, we envision a variety of rule sets, ranging from nearly no editing to nearly unlimited editing, as well as rule sets designed for special-interest topics such as photojournalism
12/13/2006 11:00:25 PM · #111
Originally posted by Nuzzer:

To quote from the OP:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Ultimately, we envision a variety of rule sets, ranging from nearly no editing to nearly unlimited editing, as well as rule sets designed for special-interest topics such as photojournalism


This has been brought up many times including myself. It seems those against the expert rules (i.e. the purists) are not satisfied with co-existence but rather the complete elimination of anything other than a purist rule set. If the rules don't flow in just that direction there's a problem.
12/13/2006 11:01:48 PM · #112
Originally posted by Nuzzer:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


You don't know everything we have in mind ...


Ah, THERE's a provocative statement :-)

R.


To quote from the OP:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Ultimately, we envision a variety of rule sets, ranging from nearly no editing to nearly unlimited editing, as well as rule sets designed for special-interest topics such as photojournalism


Well, yeah... but when you take the General's comment out of context you have to admit it's provocative :-) jejeje™

R.
12/13/2006 11:43:42 PM · #113
Originally posted by kirbic:

"expert" functions as an adverb, modifying "editing." It's called expert editing since the editing techniques that differentiate it from advanced are clearly techniques that are acquired after a great deal of editing experence. Thus "expert."

Adding "editing" alone is not going to help to disambiguate the situation. Editing, applied to different crafts, means different things. Editing of a photograph is different from editing a digital painting. So, you need to add the implied (by the nature of the site) "photographic editing", not just "editing" alone. The new rule set is not about "expert photographic editing", but about "digital art editing", which is a new emerging visual art (the merits of which, or lack thereof, I hope that we can avoid discussing in this thread).

Originally posted by kirbic:

You seem bent on insiting that it implies expert photographic skills as well. It toes not. It says nothing in that regard.

Remove the word "skills". I am not talking about skills or experience here, where did you get that from? I am only talking about editing, as part of a process to produce a photograph (or a digital painting, for that matter).
12/13/2006 11:45:11 PM · #114
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Ahh semantics.

Well, let's call it "Bob" and I won't have a problem. But the currently proposed name is a confusion.
12/13/2006 11:51:02 PM · #115
Originally posted by karmat:

in the interest of a growing, dynamic site, I think it is important to allow those with this kind of interest to pursue it

It is also important not to contribute to the widely spreading confusion between photography and digital art. So, again, I agree with you, and I am not against the rule set itself. (Before I get jumped, I want to say that I have nothing against digital art.)
12/13/2006 11:51:11 PM · #116
I don't really have a problem with calling it "Expert Editing" (it's only a name), but I share, at a mild level, agenkin's dissatisfaction with the name. I assume it came into being as a natural progression from "basic" through "advanced" to "expert", but I agree that "expert" photo editing is something way different from what is allowed in this ruleset if you want to pick nits.

Had I been asked for my input, I'd have suggested "Open Editing". That seems to be more neutral.

R.
12/13/2006 11:53:02 PM · #117
but it's not open editing. there are still plenty of things that could be done that we are not allowing.

i wanted to call it "super-duper editing with rainbows and sparkles", but no one listens to me.
12/13/2006 11:57:48 PM · #118
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Had I been asked for my input, I'd have suggested "Open Editing". That seems to be more neutral.

I like "Open Editing", actually.

Originally posted by muckpond:

but it's not open editing. there are still plenty of things that could be done that we are not allowing

It's better to call it "Open Editing" and exclude a few things, than call it (implicitly) "Expert (photo) Editing", whereas it is not *photo*.
12/14/2006 12:03:50 AM · #119
ok, well, we're not going to call it "open" editing because that would be misleading. it's not. it's got restrictions.

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Ultimately, we envision a variety of rule sets, ranging from nearly no editing to nearly unlimited editing, as well as rule sets designed for special-interest topics such as photojournalism.


hints at more down the road, no?

Originally posted by agenkin:

...whereas it is not *photo*.


Originally posted by EXPERT Editing Rules:

You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.


sounds photographic to me.
12/14/2006 12:08:45 AM · #120
To me, "Open Editing" implies a no-holds barred approach to editing. It is completely open, and there is nothing that is prohibited. That does not "fit" with the rules as presented. Granted, there is alot that is allowed which hasn't been before, but it is still not a free for all.

"Basic" doesn't mean "basic photography"
"Advanced" doesn't mean "advanced photography"

Why, now, does "Expert," when used in the exact same context, suddenly need to imply something else? All of it is photography. The "one word" describes the editing that may be performed in any given challenge.

In one of your earlier posts, agenkin, you mentioned "digital art editing," when in fact, we have no idea what this will produce, or how the results will be received. I suspect, if it goes as it has in the past, the first couple of challenges will be bizarre, but then, as the new wears off, you will see a "settling in" of what is "accepted" and what is not by the voters.

12/14/2006 12:18:07 AM · #121
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, well, we're not going to call it "open" editing because that would be misleading. it's not. it's got restrictions.

I hope you don't decide this single-handedly.

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by EXPERT Editing Rules:

You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.

sounds photographic to me.

Just because it has the word "photographic" in it, does not mean it is. Can you tell me, exactly, or even roughly, what the sentence you quoted really means?

The new rule set allows use of any digital filter. It allows collages. I read it twice, and, from what I understand, as long as an image doesn't use parts of somebody else's picture, contains text or obscene contents, anything goes.
12/14/2006 12:20:42 AM · #122
Originally posted by agenkin:

ok, well, we're not going to call it "open" editing because that would be misleading. it's not. it's got restrictions.


I hope you don't decide this single-handedly.[quote]

Nah, there's whole room of us gremlins making him decide that. :)

Seriously, it was not a unilateral decision on muck's part. The whole SC really does have input into these things.

edit -- fixing them thar quotes

edit again -- stoopid code

Message edited by author 2006-12-14 00:22:41.
12/14/2006 12:21:19 AM · #123
Originally posted by karmat:


"Basic" doesn't mean "basic photography"
"Advanced" doesn't mean "advanced photography"

Why, now, does "Expert," when used in the exact same context, suddenly need to imply something else? All of it is photography. The "one word" describes the editing that may be performed in any given challenge.


This is a very good point, actually. As far as I'm concerned you just won the debate :-)

Robt.
12/14/2006 12:26:00 AM · #124
I don't really understand a lot of the nervousness and/or anxiety over these new rules:

1) You can't turn a turd into a filet mingon, no matter how you cook it. Since the rules require photos to be taken during the challenge deadlines, one still has to pocess at least decent photography skills to get an image (or more) to work with.

2) Noone is forcing anyone to use every single tool in photoshop. I. for one, will never use the Pattern Maker filter :-) If you don't want to do composites or HDR for "Sky" for example, dont. Go out and shoot a straight from the camera shot, shoot it well and score well.

3) Ultimately the fate of all photos is in the hands of the voting crowd. Not one of us know that if Art ROFLMAO enters a photo of Mothra devouring Metropolis or if I enter "It's RAining Cheese" that it will score well or not.

4) It sorta levels the playing field. I don't have a very large format printer, so I can't do the shots SCalvert has been winning with in Advanced (and even Basic) editing challenges. I can, however, take two shots and composite them in Photoshop for the exact same effect.
12/14/2006 12:31:39 AM · #125
Originally posted by karmat:

Granted, there is alot that is allowed which hasn't been before, but it is still not a free for all.

Well, maybe there is another name which is even better. I just think that "Open" is a better word than "Expert".

Originally posted by karmat:

"Basic" doesn't mean "basic photography"
"Advanced" doesn't mean "advanced photography"

Not "basic photography", but "basic photo editing". Arguably, the Basic and Advanced rule sets, contain nothing that has not been part of a normal photography workflow. The new "Expert" rule set allows creating visual elements and effects by non-photographic methods (digital filters, collages, etc.)

Originally posted by karmat:

we have no idea what this will produce, or how the results will be received. I suspect, if it goes as it has in the past, the first couple of challenges will be bizarre, but then, as the new wears off, you will see a "settling in" of what is "accepted" and what is not by the voters.

For one, giving the rule set a proper name can help the new challenges have a more predictable effect. Also, I suspect that the longer this rule set sticks around, the harder it will be to fix its name.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/21/2020 04:10:29 PM

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: 01/21/2020 04:10:29 PM EST.