| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2006 01:37:21 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
The new "Expert" rule set allows creating visual elements and effects by non-photographic methods (digital filters, collages, etc.)
|
Many of which could be done with traditional darkroom skills, albeit much more difficult and time consuming. Compositing was done LONG before Photoshop was ever dreamed of. Posterization was done long before PS. Not much is new here, it's just that more have access to it.
And anyway, you are still going to get hammered if your photo doesn't look at all like a photo.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2006 04:14:38 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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 :-) |
I second that.
This is just so typical. Whenever something new and site-improving is introduced to DPC there always seems to be arguments over the smallest of details. It had to happen on this issue as well, but an argument over the name of a rule set makes me shake my head. For me, the name is adequate, it is the rules and result that is important. I am sure that you weren't as concerned when you first learned that the name they gave to a sausage in a roll was a "hot dog". Now that is an inadequate name. |
|
|
|
12/14/2006 07:56:43 AM · #128 |
we we sure as hell couldn't have rightly called it a sausage... ;}
Originally posted by kiwiness:
I am sure that you weren't as concerned when you first learned that the name they gave to a sausage in a roll was a "hot dog". Now that is an inadequate name. |
|
|
|
|
12/14/2006 08:55:33 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by karmat:
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. |
and you will see me continuing to be bizarre... :D
|
|
|
|
12/14/2006 10:50:12 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by soup:
we we sure as hell couldn't have rightly called it a sausage... ;}
Originally posted by kiwiness:
I am sure that you weren't as concerned when you first learned that the name they gave to a sausage in a roll was a "hot dog". Now that is an inadequate name. |
|
pig in a blanket. *shakes head sadly*
|
|
|
|
12/14/2006 01:21:31 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by soup:
we we sure as hell couldn't have rightly called it a sausage... ;}
Originally posted by kiwiness:
I am sure that you weren't as concerned when you first learned that the name they gave to a sausage in a roll was a "hot dog". Now that is an inadequate name. |
|
pig in a blanket. *shakes head sadly* |
I thought it was pig innards in a bowel with knots on the ends.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2006 01:24:20 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I thought it was pig innards in a bowel with knots on the ends. |
Quoting Homer Simpson - "Yummmmmm... Pig innards in a bowel"
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 01:03:02 PM · #133 |
I have a couple of questions that came to mind...
-In expert advanced challenges, in case of a validation, if you make a composite will you have to upload all the original pictures from where you took the parts of your submission?
- Being an almost "anything goes" and as there are not editing limitations as far as you use your own pictures, do we still need to write all the editing steps? ..
I ask because right now the image I have in "sky" is a composite, and it took me hours of work in every image that I used, it would be hard to explain what I did in case of a validation request. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 02:32:39 PM · #134 |
Thank you, powers-that-be, for implementing this. As a photographic omnivore, I would love to see these expert challenges pop up every once in a while and be balanced by 'straight from the camera' challenges... every once in a while. And those who prefer not to sample the entire smorgasbord could simply stick to the basic and advanced roast beef.
 |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 03:07:42 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Thank you, powers-that-be, for implementing this. As a photographic omnivore, I would love to see these expert challenges pop up every once in a while and be balanced by 'straight from the camera' challenges... every once in a while. And those who prefer not to sample the entire smorgasbord could simply stick to the basic and advanced roast beef.
|
what she said... I enjoy the extremes!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2006 03:14:48 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Thank you, powers-that-be, for implementing this. As a photographic omnivore, I would love to see these expert challenges pop up every once in a while and be balanced by 'straight from the camera' challenges... every once in a while. And those who prefer not to sample the entire smorgasbord could simply stick to the basic and advanced roast beef.
|
and occasionally a vegetarian version. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 04:58:52 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
I would love to see these expert challenges pop up every once in a while and be balanced by 'straight from the camera' challenges... |
Since this idea comes up for the Nth time, I would like to point out that "straight from the camera" is *not* the opposite for the newly annouced "Expert" editing. The opposite is an any all-photographic challenge, be it governed by Basic or Advanced.
This is exactly the sort of confusion, created by the "Expert" misnomer, that I was talking about! |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 05:07:46 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by skewsme:
I would love to see these expert challenges pop up every once in a while and be balanced by 'straight from the camera' challenges... |
Since this idea comes up for the Nth time, I would like to point out that "straight from the camera" is *not* the opposite for the newly annouced "Expert" editing. The opposite is an any all-photographic challenge, be it governed by Basic or Advanced.
This is exactly the sort of confusion, created by the "Expert" misnomer, that I was talking about! |
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your clarification, agenkin. I do see these two extremes as diametrically opposed - one allows zero post processing and the other allows the maximal amount available on the site. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 05:15:31 PM · #139 |
Was there ever a decision on validation of the images used ?
I have a few ideas that would be ~30 images - would I need to upload the ~250Mb worth of files for validation ?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 08:36:16 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Was there ever a decision on validation of the images used ?
I have a few ideas that would be ~30 images - would I need to upload the ~250Mb worth of files for validation ? |
Anyone on the SC able to respond to this ?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 09:30:26 AM · #141 |
| Right now, the system still just allows one upload at atime. Langdon is working on a workaround for that though. |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 09:33:09 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by skewsme:
I would love to see these expert challenges pop up every once in a while and be balanced by 'straight from the camera' challenges... |
Since this idea comes up for the Nth time, I would like to point out that "straight from the camera" is *not* the opposite for the newly annouced "Expert" editing. The opposite is an any all-photographic challenge, be it governed by Basic or Advanced.
This is exactly the sort of confusion, created by the "Expert" misnomer, that I was talking about! |
To you. To most everybody else, it seems, "straight from the camera" is the opposite because it is referring to the editing (straight from the camera involves no editing, whereas expert refers to the editing not the level of photography, regardless of what you want to choose to believe.
You still have not answered me about one of my earlier posts.
"Basic" in Basic editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
"Advanced" in Advanced editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
So why, now, does "Expert" in Expert editing, when used in the EXACT same context suddenly mean something different to you. |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 01:54:12 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by karmat:
You still have not answered me about one of my earlier posts.
"Basic" in Basic editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
"Advanced" in Advanced editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
So why, now, does "Expert" in Expert editing, when used in the EXACT same context suddenly mean something different to you. |
I have. Please see above. |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 02:07:11 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by karmat:
You still have not answered me about one of my earlier posts.
"Basic" in Basic editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
"Advanced" in Advanced editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
So why, now, does "Expert" in Expert editing, when used in the EXACT same context suddenly mean something different to you. |
I have. Please see above. |
Umm, there was no answer to that question above except for your usual anti-photographic art propaganda...
Message edited by author 2006-12-16 14:07:40.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 02:44:47 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by karmat:
You still have not answered me about one of my earlier posts.
"Basic" in Basic editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
"Advanced" in Advanced editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
So why, now, does "Expert" in Expert editing, when used in the EXACT same context suddenly mean something different to you. |
I have. Please see above. |
Umm, there was no answer to that question above except for your usual anti-photographic art propaganda... |
He actually did answer the question. If I can paraphrase without going back to check (how's my memory?), he pointed out that "basic" and "advanced" editing both refer to purely "photographic" editing from his POV, whereas the "expert" editing ruleset includes aspects he does not consider to be photographic editing, but instead incorporates what he thinks of as "digital art". It's his contention that "expert" photographic editing might include (my example, not his, but I think this is right) such things as HDRI imaging from multiple exposures of the exact same scene, and to lump this in the same category as creating fantasy images from unrelated exposures (or by extreme distortions of single exposures) is a whole different ball of wax.
I'm not particularly bothered by this, so the above is not my opinion, but I do believe he did answer the question anyway.
I do think there's an element of sense in what he's talking about, though. Speaking for myself, I find it a little discomforting that in order to use a purely photographic technique like HDRI imaging I have to go into competition head-to-head with fantasy images, but that's the way it is right now and I'm not complaining about it.
I do believe that HDRI imaging should be specifically permitted int he advanced ruleset. As it stands now, we have to do "quasi-HDRI" if we want to explore extreme tonal ranges, making all our layers from a single exposure, and this is a weak substitute for the real thing. However, I've also come to realize that for a lot of what I do "true" HDRI imaging does have its liabilities. Specifically, the multiple-exposure sandwiching produces some weird results with waves, blowing foliage, clouds, anything that's moving rapidly through the frame during the period that elapses as I capture the variant exposures.
It's a whole weird new world for me :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2006-12-16 14:46:31.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 03:15:30 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by karmat:
You still have not answered me about one of my earlier posts.
"Basic" in Basic editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
"Advanced" in Advanced editing refers to the level of editing allowed.
So why, now, does "Expert" in Expert editing, when used in the EXACT same context suddenly mean something different to you. |
I have. Please see above. |
Umm, there was no answer to that question above except for your usual anti-photographic art propaganda... |
He actually did answer the question. If I can paraphrase without going back to check (how's my memory?), he pointed out that "basic" and "advanced" editing both refer to purely "photographic" editing from his POV, whereas the "expert" editing ruleset includes aspects he does not consider to be photographic editing, but instead incorporates what he thinks of as "digital art". It's his contention that "expert" photographic editing might include (my example, not his, but I think this is right) such things as HDRI imaging from multiple exposures of the exact same scene, and to lump this in the same category as creating fantasy images from unrelated exposures (or by extreme distortions of single exposures) is a whole different ball of wax.
I'm not particularly bothered by this, so the above is not my opinion, but I do believe he did answer the question anyway.
I do think there's an element of sense in what he's talking about, though. Speaking for myself, I find it a little discomforting that in order to use a purely photographic technique like HDRI imaging I have to go into competition head-to-head with fantasy images, but that's the way it is right now and I'm not complaining about it.
I do believe that HDRI imaging should be specifically permitted int he advanced ruleset. As it stands now, we have to do "quasi-HDRI" if we want to explore extreme tonal ranges, making all our layers from a single exposure, and this is a weak substitute for the real thing. However, I've also come to realize that for a lot of what I do "true" HDRI imaging does have its liabilities. Specifically, the multiple-exposure sandwiching produces some weird results with waves, blowing foliage, clouds, anything that's moving rapidly through the frame during the period that elapses as I capture the variant exposures.
It's a whole weird new world for me :-)
R. |
In the time I have been on this site people have complained that many entries including ribbon winning entries was photographic/digital art and that's long before the expert rules was even a gleam in the Admins/SC's eyes. All three rule sets allow for varying degrees of photographic art. Nothing has changed in that regard except for some people's unfounded perceptions of them. The fact that the SC's have stated more than once how the rule set got it's name should be enough yet the nitpicking continues. The reason why the nitpicking continues is some people will take every opportunity to try and quash that one aspect of photography they don't like.
Btw, in another thread, agenkin apparently had an issue with the term "artist" feeling the need to argue that they are actually a "digital painter" instead. Here is the quote:
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by wavelength:
photojournalist or artist, your choice. |
Wrong options. Photographer or a digital painter. You choose. |
It's that constant slap in the face that is so prevalent with those that despise photographic art on this site. Perhaps we should throw out the term "photographer" altogether and just refer to people as either a painter or a documenter. You choose...
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 03:26:08 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The reason why the nitpicking continues is some people will take every opportunity to try and quash that one aspect of photography they don't like.
|
I agree, it's frustrating.
The rules are written to be practical and enforceable, and allow a certain degree of artistic flexibility. The voting system provides you, the voter, with an opportunity to provide the photographer with your opinion as to how well their entry comports with the goals and spirit of DPC as you see them.
Why would you want more complicated rules designed to censor your opportunity to give your opinion?
Message edited by author 2006-12-16 15:26:58. |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 04:03:02 PM · #148 |
Langdon, SC ....this idea is awesome! I'd love to see challenges like this happening once a month or so .....gets us outside the box, allows us to try different, innovative ideas. Doesn't detract/dilute the purpose of the site, it enhances it IMO. The basic and advanced editing challenges are still there, this is a creative bonus.
Thank you for keeping dpc such a vital community!
edited to add...nope, didn't enter this time, but I will the next one.
Message edited by author 2006-12-16 16:03:56. |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 04:48:08 PM · #149 |
Yanko,
we're in complete agreement. I was just pointing out that Agenkin DID answer the question, which he's been accused of not doing. And I do feel that HDRI should be allowed in Advanced Editing, although I can understand some of the pitfalls of doing so. I'm not worried about it.
I love the new expert ruleset and I enjoyed the heck out of voting the challenge.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 05:10:57 PM · #150 |
I would like to point out a very important, but so far unstated, reason why we will not use "Open" as a name for the Expert Rules.
As it stands now, the weekly challenges open to all Registered Users are referred to as Open Challenges. Those challenges run under the Basic Rules. Use of "Open" in the name of a rule set would likely create confusion, leading some users to believe that the Open Editing Rules applied to the Open Challenges. This would be of particular concern for our many users who do not speak English as a first language.
Second, this rule set is not the free-for-all that the term "Open" would imply. This rule set is designed to allow more flexibility in the processing of photographs, but encourages the voters to rein in the photographer when they feel the photographer has gone too far. This places practical limits at least on photographers who wish to score well.
Third, as noted previously, the Expert rules are only the first in a wide range of rule sets we have planned. One could easily conceive that we might create a rule set that removes even the few editing limits still present in Expert, such as the text rule, and the admonition to keep entries photographic in nature. While such a rule set would probably never become a part of "mainstream" DPChallenge, it would certainly create confusion to have a rule set that was "more open than Open."
For these reasons, we do not intend to change the name of the Expert Editing rules.
~Terry
|
|
