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 151 - 175 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/16/2006 06:56:06 PM · #151
Originally posted by yanko:

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.

Yanko, you are quite wrong in your understanding. The point I was making was that it was wrong to juxtapose the terms photojournalist and artist; but it is important to distinguish digital painting from photography. "Digital paining" can also be an art form, although it is my opinion that, for the most part, it produces kitsch, not art.

Originally posted by yanko:

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...

Our disagreement lies in the definition of photography. Being an art photograper is very far from being a "documenter". There are lots of photographic images that are just fixations of reality: this is not art, either. But the other extreme lies in messing with a photographic image to the extent that it loses touch with reality, at which point it stops being a photograph.
12/16/2006 07:13:16 PM · #152
Originally posted by yanko:

except for your usual anti-photographic art propaganda...

Please try to actually understand what I am saying and choose your words more carefully.
12/16/2006 08:06:18 PM · #153
Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by yanko:

except for your usual anti-photographic art propaganda...

Please try to actually understand what I am saying and choose your words more carefully.


I did choose my words carefully. Perhaps you should follow that advice and stop insulting artists/photographers by calling them painters...
12/16/2006 09:24:09 PM · #154
The reason I asserted that agenkin hadn't answered my question is that I don't think he did. He did indeed give a rationale why he felt "expert" was something different, but I couldn't glean what part of the context had changed to give the "expert" moniker something more than a description of editing.

That said, I'll read it again (and again if need be), but for now, we'll drop it.

12/16/2006 09:28:10 PM · #155
Originally posted by agenkin:

[

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.)



Okay, I am assuming this is your "answer." Yet between basic/advance to expert, you start shifting the context. Editing is editing. It all has to begin with a photograph (or photographs). Creating something "non-photographic" is editing, thus "expert" describes the editing, not the photography.

I'm tired, and starting to forget the original "argument," I'll be back in a day or two to see if it is clearer.
12/16/2006 10:04:29 PM · #156
I'm really enjoying this debate and there's been alot of very good thought expressed. DPC from the start was a brilliant concept and full of posibilities. Of course over time new ideas have to emerge to help grow the site and place it in it's rightful place as a premier site of this type. I've suspected that part of the reason some premier photogs have moved on and become less visible is because of the limiting restrictions placed by even the advanced editing rule set which although liberal in true photography standards is still a bit stifling when you consider what's available as far as editing these days.
Kiwiness said something very telling. 'Then I'd be back here big time.' Tells me everything I need to know. Grow and provide for a demand OR that demand will seek satisfaction elsewhere. How many others have quietly walked away. In the end, no one is forgotten or ignored. There is just more of something for everyone. I have zero experience with the type of editing that the 'expert' rules allow for but I for one welcome anything that will help raise the bar here. And as a bonus, I'll have the chance to learn alot of new tricks from some very cool people... :)
12/16/2006 11:37:24 PM · #157
Originally posted by yanko:

I did choose my words carefully. Perhaps you should follow that advice and stop insulting artists/photographers by calling them painters...

I guess Rembrandt and Picasso should be insulted. Obviously, you don't understand what I am saying, because what *you* are saying makes no sense.
12/17/2006 12:01:18 AM · #158
Originally posted by karmat:

Okay, I am assuming this is your "answer." Yet between basic/advance to expert, you start shifting the context. Editing is editing. It all has to begin with a photograph (or photographs). Creating something "non-photographic" is editing, thus "expert" describes the editing, not the photography.

I'm tired, and starting to forget the original "argument," I'll be back in a day or two to see if it is clearer.

What I am saying is very simple. We have three words lined up to designate three rule sets: Basic, Advanced, Expert. The first two rule sets comprise, more or less, steps involved in editing photographs (to remain photographs), while the third also allows steps practiced in a different visual art (call it Digital Art, or Digital Painting, etc.). But, in the context of this site, being "a digital *photography* contest", it looks as though the third word also refers to a set of editing rules, practiced in photography, which is wrong. Expert (in its commonly used sense) steps in photo editing do *not* involve applying, say, an "Impressionist" filter in photo-shop: this method is no longer photography.

You say "editing is editing", and as true as it sounds, it is confusing. Editing (in its *practical* meaning) refers to one thing in photography, an entirely different thing in, say, music recording, yet another thing in writing; and, also, another thing, in Digital Art (or what shall we call it).

Digital Art can (and usually has) a photograph (or photographs) as raw material; this does not make it photography, though, it's still another trade.
12/17/2006 12:14:10 AM · #159
Originally posted by agenkin:

Digital Art can (and usually has) a photograph (or photographs) as raw material; this does not make it photography, though, it's still another trade.


So what exactly is digital art? Would taking a photo of trees and then making them purple and blue in photoshop qualify as digital art?

Message edited by author 2006-12-17 00:14:31.
12/17/2006 12:51:48 AM · #160
Originally posted by agenkin:


What I am saying is very simple. We have three words lined up to designate three rule sets: Basic, Advanced, Expert. The first two rule sets comprise, more or less, steps involved in editing photographs (to remain photographs), while the third also allows steps practiced in a different visual art (call it Digital Art, or Digital Painting, etc.). But, in the context of this site, being "a digital *photography* contest", it looks as though the third word also refers to a set of editing rules, practiced in photography, which is wrong. Expert (in its commonly used sense) steps in photo editing do *not* involve applying, say, an "Impressionist" filter in photo-shop: this method is no longer photography.

You say "editing is editing", and as true as it sounds, it is confusing. Editing (in its *practical* meaning) refers to one thing in photography, an entirely different thing in, say, music recording, yet another thing in writing; and, also, another thing, in Digital Art (or what shall we call it).

Digital Art can (and usually has) a photograph (or photographs) as raw material; this does not make it photography, though, it's still another trade.


But what it seems (to me) that you are saying is that "digital art" does not occur in basic or advanced. Many of the "things" being done (or will be done) in expert may very well be "photographic" in nature, or used in *photography.*

And just because it is "legal" in basic or advanced does not mean that it will not look like a filter or someother "digital art" thing has been done to make it look like a "non photograph."

(I am going to use one of GeneralE's photographs because it comes to mind first [actually, i was looking for his question mark picture, but he has a lot of entries to look through).

This picture was done under "classic" editing (very much akin to today's basic).

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/111/thumb/26417.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/111/thumb/26417.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

My point? "Expert editing" is just another level of editing allowed. Yes, it allows filters and such, but that is just a logical "branch" of modern photography, I think. The first two do NOT necessarily guarantee that photographs "remain photograph." Likewise, expert editing does not guarantee that everything entered is going to be digi-art. I haven't seen all of the sky entries, but many of them still look like photographs.

No matter how you cut it, there are three levels of editing, and "expert" simply designates the highest, most accomplished post processing skills level at this point.

And as far as editing is editing, yes it means something else in any genre. *Editing* can transform a photograph into digital art, but it doesn't have to be "edited by" dpc's "expert" ruleset to allow that.

If you care to continue beating this dead horse with me, that is fine. I am slowly grasping where you are coming from. I still think you are wrong, but at least I know why I think you are wrong. :)

(Hold on, let me get the right thumb number, dang dyslexia)

Message edited by author 2006-12-17 00:54:49.
12/17/2006 02:13:44 AM · #161
Originally posted by karmat:

But what it seems (to me) that you are saying is that "digital art" does not occur in basic or advanced. Many of the "things" being done (or will be done) in expert may very well be "photographic" in nature, or used in *photography.*

Originally posted by yanko:

So what exactly is digital art? Would taking a photo of trees and then making them purple and blue in photoshop qualify as digital art?

Drawing a line between photography and digital art is a technical question, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Would you consider an extremely realistic oil painting a photograph? What if it was drawn in Photoshop? Still no, right?

Now, suppose that the above oil painting was painted on top of a real photograph, but covers the entire surface of the photograph. Is the result still a photograph? What if Photoshop was used instead of oil?

Method does matter. We call photography (for now, just a technical term) a method of obtaining an image through an optical lens on a light-sensitive surface. Editing operations in Basic and Advanced are intended only to aid in this process, to fix any technical shortcomings of a photographic method (fix sharpness, remove aberrations, crop, etc.).

The Expert editing operations allow for the equivalent of painting on top of an existing photograph. This method is non-photographic in nature. The editing steps in Basic and Advanced, correctly, are not guarantees that only photographic methods are used, and can be abused to do "paint" additional elements into a photograph (abusing USM or blur, for example). But such abuses are illegal and should result in a disqualifications.
12/30/2006 08:49:05 PM · #162
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by agenkin:


What I am saying is very simple. We have three words lined up to designate three rule sets: Basic, Advanced, Expert. The first two rule sets comprise, more or less, steps involved in editing photographs (to remain photographs), while the third also allows steps practiced in a different visual art (call it Digital Art, or Digital Painting, etc.). But, in the context of this site, being "a digital *photography* contest", it looks as though the third word also refers to a set of editing rules, practiced in photography, which is wrong. Expert (in its commonly used sense) steps in photo editing do *not* involve applying, say, an "Impressionist" filter in photo-shop: this method is no longer photography.

You say "editing is editing", and as true as it sounds, it is confusing. Editing (in its *practical* meaning) refers to one thing in photography, an entirely different thing in, say, music recording, yet another thing in writing; and, also, another thing, in Digital Art (or what shall we call it).

Digital Art can (and usually has) a photograph (or photographs) as raw material; this does not make it photography, though, it's still another trade.


But what it seems (to me) that you are saying is that "digital art" does not occur in basic or advanced. Many of the "things" being done (or will be done) in expert may very well be "photographic" in nature, or used in *photography.*

And just because it is "legal" in basic or advanced does not mean that it will not look like a filter or someother "digital art" thing has been done to make it look like a "non photograph."

(I am going to use one of GeneralE's photographs because it comes to mind first [actually, i was looking for his question mark picture, but he has a lot of entries to look through).

This picture was done under "classic" editing (very much akin to today's basic).

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/111/thumb/26417.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/111/thumb/26417.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

My point? "Expert editing" is just another level of editing allowed. Yes, it allows filters and such, but that is just a logical "branch" of modern photography, I think. The first two do NOT necessarily guarantee that photographs "remain photograph." Likewise, expert editing does not guarantee that everything entered is going to be digi-art. I haven't seen all of the sky entries, but many of them still look like photographs.

No matter how you cut it, there are three levels of editing, and "expert" simply designates the highest, most accomplished post processing skills level at this point.

And as far as editing is editing, yes it means something else in any genre. *Editing* can transform a photograph into digital art, but it doesn't have to be "edited by" dpc's "expert" ruleset to allow that.

If you care to continue beating this dead horse with me, that is fine. I am slowly grasping where you are coming from. I still think you are wrong, but at least I know why I think you are wrong. :)

(Hold on, let me get the right thumb number, dang dyslexia)


Yes a dead horse it is - because there is no answer. I would be among those who believe that the practice of photographic arts involves numerous applications and technique depending on decisions of the maker of an image. A perceived high level of accomphishment can be seen and obtained with or without making any outside critical or arbitrary distinction regarding editing or process. High quality can be seen in challenges of any category of edit "level" dpc is inclined to impose. I doubt if one is higher or better than another.

Message edited by author 2006-12-30 21:08:28.
12/30/2006 09:03:08 PM · #163
Originally posted by karmat:

(I am going to use one of GeneralE's photographs because it comes to mind first [actually, i was looking for his question mark picture, but he has a lot of entries to look through).

This picture was done under "classic" editing (very much akin to today's basic).

Here you go ...

Basically, I made this ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/507/thumb/346505.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/507/thumb/346505.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' from this ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/349762.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/349762.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' using nothing but Curves and UnSharp Mask,
much the same as I made this ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/111/thumb/26417.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/111/thumb/26417.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' from this ' . substr('//www.pbase.com/image/18360738/small.jpg', strrpos('//www.pbase.com/image/18360738/small.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' a very long time ago.
12/30/2006 09:11:16 PM · #164
Well I don't get it.

(quoted from the rules section)

Your submission must be:
* taken with a digital camera that records EXIF data.
* composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline, based on the Current Server Time (US Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) displayed at the bottom of every page on this site.

So we have to stay within the the rules, yet it's ok not to and hand-draw in things now and consider it photographic in nature?
It brought me no joy to request a DQ on a ribbon-winning shot, but it was plain & clear, per the site's rules that it had to come from a photograph.

I'm still lost.
Either we ALL have the same rules to follow or not.
I'm not in attack mode, just playing the Devil's Advocate.


12/30/2006 09:43:34 PM · #165
Originally posted by BradP:

Well I don't get it.

(quoted from the rules section)

Your submission must be:
* taken with a digital camera that records EXIF data.
* composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline, based on the Current Server Time (US Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) displayed at the bottom of every page on this site.

So we have to stay within the the rules, yet it's ok not to and hand-draw in things now and consider it photographic in nature?
It brought me no joy to request a DQ on a ribbon-winning shot, but it was plain & clear, per the site's rules that it had to come from a photograph.

I'm still lost.
Either we ALL have the same rules to follow or not.
I'm not in attack mode, just playing the Devil's Advocate.


I know the answer that will be given to this at this point, but I think it is worth it to talk about this, for the future.

What is the difference between drawing in something and pasting in clip-art? Is it OK to draw something in, something that doesn't exist in the original?
12/30/2006 09:47:07 PM · #166
Originally posted by ursula:


What is the difference between drawing in something and pasting in clip-art? Is it OK to draw something in, something that doesn't exist in the original?


Presumably adding clipart still keeps the final image 'composed only from photographs' per the rules. Drawing something in would not.
12/30/2006 09:54:20 PM · #167
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by ursula:


What is the difference between drawing in something and pasting in clip-art? Is it OK to draw something in, something that doesn't exist in the original?


Presumably adding clipart still keeps the final image 'composed only from photographs' per the rules. Drawing something in would not.


Are you saying that by your interpretation, adding clipart is OK, but drawing something in is not? I thought both were not OK.
12/30/2006 09:57:03 PM · #168
As I had responded to in BradP's ticket, we ruled that it is not out of bounds in Expert Rules to hand-draw small elements, such as the birds in Bear's shot from "Sky." This has apparently confused many, who thought that this hand-drawing was strictly prrohibited. In Expert, it is currently not prohibited, but is on the borderline and should be used with extreme care.
The logic behind this ruling is this: we do allow use of other source data that is outside the "digital camera with EXIF" and challenge date rules, that source data being textures. This much is true even in Advanced. Therefore the ruling on hand-drawn elements does not break any new ground in this respect. The probihition on clip art in Expert is only meant to close the loophole through which someone could submit an image made up entirely or substantially of out-of-date, created artwork.
I hope this explanation clarifies why this ruling was made the way it was. Time will tell whether this ruling stands or is modified. "Bear" in mind that the Expert rules are in trial, and not cast in concrete.
12/30/2006 09:58:04 PM · #169
"composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline"

If you are pasting in a bunch of junk concocted from stuff you shot that week, then per the rules it is legal. If you are asking do I think it is ok to download some bitmap of a star and paste it into your photo, no of course not.
12/30/2006 10:02:23 PM · #170
So this bit of the expert editing rules:

You may not: add graphics ... to your entry ... during editing.

can be ignored now?

I'm off to buy a tablet.

Message edited by author 2006-12-30 22:15:24.
12/30/2006 10:17:19 PM · #171
For what it's worth, I submitted a ticket before entering that image, and I was told that what I wanted to do was OK. I find this controversy mildly amusing, because I don't see HOW you can differentiate between legal and not-legal darkenings in the expert rules.

Think about it: if you are taking the position that it's NOT ok to "burn a section of sky black in the shape of a bird", then where are you going to draw the line? Can I burn a perfect circle for an eclipse of the sun shot? Do we actually have people debating this "expert" rule set and trying to place limits on how we can use selections and the burn tool? How ironic would that be?

I mean, I guarantee you we have (or will have) people using filters to create shafts of light illuminating key objects in their images, and this will be OK under expert editing. It has to be, right? or what is being gained here? So why isn't it OK to hand-burn pieces of sky and "create" birds?

R.
12/30/2006 10:18:40 PM · #172
Originally posted by kirbic:

As I had responded to in BradP's ticket, we ruled that it is not out of bounds in Expert Rules to hand-draw small elements, such as the birds in Bear's shot from "Sky." This has apparently confused many, who thought that this hand-drawing was strictly prrohibited. In Expert, it is currently not prohibited, but is on the borderline and should be used with extreme care.
The logic behind this ruling is this: we do allow use of other source data that is outside the "digital camera with EXIF" and challenge date rules, that source data being textures. This much is true even in Advanced. Therefore the ruling on hand-drawn elements does not break any new ground in this respect. The probihition on clip art in Expert is only meant to close the loophole through which someone could submit an image made up entirely or substantially of out-of-date, created artwork.
I hope this explanation clarifies why this ruling was made the way it was. Time will tell whether this ruling stands or is modified. "Bear" in mind that the Expert rules are in trial, and not cast in concrete.


Even bearing in mind that expert rules are being used on a trial basis, this seems a bit like an answer made up on the fly ;-)
12/30/2006 10:21:07 PM · #173
Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by kirbic:

As I had responded to in BradP's ticket, we ruled that it is not out of bounds in Expert Rules to hand-draw small elements, such as the birds in Bear's shot from "Sky." This has apparently confused many, who thought that this hand-drawing was strictly prrohibited. In Expert, it is currently not prohibited, but is on the borderline and should be used with extreme care.
The logic behind this ruling is this: we do allow use of other source data that is outside the "digital camera with EXIF" and challenge date rules, that source data being textures. This much is true even in Advanced. Therefore the ruling on hand-drawn elements does not break any new ground in this respect. The probihition on clip art in Expert is only meant to close the loophole through which someone could submit an image made up entirely or substantially of out-of-date, created artwork.
I hope this explanation clarifies why this ruling was made the way it was. Time will tell whether this ruling stands or is modified. "Bear" in mind that the Expert rules are in trial, and not cast in concrete.


Even bearing in mind that expert rules are being used on a trial basis, this seems a bit like an answer made up on the fly ;-)


Ach! This reply is for the birds! ;-)
12/30/2006 10:22:48 PM · #174
Originally posted by BradP:


It brought me no joy to request a DQ on a ribbon-winning shot, but it was plain & clear, per the site's rules that it had to come from a photograph.

Either we ALL have the same rules to follow or not.
I'm not in attack mode, just playing the Devil's Advocate.

I just realized (duh me) that if someone asked to draw their own clipart ahead of time, and was given the ok by the SC majority, then by no means should the member submitting the image be penalized in any way.
Sorry Robert - it wasn't personal, I just have no idea how that could be allowed, as it really is a major element in your shot and can only wonder if it would have done as well without the birds...

12/30/2006 10:24:35 PM · #175
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

For what it's worth, I submitted a ticket before entering that image, and I was told that what I wanted to do was OK. I find this controversy mildly amusing, because I don't see HOW you can differentiate between legal and not-legal darkenings in the expert rules.

Think about it: if you are taking the position that it's NOT ok to "burn a section of sky black in the shape of a bird", then where are you going to draw the line? Can I burn a perfect circle for an eclipse of the sun shot? Do we actually have people debating this "expert" rule set and trying to place limits on how we can use selections and the burn tool? How ironic would that be?

I mean, I guarantee you we have (or will have) people using filters to create shafts of light illuminating key objects in their images, and this will be OK under expert editing. It has to be, right? or what is being gained here? So why isn't it OK to hand-burn pieces of sky and "create" birds?

R.


Mainly because drawing in a bird or two is creating something that didn't even come close to exist in the original scene. I was under the impression that even in expert editing that's not allowed - seemingly I was wrong.

Hey, maybe we'll get to the point where if you don't put in shafts of light to illuminate a key object, or add beautiful birds to your scene, you'll get the comment that your image is not advanced enough. :)
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 02/24/2020 04:16:43 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: 02/24/2020 04:16:43 PM EST.