|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2007 10:50:34 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Why do we have two basic challenges? To both offer a choice of subjects and to cut down on the numbers of entries in each challenge. Not much different than what I am suggesting. |
But the Exclusive Open Challenges offer members a choice of two different topics using the same editing rules. You're proposing that members should have to choose between two different sets of rules, which is a different beast altogether. Especially when you consider that the Advanced Members Challenges are weekly, whereas the Expert Challenges are occasional.
R. |
Well for now, the expert challenges are experimental. Does that mean they will be occasional? weekly? or they will go away?
Just attempting a compromise, you don't have to agree.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 22:51:12. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 12:17:11 PM · #102 |
There's some beautiful, painterly images in some of the expert rules challenges. What is to stop someone with sufficient skill with a tablet shooting a white frame in the challenge period and painting it all in photoshop ?
Is that legal ? Is the hope the voters would decide ? I don't think this has happened yet, but with Bear's painted birds winning, I'm assuming its a valid way to go ?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 12:24:32 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is that legal ? Is the hope the voters would decide ? I don't think this has happened yet, but with Bear's painted birds winning, I'm assuming its a valid way to go ? |
I haven't gone back to check for exact wording, but SC early-on opined that the birds were OK because they were such a small portion of the overall image, which was clearly photographic. One gets the sense that images which are majorly created by painting will not be allowed. That's consistent, as an opinion, with what the rules say.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:03:36 AM · #104 |
Ya know, I'm neither an accomplished photographer, nor a computer whiz.
What I have found since going from a good 35mm camera to a DSLR and CS2 is that for the first time ever, I have a much better shot at not losing that rare thing that happens when the image in my mind's eye matches the image through the viewfinder and onto a piece of photo paper.
I get what *I* want from digital photography and lose so much less to the vagaries of my own limitations or even that what was there wasn't the same thing as what I saw.
Terry's point about the voters deciding what's acceptable and what's not is a realistic concept and it does seem to hold out for the talent, regardless of how it's achieved.
The whole technology versus tradition is just an example of a complete lack of open-mindedness because each camp could learn from the other if they'd get their head out of the sand and realize that there is no right answer here.....just personal preferences and techniques.
One thing that amused me was the mention of the weird little world thingies.....I was fascinated with the first one I saw, thought it was an ineresting and odd technique, and now I don't even see them 'cause it's not my thing. But as I studied that first one, I was fascinated by the technical ability that it took and the creative mind that thought of it in the first place.
I like it that there are such strong talents in both camps.....the techies and the traditionalists, 'cause I get so much from each.
I do have one rhetorical question.....the D in DP Challenge *IS* for Digital, isn't it?
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 01:04:54.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:23:57 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is that legal ? Is the hope the voters would decide ? I don't think this has happened yet, but with Bear's painted birds winning, I'm assuming its a valid way to go ? |
I haven't gone back to check for exact wording, but SC early-on opined that the birds were OK because they were such a small portion of the overall image, which was clearly photographic. One gets the sense that images which are majorly created by painting will not be allowed. That's consistent, as an opinion, with what the rules say.
R. |
I can't wait for that first photo realistic 3d rendering entered in the challenge. Would having a 3d rendered car be ok if it's not the main subject? I think it would be much better to simply have wording in the rules that state you can't draw anything except to create textures. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:47:44 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I can't wait for that first photo realistic 3d rendering entered in the challenge. Would having a 3d rendered car be ok if it's not the main subject? I think it would be much better to simply have wording in the rules that state you can't draw anything except to create textures. |
That's fine, but what is "draw"? One of the oft-mentioned examples of what "expert" would be good for is the creation of rays of light illuminating portions of a scene. One can make them by "drawing" with the dodge tool, or there are filters that create them. Ditto for "starbursts" around specular light sources. And an infinite number of other possibilities.
What I worry about happening is a mindset where if an effect can be generated with a fliter or a plugin in PS, it's OK; but if you "draw it by hand" it is not.
And there's a whole other level as well. I can photograph a landscape, I can photograph myself. I can "draw" a selection around myself and paste myself into the landscape. This is absolutely kosher. Not only that, I can draw the selection only around a portion of myself and paste THAT in.
So what is to keep me from drawing a selection around a portion of myself in the shape of a bird and then pasting THAT, and then burning the pasted layer into blackness? And if THIS is OK, why on earth can't I just draw the selection on my image and be done with it? Note that I am NOT arguing "for the validity of" my entry (it's water over the dam now) but just using it as an example because it is something I did and I can explain the thought processes that got me there. I don't see how, in expert editing, you can regulate the acceptable perimeters of selections effectively, nor do I see how you can effectively limit how much the selected areas are themselves manipulated; the very idea seems absurd in the context of the ruleset.
I saw (and see) the proscription against clip art and graphics as being put in place to make illegal the importation of art created outside of photo editing programs and/or created by others. I didn't see it (and don't see it) as placing restrictions on what you can do within the photo editing program.
IMO we're perhaps working too hard in this thread to try to limit what can be done with expert editing, while I think the correct approach is to make it basically as open to new ideas as we can.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 04:52:24 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I can't wait for that first photo realistic 3d rendering entered in the challenge. Would having a 3d rendered car be ok if it's not the main subject? I think it would be much better to simply have wording in the rules that state you can't draw anything except to create textures. |
That's fine, but what is "draw"? One of the oft-mentioned examples of what "expert" would be good for is the creation of rays of light illuminating portions of a scene. One can make them by "drawing" with the dodge tool, or there are filters that create them. Ditto for "starbursts" around specular light sources. And an infinite number of other possibilities.
What I worry about happening is a mindset where if an effect can be generated with a fliter or a plugin in PS, it's OK; but if you "draw it by hand" it is not.
And there's a whole other level as well. I can photograph a landscape, I can photograph myself. I can "draw" a selection around myself and paste myself into the landscape. This is absolutely kosher. Not only that, I can draw the selection only around a portion of myself and paste THAT in.
So what is to keep me from drawing a selection around a portion of myself in the shape of a bird and then pasting THAT, and then burning the pasted layer into blackness? And if THIS is OK, why on earth can't I just draw the selection on my image and be done with it? Note that I am NOT arguing "for the validity of" my entry (it's water over the dam now) but just using it as an example because it is something I did and I can explain the thought processes that got me there. I don't see how, in expert editing, you can regulate the acceptable perimeters of selections effectively, nor do I see how you can effectively limit how much the selected areas are themselves manipulated; the very idea seems absurd in the context of the ruleset.
I saw (and see) the proscription against clip art and graphics as being put in place to make illegal the importation of art created outside of photo editing programs and/or created by others. I didn't see it (and don't see it) as placing restrictions on what you can do within the photo editing program.
IMO we're perhaps working too hard in this thread to try to limit what can be done with expert editing, while I think the correct approach is to make it basically as open to new ideas as we can.
R. |
AMEN! |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 09:50:58 PM  |
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: 04/24/2024 09:50:58 PM EDT.
|
