| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2003 03:24:59 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yes - this hits the nail right on the head - it isn't just 'free editing' that would fix everything- that's why the current 'totally open no rules' challenges are missing the point. |
But isn't that what you said you wanted above, no rules? So if 'no rules' is missing the point, what is the point? |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:26:17 PM · #152 |
| methos, I'm not sure that I would agree to adding elements like trees and such, but removing minor distractions like the things on the beach, or airplanes, dust spots, etc. as long as it does not change the original intent of the image (you don't end up with a whole new image that looks nothing like the original) I think should be allowed. There are enough pros here already that do this everyday at their jobs and I'm sure some do it here also already, if it's done right no one would ever know anyway it's just a matter of being honest. In this day and age a computer is as much a part of photography as the camera itself. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:27:20 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you ever see the show about the making of the Discovery Channel show Walking With Dinosaurs you'll see a scene very like your redwoods, where they not only add in the sun rays, but then selectively block them as a T rex walks by. It's pretty cool to watch them alter the image(s) dynamically.
So how did you add the rays? I have some recent images which include them, but I'd like to make them better or augment them realistically.
|
I just painted them in on a layer mask. |
Thanks -- very nice job. Only, it's because I can't paint that I use a computer in the first place ... |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:27:25 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yes - this hits the nail right on the head - it isn't just 'free editing' that would fix everything- that's why the current 'totally open no rules' challenges are missing the point. |
But isn't that what you said you wanted above, no rules? So if 'no rules' is missing the point, what is the point? |
Nope. Absolutely not.
The point is, its not about the tools. Arguing about the methods used is pointless, hence an open editing 'solution' is entirely missing the point.
This circular discussion was a large part of why I resolved to give up arguing about this. I wish I'd kept that particular resolution and just moved on. I'll start trying again to do that now.
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 15:28:45. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:29:35 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by seanc:
methos, I'm not sure that I would agree to adding elements like trees and such, but removing minor distractions like the things on the beach, or airplanes, dust spots, etc. as long as it does not change the original intent of the image (you don't end up with a whole new image that looks nothing like the original) I think should be allowed. There are enough pros here already that do this everyday at their jobs and I'm sure some do it here also already, if it's done right no one would ever know anyway it's just a matter of being honest. In this day and age a computer is as much a part of photography as the camera itself. |
You misunderstood, I took a couple different shots of the same scene at different exposures. Then composited them to increase the tonal range. I rarely add something totally different to a photo. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:32:24 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by seanc:
methos, I'm not sure that I would agree to adding elements like trees and such, but removing minor distractions like the things on the beach, or airplanes, dust spots, etc. as long as it does not change the original intent of the image (you don't end up with a whole new image that looks nothing like the original) I think should be allowed. There are enough pros here already that do this everyday at their jobs and I'm sure some do it here also already, if it's done right no one would ever know anyway it's just a matter of being honest. In this day and age a computer is as much a part of photography as the camera itself. |
You misunderstood, I took a couple different shots of the same scene at different exposures. Then composited them to increase the tonal range. I rarely add something totally different to a photo. |
Sorry, if that's the case and you are just increasing DR I'm all for it. I would just rather avoid people adding elements that are totally out of another image. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:37:10 PM · #157 |
| I for one would not like to see the rules change. It's hard enough to compete with the photographic abilities of the excellent photographers on here, much less compete with their editing abilities! |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:38:42 PM · #158 |
| It sounds like alot of people agree that the rules need changed, just a matter of to what degree. Assuming that most could agree on a common midground how would we go about changing them? Or are we all just bitching/discussing back and forth with each other to no end? |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:39:37 PM · #159 |
Competition makes you better.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:44:04 PM · #160 |
| Is there a way to see the photo that was DQ'd? |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:47:29 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by seanc:
It sounds like alot of people agree that the rules need changed, just a matter of to what degree. Assuming that most could agree on a common midground how would we go about changing them? Or are we all just bitching/discussing back and forth with each other to no end? |
Keep in mind that what you see is that a couple vocal people in this thread agree...that doesn't necessarily accurately represent the 13,000+ users on this site, many of which may have either decided to opt out of discussion on this oft-repeated topic or who just don't read the forums at all. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:51:46 PM · #162 |
from back around post #105
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ScottK:
The only way that works is free-edit.
|
Yes. That's what I'm proposing. Tools have nothing to do with the issue. |
from about 6 posts ago
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yes - this hits the nail right on the head - it isn't just 'free editing' that would fix everything- that's why the current 'totally open no rules' challenges are missing the point. |
But isn't that what you said you wanted above, no rules? |
Nope. Absolutely not. |
Gordon, I'm just trying to figure out what you're in favor of at this point. Maybe I'm not understaning you. I think the end result that we both want to see is very close - freer editing, but remaining faithful to photography.
At this point, here's where I'm at: I'm in favor of allowing more editing to be available (maybe to a lesser degree than you), but can't see an easy way to get there, other than small increments. I think the answer is to address things one technique at a time. (Is this strictly tied to 'tools' in your mind?) You seem to be in favor of any editing, and seem to think the only way to get there is no limits. I'm trying to understand where your limits are, and how you would propose to get there. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:56:05 PM · #163 |
| Can we just have a vote on the main page to see if this is even worth bickering about. I'm all for what the majority wants. I may just choose not to enter challenges. But I do think this site is very constructive, and instead of being afraid to compete with the few that are proffessionals, you should be happy to have them here a resource to learn from. ;D |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:59:40 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Can we just have a vote on the main page to see if this is even worth bickering about. I'm all for what the majority wants. I may just choose not to enter challenges. But I do think this site is very constructive, and instead of being afraid to compete with the few that are proffessionals, you should be happy to have them here a resource to learn from. ;D |
been done already.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:20:14 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Can we just have a vote on the main page to see if this is even worth bickering about. I'm all for what the majority wants. I may just choose not to enter challenges. But I do think this site is very constructive, and instead of being afraid to compete with the few that are proffessionals, you should be happy to have them here a resource to learn from. ;D |
been done already. |
Needs done again with more and specific options. like 3 catagories; no editing; some editing (dust spots, extended DR, minor distractions); anything goes |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:28:40 PM · #166 |
no.. symantecs are too hard to define. they don't need to be defined :)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:29:10 PM · #167 |
Try it this way:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yes. That's what I'm proposing. Tools have nothing to do with the issue. |
So any discussion of tools, are completely missing the point. Techniques are, in this case, just tools.
It isn't the tools you use that make a picture digital art or a faithful photograph. Its how you use them. and again (and for the last time) discussions of tools and techniques entirely missing the point.
The following two pictures should maybe make this clear (but I doubt it these days)
This first one, is entirely illegal. I used probably 20 techniques
that are currently banned in the rules, to make a picture as faithful
to mymemory and vision for that sunset as possible:
This next image is entirely made within the current dpc-rules:
Any discussion of tools/techniques to try and limit people doing digital art is fundamentally pointless. The tools and techniques are irrelevant .
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 16:38:57. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:31:07 PM · #168 |
I don't think the "some editing" category is practical or enforceable (by me anyway). I think it would lead to site council burnout and endless arguments about whether or not a certain photo had been edited "too much."
It would make more sense to me to do it like we do other "elections;" have a couple of people representing each side summarize the pros and cons of their position, and then have a clear vote between them. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:31:23 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by seanc:
Needs done again with more and specific options. like 3 catagories; no editing; some editing (dust spots, extended DR, minor distractions); anything goes |
Have you seen the results of this earlier poll?
(But I agree it would be interesting to re-run the poll.) |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:35:40 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by seanc:
Needs done again with more and specific options. like 3 catagories; no editing; some editing (dust spots, extended DR, minor distractions); anything goes |
Have you seen the results of this earlier poll?
(But I agree it would be interesting to re-run the poll.) |
Hadn't seen those, thanks. I'm not sure how long ago that was however I think there are alot more people here now and it would be interesting to see the results. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 04:40:12 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think the "some editing" category is practical or enforceable (by me anyway). I think it would lead to site council burnout and endless arguments about whether or not a certain photo had been edited "too much."
It would make more sense to me to do it like we do other "elections;" have a couple of people representing each side summarize the pros and cons of their position, and then have a clear vote between them. |
I see your point on the some editing being a nightmare for the mods, however I wouldn't want to open it all up to digital art either. I think the original concept of the photograph should be maintained. I think as long as it's spelled out as that, most people are pretty honest and will adhere to it, and if they don't, vote them down. let the voting decide. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 05:40:52 PM · #172 |
| I think it's interesting the number of times "let the voting decide" has been brought up in this conversation when a number of other threads are about what a waste of time it is to be expected to vote on photos that aren't up to certain standards. It sounds like a lot of people don't want to let the votes decide. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 05:43:36 PM · #173 |
Sorry, I had to put this in this thread too ....
Originally posted by glimpses:
I would really love if this would happen because then I can express my photoshop skills on DPC! |
 |
|
|
|
11/08/2003 04:38:09 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry, I had to put this in this thread too ....
Originally posted by glimpses:
I would really love if this would happen because then I can express my photoshop skills on DPC! |
|
That's priceless! |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 12:14:09 PM · #175 |
I really like the rules. it is a digital photography contest site. There are digital retouching sites, and photoshop sites out there. Also if editing was allowed I would want to see the full size pic, as if it were being printed. anyone can make these little images look great in photoshop but how many could do it full scale.
This is a digital photography contest - not a digital art/retouching contest |
|
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: 04/25/2024 10:33:36 AM EDT.
