| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2003 01:04:05 PM · #51 |
At the time, many people claimed that the vote was 73% in favor of keeping things the way they were. Others claimed that the vote said that 75% of people wanted open editing.
The upshot was, it resolved nothing by providing a 'non answer' third option - which has since turned into a digital art/ photoshop competition every few weeks or so.
As I've got completely bored of repeating, these digital art contests have nothing much to do with proper photographic finishing.
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 13:05:02. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:06:13 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by toocool:
Originally posted by achiral:
limiting yourself in this way will never help you improve your photography. just because the tools are out doesn't mean you can just slap some dodge and burn and clone tool on and make a perfect image. that's a totally ludicrous idea. being able to have those tools handy when the need arises is something that i am interested in, and something you should be interested in too. |
In what way am I limiting myself? If I truly thought that there was a limit to what I can do, I wouldn't still be here. After all look at the camera I have! I have achieved a 7th, and 9th place finish and in the most recently completed challenge I am in the top 4 percent of all photos entered. Not because of unlimited editing, but because I believe that I can achieve what I want to achieve even with my crappy little 3 megapixel point and shoot camera. If I can do it, why can't it be done with a digital SLR camera with countless lenses? Don't talk to ME about limiting MYSELF because I don't believe in it! |
i guess ignorance really IS bliss
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:10:40 PM · #53 |
no, Ach, *I'm* Bliss.
Kollin Bliss
and YES to editing. .
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 15:21:50.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:14:47 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
no, *I'm* Bliss.
Kollin Bliss |
you dork. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:19:46 PM · #55 |
that's mr. dork to you :D
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:21:56 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by toocool:
Originally posted by achiral:
limiting yourself in this way will never help you improve your photography. just because the tools are out doesn't mean you can just slap some dodge and burn and clone tool on and make a perfect image. that's a totally ludicrous idea. being able to have those tools handy when the need arises is something that i am interested in, and something you should be interested in too. |
In what way am I limiting myself? If I truly thought that there was a limit to what I can do, I wouldn't still be here. After all look at the camera I have! I have achieved a 7th, and 9th place finish and in the most recently completed challenge I am in the top 4 percent of all photos entered. Not because of unlimited editing, but because I believe that I can achieve what I want to achieve even with my crappy little 3 megapixel point and shoot camera. If I can do it, why can't it be done with a digital SLR camera with countless lenses? Don't talk to ME about limiting MYSELF because I don't believe in it! |
i guess ignorance really IS bliss |
I'm assuming that this is meant to be an insult and am a little confused as to where I've been ignorant in my comments here... If you are implying that I do not know what can be achieved with photo editing then you are mistaken. I simply believe that one doesn't need to rely on this as a crutch. I also believe that the voters will see beyond a hot pixel or what ever other inadequacy you perceive in your work!
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 13:24:41.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:26:16 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by toocool:
Originally posted by achiral:
limiting yourself in this way will never help you improve your photography. just because the tools are out doesn't mean you can just slap some dodge and burn and clone tool on and make a perfect image. that's a totally ludicrous idea. being able to have those tools handy when the need arises is something that i am interested in, and something you should be interested in too. |
In what way am I limiting myself? If I truly thought that there was a limit to what I can do, I wouldn't still be here. After all look at the camera I have! I have achieved a 7th, and 9th place finish and in the most recently completed challenge I am in the top 4 percent of all photos entered. Not because of unlimited editing, but because I believe that I can achieve what I want to achieve even with my crappy little 3 megapixel point and shoot camera. If I can do it, why can't it be done with a digital SLR camera with countless lenses? Don't talk to ME about limiting MYSELF because I don't believe in it! |
i guess ignorance really IS bliss |
Why do you even own a digital camera then? The point is not whether someone can match your obvious skills with your point and shoot camera with their Digital SLR, but more of the things that you lose when you use a digital camera vs. a film camera. If I wanted to increase the tonal range of a photograph, I could pull or push process my film in developing. I could then dodge or burn my print. And if any dust was on the print I could then DUST SPOT IT!
The advantage of using a digital camera is that I can do all this and more, in less time and with greater results. I think there is an inherent fear of the people who are lacking in photoshop(darkroom) skills that they will be left in the dust if the rules are relaxed. Which is false. If anything, the extra competition will force some growth around here.
If it's that big of a concern, they could have 2 catagories for the challenge. Open editiing and no editing. Hell, we should just have a raw challenge... |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:41:19 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why do you even own a digital camera then? The point is not whether someone can match your obvious skills with your point and shoot camera with their Digital SLR, but more of the things that you lose when you use a digital camera vs. a film camera. If I wanted to increase the tonal range of a photograph, I could pull or push process my film in developing. I could then dodge or burn my print. And if any dust was on the print I could then DUST SPOT IT!
The advantage of using a digital camera is that I can do all this and more, in less time and with greater results. I think there is an inherent fear of the people who are lacking in photoshop(darkroom) skills that they will be left in the dust if the rules are relaxed. Which is false. If anything, the extra competition will force some growth around here.
If it's that big of a concern, they could have 2 catagories for the challenge. Open editiing and no editing. Hell, we should just have a raw challenge... |
A major reason that many people now are getting into digital photography is a cost issue. My digital camera cost me $300 US. I now do not have to pay to have any film developed. If I could afford to get my own film developing equipment I would still have to pay for photo paper and chemicals. I have because of economic reasons never been able to BE a PHOTOGRAPHER. (not a picture taker, a photographer!) The advantage of digital to me is economic!
Because I've never had access to a full dark room set up with all the available film editing procedures, I'm not intimidated by the lack of those abilities here. I can focus on my photographic talents. I know what can be done through manipulation, I just don't think it needs to be done here!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 01:42:09 PM · #59 |
I say yes, but only in the context of what I will describe next:
Editing should be allowed with the use of one single frame, no drawing and maintaining the natural integrity. That means:
* Not taking elements from a second photo and paste them into the base photo --> not for buildings, people, sky, anything
* Not drawing a new element into the frame --> from a text balloon to a comic character to creating a false element that imposes to be natural
* No blending of two or more exposures outside the camera --> No dynamic range increase by the use of two exposures, not adding a new element by selective deleting / masking and layering.
* No use of filters that adds unnatural effects to the photo, like a swirl filter or bad use of adding software created lights
* No distortion of elements that makes them look unnatural, like creating pointy ears
* No use of digital backgrounds
* No adding of text
This leaves room for things like:
* Shadow corrections, expose for the highlights and bring the shadows back with all possible tools like Contrast Masking, blending screen and multiply layers and such
* Taking out distortions of elements without destroying the natural look, like straightening the keystoning (distortion) of a tower, barrel and pincushion distortions
* Removing artefacts like hot pixels
* Removing / cloning out objects like dustbins, cables, powerlines, streetlights, dirtspots from your dSLR sensor, unwanted elements in faces, people etc
* Dodging and Burning to correct specific toning variations that are impossible to create with lighting, your camera or curves
* Correcting underexposed pics with screen layers and vice versa overexposed ones with multiply layers.
* Use of cloning to fill in blanks as result of spot overexposure (inside a dim lit building with heavy light trough the window results in a large unavoidable overexposed area. Usually the texture can be brought back by cloning texture from the surroundings
* Spot changing of saturation --> Some camera's are red happy. When you up the saturation, certain elements will stand out way too much, because the camera added too much red in the first place. Sometimes the Magic Wand or a manual selection grabs that area and you can lower the red saturation by taking out some red from the Red Channel
As long as you work with one single frame, add nothing from outside, but only with what is already present and maintain the natural balance of things in the pic etc, I am all for it.
Edit: Another possible advantage is mimicking lens filters. You don't need an expensive set of high quality warming or cooling filters for your lens(es). To some extent the same can be achieved with a layer in Photoshop, but it has to be in a mode that is currently not allowed. This is also very useful for black and white conversions, because you can blend some yellow in and that makes the B&W toning a great deal easier.
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 13:50:43.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:06:18 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by toocool:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why do you even own a digital camera then? The point is not whether someone can match your obvious skills with your point and shoot camera with their Digital SLR, but more of the things that you lose when you use a digital camera vs. a film camera. If I wanted to increase the tonal range of a photograph, I could pull or push process my film in developing. I could then dodge or burn my print. And if any dust was on the print I could then DUST SPOT IT!
The advantage of using a digital camera is that I can do all this and more, in less time and with greater results. I think there is an inherent fear of the people who are lacking in photoshop(darkroom) skills that they will be left in the dust if the rules are relaxed. Which is false. If anything, the extra competition will force some growth around here.
If it's that big of a concern, they could have 2 catagories for the challenge. Open editiing and no editing. Hell, we should just have a raw challenge... |
A major reason that many people now are getting into digital photography is a cost issue. My digital camera cost me $300 US. I now do not have to pay to have any film developed. If I could afford to get my own film developing equipment I would still have to pay for photo paper and chemicals. I have because of economic reasons never been able to BE a PHOTOGRAPHER. (not a picture taker, a photographer!) The advantage of digital to me is economic!
Because I've never had access to a full dark room set up with all the available film editing procedures, I'm not intimidated by the lack of those abilities here. I can focus on my photographic talents. I know what can be done through manipulation, I just don't think it needs to be done here! |
Then I guess I'm not afraid of you getting better then me...;D |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:06:36 PM · #61 |
I say No..
This actually surprises me, because I always edit and cleanup my photos. And I'm pretty good at it ;)
But I think the no-editing rule forces us to be better photographers at the camera. And I don't think you could come up with a fair set of restrictions. I find the inconsistency of the list below ironic, that it will let me change the content of a scene, removing telephone poles, unwanted items from peoples faces), but not use bracketed exposures to increase dynamic range so you can see what they eye can readily discern while looking through the lens or directly. Or to paste a panoramic together, so the true breadth of a scene can be viewed.
If we are going to be selective to someone's idea of a good set of rules, I'd rather not see any editing.
Regards--Neil
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I say yes, but only in the context of what I will describe next:
Editing should be allowed with the use of one single frame, no drawing and maintaining the natural integrity. That means:
...snip...
* No blending of two or more exposures outside the camera --> No dynamic range increase by the use of two exposures, not adding a new element by selective deleting / masking and layering.
...snip...
This leaves room for things like:
...snip...
* Removing / cloning out objects like dustbins, cables, powerlines, streetlights, dirtspots from your dSLR sensor, unwanted elements in faces, people etc
* Dodging and Burning to correct specific toning variations that are impossible to create with lighting, your camera or curves
* Correcting underexposed pics with screen layers and vice versa overexposed ones with multiply layers.
* Use of cloning to fill in blanks as result of spot overexposure (inside a dim lit building with heavy light trough the window results in a large unavoidable overexposed area. Usually the texture can be brought back by cloning texture from the surroundings
...snip...
As long as you work with one single frame, add nothing from outside, but only with what is already present and maintain the natural balance of things in the pic etc, I am all for it.
...snip...
|
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 14:07:56. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:08:53 PM · #62 |
Saying that you should learn to solve everything with your camera is, in my humble opinion, not such a good argument.
Take landscape photography.
Great, as long as you like flat, easy, dull toned landscapes you are fine.
Now go to the Grand Canyon at sunrise or sunset, a landscape with a lot of grean patches in it. You have the spot all figured out. The composition is wonderful, the color temperature of the light is at its sweetest (just after sunrise, just before sunset), this the way you want it! But damn, the valley is in the shadow, the backsides of the trees are in the shadow. You really wanted the photo to be the way you see it with your eyers: Great colored / deep blue sky (of course you have your polarizer on) with nice clouds, beautiful soil colors and nice definition in the shadows.
But that camera gives you either a great sky with black shadow area's, a dull ground .........or........ it gives you a blown out or very light sky with nice definition in the shadows ......or.... a dull flat pic with a bit of everything but without any beauty or punch at all.
This can be corrected in the darkroom and in software post-processing. It is all about photography, it even is a photographic skill, current camera's*** cannot directly capture this on one frame in color, especially not digitals. But it is not allowed to make the correction at dpchallenge. Nothing wrong with that, but it would be much nicer if you were allowed to correct it.
***Canon is working on a sensor that will help you, but it will only be available in the second half of this decennium. It works by varying the opacity of the filter in front of the photodiodes per photodiode.
Another thing is: I, for example, live in the extremely crowded Netherlands. It is very hard to get photo's without powerlines, cars, traffic signs, roads, modern windmills, cities, dustbins, roadside garbage etc etc etc. Cloning that out would make a real difference and encourage me to photograph the scene in a nice composition, because I know I can take the unwanted stuff out. If not, I have to seek a less nice composition, one that is directed at avoiding all the stuff I just mentioned.
edit: I typed the above before your post nshapiro, the no blending of two exposures was something I doubted about. But to keep inline with current stuff I opted for working on one single frame.
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 14:11:42.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:12:38 PM · #63 |
So why, given what you say, would you restrict the use of multiple exposures to increase dynamic range or to make panoramics?
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Saying that you should learn to solve everything with your camera is, in my humble opinion, not such a good argument.
But that camera gives you either a great sky with black shadow area's, a dull ground .........or........ it gives you a blown out or very light sky with nice definition in the shadows ......or.... a dull flat pic with a bit of everything but without any beauty or punch at all.
This can be corrected in the darkroom and in software post-processing. It is all about photography, it even is a photographic skill, current camera's*** cannot directly capture this on one frame in color, especially not digitals. But it is not allowed to make the correction at dpchallenge. Nothing wrong with that, but it would be much nicer if you were allowed to correct it.
|
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:19:23 PM · #64 |
I think it is because I am at DPC for about 18 months and my mind is locked on that 1 exposure thing now.
A really good reason for disallowing it for the use that you described: I really have no idea, I use the dynamic range blending all the time outside dpc.
edit: I am strongly against things like taking a building from one exposure and dumping it in a landscape from another exposure.
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 14:21:18.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:34:15 PM · #65 |
| No - I want this to remain a photography challenge, not a Photoshop challenge. Allowing people to adjust contrast, levels, curves, sharpness, saturation, etc is already sufficient to fix up photographs. I agree that occasional challenges with rules lifted (ie: Halloween) could be good.. but only on occasion - not a frequent thing. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:41:27 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
No - I want this to remain a photography challenge, not a Photoshop challenge. Allowing people to adjust contrast, levels, curves, sharpness, saturation, etc is already sufficient to fix up photographs. I agree that occasional challenges with rules lifted (ie: Halloween) could be good.. but only on occasion - not a frequent thing. |
It's not enough to remove a spec of dust.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:43:29 PM · #67 |
I vote no.
I like things the way they are... I want to improve my photograph taking technique, not my darkroom technique. Although, if having more open challenges would help, I'll go along with that... I just don't want them ALL to be open. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 02:49:16 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I say No..
This actually surprises me, because I always edit and cleanup my photos. And I'm pretty good at it ;)
But I think the no-editing rule forces us to be better photographers at the camera. And I don't think you could come up with a fair set of restrictions. I find the inconsistency of the list below ironic, that it will let me change the content of a scene, removing telephone poles, unwanted items from peoples faces), but not use bracketed exposures to increase dynamic range so you can see what they eye can readily discern while looking through the lens or directly. Or to paste a panoramic together, so the true breadth of a scene can be viewed.
If we are going to be selective to someone's idea of a good set of rules, I'd rather not see any editing.
Regards--Neil |
I agree completely - its about the photographer's intent and, to co-opt a word, morality, rather than the tools used |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:08:28 PM · #69 |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:27:37 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
no, Ach, *I'm* Bliss.
Kollin Bliss
and YES to editing. . |
What's "Ach"?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:28:14 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by uabresch:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
no, Ach, *I'm* Bliss.
Kollin Bliss
and YES to editing. . |
What's "Ach"? |
Ach = Achiral
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:33:14 PM · #72 |
We voting on this again-still?
Please:
'soothe my digital darkroom desires'
Okay back to obscurity.
:O|
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:48:46 PM · #73 |
Yes, but I wouldn't want to see major editing like adding to or taking away from the composition. Removing dust and small spots would be ok but I don't see how the rules could be written to allow just for that.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:56:18 PM · #74 |
Maybe rather than restricting a specific technique, the rule could be:
"The scene has to be photojournalistically accurate. Nothing that would change the reality of the world can be altered. The only changes that can be made are to more accurately expose or remove digital or print artifacts (like dust or noise)." |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:58:08 PM · #75 |
i yiii yiii
all of us can do whatever we want ( or lack thereof ) with photos - whenever we want.
just not necessairly HERE...
soup |
|
