|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2003 06:32:15 AM · #101 |
| just by opening it in photoshop or another editing suite 'molests' your image. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:10:12 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Notice that quite a few but not all of the ppl who own the so call super cameras say "yes". I wonder if any of the "Yes" ppl work in the industry, graphic design, webmaster, advertising, etc? How many years experience with the software/plugins?
Not all of us own or have access to a Mac G5, Photoshop CS, Canon Eos 10D, a studio to shoot in ,or whatever high price gadget of the week. |
I'm a graphic designer AND a webmaster, and I've been using Photoshop as part of my normal work day since version 2.5. I don't have the top-end tools, but I have tried NUMEROUS free or lower-cost versions that do exactly what people are requesting we be able to do to our photos here.
This is not a rich v. poor issue.
The fact of the matter is that you NEED a digital camera and you NEED a computer to even be able to participate at DPC. Neither of those things is cheap, so poormouthing does not sway me in the slightest. There have been tons of examples of lower-cost cameras winning ribbons.
This is not a rich v. poor issue.
There are also a number of people on this site who use photography as a career (or part of one, anyway). They are considered semi-professionals, yet they are allowed to participate. Why is someone who is a semi-professional at using the software and digital darkroom tools a paraiah, while someone who is able to manipulate the camera better is revered? 
If we're here to learn, and people who want to learn are serious about digital photography, then they will need to learn the software component. PERIOD. A film photographer who gets all of his/her shots developed at CVS with no cropping or touch-ups would be laughed out of the profession. Why should digital photographers be so restricted?
This debate is endless and just plain stupid. It's doing nothing but driving the more experienced (and helpful) participants away and leaving this site to be a collection of mediocre, BORING (yes, I said it) snapshots that demonstrate little artistry and creativity.
If you guys really want to have a "DPC -- Love it or Leave it" attitude, you're going to end up pretty sorry in the end.
The biggest problem now for the pro-"yes" people is that if we actually do get our rule change, everyone who was on the "no" side is going to be scouring the photos in the challenges, looking for a spot-edit and, therefore, a reason to lower their score. Tons of people won't even look at the photo as a whole, or consider the challenge topic, etc.... This will, sadly, be their primary voting criteria. At this point, it's pretty much a lose-lose proposition.
MY question is ... how many photos have been spot-edited and slipped under the radar here? With such a large and diverse group, I can't imagine that everyone's been 100% honest all of the time. Why isn't there a mob with pitchforks and torches combing through the archives to find those shots? BECAUSE THEY WERE EDITED SO SUBTLY YOU'D NEVER KNOW IT. And that's all we're asking to do.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 08:10:49. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:26:36 AM · #103 |
NO NO NO Well maybe one per month.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:43:04 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by jefalk:
Though I vote no overall (with the only exception spot edits to remove sensor dust), I think perhaps they could enlist another challenge catagory that could include post production to within limits of course.
Lets face it, there are two ends of this spectrum. On one hand we have the highly talented photgraphers that have limited post skill, and then we have limited photographers that are perhaps highly skilled post production masters.
To me, its like the difference between classical music and perhaps rock music. They are both well respected music, and they both obviously have there places. But they really don't mix well on the same album! |
With respect, that is the worst analogy ever. As a classical musician, and a rock musician I can't get my head around that analogy at all. Let's take Glenn Gould, the fantastic and idiosyncratic devotee of Bach. He pioneered the world of classical recording by splicing together several of his performances in the studio to create a 'perfect' take. Many classical purists were outraged, but this is common practice now. I think this is analogous to an unrestricted use of Photoshop. Conversely, the ethos of much of rock music is to capture a feeling of spontaneity and rawness without studio wizadry. Again, this would be like not using Photoshop whatsoever. Most rock and pop music becomes completely sterile when too much studio production goes on... but these studio techniques actually enhance a classical recording.
Besides, most of the excellent photographers here are also skilled with Photoshop. I defy you to name ONE excellent photographer at DPC who does not know their way around Photoshop well. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:59:01 AM · #105 |
For anyone who actually thinks that the restricted editing rules here at DPC is your ticket to getting a ribbon, you are mistaken.
The ribbon winners will continue to be won by people who: actually know how to use their equipment, know how to compose a pleasing photo, are in control of their lighting, understand the fundamentals of exposure, and when it comes down to it, some good old fashioned luck.
The DPC editing rules do not make this challenge a level playing field. Too many other factors that are more important than that, ie: Photographers skill level, equipment ( to some extent ), and creativity.
Im am not very proficient with PS. I know I will be left behind in the future if I dont get on board though. I already know how to get a good image out of my camera. I now need to know how to finish the job properly, and I think alot of people will miss the boat here. The knowledge base here is good, and people share ideas freely and generously here in this community. Photographers ( the old film guys ) were not so quick to share ideas and info. They were afraid of you taking their buisness. You can either hide your head in the sand, or if you ever intend to make a nickel out of your photography, nows your chance to do it right.
Dont let it go to waste, take advantage of learning more tools, and be the best you can be.
I wanna see good photography.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:04:01 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
For anyone who actually thinks that the restricted editing rules here at DPC is your ticket to getting a ribbon, you are mistaken.
The ribbon winners will continue to be won by people who: actually know how to use their equipment, know how to compose a pleasing photo, are in control of their lighting, understand the fundamentals of exposure, and when it comes down to it, some good old fashioned luck.
The DPC editing rules do not make this challenge a level playing field. Too many other factors that are more important than that, ie: Photographers skill level, equipment ( to some extent ), and creativity.
Im am not very proficient with PS. I know I will be left behind in the future if I dont get on board though. I already know how to get a good image out of my camera. I now need to know how to finish the job properly, and I think alot of people will miss the boat here. The knowledge base here is good, and people share ideas freely and generously here in this community. Photographers ( the old film guys ) were not so quick to share ideas and info. They were afraid of you taking their buisness. You can either hide your head in the sand, or if you ever intend to make a nickel out of your photography, nows your chance to do it right.
Dont let it go to waste, take advantage of learning more tools, and be the best you can be.
I wanna see good photography. |
I think you exaggerate when you say you aren't proficient with PS. Maybe you feel that you aren't as good at it as you are with (undeniably) taking great shots straight from the camera. But there are plenty of shots in your portfolio that show you're more than proficient.
Edit: Oh yeah, my point! Well, I say yes on lifting restrictions because the great photographers here (you obviously being one of them) are good at using Photoshop. If you think you aren't so good with PS now, imagine how amazing they would be if we lifted the rules!
I wonder how many of the 'no' people here are basically being snobs because they are afraid of good photography. These people probably look at amazing pictures, and think firstly... 'yeah, of course it's good... it's all Photoshopped. I'm a purist, that's why mine aren't as good!'.
People who win here would be seen as the exception to this rule.
Well, I agree with Scab... no drastic changes will happen with those who win ribbons. The good photographers will still win. The only change will be the addition of many fine photographers who have been driven away in the past.
I know about the snob factor, because before I won ribbons I felt the same way, and campaigned 'no' to relax the rules. I truly believed this gave me a better chance of winning. I was wrong though, because the first challenge I won was ironically a no-rules challenge, with my shot of Fountains Abbey.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 09:10:44. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:11:13 AM · #107 |
I think you exaggerate when you say you aren't proficient with PS. Maybe you feel that you aren't as good at it as you are with (undeniably) taking great shots straight from the camera. But there are plenty of shots in your portfolio that show you're more than proficient.
No exaggeration at all. My post shot routine ( not here for DPC ) but in general is the following: crop if necessary, resize, USM, contrast/brightness, autolevels ( if needed ), maybe clone to remove crap, and Im just getting into using D&B.
I really havent played with layering, and many other techniques that I see here. My point is, Im not afraid of learning them. Learning them, especially under the challenge system, makes me work harder, and gives the incentive to excel and motivate me.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:12:40 AM · #108 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:23:10 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
For anyone who actually thinks that the restricted editing rules here at DPC is your ticket to getting a ribbon, you are mistaken.
The ribbon winners will continue to be won by people who: actually know how to use their equipment, know how to compose a pleasing photo, are in control of their lighting, understand the fundamentals of exposure, and when it comes down to it, some good old fashioned luck.
The DPC editing rules do not make this challenge a level playing field. Too many other factors that are more important than that, ie: Photographers skill level, equipment ( to some extent ), and creativity.
Im am not very proficient with PS. I know I will be left behind in the future if I dont get on board though. I already know how to get a good image out of my camera. I now need to know how to finish the job properly, and I think alot of people will miss the boat here. The knowledge base here is good, and people share ideas freely and generously here in this community. Photographers ( the old film guys ) were not so quick to share ideas and info. They were afraid of you taking their buisness. You can either hide your head in the sand, or if you ever intend to make a nickel out of your photography, nows your chance to do it right.
Dont let it go to waste, take advantage of learning more tools, and be the best you can be.
I wanna see good photography. |
I love the smell of Sanity in the morning...
I'm in the same boat - I want to learn better photoshop skills and I love the way this particular community shares and helps each other - a rare thing and the reason why I don't just want to go off somewhere else, though its becoming increasingly apparent that most people don't want to go that way here, so I guess I'm still open to suggestions of where these other great places are that people keep alluding to.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:26:48 AM · #110 |
I already voted, but I really wonder what we are "accomplishing" in this thread:
1) I doubt this is a democracy;
2) If we were to vote, the sysadmin's have much better ways to do it. This site is written in PHP, maybe even based on PHP/PostNuke, and there are plenty of polling modules for that, or stand-alone ones for that matter. So if the admin's were really interested in a vote, they would simply put a poll here.
Is someone really going to go through here and count the votes, and authenticate that people only voted once, and then send it to the admins?
Are the admins even watching this site at all? I am new here (1 month) but I've never see any responses from admins here?
On some of the other sites, the admin has a much stronger presence, sometimes for the good (PP) or sometimes not (PSIG).
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:19:03 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scab-lab:
For anyone who actually thinks that the restricted editing rules here at DPC is your ticket to getting a ribbon, you are mistaken.
The ribbon winners will continue to be won by people who: actually know how to use their equipment, know how to compose a pleasing photo, are in control of their lighting, understand the fundamentals of exposure, and when it comes down to it, some good old fashioned luck.
The DPC editing rules do not make this challenge a level playing field. Too many other factors that are more important than that, ie: Photographers skill level, equipment ( to some extent ), and creativity.
Im am not very proficient with PS. I know I will be left behind in the future if I dont get on board though. I already know how to get a good image out of my camera. I now need to know how to finish the job properly, and I think alot of people will miss the boat here. The knowledge base here is good, and people share ideas freely and generously here in this community. Photographers ( the old film guys ) were not so quick to share ideas and info. They were afraid of you taking their buisness. You can either hide your head in the sand, or if you ever intend to make a nickel out of your photography, nows your chance to do it right.
Dont let it go to waste, take advantage of learning more tools, and be the best you can be.
I wanna see good photography. |
I love the smell of Sanity in the morning...
I'm in the same boat - I want to learn better photoshop skills and I love the way this particular community shares and helps each other - a rare thing and the reason why I don't just want to go off somewhere else, though its becoming increasingly apparent that most people don't want to go that way here, so I guess I'm still open to suggestions of where these other great places are that people keep alluding to. |
I agree with scab-lab and Gordon, if I understand what they're saying.
For me, DPChallenge works well to learn the more "technical" side of digital photography, and use of the available tools to work with the pictures is very much part of that technical aspect.
The more "creative" side, even though the weekly challenges are an excellent way to push it, the learning for that comes from many places: photos in real life and on the net (incl. DPChallenge), looking at art books, going to the Gallery, art school, interesting conversations, stuff like that. It also is the more difficult aspect of making pictures.
Overall, it is the creative side that I would most like to improve, but I need a good technical side to do so. In other words, I think a good technical foundation helps my creativity.
I voted for changing editing restrictions last time (and got my two daughters to go along with me - forced them, that is :))), and, if we were voting today, I would vote for changing editing restrictions now. DPChallenge would NOT become a "photoshop" or "digital art" site as a result. I doubt that most users would even notice that much of a difference, the differences would be subtle.
~Ursula
BTW - I'm neither a graphics designer, nor do I have a high end camera with many attachments (although I just bought a polarizer and a UV filter for my Oly :)) In "real life" I am a stay-at-home mother with a degree in education and a part-time long distance job with an adult ed database.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 10:23:09.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:20:15 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
This debate is endless and just plain stupid. It's doing nothing but driving the more experienced (and helpful) participants away and leaving this site to be a collection of mediocre, BORING (yes, I said it) snapshots that demonstrate little artistry and creativity. |
Well, that suggests that (a) all the "experienced" members here are in favour of removing the rules, and that (b) everyone who votes no has 'little artistry and creativity'. I'm not sure either of those is true.
Originally posted by muckpond:
The biggest problem now for the pro-"yes" people is that if we actually do get our rule change, everyone who was on the "no" side is going to be scouring the photos in the challenges, looking for a spot-edit and, therefore, a reason to lower their score. Tons of people won't even look at the photo as a whole, or consider the challenge topic, etc.... This will, sadly, be their primary voting criteria. At this point, it's pretty much a lose-lose proposition. |
I'd like to credit the voters with slightly more intelligence than that. No doubt we'll have a spate of "why did I get 4 ones on my photo, they must have been voting down my spot-edit" kind of threads, but I can't see any significant move by the voters as a whole actively voting down photos purely on the basis of whether or not they've been edited.
Originally posted by muckpond:
MY question is ... how many photos have been spot-edited and slipped under the radar here? With such a large and diverse group, I can't imagine that everyone's been 100% honest all of the time. Why isn't there a mob with pitchforks and torches combing through the archives to find those shots? BECAUSE THEY WERE EDITED SO SUBTLY YOU'D NEVER KNOW IT. And that's all we're asking to do. |
That's just a crazy argument. If people break the rules then you may as well get rid of the rules? Besides, I think people have got better things to do than search archives of photos trying to spot dodgy spot edits that may or not exist.
While I freely admit to lacking both artistry and creativity, and being firmly in favour of keeping rules as they are - if the rules disappeared tomorrow I'd still be capable of voting without deducting 5 for ever photo I saw with an apparent edit. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:37:26 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Well, that suggests that (a) all the "experienced" members here are in favour of removing the rules, and that (b) everyone who votes no has 'little artistry and creativity'. I'm not sure either of those is true. |
I apologize if my original phrasing made it sound like either all of the "older" people want changes or all of the "older" people are more experienced photographers. Neither are true. But it seems that there is a definite rift between those who are more experienced wanting changes and those who aren't so experienced voting "no."
Originally posted by ganders:
I'd like to credit the voters with slightly more intelligence than that. No doubt we'll have a spate of "why did I get 4 ones on my photo, they must have been voting down my spot-edit" kind of threads, but I can't see any significant move by the voters as a whole actively voting down photos purely on the basis of whether or not they've been edited. |
Sadly, I stand by my original assessment. I think that any changes to the spot editing rule now will make spot editing a primary focus of people's voting criteria. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by muckpond:
MY question is ... how many photos have been spot-edited and slipped under the radar here? With such a large and diverse group, I can't imagine that everyone's been 100% honest all of the time. Why isn't there a mob with pitchforks and torches combing through the archives to find those shots? BECAUSE THEY WERE EDITED SO SUBTLY YOU'D NEVER KNOW IT. And that's all we're asking to do. |
That's just a crazy argument. If people break the rules then you may as well get rid of the rules? Besides, I think people have got better things to do than search archives of photos trying to spot dodgy spot edits that may or not exist. |
People break rules on here all of the time. Only some of them get caught, and the ones that do are often only noticed AFTER the ADMIT it. Face it...that Swan photo would still have its blue ribbon if the photog hadn't admitted to clone stamping some insignificant elements out of it in his comments. Why? 'cause the spot edit was so subtle that the photographer thought it improved the photo, and the voters never noticed it because they ASSUMED the photo was straight from the camera. The spot editing didn't cause anyone to vote the photo down because they never knew it was there. And I, for one, certainly don't think it brought the photo up to ribbon-winning status. Frankly, it probably would have won either way. But photographers should be able to submit their true visions for their photos if they want to. That's all we're talking about.
I think it's a shame for someone to have a ribbon taken away for something so silly. Especially when the action they took is a NORMAL and EXPECTED action that is a part of digital photography as a whole.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:40:13 AM · #114 |
and we're missing a whole other side of the argument here: people who are against the changes are missing out on a wealth of opportunities to learn these software tools that they're so afraid of.
there's a large group of people here who ARE photoshop gurus and WOULD be more than willing to explain features and show examples.
but they don't now (i don't, for instance), because it's no fun to do a big example and then say "oh...but it's not dpc legal, so forget it." |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:53:40 AM · #115 |
yes, i'm for editing, as long as the end result remains photography and not digital art.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:56:47 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
and we're missing a whole other side of the argument here: people who are against the changes are missing out on a wealth of opportunities to learn these software tools that they're so afraid of.
there's a large group of people here who ARE photoshop gurus and WOULD be more than willing to explain features and show examples.
but they don't now (i don't, for instance), because it's no fun to do a big example and then say "oh...but it's not dpc legal, so forget it." |
I disagree with these assumptions. I am very good a PS, and I am not in favor of the rule change. And my pics are 300% better when I use PS on them. Especially since I combine bracketed images to increase dynamic range. And I enjoy doing it.
I was against the rule at first, but then I realized that the rule (at least for some challenges) FORCES ME to take better pictures to begin with. And that's where I think I (personally) needed the most help. I was good at making my pictures look great, but was I good at taking great pictures?
I am taking a hiatus from using another site to be here partly for that reason!
But as I said, I am for having a third challenge category allowing PS, as long as there are no restrictions except maybe "scene integrity".
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:59:12 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by ganders:
That's just a crazy argument. If people break the rules then you may as well get rid of the rules? |
Many rules which are unjust and unenforceable and broken by a significant percentage of the population should be abolished or revised.
In the US, newspapers periodically run stories about archaic (but still active) laws requiring, for example, that a piece of pie served in a Kentucky diner, but not consumed, must "be destroyed in the presence of the customer." Or perhaps the statutes in Delaware which still mandated public floggings as punishment for certain minor crimes should be resurrected -- sounds like made-to-order programming for today's "reality television."
My favorite is the c.1852 law which allows mining companies to lease (exploit) public lands for $1/acre or something.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 11:00:16. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:02:04 AM · #118 |
That's possible, altho i think it's the opposite:
people see a great photo and they assume there was no photoshop involved that it came like that straight from the camera.
"if only i could learn to use my camera better i could get shots like that", they think. not realizing that digital cameras tend to take tonally flat pictures on their own, and that the most of the best pics were assisted with a little photoshop.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I wonder how many of the 'no' people here are basically being snobs because they are afraid of good photography. These people probably look at amazing pictures, and think firstly... 'yeah, of course it's good... it's all Photoshopped. I'm a purist, that's why mine aren't as good!'. |
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:51:31 AM · #119 |
Notext
Allowing relaxed rules once a month or so is good, but for most challenges I like the rules as they are. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:54:04 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
and we're missing a whole other side of the argument here: people who are against the changes are missing out on a wealth of opportunities to learn these software tools that they're so afraid of. |
I think you're in danger of making an assumption here. I'm in no way "afraid" of software tools - I love Photoshop and happily use it.
I guess what I'm "afraid of" is the site becoming a Digital Art site, rather than a Photography site. The "real or fake" thread actually brought it out quite nicely. Sure, some of the CGI pictures were really, really impressive - hell, the nails fooled me; but that's not photography (indeed, didn't involve a camera!).
As plenty have said, the rules force you to take a better photograph to start with, rather than getting any old image and "fixing it up" in Photoshop later.
Anyway, this is (always) a futile argument because nobody is ever going to change their mind in a thread like this, so I'm gonna shut up now! |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 12:00:45 PM · #121 |
YES.
However, the main reason why I have not entered any contests yet, is the rule that all photos have to be made DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CONTEST. 7 days is not much time ... |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 12:11:18 PM · #122 |
I changed my mind. At first I thought that if editing was allowed, I would be at an extreme disadvantage. But the more I tried to understand the reasons people have for editing, the more reasonable it seems to allow it. It's not to "fool" everyone or to make a bad picture good. Garbage in = garbage out. But, as it is right now, we can't use the more helpful tools of the trade. Maybe it's the people that haven't been able to work in a "real" darkroom that think using ps is cheating. There's just so much more that can be expressed by careful editing.
Concerning the post about only the people with the dslr's wanting a change, I would think that the most vocal group would be the ones that have cameras that don't have all the features of a dslr. They are the ones that have the most to gain by allowing them to do more to their image. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 12:14:40 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Vijaya:
YES.
However, the main reason why I have not entered any contests yet, is the rule that all photos have to be made DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CONTEST. 7 days is not much time ... |
I don't think we're talking about changing the 7 days restriction, but the restrictions on spot editing, layers in different modes, stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 12:17:26 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I already voted, but I really wonder what we are "accomplishing" in this thread:
|
I think you can see it like a Request For Discussion, like on Usenet. Used to see if there is an interest something and based on the discussion a ruleset can be made. That ruleset can be used in a proposal or several proposals (if someone is willing to go that far) and that can be used in a real site poll.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 04:05:19 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Concerning the post about only the people with the dslr's wanting a change, I would think that the most vocal group would be the ones that have cameras that don't have all the features of a dslr. They are the ones that have the most to gain by allowing them to do more to their image. |
There might also be some correlation with experience. Those that want the change the most might have a better understanding of what is possible, perhaps ?
I think it is likely that those who have invested more money happen to be those who have also invested more time and gained more experience. It isn't a direct consequence but I would think it is quite highly related. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:44:06 AM  |
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: 04/19/2024 06:44:06 AM EDT.
|
