DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> "real" photos can't win at DPC! ...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 72, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/05/2007 01:57:38 PM · #1
I beg to differ :-)

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/671/thumb/502630.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/671/thumb/502630.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Not only this photo, but none of the current front page photos rely heavily on post-processing.

I hope this helps to calm some of the fears that DPC is turning into a digital art site.

It seems apparent to me that since DPC introduced the expert editing rule set that the other challenges have become less reliant on post-processing. Maybe it's because now photoshop people now have a place to play.

Or it might be because minimal editing has actually shown that "raw" photos can score well.

And then check out Rule of Thirds where the first sub 6 score is 100th place. Wow! I don't know what that means, but wow!
05/05/2007 02:09:04 PM · #2
I think that is laziness! If you can use photoshop for special effects or for "to clean" your image you will not be attentive. for me minimal editing is a great choice (I am not a great photoshop users :))
05/05/2007 02:22:44 PM · #3
I have to agree that there are still a lot of great shots on DPC that don't rely heavily on PP. My two highest scoring shots below used extremely limited PP and still scored 7.1+ and 6.6+. I pretty much suck at PP, so I have to learn to rely more on the original image.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/580/thumb/423658.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/580/thumb/423658.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/452/thumb/295444.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/452/thumb/295444.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2007-05-05 14:24:30.
05/05/2007 02:23:00 PM · #4
Originally posted by Rino63:

I think that is laziness! If you can use photoshop for special effects or for "to clean" your image you will not be attentive. for me minimal editing is a great choice (I am not a great photoshop users :))


I'll agree with you here...
05/05/2007 03:45:47 PM · #5
It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.
05/05/2007 03:48:23 PM · #6
LOL @ Fotomann :-P
05/05/2007 04:18:59 PM · #7
Originally posted by Efergoh:

It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.


The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.

They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.)
05/05/2007 04:23:47 PM · #8
Originally posted by Efergoh:

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.


This isn't the same as using post-processing to fix things. This hasn't dumbed photography down at all. If anything, viewing your results instantly speeds up the learning curve since you can adjust instantly and figure out more quickly what needs to be done - instead of waiting for the film to come back, or for the money to process it.
05/05/2007 04:32:40 PM · #9
Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Efergoh:

It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.


The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.

They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.)


Typically, the results from images that were pre-visualized and shot with the "get it right in the camera" mindset are far superior to those images shot with the "fix it in Photoshop later" mindset.
05/05/2007 04:34:30 PM · #10
a photograph isn't a real photograph until it's printed on paper. so 'real' photos by nature can't win at DPC...

Message edited by author 2007-05-05 16:34:48.
05/05/2007 04:37:16 PM · #11
Originally posted by Efergoh:

It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.


I think that digital has largely brought the ability to get immediate feedback on shots to the common user. Prior to digital, I used to spend quite a bit on Polaroids to get everything "just right" for the client before shooting the final image on film.

Since everyone can now easily do what used to be accessible only to pros, it has taken some of the mystery out of it.
05/05/2007 04:45:02 PM · #12
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Efergoh:

It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.


The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.

They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.)


Typically, the results from images that were pre-visualized and shot with the "get it right in the camera" mindset are far superior to those images shot with the "fix it in Photoshop later" mindset.


I don't believe that. I think that the glut of beginner and amateur level DSLRs and the fact that there are so many people doing *bad* photoshop work and displaying it prominently on sites such as this leads one to that conclusion.. but I also believe that given similar skill levels, each technique can lead to equal quality work.

Someone with great skill in *BOTH* aspects, of course, has it made :)
05/05/2007 04:45:22 PM · #13
Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Efergoh:

It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.


The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.

They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.)


I agree! There seems to be this notion that EVERYONE just shoots a bunch of photos and get the instant feedback and do nothing else. In other words if you shoot digital and god forbid do postprocessing your lazy and that couldn't be further from the truth! One could and often does spend lots of time pre-visualizing AND post-visualizing a shot both during the shooting phase and during the post processing phase. Digital just allows you more flexibility to get the exact shot you want in the most efficient manner.

Frankly, I really don't get why the constant complaining about digital and post processing. If these photos truly suck then you have nothing to worry about. Who cares if some win ribbons at DPC? Surely you guys (not directed at you) need not worry since you're making a nice living off of your "real" photography work right????

Message edited by author 2007-05-05 16:47:06.
05/05/2007 05:02:18 PM · #14
Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Efergoh:

It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."

This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.

The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.

I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.

I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.

As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.

Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft.


The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.

They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.)


Typically, the results from images that were pre-visualized and shot with the "get it right in the camera" mindset are far superior to those images shot with the "fix it in Photoshop later" mindset.


I don't believe that. I think that the glut of beginner and amateur level DSLRs and the fact that there are so many people doing *bad* photoshop work and displaying it prominently on sites such as this leads one to that conclusion.. but I also believe that given similar skill levels, each technique can lead to equal quality work.

Someone with great skill in *BOTH* aspects, of course, has it made :)


Do you also think that the "P" setting on your camera stands for professional?

Exposure? Three stops off? Who cares, just fix it in Photoshop!

Composition? It's irrelevant, just fix it in Photoshop!

Lighting? Also not important, just fix it in Photoshop!

The chances are slim that if you have crap coming out of the camera that you can make beautiful photographs in Photoshop.

There are people who can make miracles with Photoshop, but the resulting images take many hours sitting at the computer, a VERY high level of proficiency with the program and they charge a LOT of money to do it.

In almost every case, it would have been much easier, faster and cheaper to achieve the desired effects beforehand than doing a chop job as an afterthought.

05/05/2007 05:05:17 PM · #15
Change comes hard to some people. They are not yet in the 21st century. As shown here on DPC the change to digital cameras was hard and on other sites still submit entries from film. As far as Photoshop goes, There is a huge learning curve involved and some people here can't/do not want to learn how to use it. Plus it is expensive.
05/05/2007 05:13:15 PM · #16
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do you also think that the "P" setting on your camera stands for professional?

Exposure? Three stops off? Who cares, just fix it in Photoshop!

Composition? It's irrelevant, just fix it in Photoshop!

Lighting? Also not important, just fix it in Photoshop!

The chances are slim that if you have crap coming out of the camera that you can make beautiful photographs in Photoshop.

There are people who can make miracles with Photoshop, but the resulting images take many hours sitting at the computer, a VERY high level of proficiency with the program and they charge a LOT of money to do it.

In almost every case, it would have been much easier, faster and cheaper to achieve the desired effects beforehand than doing a chop job as an afterthought.


hahaha.. man, you sure know how to take something to an extreme level don't you?

The fact remains from my original post. It's the END result. Doesn't matter if it would have been easier/cheaper/whatever. It's the END result. Concentrate on what works for *you*, achieve the results you want, let others do the same and the world is a better, friendlier -- quieter -- place. ;)

05/05/2007 05:22:30 PM · #17
Originally posted by Artyste:


The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.

They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.)


Go back and reread my post. I did not say that that postvisualization was inferior. I said that previsiualization was becoming irrelevant.

I agree that the end result is what it is all about, but if you put a turd on a doilie, you still have a turd.

Originally posted by Rebecca:


This isn't the same as using post-processing to fix things. This hasn't dumbed photography down at all. If anything, viewing your results instantly speeds up the learning curve since you can adjust instantly and figure out more quickly what needs to be done - instead of waiting for the film to come back, or for the money to process it.


I use post processing to edit photos just as much as anyone. It is no different than dodging and burning in the darkroom. What I mean by dumbing down is the fact that any schmoe in this world saturated with point and shoot cameras coupled with CS2 can take an image that most of us would drop in the round file and create something that folks will spend more than a few seconds looking at. but when I view these images, all I am thinking of is the process. I am not thinking of their concept or the artistic value of the image.

Furthermore, I have personal ethical reasons for putting limits on what I will do with a photograph in post processing. Again, not to condemn anyone who chooses to do to, this is totally a personal thing. I understand that these are just tools in the photographers toolbox. I do not alter or remove segments of what was captured. If there is an object in my background that is distracting, I'd rather go reshoot the image rather than clone out the distraction. that is just me, and the way I choose to practice our craft. In the end, I would spend less time to go reshoot the image than I would editing the offending segment anyway.

Message edited by author 2007-05-05 17:24:41.
05/05/2007 05:24:15 PM · #18
Originally posted by Artyste:

Concentrate on what works for *you*, achieve the results you want, let others do the same and the world is a better, friendlier -- quieter -- place. ;)


Indeed.

But that wouldn't make good fodder for friendly debate, now would it?
05/05/2007 05:27:22 PM · #19
Originally posted by Efergoh:


Go back and reread my post. I did not say that that postvisualization was inferior. I said that previsiualization was becoming irrelevant.

I agree that the end result is what it is all about, but if you put a turd on a doilie, you still have a turd.



Yah, sorry, I meant to make it clear that it wasn't really a response to your post specifically, just in general. That the feeling really has become a kind of "in-camera" vs "processing" battle, much like Mac/PC, Canon/Nikon, et al.

Kind of sad, really.

I do believe, however, that pre-visualization *IS* important, will remain important to those that realize it, and that post-processing is equally as important.

I'm just an equality kind of guy. lol.
05/05/2007 05:30:40 PM · #20
My highest score of 7.8734 was done with very minimal editing,
and seems the more I know in PS, the worse I do. hmmm......
05/05/2007 05:35:30 PM · #21
I'm bored with normal photography, the next step is beyond expert editing. Learned so many new cool tricks and wicked shit lately....


05/05/2007 06:16:44 PM · #22
Originally posted by Brad:

My highest score of 7.8734 was done with very minimal editing,
and seems the more I know in PS, the worse I do. hmmm......


Actually, I feel I'm starting to get a little too heavy handed with my "advanced" and "basic" editing and really think I should scale back a bit. Things such as getting too aggressive with curves or skin smoothing.

It's probably like Azifel says, I'm bored with "normal" photography. I've actually been trying to focus my attention at studying different techniques, compositions and art history to see if I can find something to interest me.
05/05/2007 07:02:52 PM · #23
lol! the whole argument about postprocessed pictures and normal pictures sounds slightly funny to me because I've had photoshop before I had my camera... taking the pp element away is like taking away one limb.. I sometimes spend hrs on a picture to make it look exactly like the original.. so pp is more of a habit then anything else.. A very hard one to break..grr..

05/05/2007 07:04:54 PM · #24
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:

I sometimes spend hrs on a picture to make it look exactly like the original..


:-D Now that's extreme editing
05/05/2007 07:19:16 PM · #25
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:

I sometimes spend hrs on a picture to make it look exactly like the original..


:-D Now that's extreme editing


lol! at least I should be able to please ppl from both sides of the argument.. the heavy processors and the minimalists...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/17/2021 02:12:18 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 © 2001-2021 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: 01/17/2021 02:12:18 PM EST.