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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Let's Talk
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 121, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/22/2004 09:55:34 PM · #76
well i can honestly say this whole discussion helped...once again gordon was of great help and gringo you too, thanks
01/22/2004 09:55:52 PM · #77
Integrity from integer - the literal meaning of which is untouched frequently used in the sense of whole or honest.

The term, here, appears to be used for all kinds of things. Some posts even extend its range to a photo's author. I can't follow this and at the same time maintain any sense.



When I look at an image, say crawford's 'Final Sunset', and I ask if it is untouched, I'd say 'no'. It looks positively 'retouched' to me.
When I ask, if it's whole, I might say that it looks 'whole', but I really cannot do much with this kind of observation either.
Neither can I say if it's an honest image or not. Perhaps its author can, credibly, if 'he' is honest.

The picture does not raise any questions of integrity with me. It is speaks ('screams' would be a better word) to my tastes, instead. To those who share the popular opinion that taste is entirely subjective. let me extend my understanding of it here:

Taste can be and is cultivated, via works of art among other things, in individuals as much as in a collective. Disagreement about matters of taste is temporal rather than absolute and irreconcilable. For the individual, this means that experience can play into a sense of how a photograph (or any other piece or work) is perceived. This experience, too, is largely a shared or collective experience. Whether or not one man or woman taps into it, depends on his disposition, faculties and exposure.

Given this, I'd prefer to view crawford's image from an imagined perspective, say a hundred years ago or, if you like, twenty years hence. When I do that, it helps me to develop not only a sense of what I like, but also one of what might and what might not endure. If I do this consistently, I might even come away with a sense of why.

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 22:14:49.
01/22/2004 09:56:27 PM · #78
Originally posted by nborton:

I've got something else to fan the fire. How is black and white photogrpahy any different than adjusting the colors in rcrawford's "final sunset" shot? Both are just hue adjustments. Black and white just happens to be void of all hues. I don't think anyone would claim a lack of integrity in black and white photography.


good point

01/22/2004 10:21:00 PM · #79
If the greatest artists in the world had even considered "integrity" (defined by user) we would be out some of the greatest art pieces created. Ansel, Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, Fokos, etc... They lived by their vision. The difference between a stock photographer and an artist IMO. Artists think about what THEY see, photographers think about what OTHERS see... A dark room is a dark room, deal with it. If you hadn't seen the original you would have never known the difference. JMO... Dave
01/22/2004 10:25:43 PM · #80
I would think the only images lacking integrity are the ones where the photographer compromises their vision to pander to the views of a voting public
01/22/2004 10:42:07 PM · #81
Great discussion - many well presented viewpoints on both sides.

My two cents:

1) A "straight out of the camera" rule for a challenge might be interesting, but all of them that way would be very limiting to the dynamic range of this medium; and

2) I have no idea how to process pics like others that I've seen here and elsewhere. So my initial reaction that admittedly very mediocre out of the camera photos are winning contests is driven by my envy! I quickly get over that feeling since this is a natural and beneficial progression of this medium. And rather than bemoan a loss of some intangible standards, it will push me to improve my post processing skills. (That assumes, of course, that I actually find time to enter more challenges.)

01/22/2004 10:49:42 PM · #82
Originally posted by Patents4u:

Great discussion - many well presented viewpoints on both sides.

My two cents:

1) A "straight out of the camera" rule for a challenge might be interesting ...

A flash from The Past.

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 22:50:06.
01/22/2004 10:57:54 PM · #83
OK, playing devil's advocate now in line with the thrust of the initial post in this thread, I wonder if fundamental photographic skills will deteriorate over time as the digital processing becomes easier and more powerful. Most of us learned the fundamentals by necessity - without them our photos turned out poorly. That is not necessarily true today. And it seems inevitable that this will become less true as things progress.

Having intentionally framed the issue to make the result sound undesirable, I wonder - is this a bad thing? Dunno. The end result will be more good "pictoral representations" and art for the world to see (intentionally avoided typing "photos" since I felt some would leap on that and say they aren't "real" photos). Since good things to look at (for lack of a better expression) is the desired result of so much photography, all of this can certainly be viewed as a good thing.
01/22/2004 11:09:39 PM · #84
in general I've found its a whole lot easier to pay attention and get it right in the first place. You can maybe fix things with additional work in an editor, but with a great initial capture you can go a whole lot further

mediocre capture + good editing = good picture
good capture + mediocre editing = good picture
good caputre + good editing = great picture

I really believe you can only go so far with poor exposure or compositional mistakes, but you'll only get the best possible images with the best possible technique from begining to end, along with great subjects and a real sensitivity for light.

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 23:10:04.
01/22/2004 11:20:05 PM · #85
Originally posted by Gordon:

...

mediocre capture + good editing = good picture
good capture + mediocre editing = good picture
good caputre + good editing = great picture...


great picture + no editing = great picture
great picture + great editing = a volatile mix
01/22/2004 11:23:27 PM · #86
Originally posted by zeuszen:


great picture + no editing = great picture


I don't think that is really true for digital, though I'd be interested to see great 'from the camera' images that couldn't be improved at all by correct finishing, colour balancing, resizing, sharpening at minimum
01/22/2004 11:26:04 PM · #87
bad picture + great editing = digital art

(Sorry, had to do it!! Not intended to represent my opinion of the subject.)
01/22/2004 11:41:14 PM · #88
Originally posted by karmat:

bad picture + great editing = digital art

(Sorry, had to do it!! Not intended to represent my opinion of the subject.)


This, too, sounds alright, but... great editing, to me, is editing inspired by and sensitive to the givens of the shot, not 'elaborate' editing inspired by wallpaper (an anaeasthetic derived from outside of one).

[Spelling deliberate]

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 23:43:37.
01/22/2004 11:42:59 PM · #89
Back to the original topic, the rules say “Photographic Integrity” but fails to define it. Obviously everyone has a different definition of it. If I followed my definition I’d be at a disadvantage to those that feel adding and remove things from there photo doesn’t take away from its integrity. Furthermore, if it’s not defined there is no clear way to enforce it, thus technically anything goes.

I’m glad I didn’t fork out $25 for photoshop contests. Fark has them for free and they are much more entertaining! I joined here for photography with a camera, not photoshop chopping and cloning.

PS: I have no problems changing color levels. That changes the appearance of the image but not the content of the image. I liked the old rules.
01/23/2004 12:01:07 AM · #90
Guess it's time for me to chime in since it is my photo in question.

The image wasn't taken with intent to photoshop the heck out of it for this challenge. I had actually decided on another image of an old man, but as I began to experiment with trying to remove the fence, the beauty of the shot became more evident. As I said, I almost trashed this image due to the fence and under exposure, but as a learning tool, I played with it and before long, it was something that was a great image. Is the final product still a photograph? I think so. I still have the original from the camera, the pixels are all there, just rearranged. BTW, I have shots of the bird farther back in the cage with the fence blurred by the camera, so had he been farther back, I wouldn't have had to use PS to remove it.

What got me about your post is that you 'didn't join for photoshop contests that you joined for photography'. Looking at my portfolio of work here and on my pbase site, you will see a lot of images that are nothing but resized, sharpened and posted. Not every image needs PS, but for those images that are hidden gems, using the tools available to you to make a better image only makes you a better all around photographer.

Will PS skills dominate who wins here? Maybe, maybe not, but I do feel that camera skills and post editing skills go hand in hand. My 8th place duck butt shot was within the rules for non-member challenges, so proper camera usage did come into play.

DPC is growing up, and I'm rather keen on all the new changes.

-danny

Originally posted by louddog:

Back to the original topic, the rules say “Photographic Integrity” but fails to define it. Obviously everyone has a different definition of it. If I followed my definition I’d be at a disadvantage to those that feel adding and remove things from there photo doesn’t take away from its integrity. Furthermore, if it’s not defined there is no clear way to enforce it, thus technically anything goes.

I’m glad I didn’t fork out $25 for photoshop contests. Fark has them for free and they are much more entertaining! I joined here for photography with a camera, not photoshop chopping and cloning.

PS: I have no problems changing color levels. That changes the appearance of the image but not the content of the image. I liked the old rules.

01/23/2004 12:03:49 AM · #91
Originally posted by louddog:

Back to the original topic, the rules say “Photographic Integrity” but fails to define it. Obviously everyone has a different definition of it ...

Note that we don't try and define "good photo" or "bad photo" either, just at which end of the scale each belongs. This site has decided to accept diversity -- in taste, background, photographic experience, skill, and equipment -- rather than attempt to enforce uniformity.

If this was a class for credit with limited enrollment, standardization might be important.

If we were the art department for a magazine, or gallery curators or auction appraisers, standardization might be important.

In a worldwide, "free for all" contest for entertainment and education, standardization is not important.

Your opinion about what constitutes a photo is held by a small but consistent minority of photographers, and I applaud your commitment and steadiness of vision. Most people at DPC prefer a somewhat broader interpretation, which I think suits the purposes of DPC better than your definition, but that doesn't make it an absolutely better interpretation, just for these circumstances. As I mentioned before, for documentary purposes, I agree with you, but I just don't think that's the primary direction DPC has taken.

Luckily, we offer people the option of submitting completely unedited images to any of the challenges! If it's a great photo, it will get a great score.
01/23/2004 12:27:27 AM · #92
Originally posted by GeneralE:

... If it's a great photo, it will get a great score...


My estimate forthe score of a great photo, here, would be about 4.5.
01/23/2004 12:29:47 AM · #93
Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... If it's a great photo, it will get a great score...


My estimate forthe score of a great photo, here, would be about 4.5.

Yes, I think that's a slightly separate problem though. I guess I should have picked a better adjective but I'm too tired right now ...
01/23/2004 01:04:00 AM · #94
it seems to me that the difference we're talking about is the difference between journalistic photography and artistic photography.

if all we were shooting were journalistic pics, i could understand the argument for no post processing. photographic integrity is the highest priority for that type of work as it is mainly to document an event. that's not saying that journalistic photos can't be shot in an artistic way (i.e. perspective, lighting, etc.) and they certainly can carry an emotional impact.

i don't think you should set limits on artistic expressions, though. well, the limits should only be that the image still remain photographic in nature and not completely digital art. not that digital art isn't a beautiful form of expression but it's not photography, even if a photograph is the basis of the image.

most photographers i know shoot the images they see in their heart rather than what they see in their viewfinder. if using Photoshop or other imaging software helps them obtain their vision, then i'm all for it. for an artist, photographer or otherwise, the final image is what's important, not how it was achieved.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 01:04:44.
01/23/2004 01:25:12 AM · #95
Here's another thing to think about for those on the side of integrity being the core of what makes a photograph. What about long exposures? Such as my shot here.



Did I actually see car's lights streaking? No. Because of this have I crossed into the dark abyss of trickery? I don't think so. It is what I saw in my mind and not in my viewfinder.
01/23/2004 01:40:38 AM · #96
What a great thread ! Speaking for myself , I can't say how many times I 've bumped the saturation, contrast ,histogram , etc . & said WOW ? Is this a photograph ? Filters ? , I say to myself - this is no longer a photograph but an image , BUT , it's an image I like because my eye still caught the original composition & tones , etc , plus it's mine ! I find it quite comforting to find out I'm not alone in this dilemma ! My only comfort through the editing process has been the thought that yes I used my vision & camera skills well and the fact that I'm learning everyday to better use the editing/darkroom tools at my disposal . Digital photography has opened a whole new field of art & I'm very excited to be a part of it ! Also , concerning the new rules ; after 4 months of " lurking " , I'm ready to sign up pretty soon & explore this frustrated artist feeling even more ! BTW , Great Image Rcrawford from AZ !
01/23/2004 02:11:40 AM · #97
Originally posted by louddog:


PS: I have no problems changing color levels. That changes the appearance of the image but not the content of the image. I liked the old rules.


I respect your position Louddog.

I like the old rules too, "on some of my shots".
To me, the beauty of the new rules is this:
I don't have to edit my picture if I don't want to, but I can if I feel like it. I have some shots I'm quite proud of because I didn't edit them at all, and they did well in the challenge against others who did edits.
I also have some shots I did a lot of work on and they did ok too.

Why would I want to impose my ideals on the other creative minds here when I can learn a lot from their very different styles and methods? I don't feel like I need to edit my work to win a challenge here, but I like the option to edit if I feel like it. Why would anyone want to crimp the creativity of the ones who like to edit. Hang on to your own Ideals if that's what makes you who you are and helps you to enjoy photography. But, if your best work cant compete with the next guys for whatever reason, Maybe you could learn something from him. Don't use the edit rules as a crutch for a low scoring entry, nobody is forcing anyone to edit their work.
01/23/2004 02:18:46 AM · #98
Originally posted by kreybar:

I'm learning everyday to better use the editing/darkroom tools at my disposal . Digital photography has opened a whole new field of art & I'm very excited to be a part of it !


I like this comment Kreybar. Photoshop, Paint Shop, Neatimage, they really are the darkroom tools of today. why limit them? It all comes down to voting on what you like and dislike.
01/23/2004 02:52:12 AM · #99
Thanks Gringo , I've gotta say : I've been shooting film & cosidering myself a photographer for 30+ yrs. and I think nothing has made more difference than the histogram I discovered a couple months ago ! To see that baby all across , Oh Yeah ! To hit auto anything & nothing discernable occurs ! The learning curve available through the tools available is incredible & immediate . In the old days ; We saw , We bracketed & We waited for development & printing . Now , my current dilemma is whether to first upgrade my camera or purchase a laptop for preview / deletions & edits in the field . For the Purists , I say , shoot both !
01/23/2004 09:01:23 AM · #100
Originally posted by louddog:

Back to the original topic, the rules say “Photographic Integrity” but fails to define it. Obviously everyone has a different definition of it. If I followed my definition I’d be at a disadvantage to those that feel adding and remove things from there photo doesn’t take away from its integrity. Furthermore, if it’s not defined there is no clear way to enforce it, thus technically anything goes.


You've obviously spent quite a lot of time considering what you think is a photo or not. Where I have a problem is that from at least what you've said, much of what is considered classic landscape photography (e.g., Ansel Adams, Weston et al) would, by your definition, not be photographs either. Would you agree with that ? They certainly changed many of their images far beyond what you'd consider a 'straight print' and did a whole lot more than just global levels adjustments or tonal changes.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:43:27 AM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:43:27 AM EDT.