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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Advanced Editing Whine
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 47, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/01/2004 12:43:31 AM · #1
Creativity and digital art is showing up more and more each challenge. Maybe we should just go ahead and have a "digital art challenge' and let everybody go for a ribbon. It would be more interesting than my road sign, that's for sure! I truly like a lot of the work I've seen but feel it belongs in a different category.

That said, then maybe we could get back to using the advanced editing to enhance a photo to bring out all the good qualities already in the photo...which is what I'm cry-babying about.
With advanced editing, photos now are expected to be edited to perfection and trying to do this has me shying away from challenges. My photography skills aren't there (yet) and neither is my editing skills. I am learning daily from some wonderful photographers on this site, but I feel like I shouldn't bother to enter a challenge.
02/01/2004 07:00:57 AM · #2
Originally posted by Marjo:

Creativity and digital art is showing up more and more each challenge.


Where? examples? what was their final score?
02/01/2004 11:14:42 AM · #3
I'm not going to single out photos. My opinion of digital art is a photo that has been obviously manipulated, modified, oversaturated or combined by enhancing/editing on a computer. A created image of creativity, but not natural looking. I even feel if it is natural looking but has had something added...like a sunset on the lake photo with a rowboat...take out rowboat, insert beautiful sailboat...wow! Technically it's no longer in the same category as a "just enhanced photo to bring out it's natural beauty", it's now manipulated and shouldn't compete in a "photo" challenge. In the real world, now that's different, IMO, if someone likes it...they don't care how it was produced.
02/01/2004 11:19:54 AM · #4
I think all challenges should go back to basic editing, with the only advanced editing challenges being, the free studies, and speed challenges.
02/01/2004 11:26:58 AM · #5
Even under the new rules, you're only allowed 1 photo, so you can't put a sailboad in over a rowboat, or combine any 2 photos.
02/01/2004 11:45:16 AM · #6
Originally posted by Marjo:

Creativity and digital art is showing up more and more each challenge.


I'm all for the former and haven't really much evidence of the latter - maybe after the challenges are finished you can point out the ones you feel are too edited and we can talk about it further
02/01/2004 11:48:08 AM · #7
Good point, Konador. I just used that as an example of a manipulated photo.
When editing a photo, where do you stop? An example, my photo for the chinese zodiac of "Winter Horse". Should I have cloned out the trees? I took the photo to reflect the horse with her winter coat and the bare trees in the background to enforce the fact that it's winter. I know that this is photographer preference and you can't please everyone or anyone but yourself. With advanced editing, each photo seems to be critiqued for those kinds of things. Instead of looking at the whole photo and critiquing it for what it is, it's being looked at for what should be removed. Does this make sense?
Or should I have removed the halter by cloning?
I guess this rant is based on my confusion with advanced editing and integrity of the photo.

Message edited by author 2004-02-01 11:58:38.
02/01/2004 01:09:12 PM · #8
The advanced editing rules are intended to allow the photographer to create the best looking image. If you feel the photograph would be improved by cloning out the trees, then you are free to do that under the advanced editing rules. If you have a Photoshop plug-in that provides a nice "soft focus" effect (ala AutoFX's free Dreamy Focus plug-in) and you feel your photograph could be improved by its use, you are free to do so. There are very few restrictions (just no text, and no multi-image composites).

The advanced editing rules are intentionally written the way they are so that the voters and not the Site Council determine "what is too much". The last thing we wanted the Site Council to be involved in was endless, subjective debates about whether a particular effect/technique/approach/method/etc. was "too much". As a voter, if you feel the image is too "digital art", or shows obvious signs of editing, you a free to give a lower score and hopefully leave an appropriate comment. However, a well-done edit (such as crabappl3's "Chairman of the Board") is entirely acceptable and is, in my opinion, a great example of the advanced rules in action.

The way I see it, the Open Challenges can be used to hone your "raw" photography skills, especially composition and "technicals". The Member Challenges then allow you to "take it to the next level" and showcase how your photography skills, combined with the digital darkroom, can create outstanding images. We live in an age where digital images are edited in programs like Photoshop, and I think it is important to learn those skills.

That being said, I wouldn't mind an occasional Member challenge with "photojournalistic" editing restrictions (meaning, "pictures don't lie", so no cloning out stuff, adding effects via layers and plug-ins, etc.)

Message edited by author 2004-02-01 13:16:15.
02/01/2004 01:14:45 PM · #9
Originally posted by Marjo:

I'm not going to single out photos. My opinion of digital art is a photo that has been obviously manipulated, modified, oversaturated or combined by enhancing/editing on a computer. A created image of creativity, but not natural looking. I even feel if it is natural looking but has had something added...like a sunset on the lake photo with a rowboat...take out rowboat, insert beautiful sailboat...wow! Technically it's no longer in the same category as a "just enhanced photo to bring out it's natural beauty", it's now manipulated and shouldn't compete in a "photo" challenge. In the real world, now that's different, IMO, if someone likes it...they don't care how it was produced.


What you've suggested here isnt even legal. The rules state that photographic integrity should be maintained at all times. If you feel people arnet doing that, score it accordingly.
I'm not all that skilled at editing & all but I try & find that I am getting better at taking shots as well as bettering them in the digital darkroom!
02/01/2004 01:26:21 PM · #10
EddyG, Good explanation and I appreciate your response. It helps me to figure it all out. I just tried to remove the halter from my winter horse and make it look realistic. I didn't succeed. Trees were no problem, but that halter directly against the horse was difficult.
I can certainly appreciate the skill involved in Crabappl3's photo. Excellent work and photo.
02/01/2004 01:52:36 PM · #11
Originally posted by Rooster:

The rules state that photographic integrity should be maintained at all times. If you feel people arnet doing that, score it accordingly.


If you feel people aren't doing that? How would you know unless you've seen the original? Shouldn't you be voting on if you like the image you're looking at rather than what you think might have been done to it?
02/01/2004 02:54:41 PM · #12
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by Rooster:

The rules state that photographic integrity should be maintained at all times. If you feel people arnet doing that, score it accordingly.


If you feel people aren't doing that? How would you know unless you've seen the original? Shouldn't you be voting on if you like the image you're looking at rather than what you think might have been done to it?


Maybe we need editing full disclosure in the desc field, prior/during voting ? I know we've had this discussion before about the details, and the people who feel any picture has to 'stand on its own' but editing is another layer of complexity
02/01/2004 02:58:57 PM · #13
I just don't see how the editing, as long as it is within rules, is relevant.
02/01/2004 04:13:10 PM · #14
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

I just don't see how the editing, as long as it is within rules, is relevant.


Perhaps not relevant but I think it would be nice to see how much of what your looking at is actualy happened / or was actually there.
For example - the 2nd place entry in the Road Signs challenge - to me the only interesting piece of that photo is the light trails (matching that of the road sign) and they would be very simple to add via photoshop (not that i am suggesting they were).

Now if that was the case - to me, the photographic qualities of that shot would be reduced to nil in my opinion, but the editing and idea get good marks. So it would then be a photoshop challenge...?

I don't know - it's sunday night, I am tired and have no idea what i am blabbering on about ;)


02/01/2004 04:19:54 PM · #15
I just don't understand why people think they need to know what was and wasn't edited. IS IT A GOOD PHOTO? Why should it get a grade lower if something is edited. I am sure all the famous painters painted over something on their canvases that didn't look quite right. Is it a piece of crap or worth less then? I think not. At least not now. Just look at the photo.
The way this sounds like it is going, someone that has never seen an IR photo will give it a low score, because it "has to be photoshopped, to look like that." What about your B&W photos? How many of you actually shoot these pics in the B&W mode on your camera? ding, ding!
02/01/2004 04:22:22 PM · #16
I don't think anyone said they would mark it down....

Message edited by author 2004-02-01 16:53:44.
02/01/2004 04:26:02 PM · #17
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

The way this sounds like it is going, someone that has never seen an IR photo will give it a low score, because it "has to be photoshopped, to look like that."

I almost got stung by a similar thing recently (won't go into details), and I've heard of 2-3 similar cases, where shots get marked down because they look like they've been over-edited.. Now, when I'm spot editing my pics I purposefully don't make them look too perfect, to avoid it!

I think it's a shame people vote down shots where the photog really pushes what can be done..

On the flip-side, what's my motivation to push the camera and my abilities, when people think it's Photoshoped anyway? I may as well PS it and have a easy life! :-)
02/01/2004 04:44:37 PM · #18
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by Rooster:

The rules state that photographic integrity should be maintained at all times. If you feel people arnet doing that, score it accordingly.


If you feel people aren't doing that? How would you know unless you've seen the original? Shouldn't you be voting on if you like the image you're looking at rather than what you think might have been done to it?


My statement was in context with what Marjo originally said.
02/01/2004 04:47:24 PM · #19
Originally posted by PaulMdx:


I almost got stung by a similar thing recently (won't go into details), and I've heard of 2-3 similar cases, where shots get marked down because they look like they've been over-edited.. Now, when I'm spot editing my pics I purposefully don't make them look too perfect, to avoid it!
[/quote]

I`ve had the same thing, but I just think that people are entitled to their opinion. If it`s over shopped so what, if it looks good, great.
02/01/2004 04:55:53 PM · #20
likewise, if it looks good - all the better.

Too much PS ruins most images anyway
02/01/2004 05:00:11 PM · #21
Originally posted by Harold1066:

I`ve had the same thing, but I just think that people are entitled to their opinion. If it`s over shopped so what, if it looks good, great.

Sorry, didn't explain myself.. I was talking about shots where people have said they're too PS'd, when in fact, there's hardly any PSing at all. Hence, the shots are getting unfairly (one might say) marked down.
02/01/2004 05:33:01 PM · #22
Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by Harold1066:

I`ve had the same thing, but I just think that people are entitled to their opinion. If it`s over shopped so what, if it looks good, great.

Sorry, didn't explain myself.. I was talking about shots where people have said they're too PS'd, when in fact, there's hardly any PSing at all. Hence, the shots are getting unfairly (one might say) marked down.


OK got it :)

02/01/2004 07:16:36 PM · #23
The only thing that bothers me at this point is this: the rules state that you can't use more than one source photo for your pic.

BUT some people are getting around that by using photoshop plugins that do things like simulate incredibly glorious light that never existed, nor that many of us even experience in our lives.

What that really means is that when you like those shots, what you're really liking is the artistry of the person that programmed that incredible filter effect, not the artistry of the 'photographer'.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you're rating the skill of contestants, it just seems a little cheap to me :).
02/01/2004 07:24:49 PM · #24
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

The only thing that bothers me at this point is this: the rules state that you can't use more than one source photo for your pic.

BUT some people are getting around that by using photoshop plugins that do things like simulate incredibly glorious light that never existed, nor that many of us even experience in our lives.

What that really means is that when you like those shots, what you're really liking is the artistry of the person that programmed that incredible filter effect, not the artistry of the 'photographer'.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you're rating the skill of contestants, it just seems a little cheap to me :).


I agree with that. Well said.
02/01/2004 07:28:47 PM · #25
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

The only thing that bothers me at this point is this: the rules state that you can't use more than one source photo for your pic.

BUT some people are getting around that by using photoshop plugins that do things like simulate incredibly glorious light that never existed, nor that many of us even experience in our lives.

What that really means is that when you like those shots, what you're really liking is the artistry of the person that programmed that incredible filter effect, not the artistry of the 'photographer'.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you're rating the skill of contestants, it just seems a little cheap to me :).


I'd love to see some examples...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/18/2021 02:33:18 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 © 2001-2021 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: 01/18/2021 02:33:18 AM EST.