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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Advanced Editing Whine
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 47 of 47, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/01/2004 09:06:06 PM · #26
OK. I'm not going to single out any specific pics or photographers in public, but here's a pshop plugin that does incredible photo-realistic lighting effects, but is technically within the rules.

Auto FX Mystical Lighting

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:


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.


I'd love to see some examples...


02/01/2004 09:22:35 PM · #27


This entry earned me a dq request on the very first day of voting...

Completely legal - foggy filter, b&w in the camera, high key approach.

I was shocked at the dq request, and went to the chat room for solace. The general opinion was that they thought that the dq requester had thought that it was photochopped.
02/02/2004 12:55:41 AM · #28
Originally posted by PaulMdx:

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


Why is it a shame? If a voter doesn't like highly manipulated images, and they can perceive such when viewing an entry, aren't they supposed to vote it low?
02/02/2004 02:34:17 AM · #29
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

OK. I'm not going to single out any specific pics or photographers in public, but here's a pshop plugin that does incredible photo-realistic lighting effects, but is technically within the rules.

Auto FX Mystical Lighting



Wow that stuff's pretty amazing. PS is expensive enough for me though. I personally don't think some of the lighting effects would bother me if it still looks like a photo.
02/02/2004 03:15:47 AM · #30
I do not like the advanced editing.

My personal opinion is that people will keep pushing the boundaries of these rules over a period of time until someone has to step in and do something.

Now, not only does someone have to buy Photoshop but also various effects packages.
02/02/2004 03:36:16 AM · #31
Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

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

Why is it a shame? If a voter doesn't like highly manipulated images, and they can perceive such when viewing an entry, aren't they supposed to vote it low?

I quite agree with you about editing pics, but I'm not talking about edited shots. I'm talking about pushing what can be done with use of camera, perspective, light, etc.
02/02/2004 03:37:51 AM · #32
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

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.

I'd love to see some examples...

Digital Art? - thread
02/12/2004 10:26:24 AM · #33
I'm having a hard time voting on the Shallow DOF.
I keep thinking, "What was done with advanced editing and what was done with camera skills?" How much blur was added by photoshop? etc...I know there are those of you that say it shouldn't matter, but I joined the site to learn camera skills.
Sure wish we'd go back to basic editing with an occasional advanced thrown in for good measure. Then when I look at a photo, I can appreciate it for the skill level of the photographer and not his editing skills.
02/12/2004 10:31:42 AM · #34
Originally posted by Marjo:


Sure wish we'd go back to basic editing with an occasional advanced thrown in for good measure. Then when I look at a photo, I can appreciate it for the skill level of the photographer and not his editing skills.


Right now its 50% of the time...
02/12/2004 10:40:00 AM · #35
Originally posted by Marjo:

Sure wish we'd go back to basic editing with an occasional advanced thrown in for good measure. Then when I look at a photo, I can appreciate it for the skill level of the photographer and not his editing skills.


One does not go without the other.
02/12/2004 10:41:09 AM · #36
If it helps you judge, all of the blurring in my photo was done in-camera.
02/12/2004 10:43:12 AM · #37
Originally posted by GeneralE:

If it helps you judge, all of the blurring in my photo was done in-camera.


And mine all out-of-camera..... does it really matter??? The end result is what counts. If the photo is as you envisioned it to be than you have succeeded.


02/12/2004 10:44:37 AM · #38
That is true. 50/50 seems fair.
I was mostly referring to the Member challenges, though. I used to really enjoy studying those photos for camera skill techniques and now, as I said previously, I keep wondering what I'm looking at.
02/12/2004 10:52:00 AM · #39
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If it helps you judge, all of the blurring in my photo was done in-camera.


And mine all out-of-camera..... does it really matter??? The end result is what counts. If the photo is as you envisioned it to be than you have succeeded.

I agree ... I edit when I need to. I's just funny that this time, when editing seemed so likely, my poor little P+S camera actually caught the subject in a shallow DOF. My score is about a point below what I expected thought ....
02/12/2004 11:01:37 AM · #40
I'll throw down again. The integrity rule is dumb and meaningless. Unless you can articulate (see magazine/newspaper/etc. policies) what you're trying to preserve it's just too damn vague. Hell, you might as well just change it to say "we don't want no stinking digital art"; clear as mud. I suppose I should stop calling it a rule; it's really worded as a suggestion/reminder.

A big piece of digital art could ribbon one of these days. What will happen then?
02/12/2004 11:37:03 AM · #41
We have lost the need for DQ's (sort of) at least with old rules if shots were suspected of using too much post processing, your work could be validated, now we just get disliked and voted down potentially with no chance of 'validation' and no assumption of within the rules.
02/12/2004 12:35:48 PM · #42
You know what? After reading all the millions of threads on the pro's and con's, I'm finally done worrying about it.

I'm just going to look at the image and do as EddyG suggested.

"As a voter, if you feel the image is too "digital art", or shows obvious signs of editing, you are free to give a lower score and hopefully leave an appropriate comment."
02/12/2004 01:07:37 PM · #43
Sorry, ellamay. I didn't read your post before submitting.
I agree. That's what will happen. Photos will get voted down and only after the challenge will we learn what was really the case.
I don't see anyway around it.
02/12/2004 01:49:19 PM · #44
Not to show my age, but, it sounds like the 'real' vs 'plastic' paper debate of 1978 and how use of the 'new' chemistry would be the death of us all. I'm not trying to take anything away from the debate, just putting it in context.
02/12/2004 02:29:35 PM · #45
Originally posted by ellamay:

We have lost the need for DQ's (sort of) at least with old rules if shots were suspected of using too much post processing, your work could be validated, now we just get disliked and voted down potentially with no chance of 'validation' and no assumption of within the rules.


Thing is though (and I've been through this process a few times with the old rules) the people who didn't like it before when they thought it was digital art, still don't like it afterwards either. They like realistic looking images not arty looking shots - no matter what tools you created it with.

Once more with feeling. It isn't the tools you use, its the artistic intent that some like and others dislike. it gets articulated in a lot of superficial ways (too much photochopping et al) but the underlying message is the same. Realism vs artistic license is the more fundamental differentiator, no matter how it gets spewed out in debate.
02/12/2004 03:27:45 PM · #46
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

Originally posted by Marjo:

Sure wish we'd go back to basic editing with an occasional advanced thrown in for good measure. Then when I look at a photo, I can appreciate it for the skill level of the photographer and not his editing skills.


One does not go without the other.


This is true, and anyone here will probably tell you that unless your aim is digital art, or some kind of photo-digital art hybrid, you have to have a good photo to begin with. Photoshop can only do so much, unless you are a real wizard and have the many many hours to spend on an image. Besides, photos that really look digital artish do not usually do well here.
02/12/2004 03:30:40 PM · #47
Originally posted by dwoolridge:

A big piece of digital art could ribbon one of these days. What will happen then?


This community's paradigm of what is acceptable will have shifted--as it does constantly and which gives rise to new artistic perceptions and movements.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:00:23 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:00:23 PM EDT.