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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Almost Gone
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 92, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/18/2004 09:16:07 AM · #1
First off, this isn't a rant about Eddy winning.

Nor is it a rant about disliking his photo.

It is strong, graphic, colourful but raises one interesting point (and it isn't about food styling either)

The bright blue background, which raises the shot in my mind several notches above just a rope with a black background, was created in photoshop. Now I know it was created in photoshop, shown on a laptop and held up behind the scene as a background, then photographed - but in the minds of the people who hate all things 'photoshopped' is this any different ? I'm curious what the differing integrity would be in this shot if it was created equally well both ways, looked the same, but in one case it was shot as Eddy did, using a laptop as a background, or if it was shot against a black background then the blue shot was edited in later. Would it be a different thing ? Can anyone rationally rather than emotionally explain why ?

I think it makes for an interesting discussion point - and it happens to be an excellent photograph either way.

Message edited by author 2004-02-18 09:17:16.
02/18/2004 09:24:59 AM · #2
First of all, I wouldn't care either way - created in photoshop directly on the photo is fine with me.

However, it absolutely is different when he does it on his laptop and holds it up. Then, it is a lighting technique. The laptop screen is simply a light. You can use a regular spotlight and put filters or something on it to create the same effect. The mere fact that it was a computer he was using rather than a regular lightbulb means nothing - the fantastic bright blue background is done with a very simple, easily recreated, lighting technique.
02/18/2004 09:25:19 AM · #3
Originally posted by Gordon:

or if it was shot against a black background then the blue shot was edited in later. Would it be a different thing ?

Can anyone rationally(or otherwise) explain how I can get the very same effect by using just photoshop, including the frayed fibres in the rope, and would that be easier than just shooting against a spotlit background...
02/18/2004 09:31:37 AM · #4
Would it have been any different if he had made the backdrop in Photoshop, printed it out and held it behind the rope? Would have taken a lot of ink, I suppose. I don't have a problem whatsoever with his approach. I think it's creative and, to me, it is nothing more than a clever lighting technique.
02/18/2004 09:36:15 AM · #5
I dont think it's really a problem....but I think there's more merit in learning how to do it with actual lights. While I think there's nothing wrong with photoshopping an image, I do think learning the conventional way of doing some stuff is important.
02/18/2004 09:39:23 AM · #6
I don't think this really has to do with Photoshop. He just used a prop in his set-up.
02/18/2004 09:40:25 AM · #7
I don't have a problem with it. It is a picture using a special lighting element. Very creative.

Byshen did something somewhat similar in this photo.

I agree with yellowpeep. It would be not different than using a printed version of the PS image.

I even used that technique in my winner. The BG is a photo. It would have been no different if I had done it in front of my computer instead.

Great shot Eddy!
02/18/2004 09:50:16 AM · #8
I found that big blue dot distracting. It was the first thing I noticed. Maybe if that background had been more subtle I would have scored this photo higher.
02/18/2004 10:01:46 AM · #9
I view it as simply a prop - whether it be a Photoshop image on a laptop screen, or other alternative lighting. Very creative, too.

Rich.
02/18/2004 10:05:50 AM · #10
I didn't like the blue spot either - but regardless it makes no difference to me if done in PS, laptop, lighting or by pure magic.

02/18/2004 10:10:29 AM · #11
Let's put it another way. What is the difference between

Take a picture of the rope
Create a new layer in photoshop
Add the blue spot
Put the blue spot behind the rope image
Flatten layers

and

Create a new layer in photoshop
Add the blue spot
Put the blue spot behind the rope
Take a picture of the rope and flatten the layers

Other than some changes when things are done in analog or digital terms, the process steps are identical. The order is just shuffled. Yet some people would seem to get extremely bent out of shape about the first, and not the second.

Again - I'm not trying to say Eddy's picture is good, bad or indifferent - I actually like it. I'm trying to understand the anti-photoshop and photoshop is evil view of the world that I see in the forums on occasion. So what's the big difference? This case is a good example, given that the blue layer is actually done in photoshop, just layered physically before the capture, rather than digitally after the capture.

Message edited by author 2004-02-18 10:11:06.
02/18/2004 10:14:27 AM · #12
Don't think ti's a PS is evil thing, G, rather a 'Photoshop isn't photography' issue. Don't really have an opinion, though I hate over-processed images, though I like clever composite images.

It would be perhaps a more interesting issue if I were to create an antire scene in photoshop, and then just photograph that.

E
02/18/2004 10:15:59 AM · #13
The biggest difference is using the laptop technique could be easier created with film (or slide). I say hats off to EddyG for his creative approach. To me, the difference is huge.

Message edited by author 2004-02-18 10:18:19.
02/18/2004 10:20:27 AM · #14
He used the PS graphic as a backdrop. Hence, he "photographed" it. Very clever IMHO. Some people even use light off their laptops to illuminate their subjects, don't they Gordon? The difference is they are photographs and not composites.
02/18/2004 10:25:31 AM · #15
Originally posted by Gordon:

Would it be a different thing ? Can anyone rationally rather than emotionally explain why ?


Gordon - I think his method is clean, and upholds the integrity of a photograph. My rationale, is the fact that he did not create anything in the photograph that did not exist within the eye of the camera. At the time he took the shot, the blue light was there. Simply put, he took a photograph of an environment that existed in real life at the time the shutter was released.
02/18/2004 10:28:52 AM · #16
Originally posted by Jacko:

The biggest difference is using the laptop technique could be easier created with film (or slide). I say hats off to EddyG for his creative approach. To me, the difference is huge.


Or put yet another way - it's the only you way will get this shot into an open challenge. :-) Again, very creative.

Message edited by author 2004-02-18 10:29:58.
02/18/2004 10:35:53 AM · #17
Originally posted by DJLuba:



Gordon - I think his method is clean, and upholds the integrity of a photograph. My rationale, is the fact that he did not create anything in the photograph that did not exist within the eye of the camera. At the time he took the shot, the blue light was there. Simply put, he took a photograph of an environment that existed in real life at the time the shutter was released.


True, but what is interesting in this case, is that the blue light was created in photoshop. That's the bit that bakes my noodle, as the oracle would say - the background was created in photoshop and layered behind the rope. All that's different is the order in time that it was done. I don't have a problem with that - nor would I have a problem with it being done after the shutter was pressed - but yet people do.
02/18/2004 10:36:23 AM · #18
The same effect could be achieved with two light sources. In a dark room, blue background with a spot light, and the rope lit by two lights from either side. Same difference.

Another way. Spray paint the blue spot on a black board. Front lighting.

All the same concept as using the laptop as a background. No difference. You da man Ed.

Originally posted by richterrell:

Originally posted by Jacko:

The biggest difference is using the laptop technique could be easier created with film (or slide). I say hats off to EddyG for his creative approach. To me, the difference is huge.


Or put yet another way - it's the only you way will get this shot into an open challenge. :-) Again, very creative.

02/18/2004 10:42:22 AM · #19
Originally posted by DJLuba:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Would it be a different thing ? Can anyone rationally rather than emotionally explain why ?


Gordon - I think his method is clean, and upholds the integrity of a photograph. My rationale, is the fact that he did not create anything in the photograph that did not exist within the eye of the camera. At the time he took the shot, the blue light was there. Simply put, he took a photograph of an environment that existed in real life at the time the shutter was released.


Great debate ;)

So would you feel different had he just added it in photoshop after the image was taken...?
02/18/2004 10:43:04 AM · #20
Originally posted by Jacko:

The same effect could be achieved with two light sources. In a dark room, blue background with a spot light, and the rope lit by two lights from either side. Same difference.

Another way. Spray paint the blue spot on a black board. Front lighting.

All the same concept as using the laptop as a background. No difference. You da man Ed.

Originally posted by richterrell:

Originally posted by Jacko:

The biggest difference is using the laptop technique could be easier created with film (or slide). I say hats off to EddyG for his creative approach. To me, the difference is huge.


Or put yet another way - it's the only you way will get this shot into an open challenge. :-) Again, very creative.


I agree that it is a very good shot - I was not implying that this was the only method for creating the shot, only that it was the only way to create it using a Photoshop created background while not creating a composite.

What I was trying to convey is that I am constantly impressed with different photographers' methods in adhering to the Open Challenge rules and still producing incredible, quality photographs using all sorts of methods. That sort of creativity is just awesome.

Rich.
02/18/2004 11:45:34 AM · #21
Originally posted by Gordon:

Can anyone rationally rather than emotionally explain why ?

Originally posted by Gordon:

I'm trying to understand the anti-photoshop and photoshop is evil view of the world that I see in the forums on occasion.


Gordon, if you really want to understand the view of those who prefer the Basic rules you need to get past your arguementative attitude and read some of the posts more objectively. There have been a lot, here and in many other threads, that state the case quite clearly. Here's one-
Originally posted by richterrell:

I am constantly impressed with different photographers' methods in adhering to the Open Challenge rules and still producing incredible, quality photographs using all sorts of methods. That sort of creativity is just awesome.

02/18/2004 11:59:13 AM · #22
Using a laptop with a color on it is no different than using a cloth background, paper background, etc.

02/18/2004 12:10:51 PM · #23
Originally posted by Gordon:


True, but what is interesting in this case, is that the blue light was created in photoshop. That's the bit that bakes my noodle, as the oracle would say - the background was created in photoshop and layered behind the rope. All that's different is the order in time that it was done. I don't have a problem with that - nor would I have a problem with it being done after the shutter was pressed - but yet people do.


Present company included.

I'll expose some of my thinking to stir the pot.

Photoshop was used in the case as any other "real" tool. e.g. hammer, shovel, clamp, light source etc.

If I want a deck built, guys come out with tools and build one. It's real and tangible. I can walk around on it, look at it from different angles, enjoy the craftsmanship of the men who built it.

I know this sounds like an insane example and metaphor, but bear with me.

Could we create the illusion of a deck in photoshop? Sorta, but it would defeat the purpose of having a deck.

Purpose - This is the key point. For myself, the purpose of a photograph is to capture a real moment in time and share it. As a viewer of photographs, my enjoyment of a good photograph comes from my belief that a moment in time existed and I can experience that moment through the photograph. My enjoyment increases the more the photo moves me emotionally, provokes thought, inspires me, or humors me. A basic human emotions.

The key differentiator is how people fulfill the purpose. Some enjoy nonfiction and some enjoy fiction. This is entirely dependent on the individual, and is neither right nor wrong.

For me, his methods involved more imagination than layering in Photoshop, and he created something that did exist in "real-life."

Another example, this one closer to Photography.

Paintings - Some people enjoy abstract art, and some enjoy portraits. A painter can paint things he or she sees, or they can brush the canvas with things in their imagination.

The person who appreciates the technical details of the painter, will most likely appreciate the painting of portraits or real life scenery. This person will appreciate the craft of color matching, drawing, hand coordination, and the painters ability to represent life in detail.

The person who appreciates abstract art will appreciate the painters imagination, and how far it goes, caring little about the details above.

So to answer your question, what is the difference, both methods are created using Photoshop?

They are not both Photoshop. He went the extra bit to make his real.

David
02/18/2004 12:16:03 PM · #24
Originally posted by coolhar:



Gordon, if you really want to understand the view of those who prefer the Basic rules you need to get past your arguementative attitude and read some of the posts more objectively. There have been a lot, here and in many other threads, that state the case quite clearly. Here's one-
Originally posted by richterrell:

I am constantly impressed with different photographers' methods in adhering to the Open Challenge rules and still producing incredible, quality photographs using all sorts of methods. That sort of creativity is just awesome.


I wasn't aware of an argumentative attitude, other than the fact that I'd like to actually understand the issue, rather than accept answers like 'just because'. Ad hominem comments aside, I also read the comment you quoted and was struck with the question that I wondered if we should be impressed by the creative solutions that were shown because of the open challenge rules, or in spite of them. It seems people expend a whole lot of effort to get around the restrictions imposed by the challenge, to do things in a way that is less than optimial, compared to the current solutions available. Are we wasting creative energy finding ways around the rules to do things that people already want to do ? Is that something to be praised, or something to recognise as a deficency in the current rules ?

Although nobody seems to seriously want to engage on the topic of intent, rather than tools, it seems really obvious that people are for example wanting to remove dust (kiwiness's ice floe description is a good example of a creative approach to getting around the rules, to do something that would be more effectively done with the clone tool) or add in blue dots behind images, which may or may not be easy to do in photoshop, before or after taking the exposure.

I strongly support the idea of remaining faithful to the idea of a photograph. I'm very against randomly applying photoshop filters and calling it art or still a photograph. I expend a lot of energy in my own photographs on composition, getting the scene perfect in camera, using optimal lighting and subject location, designing the structure and making everything as correct as I can before I close the shutter.

However, I also expend a great deal of effort on carefully getting very faithful colour reproduction, using best practices on sharpening and resizing, typical darkroom techniques of spotting and selective tonal adjustments and generally producing the best possible photograph that I can. Currently almost all the darkroom techniques I use would be considered industry best practice, as far as I understand it, and almost every step in my workflow is currently illegal under the open challenge rules. The final results are to me, extremely faithful to the idea of a photograph as that is normally my intent when using photoshop. I strongly believe the current open challenge rules are extremely detrimental to the development of most entrants as good photographers, as they actively encourage the development and adoption of bad workflows - even if at the same time the developers are being encouraged for their creativity in circumventing the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules.

If that's argumentative, then so be it. I haven't heard a good justification for the actual current set of rules, other than 'because' in a long time. A justification of those actual rules, isn't by the way, that they encourage good photography - they don't. It isn't even that they encourage good initial capture - they don't. There is nothing in them that for example pushes an entrant to actually get a good exposure, or actually to understand white balance - these can be fixed later under the open rules.
02/18/2004 12:16:17 PM · #25
Originally posted by DJLuba:



Purpose - This is the key point. For myself, the purpose of a photograph is to capture a real moment in time and share it. As a viewer of photographs, my enjoyment of a good photograph comes from my belief that a moment in time existed and I can experience that moment through the photograph. My enjoyment increases the more the photo moves me emotionally, provokes thought, inspires me, or humors me. A basic human emotions.



This brings up the same old argument - most famous photographs are touched up to the point that they do not represent a moment in time. In fact, look at the entire "Painting with Light" challenge. Not one of those photos, even the fantastically moving ones, represents a moment in time. Gordon's 1st place shot really never existed except on his computer. He used "photography" to create it. A combination of camera technique and darkroom technique. That moment in time never existed. Neither did many of the moments represented by many famous photographers who, even in the film media, use dodging and burning and other editing techniques.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/18/2020 11:55:56 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 © 2001-2020 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: 02/18/2020 11:55:56 PM EST.