| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2004 01:02:14 AM · #26 |
What is photo integrity? Is it an accurate recording of absolute reality? Even if you review top finishers at DPC you will find most images have some component that is not "real".
Nobody complains when they see nice starburst light beams off lamp posts in a nighttime landscape. In fact, these traditionally finish near the top of the voting. They are never voted down because they lack photographic integrity.
But this is not "real". The effect is usually created with a special filter or lense. Do these images then lack photographic integrity? No. The artist is simply using a tool of the trade just like they do using a neutral density and other special purpose filters to convey their own interpretation of the scene.
Nobody purports that this is reality but few suggest their images lack photographic integrity either.
This implies, therefore, that their digital photoediting equivalents should also be allowed. Why then should a much richer set of expanded filtering capabilities available with digital technology be restricted? That does not make sense.
Let me site a DPC example to prove my point...
There was a DPC "soft focus" challenge a while back. In that challenge you were allowed to use special filter attachments or put pantyhose or something else over your lense to produce the "soft" effect. However, you were not allowed to use a soft focus filter using your photo editing software that does EXACTLY the same thing.
However, you were allowed to use noise reduction software, like NeatImage. Since I did not have any filters that is how I achieved soft focus with my image.
Now does that make sense? Logic tells us emphatically NO!
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 01:22:00.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 01:10:23 AM · #27 |
.
edit: Oops I thought I logged into //www.dpchallenge.com/ not //www.worth1000.com/. Sorry.
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 01:10:59. |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 01:18:26 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This situation is true because that's what we would see in reality. It doesn't matter how big the child or mountain are standing next to each other, but how we would see it in reality from our vantage point. That's the reality that we're dealing with when we take a picture.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
[quote=TooCool] [quote=stdavidson]When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No. |
|
Consider this. You take two pictures, one of distant the mountains without the child and one of the child alone against a neutral background and put them together to create one image with the exact perspective as the original and is indistinguishable from it.
By your own arguement it is just as valid because, "It doesn't matter how big the child or mountain are standing next to each other, but how we would see it in reality from our vantage point." Both images give us the same view, the same reality.
But still, in both cases, perspective distorts absolute reality.
Message edited by author 2004-03-09 01:19:15.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 01:48:22 AM · #29 |
Theoretically, technically, you couldn't have integrity because the time element would have been changed so that you may have different wind conditions that make for the childs hair blowing in one direction, and the trees on the mountain blowing in another. Or the light would be ever so slightly different between the two shots.
Also, the process of editing the two pics together may not result in persuasive rendition of reality, although that would have alot to do with the editing talents. But these are nits. The real issue is that without some kind of editing restrictions the fear is that photographs will start to appear more and more outlandish. |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 01:56:05 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
What is photo integrity? Is it an accurate recording of absolute reality? Even if you review top finishers at DPC you will find most images have some component that is not "real".
Nobody complains when they see nice starburst light beams off lamp posts in a nighttime landscape. In fact, these traditionally finish near the top of the voting. They are never voted down because they lack photographic integrity. |
Case in point: all of the top finishers in the recent Fire challenge. The first and third place entries had no comments, but I’d be willing to bet they were edited quite a bit.
This is quoted from carsten’s second place entry:
“A lot of Photoshop work - rotating, cropping, levels, color balance, burning and dodging, cloning, healing brushing, and more ...
Both the whole image and smaller parts several times. Also used some of Fred Miranda's tools to get the final result.”
Obviously a lot of people thought it had photographic integrity--or at least enough for second place. I bet a lot of the people that gripe about editing and photographic integrity gave it very high scores as well. Maybe ‘photographic integrity’ is in the eye of the beholder. 8^)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 02:05:40 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
... But these are nits. The real issue is that without some kind of editing restrictions the fear is that photographs will start to appear more and more outlandish. |
Ah... but that is not a problem!
Bad editing will result in bad pictures, just like bad lighting and/or composition does. There really is no difference. Edited or not, a bad picture is a bad picture and the voters will know it and vote accordingly.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 02:13:45 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
This is quoted from carsten’s second place entry:
“A lot of Photoshop work - rotating, cropping, levels, color balance, burning and dodging, cloning, healing brushing, and more ...
Both the whole image and smaller parts several times. Also used some of Fred Miranda's tools to get the final result.”
Obviously a lot of people thought it had photographic integrity--or at least enough for second place. I bet a lot of the people that gripe about editing and photographic integrity gave it very high scores as well. Maybe ‘photographic integrity’ is in the eye of the beholder. 8^) |
Carsten's is a good case in point...
Great editing results in great images. Personally, photographic integrity never even entered my mind when I voted on it. To me it was just a very clever idea done exceptionally well. That is why it was one of my personal top three picks.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 03:24:06 AM · #33 |
Are we talking resizing here? I mean, I hardly use any editing, mainly none at all.... usually resizing sometimes cropping.
Take: 
For example.... nothing else was done the photo except for resizing.
Also: 
Again, no editing....
And even better: 
In the contest I did do one click on despeckle.... just to "touch it up". But, in all reality... I got it printed the other day, and you can't even see the "hot" pixel I noticed when the image was on my computer. Again, another shot where photo shop was not needed at all to produce a good image.
I personally don't think it needs to be used. I think a good image can be created with the right light and equiptment. That's just me. I don't vote anyone down for using PS, unless it looks way too PS'ed.
Again, Just my $0.02
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 03:37:02 AM · #34 |
"About DPChallenge
langdon
drewmedia
DPChallenge was created in January 2002 by two friends, Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia) and Langdon Oliver (langdon). The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week. The idea quickly took off and became much more in the months that followed.
In December 2002, we released the 2nd version of our site with a number of new features, including concurrent challenges. We also added site membership as a way to support our ever-growing physical and time demands.
To date, 18,102 users have submitted 28,458 photographs to 196 challenges
"
This is why there are restrictions on editing. All the logic in the world does not change the fact that this sight was started, and carried on to provide people with a place to better their photography. Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph.
I can probably come up with a plausible argument as to why we should fall off the earth... but, because the rule of gravity is in effect we don't... no matter how logical my argument.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 06:34:12 AM · #35 |
| why should there be restrictions in photo editing of even a photojournal listic photograph? Nothing is real anyway its only refracted light all images lie anyway you rely on an image to give you the truth then you've already accepted the lie. Why not have a perfect lie something you want to believe in more? |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 07:10:00 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by unknowndeath:
Why not have a perfect lie something you want to believe in more? |
What HAVE news agencies been thinking all these years... |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 07:13:43 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong! |
You've not stated a fact here, you've expressed an opinion (which you're perfectly entitled to), so it's impossible for anyone to prove you wrong.
All editing shouldn't be allowed. Can you prove ME wrong? |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 07:57:58 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
OK. I will. Like this one, every artist creates their own unique interpretations for their own reasons. Nothing wrong with pushing the rules as was mrblobby's intent. Artists throughout history have done that. You think Picasso didn't push the limits? Does his work lack integrity? Certainly not.
Our goal, as judges of art is to decide if it is good or not.
This one got 5.093... The voters have spoken. |
I think that the problem is that the term "photographic integrity" is just completely ridiculous and way too broad. To me, photographic integrity is whether or not it looks like a photo. I think this one does not. Whether or not Picasso's work has integrity is a completely different subject. Does his work have photographic integrity? Of course not.
I don't really see this as an issue that can be argued to conclusion if we're going to continue to use a term as subjective as photographic integrity. In fact, I'm not even sure what your point is. That it's impossible to edit a photo beyond photographic integrity? Or that we should have open editing, which we already do? |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:34:15 AM · #39 |
Photography can be looked at in several different ways. It can be viewed as a documentary medium where what you see is what you get. It can also be viewed as an artistic medium. In photojournalism, the reality aspect should be maintained up to the point where any modifications made to the image do not change the storyline or overall theme of what the viewer sees. Color enhancing, sharpening, dodging, burning, or any other changes that enhance the image are usually acceptable in photojournalism. Adding or removing physical elements from the image are usually not acceptable.
In photographic arts, the photographer is allowed much more creativity than in photojournalism. The creativity is basically unlimited.
I believe that the DPC intent of 'photographic integrity' is a combination of these two mindsets.
1. Your image should look like a photograph.
2. You should not add elements to the photo from another photo.
My personal 'photographic integrity' rule goes a little further. I don't like to see certain types of elements added to a photo that did not exist in the original. I especially don't like to see the impact factor of the image created outside the camera.
Everyone has their own interpretation. This is just part of mine.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:50:42 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Unfortunately, logic tells us otherwise. Your son only APPEARS to look bigger. He actually is not. |
But that IS the reality of the situation. Or are you saying that to maintain photographic integrity I must Photoshop my son to a smaller size? Or the mountain to a bigger size?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:52:03 AM · #41 |
An interesting thread.
I voted this image as my only 10 in the fire challenge. Normally I do not rate highly manipulated photos very highly unless they enhance the original capture in some way. Thus some photos in past challenges have been converted to infra-red effect and rated reasonably well. What this image manages to do so well, however, is to capture the way metal behaves when it is heated. These swirlign patterns are observable but incrdibly difficult to capture. However, if one was using a thermal imaging camera it would be straightforward. Thus, simply because most people use the visible spectrum for their photographic art does not in my own personal view invalidate the enhancement of such photographs to portray the reality of a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I may be wrong of course - this image may be manipulated in a way that relfects little of the reality of how this metal is responding. Carla, are you brave enough to post the original?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 08:53:52 AM · #42 |
Again with the arguing about tools.
It ain't the tools, its what you do with them.
You can already go well beyond what a 'photo' is with hue/sat.
Allowing any and all tools would not change that. What changes is the intent of the photographer to remain faithful to the original scene, or to try to go beyond what they saw into what they want to see.
Tools don't clone people, people do.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:05:56 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by nsoroma79:
Are we talking resizing here? I mean, I hardly use any editing, mainly none at all.... usually resizing sometimes cropping.
...
I think a good image can be created with the right light and equiptment. That's just me. I don't vote anyone down for using PS, unless it looks way too PS'ed.
Again, Just my $0.02 |
Good point. Resize? I doubt many people believe changing the scale of the image alters its "reality".
Some might suggest say this is like the situation of a child being bigger than a mountain when the child is very close to the camera and the mountain far away. That suggestion would be incorrect, however, because the relative scale off the items in the image are altered there.
Not all images need to be edited to achieve the artists expectation. In that case the image is close to the expectation out of the camera. Nothing wrong with that.
It is not being suggested that photo editing MUST be done.
I agree with your approach to voting on edited images. When overdone or done improperly photo editing ruins good pictures. Voters recognize this.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:06:25 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
... But these are nits. The real issue is that without some kind of editing restrictions the fear is that photographs will start to appear more and more outlandish. |
Ah... but that is not a problem!
Bad editing will result in bad pictures, just like bad lighting and/or composition does. There really is no difference. Edited or not, a bad picture is a bad picture and the voters will know it and vote accordingly. |
Ok stdavidson lets look at one of your photos for a second...
this is the kind of think I am talking about that does not hold photographic integrity...its obviously over edited, and not very pleasing to me... the lighting is not correct for the sunset and the sunlight illuminating the airplane...to you that may be a different story, but if it were entered into a contest on DPC, I would vote it low.
and lets look at this one....
again very obvious its been edited and it would receive a low vote from me.
Now if these images were on a different contest site I might react a little different, and vote them higher, but not at this site (DPC)
The rules on this site are set for a reason. I did not like it when they allowed MORE editing in the members challenges, since this strayed away from the exact reason I chose to join this site in the first place.
LIMITED EDITING....so that means you MUST compose a good picture using your CAMERA, not make one up in image editing software.
James
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:14:15 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
"About DPChallenge
langdon
drewmedia
... The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers ...
"
This is why there are restrictions on editing... Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph.
|
I beg to differ. It says they formed the site to teach themselves to be "better" photographers. In no way did it suggest lomitations to photo editing in that charter.
Editing tools are an intimate part of digital imaging and always will be. Rare indeed is an image submitted here that is exactly as it came from the camera.
Take the time to learn the tools. They will never make a rotten picture good, but can make a good image better and truer to what you actually saw when taking the picture.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:19:01 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by unknowndeath:
why should there be restrictions in photo editing of even a photojournal listic photograph? Nothing is real anyway its only refracted light all images lie anyway you rely on an image to give you the truth then you've already accepted the lie. Why not have a perfect lie something you want to believe in more? |
The purpose of photo editing is not to lie to the viewer as you suggest. It is to convey a thought or feeling the photogarpher was trying to capture when they took the image. Editing is a tool to accomplish that. It is art.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:44:35 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong! |
You've not stated a fact here, you've expressed an opinion (which you're perfectly entitled to), so it's impossible for anyone to prove you wrong.
All editing shouldn't be allowed. Can you prove ME wrong? |
Paul, I suggest you have already proven me right.
Review your own submissions. It is hard for me to believe a software image could resist the temptation to edit and that none was involved in any of your fine work. :)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 09:52:28 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by mk:
I think that the problem is that the term "photographic integrity" is just completely ridiculous and way too broad. To me, photographic integrity is whether or not it looks like a photo. I think this one does not. Whether or not Picasso's work has integrity is a completely different subject. Does his work have photographic integrity? Of course not. |
You make a great point with... "To me, photographic integrity is whether or not it looks like a photo." This statement embodies the concept that any and all editing is OK with you as long as it is done well. You are right. That is as it should be.
I disagree that Picasso's art and photography are different. They are not. A painting captures a moment in time just as a photograph does. The only difference is it is done with paint and digital art is done with pixels.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2004 10:05:48 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph. |
It helps me.
After a while of always doing level adjusting, contrasting and other editing, I realised that if I could include those changes before shooting, my photograph skills would be improved.
I find that digital editing is a good way of increasing awareness of weaknesses in our base photography. |
|
|
|
03/09/2004 10:43:35 AM · #50 |
For creating art to hang on the wall, or making something pretty to put in a book, I agree with you (Steve) 100%. But I'd also say, as you start adding and removing elements of the photograph it becomes less of a photo and more of a peice of art and there is nothing wrong with that.
Now, when you are talking about a photography challenge, or contest, are you saying adding a 737 to a sunset shot or re-arranging spots on a cow to look like a map of the earth should be fair game? I'd have to say heck no. That should be a different contest and probably a different website. That would be a photo editing contest.
Photoshop (and similar software) allows someone with artistic vision to take a bad or average photo and turn it into a pretty picture. Do we still want to consider that "photography?" It is a talent, and is probably more difficult to do then just press the button on a camera, but to me it's outside the realm of photography. To me photography is about capturing a moment in time, an angle, a composition. Not seeing what I can turn create on my computer with it.
Now, if we are talking about sharpening, cropping and adjusting colors I'm fine with that for the reasons you stated, the camera typically does not capture that accurately. When you are talking about removing a fence, adding a tree, or simply deleting the background to make a white background, you are now using photoshop to create what you couldn't see, but wanted to. To me, that's where it is no longer a photograph. |
|
