| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2004 04:29:35 PM · #226 |
Mousie's message clearly says:
adding anything in is inappropriate (emphasis mine)
and that is what I was replying to. At least his view is not subjective. At least there is no guessing whether "adding this" by "doing that" is OK, but "adding that" by "doing this" will result in a DQ...
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 16:31:50. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:33:14 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Mousie:
For me, photograpy is almost always about removing things from the final image, with or without Photoshop. Flattening or simplifying perspective. Cropping out all unnecessary elements. Distilling everything down to it's essence, or even beyond to pure color and composition. In post processing, it's about removing acne, power lines, razor burn, dust... I take away everything I can that gets in the way of the image in my head.
Photography is inherently reductive. Were talking about taking the whole WORLD and peeling away everything until we're left with a flat little rectangle that has impact because there's so little left in it to distract us away from what the focus is. Focus is *defined* by removing everything else!
That's why I think that, most of the time, editing stuff out is appropriate, and adding anything in is inappropriate, for a 'photograph.' |
This resonates with my views too - very well put, I feel. |
I kinda feel the same way.. it seems to be, instinctively, the way I work. But I'm still torn.... a part of me says that photographic integrity is to respect the photo in its integrity hence: removing hot spots or dust from a fence would still respect integrity but removing the fence would not as the photo is not "intergral" anymore.
It'such a grey area in my mind... and I thought that with time this area would lessen but it has had the opposite effect.
I just hope that the new rules will be as clear as possible.
Peace
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:33:35 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
Eddy, please...you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare adding a catchlight or a tiny bit of extra sparkler with adding an entire window frame to a photo so it meets the challenge for a window view. i don't think anyone here believes that enhancing a portrait with a catchlight in the eyes is tantamount to digitally creating an entire focal point of the image. |
On that note: I won't add catchlights to a photo, but I will strip out stray eyeball reflections that I don't like. :)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:34:39 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
For me, photograpy is almost always about removing things from the final image, with or without Photoshop. Flattening or simplifying perspective. Cropping out all unnecessary elements. Distilling everything down to it's essence, or even beyond to pure color and composition. In post processing, it's about removing acne, power lines, razor burn, dust... I take away everything I can that gets in the way of the image in my head.
Photography is inherently reductive. We're talking about taking the whole WORLD and peeling away everything until we're left with a flat little rectangle that has impact because there's so little left in it to distract us away from what the focus is. Focus is *defined* by removing everything else!
That's why I think that, most of the time, editing stuff out is appropriate, and adding anything in is inappropriate, for a 'photograph.' |
How about adding hair to cover a bald spot ?
Adding some grass to cover a bald spot on a perfect lawn ?
Adding some trees to fill in a patch of sky that snuck into the background of a scene ?
Adding some gravel to make a background more seamless ?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:36:55 PM · #230 |
You just have turn those things around and you'll be all fine:
Remove the bald spot (from the hair or the lawn)
Remove that darn sky
Remove that ugly seam
There, now you're not adding anything! |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:42:26 PM · #231 |
Yeah, just like adding skin where a pimple is. :)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:43:47 PM · #232 |
I had posted this earlier in another forum when I actually had meant to post it here. "color" me redface!! (in ps or any other editing program of your choice! )
I guess if I was going to put my 2 cents worth in it would be to say that I thought dp stands for digital photography. And some of what many are doing could be perceived as "digital presdidigitation". I can understand the "purists" who want to see a well done photograph that wins on it's own merit over trying to determine if what they're looking at is actually a manipulation of a good idea gone bad.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:45:05 PM · #233 |
my point was, simple enhancements are one thing but what we've been seeing lately is a completely different ballgame.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:48:46 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Yeah, just like adding skin where a pimple is. :) |
No, you're REMOVING the pimple so it ok :) |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:56:09 PM · #235 |
I can understand the argument about removing versus adding and I suppose logically they are very similar actions. I dont know that I could explain why it seems more appropriate to me personally to remove items than adding, although I also see no problem with adding a catchlight or cloning (adding) grass to a shot either. From my obvious unprofessional experience of photoshop I would assume that the previous second place winner took a picture of four elements and digitally crafted a scene. Maybe adding an entire person is technically the same as adding a catchlight to an eye but from a personal logic I cant explain it seems a little more extreme.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:56:17 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
You just have turn those things around and you'll be all fine:
Remove the bald spot (from the hair or the lawn)
Remove that darn sky
Remove that ugly seam
There, now you're not adding anything! |
I think that's a stretch that takes things back to the original complaint. Those represent Photoshop skills, not photography skills. I think adding a tree where none existed, adding hair where there was none, or adding gravel where it did not exist is on the same level as for what images were DQ'd. Won't be too long before someone will say they were removing the negative space. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:01:48 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
This probably happens because of the lie involved in the digital manipulated ones, like I seen some people saying if they knew it's not a real photo they would of gave it a 1 instead of 10. So after some probably burned themselves and felt like they whas fooled a few times, they vote/comment down any effect that looks like might have been achieved in photoshop. I think it is dangerous to submit any optical ilusion or effects that might look like that, atleast until digital manipulated photos are stopped. |
Thank you for pointing this out. It appears that there are several pictures in each challenge that have been digitally manipulated beyond just lighten/darken, dodge/burn, saturate/desaturate.
If the person who entered a massively manipulated shot is good enough that I can't tell it was done, I may feel my vote was obtained through unfair means, but can't change it.
If the person put in a shot that people think was massively manipulated, but wasn't (like my "Things That Go Together" entry), it gets voted down for too much photoshopping.
I am glad to see the SC's taking their time and not responding in a rush to the complaints in this thread. The rules should be ever changing and always conditioned to reflect the changing attitudes of all members. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:05:14 PM · #238 |
Okay, I'm new here. I'm learning a lot ... even from this thread. I have no long history with the site to get over and am just forming my point of view about what it might become.
I want to be a better photographer. I want to see things through the lens and make better photos, not photoshop the world to make it a better world.
Not okay to add things? How about adding studio lighting? The studio lights certainly weren't reality.
Not okay to bring a frame because the setting isn't "real?" How about photographing a still life with it's completely engineered subject matter?
Not okay to subtract things? How about removing dust or stray fallen leaves from a subject before clicking the shutter?
Is it as simple as "No photo can contain any elements not captured by the camera with a single click of the shutter?" |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:15:20 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I think that's a stretch that takes things back to the original complaint. Those represent Photoshop skills, not photography skills. I think adding a tree where none existed, adding hair where there was none, or adding gravel where it did not exist is on the same level as for what images were DQ'd. Won't be too long before someone will say they were removing the negative space. |
Here is the specific shot I was thinking about btw. There was a patch of blue sky, actually a gap in the trees, in the upper enter of the shot. Have I changed the shot by creating some trees there ? Certainly. Is it too much ? For me - it doesn't do anything to change the point of the picture - it actually further emphasises the subject - but is it real ? nope.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:34:17 PM · #240 |
Gordon, I really want to say yes that your example is fine. Personally I see nothing wrong with it.
But I think it's asking for trouble. For one, that isn't the way you saw the picture when you took the photograph which has to be a key element in the discussion of how much PS work is acceptable. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:38:21 PM · #241 |
Well, it appears that the tutorials are gone.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:38:27 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
For one, that isn't the way you saw the picture when you took the photograph which has to be a key element in the discussion of how much PS work is acceptable. |
Who's to say I wasn't trying for a seamless background ? Or that I wanted it but it just so happened there wasn't a tree there - or it had been removed for building.
As this isn't a 'challenge' image - and is purely for the enjoyment of the people who asked me to take it - I have no quams at all about fixing it the way I'd want to see it - but for this case, I'm just throwing it out for discussion on how the rules should or shouldn't allow changes.
I didn't modify the main subject of the image - I did improve the focus and attention placed upon the main subject - but is it too much for dpc ?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:47:23 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I didn't modify the main subject of the image - I did improve the focus and attention placed upon the main subject - but is it too much for dpc ? |
Personally I would say that isnt too much. Had you digitally created the horse or the man then yes, too much. I do understand the difficulties some people have between distinguishing adding trees to fill a gap and adding digitally created glass to a broken bottle shot (used as reference not as an attack etc).
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:50:49 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
This is something I have an issue with also Daryl. Everybody thinks it is OK to remove something from a photo (tree branches, power lines, telephone poles, garbage, debris, wrinkles, etc.) No DQ for that. But if you add something, DQ!
Isn't it all a matter of how you look at it anyway?
I didn't add clouds to the plain blue sky, I just removed blue where I thought there should be clouds!
Or, to use a more "popular" example... which of these interpretations is the correct one?
1) I didn't add feathers that were missing, I just removed the cage in front of the bird.
2) I didn't remove the cage in front of the bird, I added the part of the feathers that were missing. |
adding a whole person is quite different than removing a powerline in the way
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 17:54:28.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:59:01 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by achiral:
adding a whole person is quite different than removing
a powerline in the way |
No question about that. But those are two extreme comparisons. How do you define everything else between them? |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:06:51 PM · #246 |
We could open a whole new can of worms with my March Free Study shot, I think it is one of those in-between shots, looking back on it, I think I did WAY too much editing, I got a little editing happy when I submitted it. I added two seugulls to balance the shot, and then I took out a LOT of things, like a huge lightpost that was in front of the tower and things I thought were detracting from the shot.
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 18:24:28.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:09:10 PM · #247 |
I think what this all boils down to is the importance of upholding the integrity of the photograph. cloning in trees is maintaining the photo, while adding people is destroying intergity. It is the job of the photographer to maintain a photo's integrity, and the duty of the site to enforce the integrity of photographs. If the site is quicker to dq photos, then people will be more cautious in editing.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:15:11 PM · #248 |
| ahem Matthew, you did not add two seagulls which would be grounds for DQ; you removed some unwanted sky which is OK =) |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:16:05 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
I think what this all boils down to is the importance of upholding the integrity of the photograph. cloning in trees is maintaining the photo, while adding people is destroying intergity. It is the job of the photographer to maintain a photo's integrity, and the duty of the site to enforce the integrity of photographs. If the site is quicker to dq photos, then people will be more cautious in editing. |
how are we supposed to know when to request a dq? what's to say that my version of "photographic integrity" isn't different from the next person's?
you keep talking about "the site" enforcing integrity and "the site" dq'ing photos. "the site" just really just about a dozen people who have enough to do without policing every little thing. people are fallible.
that's why i keep saying it is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to put something into words that is not going to adversely affect the ability to post your best work on the site.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:17:21 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
ahem Matthew, you did not add two seagulls which would be grounds for DQ; you removed some unwanted sky which is OK =) |
I'll be honest, I did clone two seagulls to fill in the unwanted sky.
:D
But I don't think I would be able to allow myself to do that anymore.
|
|
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: 04/24/2024 01:14:50 AM EDT.
