| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2004 03:45:25 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
The whole photo looks fake and if it realy is you should be banned from the site! |
Yea and I would add "someone should kill you and put you out of your misery". :)
Kosta I think you are probably overreacting, I would focus on the rules that alowes him and others to do such manipulations. Labuda has some great 100% photography done so he is a great photographer, just that he lately went abit mad in photoshop :) It is not a crime against humanity it's just not photography, and therefore rules should be made so they don't alow stuff like that in the future. As I hear it's already happening so let's wait and see what's going to be the new rules and not ban anyone :)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 03:47:22 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by simbamba:
Originally posted by Konador:
By the way everyone, a new set of advanced rules have been written, we are just finalizing them to make sure no digital art can slip through in the future, whilst still keeping the editing as open as possible. For those who've shown any, thanks for your patience. |
Does this mean I can cancel my latest order at Adobe and dust off my camera again? |
haha :D |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 03:48:57 AM · #128 |
| Yeah,tar and feathers,or linch mob! :-) |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 03:57:37 AM · #129 |
[quote=TommyMoe21] Bottom line:
Photography - created with the camera
Digital art - created with a computer
Having sat back and absorbed all the discussion so far, I have decided to throw in my two cents. Photographic integrity does not exist in any form other than what you define it as.
Most of the terms and features of PS come straight from the darkroom. Masks are just another name for ortho film and ruby lith. Layers are nothing new. Neither is converting from B&W to color and back again or any combination thereof. Posterization, solarization all existed with film. I still have my B&W and color spotting trays (oops, cloning tool). OK, it's easier, I don't spend near as many hours in the darkroom and it smells better too.
I learned a lot of chemistry, how any one of six developers would react with any one of six films to yield the results I was looking for including inducing the effects of reciprocity failure, color temperature and wavelength. I would pick my film based on shooting conditions and the results I wanted or the knowledge that I could obtain those results through manipulation of the development process through push, pull or cross methods. What happens when you throw a roll of film into hot developer and then into icy stop bath?
PS is not new, only damn convenient and affords the luxury of being able to start again with no loss or risk. Its ability to combine multiple images was something done in the camera as any good 35mm could double expose (I still miss that feature).
So to say that there exists some magical state of photographic integrity is nonsense; it is what you define it to be. Now, if you agree or disagree with the defining rules, THAT is something else. If some image does not comply with the rules, OK. But I will not think twice about doing something digitally to obtain the results I want if I have done it with film 30 years ago. PS is nothing new or different, only faster and more convenient. The devil lies in the interpretation of the rules.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:05:07 AM · #130 |
Dwight - thanks for that post.
I'm convinced that my Window View shot would have been entirely practicable in a dark-room - only I have absolutely no dark-room experience to back up that claim. Are you able to confirm that for me?
E
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:05:35 AM · #131 |
| Yea but when it comes to comparing your ps'ed shots with some cool effects I seen wich are 100% photographical the more ps you use the less photographer you are. I'm not saying your not an artist, just thet not a photographer. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:11:39 AM · #132 |
In a darkroom could I use dodge/burn to draw a nice smiley face on a piece of blank film? From what I understand this is possible. Is it a photo? Nope. Just because something can be done in a darkroom, it doesnt mean it's photography.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:14:04 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by e301:
Dwight - thanks for that post.
I'm convinced that my Window View shot would have been entirely practicable in a dark-room - only I have absolutely no dark-room experience to back up that claim. Are you able to confirm that for me?
E |
But since the theme/point of the challenge was window view dont you think it would have been nice to have actually included a real window rather than fake it no matter which method (dark room or PS) was used to create it?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:17:34 AM · #134 |
You'd feel less fooled had I taken two crossed bits of metal onto Hungerford Bridge that morning, and stood them up in front of the camera?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:18:21 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I want my stuff pulled regardless. I know that this may not even be possible because of the terms of use. The site admins do not have to honor this request. If they have any respect for me at all, which they may not, they will honor it. |
Why should they pull your tutorials? The articles are content that was contributed to the site. Should we pull your winning shots too, since they might get tainted by being in the company with those horrible Photoshop abominations? When you contribute to this site, with forum posts, images and tutorials, you are contributing to the community. You can't just say "I want to take my ball and go home" if something isn't to your liking. You can stay (which we all want you to) or you can go, but you wrote the articles for this site. If you are concerned about your intellectual property, then don't post articles here. If you want to take a stand, then, please do so, and I would suggest you are being successful by the amount of traffic in this thread.
Dave |
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. John, you mention above not wanting to contribute hours and hours further to the site in terms of tutorials etc - fair enough. But this material has already been written and contributed and, by remaining present, doesn't require any further time input from you. But by leaving it it will continue to provide many people with information that will help them take great pictures without resorting to faking it. And leaving it here certainly doesn't stop you from putting it on your own site too where you can also edit and add new material over time.
Your entire thread comes across to me as something posted by a sulking child - "No one's playing by MY rules so I'm going to take my ball and go home".
I felt the same when you told me you were deliberately submitting images that were not about the challenge. A childish response at best, a deliberately subvertive one at worst. I'm glad to hear you decided to stop.
I certainly agree with your feelings about the recent slide to manipulated entries but, hey, it was inevitable that there would be teething problems with the new rules when advanced editing was introduced. As someone who pushed very strongly for that advanced editing I should think you could show some patience and understanding that it wasn't going to be easy to get it 100% right first time.
I also happen to agree that the SC can be very slow to respond and somewhat stuck on the letter of the law rather than the spirit. But, as you know very well, they do the job on a *voluntary* basis, they don't get paid for it, and they all have other commitments in their lives, not to mention living in different time zones.
So if we have to wait a few weeks for them to find time to get together, discuss the issues and decide on a resolution, let's show a little patience, understanding and gratitude.
I think it's a little presumptious, whether you've been in the SC or not, to demand that voluntary administrators work to your timetable.
Originally posted by Konador:
By the way everyone, a new set of advanced rules have been written, we are just finalizing them to make sure no digital art can slip through in the future, whilst still keeping the editing as open as possible. For those who've shown any, thanks for your patience. |
So much wit in one of such tender years! You rock, cybernephew.
So let's give the new rules a chance and work together to try and make the site what the majority of us want it to be. Is there really any room for prima donnas who are sulking because they don't hold as much of a leadership role here as they used to and don't like it?
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 04:19:56.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 04:25:32 AM · #136 |
I have to say I find it slightly bemusing that jms is so upset about the upsurge of digital manipulation under the advanced rules.
This would be the same jms who pushed so hard for the advanced rules, and shouted down those of us who said it would lead to an upsurge of digital manipulation, yes? |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 05:59:40 AM · #137 |
Thanks for the memories John.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:10:03 AM · #138 |
Would there be a way to have a third challenge category for those digital folks, so that their work is all encapsulated together, and the rest of us don't feel so ridiculous when trying to compete with it, since (for example) my little Sony could never come up with stuff like theirs, no matter what I do to it in Photoshop? Photoshop is a ridiculously expensive program that most novices like me simply can't afford (I just use the free trial version) so I really think there should be another category for that. I know most of you guys are professionals and this post probably makes little sense to you, but maybe a third challenge category called Digital Art could smooth some ruffled feathers and appease the "artists" in the crowd without causing the site to lose any more photographic credibility. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:16:59 AM · #139 |
| Not to stir the pot but I just read the comments on the 3rd place entry & I'm here to tell ya there ain't no rocks in that location @ Folly Beach , S.C. ! Let alone windows ! Must have been the high tide came up & washed everything away ! |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:46:44 AM · #140 |
Once again all I can say is "Careful what you wish for." You promoted full editting and you got it, now didn't you?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 06:49:50 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Deannda
Here to learn how to TAKE great shots, not create them in Photoshop |
Totally agree with you, if people love photoshop, go to worth1000 or something... |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:06:35 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Deannda
Here to learn how to TAKE great shots, not create them in Photoshop |
Deannda, well put.
I'm taking sides on this one -- thank you SC for giving the rules an edit. I look forward to reading them.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:30:50 AM · #143 |
Temper Tantrum
(c)2000 Judy and David Gershon (SOCAN)
You have got to be kidding
Is this some kind of joke
Am I on Candid Camera?
Are you just blowin’ smoke?
You can’t do this to me
This just is not fair
And if you would like to see angry
You had better be prepared...
NO NO NO NO NO....
I’m having a temper tantrum (a temper tantrum)
Having a temper tantrum (a temper tantrum)
Blow my stack, pop my top, don’t you try to make me stop
I’m having a temper tantrum
I’m hotter than a volcano
Screamin’ louder than a hurricane
Wilder than a beast, you know
I lose my temper, then I really go insane
I’m having a temper tantrum (a temper tantrum)
Having a temper tantrum (a temper tantrum)
Blow my stack, pop my top, don’t you try to make me stop
I’m having a temper tantrum |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:32:47 AM · #144 |
Thanks guys. Look forward to the new rules. Thanks for all the effort you guys are putting in. Seems like some people don't seem to realise the amount of time and effort you guys are putting in. I appreciate the work you guys do for the site.
Originally posted by Konador:
By the way everyone, a new set of advanced rules have been written, we are just finalizing them to make sure no digital art can slip through in the future, whilst still keeping the editing as open as possible. For those who've shown any, thanks for your patience. |
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:33:49 AM · #145 |
John,
I'm curious why you would make such a request through teh General Discussion forum, rather than through an email to Drew and Langdon, which you know they are much more likely to see.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:48:24 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
John,
I'm curious why you would make such a request through teh General Discussion forum, rather than through an email to Drew and Langdon, which you know they are much more likely to see.
-Terry |
[my take]
Because he is making a public statement against the editing rules he blindly supported (Along with most others - note: not me) without thinking about what would happen to DPC as a result. Cake and eat it to me. John has used DPC voter tendencies to get good scores in the past, he just doesn't like labuda's way of doing the same, maybe he can't do the same -- not good enough at PS.
Sour grapes.
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 07:48:52. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:48:55 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Once again all I can say is "Careful what you wish for." You promoted full editting and you got it, now didn't you? |
Where does it state full editing?
One part of the rules I remember is that you can only use a single image. The current second place is clearly not a single image.
I honestly think it is a shame that the rules need to be spelled out so completely to avoid people taking advantage of them, it cheats those that stick by the spirit of the rules as they have to take a far better photo in order to get ahead of the cheats.
Labuda's work is great stuff, I love it .... but not as a challenge entry. Initially fine, test the rules, I didn;t have a huge issue with that. Submitting one now to every challenge to see what can be got away with ..... lost any respect I had earlier for his work.
I do not envy the site council at all on this one. Sure, DQ'ing that entry may not be a difficult decision as it has clearly broken the rules .... but coming up with a new set of rules that are understandable by all, but robust and watertight enough to withstand the minority determined to exploit them and cheat ... good luck guys (though I'm sure you'll do as good a job as anyone else could).
Go by the letter of the law
or
Go by the spirit of the law
Several entries that have recently won ribbons go by neither, they simply cheat.
I didn;t have entries in any of those challenges, but I know if I had come fourth and been robbed of my first ribbon by an entry clearly not in the spirit of the site then I'd not be happy. Yes, it is just a virtual ribbon ..... but it's equally the fun prize some struggle, fairly, to attain.
I have to wonder why they are entered here, when it is clearly not what the site is about, and have come to the conclusion that they are entered here as if they were entered on sites that allow that level of digital art they'd just be yet another entry, nothing special at all .... as there they would not have the advantage of playing by a different set of rules.
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 07:52:07.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 07:53:41 AM · #148 |
Am I the only one who feels 'basic rules' is enough for www.dpchallenge.com?
Terje
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 08:00:44 AM · #149 |
I like the new rules, or more specifically like having 2 challenges each week, one with each set of rules.
I'd hate to see things revert to basic rules for both challenges ..... but I admit I would prefer it to the digital art world we are moving into.
However, I have great faith that the SC will come up with a workable solution for this somehow, and am not at all surprised this is taking a while to do. I'd certainly prefer they got it right than rushed it and we go through this again in a month when someone else finds loopholes to exploit.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 08:24:47 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by kreybar:
Not to stir the pot but I just read the comments on the 3rd place entry & I'm here to tell ya there ain't no rocks in that location @ Folly Beach , S.C. ! Let alone windows ! Must have been the high tide came up & washed everything away ! |
I woke up this morning and found that I had taken third place in the window challenge.
Then I saw this thread.
Well as there is so much controversy going around about digitally manipulated photos and even someone saying that there aren't any rocks where this picture was taken, then I feel as though I have to defend myself and say how this picture was taken.
I went to Folly Beach on Easter Sunday minutes before sunrise.
I took a window frame with me.
The glass had been removed.
I had a basic idea of the view I wanted, but upon getting to the beach I noticed it was low tide and there was a rock pool.
I sat the window frame down in front of the pool and took several shots.
This one was the clearest.
All I did to the picture was crop it.
That's all.
Absolutely nothing else.
No color or contrast changes.
Judging by some comments, maybe I should have done.
So there you have it.
I bet you don't get many pictures in the challenges that have so little work done on them?
Maybe the rules need to be changed to allow no manipulation what so ever?
It will stop all the arguments at least!
Or how about that when people submit their entry, they are required to submit the original as well?
That way, the SC people will be able to determine the authenticity of the picture straight away and act accordingly? |
|
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: 04/25/2024 03:26:25 PM EDT.
