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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Remove My Tutorials
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/19/2004 08:45:55 AM · #151
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


I did both.
04/19/2004 08:49:55 AM · #152
I don't know how I missed this whole thread untill now... But I'd just like to ask, When did you guys go back to pre-school? Some of you guys really need to grow up. The first post in this thread was just just complete childness as were many that followed...

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 08:50:28.
04/19/2004 08:52:10 AM · #153
I donít know a thing about film dark rooms other than they are dark,

but once you start creating stuff in your image that was never there, it loses its integrity fast.

Sorry to say but once I found out Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his photos I was very disappointed, yes they are good images, but I feel cheated and ripped off now knowing something I though was a very wonderful photo was faked.

I was totally against allowing more editing in the members challenges and I knew it would lead to these kinds of photos starting to slip by.

Im NOT against removing hot pixels or dust in a photo, Im NOT against selecting one area in a photo and adjusting the brightness or contrast and colors, but what I AM against is adding things to the image that never existed infront of the camera in the first place.

James

Originally posted by dsray:

[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 08:58:52 AM · #154
Originally posted by jab119:

I donít know a thing about film dark rooms other than they are dark,

but once you start creating stuff in your image that was never there, it loses its integrity fast.

Sorry to say but once I found out Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his photos I was very disappointed, yes they are good images, but I feel cheated and ripped off now knowing something I though was a very wonderful photo was faked.

I was totally against allowing more editing in the members challenges and I knew it would lead to these kinds of photos starting to slip by.

Im NOT against removing hot pixels or dust in a photo, Im NOT against selecting one area in a photo and adjusting the brightness or contrast and colors, but what I AM against is adding things to the image that never existed infront of the camera in the first place.

James

Originally posted by dsray:

[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.


Very well said James.

04/19/2004 09:01:36 AM · #155
HaHAHaHA this is what many of you voted for few months ago, to late to cry now, I dont like this Photoshop photos! I like the original

//www.iceland-today.com
04/19/2004 09:07:08 AM · #156
I found this site while looking for tutorials on a search engine. Your tutorial on 'The Rule of Thirds' was the first tutorial that I read which was clear and easily enough for me to understand. By taking this or any other tutorial away ,I feel, would hurt all the newbies(myself included) who truely want to learn. Digital photography and digital art are two different worlds but they still rely on the same principles, which is the knowledge on how to take the better photo. And without the great and easy to understand tutorials like yours, even a digital art photo would only be, at best, average. I for one am glad that your tutorials are available and wound be sad to see them go. It's your choice to keep or remove them and I'm not begging or asking you to reconsider, all I'm asking is that you take a second look at all the people who have reponded to tread and maybe reconsider. Either way I, We applaude you.
04/19/2004 09:10:09 AM · #157
I am not about to even attempt to validate any methods, it's an artist's decision and I'm not an expert.

The smiley face argument is merely an extreme that is not representative of the technique. Just because the wings of an F-16 don't generate lift during vertical flight, it doesn't follow that the F-16 doesn't need wings. No photographer can deny the validity of burning and dodging. The application is again a personal decision.

I feel the logical conclusion of my post was not apparent, my fault, I will be more specific. If the winning images are within the scope of the rules, John has a very valid point. Obviously they have won due to popular support which is the whole idea. That being the case, the majority obviously are at odds with (or are ignorant of) John's view of photographic integrity, (not judging, just fact).

This, of course leaves the SC in an unenviable position of either tightening the rules which the majority seem to have no problem or losing any number of talented photographers. I was only observing that there is no 'universal truth' in the matter.

And please, the reason John posted to the forum was to generate a public dialog on the subject.
04/19/2004 09:21:50 AM · #158
Originally posted by dsray:

And please, the reason John posted to the forum was to generate a public dialog on the subject.


Exactly. And I'm also willing to take the crybaby/whiner/primadonna that have/will come along with it in order to have the discussion. I haven't seen anything I didn't expect yet.

I was completely ready for the "I told you so" argument about the advanced editing. I have ingnored those completely because that issue has been discussed over and over in many differen threads. My opinion on it has not changed.
04/19/2004 09:25:31 AM · #159
I was one of the most vocal supporters of keeping the old rules in place, and I must say I feel some vindication in the current mess. jmsetzler was on the other side of that debate. That he is now disatisified with the direction the site has taken is not surprising, nor is it inconsistent with what he said before. Like many others I hope his tutorials remain on dpc. Whether or not you agree with his tacic you must give him credit for doing something to try to correct the downward spiral we have found ourselves in. If his frustration has reached the level that he feels compelled to disengage so be it. He should hold his head high. Those who make fun of him in this thread and stoop to name calling are out of line. He is a leader and has conducted himself in an open, honest and honorable way.
04/19/2004 09:28:41 AM · #160
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

And I'm also willing to take the crybaby/whiner/primadonna that have/will come along with it in order to have the discussion. I haven't seen anything I didn't expect yet.


To me it does seem a little unfortunate (and unproductive) that a certain camp will resort to name calling rather than reinforcing their side of a 'discussion'. Guess which group'll be voting for Kerry...

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 09:29:18.
04/19/2004 09:33:58 AM · #161
Jim, not sure you knew this, but that was your forum post number: 6666 !

04/19/2004 09:34:59 AM · #162
Please note that the following tutorials have already been removed:

Exposure
by jmsetzler
An in-depth tutorial on controlling your exposure (PDF)

Sepia Toning Made Simple
by jmsetzler

The Rule of Thirds
by jmsetzler

Creating Printable Images
by jmsetzler
Resizing and Resampling to prepare your images for printing.
04/19/2004 09:36:34 AM · #163
Why not just go back to the old editing rules? Basic Editing on all photos again . . .

On the other hand, knowing that 'photographic integrity' is difficult to draw a line around, and knowing that photography when done well is an interpretive art form, it stands to reason that manipulation of some sort will happen because the photographer wants to get his/her photo as close as possible to his/her interpretation of a subject.
04/19/2004 09:36:57 AM · #164
My request has been honored and I appreciate the site admins for it.

To the site admins and site council:

Good luck with your decisions and guidance :)

John Setzler
04/19/2004 09:38:17 AM · #165
now take your toys and go home.
04/19/2004 09:39:50 AM · #166
I don`t own Photoshop and wouldn`t have the foggiest idea of how to use it outside of what meets Basic editing rules on this site. With the exception of clone and smudge..which I use to remove marks etc and the use of "Neat image to remove noise, I am probably one of the least clued up photographers on this site.

However, this doesn`t stop me receiving a fair number of comments during challenges complimenting my postprocessing prowess with Photoshop ??? and a few DQ requests into the bargain...
I guess the point I`m trying to make is that it is making me start to think of the type of work I`m submitting..if it is a little unusual at all..it`s coming under suspicion.

Are we to give up on trying to be creative with viewpoint and lighting etc?..because that is all that is different about my "Strength" submission, yet it is under scrutiny.

I`m in agreement for the most part with the objectors to digital manipulation but at times I think we get too hung up on it and it could end up stifling creativity..as the finger is being pointed at innocent people who are trying something quite legal but a little different.

Frustrated,
Gordon



04/19/2004 09:43:23 AM · #167
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I was completely ready for the "I told you so" argument about the advanced editing. I have ingnored those completely because that issue has been discussed over and over in many differen threads. My opinion on it has not changed.

Nice way to side-step an awkward question, then.

YOU have started a thread decrying the "digital art-izing" of DPC, which is caused by the advanced editing rules. We can argue back and forth about whether picture A was within the letter of the rules or the spirit of the rules, but the fact remains that it would be a non-issue under the old ruleset.

At the time of the advanced editing rules, you were very vocal in support (in, from memory, a similarly public and ...robust... manner) for them. Yes, people said that it would open the door to digital art and you insisted that it wouldn't, and that everyone would think like you and hold to "photographic integrity".

Now, you might not LIKE people saying "I told you so", but exactly the situation that YOU are now complaining about, was predicted by others. YOU were then very firm in your conviction that it wouldn't happen here, and yet a few months later you're complaining because it has.

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to take your ball away if you don't want to play any more. But to say "oh I'm not going to address the fact that I'm complaining about something that I insisted would never happen" begs the question - if you're not willing to publicly debate it, why did you try to spark a public debate? DO you want a public debate, or do you just want to make a big fuss to make your point without regard for any dissenting opinions?
04/19/2004 09:46:54 AM · #168
Originally posted by geewhy:


However, this doesn`t stop me receiving a fair number of comments during challenges complimenting my postprocessing prowess with Photoshop ??? and a few DQ requests into the bargain...
I guess the point I`m trying to make is that it is making me start to think of the type of work I`m submitting..if it is a little unusual at all..it`s coming under suspicion.
Gordon


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.
04/19/2004 09:49:46 AM · #169
Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I was completely ready for the "I told you so" argument about the advanced editing. I have ingnored those completely because that issue has been discussed over and over in many differen threads. My opinion on it has not changed.

Nice way to side-step an awkward question, then.

YOU have started a thread decrying the "digital art-izing" of DPC, which is caused by the advanced editing rules. We can argue back and forth about whether picture A was within the letter of the rules or the spirit of the rules, but the fact remains that it would be a non-issue under the old ruleset.

At the time of the advanced editing rules, you were very vocal in support (in, from memory, a similarly public and ...robust... manner) for them. Yes, people said that it would open the door to digital art and you insisted that it wouldn't, and that everyone would think like you and hold to "photographic integrity".

Now, you might not LIKE people saying "I told you so", but exactly the situation that YOU are now complaining about, was predicted by others. YOU were then very firm in your conviction that it wouldn't happen here, and yet a few months later you're complaining because it has.

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to take your ball away if you don't want to play any more. But to say "oh I'm not going to address the fact that I'm complaining about something that I insisted would never happen" begs the question - if you're not willing to publicly debate it, why did you try to spark a public debate? DO you want a public debate, or do you just want to make a big fuss to make your point without regard for any dissenting opinions?


I guess he doesn't want to engage in meaningful discussion with people whose views differ from his, maybe. But then he's ignoring us anyways, so I guess this is a moot point. C'est la vie.

edit: Some people just can't face the fact that they are human and subject to failure and poor judgement just like the rest of us mere mortals.

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 09:52:20.
04/19/2004 09:53:17 AM · #170
Originally posted by dsidwell:

Why not just go back to the old editing rules? Basic Editing on all photos again . . .

On the other hand, knowing that 'photographic integrity' is difficult to draw a line around, and knowing that photography when done well is an interpretive art form, it stands to reason that manipulation of some sort will happen because the photographer wants to get his/her photo as close as possible to his/her interpretation of a subject.

Yes why not
04/19/2004 09:53:24 AM · #171
this is a bit of a tangent, John, but why did you remove your profile pic and you gender from your profile? it seems an odd thing to do.
04/19/2004 09:55:50 AM · #172
Originally posted by Quickshutter:

this is a bit of a tangent, John, but why did you remove your profile pic and you gender from your profile? it seems an odd thing to do.


The demise of the site and the failure of the SC to act in a prompt enough manner have clearly stripped John of his gender. :(
04/19/2004 09:56:13 AM · #173
Originally posted by ganders:


Nice way to side-step an awkward question, then.

YOU have started a thread decrying the "digital art-izing" of DPC, which is caused by the advanced editing rules. We can argue back and forth about whether picture A was within the letter of the rules or the spirit of the rules, but the fact remains that it would be a non-issue under the old ruleset.

At the time of the advanced editing rules, you were very vocal in support (in, from memory, a similarly public and ...robust... manner) for them. Yes, people said that it would open the door to digital art and you insisted that it wouldn't, and that everyone would think like you and hold to "photographic integrity".

Now, you might not LIKE people saying "I told you so", but exactly the situation that YOU are now complaining about, was predicted by others. YOU were then very firm in your conviction that it wouldn't happen here, and yet a few months later you're complaining because it has.

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to take your ball away if you don't want to play any more. But to say "oh I'm not going to address the fact that I'm complaining about something that I insisted would never happen" begs the question - if you're not willing to publicly debate it, why did you try to spark a public debate? DO you want a public debate, or do you just want to make a big fuss to make your point without regard for any dissenting opinions?


Things are not just black and white. It is good that we can advance edit our photos so we can improove the impact in our compositions whipe out a few distracting pixels or so. I thik advanced editing is good as long as you don't add ANYTHING to it. Should be used only to EDIT not to ADD anything. I think if rules were something like this it would be clear to anyone, and we are safe from any photoshoped rings, windows, glasses, and kinves. Other than that advanced editing is great. I don't know the discussions about it before advanced editing existed, but I think many people that whanted it but stil didn't want digital art to move in, may have had something like this in mind.
04/19/2004 09:57:11 AM · #174
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

Originally posted by geewhy:


However, this doesn`t stop me receiving a fair number of comments during challenges complimenting my postprocessing prowess with Photoshop ??? and a few DQ requests into the bargain...
I guess the point I`m trying to make is that it is making me start to think of the type of work I`m submitting..if it is a little unusual at all..it`s coming under suspicion.
Gordon


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.


Yip, my voting has changed. I have become suspicious of many a photograph by now. The question with me is not: "is this a good or bad photograph", it has become: "is this a photograph?" "am I being tricked here?"
04/19/2004 09:58:00 AM · #175
I for one, hope John does not remove his tutorials, I have read them and used them, they are not unique, similar ones are freely available on the net, but John's are directly aimed at us,and I for one am greatful. As for the change in editing allowed in the challenges I have felt all along that this sort of problem would occur, the man who is best in PS will win the ribbons!
I have even used PS to enhance my own entry in the silhouette challenge although in a way that would have been legal anyway, probably amongst many others.
Lets get back to the old editing and give the ribbons to photographs not digital art.
EDIT:
I would just like to add: there is a place for these images,maybe set challenges just for those who want them ?

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 10:03:58.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/02/2021 06:15:51 AM

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 © 2001-2021 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: 08/02/2021 06:15:51 AM EDT.