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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Remove My Tutorials
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/19/2004 01:02:55 PM · #201
Originally posted by sn4psh07:


Do you not find it interesting that just about anything labuda (and others -- sorry for singling you out) did CAN be done with the correct photographic equipment?

Is your comment to be taken as: --
1) I can't do that in PS so why should others be allowed to?
2) You were deceived and didn't realize and are bitter!
3) Poorer people can't afford every piece of photographic gear they desire and so need to be penialized!
4) Richer people have to buy everything they need for a photo else should not enter!
5) Not everyone is allowed to pander to the voters by aweing them or appealing to their sense of national identity.
6) etc. [can't be bothered writing more]


1)I can do this in PSP8.

3)It doesn't matter the equipment, its the photographer that makes the photograph come alive.

4)let the rich buy whatever but if they don't have the imagination to go with it then why even bother.

?? maybe I don't get what your saying.

04/19/2004 01:09:26 PM · #202
Originally posted by sn4psh07:

Do you not find it interesting that just about anything labuda (and others -- sorry for singling you out) did CAN be done with the correct photographic equipment?


But it wasn't... I wasn't privy to the steps taken in labuda's photo (again sorry for singling out), but from the bits and pieces I've gathered, it was a multi-image composition.

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 13:09:58.
04/19/2004 01:27:28 PM · #203
Originally posted by Rooster:

I hate to say this but I am noticing a change in tides here. There is more 'trickery' (for lack of a better wor) in the submissions than I care to admit. 2 of the 3 ribbon winners used ps manipulated shots. This hurts all entrants bc we all know that most people vote according to the standards of the pictures in the challenge & not just on one shot alone. Not sure if my camera can compete with PS.
I feel sad to say this, but a step has been taken, things are changing, & unfortunately we are moving away from digital photography & into digial art. Shall we return to basic edting for all or will we rewrite the rules with more specificity & less vagueness as to the purpose of DPC? The next few days should be interesting...
John, I understand why you wish to have your tutorials removed but I plead with you to not deprive us all of your vast knowledge. Let us find a more diplomatic way of addressing this growing problem. I am quite sure that the intent of this site has not changed just bc of a few shots.


I think basic editing is too restrictive. It is fine for some competetions, but too limiting in this day and age. Ther are many things one can do that keep 'photographic integrity' that are not allowed under basic editing. It is purely semantics.

Lets be fair, if that is what we are trying to do - for that that have dLSRs, you need to have a contest sepeate from teh rest of us. You and your cameras and lenses give you more abilities, so you have an unfair advantage. Professionals or those with access to studios should be seperated from those of us that don't have that capability. Should I be penalized because I don't have $5000 worth of studio or camera? You would of course say no.

So i can use PS. So i have taken teh time and effort to learn how to do things in it. Dodge and burn is not allowed in basic editing, but is a very basic darkroom technique. Erasing unwanted items from a pic is one of the very first things that digital editing was used for. Most commercial ads, ALL fashion shots are manipulated to look better (better skin, etc) This is today's reality.

I participate in other challenge sites. EVERYTHING is legal. The only stipulation is that you list what you did. One site has this 'list' viewed on screen during voting, so the voter can decide if the 'manipulation' is acceptable to their standards.

If you want to stop digital editing, then lets do away with digital cameras, color film, enalrgement...advances have been happening since the second pic was taken. It will not stop. I say bring it on!

chris
04/19/2004 01:42:33 PM · #204
It appears to me that neither the 1st or 2nd place entries met the criteria stated in the challenge for "Window View" ie:

"Find an interesting window view. The window glass or frame must be included in the photo to make it obvious it's been taken from a window."

Both entries must be DQ'ed otherwise there is no limit to the fabrications that can be considered as 'photographic'.
04/19/2004 01:50:12 PM · #205
Originally posted by TommyMoe21:


So, what you're saying sn4psh07, is that it doesn't matter that neither of the top two ribbon winners in the Window View challenge were actually take through a window?


You do realise that none of the top 3 were actually taken through a real window, in a wall ? The third one has a similar amount of trickery involved - just in this case the photographer carried a frame to an attractive scene and took the shot through it - rather than adding the frame in photoshop at home. Obviously in both cases, the photographers wanted to convince the viewer that there was a window (and by extension frame, wall, building) there, in a more permanent, structured sense than was actually true

Now, if one is more or less trick photography than the other is a question that should be left to the voters - and could be if there was some measure of disclosure before the fact, rather than after.
04/19/2004 02:18:45 PM · #206
I don't see what the problem is. You have exactly what the majority of the site voted for back in January. A photoshop contest. Has the majority changed? A few of us didn't like it then, but we were dramatically out numbered.

Remember this photo:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=52122

How is removing a fence that dominates a photo different then adding a window frame? Same thing.
04/19/2004 02:28:08 PM · #207
Originally posted by rickhd13:



Taking your issues point by point -

1) I think it is good that the SC wants to take the time to do the right thing and I think we all can appreciate the fact that those of you on the SC are volunteering your time and I am sure that it is a hard and thankless job - however, instead of letting several different threads pile up and 500-1000 posts going about this one specific topic, maybe one of the SC could post something from an "Official DPC" standpoint that lets us know that this is being addressed and keep us up to date, not specifically about the detail but maybe just a topics list of things that are being worked on.


I understand that there are a couple of different threads going on here. But, in reference to this one particularly, please note when it started, and when it grew. I don't know about the rest of the SC, but I for one was asleep. It has been posted periodically that we are working on it. As far as piling up, one way to take our seemingly silence is perhaps we are working on it. For every two or three minutes that I spend reading threads like this, and responding to them, that is less time that I can spend on the topic at hand. :-)

[quote]

3) This site has grown by leaps and bounds since i joined last year & I think that the SC would/should get a handle on some rule fixes that will eliminate the digital art problem - BUT KEEP US UPDATED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS
[/quote]

We're working, we're working. Right now, the "progress" is that we have a draft, and we are trying to find the loopholes that might exist, so that we can address it before it happens, hopefully.

(bolded to show what i was saying)
04/19/2004 02:40:07 PM · #208
Originally posted by louddog:

I don't see what the problem is. You have exactly what the majority of the site voted for back in January. A photoshop contest. Has the majority changed? A few of us didn't like it then, but we were dramatically out numbered.

Remember this photo:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=52122

How is removing a fence that dominates a photo different then adding a window frame? Same thing.


not necessarily. the photographic integrity part was then, and remains now the crux of the issue. All of Crabby's bird was present when he took the picture. Removing the fence might be close to the line, but digitally constructing images does not maintain the photographic integrity, since it wasn't there to be photographed.

Many of us who voted for enhanced editing made this point clearly then. the dissonants ignored that simple fact then, just as you have now.

P
04/19/2004 02:56:57 PM · #209
Originally posted by sn4psh07:


Do you not find it interesting that just about anything labuda (and others -- sorry for singling you out) did CAN be done with the correct photographic equipment?

Is your comment to be taken as: --
1) I can't do that in PS so why should others be allowed to?
2) You were deceived and didn't realize and are bitter!
3) Poorer people can't afford every piece of photographic gear they desire and so need to be penialized!
4) Richer people have to buy everything they need for a photo else should not enter!
5) Not everyone is allowed to pander to the voters by aweing them or appealing to their sense of national identity.
6) etc. [can't be bothered writing more]


You didn't asked me directly but I wish to answer you if I may in the order you asked.

1. I master photoshop for years and make alot of money with it everyday , if you want me too ask me privately and I can proove it to you. Or I can challenge you in some ps work if you wish. But there are 100 sites for digital artwork and this is just not one of them. Digital art is one thing photography is something completely different that's why I never use my PS skills here.

2. I don't quite understand this it's probably my bad english, but if what you are saying is that those digital artworks are better than Johns photograpy work it's like compareing a a human with a chimp, both inteligent creatures that share some similarities but they are just not the same.

3. There is one thing rich can't buy and that's imagination or creativity. Also I don't know where you live and if you had to live with it or not, but half my life my country whas communist, and what you are saying is preety much the utopia comunism wanted to achieve but never succeded. To make people equal and to be no rich or poor by forced laws. All they acomplished is they made everyone poor.

4. (same as 3) and these are really childish things, I'm not much a photographer but from what I have learned so far I can tell you photography as everything else is about long hours of hard work and study and not about spending.

5. I really don't understand what is this about maybe you can make it clearer.

6. etc...
04/19/2004 03:28:23 PM · #210
Originally posted by Pedro:

Originally posted by louddog:

I don't see what the problem is. You have exactly what the majority of the site voted for back in January. A photoshop contest. Has the majority changed? A few of us didn't like it then, but we were dramatically out numbered.

Remember this photo:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=52122

How is removing a fence that dominates a photo different then adding a window frame? Same thing.


not necessarily. the photographic integrity part was then, and remains now the crux of the issue. All of Crabby's bird was present when he took the picture. Removing the fence might be close to the line, but digitally constructing images does not maintain the photographic integrity, since it wasn't there to be photographed.

Many of us who voted for enhanced editing made this point clearly then. the dissonants ignored that simple fact then, just as you have now.

P


So you're saying removing a fence is okay, even though the fence really did exist, but adding a window frame that doesn't exist is not okay.

Got it!
Adding stuff to make an image better = not okay
Removing stuff to make an image better = okay.

In my book, removing something to create something different is the same as adding something to create something different. The difference between the following is the same:
a bird - a bird through a fence
a sunset - a sunset through a window.

One you create what isn't there, the other you remove what was there to create something that wasn't there. The bird wasn't really out of the cage and the photographer wasn't really in the cage just as that sunset wasn't taken through a window.
04/19/2004 03:31:46 PM · #211
Quite a long thread I see.
John, I've known you here at this site for quite sometime.
I am quite surprised that you would ever have asked for something like this.
I'm even more surprised at the site actually removing them, but I guess they just didn't want to deal with you.
If you don't like it anymore, just move on. Sorry, but that's just how I feel.

Why would you even bring it up in the forums, except that you wanted attention from others.
There is no other logical explanation. If you just wanted out, you should have done it privately.
By doing it here, it is to get people to complement you and back you up, and perhaps follow you to where ever you have decided to go.
No hard feelings, but I really disagree with your methods here.
04/19/2004 03:33:53 PM · #212
It's actualy simple. When you remove something what remains 100% came from your camera and it can be called photography. When you add something anything that is not in the initial shot that's eyther digital art if it whas rendered or if it comes from another shot a collage (forbiden here).
04/19/2004 03:39:47 PM · #213
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.
04/19/2004 03:42:39 PM · #214
Originally posted by louddog:


Got it!
Adding stuff to make an image better = not okay
Removing stuff to make an image better = okay.


good. we're done then :)
04/19/2004 03:43:57 PM · #215
Wow! Amazing what happens when you haven't logged on for a few hours!

John, thanks for your tutorials and your stand - I've bookmarked your site!

As a member for the past 5 months, I feel that I have and am becoming a better photographer thanks to folks like you, though since the new editing rules which started not long after I became a member, I do not see any real change in my scores.

I'm glad to hear the SC is taking this up again - those of us who aren't skilled at photoshop are often taken in by what we see as a genuinely good photograph (I know I have been) and don't suspect it of having had a lot of manipulation.

I for one would greatly appreciate being able to see at the voting time what has been done to achieve a photo - I like the days of the-upside-down martini glass in the aquarium! It seems much more creative to me when results are achieved through manipulation outside the camera and computer and then photographed, rather than the relative ease (for some) of creating what never existed in the first place.

I applaud John for taking a stand and making a statement - call him "prima donna" if you will, but only someone of his tenure here could make a stand like this that would be meaningful. Nobody would give a toss if *I* left, LOL - nor would my opinion matter. But I appreciate that there is someone willing to try to stand up for photographic integrity - which is the reason I joined this site - to learn to be a better photographer.
04/19/2004 03:44:12 PM · #216
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.


These seem fairly specious arguments. They make sense in a 2D projection but just ignore the reality of the situation.

Clouds arn't 2 dimensional patches of white, missing from a blue sky - they are physical objects that block the scattered, refracted light that makes a sky blue.

The cage isn't something that's under the feathers, its between the camera and the feathers that also existed.

While you may or may not have a point about the distinction between adding and subtracting elements from a scene - making up meaningless strawman arguments doesn't help a whole lot.
04/19/2004 03:46:57 PM · #217
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.


Can't argue with you verry well put comment, but then all it remains to do is basic editing all the way. I would personaly reather use advanced editing for removing or hiding like only a few pixels enhancing the composition where those are distracting but I don't think this coud be put in any rules so that anyone would follow it without other interpretations. Basic editing then.
04/19/2004 03:51:53 PM · #218
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.


the bird was there, though...all Crab did was to remove the distracting elements of the fence. he didn't take a photo of a fence and digitally create a bird to put behind it. BIG difference, in my opinion.

if i were taking photos of landscapes, i would have no qualms about cloning out distracting power lines or telephone poles but i would stop short of digitally creating a mountain and pasting it into the scene just because i thought it might look better that way. well, i might do it just for the fun of doing it but i would certainly not submit it to a dpc challenge.
04/19/2004 03:57:10 PM · #219
Originally posted by sher9204:

the bird was there, though...all Crab did was to remove the distracting elements of the fence. he didn't take a photo of a fence and digitally create a bird to put behind it. BIG difference, in my opinion.


Amen...
04/19/2004 04:06:10 PM · #220
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.'

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 16:29:07.
04/19/2004 04:11:01 PM · #221
Yeah, what Mousie said.
04/19/2004 04:11:48 PM · #222
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.
04/19/2004 04:17:06 PM · #223
Originally posted by Mousie:

editing stuff out is appropriate, and adding anything in is inappropriate, for a 'photograph.'

Right. So adding a simple catchlight to improve a portrait = poor photographer, trashbin the photo...
But removing a fence because you couldn't negotiate the necessary access to get behind the fence = OK...
Or adding some extra "sparkler" to the end of an outline because the sparkler ran out too early = bad timing, trashbin the photo and start again...
But removing cranes and other distractions to improve the look of the skyline = OK...

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 16:21:56.
04/19/2004 04:25:43 PM · #224
Originally posted by Sonifo:


1)I can do this in PSP8.

3)It doesn't matter the equipment, its the photographer that makes the photograph come alive.

4)let the rich buy whatever but if they don't have the imagination to go with it then why even bother.

?? maybe I don't get what your saying.


What I am saying is many photographers are complaing about what they voted for because (as many have said) they can no longer compete, and it seems to be that jms is complaing about just this as its not his first post moaning about editing.
As for your answer to my point 3 -- editing also requires imagination :)

Originally posted by TommyMoe21:


So, what you're saying sn4psh07, is that it doesn't matter that neither of the top two ribbon winners in the Window View challenge were actually take through a window?


As people were ALWAYS proclaiming when others and I ARGUED AGAINST editing, its all part of the process of creating a photo. Also UNCLEBRO should be commended for not being boring, he could also have taken the shot through a car window. Just cos there was no glass does not make the shot less befitting of the challenge...

Originally posted by tfaust:


But it wasn't... I wasn't privy to the steps taken in labuda's photo (again sorry for singling out), but from the bits and pieces I've gathered, it was a multi-image composition.


So what? labuda was making up for the fact he wasn't in possession of all he needed to get the shot. One method he could have used is to replace his window with polarized glass -- bit extreame for DPC don't you think?

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:


You didn't asked me directly but I wish to answer you if I may in the order you asked.

1. I master photoshop for years and make alot of money with it everyday , if you want me too ask me privately and I can proove it to you. Or I can challenge you in some ps work if you wish. But there are 100 sites for digital artwork and this is just not one of them. Digital art is one thing photography is something completely different that's why I never use my PS skills here.

2. I don't quite understand this it's probably my bad english, but if what you are saying is that those digital artworks are better than Johns photograpy work it's like compareing a a human with a chimp, both inteligent creatures that share some similarities but they are just not the same.

3. There is one thing rich can't buy and that's imagination or creativity. Also I don't know where you live and if you had to live with it or not, but half my life my country whas communist, and what you are saying is preety much the utopia comunism wanted to achieve but never succeded. To make people equal and to be no rich or poor by forced laws. All they acomplished is they made everyone poor.

4. (same as 3) and these are really childish things, I'm not much a photographer but from what I have learned so far I can tell you photography as everything else is about long hours of hard work and study and not about spending.

5. I really don't understand what is this about maybe you can make it clearer.

6. etc...


Thanks for the thoughts :)

1) Thanks but I am very competant with PS but have no desire to prove my limitations against a pro :) nor would I ever require proof of someones profession -- I take people by their words :)

2) I was wondering if jms scored these pictures well and got upset he didn't spot it wasn't a photo in his opinion.

3) Editing also requires A VISION AND IMAGINATION, also capitalism sucks too you know :)

4) I am purely making the point OTHERS were making when THEY WANTED adv. editing :)

5) I am saying jms appealed to usa citizens with his top scoring shot to score well, any other flag would not have finished near top 3 in the same challenge or many others.

I am purely playing devil's advocate and argueing for what others voted for -- to help me understand. Some friends and I (Yes many others too) tried to tell people this would happen.
At the same time I am trying to figure out why jms is reacting like this, and so many others too???

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO EDIT YOU PHOTOS THEN DON'T -- but as most of you voted for this why are you complaining? I assumed during the rule change that this is what you wanted, didn't you???

I guess I just don't understand all this.

I didn't want adv. editing and so have not used it in any of my pictures. DPC is a bit of fun on the side to me -- I don't particularly care about ribbons or my average -- how about you?
Jms said he didn't -- so why such a sour grapes post?

I don't submit much either though so maybe I just don't care enough about DPC to care how I and others do.

I guess what I am really saying is submit what you want and are happy with within the bounds of the rules, let others do the same aswell though. The council will sort all this out in time. You don't need to make a big play of it like jms did, he was on sc 2 or 3 times and knew he would have been better of emailing sc/admins rather than posting this thread. To me he did it for attention and to try to bend DPC to his will, which is unfair.

And here endeth my random mumblings and attempt to explain my previous post.

Peace and let nature bless us all with understanding :)
04/19/2004 04:28:35 PM · #225
Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by Mousie:

editing stuff out is appropriate, and adding anything in is inappropriate, for a 'photograph.'

Right. So adding a simple catchlight to improve a portrait = poor photographer, trashbin the photo...
But removing a fence because you couldn't negotiate the necessary access to get behind the fence = OK...
Or adding some extra "sparkler" to the end of an outline because the sparkler ran out too early = bad timing, trashbin the photo and start again...
But removing cranes and other distractions to improve the look of the skyline = OK...


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.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/02/2021 06:30:48 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 06:30:48 AM EDT.