| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2003 11:33:30 AM · #1 |
I feel that the editing rules for challenges should be as follows:
Rule 1: No composite images. You must work from a single photograph.
Rule 2: You may not add any elements to the photograph that were not there in the original image.
Rule 3: Your photograph must not appear to be digitally manipulated in any way. It should look like a photograph.
***
I believe that these rules would allow unlimited editing and maintain the 'photographic' quality of the submissions.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:38:12 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Rule 3: Your photograph must not appear to be digitally manipulated in any way. It should look like a photograph |
I think the trouble with this one is that its a personal judgement, and would hard to be fair.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Rule 2: You may not add any elements to the photograph that were not there in the original image. |
Does this include removing hot pixels for example? It would mean adding background elements that were not on the original image, but it could also just be classed as *removing* elements. How far would it stretch? Removing a hot pixel... removing a sign... removing a person... removing the whole background?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:39:24 AM · #3 |
2. If I'm any good at PS, you'll never know.
3. Can't possibly be enforced. This is subjective as to your definition of a photograph.
I agree with 1 and 2 isn't bad.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:39:48 AM · #4 |
i completely agree. maintaining the integrity of the original photo should remain top priority. i would hate to see a photo evolve into "digital art". while that's a valid artistic choice, it's not photography.
i've always thought we should be allowed some minor spot editing to "clean up" our photos. darkroom photographers have done this for ages. i don't think minor spot editing will turn into a digital art free-for-all. removing hot pixels, cleaning up background spots, dodging and burning...all parts of traditional photographic processing. it should be here, too.
just my opinion.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 11:44:29.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:40:11 AM · #5 |
Let's just allow everything and see what the masses do to it on voting. That will create the best overall images.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:41:17 AM · #6 |
I have to say I too think the third rule is too vague and generic, and subjective.
I'll let you know if I have an alternative.
I just want to be sure this site continues in the vein it was meant. I would not want to see digital art when this is about improving and exploring digital photography.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 11:42:30. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:44:27 AM · #7 |
| Just afraid that something like this happens. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:45:24 AM · #8 |
If nothing else it would force me to learn to use PS properly, and stop me wasting all that time taking photos.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:45:54 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by zerocusa:
Just afraid that something like this happens. |
John's suggested rule would disallow this, because it is from 2 photos, not one. However, you are right. If you are good at it, how would you know?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:46:19 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by bod:
If nothing else it would force me to learn to use PS properly, and stop me wasting all that time taking photos. |
;-)
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:46:47 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by bod:
If nothing else it would force me to learn to use PS properly, and stop me wasting all that time taking photos. |
Is this tounge-in-cheek? |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:46:58 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by zerocusa:
Just afraid that something like this happens. |
valid point, z...but if we don't allow composites, that won't be a problem...or shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:51:39 AM · #13 |
Unless people are good at it.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:51:57 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by bod:
If nothing else it would force me to learn to use PS properly, and stop me wasting all that time taking photos. |
Is this tounge-in-cheek? |
Partly, yes. I can see both sides of this argument so I'm sitting on the fence and leaning to one side every now & then : )
But why spend 6 hours going out taking photos or getting the lighting right in the studio when you can just quickly grab a half decent shot and finish it off in PS?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:53:12 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Unless people are good at it. |
There are always gonna be people who break the rules, no matter what they are. I'm sure that only a small percentage of the rule breakers get caught now. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:53:55 AM · #16 |
Because a half-decent shot doesn't make us any good at photography. It makes us great in a digidarkroom. My fear is laziness results in losing the skills we've been building up - how to light, how to check details, how to get creative (how did they do that?)
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:54:00 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by bod:
If nothing else it would force me to learn to use PS properly, and stop me wasting all that time taking photos. |
Is this tounge-in-cheek? |
Partly, yes. I can see both sides of this argument so I'm sitting on the fence and leaning to one side every now & then : )
But why spend 6 hours going out taking photos or getting the lighting right in the studio when you can just quickly grab a half decent shot and finish it off in PS? |
it all depends on what your personal objectives are. you can strive to be a good photographer or you can strive to be good at photoshop or you can do both... doesn't really matter.. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:57:15 AM · #18 |
Exactly. And this is what would take away from becoming photographers.
I really like the idea of d/b, and cloning/rubber stamping to remove unwanted parafanalia.. just last night I couldn't submit a shot because I couldn't spot edit an element out of it. On the other hand, bod is right.. I wouldn't be limited to such things. I could create lighting, new backgrounds.. It would be digital art. I, too, am mostly on the fence, but lean the other way bod. I lean toward the limited editing.
The rest of the story: Even though I couldn't rubber stamp that distracting element out, it forced me to go back and take a cleaner image from the get go. I think I became a better photographer for it. That is the art I prefer. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:05:48 PM · #19 |
So then as the rules are now, shooting with RAW files are cheating in a way? I mean you don't need to be a good photographer at all with RAW files, you can change WB, Exposure Comp, Tone Comp and other attributes without degrading the file. So should that mean everyone that can shoot RAW files should just do a half-ass job shooting in the first place?
Sorry I don't buy this, shooting half-heartedly then making it all great in PS. If your highlights are burnt out, shadows crushed, PS isn't going to save you anyways, unless you go and composite an image. There's limitations to what can be done on any photo, whether digital or film. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:08:56 PM · #20 |
The only thing I would really like to be able to do is clone/rubber stamp hot pixels. Only because it is a limitation of the CCD. Most other things I would like to try and overcome by using lighting, composition, camera settings, etc. Personally, I came here to learn how to a better digital photographer. Don't take me wrong, I love PhotoShop too, and would love to get better at it. But primarily I don't want to rely on image editting. For me, an image should be strong to begin with, the editting should be secondary.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:11:45 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Let's just allow everything and see what the masses do to it on voting. That will create the best overall images. |
I think it is a bad idea to allow everything, some people are not image editing pros, sure you can call it digital dark room techniques all you want but too much editing of a digital image takes away from the photo in my opinion.
Unless you want to spin off another open challenge just for those who need to manipulate their images WAY WAY beyond the capabilities of any camera. Now that I could go for
have a:
Members Challenge
Open Challenge
Open Challenge - ALL Edits allowed
James
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:12:47 PM · #22 |
Why not just make the Member's Challenge with Rules 1 and 2 from Setzler's original post? Try it out for a few weeks. I'm all for that.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:13:09 PM · #23 |
When I first started participating in these challenges I didn't mind the rules at all. Some of them were a little fuzzy around the edges in their wording, but by and large it was clear that, for the most part, you could make global changes but not spot edit. No problem.
Now my camera has developed these irritating little hot pixels and dead pixels. The dead ones aren't that big a deal... just little black specks that can rarely be seen in the resized images. But the hot pixels are an issue... they are HUGE. With my camera a hot pixel doesn't affect just one pixel "square" the way the dead ones do, they bleed over into the rest of the image with a characteristic cross-like pattern that affects at least a dozen other pixels. Aargh!
And while I'd love to spot edit these "bad" pixels, I really don't want to change the rules. I have grown pretty comfortable with them as they stand. Also, I feel subjective rules like "must look like a photograph" are fine for other sites, but I think it would cause problems here because so many people judge, and everyones idea of what a photo should look like is different.
I am still looking for the software that will allow me to plot these problem pixels, and then "map them out" without affecting the rest of the image. Like NeatImage for hot\dead pixels... Does anyone know of such a product?
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 12:14:58. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:14:35 PM · #24 |
what about a dust/scratches or salt and pepper filter on their lowest settings?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 12:17:56 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
... The rest of the story: Even though I couldn't rubber stamp that distracting element out, it forced me to go back and take a cleaner image from the get go. I think I became a better photographer for it. That is the art I prefer. |
I had the same thing happen to me a couple weeks ago. Had a dark cloth backdrop set up, and when I pulled my images off the camera, I realized there was a speck of fuzz on the backdrop. One click in Photoshop and it would have been gone, but they said NO spot-editing. So back I went, to set the entire shot up AGAIN, and get a clean one without the fuzz. Frustrating? Yes, but I learned something about checking staged shots for fuzz BEFORE shooting. :)
Personally, a digital image manipulation contest might be fun, and could be a neat challenge, but I guess (and this goes also for the many how-far-from-topic-literal-can-you-get discussions elsewhere) for me, they've set down the rules. WHY those are the rules is not important -- it's their site, they can make whatever rules they want. I came to this site to try to create the best response to THEIR challenge each week, not to find a way to make their challenge fit what I wanted to do or break whichever rules I felt were inconvenient. If they change the rules, I'll gladly spot-edit or create a composite. But until then, I'm fine with doing just what they ask, following the rules they've laid out. If I don't like it, I can always skip a week or go to a different site. :)
What I've gotten from the existing rules, though, is not only a handful of half-decent shots, but some EXCELLENT setups for Photoshop manipulation on my own! I think my work is becoming better than it would be if I was free to do whatever I wanted to the image in editing. I'm doing my thinking before the shot instead of afterwards.
Just my two cents... no offense to anyone meant. |
|
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 07:24:06 PM EDT.
