| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2003 01:53:39 PM · #1 |
I don't want to open a can of worms, just to invite to a discussion about Spot Editing (which is not allowed on DPC) and Photography.
I have the maximum respect (and love) for Photography, but I arrived to the conclusion that I don't really understand why to forbid spot editing.
An excellent photo does not need any photoshop intervention. Now my questions are:
[1] How many of us are able to constantly produce excellent photos which would not be improved by photo editing?
[2] Even more importantly, do we believe that by enabling Spot Editing it would become possible for a mediocre photo to become even better than an excellent one? If we believe so, than it is proper to forbid spot editing (and maybe we should forbid even some further technique that currently is legal). But, IMHO, there is nothing that Photoshop can do on a mediocre shot to make it better than a truly excellent photo.
Basically, I raised these points to invite everybody to review what they think about photo editing because, after all, it belongs very much to Digital Photography.
Also, if we realize that there is nothing to be afraid of, we could even enjoy a much relaxed experience on DPC without having to care about lots of DQed requests and cheating suspects.
Ultimately, I think, what should be avoided, it is an excessive use of any Photo Editing technique which tranforms the photo in something which is a workart without photo-realism.
But this transformation (from photo to artwork with loss of photorealism) can be achieved also with the techniques which are currently legal and we have many proves that the photos which have lost their realism have not been welcomed by the voters, therefore even eliminating any actual need for DQing them.
In the end, should we really be afraid of Photoshop or is it just a fear which is creating unnecessary tension and limiting the scope and quality of our experience?
Message edited by author 2003-09-27 13:55:08.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 02:16:36 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
I don't want to open a can of worms ... |
That's the only part of your post I'm not substantially in agreement with. |
|
|
|
09/27/2003 02:33:04 PM · #3 |
This subject has been debated over and over again around here. I am in complete agreement that full editing should be allowed and that photographic intent should be maintained without introducing 'digital art' to the site.
Quite a few site members agree with this theory. A lot more people feel that they are put at an unfair disadvantage for whatever the reason... they claim that they aren't good enough with photoshop, and apparently they don't believe that they can learn either. They also DO believe that mediocre images can be made outstanding with photoshop as well...
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 02:42:45 PM · #4 |
I just wanted to note that on my last challenge entered, which was for Insects, I shot a Chinese Mantis. The shot was great, except that the head was slightly out of focus. Well, I received an average score, and lots of comments saying it would have been a great shot if the head was in focus. Using Photoshop, I was easily able to make the insect's head look almost, if not totally, in focus along with the trunk of its body. Now... that could easily have swayed my score in the challenge. The questions is: Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? I personally think that digital photography and digital darkroom editing are so entwined that many people think of them as one and the same. That's not how it seems to be done here at DP Challenge though, and such a position is their prerogative. So, I say it's up to the people who run this site to determine whether or not they want to test peoples' skill with a camera or peoples' skill with a software application. All I know is that I have much more skill with the software than with the camera.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Alia
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 02:48:49 PM · #5 |
I agree that it should be allowed too because, inevitably, there are people out there who probably still submit challenge entries that have been subtley edited.
The problem is that someone who understands Photoshop (or equivalent) and can use it well will be able to make some crucial, yet indiscernible changes to an image and they won't get DQd as they're not blatantly obvious.
This largely undermines the site's integrity since the main purpose of introducing a free-editing policy would be to enhance a shot rather than encourage lazy, crude, obvious filtering and naff FX.
I recently had a comment on one of my shots from someone who marked it down due to a blotch of 'unsightly' texture. It's precisely that kind of thing (and 'telephone wire syndrome') that a relaxation of those rules would benefit.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 02:49:43 PM · #6 |
I wouldn't care if photoshop was able to salvage a bad photo. I would rather look at a lot of good photos.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 02:51:35 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
A lot more people feel that they are put at an unfair disadvantage for whatever the reason... they claim that they aren't good enough with photoshop, and apparently they don't believe that they can learn either. |
I understand how they feel about Photoshop because it is human and I would feel the same if I would not know that software.
Basically this conversation is to invite that people to, possibly, remove the last of their fear:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
They also DO believe that mediocre images can be made outstanding with photoshop as well... |
That fear is generated exactly by the fact that they do not know the scope of Photoshop that, with all its immense power, just cannot transform a mediocre image in an outstanding one.
Its not about enabling Photoshop or spot editing, it is about making a step forward toward Digital Photography (and Photography in general) and it is a bit ironic that it is a step which is somehow denied by those who love Photography most.
It is an open discussion trying, if possible, to underline the truth (Photoshop? Immensely powerful but just photo-editing!).
Photoshop cannot create reality. Therefore it cannot increase the realism of a picture and any step made to enhance the photo aesthetics has the associated risk of, in fact, losing photo-realism.
Of course, they may well ask, why use Photoshop then? Not really to transform mediocre pictures in decent ones, but mostly to learn photography in even a better way that it was impossible before.
Silly example: by spending few hours in the attempt of improving a picture, we will study those properties of the shot that we would like it have had and, maybe, next time we will take it better to avoid spending so much time in photo-editing to achieve a result that, as good as it could be, it will never be good as the original (real) could be.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 03:20:32 PM · #8 |
It's quite obvious and has been for awhile that we need "skill" levels and those levels should determine the amount of PS allowed. But until we get there, we're just going to spin around in circles with the same debate over and over.
I was anti-open editing, but I've changed my mind. I want it. I'd happily get smeared in an open editing division.
M
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 03:41:02 PM · #9 |
I'm not sure it is an issue of "fear" among participants, even though I suppose that could be a part of it. A big part of this is the argument that you should be able to capture everything just right in-camera with maybe the exception of sharpening and color adjustments. For a couple of reasons I don't agree with this. It is a well known fact that a digital camera and just about any camera for that matter, can't capture the full dynamic range that our eyes are capable of seeing. So it is necessary to correct for that with dodging and burning and several other tools that require selective editing. The other big reason for me is that we are creating artistic photographs not meerly documentary or photojournalistic photographs. While I completely agree that all final images should be photgraphic in natural and no visual elements should be added to an image we should have the freedom to produce our own unique visions. I am strongly against adding any elements to a scene but I feel that removing small unimportant and distracting elements like bits of garbage or wires is perfectly fine. One of the reasons that I am so against adding anything to an image is the fact that many of us probably can create very reastic images purely with the editing tools that would fool the eye. that is not where I want this site to go. I want the freedom to use any tools available to create our images as long as they are only used to improve the existing photo and not used to re-create reality.
T
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 03:42:25 PM · #10 |
I don't understand what all the hubbub is about.
If DPChallengers think they should be able to modify their images in any way they see fit while using Photoshop or other software, there must be other digital photography challenge or contest web sites out there that allow unlimited editing. Submit the image of the purple elephant flying through a hoop being held by an orange cow driving a Mini Austin (how`s THAT for editing?) to one of those sites if you require validation of your editing skills that much.
Furthermore, if members are as good as they say concerning editing, let them place their creations in portfolios or in threads. Many of us would be more than glad to evaluate hyper-edited creations and pat theirs creators on the back if they deserve it.
As I understand it, DPChallenge rewards skills... PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS. They restrict editing to a "bare minimum" so that photography skill and not editing skill comes through in the winning photos each week.
Most people who frequent this site are here to enhance their photography skills, learn the basics of photo editing and share with others. We are here to accept all. My fear is that, by allowing widespread unlimited editing, many people who frequent this web site would be intimidated and leave. Something that some of the snapshot haters wouldn't mind one bit. I don't share this point of view.
That's my point of view. Do with it what you will. I care not.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 03:52:20 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:01:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
My fear is that, by allowing widespread unlimited editing, many people who frequent this web site would be intimidated and leave. |
That is a very good point, well worthwhile consideration even if I I think that your previous points were quite contrasting with it.
In fact if, as you said if:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
DPChallenge rewards skills... PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS.
|
why introduce "snapshot haters" as a problem when, indeed, they "hate" snapshot exactly because they reward photography skills?
I would like you would not consider this conversation an "hubbub" but just a discussion about (Digital) Photography and what is important (or relevant) for DPC.
It is not a case that you just introduced a (new) fear.
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
..many people .. would be intimidated and leave. |
Don't you find a bit strange that the only arguments that have been raised against spot editing so far are, in fact, just fears?
Let's try to discuss about them and see if, after all, there is nothing to be afraid of and our fears just represent limits the we impose on ourselves.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:05:41 PM · #13 |
I believe in editing photos to make them the best they can be, but I am not going to debate the issue at this website.
There are other places on the web that allow unlimited editing, as long as you maintain the look of natural photography rather than digital art. I know of a site that even allows collage entries in their weekly challenges.
If anyone wants more info on it, PM or email me... I don't want to 'plug' another site in the DPChallenge forums...
JD Anderson
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:08:07 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
It's quite obvious and has been for awhile that we need "skill" levels and those levels should determine the amount of PS allowed. But until we get there, we're just going to spin around in circles with the same debate over and over.
I was anti-open editing, but I've changed my mind. I want it. I'd happily get smeared in an open editing division.
M |
I don't think that is obvious at all. I've only read about a small percentage of people that have requested different skill levels. I think that would really make a mess of things. How in the world would you even separate everyone into different groups? We already have diffeent challenges per week that we can select from, if you are a member, and it is those challenges only that should separate the skills. I am constantly seeing someone in the top ten one week and in the bottom half the next week. Sure, there are some people that are consistently scoring high but that is because they have taken the time to learn the whole package from knowing their camera gear and how to recognise and capture a great image to knowing how to complete that image, making it as good as it can be in their editing program. They have earned the right to be high in the ranks among eveyone else because they have put in the time and effort to get there. Everyone else can do that as well. At the same time another photographer may be having success in a particular area and, while maybe not having all of the skills or equipment, they win or get a very high score score. That is extremely rewarding, knowing that they won while competing against everyone else. This is just discussing the competitive aspect of this sight. Most people would probably say that it is really the joy of photography with different themes as well as the social aspect of this site that interests them most. Trying to divide this site up into skill levels, even if that were possible, would only make things more complicated and shift the focus too much on the competitive side.
T
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:16:02 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I believe in editing photos to make them the best they can be, but I am not going to debate the issue at this website.
There are other places on the web that allow unlimited editing, as long as you maintain the look of natural photography rather than digital art. I know of a site that even allows collage entries in their weekly challenges.
If anyone wants more info on it, PM or email me... I don't want to 'plug' another site in the DPChallenge forums...
JD Anderson |
Excellent post. I appreciate your style.
Also it helped me to focus on something else which may clarify something.
DPC aims to be a popular website and then, if photo editing is not so popular, of course it could somehow reduce the popularity of DPC as BeagleBoy was sustaining.
That makes perfect sense and, once we think that Photo Editing and/or softwares like Photoshop are not popular as required, it basically end our conversation with a logical conclusion.
Maybe one day, when Photo Editing will be popular enough, it will be included in DPC without the risk of unpopularity.
The real issue is then would Photo Editing add or detract to DPC popularity?
Honestly I do not know the answer and I do not even have an opinion about it.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:19:15 PM · #16 |
I'm not afraid of photoshop and what it can do, in fact I have never used it. I can't afford to purchase the software and make do with the substandard (by far) photo-editing program that came with my computer.
I would feel at a disadvantage (and in some cases already do) to those who do have and use Photoshop, especially if all restrictions were lifted, as I, regardless of the quality of my original picture, would not have the ability to Photoshop it to near perfect if that was my desire.
In fact, I already have trouble using some of the Tips & Tricks or other Tutorials that assume the reader has Photoshop or something similar.
This is of course essentially my problem (not being able to afford it), but the suggested change would enhance that.
I doubt it'd make me leave of course, though I can imagine becoming frustrated if my photos ended up doing worse in challenges because I didn't have access to Photoshop's premier editing options while others did and were scored higher because of it.
Just my long-winded thoughts.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:23:13 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
I don't understand what all the hubbub is about.
If DPChallengers think they should be able to modify their images in any way they see fit while using Photoshop or other software, there must be other digital photography challenge or contest web sites out there that allow unlimited editing. Submit the image of the purple elephant flying through a hoop being held by an orange cow driving a Mini Austin (how`s THAT for editing?) to one of those sites if you require validation of your editing skills that much.
|
This is one thing that I love about these forums, the exaggerated (abeit funny!) misinformed responses. I don't know of anyone that is in favor of open-editing that wants to make this site into a digial art challenge where anything goes. But someone always introduces this view to sidetrack the main topic. Maintaining the integrity of the original photo will always be a rule on this site as far as I know and all of these discussions (not hub bub) ought to be discussed with that in mind.
T
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:26:15 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by timj351:
How in the world would you even separate everyone into different groups? We already have diffeent challenges per week that we can select from, if you are a member, and it is those challenges only that should separate the skills. |
Just to present some idea:
I am designing a website in my spare time (although it is likely not to be ready before the next century) which would run in parallel three different categories of contests for the same subject (for instance: freedom, or whatever you like).
Category 1: Candid (I did not like to call it snapshot, I would have liked to call it "Pure Photography" but it sounds too emphatic).
No editing of any kind allowed. Just Resize.
Category 2: Digital Photography
All sort of editing you like, but no artwork.
It must be a photo in the end.
Category 3: PhotoArt
Do you feel an artist or a designer more than a photographer? Go on. Show us.
People could partecipate in one or even in all three.
DQ for categories [1] and [2] would be at the sole administrators discretion (after all, the categories are well identified, IMHO)
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:28:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by LucidLotus:
I'm not afraid of photoshop and what it can do, in fact I have never used it. I can't afford to purchase the software and make do with the substandard (by far) photo-editing program that came with my computer.
I would feel at a disadvantage (and in some cases already do) to those who do have and use Photoshop, especially if all restrictions were lifted, as I, regardless of the quality of my original picture, would not have the ability to Photoshop it to near perfect if that was my desire.
In fact, I already have trouble using some of the Tips & Tricks or other Tutorials that assume the reader has Photoshop or something similar.
This is of course essentially my problem (not being able to afford it), but the suggested change would enhance that.
I doubt it'd make me leave of course, though I can imagine becoming frustrated if my photos ended up doing worse in challenges because I didn't have access to Photoshop's premier editing options while others did and were scored higher because of it.
Just my long-winded thoughts. |
Very very good point.
Not to reduce it (which is an excellent point) but the same point applies to the hardware, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:40:33 PM · #20 |
| If you check Gordon's Profile you will find links to six free and nine budget-priced photo-editing prgrams. One of them will be able to do everything that would be required to improve photo-realistic images in the ways being suggested. |
|
|
|
09/27/2003 04:57:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
Very very good point.
Not to reduce it (which is an excellent point) but the same point applies to the hardware, doesn't it? |
I would agree with that, but I hold it at a lower impact. I'm not sure how to explain it really.
I think its because photoshop is currently used in a restricted manner - thus limiting the advantage (one might say added advantage if they take into account differences in hardware) that can be given through its use.
Removing that restriction would then compound the advantage - percieved or not. I do realize not everyone considers photoshop an advantage as much as a simple tool. :)
Also, thank you GeneralE for the pointer to Gordon's profile. I'm checking those out now. I currently have Microsoft Picture It! and while I can do things like make something black & white and sharpen, its quality just doesn't seem there for me. Plus it seems to be lacking in other areas that photoshop provides (and are still legal for challenges).
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 05:01:00 PM · #22 |
I think you missed the point :) ..
Most of the people who want to open up editing just want the ability to do stuff like remove dust spots, maybe open up a shadow, that kind of thing.
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Submit the image of the purple elephant flying through a hoop being held by an orange cow driving a Mini Austin (how`s THAT for editing?) to one of those sites if you require validation of your editing skills that much.
|
|
|
|
|
09/27/2003 05:11:57 PM · #23 |
Previously I have been dead set against opening up editing, but that was then and this is now.
I noticed the comment about people leaving cause of feeling intimidated, I suggested repeatedly about possibly breaking the challenge into 2 to 3 levels and allowing more editing in the higher levels than the lowest. Was told that wouldn't work it would be to complicated. Well what about allowing editing in the members challenges. Wouldn't threaten those who are just starting out and at the same time wouldn't frustrate those who have mastered photo editing. |
|
|
|
09/27/2003 05:13:54 PM · #24 |
| One disadvantage of allowing spot editing is the example of a shot in which everything is in focus when it would look much better with soft focus behind the main object/animal/person. I can do this in Photoshop but I believe I should be concentrating on getting the focusing right in the first place via my camera. (Though it's tough, given the limitations of the G1 compared to later models.) |
|
|
|
09/27/2003 06:00:03 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Previously I have been dead set against opening up editing, but that was then and this is now.
I noticed the comment about people leaving cause of feeling intimidated, I suggested repeatedly about possibly breaking the challenge into 2 to 3 levels and allowing more editing in the higher levels than the lowest. Was told that wouldn't work it would be to complicated. Well what about allowing editing in the members challenges. Wouldn't threaten those who are just starting out and at the same time wouldn't frustrate those who have mastered photo editing. |
This sounds very reasonable to me.
One other point. Even if we allow open-editing that does not mean we have to use any or all of those tools. Also, just like the case where you may have a camera that is limited on features, if you are being smart you will be careful to take the kinds of photos that your camera can capture well and not worry about the shots that it can't, as far as the technical quality of the image is concened. You may be limited in what your camera or editing software can do but, if you think about it, there is still a whole world of incredible images that you can capture and display at a very high quality.
T
Message edited by author 2003-09-27 18:15:49.
|
|
