| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2003 05:32:02 AM · #1 |
This was posted on another site a while back and I thought if I posted it here, maybe some people would be swayed over to the open edit side of the ongoing debate. All of these are excellent examples of basic photography. None of them are so overboard as to be unreal. You might be surprised at your results. Have fun.
Here you go. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:44:29 AM · #2 |
missed one (the forks) =X
how have other people done?
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 06:02:40. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:45:32 AM · #3 |
| 9 out of 10...I was stumped on the glasses and picked incorrectly. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:55:50 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:13:36 AM · #5 |
| 9 out of 10 correct, I had the glasses wrong, must say I was in doubt because of the angle of the glass on the right. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 06:21:31 AM · #6 |
| 8 of 10 correct. Missed the golf ball and the nose. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:01:35 AM · #7 |
| I got 9 of 10 ... the nails where to complicated for me |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:14:32 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:19:30 AM · #9 |
8/10
Thought the golfball was fake and the glasses were real
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:20:34 AM · #10 |
| 8 out of 10.. Not too bad I suppose. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:29:43 AM · #11 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:40:33 AM · #12 |
4 out of 10, I suck at that game!
Deannda
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 07:52:04 AM · #13 |
| 9 outa 10... the lawn furnature highlights got me. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 08:52:00 AM · #14 |
| 9 of 10 correct. I thought the nails were real! Very good job on that pic. I am jealous. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:10:28 AM · #15 |
| 6 out of 10, but unless I had been asked to study the shots I would have been fooled by more. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:14:42 AM · #16 |
6 out of 10 - I got the nose as CG, none of the others
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:15:10 AM · #17 |
| 8 out of 10 - great site, thanks for posting it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:17:45 AM · #18 |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:24:51 AM · #19 |
9 out of 10 - i also thought the glasses were real...
i don't really see how this pertains to the dpc and the current rules discussion, though. what dies a cg artists ability to trick the eye have to do with dpc and the need to preserve the fundamentals of good photography?
i'm here to learn to take better pictures, and to have fun doing it, not to fool anyone in to thinking something fake was something real. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:45:34 AM · #20 |
It's a fun test mostly! I got 6 out of 10.
But,the reason. To show that even if a few things are changed, it's not such a bad thing. People that are against changing the rules seem to feel,imo, that we would be creating pictures that are so for over the edge that they would be unpleasant to look at. I think everyone here has a grasp on what's real and not and would vote according to their taste and that would keep the people that altered their photos beyond a certain point from scoring well, and pretty soon they wouldn't do it anymore. But, we wouldn't be having the debate every week! |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:04:37 AM · #21 |
That was fun! 7 of 10.
Ursula
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:13:53 AM · #22 |
| 8 out of 10 --I am amazed I felt as if I were getting them all wrong |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 10:40:05 AM · #23 |
Well, I am (apparently) easily fooled. I got 6 of 10 correct.
I'm a new member and I've been reading the forums for the past few days to acquaint myself with the socio-political environment, if you will. Every place has its own idiosyncracies and hot spots and this is no exception. I must say, I am impressed with the general level of civility - oftentimes places such as this (diverse groupings of people with a single common interest) reduce themselves to perpetual squabbling.
That said, I'd like to weigh in on the editing/post processing issue (like anyone needs ANOTHER opinion, I know).
I have not been a photographer for long but my uncle was a busy and locally renowned photographer and I was his official helper every summer for a number of years. I watched him do things in the darkroom that turned flawed film into beautiful images and I remember him saying to me that a photograph almost never comes out of the camera perfectly. He showed me how a speck of dust, a scratch on the film media, a blemish on the subject's nose could "ruin" a photograph. Then he showed me what one could do in the darkroom to repair these problems. And, believe me, I saw some pretty amazing tranformations from original to finished. I mean - some AMAZING transformations - some so amazing that I doubt I could reproduce them even in the newest version of Photoshop.
He said something to me that I will never forget and which I use as my own personal philosophy. He said, "Sometimes I take a photo that I know is flawed in some way because I know I can fix it here." In other words, he was using both the pressing of the shutter button and the darkroom as equal tools in the production of what was, by any standard, excellent photography. For digital photographs I have come to think of Photoshop as my darkroom and although I tend towards not doing a lot of editing to my photographs and virtually never use "effects" I would find it ridiculous for someone to tell me it was "cheating" in some way. It's simply a part of the process from start to end.
For instance, yesterday I was in a pet store to shoot some fish for a client and I shot my images framed in such a way as to allow me to (a) crop out the reflections I didn't like and (b) spot edit the backgrounds which were mottled. Out of the camera they're all sort of pedestrian and some are even "yuck" to borrow the vernacular my daughter uses when she doesn't like something. I got five finished images from that series that my client thinks are works of genius (some people are easily impressed one assumes). Excepting portraits and studio shots, if I waited for the perfect frame to present itself naturally to me I would, in some cases, wait forever.
Film photographers use cameras and darkrooms to produce their photography. Digital photographers use cameras and computers to produce their photography. Other than the method and means - the concept is exactly the same in my mind. I also use film - perhaps more than I use digital - and I can tell you that I _easily_ do more post exposure work with film than I do with the digital images.
Most importantly, I have never seen a "bad" photograph made into a "good" one by Photoshop but I have seen many that might be throw-aways due to some particular problem in the exposure saved by it. Much like I can't make a bad film image into a good one in the darkroom but I can surely mitigate certain flaws. Composition may be the real key to photography, anyway and this is unaffected by anything in the darkroom or photoshop (except crop which could not possibly be disputed as being a legitimate photographer's process). And whoever it was that mentioned Ansel Adams was spot-on. The man did things in the darkroom that make even the most adept Photoshop veteran pale by comparison and who dares question his photographic skills? Not me, surely.
Well, I've gone on and on - haven't I? Probably in the wrong place, too.
Catherine
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 10:43:13. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:08:39 AM · #24 |
I got 7 out of 10
I messed up on the nails (said they were real) The spoon and fork (also thought it was real) and the table (thought that one was fake)
Shannon |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:23:23 AM · #25 |
|
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: 04/18/2024 08:13:56 PM EDT.
