| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2005 03:13:53 AM · #1 |
that only proves my point that photoshopic skill is not NECESSARILY photographic skill. from what i understood, no one questioned the tallent of the people who shoot digital (or did you, people?). this whole thread was about not letting digital editing go too far. there have been discussions before about how very dissapointed some people were when they saw the original of a picture they had voted 10 on.
so...there's no one who would take the burden of having an apprentice :( |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:38:17 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
For an illustrative example, look at the non-photoshop, all photographic work of Jerry Uelsmann |
Wow!! Amazing work!!!
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:33:13 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:23:22 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
methos, by minor I meant the amount of options you would have at your disposal. Otherwise the actual editing time and the need for high accuracy for every print (can't undo) is greatly reduced with digital. |
The only thing digital changes is how easily repeatable and undo-able changes are. For an illustrative example, look at the non-photoshop, all photographic work of Jerry Uelsmann |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:18:47 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by anda:
one cannot even dare start compare (confused, anyone? :)) dodging and burning in the darkroom with the stuff that can be done to an image in photoshop.
|
Actually I can. Like I stated before, I cloned out stuff all the time in the dark room. Obviously it takes a lot more talent to do it in a darkroom than on a computer. And the results on a computer are WAY more consistant for each print. But most of the images that win an open challenge are less edited than what you can do in a darkroom.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:09:20 PM · #6 |
I completely disagree!! Looking at the ribbon winners this week I see no editing beyond recognition, but pure photographic skills.
I specially love this one:
As it tells a wonderful story in a very pure and simple photographic image.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:21:15 AM · #7 |
That over processed look your referring to would be the default output of the Canon dslr's :)
/me ducks and hides
bazz. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:08:14 AM · #8 |
one cannot even dare start compare (confused, anyone? :)) dodging and burning in the darkroom with the stuff that can be done to an image in photoshop.
most of the art i've seen on this site is absolutely incredible. but i agree with prietenu: sometimes, editing is taken way too far. i have a friend who will take a random picture of anything and edit it to such a degree that it can compete with the pictures on this site(yes, i do think very highly of DPChallenge.com). i honestly don't believe he has photographic talent...he has photoshoping talent
i personally chose film over digital any day, tho i aknowledge the versatility and support offered by digital, and to me there is a difference between photography and digital art...
and prietenu, enough people owned a 35mm, but few might have started with a pin hole camera amde out of cardboard :D
and please, if anyone is accepting to let me watch them work (on the field, not in photoshop), i'll be more than happy to go. (i live in Toronto btw)
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 01:10:18. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:53:34 AM · #9 |
| methos, by minor I meant the amount of options you would have at your disposal. Otherwise the actual editing time and the need for high accuracy for every print (can't undo) is greatly reduced with digital. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:27:10 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
that true Pug-h, but then how many people had a darkroom in their home or easily accessible somewhere? Only minor alterations could be done with those compared to todays editing software. And think of how many people had camera's back then compared to the accessibility digital cameras brought to most people. I'm sure if you ask people, many of them did not own a 35mm camera before their current digital one, and even less would have edited their photos in a darkroom. |
And 'back then', most people had photo albums or boxes full of photos that no one except for other family members would have any interest at all in looking at. :-) |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 11:50:44 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
that true Pug-h, but then how many people had a darkroom in their home or easily accessible somewhere? Only minor alterations could be done with those compared to todays editing software. And think of how many people had camera's back then compared to the accessibility digital cameras brought to most people. I'm sure if you ask people, many of them did not own a 35mm camera before their current digital one, and even less would have edited their photos in a darkroom. |
Minor, I use to retouch a neg, then hand paint the print to remove an object. It's just easier to do it digitally.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 11:25:47 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
And don't you want to bond spiritually with your fellow photographers? :D |
My current entry followed the following processing steps:
@ Resize for DPC
@ Noise-reduction/sharpening with PictureCooler
@ SaveAs JPEG
Does that meet the spiritual super-glue standard? |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:50:28 PM · #13 |
eschelar - in my eyes photos like that deserve more photographic (not artistic) praise than ones with heavy editing which turn out to look the same
-time for me to learn some advanced photoshop (not only cropping and filters :D |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:39:53 PM · #14 |
Your feelings on this prietenu are the reason why I try to stick to basic editing rules (although I may spotclone a tad if I ever get around to a members challenge).
I can't stand digital art when it claims to be photography. It has it's place of course, but this is Digital Photo.
That having been said, there are plenty of pics that HAVE been taken that have an amazing appeal and look that are nearly exactly as they came out of the camera.
Basic editing rules generally apply to very basic procedures that would be learned in an entry level photo developers class and are results that CAN be had from the lab with a simple request.
Crops can be done with scissors :) |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:36:32 PM · #15 |
I really haven't used more than 2 different enlargers (wish I had the money to buy 10s of them)... guess I could use more or I haven't seen or used more than 3 kinds of paper, I have yet to go into a store that would sell me 200 different kinds of papers (not saying that they don't exist)
And don't you want to bond spiritually with your fellow photographers? :D
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 22:39:36. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:31:50 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
I agree, you are completely right alfresco. I would just like to see some non processed images to see where people's ideas come from, not only their results. |
Thinking about this some more ... it comes from their soul. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:30:28 PM · #17 |
If what we referred to as a "photograph" was a negative on a light table, then digital photography could be described as the digital equivalent of film.
However, "photography" involves more than providing a controlled amount of light to a silver emulsion and dipping it in some chemicals. 200 different papers, enlargers, toners, filters, dodging wands -- "photography" involves just a little more than snapping the shutter. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:15:44 PM · #18 |
I don't know what you are reffering to as a real darkroom, but I have processed photos in them before (not my own darkroom of course).
I don't think digital photography has a certain meaning, it is just as simple as the name says it: the digital equivalent of film.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 22:17:47. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:15:24 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
,snip> But the thing that turns me off is that I'm not so good in the post processing part of photography and maybe others aren't as well
|
If you go to some of the basic editing posts by bear_music this might help some.
Photoshop Basics
or serch for
DPC Mentorship
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:15:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
I agree, you are completely right alfresco. I would just like to see some non processed images to see where people's ideas come from, not only their results. |
I now see where you're coming from ...
What I would like to see is their workflow, from start to finish. I would *really* like to walk around with other photographers and watch them work. Just watching someone else is sooooo informative. So far ShutterPug has graced me with her presence.
My apologies for thinking you were trolling. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:10:07 PM · #21 |
| I agree, you are completely right alfresco. I would just like to see some non processed images to see where people's ideas come from, not only their results. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:09:08 PM · #22 |
If you came from a background of a real darkroom (as others have said), this would put things into perspective for you.
Also, the different challenges have differnt rules for editing, and aren't mis-representing themselves (well, I have disagreements with the open challenge rules, but I'll leave that).
Maybe the problem is with what you THOUGHT digital photography is all about instead of what you have discovered it actually is.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:05:08 PM · #23 |
To take the extreme example...
I could have stood right next to ansel adams when he took any one of his photos. I could have used the same equipment even. I would have framed and set all exposure etc myself. I would have then taken the negatives home to my darkroom, similarly equipped as Mr Adams. I know there is no way in high heaven I would have acheived the results he did with the final prints. He was an artist, he knew how to use the tools of his trade, he had vision, and he knew how to put that vision on photographic paper.
Post processing is just as important, if not more so, than pre-processing. Start with a bad image end with a bad image. Start with a good image, end with poor PP, still good image. Start with good image, end with excellent PP, very good image.
Edit to use English almost properly ...
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 22:17:03. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 09:58:26 PM · #24 |
Its not that I am against anyone or their methods at all, as I said before I think most are works of art. But the thing that turns me off is that I'm not so good in the post processing part of photography and maybe others aren't as well, and I think that if someone else who is not good at that either would take a picture as good as someone who was very talented at editing, their photo would not be regarded to be as nice... eventhough the original idea would be the same.
thanks persimon
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 22:01:32. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 09:57:35 PM · #25 |
Well one thing is sure, the better picture you have to start, the better your final product will be. The best editing in the world is limited to the quality of the image you start with.
In the interest of learning to get better source material for the final product, I'd be interested in having a "straight-out-of-the-camera" challenge. Why not?
|
|
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: 05/13/2024 03:03:57 AM EDT.
