|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2015 03:32:45 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by tanguera:
... Questions of is it art or photography is a matter of taste. ... |
Well, if a camera wasn't involved in the making of this "art" then it certainly isn't photography anymore. I'd certainly hope we could at least agree on that. |
Raises hand in agreement, |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 03:50:27 PM · #77 |
| I think it is timely to remind people that Gyaban's creations are VERY photographic - having validated them I can state that a Gyaban image may have more photographs in them than the rest of the top ten put together. Please put away notions that his images are pure Photoshop creations - they simply are not, he puts in far more camera time than most other people when creating the images he shares with us. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 04:41:38 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I think it is timely to remind people that Gyaban's creations are VERY photographic - having validated them I can state that a Gyaban image may have more photographs in them than the rest of the top ten put together. Please put away notions that his images are pure Photoshop creations - they simply are not, he puts in far more camera time than most other people when creating the images he shares with us. |
Funny thing that. I agree that his creations involve a HUGE number of photographs.
Of course, salt is made from two deadly chemicals, but when synthesized from those chemicals it becomes something quite different than that which it was made from.
So, in return, I'd argue that you should perhaps reconsider what "photographic in nature" really means. I do not see the argument of "it's made from photos, therefore it's photographic in nature" to be consistently true. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 04:49:03 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I think it is timely to remind people that Gyaban's creations are VERY photographic - having validated them I can state that a Gyaban image may have more photographs in them than the rest of the top ten put together. Please put away notions that his images are pure Photoshop creations - they simply are not, he puts in far more camera time than most other people when creating the images he shares with us. |
I Think most of us agree, I think the kind of work Gyaban does is exactly what the categorie is for, he takes the time a effort to photograph the pieces, then puts the image together. I love reading how he does them. From the idea to the level of detail and lighting is impressive.
I think what people are questioning is using digital drawings and to what degree fabricated objects should be allowed.
Message edited by author 2015-08-13 16:50:02. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 05:35:57 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I think it is timely to remind people that Gyaban's creations are VERY photographic - having validated them I can state that a Gyaban image may have more photographs in them than the rest of the top ten put together. Please put away notions that his images are pure Photoshop creations - they simply are not, he puts in far more camera time than most other people when creating the images he shares with us. |
Historically, this has been true. But the latest effort, the one we're discussing here, is composited from 32 separate files, of which 8 are photographs and 24 (including the entire background) were created in 3D modeling software. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 06:00:03 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I think what people are questioning is using digital drawings and to what degree fabricated objects should be allowed. |
The problem is a bit more complex than that. Let me explain why I got interested in mixing 3D parts with usual photos from a camera. When I think about a project, I refuse to set barriers to my imagination, so I never ask myself "how am I going to shoot this" beforehand. Instead, I come up with an idea I like, and start doing my best to make it happen. Problem is, sometimes I don't have access to the thing I would like to shoot (for example, the thing is very rare, is too expensive, or a week is not enough time to get one, etc.)
Since I am stubborn, I usually try to find ways to get there anyway. For example, when I was working on what became my PB entry, I didn't have a gigantic pair of feather wings at home, and building or buying real ones would have been too expensive for my purse (not mentioning the delay). Instead, I bought a few separate feathers, and composited dozen of them to create the shapes I wanted. Here you go: these wings are technically fabricated objects, they don't exist as such.
Let me take another example. Let's say that I want to show a great medieval sword in a composite. I don't have one, and beautiful ones cost big money. I would probably shoot a piece of metal, mask the layer in order to create the shape of the blade, add some shadows and highlights, some more details here and there, and bam, a sword. Again, a fabricated object from a traditional photo (this time using masking). One could also deform a photo (think 'liquify') until the desired shape is created, and so on.
See? The fact that the sources are 'normal' photos doesn't prevent the fabrication of items. I've extensively used all these methods for years. Then, recently, I realized it was quite silly to go this route, because emulating all the optical properties of a real object is difficult, and it was a very amateurish way of getting there. In fact, I wanted these parts to be MORE photorealistic. To do so, it is obvious that dedicated programs can obtain better results, which is why I asked the SC if it was ok to create the 3D wireframe outside Photoshop, and texturing it with my own photos. Exactly "as usual", except that the dedicated program can map the texture more accurately, and will achieve a more photorealistic lighting than something dodged/burned manually. You know the rest of the story.
This process is nothing new, movies obviously mix lot of 3D stuff with real actors, and the result is still cinema. Of course, I fully understand it is not everyone's cup of tea, but maybe you see a bit better why I ended up playing with these tools. As far as I'm concerned, what only matters is the result, and if I can get more photorealistic images using these tools, I'll do so without any hesitation, regardless of opinions or 'rules'.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2015 06:16:54 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I think what people are questioning is using digital drawings and to what degree fabricated objects should be allowed. |
The problem is a bit more complex than that. Let me explain why I got interested in mixing 3D parts with usual photos from a camera. When I think about a project, I refuse to set barriers to my imagination, so I never ask myself "how am I going to shoot this" beforehand. Instead, I come up with an idea I like, and start doing my best to make it happen. Problem is, sometimes I don't have access to the thing I would like to shoot (for example, the thing is very rare, is too expensive, or a week is not enough time to get one, etc.)
Since I am stubborn, I usually try to find ways to get there anyway. For example, when I was working on what became my PB entry, I didn't have a gigantic pair of feather wings at home, and building or buying real ones would have been too expensive for my purse (not mentioning the delay). Instead, I bought a few separate feathers, and composited dozen of them to create the shapes I wanted. Here you go: these wings are technically fabricated objects, they don't exist as such.
Let me take another example. Let's say that I want to show a great medieval sword in a composite. I don't have one, and beautiful ones cost big money. I would probably shoot a piece of metal, mask the layer in order to create the shape of the blade, add some shadows and highlights, some more details here and there, and bam, a sword. Again, a fabricated object from a traditional photo (this time using masking). One could also deform a photo (think 'liquify') until the desired shape is created, and so on.
See? The fact that the sources are 'normal' photos doesn't prevent the fabrication of items. I've extensively used all these methods for years. Then, recently, I realized it was quite silly to go this route, because emulating all the optical properties of a real object is difficult, and it was a very amateurish way of getting there. In fact, I wanted these parts to be MORE photorealistic. To do so, it is obvious that dedicated programs can obtain better results, which is why I asked the SC if it was ok to create the 3D wireframe outside Photoshop, and texturing it with my own photos. Exactly "as usual", except that the dedicated program can map the texture more accurately, and will achieve a more photorealistic lighting than something dodged/burned manually. You know the rest of the story.
This process is nothing new, movies obviously mix lot of 3D stuff with real actors, and the result is still cinema. Of course, I fully understand it is not everyone's cup of tea, but maybe you see a bit better why I ended up playing with these tools. As far as I'm concerned, what only matters is the result, and if I can get more photorealistic images using these tools, I'll do so without any hesitation, regardless of opinions or 'rules'. |
All of that does two things for me.
1. It impresses the hell out of me, your work is amazing, regardless of designation.
2. It convinces me that you use photography as a tool, but that you do not primarily produce what I consider photography. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 06:41:47 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Cory:
[...] you use photography as a tool, but that you do not primarily produce what I consider photography. |
It is a matter of definition. I understand yours, of course, which is shared by most, obviously.
The one I like is a bit broader I suppose, such as in "Director of Photography", the guy in movies production responsible for artistic and technical decisions related to the image, such as models, positions, costumes, lighting, framing, focal length, color grading, and so on. Result driven. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 06:47:19 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I think what people are questioning is using digital drawings and to what degree fabricated objects should be allowed. |
The problem is a bit more complex than that. Let me explain why I got interested in mixing 3D parts with usual photos from a camera. When I think about a project, I refuse to set barriers to my imagination, so I never ask myself "how am I going to shoot this" beforehand. Instead, I come up with an idea I like, and start doing my best to make it happen. Problem is, sometimes I don't have access to the thing I would like to shoot (for example, the thing is very rare, is too expensive, or a week is not enough time to get one, etc.)
Since I am stubborn, I usually try to find ways to get there anyway. For example, when I was working on what became my PB entry, I didn't have a gigantic pair of feather wings at home, and building or buying real ones would have been too expensive for my purse (not mentioning the delay). Instead, I bought a few separate feathers, and composited dozen of them to create the shapes I wanted. Here you go: these wings are technically fabricated objects, they don't exist as such.
Let me take another example. Let's say that I want to show a great medieval sword in a composite. I don't have one, and beautiful ones cost big money. I would probably shoot a piece of metal, mask the layer in order to create the shape of the blade, add some shadows and highlights, some more details here and there, and bam, a sword. Again, a fabricated object from a traditional photo (this time using masking). One could also deform a photo (think 'liquify') until the desired shape is created, and so on.
See? The fact that the sources are 'normal' photos doesn't prevent the fabrication of items. I've extensively used all these methods for years. Then, recently, I realized it was quite silly to go this route, because emulating all the optical properties of a real object is difficult, and it was a very amateurish way of getting there. In fact, I wanted these parts to be MORE photorealistic. To do so, it is obvious that dedicated programs can obtain better results, which is why I asked the SC if it was ok to create the 3D wireframe outside Photoshop, and texturing it with my own photos. Exactly "as usual", except that the dedicated program can map the texture more accurately, and will achieve a more photorealistic lighting than something dodged/burned manually. You know the rest of the story.
This process is nothing new, movies obviously mix lot of 3D stuff with real actors, and the result is still cinema. Of course, I fully understand it is not everyone's cup of tea, but maybe you see a bit better why I ended up playing with these tools. As far as I'm concerned, what only matters is the result, and if I can get more photorealistic images using these tools, I'll do so without any hesitation, regardless of opinions or 'rules'. |
All of that does two things for me.
1. It impresses the hell out of me, your work is amazing, regardless of designation.
2. It convinces me that you use photography as a tool, but that you do not primarily produce what I consider photography. |
That is interesting and very much different from what I had imagined the question to be. Although I kind of get what you are doing, I would be lying if I said I fully understand... My impression of the question was people were just making digital drawings but this is way better! Not sure how it fits in but it is interesting, thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 07:20:01 PM · #85 |
| We seem to be assuming here that a photograph requires a camera. Does it? |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 08:04:54 PM · #86 |
All of us in SC are enormously impressed with Gyaban's work ethic and his skills, and entirely sympathetic to his desire to make his work be the best it can be.
Nevertheless, we're stuck in a situation, largely of our own making, where images have been being validated over time that get further and further astray from what the Expert ruleset actually defines. Remember, this is right at the beginning:
Originally posted by Expert Rules:
Your entry must be: taken with a digital camera that records EXIF data. |
We are entirely open to allowing Gyaban-esque workflows in our challenges if that's what the members want, but we need to have a way to verify and validate them, which we currently cannot do. At the same time, we've heard legitimate complaints from other members that the kind of work they WANT to do, that is relevant to the "real world of photography" as it exists right now, is so subsumed by these fantastical creations that it doesn't have a chance. Examples would be when a photographer does a portrait shoot against a green screen so s/he can import a background later, or when s/he wants to swap a pair of open eyes for a blink-pair in an otherwise awesome group shot. Landscape photographers would love to be able to import skies of clouds into otherwise beautifully-lit scenes. All of us might occasionally like to eliminate prominent distractions from otherwise satisfying images. And so forth and so on. But none of this is *obvious* (which is as it should be) and it doesn't resonate with voters the way fantasy scenarios do.
Accordingly, we wonder about having an "unlimited" ruleset, probably with more time to work on entries, and dialing back the current expert rules to keep them strictly photographic in the sense of "shot with a camera for the challenge". |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 08:52:51 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by tanguera:
... Questions of is it art or photography is a matter of taste. ... |
Well, if a camera wasn't involved in the making of this "art" then it certainly isn't photography anymore. I'd certainly hope we could at least agree on that. |
What about oatmeal box cameras, and other "non-traditional" devices to create images...?
Missed Dennis' post:
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
We seem to be assuming here that a photograph requires a camera. Does it? |
Message edited by author 2015-08-13 20:58:57. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 09:11:45 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
We seem to be assuming here that a photograph requires a camera. Does it? |
A photograph needs the involvement of light? the camera/tool used is insignificant. Copying from a yahoo answer [quote] "'Photo' is Greek for 'light'.'Graph' is Greek for 'writing' or 'drawing'. Together, it is drawing with light, which is a very beautiful literal and metaphorical description of taking pictures". [/quote]
The word image and photograph are not exactly interchangeable. Was reading not long ago to try to use the word "photo" (or photograph) in writing about one's work or talking to people who intend to hire your for your photography skills, and not the word image or picture. Lead me to a search which discusses more on the matter //photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00bZp0.
There are retouchers who take photos and photographers who retouch. An acquaintance who sells retouching tutorials, markets himself as a photographer. I think he is a photographer but a retoucher first. Whilst others are photographers who retouch. I guess what differentiates one from another is the level of intention when taking the photo. There is no set line. As in the discussion of "what is art?". It's fuzzy.
Message edited by author 2015-08-13 21:12:30. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 09:18:42 PM · #89 |
Putting aside the exif, date/time validation issue. So an image created with the proposed Unlimited editing set, could it be used to create a work that was made just using a 3D modeling app (3ds Max, Maya, etc.), be submitted to the challenge and pass verification? Not a single photo required? If at least one photo is required, what if it covers just say 5% of the final image area? Naturally many 3D models require photos for texturing so that adds to the discussion as well.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2015 11:06:21 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by tanguera:
... Questions of is it art or photography is a matter of taste. ... |
Well, if a camera wasn't involved in the making of this "art" then it certainly isn't photography anymore. I'd certainly hope we could at least agree on that. |
What about oatmeal box cameras, and other "non-traditional" devices to create images...?
Missed Dennis' post:
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
We seem to be assuming here that a photograph requires a camera. Does it? |
|
According to OUR rules, the images have to be shot with a digital camera that records EXIF data. That's obviously not a definition that encompasses all of what photography is, but this is DPC (Digital Photography Challenge) and that's always been fundamental in our rules. |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 03:03:37 AM · #91 |
The question of whether or not most of the top scoring expertly edited photos here are photogenic in nature isn't clear depending on the criteria one judges them on, they don't really look like photos but they are made from photos. Christophe would like to be able to bring none photographic 3D parts into his images so the vision of what he wants to create isn't hindered by the possibilities of a camera, I think he should have the chance to do this, but the rule set should be called digital art not expert or anything else that hints at the fact that the work has been done entirely from photos. People who want and like this sort of thing should have a slot for them, somewhere they don't have to worry about all the ambiguous rules.
Message edited by author 2015-08-14 03:16:52. |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 04:25:09 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
& FWIW I favor no rules re what you do with the photograph after you take it. Simple. No DQ. No misunderstandings. No hurt feelings. Less work for SC. Let the voters sort it out. |
as always +67 |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 04:28:41 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by jagar:
... People who want and like this sort of thing should have a slot for them, somewhere they don't have to worry about all the ambiguous rules. |
Isn't that called Worth100.com or similar? I like 'digital art' but not in a photography competition and (personally) think this type of work has outgrown DPC and would be better presented on a more specific site? Unless, of course as Jagar and others have suggested the challenge rules are specifically 'digital art' and anything goes. |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 04:32:08 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Isn't that called Worth100.com or similar? |
Their contests are about manipulating stock photos, you don't have to be the author of the source material. What DPC offers is pretty much unique, in terms of challenge. |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 06:36:09 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Isn't that called Worth100.com or similar? |
Their contests are about manipulating stock photos, you don't have to be the author of the source material. What DPC offers is pretty much unique, in terms of challenge. |
there is a certain level of satisfaction to creating an image with your own source material, sort of like baking cake from scratch.
my only issue with computer generated components is where does it end? who is to stop someone from creating a fully rendered scene? Its not that real scenes compete with computer generated ones, its that computer generated one have very little boundaries in terms of access.
one thing i like about this place is that it tries really hard to compare apples to apples and we are getting into the realm of apples to oranges. While I'd love to see DPC to evolve when it comes to editing but I also dont want it to become something else. I love Christophe's work and I'd hate to reel him on what he can create but I think he's taking DPC on a different tangent.
of course he is right, there isn't like DPC to fit his style and so many people do like to at least dabble in it, i dont see why this place couldn't have its own category to fill this style of creating an image. if anything it can be a playground to try something new.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2015 06:48:33 AM · #96 |
| I'm probably being naive but the way I see it is: these images don't look like photos at all, their content isn't usually even possible in the physical world, why not just let rip and name it digital art inspired from photography, no rules, no stress, just fantasy art pure and simple. |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 07:54:17 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by jagar:
why not just let rip and name it digital art inspired from photography, no rules, no stress, just fantasy art pure and simple. |
And the name of this website is what?
Tim |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 07:56:18 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by atupdate:
Originally posted by jagar:
why not just let rip and name it digital art inspired from photography, no rules, no stress, just fantasy art pure and simple. |
And the name of this website is what?
Tim |
Maybe the website is due for a name change? Call it DPChallenge+ or DPChallengePlus ??? :) |
|
|
|
08/14/2015 08:09:51 AM · #99 |
Personally, DPC suits my skill set (and software / workflow habits) well. I enjoy using the camera to find / create the final image. The restrictions such as requiring EXIF data and a limited time frame means that I am generally competing on a level field. I benefitted from the recent gyaban DQ, so I may be biased - but at this point removing restrictions doesn't seem like the highest priority here (unless it brings more users, voters, and attention to the site -- which I'm not sure it will).
As for site changes / improvements, here are a few off the top of my head:
Add portfolio storage space for members
Improve DPCPrints and add stock photography sales
Improve marketing and social media presence
Improve/reward voting and participation in a tangible way (if only digital icons)
Allow members better customization of their public portfolios
|
|
|
|
08/14/2015 09:52:54 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by kasaba:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We have removed the DQ on the former 5th-place entry pending review of the original files. A request for an extra day to upload had been in our system but had slipped through the cracks. Since we regularly grant such extensions (we HATE to DQ otherwise-valid images for failure to produce an original), we have done the same thing here. So the front page is looking a little back-and-forthy right now. Sorry for all the drama. |
Yay way to go! Congrats Kasaba and sorry Semper ;-) |
It's all good. My profile page is still showing I need to submit my work. Still required now that I am in 6th? I assume no. Especially since I spent a boat load of money on a party to celebrate an HM with 3 of my kids in the photo and now no HM. They will most likely get over the disappoint in a few years. |
Go Semper - congrats - no party is ever in vain :-) |
Bittersweet. This has been one crazy challenge. My reality, I won long before being validated or someone else not be validated. Beyond all this hubba bub, I was able to share some memories with my children and at the end of the day I could have placed last and would have won! I often wonder if my self-portrait entries impact my overall score. (I get 1's all the time) But, then I say to myself, "Who cares!" You see, I have seven children and I only have time for photography after they go to bed (unless I can convince them to help) so I am the only model I have. Plus I am creating great memories for and with myself. :)
I have goals to obtain in photography and DPC has given me a great outlet to practice and learn. I always appreciate the inspiration (talent) from everyone on this site and hope we can continue to grow from this experience.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 08:52:13 PM  |
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 08:52:13 PM EDT.
|
