| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 02:50:42 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I would feel like I was competing in a DIGITAL photography contest. ;o) |
so digital photography to you means that whatever you do to the digital file, it's still a "photograph?" i really don't understand what you mean here. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:52:16 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Oh..BTW...I am not a professional photographer, although I made more money last year shooting photos than a lot of my Professional Photographer friends did so I guess that screws the whole theory up :-/
|
I'm not a professional photographer either, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:52:27 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by hopper:
I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that your delivery of a sentence could be the difference between someone respecting you for your experience and intelligence ... or just thinking your a jerk.
|
I'm much less jerky in person. I'm too lazy to type a round about response to appear less jerky. So I just get right to it. ;o) |
You need to work on reducing your jerkiness online, too, Brent. You come across as a serious elitist jerk with this.
I really respect your work as a professional photographer, but your online persona really needs to be culitvated with some of that professionalism. One of us might be a client of yours someday. Sorry.
No insult intended here, just calling it as I see it. :) |
No insult taken. I have very thick skin. Comes from years of open criticism of ones work.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:52:43 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I would feel like I was competing in a DIGITAL photography contest. ;o) |
You'd probably feel more like you were competing if you were averaging more than one entry a year. :P |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:52:49 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by hokie:
Oh..BTW...I am not a professional photographer, although I made more money last year shooting photos than a lot of my Professional Photographer friends did so I guess that screws the whole theory up :-/
|
I'm not a professional photographer either, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
lol that was great
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:53:37 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
You can't tell someone that the speed limit is 65 and then give them a ticket for going that fast! |
Actually, that's pretty good analogy... You are allowed to use the accelerator pedal. Be aware that some people don't like sudden speed changes and may vote you low for it. Using ANY part of your car to break posted traffic laws is still illegal, though. |
Not liking sudden speed changes and no sudden speed changes are allowed, are two different things.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:54:08 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I would feel like I was competing in a DIGITAL photography contest. ;o) |
You'd probably feel more like you were competing if you were averaging more than one entry a year. :P |
LMAO!!! True that homie...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:55:27 PM · #158 |
OK... Just to bring up the point again (buried down below)
Still waiting on a response...
Directed to muckpond
The image in question had a radial blur filter and hue adjustments done to the background only and according to the rules... the filter can be applied to the entire image or a part of the image. The background is still discernable, the filter did not change the fact that it was a "wooded background".
Can we agree the background is a forest? Can you not tell that it is a forest in the final image? Is the "major element" not the forest? If the major element is still identifiable as said forest, would it not still be the same major element in the original image? Following this line of thought, what "major element" was added? What "major element" was removed?
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 14:56:17. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:56:14 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I would feel like I was competing in a DIGITAL photography contest. ;o) |
so digital photography to you means that whatever you do to the digital file, it's still a "photograph?" i really don't understand what you mean here. |
Keeping photographic integrity by not letting the photo become an illustration is needed.
You should be able to present your scene how you envisioned it with all the tools available.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:56:48 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
You can't tell someone that the speed limit is 65 and then give them a ticket for going that fast! |
Actually, that's pretty good analogy... You are allowed to use the accelerator pedal. Be aware that some people don't like sudden speed changes and may vote you low for it. Using ANY part of your car to break posted traffic laws is still illegal, though. |
Not liking sudden speed changes and no sudden speed changes are allowed, are two different things. |
In this scenario, whether or not speed changes (the effect) is allowed makes no difference. It's only breaking the speed limit (with any tool) that gets you a ticket.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 15:00:05. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:59:13 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
You should be able to present your scene how you envisioned it with all the tools available. |
I can envision quite a scene, and if all tools are available, I certainly don't need a camera to present it! ;-) |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:59:47 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
You can't tell someone that the speed limit is 65 and then give them a ticket for going that fast! |
Actually, that's pretty good analogy... You are allowed to use the accelerator pedal. Be aware that some people don't like sudden speed changes and may vote you low for it. Using ANY part of your car to break posted traffic laws is still illegal, though. |
Not liking sudden speed changes and no sudden speed changes are allowed, are two different things. |
In this scenario, whether or not speed changes (the effect) is allowed makes no difference. It's only breaking the law (with any tool) that gets you a ticket. |
...but he didn't break the law. He only did something that a few didn't like.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:00:27 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
You should be able to present your scene how you envisioned it with all the tools available. |
I can envision quite a scene, and if all tools are available, I certainly don't need a camera to present it! ;-) |
then it wouldn't have any photographic integrity now would it?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:02:29 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
You should be able to present your scene how you envisioned it with all the tools available. |
I can envision quite a scene, and if all tools are available, I certainly don't need a camera to present it! ;-) |
then it wouldn't have any photographic integrity now would it? |
It does if he has a photographic memory. ;) |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:05:29 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why not let the voters decide on them? |
Voters have no way of knowing the effect was creating in PS. How would you feel if you actually managed a good motion blur in-camera and got beaten by someone who just drew it in? |
Great point here.
Those with more $$ to invest in software or more time to dabble in their software shouldn't be able to buy their way up the ladder really. I decided to pull this shot out of the Wildlife II challenge BECAUSE I feared it would have been poorly received as a PS effect rather than in-camera (as it was). It should be about the creativity in the eye of the photographer, and this is a photography site ater all. Software should be used to enhance, clean up, adjust, sharpen, crop, etc, but not make an image something it never was to begin with. The rules here have given a lot of lattitude in the regards as to what is allowed, and some push it a bit too far, myself included.
I realy would hate to have to seek legal representation before entering a competition that is supposed to be only about fun, comraderie, learning and sharing, but seems that it's getting worse instead of better.
Now how can we all figure out a way to level the playing field and just have fun?
Nit-picking certainly isn't cutting it and will only serve to drive people away. A year ago, I would tell everyone about this place - it was the greatest thing on the web for a digital photographer, partly due to the comraderie and helpful nature of the members. Now, I am really hestitant, mostly due to negative experiences they will probably encounter, thus reflecting on me as a person. I know my neighbor is so fed up with what he has read, he will never enter a challenge and never looks at competitions anymore. He WAS a professional at one time too, medium format stuff.
Can we just have fun and find a middle ground in all this BEFORE the walls crumble?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:05:58 PM · #166 |
General reminder (not necessarily about the DQ in question):
To everybody who is fighting so hard to get more and more editing made legal,
would you please remember that this place is still called:
DPC, not DAC (Digital ART Challenge). |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:07:30 PM · #167 |
| If your goning to DQ pictures for using a specific filter, such as radial blur, then you need to do it consistently. Joey Lawrence's entry in the Moods challenge wasn't DQed, so therefore samanwar's best of 2005 shouldnt be DQed either. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:09:35 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...but he didn't break the law. He only did something that a few didn't like. |
He (supposedly) broke this law: "...using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
I believe Muckpond and others consider the blur itself to be a major (added) element, and on that point we disagree. To me, the elements are the birds, trees and lake, and the blur is just an aspect of those elements that has been modified (like color, sharpness, grain, etc...). Everything that was in the original is still in the final, so it seemed OK to me. This is why clarifying the rules is more important than trying change differing opinions here which may be equally valid. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:11:18 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I believe Muckpond and others consider the blur itself to be a major (added) element, and on that point we disagree. To me, the elements are the birds, trees and lake, and the blur is just an aspect of those elements that has been modified (like color, sharpness, grain, etc...). Everything that was in the original is still in the final, so it seemed OK to me. This is why clarifying the rules is more important than trying change differing opinions here which may be equally valid. |
EXACTLY my point... still waiting on muckponds reply to that very point (see below) |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:14:09 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
|
Shannon, that would eliminate the legal use of fish-eye correction, perspective correction all kinds of things that are widely used. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:14:46 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product. |
Count me in, then. I shoot product photos for major international hardware clients just about every day, and have for years. I usually shoot at the office studio, but sometimes on location with monolights, etc. I don't consider myself a professional photographer since that's just one part of my job. I don't see how being a professional photographer has much bearing on enforcing the rules, though. I don't have to play poker professionally to know if you broke the rules. |
Scalvert, I agree with you, and I think your photography is remarkable.
But in fairness, poker has clear rules. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:15:29 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
General reminder (not necessarily about the DQ in question):
To everybody who is fighting so hard to get more and more editing made legal,
would you please remember that this place is still called:
DPC, not DAC (Digital ART Challenge). |
LOL! What do you think the main advantage to shooting digital is? Being able to do the same stuff (& more) that you could do to film, but much easier and cheaper.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:15:30 PM · #173 |
Lee,
Just to clarify (I have not read the entire thread, BTW):
- You did not remove a major element, e.g. the background.
- The added blur was found to comprise a major element in and of itself. The motion blur smears image data in a selected direction, creating a pattern that was not present before. Unlike with a gaussian blur, you the artist are in control of this, so it is an intentional effect.
Believe me, this DQ was not a painless decision, and I'd be the first to agree that clarification of the rules is in order, not only to make it easier for the community to interpret, but also to make it easier/cleaner for the SC to administer. I can say that clarification is being worked on, however I cannot predict when an actual change might occur.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:15:52 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...but he didn't break the law. He only did something that a few didn't like. |
He (supposedly) broke this law: "...using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
I believe Muckpond and others consider the blur itself to be a major (added) element, and on that point we disagree. To me, the elements are the birds, trees and lake, and the blur is just an aspect of those elements that has been modified (like color, sharpness, grain, etc...). Everything that was in the original is still in the final, so it seemed OK to me. This is why clarifying the rules is more important than trying change differing opinions here which may be equally valid. |
I'm going to jump in here for a second, personally after seeing the other 2 photos that were allowed and then seeing this one that was DQed, I'm disheartened. I see no difference in the changes made other then the hue change. My feeling is if the first 2 stand this one should also. There has to be some sort of line thats drawn that says this is legal, this isnt. I dont see the difference in the 3 except 2 were allowed and the other wasnt. Either they all stay or they all go, same effect different result in allowing it.
My Humble 2 cents
MattO
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:16:40 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
You should be able to present your scene how you envisioned it with all the tools available. |
I can envision quite a scene, and if all tools are available, I certainly don't need a camera to present it! ;-) |
then it wouldn't have any photographic integrity now would it? |
Of course not, and the same could be said for drawing in motion that wasn't in your capture, too. |
|
