DAC - Digital Alteration Challenge

10/05/2005 09:22:09 PM · #1

I've been going on this site for a while now just looking at pictures and admiring what people have done, or created. I must say some of these "photos" are some of the best I have ever seen... but I say "photos" because I do not believe you can call them that anymore. Over time, looking at all the pictures posted, I have noticed how much unlike photos they are and how much more like an edited picture (not necessarily a photograph). A recent quote really hit me with that,
"But it does lack that DPC look. Look at some of the previous ribbon winners and process the way they process their shots."

To me this site does not represent directly much photographic skill or creativity, its about how much can a person alter a photograph to look like something else, something clearly fabricated. Where is the actual photographic skill and merit that each user has or intends to acquire from his peers when each posted pictures has its colours, lighting, borders and nearly everything else about it changed?

Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing anoyone's art - as I think most of the pictures look amazing - I just want to point out that they are not photographs anymore in my opinion. I think the name is misleading, or maybe there can be some challenges based on unaltered photographs to concentrate on the photography and not photoshop. Just my 2 cents.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

10/05/2005 09:25:32 PM · #2

boat in water, lines out behind, lets see what we can catch ...

blemt

Nikon D70

10/05/2005 09:26:39 PM · #3

troll, troll, troll your boat...

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

10/05/2005 09:32:22 PM · #4

wow getting some interesting responses... I dont know why some people even bother

ibkc

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/05/2005 09:38:18 PM · #5

Originally posted by blemt:

troll, troll, troll your boat...

Gently down the stream...
edit and edit and edit and edit and nothing's what it seems!

Pug-H

Pentax K10D

10/05/2005 09:42:38 PM · #6

In the days of the analog darkroom (i.e. non-digital), isn't that what the serious photo hobbyist or professional would have done? Manipulate their images to get a desired look that wasn't exactly what you'd get from a shop's photo processing machine.

jaxed

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

10/05/2005 09:42:42 PM · #7

I think that would be an interesting challenge to add to this site.

saracat

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

10/05/2005 09:51:06 PM · #8

While I agree that there are some images on the site that could be construed as "fabricated", and while I accept that your tastes may run more to the "true-to-life" than mine do, I think perhaps you should keep in mind that photographers have been using post-processing techniques in the darkroom for just about as long as photography has been around.
We have simply taken these methods out of the darkroom and into the computer where any idiot with half a brain can use them. :) Yeah, we can go overboard with them, and yeah, we have some new filters and plug-ins and what-have-you that haven't been available to photogs in the darkroom, but I really fail to see much difference in bumping saturation or retouching photos in Photoshop vs. in the darkroom.

Frankly, I think it's simply that the methods available for retouching digital (or digitalized) photos are more accessible and easier to use. And not all of the really striking images on the site are heavily retouched.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

10/05/2005 09:53:32 PM · #9

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.

persimon

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/05/2005 09:55:42 PM · #10

I don't think prietenu was implying that photo editing was a bad thing. I think he was more or less commenting on how to a lot of people on the site, it is more important for your photo to have a certain processed look.

I don't think there is anything wrong with processing, but to set the bar at someone else's processing technique isn't really a great way to judge or learn from others.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/05/2005 09:57:07 PM · #11

Originally posted by prietenu:

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.

Add me to the list of those who can answer "Yes" to both of those questions.

My opinion is, people who keep trying to make your point have never stepped into a darkroom.

Oops, looks like *I* took the bait.

ttreit

Canon EOS-50D

10/05/2005 09:57:35 PM · #12

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?

10/05/2005 09:58:26 PM · #13

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.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/05/2005 10:05:08 PM · #14

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.

wavelength

Nikon D300

10/05/2005 10:09:08 PM · #15

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 10:10:07 PM · #16

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.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/05/2005 10:15:07 PM · #17

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.

wavelength

Nikon D300

10/05/2005 10:15:24 PM · #18

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

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/05/2005 10:15:44 PM · #19

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.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/05/2005 10:30:28 PM · #20

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 10:31:50 PM · #21

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.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/05/2005 10:36:32 PM · #22

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.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

10/05/2005 10:39:53 PM · #23

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 :)