| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2003 04:49:32 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm equally as tired of hearing the 'elitist' and 'for one's own purposes' bs. That's not what it's about. It's about allowing those who have higher aspirations to realize them here on DPC. |
Those terms as I use them have nothing to do with anyone's own aspirations ... it's about the apparent desire of some (not you) to crush the aspirations of those considered less talented and unworthy ... |
If that's what you think I'm refering too, your sadly mistaken. I'm for elevating the skill level of all. I just don't personally want to be restricted in me entries. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:10:32 PM · #77 |
general E
it strikes me that you are venting some emotions about something that doesn't have anything to do with this thread.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:12:38 PM · #78 |
I'd be happy to be mistaken. And I'm generally in favor of allowing more editing. But I'm not in favor of some of the negative tone I've sensed in some recent threads (not just this one), and to somehow say that enforcing the current rules -- whatever they are -- is somehow wrong because the rules may be in need of revision.
The arguments you present for rules modification are sensible -- and have been gone over repeatedly. This site is actually one of the most user-responsive sites around, but changes should and do happen slowly and deliberately.
And I know I'd appreciate it if -- along with your suggestions -- came an acknowledgement that we've actually thought about, discussed, and contemplated these issues before, and have some valid reason(s) for the rules being as they are for now, other than collective idiocy or a malevolent desire to sabotage the work of the truly talented.
Site Council membeers are not especially privy to plans Drew and Langdon develop; usually they are quite advanced and ready for testing by the time we get them. My guess is that there will be some kind of changes to the editing rules, but as to what and when it would be only a guess ... |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:14:53 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
general E
it strikes me that you are venting some emotions about something that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. |
Maybe ... they are getting to be a blur and cross topics ... I have to go to work anyway .... |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:15:26 PM · #80 |
| You know, in all the time I've been here - I _never_ have heard a valid reason for the rules as they currently are. I'd love to hear one that was rational and based in fact. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:37:42 PM · #81 |
If you allow "some" spot-editing to create something which looks like a great photograph, you will create a moveable and subjective barrier as to what is "just enough" and what is "too much" editing which I personally would recuse myself for voting on.
By having a "no spot-editing" rule we have a fixed and objective critereon against which to measure an entry.
The alternative (to me) is to allow spot-editing without restriction (except taste and the votes engendered), and only DQ for things like dates and not being the photographer.
That reason may not be "good enough" to be "valid," but I think it's at least rational and based in fact and, perhaps more importantly, practicality ...
Message edited by author 2003-11-06 17:39:01. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:46:11 PM · #82 |
| I think this topic gets confused with "hokey" photoshop manipulated images. But if somone wants to enter one of those, then the votes should take care of it. ;D |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 06:00:38 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
I think this topic gets confused with "hokey" photoshop manipulated images. But if somone wants to enter one of those, then the votes should take care of it. ;D |
THAT's an attitude I can support! |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 06:56:05 PM · #84 |
Hi All
I put my thoughts a little back up the thread but it was quickly left behind by the ongoing interchange.
Not that my input is especially valid but I was hoping that longer serving members than myself could have commented on my view of the issue. So, if you would like to bump to original post ^^^ on the previous page!
Message edited by author 2003-11-06 18:58:29. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:10:26 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
I think this topic gets confused with "hokey" photoshop manipulated images. But if somone wants to enter one of those, then the votes should take care of it. ;D |
Not entirely. As Paul (GeneralE) pointed out, the problem is finding an objective line beyond which manipulation isn't allowed. Some people want to be able to remove dust and dead pixels. OK, I'm happy to allow that. Then if that's OK, then why not be able to remove a tiny little blemish, say a pimple, or a piece of trash, or (as our current example) a couple of leaves. OK, that seems somewhat reasonable. But wait, what if I didn't have time to wait for the right time of day, and there's a shadow across my subject. Or I couldn't get into a position to get the phone poles and phone lines out. Now we're not talking about a couple of small spots, but possibly removing or altering large portions of the image. But, OK, lets say that's still reasonable (though it's crossing my "acceptable" threshhold). Now lets say that you've got two swans in the picture, but three would look really nice, give it a really good balance. Or, the swans came out really good, but the water had some ugly reflections - but I've got another shot that has some beautiful water, so maybe I'll just combine those two shots. And maybe I've got another shot with some great ground cover that would look better as the shore. At what point does a little become a lot, and a lot become too much? And don't say it's at the level of hokey PS manipulated images, because I've seen a lot of very well manipulated PS images. I'll post a few in a minute...
In the past, there've been many attempts to define a new line, somewhere beyond "no spot editing" and "no-holds-barred". Many here agree that we need to move beyond "no spot editing", or things will get stagnate. Most (I think) agree that going to "no-holds-barred" would change the face of this site in a way most don't want. So finding the line where a balance can be struck is the key. The problem I see is that allowing a little spot editing will become a "compliance" nightmare for the admins and site council. Because, as described above, how much is too much? Wherever you set the line, either people will push to cross it, or people will think someone has crossed it, and DQ requests will go up, not down.
Paul, I agree with you on the elitist attitudes - whether inteded or not, repeated railing against "snapshot" quality entries, and taboo subjects of pets/kids/sunsets/etc. are, I think, starting to develop into a bit of a class system within the site. Here's the irony: the most vocal supporters of no-limits editing are also those who seem to be the most tired of snapshot entries - now you're going to unleash the creators of those snapshots to do their worst damage with PS. The arguement is that they'll get the votes they deserve - but that hasn't stopped the so-called snapshots, so why expect that it would stop the PS hackers?
Oh well, that's too much already. Hopefully someone will read far enough to find something relevent here.... |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:12:41 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by visitor:
Hi All
I put my thoughts a little back up the thread but it was quickly left behind by the ongoing interchange.
Not that my input is especially valid but I was hoping that longer serving members than myself could have commented on my view of the issue. So, if you would like to bump to original post ^^^ on the previous page! |
I think people get bored after three or four lines of long-winded posters like you and me. :) But do I learn? Nooooo! |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:27:29 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Here's the irony: the most vocal supporters of no-limits editing are also those who seem to be the most tired of snapshot entries - now you're going to unleash the creators of those snapshots to do their worst damage with PS. .... |
We should see quite a polarization of scores then. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:29:30 PM · #88 |
ScottK: I think you have explained this well. ... and I did not find it long winded ;).
Others, in favor of "relaxed rules" have also explained themselves well.
Sometimes it does come across at elitist, but I don't think it is their true intention.
All of these discussions are valid and needed. Thinking it through while seeing both sides is important.
Visitor: I would agree with alot of your paragraph - esp. the part about listing the edits that are allowed, rather than being in a paragraph. As far as listing the different language that each software company uses in their own photo-editors, it would be much too extensive. I think in general you are right though.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:30:18 PM · #89 |
Some examples of some pictures that are PSed to a level that I personally think is too much, but doesn't fall into the obviously hokey category everyone says represents too much. (If you don't see it immediately, compare the face throughout).
Hopefully, this will bring a little humor to a heated thread...
The background. The face is of the kid who flew a prop plane into an office building in Florida shortly after 9/11. The picture looked a lot like a guy in our office. So it became a running gag to use the picture in various ways to harass him - missing posters with this picture on it, posting the picture in various places around the office, and the best were these photos.
If you want to critique them, yeah, when you know they're faked, you can kind of tell. But at least a couple of those, if you just saw the one photo, you just might think those tatoos are real, or those are some really ugly models. And these were thrown together as a gag, so while I think they're really good quality, someone with good PS skills and the desire to make a really good piece of artwork could definitely do even more amazing things.
I don't know if the "culprit" who created these images would want to be know or not (or if he's going to be mad at me for posting them), but he is a member here... |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:31:56 PM · #90 |
Also.. I don't think, or at least I hope, that some people are not chased away by the DQ's.. I know of a few who have stayed after the DQ's, and they now understand the rules. I think it was unintentional on the photog's part this time, and he should continue from here. :)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:34:08 PM · #91 |
Those that argue against any changes are more often then not people who are still on Digital Photography 101, and are still ecstatic that they 'took a picture without film, ma!'
I disagree with you over this statement. In fact you sound like an elitist by saying it.
Some people are and have been traditional photographers.
Some people are great at working on their computers and using Photoshop.
Most people are not as proficient in both areas. They are usually better in one or the other. Since this is a "photography" site I think it is better to have an even field in the photography sector as opposed to the computer sector. Being a photographer means learning about composition, light, appeal, color etc. It takes a long time to learn how to be proficient at these things. I find it less than desirable that someone can go out and take a crappy photo and then fix it to death in photoshop. That is not to say that I don't use Photoshop -- but I mainly use it to get out the dust etc.
I am not that proficient at doing challenges in a few days nor am I proficient at all topics of photography but I am learning and I think this site has helped a lot. By the same token I am not a beginner either.
Just my two cents worth. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:34:56 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We should see quite a polarization of scores then. |
Or... maybe not? Maybe you'll end up with one group who really likes digital art (oh no, the "DA" phrase is out!) canceling out another group that really hates it, and everything just washing out to 5s and 6s. Someone did a graph recently that showed that the range of final scores has been steadily narrowing. Maybe that would just get even more pronounced?
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Anyone got a crystal ball???
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:36:41 PM · #93 |
I think this discussion always gets misled into 'tools'
The issue isn't what tools you use. As has been well shown, you can create great digital art within the existing restrictions.
The issue is intent. In general I believe this site is about creating great straight photography.
Images that are heavily and obviously manipulated in photoshop, or contain composites and are constructed from several images, or most painted etc, don't fall under my or many peoples definition of 'straight photography'
They may be art, they are certainly found in galleries, but they are montages, or digital art or some other form of extra manipulation.
So the bottom line is that I believe the site was trying to enforce 'good photography' but got lost in a silly direction by trying to say what tools you should use to create that 'good photography'
To abuse an analogy, you can do realistic painting with any of the techniques used to paint. You can also do wildly abstract work with just 'traditional' water colours and a simple brush.
All of the debate about which filter and which photoshop command automatically makes it digital art is just so much hooey. It completely misses the point about what is trying to be achieved. And the voters can easily do that with a little bit of guidance up front - state that the site is about realistic photography, maintaining the integrity of the original image. State that obviously photoshoped images are not welcome and should be voted accordingly.
Forget the asinine debates over the difference of adjustment layers versus layers on the creation of digital art - they totally miss the issue. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:36:59 PM · #94 |
If someone is happy to enter a snapshot of their kids in a challenge then so be it. If it's good, it will get voted high. If it's not, then it will get voted low. This is suppose to be for fun. I say just have fun with it. If you want to clone in the grand canyon in a photo of your front yard then do it. People are taking this way too serious. Which is my point on the rules. Loosen up. Unless we are going to start having entry fees and the ribbon winners get some cash, but wait, I would definitley want everybody to enter in it. They would rasie the pot, and make it easier for the people who entered good images to win.
This isn't a photoshop challenge site, it's a DIGITAL photography site. You should be able to use the digital world to the fullest extent to enhance your photo. If you don't think that enhancement should be allowed, then go back to shooting chrome! |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:38:34 PM · #95 |
Not taking sides, but I don't think a crappy photo can become a winner just in Photoshop or something else like it.
The point is that darkroom work is a stage of creating a film photograph, and using digital photo editing software is the modern version of that process. Has nothing to do with wanting to leave anyone behind... or how much software you can afford... it is about becoming the best and exhibiting the best for yourself.
But, I also agree with GeneralE, and ScottK and others who have clearly shown how people could take it to an extreme.
I am on the fence... like I said.. not taking sides.. but I wonder why there is so much emotion to this issue.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:45:03 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think this discussion always gets misled into 'tools'
The issue isn't what tools you use. As has been well shown, you can create great digital art within the existing restrictions.
The issue is intent. In general I believe this site is about creating great straight photography.
Images that are heavily and obviously manipulated in photoshop, or contain composites and are constructed from several images, or most painted etc, don't fall under my or many peoples definition of 'straight photography' |
And, one of my points was that of administration. How do you define what is and isn't acceptable in a way that doesn't over-burden the administration of the challenges? How do you come up with a definition of the rules that doesn't have people questioning every aspect of the finished product, trying to determine if it's "straight photography"?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:46:26 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
I am on the fence... like I said.. not taking sides.. but I wonder why there is so much emotion to this issue. |
It's the internet. Everything gets emotional! :) |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:48:19 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
And, one of my points was that of administration. How do you define what is and isn't acceptable in a way that doesn't over-burden the administration of the challenges? How do you come up with a definition of the rules that doesn't have people questioning every aspect of the finished product, trying to determine if it's "straight photography"? |
You dont.
You trust that the voters can do what they do, and that's vote.
It works everywhere else that has rules like these. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:50:20 PM · #99 |
i disagree with you. i said 'most', not all. you may be different. more power to you, if so. that's beside the point, and calling me names doesn't change that.
Nor did I act to 'exclude' anyone. Having more 'experience' by definition only makes me more 'experienced,' not elitist. Recognizing who usually takes what side of this topic can teach us something instructive about how people who have less EXPERIENCE may not know yet what may help them to GROW.
That is why there are teachers in this world. They have experienced something and are trying to share it with others. Are you a parent? Have you ever noticed how there are things your children just dont know that you simply because they dont have the experience?
Judging by your description and assessment, you sound like a beginner. 'Beginner' is not an insult. Everyone has to start somewhere, right .. ?
But please don't think that participating in something for a few weeks that some people spend their entire lives becoming good at you elevates you beyond a beginner. I've been doing it for years, both film and digital, and I do it for my job, and I STILL consider myself just barely beyond beginner.
I know have a lot to learn and there are many to teach me. The more I know, the more I realize how artifically and strangely we have limited ourselves here on this site. We're using a medium that has certain inherent flaws that require user intervention to take to it's ultimate expression. Yet we put a cap on that because we think people will make crazy computer creations.
Yet other sites seem to be able to put a clause in their user agreement saying 'you can make minor edits to preserve the original intent only', and it works fine. Yet we don't trust ourselves enough to try this?
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Those that argue against any changes are more often then not people who are still on Digital Photography 101, and are still ecstatic that they 'took a picture without film, ma!'
I disagree with you over this statement. In fact you sound like an elitist by saying it.
Some people are and have been traditional photographers.
Some people are great at working on their computers and using Photoshop.
Most people are not as proficient in both areas. They are usually better in one or the other. Since this is a "photography" site I think it is better to have an even field in the photography sector as opposed to the computer sector. Being a photographer means learning about composition, light, appeal, color etc. It takes a long time to learn how to be proficient at these things. I find it less than desirable that someone can go out and take a crappy photo and then fix it to death in photoshop. That is not to say that I don't use Photoshop -- but I mainly use it to get out the dust etc.
I am not that proficient at doing challenges in a few days nor am I proficient at all topics of photography but I am learning and I think this site has helped a lot. By the same token I am not a beginner either.
Just my two cents worth. |
Message edited by author 2003-11-06 20:09:15.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:53:22 PM · #100 |
Sonnyh,
You can't get out your DUST legally on DPC ! :) Editing out your dust is against the rules. Yet that's basically all I, and many others, want to do :P
Yet everyone who argues against opening up editing thinks that what I and the pro-editing people want is to make crazy photoshop pictures ..
Funny huh? We want the same thing in the end.
Originally posted by sonnyh:
[i]That is not to say that I don't use Photoshop -- but I mainly use it to get out the dust etc. |
Message edited by author 2003-11-06 19:54:07.
|
|
