| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2003 10:36:53 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust. |
I just want to edit your post.
And Dodge and Burn
And selectively blur the background
I am in favor of unlimited editing (of a single image, not compositing) enforced by voting, not DQ.
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 10:37:20. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 10:50:10 AM · #127 |
How about multiple exposures of the exact same image, taken with different exposures to increase dynamic range? (i.e., one taken for shadows and one taken for highlights). That would be the one example where I'd like to see multiple image compositing permitted.
Oh, and for the record, I'm for removing editing restrictions as long as the intent of such editing is to achieve a photo-realistic image and not "digital art" (for that, see other sites). |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 10:51:44 AM · #128 |
hehe
we are on the same page :D
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust.
i just want to edit my dust. |
I just want to edit your post.
And Dodge and Burn
And selectively blur the background
I am in favor of unlimited editing (of a single image, not compositing) enforced by voting, not DQ. |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:02:55 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by chinstrap:
Of course, and apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread, why not have a 'creative edit' challence once a month for members only. Then everybody would be happy. People could then edit photos till the cows come home. |
why members only? why not let everyone show off their digital darkroom skills?
it takes more admin time to go thru DQs than to just let everything thru.
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 11:03:46. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:03:46 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
How about multiple exposures of the exact same image, taken with different exposures to increase dynamic range? (i.e., one taken for shadows and one taken for highlights). That would be the one example where I'd like to see multiple image compositing permitted.
Oh, and for the record, I'm for removing editing restrictions as long as the intent of such editing is to achieve a photo-realistic image and not "digital art" (for that, see other sites). |
It is already allowed, if your camera lets you do it (e.g., the Fuji S2)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:04:22 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by d2frette:
Originally posted by chinstrap:
Of course, and apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread, why not have a 'creative edit' challence once a month for members only. Then everybody would be happy. People could then edit photos till the cows come home. |
why members only? why not let everyone show off their digital darkroom skills? |
This site is based in the USA. You must pay cash to have fun.
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 11:04:52. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:06:59 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It is already allowed, if your camera lets you do it (e.g., the Fuji S2) |
Where did you read that? S2 does not have true multiple exposure to increase DR. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:08:55 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This site is based in the USA. You must pay cash to have fun. |
That's odd...this site spends more time to enfore no spot editing on the free challenges. Seems like it should go the other way. The more time required, the more $'s required. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:11:16 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by d2frette:
Where did you read that? S2 does not have true multiple exposure to increase DR. |
No, not for selective blending for dynamic range, but it does allow multiple exposures, according to my friend who shoots multiple exposure shots with hers. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:14:36 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by d2frette:
Where did you read that? S2 does not have true multiple exposure to increase DR. |
No, not for selective blending for dynamic range, but it does allow multiple exposures, according to my friend who shoots multiple exposure shots with hers. |
I guess it's possible and perhaps desirable! I never read about in any review, and have never heard of a desire for it. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:25:49 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by d2frette:
I guess it's possible and perhaps desirable! I never read about in any review, and have never heard of a desire for it. |
I'd love a digicam that would do multiple exposures:
Its one of the few reasons I use a film cam. No photoshop, nothing digital other than scanning/ resizing and sharpening.
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 11:27:04. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:37:58 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It is already allowed, if your camera lets you do it (e.g., the Fuji S2) |
But I don't have a Fuji S2. I know that anything that can be done "in camera" is legal right now, but my reply was specifically directed towards Rob's comment:
Originally posted by GeneralIE:
I am in favor of unlimited editing (of a single image, not compositing) |
since I can see a benefit to compositing multiple exposures to increase DR and would like to see that be "valid" if the editing rules are relaxed. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:44:11 AM · #138 |
I would consider 2 exposures of the same image to increase DR still 1 image. Equate it to zone system for digital.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 11:48:50 AM · #139 |
| and while everyones on the subject, I would vote for any valid darkroom technique to also be valid here. A great photographer once said, "the negative is only half of the image". |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 01:21:10 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by seanc:
and while everyones on the subject, I would vote for any valid darkroom technique to also be valid here. A great photographer once said, "the negative is only half of the image". |
:clap: |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 01:44:21 PM · #141 |
| How do you distinguish between valid and invalid darkroom techniques? Are you talking about digital darkroom or traditional darkroom? |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 01:56:47 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
How do you distinguish between valid and invalid darkroom techniques? Are you talking about digital darkroom or traditional darkroom? |
Anything goes - as long as the result is a decent looking photograph that isn't obviously digital art.
And before you ask, you don't define it you let the voters define what the boundary is - You just tell them up front that the intent is to remain faithful to the subject in front of the camera and not to create something entirely new in photoshop |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 02:12:16 PM · #143 |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 02:18:46 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
And before you ask, you don't define it you let the voters define what the boundary is - You just tell them up front that the intent is to remain faithful to the subject in front of the camera and not to create something entirely new in photoshop |
So what is entirely new? Here are some examples that might surprise some people...[/quote]
Why ask for a definition of something that shouldn't need defined ?
Though as several of them are put together from multiple photographs, they quite easily fall out of the boundaries of what a single photograph is anyway. Photographers have been cuting and pasting things together to create collages well before Photoshop. They weren't considered photographs then either.
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 14:24:32. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 02:24:26 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
And before you ask, you don't define it you let the voters define what the boundary is - You just tell them up front that the intent is to remain faithful to the subject in front of the camera and not to create something entirely new in photoshop |
So what is entirely new? Here are some examples that might surprise some people... |
Why ask for a definition of something I said you shouldn't define ?
Though as several of them are put together from multiple photographs, they quite easily fall out of the definition of what a single photograph is anyway...[/quote]
They are single photographs, Only two have major retouching. I was just curious who could pick out th eone that has the most photoshop done to it. ;D |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 02:26:18 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
They are single photographs, Only two have major retouching. I was just curious who could pick out th eone that has the most photoshop done to it. ;D |
Strange - your comments disagree with you, at least on the middle one where you say its 3 different shots combined ?
But largely you are arguing the wrong end of the point - most people around here would say they were all not valid - while I would personally like to see them all being okay - as long as they remain faithful to the idea of what a photograph is (i.e., the photoshop lens flare isn't blindingly obvious, or you haven't just clicked on 'flood filter' and moved on, then I don't particular care how the image was produced. We in general aren't trying to hold our selves up to some sort of journalistic ethics or honesty criteria, so I'd say anything goes within the scope of what a photograph is.
In most of the examples you showed, its precisely those skills that you've demonstrated so well that I'd like to learn...
Message edited by author 2003-11-07 14:30:28. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 02:38:53 PM · #147 |
and that is exactly what I wouldn't be able to compete with. So, legal would be anything that was within the frame when captured and could include multiple exposures to increase the dynamic range as long as new elements were not added , not legal would be adding extra elements.
MeThoS: while I can agree with what you are trying to say and describe, and I do agree that saleable images are often manipulated in the most wonderful ways. This site is great because it forces the photographer to consider the image before it is taken. I wouldn't think most of the photographers on this site are at the professional level. There are a few that should be or might be there, but the majority aren't. It would get very frustrating to have to compete when you know your best effort will never be equal to someone else's quick take because they had the right combination of stock images and techniques to vastly improve their entry.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 02:59:49 PM · #148 |
The Beach image is obvious since there is a before and after, but here is the description to the others.
The morning was beautiful, but there wasn't enough moisture in the air to produce the effects of light rays streaming through the redwoods. Since that's what I came for, and I only was there that morning (we covered 1400 miles in 4 days, and about 500 frames of flim). I had to add the light rays myself. I would of loved to have the conditions be right to capture it, but someitmes you have to improvise.
This one is pretty straight forward. I shot 3 frames of the same scene. I loved the sky in one, but it lit the forground up way to much. SO I added the sky to the low contrast forground shot. It also has a vignette on the edges.
This is basically like the one before it. I had to add the trees from another frame of the same scene. I also lightend up the valley so there was a little detail. It also has the edges burned.
This one I darkened the city and boosted it's contrast. I also removed all lights in the sky from airplanes (it was a 12 min exposure). But other than that, it's pretty true to the chrome. |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:15:57 PM · #149 |
If you ever see the show about the making of the Discovery Channel show Walking With Dinosaurs you'll see a scene very like your redwoods, where they not only add in the sun rays, but then selectively block them as a T rex walks by. It's pretty cool to watch them alter the image(s) dynamically.
So how did you add the rays? I have some recent images which include them, but I'd like to make them better or augment them realistically.
Concord  Concord  Oakland  |
|
|
|
11/07/2003 03:18:36 PM · #150 |
I just painted them in on a layer mask. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:38:40 PM EDT.
