| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2003 04:23:25 PM · #151 |
so, since we're entering challenges, doesn't it make sense that we would want to enter our best work?
whatever. i'm over this "discussion." i don't know why i'm so worried about it. i mean, my style of photography and sense of humor probably better appreciated elsewhere anyway. conversations like this just reinforce that belief. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 04:28:41 PM · #152 |
| The occasional spot edit would make things a lot easier, but I'm afraid it will triple the amount of junk photos we already get on here. There'll be a bunch of multicolored inappropriate crap pics with horrible frames, gradients, and general sillyness.. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 04:34:08 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by joebar:
The occasional spot edit would make things a lot easier, but I'm afraid it will triple the amount of junk photos we already get on here. There'll be a bunch of multicolored inappropriate crap pics with horrible frames, gradients, and general sillyness.. |
I think your fears are largely unfounded -- we may get a few like this, but if they finish with an average of 3 they will soon curtail themselves.
And as I said in another thread (or is it earlier in this one?), if they finish high, then we are collectively hypocrites and do like digital art after all, and should shut up. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 04:56:10 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Gordon:
As I think I've worn my keyboard out repeating, it isn't about the tools. Its about the intent. Just saying 'open editing' is a very small part of what it should actually be. It should be phrased somehow to state that what is desired is good, photography. E.g., "Keep in mind that the intent of any modification is to produce a more natural looking photograph rather than an obviously manipulated one."
So no, just throwing away the editing restrictions is not what I have ever been interested in. I care more about the intent of the photographer than the tools used. |
I agree completely with this. I would also like to see open editing rules do away with a lot of the extreme post processing that we already see in that are within the limits of the current rules. We already have enough latitude to trash a photo if we want to, but we don't have enough latitude to properly finish one. |
YES!! What Setzler and Gordon said... |
YES!! What Setzler, Gordon and Spazmo99 said...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 05:18:42 PM · #155 |
Somewhere in this lengthy discussion I read an interesting opportunity:
Keep the current rules (A) & allow non-current-rules photo enhancing edits (B).
Let the photographer check a box that says I did A or B. You have to choose, no double entries.
Mix both up in the same challenge.
Let us vote.
Now draw two sets of results, A and B.
Put just the overall winners on the frontpage (if bandwith and page layout allows: both). Show the challenge results gallery as a whole, A & B mixed up based on the score and the ribbons applied to both.
One could learn from each other and it doesn't put to much extra bandwith usage on the site (it doesn't need an extra challenge). You can switch sides anytime you want in your photography career, into any direction, every week. Happily coexist, teach and learn.
Lets have a lot of "How did you do that!?" forum posts.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 05:28:53 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Somewhere in this lengthy discussion I read an interesting opportunity:
Keep the current rules (A) & allow non-current-rules photo enhancing edits (B).
Let the photographer check a box that says I did A or B. You have to choose, no double entries.
Mix both up in the same challenge.
Let us vote.
Now draw two sets of results, A and B.
Put just the overall winners on the frontpage (if bandwith and page layout allows: both). Show the challenge results gallery as a whole, A & B mixed up based on the score and the ribbons applied to both.
One could learn from each other and it doesn't put to much extra bandwith usage on the site (it doesn't need an extra challenge). You can switch sides anytime you want in your photography career, into any direction, every week. Happily coexist, teach and learn.
Lets have a lot of "How did you do that!?" forum posts. |
I think this would definitely be very interesting as a one off, if not a regular feature... it would allow all of us to see what would happen if we relaxed the rules. I really do think people overestimate the difference this will make to the photos at the top.
As I've said before, it will mean that I don't have to edit my photos twice... once for DPC and once for my own uses, which is simply starting to take up too much time. The differences really are quite subtle though. Sometimes the professional touches really are in the attention to detail though. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 05:55:23 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
The differences really are quite subtle though. Sometimes the professional touches really are in the attention to detail though. |
exactly. the kinds of edits we want to make are the kind that no one but the photographer would catch. do they make a huge difference on the site? probably not. do they make a huge difference to the photographer? most definitely yes. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 06:10:04 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The fear, here, is, from what I see, that if we relax the rules, the good may come with the ugly. I cannot imagine that this would be very different from debating the pros and cons of what has come to be known as 'civilisation' or the use of, say, a computer or hair brush instead of five fingers.
Relax the rules and choose your poison. |
Well stated. :) This pretty well sums up the only remaining shred of concern I have about the issue... |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 06:27:05 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Quadrajet:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So no, just throwing away the editing restrictions is not what I have ever been interested in. I care more about the intent of the photographer than the tools used. |
I agree completely with this..... |
YES!! What Setzler and Gordon said... |
YES!! What Setzler, Gordon and Spazmo99 said... |
Thanks guys, pretty much what I was looking for. So, if I'm interpreting correctly, from your point of view, we never really got what was promised and/or hoped for from the last poll. We're getting "go wild and crazy" open edits, not photography open-edits.
So, how about this as a next step: have a series of "natural open-edit" extra challenges, maybe one every couple of weeks through the end of the year. "Natural open-edit" simply being a quick and dirty title attempting to summarize what you guys are looking for. No editing restrictions, with the stipulation that the results represent a natural photograph. Add to, subtract from, or rewrite that description however it works for you. Then, around the first of the year, we actually have some real experience to go on to determine how well the proposed changes work or don't work. If you guys are right, then everyone's fears should be allayed. If not, and digital art takes over, I guess everyone has decisions to make regarding the future of DPC and their involvement.
And, Gordon, believe it or not, I (sort of) get it: Its not about tools. (But I'm still not sure about the "techniques are tools" part...) :) |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 06:34:39 PM · #160 |
| If I could remove hot pixels and dodge and burn, I'd be a happy man. |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 06:47:15 PM · #161 |
 This image is DPC legal
 This image is DPC legal
 This image has minor spot editing, that is not DPC legal
Even though the first image won a ribbon, I would like it to look like the bottom version. The bottom version has some minor cloning and D&B, thats it. It retains the original photos intent.
The green apples, although it is totally DPC legal editing, would die a miserable death and rightfully so. We love photography here.
The voters will decide what lives and dies.
Insert Love Boat theme here.......
|
|
|
|
11/14/2003 07:01:30 PM · #162 |
Some more musings...
the current rules say nothing about keeping the photo looking natural. With the current rules, it is possible to create very UNnatural, digital-art looking photos.
Here are some digital art photos I have submitted in the past while keeping to the current rules:
Notice how these have scored very badly... the rules don't even state that photos have to look natural, but people are already voting pictures down very harshly if they are digital art.
I would also like to add (even more!) that when I started digital photography, I did go a little Photoshop mad on most of my pictures. However, as I was taking each progressive photo, because of my Photoshop work on previous images I had a much stronger idea of what I wanted my photo to look like AS I TOOK IT!
Over-the-top Photoshop editing that beginners fall prey to can be a valuable learning experience as it develops the beginner's eye and leads them to discover what they think will improve the original shot, which carries over to the way that future shots are carried out.
That's it for now...
Bob |
|
|
|
11/14/2003 07:17:17 PM · #163 |
Look at the stats on the horse picture. The people with cameras voted it low and the ones with no cameras gave you 5.7. That says a lot, even there are not that many people that vote and don't have cameras.
8)
Honest, all I want to do is remove dust spots and a few minor flaws within the image. I don't have a good enough imagination to do much else.
Let's vote.
Or lets all do something illegal for the next challenge and write in the notes what it was. We would all get disqualified. hehe |
|
|
|
11/15/2003 08:35:00 PM · #164 |
To me, it all depends on the subject matter. To a certain extent, it's not as easy to spot the 'reality' in a still life or some other conjured up submission to a challenge as it is a pure landscape for example. OK, a pure landscape can of course be manipulated as well, but you can still apply the 'does this look real' rules to it quite easily. With 90% of the entries here I'd have no idea if they were manipulated, as the challenge categories are open to gross abuse. I mean, 'Infinity' for example could be approached in a million ways.
I treat post-processing as a means of bringing a photo BACK to reality, not taking it away from reality. Do restrictions on spot-editing get in the way? Of course they do. Photographers and printers have been toning, dodging, burning and spotting for decades. The problem now, however, is that you can easily do much more. It becomes a question of not if, but how much?
What about simply letting challenge voters decide what is acceptable? I mean, why have any restrictions at all? I'm sure that there may be loads of completely bogus pieces of 'digital art' thrown in there now and again (which I'll throw 0's at each and every time because they don't belong here), but I believe that over time we'll settle down to a satisfactory compromise decided by the majority, by their votes.
...and require that each entry be accompanied by the original which is visible during the challenge, just in case we aren't sure.
|
|
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 02:26:47 PM EDT.
