| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2014 02:21:01 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Sticking bits of paper together...? You mean like this...?
Or pretty much anything Jan does? So his work is NOT photographic...?
Oh, and whatever argument you had just lost validity with the example you posted. If you think that clip art and drawing is the same thing as a composite created using actual photographs, then clearly you don't know what "photographic" means either. |
No, I don't mean like that. I mean taking photographs of paper, filling the frame with nothing but uniform surface in each frame and combining them in PS to create...well...whatever you desire.
And, that example displays every bit of the Photoshop skills that are on display in the expert challenges if not more. That image could have just as easily been created within the bounds you defined. I don't consider it to be any more or less "photographic in nature" than what typically ribbons in Expert challenges. For all you know, that image started with photographs just the way many of the "expert" entries do...the result is more cartoonish, but that's not relevant here. |
I truly do not understand the bolded phrase, above. Uniform surfaces in each frame? Who is doing that???? show me an example, because I cannot visualize what you are saying, whatsoever! And again, cartoonish??? Is this image "cartoonish"?
 |
As far as I know, no one is doing that, but it fits with your cobbled together notion of what would meet the requirements of "Expert". Most of the truly skilled Photoshop artists could do just as well simply using colors from the palette, but they could just as easily start with photographs of colored sheets of paper.
And, yes. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 02:42:18 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
As far as I know, no one is doing that, but it fits with your cobbled together notion of what would meet the requirements of "Expert". Most of the truly skilled Photoshop artists could do just as well simply using colors from the palette, but they could just as easily start with photographs of colored sheets of paper.
And, yes. |
So you are criticizing people for something they are NOT doing on this site...? The fact that they COULD do it is irrelevant!
And if I understand you correctly, if the image I posted had actually been only one image, would it still be "cartoonish"? What about a face photographed through a fisheye lens? With film. Printed on paper. Would that be cartoonish?
Perhaps a definition of "cartoonish" is in order. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 03:36:07 PM · #53 |
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. Any limiting of that is just censorship, to force others to accept your point of view, and that's always an ugly thing.
Speaking of ugly, the recent Beauty challenge produced ribbon-winning images that I personally found unappealing, with one of them actually commending itself to me as the very antithesis of beauty. But that's just my opinion, and so irrelevant. And it's not a valid reason for me to want to limit what people can do to produce acclaimed entries.
But I would be willing to support a re-designation of the three rule sets respectively as "Spartan", "Sensible" and "Cheesy".
|
|
|
|
05/13/2014 04:35:11 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
 |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 10:01:29 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 10:07:32 PM · #56 |
Case in point.
But then, Gyaban is a bit of an enigma.
Originally posted by Mike:
I'm liking the feistiness Johanna :)
really though the photographic is nature argument is so old.
i think Gyaban has proven time an again he doesn't need expert editing to create something that looks like it was done in photoshop. If you spend enough money and time with makeup and wardrobe and set building you don't need photoshop. |
|
|
|
|
05/13/2014 10:27:27 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
As far as I know, no one is doing that, but it fits with your cobbled together notion of what would meet the requirements of "Expert". Most of the truly skilled Photoshop artists could do just as well simply using colors from the palette, but they could just as easily start with photographs of colored sheets of paper.
And, yes. |
So you are criticizing people for something they are NOT doing on this site...? The fact that they COULD do it is irrelevant!
And if I understand you correctly, if the image I posted had actually been only one image, would it still be "cartoonish"? What about a face photographed through a fisheye lens? With film. Printed on paper. Would that be cartoonish?
Perhaps a definition of "cartoonish" is in order. |
No, I'm criticizing what they're doing and taking what they're doing to an extreme. I don't really see the difference between what you described and what I described. Take multiple images of different things and Photoshop blender them into something impossible and fantastic.
As to the image you posted, it's obvious that it's NOT one image and not real. It's like a hyperrealistic video gameâ€Â¦looks good, but not real |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 11:33:19 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
Not. Not in my opinion. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 12:17:40 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
Not. Not in my opinion. |
what is it, then, if not photography? Music? Architecture? |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 02:00:17 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
Not. Not in my opinion. |
what is it, then, if not photography? Music? Architecture? |
If I didn't know what or who this was, I would guess that it was a airbrush painting.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 02:19:43 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
Not. Not in my opinion. |
what is it, then, if not photography? Music? Architecture? |
IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION. We are talking here semantics. Illustrations can be made in any media, pencil, ink, painting, airbrush, collage, collage including photos (taken by same person or found) and using a graphical representation.
The problem that I see here started by naming the edits in a somehow ascending order of importance from minimal through advance to blossom into expert in which expert allows for a lot of photo manipulations which result is not necessarily better than the other edits. They were decided to be applied to DPC as a form of application of technical knowledge the way the site is organized around weekly topics.
Most of  gyaban work falls in the category of illustrations and therefore somehow twice removed from the goal of the site. His work would get proper understanding if presented under a different umbrella such as "creative edit" or "conceptual" or named plainly "illustration to the idea" ....and name challenge topic. His final product in expert editing is not a photograph but an illustration. An illustration describes something and generally leaves less or none unexplained while in photography there is always room for flights of fancy, for more interpretation and a more ambiguous approach (ambiguous does not mean blur, please!). Another category on top of minimal, advanced and expert can accommodate without anger "creative edit".
Therefore all this long fistfight is quite unnecessary. Christophe does not need to be defended or treated like a child who will get demoralized if touched by a petal, nor does he need to be supported and presented to the public for genuflexions. He is immensely diligent , knows his craft and works with passion. Moreover, he ends almost always on the first page; he even created some disciples. What is the problem?
As to the way some do not care for his work, he could be proud also since no great work was ever applauded in unanimity in its present time.
Each one of us operates on a different level. As the Bear responded so aptly to Johanna:
"Originally posted by  tanguera:
Perhaps your disdain is for a certain style of image, not for the technique used to create it."
 Bear_Music: That's certainly true in MY case. I overdosed on fantasy in my misspent youth of consuming pulp science fiction, and it mostly doesn't move me anymore no matter how it's accomplished or how skillfully it's been done.
We all move on different orbits, have different age, background, aspirations.
Here, being semi-professionals I suppose that we can stand a real critique instead of taking our toys elsewhere.
I believe that Christophe and others (and conversely JMritz)can manage along with the virtual ribbons and a majority of popular votes some frank different opinions. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 06:55:36 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Sure it is, according to the artist's notes. The fact that it doesn't look like a photograph is not the criterion. The test is what the artist used and did, and that was a camera and post processing.
This argument approximates the common one about DNMC, where the viewer/voter says, "that picture doesn't fit my (preconceived) idea of meeting the challenge, so it doesn't". In this case the argument is, "that picture doesn't look like my (preconceived) idea of photography, so it isn't." Both arguments are very weak, and probably have no place in a creative forum.
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 07:22:03. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 07:26:08 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by ubique:
and probably have no place in a creative forum. |
And here is the basis for much of the discussion in this and many threads. What is this forum? Some want it to be a creative forum. Some want it to be a place where they are assigned a topic to shoot, similar to filling an order for a stock image. Others want it to be technique based to help them learn their craft. And there are plenty of other "what is this forum" categories I haven't touched upon. However, not every challenge can fit into all of these categories but people will try to fit their category into most of the challenges.
What I find amazing about the Expert challenges is how well the top finishers understand light. Their composites would fall flat if they could not visualize the light and the nuances it creates. I do think some of the Expert winners do leave the "Photographic in nature" realm but the photographic skills are definitely there.
Tim |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 07:44:37 AM · #64 |
I've decided to show the above mentioned photo to the not so expert photo hogs at my local photo club, I will just say "what do you think of this photo?" as they can't get their heads around silver efex pro, I think the reply will be "ça ce n'est pas une photo" but I could be wrong.
I have nothing against massif edited photos, most of the time they are not to my taste that's all.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:02:24 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by ubique:
... The fact that it doesn't look like a photograph is not the criterion. The test is what the artist used and did, and that was a camera and post processing. ... |
Disagree. If it doesn't look like a photograph anymore then what is it?
A friend of mine is a gifted painter. Often he will take a photo of something to work from. The end result on canvas is usually stunning. He used a camera ... is the end result a photograph? No. It's a painting based in part on a photograph. Does it look like a photo? No, it looks like a painting.
Is this a photograph? No, it's digital art based in part on a photograph. Does it look like a photo? No, it looks like digital art.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:17:52 AM · #66 |
If people didn't know the ruleset, how many would say this is expert, that it's not a photo etc. etc.?
And these ones are so far from photographic in nature?
  |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:53:09 AM · #67 |
| i guess im still not clear on why making a composite before or after he shutter button is pressed makes a difference. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 11:53:50 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
Not. Not in my opinion. |
what is it, then, if not photography? Music? Architecture? |
I agree with Mariuca, for the most part. I liken these manipulated expert images to imaginative play. Yes, they may have originally been photographs, and they require a skill set to put together, but that does not make them photographic in the end. They have been manipulated beyond that into a dream world, created from an idea, not just a camera. It may be art, but they're not photographs, IMHO.
edit to add... I think ILLUSTRATIONS is a good word.
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 11:54:26. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 11:55:27 AM · #69 |
Spork & Jeb:
I've just hidden your entire recent exchange. If you'd like to make your points without demeaning each other personally, I'm sure we'd be interested in hearing them. But if you just want to snark at each other, take it somewhere private, OK? |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 12:07:46 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Spork & Jeb:
I've just hidden your entire recent exchange. If you'd like to make your points without demeaning each other personally, I'm sure we'd be interested in hearing them. But if you just want to snark at each other, take it somewhere private, OK? |
Then please just edit my post and put back the major body of it that was on topic.
Apparently it's okay if Spork just comes along and breaks anyone & everyone's stones but if someone calls him to task, that ain't cool.
Please wander back through this thread, read each and every one of his replies to everyone to whom he directed his comments and explain to me how any of them weren't snarky.
The man's been doing this garbage for years........he doesn't bring one damn thing to the table, yet he's always ready to dive right in to the deep end of whatever debate is heating up and do his best to inflame the thread.
So again.....I ask that you edit my post and put back the salient points that I had made.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 12:12:01 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Spork & Jeb:
I've just hidden your entire recent exchange. If you'd like to make your points without demeaning each other personally, I'm sure we'd be interested in hearing them. But if you just want to snark at each other, take it somewhere private, OK? |
Then please just edit my post and put back the major body of it that was on topic. |
Virtually every paragraph of your long reply began with a personally-directed remark, Jeb. I'm not gonna go fix all that for you. And I'm not gonna go back through this whole thread trying to "clean it up": I'm just letting the both of you know it's time to knock it off. Seriously. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 12:37:47 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ubique:
I think that anything that's possible with a camera and post processing is photographic in nature. ... |
This is "Photographic in nature"?!
|
Yes. |
Not. Not in my opinion. |
what is it, then, if not photography? Music? Architecture? |
I agree with Mariuca, for the most part. I liken these manipulated expert images to imaginative play. Yes, they may have originally been photographs, and they require a skill set to put together, but that does not make them photographic in the end. They have been manipulated beyond that into a dream world, created from an idea, not just a camera. It may be art, but they're not photographs, IMHO.
edit to add... I think ILLUSTRATIONS is a good word. |
The problem is that you, Mariuca, glad2badad, et al are defending the term "photographic in nature" which suggests that there is some essence to photography that only you know.
Calling it an Illustration is begging the question. Photographs can illustrate. And why call it a painting when painting is obviously a completely different process of generating an image? Calling it "Digital art" also begs the question. Everything on this site is digital.
You're basically accusing something of not being a photograph without providing any evidence beyond personal taste. An issue of personal taste should not be controlling the semantics of what photography is. I am not gyaban's biggest fan. But I will not limit the term "photography" just to knock photographs that I don't like.
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 12:38:49. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 12:47:41 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... You're basically accusing something of not being a photograph without providing any evidence beyond personal taste. ... |
Why does it need to be proven with "evidence"? I would venture that if you put this image/illustration in front of 100 people and asked them to choose between the options of "Photograph", "Illustration", or "Air-Brushed Painting" I would wager that the vast majority, if not all, would not choose "Photograph". |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 12:52:16 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
... You're basically accusing something of not being a photograph without providing any evidence beyond personal taste. ... |
Why does it need to be proven with "evidence"? I would venture that if you put this image/illustration in front of 100 people and asked them to choose between the options of "Photograph", "Illustration", or "Air-Brushed Painting" I would wager that the vast majority, if not all, would not choose "Photograph". |
And if you did such a study, at least you would have some evidence and then we could continue the argument. Right now, the evidence of your opinion is that you have the opinion and you assume that the vast majority also hold your opinion.
Telling me that a vast majority disagree with me is not a great argument, nor is it reflected in this discussion, nor is it reflected in gyaban's scores. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 01:20:31 PM · #75 |
Q: What is a "photograph"?
A: It's an image created on light-sensitive material. It doesn't have to be made with a camera, because there are many ways of creating images on light-sensitive material without cameras.
Q: Is there any way in which a collage of many photographs can be considered "not photographic in nature?"
A: IMO, no.
Q: If I take a photograph of a person's face and draw a mustache on it, is that image still a "photograph?"
A: Of course it is. IMO anyway...
Q: OK, suppose I take the same shot and paint all over it, so nothing but the eyes remains of the original photograph? Is this still a "photograph?"
A: Sure. It's a heavily-altered photograph, but it's a photograph.
Q: Fine. But is it "photographic in nature?"
A: That's a tougher question to answer, isn't it? When does it become more painterly than photographic?
Q: Does any of this even MATTER?
A: Not in the real world, no.
Q: So why does it matter in DPC?
A: Because the phrase "photographic in nature" was made a part of the ruleset.
Q: Wouldn't we be better off if we just dropped that phrase from the rules, then? Let the voters just TELL us what they like? Which is what they do anyway?
A: Yup! That's my opinion, anyway. These discussions are circular, they mean nothing and accomplish less. |
|
