| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2004 09:49:58 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Totally agree,this place is slowly becoming digital artsy fartsy ! |
Well, I thought photography WAS art.
And I guess this sky was pink/peach when you shot it, huh? Artsy fartsy-er is as arty fartsy-er does.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 09:53:41 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Totally agree,this place is slowly becoming digital artsy fartsy ! |
Well, I thought photography WAS art.
And I guess this sky was pink/peach when you shot it, huh? Artsy fartsy-er is as arty fartsy-er does.
|
That is not a challenge shot so butt-off! |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:07:50 AM · #28 |
*Sits in the corner sniggering*
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:09:16 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by skief:
Not me, and I'll tell you why... although you can get upset at me if you like...
I'm not as much a fan of post-processing. I will say she has an extremely good technique, extremely good artistic eye, and extremely good PS skills. These are all evident if you look at her highest rated photos. Just look what she was able to do with her recent blue ribbon where she went from this...
to this...
However, what took this from just an ordinary photo to it's place as a good photo is totally the PS skills employed. I mean look at the original photo, it is flat, almost emotionless, the model's dress blends in with the clouds, not a lot of impact in that photo. In almost all of her photos that have won here, almost all have employed the same technique style of taking an above average to average photo, and employing burning and lightening in specific areas of the photo to change it to something better. Do I agree that her finished products are outstanding??? Of course I do. However, my favorite photos are more the ones that come pretty much straight out of the camera looking like they really did in life, not those whose post-processing has changed them into something more.
I will say the first few times I saw her photos, I was thinking how awesome to get that extent of foreboding in them, and was in total amazement with them... until I understood that they were all done with burning/lightening in PS. Yes, I know it is all legal here, but it is just not in my taste of photos being realistic, not painted.
Now, I'm putting on fireman's helmet and outfit to get ready for the flames :-) |
Totally agree,this place is slowly becoming digital artsy fartsy !
The burn on the sky is major element of the photo and has been created by software,not by camera which is subject to DQ !!!!!!!!!! |
I agree to. This is not what photography is all about. is more like an ilustration I dont feel the feeling of photography. I consider using DSLR a huge advantage already, cause you can see results right on the spot. I think a similar shot was posible with the right technique using filters etc. PHOTOGRAPHY is all about capturing a beautifull moment with your EYE.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:36:39 AM · #30 |
Just to play angel's advocate... Heida captured a beautiful moment with her mind's eye and used the tools at her disposal to share that image with us. The same effect could be reached with darkroom dodging and burning, elaborate lighting setups, or Photoshop. Of the three, only one was practical. She has used legal methods to more accurately represent her photographic intent- the stated purpose of the Advanced Rules! If any of you had photographed a scene that ACTUALLY looked like this, but couldn't quite capture it with the camera, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hesitate to use Photoshop trying to match what you saw. Does the original look like the final? No- but neither does a sepia photo look like the color original. So where is the line drawn between photography and digital art? Hint- if you draw that line, you are adding a new element. ;-)
BTW- a DSLR is an advantage in terms of noise, shutter lag and lens options. Nothing else. You can see the results of your shot with ANY digital camera.
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 10:37:55. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:39:28 AM · #31 |
Move with the times people. Digital is here to stay and gives people much more flexibility in the digital darkroom. So what if the image looks different to the original. The question should be, is it pleasing on my eye? Or would i like it hanging on the wall? If so, great, who cares how it was made, if not, nevermind!
I admit that this picture has been changed\enhanced a lot in ps but to me works better than the original. Why not make a picture that much better if you can?? I'm sure glad Heida did or i would not be looking at such a nice 1st place photo! |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:49:07 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just to play angel's advocate... Heida captured a beautiful moment with her mind's eye and used the tools at her disposal to share that image with us. The same effect could be reached with darkroom dodging and burning, elaborate lighting setups, or Photoshop. Of the three, only one was practical. She has used legal methods to more accurately represent her photographic intent- the stated purpose of the Advanced Rules! If any of you had photographed a scene that ACTUALLY looked like this, but couldn't quite capture it with the camera, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hesitate to use Photoshop trying to match what you saw. Does the original look like the final? No- but neither does a sepia photo look like the color original. So where is the line drawn between photography and digital art? Hint- if you draw that line, you are adding a new element. ;-)
True
On my opinion the only tool I consider fair to use in digital photography as dark room would be shooting in RAW mode and them use PS to see what you got.
BTW- a DSLR is an advantage in terms of noise, shutter lag and lens options. Nothing else. You can see the results of your shot with ANY digital camera. |
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:49:39 AM · #33 |
How do you think Ansel Adams got the images he produced? Straight from the camera? Not! He was famous for his darkroom prowess. He employed a tremendous amount of dodging and burning to bring out the best aspects of all his images.
Heida has just done the same. Only with photoshop, the digital darkroom. What she does is completely realistic (to me anyway).
Even in the film world, nothing is really straight from the camera, though slide processing has a lot less leway in post processing than negative film.
One point though, the better the image is straight from the camera, the better the final image will be.
(I now duck back under the desk to avoid projectiles)
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 10:54:08 AM · #34 |
You think this picture looked anything like the end result when the shot was taken ? :)
You'd think dodging/ burning for artistic end results was a new idea or something. The whole challenge in photography is to see the end result when you take the picture - then work to realise that end result. In the Zone system days, this idea of previsualisation was central to much of the photographic approach - I see the same in the flat, low contrasty images that Heida uses as a starting point.
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 10:54:49.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:05:55 AM · #35 |
I'm gonna have to agree with heida's supporters here. If you were a good 35mm photographer, you'd be developing your own prints and therefore be skilled at using different development techniques to create the final product. same goes for digital. Your post-processing is always gonna give you the winner, the big seller, the WOW factor.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:10:59 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You'd think dodging/ burning for artistic end results was a new idea or something. The whole challenge in photography is to see the end result when you take the picture - then work to realise that end result. |
"The negative is the score, the print is the performance."
Would you rather see that angel photo "played" on a Stradivarius or a pennywhistle? |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:17:25 AM · #37 |
I too have to side with the Heida supporters...Having started in photography in the dark room, I can't tell you how many pieces of photo paper I wasted trying different effects and exposures. Digital just makes it all easier and faster (and cheaper). Heida sees something...then communicates it in digital media.
And does she ever get her point, emotion and subject across!
I can't wait to see more photos!
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:20:22 AM · #38 |
No one is saying that her images aren't beautiful. No one is saying that you can't do these images in the darkroom. No one is saying that they wouldn't use PS to the best of their abilities to enhance their own photos....... Also, if Ansel Adams had entered one of his photos in this competition, they would be DQ'd as well, as they were not taken with a digital camera.
However, none of that has anything to do with what we are talking about here in this discussion. It started out with the reason why I have not selected her as a favorite. It migrated to a discussion of whether it was legal or not. IMHumbleO, I don't think it should be legal, as it goes beyond what is stated specifically that cloning/dodging/burning should be used for which is: [b]Cloning, dodging, and/or burning to remove imperfections and minor distracting elements is permitted, however using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not.[\b] It seems to go beyond that, especially in the Angel photo.
Adding a knight's armor to the already existing fireman's helmet and outfit for more protection :-) |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:20:43 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Totally agree,this place is slowly becoming digital artsy fartsy ! |
Well, I thought photography WAS art.
And I guess this sky was pink/peach when you shot it, huh? Artsy fartsy-er is as arty fartsy-er does.
|
That is not a challenge shot so butt-off! |
Now that pink sky is awsome! what feature in the camera did you use to capture that mister pitsaman?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:25:36 AM · #40 |
Sorry, I have to include this link. This guy shoots film, and edits the bejesus out of them (airbrushing mostly) for magazines and the like.
I get a kick out of people who are naive enough to think that extreme editing is either new, or a product of digital. the only thing digital did was put these abilities into the hands of people like us. The pros have been doing it for longer than you apparently want to believe.
P-ness |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:27:33 AM · #41 |
| Skief- I do agree with you to some extent, but I think you're under the mistaken impression that Heida somehow "painted in" all those clouds and contrasting features. Did you not see her version with just Levels and Color Balance (both of which could be handled "in camera" by working with a RAW file)? The dodging and burning is actually fairly minimal. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:28:43 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Sorry, I have to include this link. This guy shoots film, and edits the bejesus out of them (airbrushing mostly) for magazines and the like.
I get a kick out of people who are naive enough to think that extreme editing is either new, or a product of digital. the only thing digital did was put these abilities into the hands of people like us. The pros have been doing it for longer than you apparently want to believe.
P-ness |
Very good point there!
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:31:22 AM · #43 |
Original:  Submission: 
Done entirely with Curves and Duotone (tritone, actually) mode. I was actually surprised it did as well as it did :) |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:46:01 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Skief- I do agree with you to some extent, but I think you're under the mistaken impression that Heida somehow "painted in" all those clouds and contrasting features. Did you not see her version with just Levels and Color Balance (both of which could be handled "in camera" by working with a RAW file)? The dodging and burning is actually fairly minimal. |
Yes I did see it, in fact, I prefer the dress on that one more than the dress on the submitted photo. I don't have as much of a problem with it, as it doesn't seem like the selectivity of using the tools was as much/obvious as in the entered photo. However, I do think she did the levels differently in different parts of the shot, when she talked about it, she used at least 3 different levels one for ground, one for model and one for sky, and that could not be done in the camera. I'm really interested in how you define 'minimal' as I see more than 50% of the photo burned.
More than anything I have to agree with Britannica, Originally posted by Britannica:
The point is, at least from my point of view, is that a major element fo the composition was added by burning, an element that was not there before she started post processing. There is little difference between what she did and darkening the pixels to create a window frame across the image. The only difference I see are that she added an intangible element, as opposed to a physical object. |
Now adding an Armored Personnel Carrier to the Knight's Armor and Fireman's helmet and outfit :-) |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:54:54 AM · #45 |
Art? What does art, even photographic art, have to do with it? Unless this has changed since it was written:
"The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week."
art has nothing to do with it. By the statement above, this site is about photography, not art. If that has changed; I, for one, am in the wrong place.
This is exactly why my gut wrenched when I first saw the winning entry for the challenge. Why, Oh why, did you try to clumsily force an effect into an image that was already there, just below the surface, much better than what you tried to create. Vision? Of course she had the vision of what she wanted the final image to look like. That much is obvious. I have been attempting to console myself that she simply lost faith in her use of the camera after the shot was taken, and resorted to forcing the issue in PS instead. The above image deserves a place in my favorites as an example of a photograph carried out from vision to result.
David
Still standing in my skivvies, armed only with Photoshop.
(I'll just dodge away any burns from the flaming.)
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 12:00:21.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 11:56:24 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
art has nothing to do with it. By the statement above, this site is about photography, not art. If that has changed; I, for one, am in the wrong place. |
Yup - I agree. Photography has nothing whatsoever to do with art.
How could people be so confused ? Its just taking pictures after all.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 12:00:12 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by heida:
Well I dont think that burning is digital art,
Digital art is something you draw in computer
Here is the picture with no burning at all
only levels and color balance used
And much less work
Is levels a digital art then? :) |
I like this one better as well. Your shots are beautiful but so dark and forboding that I find them almost depressing sometimes.
But I have myself been playing with the dodging and burning tools more, just not to the extreme that you have.
Deannda |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 12:03:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Art? What does art, even photographic art, have to do with it? Unless this has changed since it was written:
"The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week."
art has nothing to do with it. By the statement above, this site is about photography, not art. If that has changed; I, for one, am in the wrong place.
This is exactly why my gut wrenched when I first saw the winning entry for the challenge. Why, Oh why, did you try to clumsily force an effect into an image that was already there, just below the surface, much better than what you tried to create. Vision? Of course she had the vision of what she wanted the final image to look like. That much is obvious. I have been attempting to console myself that she simply lost faith in her use of the camera after the shot was taken, and resorted to forcing the issue in PS instead. The above image deserves a place in my favorites as an example of a photograph carried out from vision to result.
David |
Isnt photography art? Visual Art.? maybe Im wrong. Hey I do like some of the Heida photos. the one for the purple contest is pretty nice. :-) Cain I get a helmet too. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 12:05:48 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Totally agree,this place is slowly becoming digital artsy fartsy ! |
Well, I thought photography WAS art.
And I guess this sky was pink/peach when you shot it, huh? Artsy fartsy-er is as arty fartsy-er does.
|
That is not a challenge shot so butt-off! |
Now that pink sky is awsome! what feature in the camera did you use to capture that mister pitsaman? |
Can you read above?
It is not a challenge photo so live it!
Changing the hue is not creating a major subject in the photo,subject is allready there !
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 12:08:09 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Britannica:
art has nothing to do with it. By the statement above, this site is about photography, not art. If that has changed; I, for one, am in the wrong place. |
Yup - I agree. Photography has nothing whatsoever to do with art.
How could people be so confused ? Its just taking pictures after all. |
I didn't say art had nothing to do with photography, art can and should be a part of every activity. But the stated purpose of the challenges is photography, 'just taking pictures after all', not art.
Does that mean art has no place in the challenges? Of course not, the results of a well done activity will always be considered art by those it affects. It is a matter of priority, and I will keep my priority firmly on photography for challenge entries.
David
|
|
