| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2007 08:51:30 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, you could take care of expert by letting anything go.. |
Yes, we could... but I guarantee we won't. Expert was never meant to be a free-for-all. We'll simply have to work out a less simple, but manageable plan. I think we're making progress down that road, actually. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:19:55 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm with you 100% on this. I feel STRONGLY that HDRI belongs in advanced editing. It drives me crazy that this purely photographic technique that I use in at least 75% of my personal work, and that is specifically designed to get the maximum range/luminosity out of the digital sensor, is considered too "far-out" to be legal in so-called "advanced rules".
R. |
It's purely photographic in nature until the tone-mapping. Tone-mapping is 100% computer processing. If you can show me an example of tone-mapping in the dark room, I'll be happy to rethink the whole HDR thing, but both technique and result are in my mind (and that of many others) anything but photographic in nature. |
I'd be happy to :-) HDRI imaging in the digital workflow is, in many ways, analogous to the Zone System in B/W photography, which involves "placing" the shadows in exposure then "pushing" or "pulling" the negative during processing to increase or decrease the contrast of the negative, making it possible to have photographic prints that capture the entire dynamic range of the scene, which has been compressed in the negative to match the optimum dynamic range of the printing media.
With HDRI we do it both for printing and for the screen; it's a process that's been around forever. Photography has always sought ways around the extreme contrast present in natural lighting under some circumstances.
Results analogous to tone mapping alone have long been accomplished in professional darkrooms by the creation of "masks" exposed from the original negative and then sandwiched with it in the enlarger. That's why they are CALLED masks in photoshop, actually. The graphic arts industry of the 50's to 80's was filled with all sorts of masking for photoreproduction as well, to alter the appearance of printed images dramatically.
This stuff is NOT new, and superior printmakers for simply decades and decades have had available techniques/tools to radically alter the tonal range of the captured image.
That a lot of people push tone mapping and/or HDRI to an extreme where it becomes a noticeable technique in itself, resulting in highly graphic images, does not invalidate the use of HDRI/tone mapping as a valid photographic tool in the box. There's a LOT more of it happening than I suspect most people realize, especially when you understand that the shadow/highlight dialogue boxes in CS2/3 are photoshop's version of tone mapping. People just don't SEE the HDRI work as anything different UNLESS it's been pushed to extremes, so naturally they think it is an extreme technique.
But hell, people, you don't need photomatix and tone mapping to get bizarre and extreme. You can do that even in basic editing with color and levels tools:
 
Don't blame excesses on the tool. HDRI imaging, doing what it was designed to do, is the digital version of something film photographers have been doing for at least 75 years.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:28:03 PM · #103 |
Just a honest question... what the hell happened to Minimal editing? That IMO is the most valuable ruleset DPC has ever seen, yet underutilized.
Just to clarify why I think it's the most valuable ruleset, is that it forces one to create an image in-camera. Producing a good image in camera is top priority for ANY photographer, no matter how much PP they plan to use later.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 23:28:43.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:31:00 PM · #104 |
Thank you for the discussion and bringing up my entry as an example of a non-photographic image. I thought that I am entering exactly the opposite - a photo with added frame that would not be legal in advanced...
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed voting on all of the entries (I think my average vote given for this challenge was around 6.7) - but I cannot understand how some are trying to crucify this image as digital art at its worst worth of a DQ even under expert editing. (Thanks for the validation request, I've sent my original - one and only - moments ago).
People, look at the covers of Life, Time, Newsweek from 30 years ago, and you will find exact same effect, out-of-frame or out-of-bounds images on the cover pages of said magazines.
If we are to apply the 'photographic in nature' yardstick on my image and DQ it based on that, then I believe we could do that with about a 3rd of the entries. Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with the crowd response to it, whether or not it ends up a DQ doesn't matter THAT much. I'll just have to try again next time... |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:36:02 PM · #105 |
The way I see it, this whole "Expert Editing" experiment came about because an ever-increasing portion of the DPC community wanted to be able to edit images the way they would in the "real world"; import clouds, radically touch up models, clone out relatively major portions of images, use real HDRI processing, experiment with effects filters, due multiple-image compositing in general.
Relatively few community members were reaching out to have true "digital art" in challenges; the sort of stuff where you create entire fantasy worlds, combine images to make androids, stuff like that.
But in the current iteration of the rules, it's possible to do all the above. And more.
So Site Council is in a position where they have to agree on precisely what kind of work we are trying to encourage. "Photographic in nature" is unfortunately vague; it could mean "looks like a photograph" or it could mean "composed only of photographs", see...? In effect, if the rules are going to be tightened, SC needs a list of what's OK and what's "more than we intended", in the sense of where to draw the line.
I don't envy anyone the job of getting that codified...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:39:01 PM · #106 |
Not a lot of difference between this
and this
If ya really stop to think about it.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:39:21 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just a honest question... what the hell happened to Minimal editing? That IMO is the most valuable ruleset DPC has ever seen, yet underutilized. |
I agree it should be used more at least as much as expert editing.
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just to clarify why I think it's the most valuable ruleset, is that it forces one to create an image in-camera. Producing a good image in camera is top priority for ANY photographer, no matter how much PP they plan to use later. |
Well "good" is in the eye of the beholder. Depending on what you're after or planning to do with in photoshop, good could mean heavy noise, underexposure/overexposure or whatever. Those would never do well in a minimal editing challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 23:41:28.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:46:18 PM · #108 |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:47:25 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Actually, the difference is, neither of those other two placed high enough to attract attention.
People start getting worried about rules breaking only if the photo in question ends up higher than theirs. If it is in the middle of the pack, who cares? |
And there is the rest of the story :-)
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:57:31 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Actually, the difference is, neither of those other two placed high enough to attract attention.
People start getting worried about rules breaking only if the photo in question ends up higher than theirs. If it is in the middle of the pack, who cares? |
Pretty arrogant take on the situation. I'm sure it's irritating to have your shot attract a validation request, but if you can't objectively look at it and see that it is radically different from some guitar laying over a border then I don't know what to tell you.
Hope it doesn't get DQ'd, for what it's worth. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:00:12 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
but if you can't objectively look at it and see that it is radically different from some guitar laying over a border then I don't know what to tell you.
|
I have nothing to gain nor lose in this debate, but how is it "radically" different?
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:03:42 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
but if you can't objectively look at it and see that it is radically different from some guitar laying over a border then I don't know what to tell you.
|
I have nothing to gain nor lose in this debate, but how is it "radically" different? |
Well the entire gray area was either added by a fill layer or is a photo of a gray something - that alone would have someone wondering. Then there's the main photo which looks as if a transform has been used on it to warp it - that would make someone wonder. There's also the drop shadow - how did that find its way there? Drawn in? Drop-shadow option in PS?
All sorts of things that could have someone asking if it's all within the rules - not to mention the fact that given the current situation, finding out if everything about tht picture is legal is the only way someone can use it as a guideline for the future (assuming no behind-the-curtain rule interpretations are changed between now and then).
The guitar picture - A photograph with a border layed over it. wow.
Message edited by author 2007-09-09 00:04:37. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:07:50 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Pretty arrogant take on the situation. I'm sure it's irritating to have your shot attract a validation request, but if you can't objectively look at it and see that it is radically different from some guitar laying over a border then I don't know what to tell you.
Hope it doesn't get DQ'd, for what it's worth. |
Arrogant, probably. I just hope that you don't have to pre-qualify for arrogant posts around here :-) Of course I see the difference, but don't you think that if this one ended up 321/500, it would not have been brought up here, someone else's would.
I can see the difference, but I also realize that the challenge was running under expert rules, and not the first such challenge either.
Comparing this PP to the combined ~2000 shots or so in the past expert editing challenges, I'm sorry but I cannot objectively see the huge difference in the amount or level of PP.
I'm not going to post the samples in this thread, partially because I really liked those and I do not want them to be a part of this thread where they will be brought up before the people jury, and partially because it is tedious to do so and I don't have the time right now.
I also hope it does not get DQ'd but I won't quit DPC if it does. If nothing else, the expert editing challenges are trial challenges, and the entries should be taken as such. Rebecca's should be reinstated on the grounds that the rules are in 'beta', hence not perfect. This is just a test, not the real thing.
Good luck to SC in trying to figure this one out. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:11:41 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Pretty arrogant take on the situation. I'm sure it's irritating to have your shot attract a validation request, but if you can't objectively look at it and see that it is radically different from some guitar laying over a border then I don't know what to tell you.
Hope it doesn't get DQ'd, for what it's worth. |
Arrogant, probably. I just hope that you don't have to pre-qualify for arrogant posts around here :-) Of course I see the difference, but don't you think that if this one ended up 321/500, it would not have been brought up here, someone else's would. |
You don't have to pre-qualify. I am arrogant enough to tell you when you're being arrogant.
Honestly I'm surprised it didn't get a validation request in voting. Even in expert editing, for me at least, it is a very radical shot. That's just my take on it, but maybe I haven't seen many shots like that so it looks unique to me. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:27:56 AM · #115 |
In the Srdanz "Bridge in 3D" image, the warping is clearly within the rules. The cutting out of the entire warped image, effectively, and dropping it on a neutral BG would be clearly within the rules. The question, if there IS one, is whether the BG with its gradient qualifies as an element created non-photographically, like the stars or the birds.
Considering the wide latitude of the expert rules, DQing an image like this for that reason would, IMHO, border on the absurd. Since he could create the BG, photograph it, and use it exactly as he has used it here.
So what could possibly be illegal about this image under expert editing?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:53:34 AM · #116 |
| Personally I think we need to add a rule about photographing photographs. It seems like a workaround for lots of rules. Just my 0.02. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:08:59 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I think we need to add a rule about photographing photographs. It seems like a workaround for lots of rules. Just my 0.02. |
You just want to deflate scalvert's ribbon count... :P |
|
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: 04/08/2025 12:40:11 AM EDT.
