DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong!
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 172, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/09/2004 10:58:50 AM · #51
Some people just won't be satisfied until both challenge components of this site are open to relaxed editting rules; the compromise we were given is just not good enough for them.
03/09/2004 11:08:08 AM · #52
Originally posted by orussell:

Some people just won't be satisfied until both challenge components of this site are open to relaxed editting rules; the compromise we were given is just not good enough for them.

Well, I say let them have it.

Voters will ultimately decide on the future shape of DPC. If manipulated once-were-photos get more and more recognition, then DPC will recognise that trend. I suspect, however, that that won't happen. Here, good photography will win the day.
03/09/2004 11:08:36 AM · #53
Duplicate... comment removed. :)

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 11:13:35.
03/09/2004 11:09:40 AM · #54
Originally posted by stdavidson:

[quote=jab119]
Ok stdavidson lets look at one of your photos for a second...
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5792/thumb/55425.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5792/thumb/55425.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

this is the kind of think I am talking about that does not hold photographic integrity...its obviously over edited, and not very pleasing to me... the lighting is not correct for the sunset and the sunlight illuminating the airplane...to you that may be a different story, but if it were entered into a contest on DPC, I would vote it low. ...

James


Ah, finally, a personal assualt... Lets get the guy with his own lousy pictures! I like that approach! :)

You are right. It is a composite image and the lighting on the airplane is completely incorrect. It is an obvious "forgery". I am guilty as charged.

Since it is digital art I would never suggested it is a good example of composite editing regarding the current discussion. However, I can make composites that look perfectly natural if that helps prove my point to you.

Regarding the issue of "reality" and "integrity" of an image it is of some interest to note that this picture is of a SUNRISE, not a sunset.

Sometimes we don't even know what a picture is even when it is right in front of our own eyes!

You are right to rate a lousy picture low. Editing has nothing to do with it. Editing can ruin an image as easily as make it better. The voter always has the final say.

Nothing will ever replace good old fashioned lighting, composition, DOF, content and the rule of thirds to create great photographs. Editing tools only help you to do it a little better.

Let the artist use all their tools, not a crippled subset. If they don't know how to use them properly they pay the ultimate penalty at the ballot box.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 11:11:04.
03/09/2004 11:22:02 AM · #55
Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by mk:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/192/thumb/61652.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/192/thumb/61652.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

(Sorry, Mr. Blobby.)

Please to point out your "dazzling logic" now.


This one got 5.093... The voters have spoken.


(...jumping in without reading the whole thread...)

And that's the problem most people against relaxed/advanced editing feared. That the challenges would be taken over by digital art (which this and the burner clearly are). The core of the pro-edit camp claimed the voters would vote down digital art and keep it from becoming popular. They were primarily "old-timers", people who had been around this site for 2 years or more, and I think they had more faith in the core membership of the site keeping the focus on photography. These two shots, and others like them, prove that a majority of the voters, probably many of them newer and unfamiliar with the history of the site and this issue, are accepting of DA. This means that future new-comers will see DA as an acceptable presentation, and DA will become more prevelent - a "vicious" cycle. Some of it will probably be quite impressive. But it won't be photography.

You keep raising the level of the discussion from a specific art form - photography - to more generic terms - art. To be more specifc, you are advocating that any still, visual, digitally captured art should be acceptable. My arguement is: its not a question of whether digital art, digital manipulations, etc. are "valid art"; its a question of what the focus of this site is, which is photography. To take your level of acceptance to an extreme, why should I be limited to something visual? Why can't I submit a poem, a piece of music, a sculpture (OK, uploading would be a challenge there) into one of the challenges? Because this is a photography contest, and the entries are meant to be photographs. Not poems, not songs, not digital paintings - not just any form of art.

For the record, I support the advanced editing rules. I'm just fatalistic at this point. Digital art may not become the norm, but it will become a standard, "accepted" part of these challenges.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 15:26:25.
03/09/2004 11:27:51 AM · #56
Originally posted by ScottK:


For the record, I support the advanced editing rules. I'm just fatalistic at this point. Digital art may not become the norm, but it will become a standard, "accepted" part of these challenges.


I just think it needs to be more effectively worded. Something nebulous like 'photographic integrity' is meaningless. The people who are hung up on which tools are used are off in the woods, looking in the wrong place for the blame for creating digital art.

We should allow any and all manipulations.
We should disallow digital art (or create a separate challenge for that)

There are examples of sites that have successfully covered this.

The easiest way is to just disqualify images that are obviously or too extremely manipulated. This would solve the problem very easily. The burner and the flying fuses are obviously not realistic photographs - so remove them.

Have a core trusted group who admin this process - the site council springs to mind as a resonable body to perform this function.

Make it obvious in the rules that obviously manipulated or overly edited images are not wanted and are subject to disqualification. Suggest that realistic photographs, faithful to the original captured image are required. Let any tool you like be used to create those images.

Its easy if you are willing to stand up for it.

People will complain. They always do. But just do what's right and over time users will get it.


03/09/2004 11:30:12 AM · #57
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/179/thumb/55679.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/179/thumb/55679.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Steve I gave this image of yours from the Road Signs challenge a 7. If it wasn't a basic editting challenge, what would you have done to improve upon it?
03/09/2004 11:44:49 AM · #58
Originally posted by orussell:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/179/thumb/55679.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/179/thumb/55679.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Steve I gave this image of yours from the Road Signs challenge a 7. If it wasn't a basic editting challenge, what would you have done to improve upon it?


Put some paratroopers jumping out of the rear!
03/09/2004 11:54:34 AM · #59
I'll prove you wrong punk..hehe

Images like this: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/7263/thumb/63872.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/7263/thumb/63872.jpg', '/') + 1) . 'would be allowed, now that is 20% photography and 80% 3D render.

I dare say the majority would not like to see stuff like this appear on a photography challenge web site.

There....

;)
03/09/2004 11:58:35 AM · #60
Originally posted by jab119:

if one edits out a part of the photo such as power lines or their weird unlcle cletus, then the photographic itegrity has been breached reguardless if it is for the DPC challenges or for photo journalism.

Or if one adds information to the photo to make it appear something was in the original shot that was not there.

using 2 photos to create one image and passing it off as one single image with out noting it is a composition of several images is a no no also.

Also making enhancements to the photo to make colors jump out and look surealitic is breaking photographic integrity...yes That Adams guy who edited some awesome photos is just as guilty.

Now the edited photos do look MUCH better, but its still NOT what the photographer saw.

Did I cover enough?? or do you need more

James


How do you know it's not what the photographer saw? Have you ever shot sunset and have it come out less brilliant than you remember? We all don't see the same situation the same. If I edit colors or anything else, I'm showing you how "I SEE" it. More than likely we would not come out with the same result if we shot the exact same object. We all see differently, that's the point. Who wants to look at photos that look like everybody elses?

I sure don't want to pick up a magazine and see what I see and how I see it all day long...
03/09/2004 12:05:04 PM · #61
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ScottK:


For the record, I support the advanced editing rules. I'm just fatalistic at this point. Digital art may not become the norm, but it will become a standard, "accepted" part of these challenges.


I just think it needs to be more effectively worded. Something nebulous like 'photographic integrity' is meaningless. The people who are hung up on which tools are used are off in the woods, looking in the wrong place for the blame for creating digital art.

We should allow any and all manipulations.
We should disallow digital art (or create a separate challenge for that)

There are examples of sites that have successfully covered this.

The easiest way is to just disqualify images that are obviously or too extremely manipulated. This would solve the problem very easily. The burner and the flying fuses are obviously not realistic photographs - so remove them.

Have a core trusted group who admin this process - the site council springs to mind as a resonable body to perform this function.

Make it obvious in the rules that obviously manipulated or overly edited images are not wanted and are subject to disqualification. Suggest that realistic photographs, faithful to the original captured image are required. Let any tool you like be used to create those images.

Its easy if you are willing to stand up for it.

People will complain. They always do. But just do what's right and over time users will get it.


I think another good idea / system / site would be where members are vetted before being able to join and submit. If their photography isn't up to a specific standard then they simply can't join.

I am not suggesting DPC goes down that route, but I would like to see one developed elsewhere or even as a sister site to DPC. If not only for the viewing gratification.
03/09/2004 12:58:01 PM · #62
It seems to me that the majority of the anti-editing crowd is not actually against editing per say, they’re just against excessive editing. So, the question becomes, “How much editing should be allowed.” Even if you stay within the basic rules you can modify an image to such a point that it is virtually a different photo from the original. Take my Fire entry for example…
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/193/thumb/62772.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/193/thumb/62772.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
The challenge allowed advanced editing, but I stayed within the basic editing rules, using only color levels and the USM filter over the entire image. Compare that to the original photo…
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16230/thumb/63878.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16230/thumb/63878.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Obviously, the two are very dissimilar. And, even though I liked the edited photo, most of the voters (misguided as they may be) did not like it. And, my scores reflected their dislike. I submit that my entry was no more ‘digital art’ than was kiwiness’ first place entry. And, I would bet that he spent a great deal more time and effort in post-shot editing that I did. The second and third place winners also look edited. So, to me at least, it seems to be simply a matter of degree. How much is too much? Who decides? How is it policed? Personally, I say things are fine the way they are. Let the voters decide what they like and don’t like. We could also have a third ‘straight from the camera’ set of rules, which could be applied to specific challenges. Just my opinion.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 12:59:38.
03/09/2004 01:16:29 PM · #63
Originally posted by jonpink:

I dare say the majority would not like to see stuff like this appear on a photography challenge web site.


What is the majority?
03/09/2004 02:06:54 PM · #64
Originally posted by glimpses:

Originally posted by jonpink:

I dare say the majority would not like to see stuff like this appear on a photography challenge web site.


What is the majority?


More than 50%. ;)
03/09/2004 02:12:41 PM · #65
Originally posted by glimpses:

Originally posted by jonpink:

I dare say the majority would not like to see stuff like this appear on a photography challenge web site.


What is the majority?


You don't know what a majority is?
03/09/2004 02:23:28 PM · #66
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ScottK:


For the record, I support the advanced editing rules. I'm just fatalistic at this point. Digital art may not become the norm, but it will become a standard, "accepted" part of these challenges.


I just think it needs to be more effectively worded. Something nebulous like 'photographic integrity' is meaningless. The people who are hung up on which tools are used are off in the woods, looking in the wrong place for the blame for creating digital art.

We should allow any and all manipulations.
We should disallow digital art (or create a separate challenge for that)

There are examples of sites that have successfully covered this.

The easiest way is to just disqualify images that are obviously or too extremely manipulated. This would solve the problem very easily. The burner and the flying fuses are obviously not realistic photographs - so remove them.

Have a core trusted group who admin this process - the site council springs to mind as a resonable body to perform this function.

Make it obvious in the rules that obviously manipulated or overly edited images are not wanted and are subject to disqualification. Suggest that realistic photographs, faithful to the original captured image are required. Let any tool you like be used to create those images.

Its easy if you are willing to stand up for it.

People will complain. They always do. But just do what's right and over time users will get it.


I think I like that idea. I agree that a big part of the problem is in wording the limitation, but I don't know if any wording would ever be sufficient (but then, maybe I'm just being pessimistic). So a jury which specifically evaluates it might be a good solution. The only "problems" that spring to mind are:

- Lots of complaints from "borderline" entries. Maybe if a hard line is taken, people will (hopefully) just come to accept it.

- Someone (or, someones) will need to step up and take the responsibility of reviewing every entry of every challenge, specifically looking for digital art. That could be quite a task. Maybe things like a rotating pool of judges per challenge might help that. Or maybe it wouldn't be as big as I think.

Any idea if this concept has been raised up to the Site Council level or higher for discussion?
03/09/2004 02:30:53 PM · #67
Originally posted by jonpink:

Originally posted by glimpses:

Originally posted by jonpink:

I dare say the majority would not like to see stuff like this appear on a photography challenge web site.


What is the majority?


You don't know what a majority is?


Maybe what he's trying to say or imply is that the majority (or at least a large and growing minority) is actually accepting digital art. The rising scores of the two examples at the beginning of the thread seem to indicate that.
03/09/2004 02:45:36 PM · #68
Originally posted by micknewton:

It seems to me that the majority of the anti-editing crowd is not actually against editing per say, they’re just against excessive editing. So, the question becomes, “How much editing should be allowed.”


Close, but not quite. And this is the problem with describing this issue. Closer to the point is not "excessive editing", but perhaps better stated as "excessive results". Gordon keeps saying "its not the tools"; the related response here might be "its not how many tools".

Originally posted by micknewton:

Take my Fire entry for example…

...And, even though I liked the edited photo, most of the voters (misguided as they may be) did not like it. And, my scores reflected their dislike. I submit that my entry was no more ‘digital art’ than was kiwiness’ first place entry. And, I would bet that he spent a great deal more time and effort in post-shot editing that I did. The second and third place winners also look edited. So, to me at least, it seems to be simply a matter of degree.


I don't see any digital art in your entry. Its all very standard processing. One comment mentioned the color - maybe that was part of it; several mentioned the background and exposure - I think those may have had more impact on your score than the processing. Kiwi's probably did better than yours as much because his had what people envision as fire as the main subject (and it was well capture, well processed, well executed); in yours, everything else in the photo had more impact than the fire itself, which was somewhat indistinct. (This is a critique of your photo or even my opinion of it, just my guess as to why it scored as it did.)

Yes, it's a matter of degrees. But not of degrees in the quantity of the editing, but the quality.
03/09/2004 02:47:17 PM · #69
Digital art is like pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
03/09/2004 03:05:22 PM · #70
Originally posted by ScottK:

[snip]- Someone (or, someones) will need to step up and take the responsibility of reviewing every entry of every challenge, specifically looking for digital art.

With all due respect, I think that is a bad idea. Let a single person or small group decide for the rest of us what constitutes a photograph? I think that would just about ruin this site.

Imagine a person (yourself maybe) submitting a truly excellent photo, only to have the censor(s) call it ‘digital art’ and reject it because they feel it was a bit too over NeatImage’ed or maybe too over-sharpened. And a much lower quality photo wins, simply because that person used NeatImage or the USM filter a touch less heavily. Would you be disappointed, maybe even a little angry? I know I wouldn’t like it, and I wouldn’t participate in this site under such conditions. But, that’s just me. I am against almost all censorship. I think we already have way too many self-righteous idiots forcing their narrow-minded view of right and wrong, good and bad on the rest of us.
[Austin Powers mode on]Freedom of choice Baby! Yaah Baby! It’s a groovy thing Baby, yaah.. [Austin Powers mode off]

03/09/2004 03:26:28 PM · #71
Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by ScottK:

[snip]- Someone (or, someones) will need to step up and take the responsibility of reviewing every entry of every challenge, specifically looking for digital art.

With all due respect, I think that is a bad idea. Let a single person or small group decide for the rest of us what constitutes a photograph? I think that would just about ruin this site.

Imagine a person (yourself maybe) submitting a truly excellent photo, only to have the censor(s) call it ‘digital art’ and reject it because they feel it was a bit too over NeatImage’ed or maybe too over-sharpened. And a much lower quality photo wins, simply because that person used NeatImage or the USM filter a touch less heavily. Would you be disappointed, maybe even a little angry? I know I wouldn’t like it, and I wouldn’t participate in this site under such conditions. But, that’s just me. I am against almost all censorship. I think we already have way too many self-righteous idiots forcing their narrow-minded view of right and wrong, good and bad on the rest of us.
[Austin Powers mode on]Freedom of choice Baby! Yaah Baby! It’s a groovy thing Baby, yaah.. [Austin Powers mode off]


So is ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/192/thumb/61652.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/192/thumb/61652.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' a photograph ? Was that so hard ?
03/09/2004 03:40:12 PM · #72
Originally posted by ScottK:

Digital art is like pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I have no problem with that, but would you want someone else to decide for you when they see it, and not even giving you the chance to form your own opinion? I know I wouldn’t.

There is a fine line between digital photography and digital art. At times it can be a very, very fine line. Where do you draw the line? And, who gets to do the drawing? In my opinion, any editing whatsoever after the photo leaves the camera makes the resulting image digital art and no longer digital photography. I think that the rules currently in place are sufficient to keep out most of the ‘art’…
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/7263/thumb/63872.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/7263/thumb/63872.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

…and yet still allow great ‘photographs’ such as…
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/180/thumb/55938.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/180/thumb/55938.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

03/09/2004 03:42:05 PM · #73
Originally posted by micknewton:


…and yet still allow great ‘photographs’ such as…
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/180/thumb/55938.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/180/thumb/55938.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Is there any reason you have quotes around 'photograph' there ? That link goes to one of my least edited entries in a long while...
03/09/2004 03:55:22 PM · #74
Originally posted by Gordon:

So is ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/192/thumb/61652.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/192/thumb/61652.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' a photograph ? Was that so hard ?

No, I’d say it’s digital art, just as I’d say your Painting with Light entry…
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/180/thumb/55938.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/180/thumb/55938.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
…is also digital art. After all, you did edit the photo, did you not? If you did edit the photo, as I’m sure you did, than how can you say that yours is a true ‘photograph’ and yet the other’s is simply ‘art’?

03/09/2004 04:03:19 PM · #75
Originally posted by Gordon:

Is there any reason you have quotes around 'photograph' there ? That link goes to one of my least edited entries in a long while...

Yes, I know that was your image, and a darn good one too. The quotes were for emphasis, to underline the point I was trying to make. That being that most of the photos entered in challenges on this site have been edited to one extent or another and are therefore no longer, strictly speaking, 'photographs'.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/25/2021 04:22:56 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/25/2021 04:22:56 AM EDT.