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 101 - 125 of 172, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/09/2004 09:52:55 PM · #101
Originally posted by jab119:



This site was created with the idea of LIMITED EDITING



Although this argument goes around in circles week in week out, I'll try one more time. There was nothing in how the original site was defined that said limited editing. You choose personally to read that in to the statment under 'about' because you happen to believe that 'photography' means limited editing. This is just your own personal opinion.

Anyways, I think I've grown bored of the same topic over and over again. It was useful for a while to clarify things in my own mind that it all has nothing what so ever to what editing restrictions are allowed. I'm sure people will keep missing this point for a long time to come though. Enjoy.

03/09/2004 10:11:22 PM · #102
Originally posted by Gordon:

Anyways, I think I've grown bored of the same topic over and over again. It was useful for a while to clarify things in my own mind that it all has nothing what so ever to what editing restrictions are allowed. I'm sure people will keep missing this point for a long time to come though. Enjoy.


Aw, c'mon Gordon, you'll come back. You always do. ;)

Besides, you won me over. That's something, isn't it?
03/09/2004 10:23:50 PM · #103
Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Anyways, I think I've grown bored of the same topic over and over again. It was useful for a while to clarify things in my own mind that it all has nothing what so ever to what editing restrictions are allowed. I'm sure people will keep missing this point for a long time to come though. Enjoy.


Aw, c'mon Gordon, you'll come back. You always do. ;)

Besides, you won me over. That's something, isn't it?


You can carry that torch onward now instead then :)
03/09/2004 10:39:05 PM · #104
Originally posted by jab119:


This site was created with the idea of LIMITED EDITING


It was also created with no challenge date restrictions, no forums, no comments, no favorites lists, no site council, no dpcprints, no members, no portfolios, etc.
03/09/2004 11:18:20 PM · #105
Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by jab119:


This site was created with the idea of LIMITED EDITING


It was also created with no challenge date restrictions, no forums, no comments, no favorites lists, no site council, no dpcprints, no members, no portfolios, etc.


Ah, bring back them good ol' days! ;)
03/09/2004 11:20:29 PM · #106
Originally posted by jab119:

The editing rules at this site already allow enough editing, plain and simple. Actually if you have been on this site for a while you know there has been an increase in the number of editing tools you can use.


Gordon has repeatedly made the point (and I wholeheartedly agree with him) that it makes no sense to limit what tools one uses to make an image adjustment.

Most people on both sides of this argument, for example, have no problem with level adjustments to improve dynamic range in the image. In Basic editting, we are allowed to use levels, curves or a few other methods to make our whites whiter and blacks darker. We are not allowed, however, under basic editting to duplicate an image layer and change the layer mode to screen or multiply. So we end up having to make an adjustment using techniques that take 3 steps instead of one. What does this accomplish? In the end, we are still able to change the tones of an image, but we had to jump through hoops to do it.

The same goes for spot editting restrictions. If I take a still life of a pencil or a flower, I might take the time to set up a studio shot with well considered lighting and arrangement and any other photographic forethought. Suppose I didn't notice a blemish on the flower petal or teeth marks on the pencil. If the photo is well composed in all other respects, but there exists this one distraction in the image that I could remove with 2 seconds of spot editting, why is it that I am not allowed to do so? A traditional photographer could have dodged or burned a distraction away and we would praise his wonderful darkroom skills.

If the community says that a winning shot should look like a photo, then community standards will prevail. Limiting the tool I use to accomplish that goal, however, seems restrictive for no good reason.

Dave
03/09/2004 11:32:53 PM · #107
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:

Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph.


You know, honestly, I do not agree with this statement at all.

If I take a photo of something that looks good through the viewfinder and on the LCD, but get home and on the screen I notice part of it is under/overexposed. I can correct it using some form of digital editing. And because of this, I can sometimes save a photo rather than trash it.

However, the next time that I go out in that same situation, I can remember back to what editing I had to do in order to salvage the shot from the previous attempt. In other words, I can learn something from doing digital editing.
03/09/2004 11:35:18 PM · #108
Im just curious to know, how many people honestly believe that the rules play a part, into what photo wins here on this site?

Anyone can take a awesome shot that requires no editing and win this contest. All it takes is to have an awesome photograph that appeals to the the majority of the voters.

Dont blame editing, or the rules, etc. If you can take an awesome photo, and you dont need to edit, then there is no reason you cant win here. Some like to edit, others dont. If an edited pic wins, so what. The majority on this site says so and voted it that way. If you feel you are doing lousy in the challenges because you dont know PS as good as some of the others, best bet is to get rid of that excuse, cause, that isnt why you arent winning. Instead of looking at rules, its better to look at your own images. You have to be your own worst critic.

Blaming the tools and the rules is just a poor excuse. Learning how to edit is a big part of photography, not just digital.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 23:36:48.
03/09/2004 11:56:04 PM · #109
Originally posted by micknewton:

In my opinion, any editing whatsoever after the photo leaves the camera makes the resulting image digital art and no longer digital photography.


Actually in the truest, purest definition even manipulating your RAW images can fall under the digital art category. Since you can choose the white balance setting, or the temperature, or contrast, etc....

Also, somewhere in the mile long thread someone referred to (and I am paraphrasing) that it is a photograph as long as it still look slike a photograph AND does not using anything from another photograph. In my opinion, even if you make a composite of 2, 3, or 10 photos, it is still a photograph. People (amateurs & professionals) do this every day.

What I am getting at is that if you have a photo of an old 1800's homestead and you take 3 photos that expose separate parts of the scene differently, and then combine them together so that all components are correctly exposed, this is still a photograph that you took. Or you take a shot of a log cabin in a country village setting, and you realize that in the background you see someones Ferrari parked there & edit it out...this is still a photograph.


03/10/2004 01:13:14 AM · #110
Originally posted by stdavidson:

Finally, something of substance...

Suppose, for example, that your power lines are to far away to be recorded by your camera. Does the photo have integity then even if you can't see it? Of course. The opposite is also necessarily true.

Photography is an art form. It is always geared toward twisting different aspects of reality to present an interesting perspective, but not necessarily an accurate one.

Do fish-eye lenses create and accurate image. Of course not, but they are allowed even under basic editing rules at DPC. When you take a picture making a small foreground object large in the frame where distant mountains are tiny, is this reality? No.

Artists traditionally see with the mind's eye. Adding or subtracting a bit here and there to better convey an idea has been in the artists domain for centuries.

Why should things be different just because we have digital photo editing tools now? It should not.


Let me see if I understood you correctly through an example. If I want to take a shot of a lightpost without including the nearby power lines, I am able to do so by taking the picture at such an angle that the power lines do not show. Such a picture is clearly an example of photography even though I do not see the power lines, as no editing has been done.

Similarly, I can take the full shot and later remove the power lines digitally. Because the physical presence of the power lines does not affect the validity of the picture in the first instance, their presence also should have no effect on the artistic integrity of the second photo.

If this is your argument, I dissent ;)

I think you have started laying out your view by doing the essential: defining photography. Are we simply debating semantics if I call this second picture in question a work of graphic design, rather than a photograph?

I don't think so. To me, there is a difference. Photography, like most media, has changed from its original purpose. Just as we no longer restrict painting to capturing portraits, photography has clearly stepped outside the boundaries of merely "accurately" reproducing the object captured (in fact, many of us have dropped the concept that there can be such a thing as an accurate portrayal of an object). Similarly, the first abstract photographers had a parallel vision in mind when they chose to expand the boundaries of their medium.

But I think there is a boundary beyond which photography simply changes into an altogether different medium. Whereas painting or graphic design is geared towards creation, photography is not. Photography is geared towards capturing, or representation. To me, photography is a way of capturing the beauty of a particular angle of something already there, something we encounter whole. It is about capturing the particular lines and angles or something trivial and through them composing a two-dimensional picture from the three-dimensional original. For this reason I prefer, theoretically at least, photography that minimizes editing.
03/10/2004 01:55:27 AM · #111
Originally posted by rickhd13:

[quote=Brooklyn513]Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph.


[quote=rickhd13] You know, honestly, I do not agree with this statement at all.

If I take a photo of something that looks good through the viewfinder and on the LCD, but get home and on the screen I notice part of it is under/overexposed. I can correct it using some form of digital editing. And because of this, I can sometimes save a photo rather than trash it. [quote=rickhd13]

Dude, nice editing... you'd make a great politician. That is exactly what I said, only I added that seeing as you use these tools, you try to use them less often

Message edited by author 2004-03-10 02:48:56.
03/10/2004 02:17:31 AM · #112
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:

[quote=rickhd13] [quote=Brooklyn513]Digital editing does not help me learn to take a better photograph.


Originally posted by rickhd13:

You know, honestly, I do not agree with this statement at all.

If I take a photo of something that looks good through the viewfinder and on the LCD, but get home and on the screen I notice part of it is under/overexposed. I can correct it using some form of digital editing. And because of this, I can sometimes save a photo rather than trash it. [quote=rickhd13]

Dude, nice editing... you'd make a great polititian. That is exactly what I said, only I added that seeing as you use these tools, you try to use them less often


Was this last paragraph in reference to my comment? I'm not sure, but just in case I'll reply...

My post was actually inspired by your earlier comment that graphic design and photography are two entirely different things. It got me thinking about the counterargument -- about whether these definitions really matter, and whether in the end we are not simply debating semantics -- i.e. whether we are just fighting over what to name something, but in the end the category we put an artwork into is purely arbitrary and has no relevance to our appreciation of it.

As I thought about it, I defined what photography is to me, and why I do think such definitions matter. I'm glad if we are of the same mindset -- not that our opinions change much as far as what comprises aesthetics in the end...

I do think it's important to admit that the purpose of a medium may change over time, however. Equally important is to define an ultimate boundary outside of which a medium becomes something else entirely. That is what I was ultimately trying to accomplish with my post. I hope it's clear now ;)
03/10/2004 09:20:45 AM · #113
Mousie, see comments below... :)

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

A painting captures a moment in time just as a photograph does. The only difference is it is done with paint and digital art is done with pixels.


Uh... umm... do you re-read what you type, stdavidson?

Answer: Certainly not! Otherwise I might fail to contradict myself.

Originally posted by Mousie:


A painting captures a moment in time? Here's one that captures not a moment, but movement of a subject *over* time, you may recognise it: //www.philamuseum.org/collections/modern_contemporary/1950-134-59.shtml

It is like a timed exposure photograph. All photographs don't capture just one moment of time,just like all paintings, but we generally think of them as doing so. They are really the same that way.

Originally posted by Mousie:


Here's a painting that's not capturing *any* moment in time:
//www.vomitus.com/museum/paintings_02/thoughtwars_full.html

Cool! This is just like "evil" digital art.

Originally posted by Mousie:


Painting has nothing to do with capturing a moment in time unless that's the express wish of the artist.


But most paintings do...
Congratulations, you have just proved that painting is just like photography!

Originally posted by Mousie:


Also, please enlighten me on the logical difference between 'looks' and 'appears to look'. Thanks!


"Looks" is what something actually looks like whereas "appears to look" is mearly what something appears to look like. It is a simple concept really. :)
03/10/2004 09:24:04 AM · #114
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jab119:



This site was created with the idea of LIMITED EDITING



Although this argument goes around in circles week in week out, I'll try one more time. There was nothing in how the original site was defined that said limited editing. You choose personally to read that in to the statment under 'about' because you happen to believe that 'photography' means limited editing. This is just your own personal opinion.


Maybe I was too abbreviated in my statement about limited editing and DPC created with that idea.

When I was first told of this site there was very little you could do to your image, compared to whats allowed today. See the Classic editing rules. Classic Rules

And thats what kept me around for so long, because it was a "Challenge" to create a photo with your CAMERA to be the best it could be with out having to edit it like crazy.

Now there are a different set of rules

Basic Editing Rules
Advanced Editing Rules

In the Advanced Editing Rules its pretty wide open for what you can do, with the following exceptions

To summarize, here are the two important editing restrictions that are still in effect:

No text. No text may be added to your submission. This includes copyright statements.
Single photo. No multi-image compositions. Your submitted entry must come from a single photograph taken with your digital camera.

Entries can and will only be disqualified for:

the photograph being taken outside of the challenge week
adding text to the photograph
creating a submission from multiple images/sources
violating the content rules
use of a non-digital camera

so Im really not sure why people are wanting to be able to do more editing.... unless it is to use multiple images.

this site is straying away from a "Photo Challenge" site to being more of an artist site to see who can alter an image the best.

When I do prints or photos for friends, of course I edit them like mad to get them perfect, but is more of a Challenge to me to make my photos look good for the challenges with out editing.

James
03/10/2004 09:28:40 AM · #115
I'm also affraid that when full editing wouldn't be allowed a good photo might become a matter of technology, the one with the best and most accurate camera would have even more advantage.
03/10/2004 09:29:22 AM · #116
James,

I guess the problem is, there's just no compromising with some people. What we have on this site now, IMHO, is a good balance.

Cheers,

Owen
03/10/2004 09:32:33 AM · #117
Originally posted by louddog:

I'm okay with editing in the challenges as long as it doesn't change the concept of an image.
i.e. color enhancing, croping, and I'll even bend on spot removal is all fine.
adding/moving/cloning a tree, swaping a head or body, removing a fence or power line... not fine.

If you're doing it to sell or hang on your wall, do what ever you want and call it whatever you want. However, when entering in a challenge I think rules need to be in place and be fairly strict and specific to keep people from pushing the limits of the rules.


Pushing the limits is what leads to great pictures. Swapping a head or two never hurts. Rules are made to be broken!

Take that, Louddog!
03/10/2004 09:33:12 AM · #118
Call me simple but....

Photography = art
medium used on DPC = digital

so....

photography + DPC = digital art

it's B&W to me.

03/10/2004 09:33:49 AM · #119
Going back to your initial question "All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong!"

How's about the fact that for many, not being able to do certain things actually makes them think more with their camera.

Example 1: A nice clean white BG isn't a piece of cake, but can easily be airbrushed in Photoshop. If one can't do that one needs to learn how to light it evenly without blowing out the subject. Thus a lesson (a valuable one at that is learnt)

Example 2: A nice scenic landscape with bright fluffy clouds and blue skies. Getting the exposure right for sky and ground is hard to perfect - either the sky tends to be great and the land dark, or the sky is white with no detail and the land is well exposed. In Photoshop, easy to correct. In camera it takes a bit more time and patience.

Now I am all for free editing throughout the site - mainly because I can't see the point of having some editing allowed and others not allowed because that just forces people to go about editing in a haphazard way. But even you must admit that for those that don't bother to find a way around the rules, it is of huge benefit to the photographer to actually learn exposure / lighting etc etc.

So again I feel you perhaps have been proved wrong.
03/10/2004 09:36:29 AM · #120
Originally posted by Movie_Madness:


I don't believe just any and or all editing should be allowed because there needs to be integrity of personal artistic ability. For example if your using cheats with computer "mutation" on your photos that is not in my eyes honest personal photo generous! This isn't "HOLLY WOOD"!


Hmmm... If the "cheats" are "good" then use them, if they aren't don't. Personal artistic expression is in the mind of the artist and they choose the way to express it, not us. We just decide if it sucks or not.

Message edited by author 2004-03-10 09:36:47.
03/10/2004 09:45:45 AM · #121
Originally posted by jonpink:

Going back to your initial question "All Editing should be allowed - Prove me Wrong!"

How's about the fact that for many, not being able to do certain things actually makes them think more with their camera.

...

So again I feel you perhaps have been proved wrong.


Certainly not!

This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche!
03/10/2004 09:48:45 AM · #122
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

Call me simple but....

Photography = art
medium used on DPC = digital

so....

photography + DPC = digital art

it's B&W to me.


Irrefutable mathematics. No surprise from a great photographer like you!
03/10/2004 09:54:40 AM · #123
Originally posted by frankh:

I'm also affraid that when full editing wouldn't be allowed a good photo might become a matter of technology, the one with the best and most accurate camera would have even more advantage.


It is basic to the human condition that the rich get richer. Today's wealth is in information and technology, but you still have to know how to use it.

Based on a lot of so called digital art I've seen it is obvious people have a lot to learn. There is no danger good traditional photography is going away very soon.

03/10/2004 10:03:24 AM · #124
Originally posted by stdavidson:

This is bogus for one simple yet timeless reason... Why do things the hard way when you can do them the easy way? Touche!


And what makes you think Photoshop is the easier way? Is it because you know Photoshop better than know your way around a camera?

Some people come from a photographic background and have to learn Photoshop, so your sentence only applies to the PS Geeks.

Message edited by author 2004-03-10 10:08:58.
03/10/2004 10:04:40 AM · #125
Originally posted by jab119:



...
When I do prints or photos for friends, of course I edit them like mad to get them perfect, but is more of a Challenge to me to make my photos look good for the challenges with out editing.

James


The better a picture is in the first place the less editing will be required in post processing.

Though not always true, a general rule of thumb is that if you have to do a lot of post processing on an image then it probably wasn't very good to start with and likely won't be much improved.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 07:14:22 PM

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: 08/03/2021 07:14:22 PM EDT.