| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2012 11:41:14 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I hate minimal.
With love,
-Whiny Bitch
That said, I agree with Cory that minimal is an excellent exercise in learning to get it right in camera. A minimal challenge results page does not WOW like advanced or expert, but the point is that people will and do learn from it, so I give the 1:1 a +1.
I'm not a huge fan of expert either. If advanced could include a few aspects of expert (like just combining portions of multiple photos), I would be ok with doing away with expert. At a minimum we, as voters, should enforce the "photographic in nature" rule to a greater extent or they should do away with that "rule" in expert. |
Challenge: Godzilla
Ruleset: Minimal
Extra Rules: You may not use toy/miniature godzillas.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2012 11:42:55 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
At a minimum we, as voters, should enforce the "photographic in nature" rule to a greater extent or they should do away with that "rule" in expert. |
Completely agree with you here. And that's why I dislike expert editing challenges. In the recent challenge, I wouldn't classify any of the ribbon winners as a photograph. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 11:43:33 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I hate minimal.
With love,
-Whiny Bitch
That said, I agree with Cory that minimal is an excellent exercise in learning to get it right in camera. A minimal challenge results page does not WOW like advanced or expert, but the point is that people will and do learn from it, so I give the 1:1 a +1.
I'm not a huge fan of expert either. If advanced could include a few aspects of expert (like just combining portions of multiple photos), I would be ok with doing away with expert. At a minimum we, as voters, should enforce the "photographic in nature" rule to a greater extent or they should do away with that "rule" in expert. |
Challenge: Godzilla
Ruleset: Minimal
Extra Rules: You may not use toy/miniature godzillas. |
I could probably do something with that.
ETA: PETA may not be happy about it though.
Message edited by author 2012-09-28 15:43:55. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 11:48:23 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
At a minimum we, as voters, should enforce the "photographic in nature" rule to a greater extent or they should do away with that "rule" in expert. |
Completely agree with you here. And that's why I dislike expert editing challenges. In the recent challenge, I wouldn't classify any of the ribbon winners as a photograph. |
Not that it's really his fault or anything, guy's an amazing photographer no matter how you slice it. He just exemplifies the style that has taken hold.
Message edited by author 2012-09-28 15:49:45. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 11:55:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Not that it's really his fault or anything, guy's an amazing photographer no matter how you slice it. He just exemplifies the style that has taken hold. |
Not saying it's his fault, or Judi's, or Samantha's, but if you read the comments after the challenge, there's always a handful of people who comment "how could anyone give this entry a vote of X." My reasoning is it's not a photograph. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 12:02:28 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm not a huge fan of expert either. If advanced could include a few aspects of expert (like just combining portions of multiple photos), I would be ok with doing away with expert. At a minimum we, as voters, should enforce the "photographic in nature" rule to a greater extent or they should do away with that "rule" in expert. |
This is getting a bit off topic, but I think I agree with this. It might be nice to split Expert challenges into Photographic and Digital Art challenges. One would relax the restrictions on things like cloning out objects to improve the scene and the other would allow you create and stitch together anything to manufacture a new scene. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 12:07:13 PM · #32 |
I'm probably more guilty than anyone of violating the "photographic in nature" rule in the expert challenges I've entered and I don't think I've been properly punished for it either. Spank me. :)
I think it is just an easy thing to forget when you are voting and see some really amazing images like Judi's or Christophe's. If that rule were enforced in the Zodiac challenge, I think this would/could be on the front page:
Agree? |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 12:32:01 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 12:34:49 PM · #34 |
| Ok, fair enough and I agree with the placements - I wasn't comparing them against each other - my real question / opinion was that Lydia's IS photographic in nature to me. I would go by the challenge topic and ask if something mythical did exist, does this look like a photograph of it or a digital painting of it. That's just my opinion on that rule though. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 12:59:47 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Ok, fair enough and I agree with the placements - I wasn't comparing them against each other - my real question / opinion was that Lydia's IS photographic in nature to me. I would go by the challenge topic and ask if something mythical did exist, does this look like a photograph of it or a digital painting of it. That's just my opinion on that rule though. |
We agree 100% on that. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 01:04:26 PM · #36 |
| I like the idea of some sort of parity between expert and minimal rule set challenges; but frankly I'm not a fan of either. Expert for the reasons given above. But I find the notion of minimal's. "getting it right in camera" something of a cannard. Digital photography needs digital editing, and while you can to a certain extent do your editing in camera by adjusting contrast, saturation, sharpness and noise in the menu of most cameras, the use of the tiny computer in your camera is not any better than using the bigger computer on the desk at home. And unless you tend towards shooting on the little green square, why would you choose to edit a shot before you saw what the shot wants. You could do a fine job if you had your camera up on a tripod and work through the menus to get your adjustments for that one frame right, but doing so takes the spontaneous nature of an SLR away, for what gain? |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 01:12:04 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You could do a fine job if you had your camera up on a tripod and work through the menus to get your adjustments for that one frame right, but doing so takes the spontaneous nature of an SLR away, for what gain? |
Purist bragging rights. ;-) It's like when people put "Handheld" in the title. LOL |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 01:15:46 PM · #38 |
As I said in the Apocalyptic topic, no one says anything of the tons of HDRized images that we can see in the challenges (basic or advanced).
Are them photographic in nature more than some expert ones? |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 01:19:01 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I like the idea of some sort of parity between expert and minimal rule set challenges; but frankly I'm not a fan of either. Expert for the reasons given above. But I find the notion of minimal's. "getting it right in camera" something of a cannard. Digital photography needs digital editing, and while you can to a certain extent do your editing in camera by adjusting contrast, saturation, sharpness and noise in the menu of most cameras, the use of the tiny computer in your camera is not any better than using the bigger computer on the desk at home. And unless you tend towards shooting on the little green square, why would you choose to edit a shot before you saw what the shot wants. You could do a fine job if you had your camera up on a tripod and work through the menus to get your adjustments for that one frame right, but doing so takes the spontaneous nature of an SLR away, for what gain? |
I suppose the hoped gain is that your skills will improve from the exercise.
Framing the subject carefully does more than just remove the need to crop - let me just give you a list of the advantages from this seemingly simple thing:
More resolution to work with, as cropping decreases resolution
Vignetting looks natural and even, as does lens softness, giving the image a character, rather than just being flaws that need to be dealt with.
DOF is shallower for any image that is well framed, given that the aperture stays constant and focus moves closer.
-- and finally
It's the mark of an expert with their tools when they can get it right the first time, without adjustments, it's a point of pride for those who value such things.
Message edited by author 2012-09-28 17:21:44. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 02:14:30 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm probably more guilty than anyone of violating the "photographic in nature" rule in the expert challenges I've entered and I don't think I've been properly punished for it either. Spank me. :)
I think it is just an easy thing to forget when you are voting and see some really amazing images like Judi's or Christophe's. If that rule were enforced in the Zodiac challenge, I think this would/could be on the front page:
Agree? |
No. It's a good illustration, but there were four higher scoring photographic entries.
|
It was photographic in nature because it was a photograph. No expert editing.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2012 02:26:47 PM · #41 |
I actually like the idea of the expert editing looking more photographic.
But who's to define that?
I actually think a good portion of gyaban's look photographic, but not realistic.
I think he does a nice job on his lighting, and they feel more photographic than the some of the expert editing that's more flat and cartoon like.
Were people just happier with this because it was more realistic than being more photographic, and that's really what people are looking for?
Or does more realistic mean more photographic?
Message edited by author 2012-09-28 18:27:15.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2012 02:35:43 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I actually think a good portion of gyaban's look photographic, but not realistic. |
Exactly ... to me "photographic in nature" means "does this look like what a photograph of this scene 'ought to look like,' assuming that the scene existed?" |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 02:37:30 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I wouldn't miss minimal editing challenges if they went away. I've learned so much on how to make a photo sing, that I'm not liking basic editing anymore. It's not that the photo is changing that much, but subtle changes can still make a big difference in a photo. Although, add cropping to minimal editing rules, and I'd like it much, much better. 4x6 crops don't suit everything.
Look through the past minimal editing challenges -- the photos are ok, but how many people kept reminding others that it's minimal editing and take that into account when voting. It feels like you're putting something out that's substandard, especially when you know that even cropping and adjustments in contrast could make a huge difference. |
Riiiight.... But the point is that you get it right "in camera"...
The entire point of minimal is to give incentive to really take your time setting up the shot, and executing the idea. Instead of cropping, move the camera, or zoom... Use a camera that does a native aspect ratio that is different if you don't like the standard. Contrast? You can set that in camera, along with sharpness and white balance.
My point is that the minimal rule set exists to encourage really tight technicals on the capture side, if your skills aren't up to snuff, then that just means you need MORE minimal challenges in which you can practice. |
That's just it. If you shoot strictly setup shots, I agree that you can get a lot closer to getting it right in camera. However, if you're shooting found shots, there's only so much you can do. Wildlife, candids, etc, you're stuck with the lighting you have, you're stuck with the reach your lens has, there's only so much you can do "right". Yes, you can adjust the contrast in camera, but have you ever tried it? You can only do so much, and for most of the shots, (at least in my camera) it really doesn't make that much of a difference. It also favors the people that have the good lighting setups. Any white background shot I've done has had to be modified in pp, simply because I don't have the necessary equipment to light my background enough and still light my subject.
I do the minimal editing challenges. It is an interesting experiment to try to do it right. But I don't know that the great photographers ever left anything unmodified. The played with the darkroom to get things just right.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2012 02:46:47 PM · #44 |
| What is photographic in nature? Are many of the images in the posthumous thread any less photographic then the expert edits? Double exposures, overlays, cross processing all can be considered a move from "photographic" but they were all done long before the digital age. I think people confuse photographic in nature and photo journalistic in nature. Very different things. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 02:49:48 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
What is photographic in nature? Are many of the images in the posthumous thread any less photographic then the expert edits? Double exposures, overlays, cross processing all can be considered a move from "photographic" but they were all done long before the digital age. I think people confuse photographic in nature and photo journalistic in nature. Very different things. |
+100 |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 03:18:55 PM · #46 |
Faking It: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop
Originally posted by Linked Article (emphasis added):
While digital photography and image-editing software have brought about an increased awareness of the degree to which camera images can be manipulated, the practice of doctoring photographs has existed since the medium was invented. Faking It: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop at The Metropolitan Museum of Art is the first major exhibition devoted to the history of manipulated photography before the digital age. Featuring some 200 visually captivating photographs created between the 1840s and 1990s in the service of art, politics, news, entertainment, and commerce, the exhibition offers a provocative new perspective on the history of photography as it traces the medium̢۪s complex and changing relationship to visual truth. |
Photo Manipulation Through History: A Timeline
An Abbreviated History of Photo Manipulation
Message edited by author 2012-09-28 19:19:48. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 05:06:10 PM · #47 |
Thank you for posting those links, Paul - all very interesting.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2012 05:53:20 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I wouldn't miss minimal editing challenges if they went away. I've learned so much on how to make a photo sing, that I'm not liking basic editing anymore. It's not that the photo is changing that much, but subtle changes can still make a big difference in a photo. Although, add cropping to minimal editing rules, and I'd like it much, much better. 4x6 crops don't suit everything.
Look through the past minimal editing challenges -- the photos are ok, but how many people kept reminding others that it's minimal editing and take that into account when voting. It feels like you're putting something out that's substandard, especially when you know that even cropping and adjustments in contrast could make a huge difference. |
Riiiight.... But the point is that you get it right "in camera"...
The entire point of minimal is to give incentive to really take your time setting up the shot, and executing the idea. Instead of cropping, move the camera, or zoom... Use a camera that does a native aspect ratio that is different if you don't like the standard. Contrast? You can set that in camera, along with sharpness and white balance.
My point is that the minimal rule set exists to encourage really tight technicals on the capture side, if your skills aren't up to snuff, then that just means you need MORE minimal challenges in which you can practice. |
That's just it. If you shoot strictly setup shots, I agree that you can get a lot closer to getting it right in camera. However, if you're shooting found shots, there's only so much you can do. Wildlife, candids, etc, you're stuck with the lighting you have, you're stuck with the reach your lens has, there's only so much you can do "right". Yes, you can adjust the contrast in camera, but have you ever tried it? You can only do so much, and for most of the shots, (at least in my camera) it really doesn't make that much of a difference. It also favors the people that have the good lighting setups. Any white background shot I've done has had to be modified in pp, simply because I don't have the necessary equipment to light my background enough and still light my subject.
I do the minimal editing challenges. It is an interesting experiment to try to do it right. But I don't know that the great photographers ever left anything unmodified. The played with the darkroom to get things just right. |
Sure, you're limited - but you do actually have control over the lighting, in a manner of speaking - as you can simply wait for the right light - shoot in the morning, or at dusk, wait for a stormy day, you know, those are the things that really "make" a found scene anyway. |
|
|
|
09/28/2012 06:09:42 PM · #49 |
I've been practicing minimal editing my whole life and now that i learned how to post process i don't care for it. you guys can have fun indulging in it, they are few enough i can skip them.
Message edited by author 2012-09-28 22:09:53. |
|
|
|
09/29/2012 03:02:02 AM · #50 |
Maybe, the point is to expand technical and creative horizons.
Let's also be honest. This is not an art for purists. It's all digital. PhotoShop is an integral part of modern photography, as much as anything. |
|
