| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2003 04:52:12 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Jon Lucas:
these rules are meant to help those who've taken a good shot in the first place and want to bring it to its full potential. It won't rescue a crap shot. |
Actually, my focus is only secondarily on improving good shots.
I still feel that we are missing an important point:
by only trying to edit a photo we learn a lot about Photography (not only Photo Editing) and that will improve the Photographer even more than the particular Photo he/she is editing.
It is not necessary to master a photo editing tool to benefit from that.
It's just about learning things that will feedback on our technique and sensibility when we take pictures.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2003 05:02:09 AM · #52 |
Okay, I probably ought to just stay out of this, but I'll jump in anyway.
I am for opening up the editing restrictions to allow digital photographers to do the same sort of "editing" film photographers do. I want to be able to lighten a small piece of a photo, or darken a small flare, just as a developer would do on film.
I'd also like to be able to remove a cat hair from a background or a power line from a landscape.
Most of the proponents of opening the editing restrictions want to do so for the same reasons I've given. It is only those who are against it who set up the hue and cry about digital art.
Let's face it folks, if the open editing results in the occaisional piece of digital art, the literalist voters on this site will rip it to shreds and it will not win. So what difference does it make?
As for the "I can't afford Photoshop, so I can't edit like everyone else" argument...ridiculous. There are free edititors that do the types of things most of the pro-editing crowd really want. What the free edititors don't seem to do is "create digital art" so that shouldn't be a problem.
The world is NOT an even playing field to begin with, ladies and gentlemen. There is always going to be someone who has more skill, more experience, better equipment. How do *I* even the playing field for myself? I work hard. I listen to the suggestions of those who have more skill and more experience. I learn to work within the limitations of my equipment (both camera AND editing software). In short, I take the time to make my photography better the old fashioned way...I STUDY.
This site frustrates me a lot of the time. You won't see an entry from me in either irony or flight because what I am photographing this week doesn't fall into either challenge. I find that what I do end up submitting here is NOT my best work and part of the reason is that I cannot do to my photos what I normally would as far as fixing minor problems. The other reason is that when I "reach" for a photo...take one only so it fits a challenge, my heart isn't in it and it just isn't as good as the photos I take because I want to.
The editing rules are unlikely to change here at DPC. Our estemed owners have heard this argument over and over and have not, to my knowledge, ever commented to the greater membership on the issue. I would say the resounding silence (except for the occaisional change in editing rules for specific challenges like Future (open editing) and Past (NO editing)) says they don't want to make the change.
Shari
|
|
|
|
09/28/2003 11:11:20 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Jon Lucas:
Originally posted by Jacko:
I didn't even read the thread. Why not? I've read about 20 threads like these in the past 6 months. I've come to the conclustion that we'll never be able to define where we will draw the line. Define "the line" in a way that will be accpetable to most, and I'm in. Discussing this topic to death, count me out. |
That's a great point, Jacko and echoes my feelings too, so here's my suggestion of 'The Line'.
1. No new pixel data to be added:
- no adding of new colours
- only pixel data from the original can be cloned or replicated
- no pure airbrushing (except on masks)
- no cloning to add new structures or key features (but can be used to fix missing elements, etc.)
2. No Photoshop FX filters or third party filtering (such as Kai's Power Tools or Alien Skin)
3. No Layer Styles, such as drop shadow, bevel/emboss, glow, etc.
4. Adjustment layers are acceptable
5. Duplicated layers and layer masks are acceptable (spot selection OK)
6. Layer blending (all modes) is acceptable
7. Image clean-up is permitted using tools such as Neat Image, Pixel Nhance, etc.
8. No displacement maps or structural alteration such as Liquify or Warping
This line prevents digital art from unbalancing the emphasis of creative photography on the site. The integrity of the image is maintained because nothing 'unnatural' to the shot's origin is taking place.
The key is to not introduce any new image information other than the picture's original composition, tones, hues and textures.
I don't see anything here that may not be happening already at times and the results, however altered, will still entirely depend on how good an original shot was in the first instance.
---
Ellamay (and Mag) - thanks, I'm aware of those apps but Neat Image does seem to wipe the floor with them! |
How about a line stated as 'use any tools you like to enhance your photograph, while not creating a composite and remaining true to the spirit of the original image'
Then let the voters decide if something is too manipulated or not...
Picking arbitary tools and filters as being for photography or for digital artwork is a mistake - as any tool can be used to either improve an original photograph or to create something within the computer - in exactly the same way that a real paintbrush can be used to paint a surrealist picture, an impressionistic picture or a extremely faithful realistic picture. The tools aren't the issue here, it is the underlying intent. If we set the boundary at creating a natural appearing photograph, and not one that looks manipulated, all of these entirely pointless and completly arbitary tool selections go away. After all, I can make something that looks nothing like a 'normal' photograph, very easily, well within the current rules. (Look at 'sabbatier star' in my profile for a simple example of a shot that had only one curve applied and no other manipulations) |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 12:43:44 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by shareinnc:
The editing rules are unlikely to change here at DPC. Our estemed owners have heard this argument over and over and have not, to my knowledge, ever commented to the greater membership on the issue.
Shari |
See the poll results in my next post. The issue has been addressed repeatedly, but the rules remain as they are for now. I DON'T think that means they will never change.
Message edited by author 2003-09-28 17:37:28. |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 01:30:42 PM · #55 |
the link goes back to the home page
so it must be dead
|
|
|
|
09/28/2003 01:35:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by soup:
the link goes back to the home page
so it must be dead |
Sorry, must go to a limited-access page.
The poll was taken 6/18 - 7/9/2003. The results:
To try and come to a consensus, select which one best suits your needs for DPChallenge--
Allow more editing techniques to be used in the weekly challenges 146
Run an all-edits challenge every once in awhile to soothe my digital darkroom desires 289
Things are fine now 133
568 users participated. |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 01:37:22 PM · #57 |
i vote for choice #2
i can edit to my hearts content anyway - outside of challenges
soup
Message edited by author 2003-09-28 17:37:41. |
|
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: 04/09/2025 05:29:19 AM EDT.
