If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Exactly how much photoshopping are you allowed to do in a photography contest before the judges disqualify you for 'too much' photoshopping?   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 162
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

24114 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2012 at 2:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-05 05:39:24 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: AverageAmericanGuy:
Yes, and in a photography contest, I think the use of photograph manipulation is out of place.

Photography refers to both the actions of making an image and the "printing" it for display.

Printing used to be just that. Going into a darkroom and using various tools and techniques to create the finished print. Great photographers like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and many others took as much pride in their darkroom skills as they did their ability to capture images. The digital darkroom is just a much a part of the creative process as the physical darkroom was.

It's ridiculous to think that for photo contests, people should just print the straight image from the camera. Most of the time an image doesn't actually reflect the scene that was shot. Contrast issues, colors look different, etc. It's prefectly acceptable for someone to work with an image so that it looks like what scene looked like.



It doesn't even need to be what the scene looked like, but rather how the scene felt to the artist. Ansel Adams said something to that effect.

It is pointless to debate whether it looks 'real' or not, because with photography there are already so many inherent interpretations that take place before the image is even seen.

1. The choice of lens - there's nothing natural about wide angles or telephotos.
2. The look of the film - different films have very different responses to color. See: Velvia vs. Provia.
3. The digital equivalent to #2 is that every camera records color different as determined by an engineer in Japan, and then the white balance setting on the camera or raw software afterward.
4. Raw digital data is recorded in a linear fashion, but our eyes do not perceive light linearly. Therefore the data must be fit to a curve that an engineer developed or it will look very flat. Different manufacturers of cameras use different curves to give their camera models a unique flavor.

Personally, I don't care for how the engineers look at the world. I like to provide my own interpretation. The tools I use to develop digital images allow me to do this.
 
Sio
2012-11-05 08:35:26 PM
Lots of great comments in here from some of you farkers!

It took me a while to feel ok even doing a basic adjustment in my photos. Ironically it was my photographer father who told me that it was perfectly fine, and explained that it was no different than what he did in the darkroom. After that I felt better about it, and my pictures looked even better for it.

As my dad is always telling me, it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's the person who takes it. He particularly likes to tell me that when I'm drooling over his Mark III...
 
2012-11-05 08:38:32 PM

pkellmey: manimal2878: pkellmey: Any photo manipulation is too much 'shopping. Force straight RAW submissions and the problem goes away.

This. Or have an explicit list of what is allowed to be done to an image like exposure or cropping, but require that a RAW image is always provided for comparison.

Good suggestion. I would even give a separate award for best post-production work so people recognize the difference between the art of photography and the art of post-production. They are both art, but should not be considered the same category.


Most photo contests should require people to also submit the originals. For one, it would allow the audience to see just how much an average shot could be improved in the absence of perfect dramatic lighting and such, with the judicious application of processing skills. A post-processing contest like that might even require intermediate shots and a basic description of the manipulations, and have at least one award on the merits of the tutorials.

Admiring art is fine, but inspiring and teaching budding photographers is a very worthwhile talent.
 
2012-11-05 08:59:50 PM

Sio: As my dad is always telling me, it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's the person who takes it. He particularly likes to tell me that when I'm drooling over his Mark III...


This is definitely not true for night or high-contrast shots. Even with manual control, a lousy camera will either give you total darkness, a sea of grain, or a motion blur, if it even focuses at all. (So will lousy film, so it's not exactly a new problem.) It can be overcome, but results always have that quality that makes you feel like you could have done better.
 
2012-11-05 09:11:43 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-05 10:02:55 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-06 12:33:14 AM

Haliburton Cummings: The Byrne photo is just better...


If you photoshop it, it's no longer a "photo", it's "digital art".

This is a photography contest, not a digital art contest.
 
2012-11-06 12:51:06 AM

if_i_really_have_to: Haliburton Cummings: The Byrne photo is just better...

If you photoshop it, it's no longer a "photo", it's "digital art".

This is a photography contest, not a digital art contest.


What is it if you modify it in the darkroom?
 
Sio
2012-11-06 01:53:46 AM

foxyshadis: Sio: As my dad is always telling me, it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's the person who takes it. He particularly likes to tell me that when I'm drooling over his Mark III...

This is definitely not true for night or high-contrast shots. Even with manual control, a lousy camera will either give you total darkness, a sea of grain, or a motion blur, if it even focuses at all. (So will lousy film, so it's not exactly a new problem.) It can be overcome, but results always have that quality that makes you feel like you could have done better.


Well yeah, I mean if you have an old as dirt camera that severely limits your controls over shutter speed and aperture and take a photo in the same spot at the same time as a much more adept camera, even if it's slightly older as well, the differences will be pronounced. I see that when I'm taking test shots of something using two different cameras, especially when I get them into editing software. I'm only just scratching the surface in learning the hobby, so I take a lot of test shots comparing settings with my various cameras...

However, you can hand fifteen different people the exact same camera with the exact same settings and send them all to take shots of the exact same thing, you will get shots that look like a three year old took them, and you will get shots you want to hang on your wall. And of course, everything in between. Sometimes the three year old took the shot you want to hang on your wall... but that's another thread...
 
2012-11-07 12:23:47 AM

profplump: If you want to have a "waiting for good lighting conditions contest" go ahead. I'm sure there are some people who love the idea. But you don't get to redefine "photography".


Part of landscape photography IS waiting for good lighting or weather conditions. Part of photojournalism is being in the right place at the right time.

But it's only one part. Post-processing of both the negative (or the raw file) and the print are essential portions of the creative process. Darkroom work (whether chemical or digital) is what separates the good photographer from the average photographer.
 
2012-11-07 02:51:59 AM

farker99: I used to be a 'wet' photographer. Icky liquids and getting the timing right was a pita.

Now I'm a digital photographer. I live by the following: If I could do it wet, then it is OK to do in PS. 1 Negative, 1 Print. Ansel did this, and his saying was "The negative is the score, the print is the performance". I've seen the original negative displayed with 8 different prints next to it. Each print was cropped, dodged, lightened or otherwise different from the others. No 2 were the same.

What was done with this photo to modify it went beyond simple digital darkroom manipulation and into the realm of digital art. That wasn't the contest and from what I read about it the DQ was justified.


add to this the fact that x number of people could go to the same site and shoot the same subject and you'ld have x number of entirely different photographs.

but, yeah, essentially THIS
 
2012-11-07 03:06:31 AM

Worldwalker: (even "how long do I develop this?)


hell. how long do i expose this?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 12 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report