I'm certain to be slammed but am moved to at least say it. This LPS is now become more about a creative photoshop "art" contest than a photo contest. I love the originality of ideas and the cool methods you've all executed them...but....it is no longer a photo contest. Layering in several images and combining them isn't really about "getting the shot" but rather "imagine the shot and create it". Sorry, that's art in any rational view of thinking.
Congrats to the winners.
From what I call a "purist" POV I agree with your evaluation,
My take on this whole LPS thing is we were given total creative control over using the tools of a photographer. In todays world of digital, a photographers darkroom is a wonderful program called Photoshop. Why would I not want to use ALL of the tools or "brushes" in my photographers tool box?
I still pressed the shutter and I still captured a photograph(s). Three times but they are still "getting the shot". Whether I use a darkroom to burn and dodge a wood nymph into place or I drag my model through the woods to pose in the wet.
As said this has all been covered before but I felt a need to express my feelings on the matter.
To tell you the truth only 3 of my entries in this contest have been composites anyway. FWIW I have joined PaulThomasMcKee in his quest for a no Photoshop round. No need to use all the tools all the time and still have just as much fun.
From what I call a "purist" POV I agree with your evaluation,
My take on this whole LPS thing is we were given total creative control over using the tools of a photographer. In todays world of digital, a photographers darkroom is a wonderful program called Photoshop. Why would I not want to use ALL of the tools or "brushes" in my photographers tool box?
I still pressed the shutter and I still captured a photograph(s). Three times but they are still "getting the shot". Whether I use a darkroom to burn and dodge a wood nymph into place or I drag my model through the woods to pose in the wet.
As said this has all been covered before but I felt a need to express my feelings on the matter.
To tell you the truth only 3 of my entries in this contest have been composites anyway. FWIW I have joined PaulThomasMcKee in his quest for a no Photoshop round. No need to use all the tools all the time and still have just as much fun.
But...what it boils down to is really an art contest.....Yes, photography is art....but adding eagles, a moon, overlaying several shots into one is not really "getting the shot" is all I want to mention. The idea of shooting a frame, composing, light considerations, etc. for a "photo" contest has moved beyond the scope of realism. Its not that I disagree that we shouldn't use all the tools available for our work, on the contrary. For a "photo" contest though, my personal opinion is that layering several images to achieve a particular objective should be re-considered.
Like I said....I like the thought processes and how the images came to be but in all honesty this is an "art contest". Graphic illistrators may now enter this photo contest without even picking up a camera since they too may use all the tools at their disposal. I think we all understand that there should be some standards for a "photo" contest.
I don't want to beat a dead horse. Everyone will see things differently. It simply needs to be called what it is, that's all.
For the behind the scenes on my entry: 5 of us went to AZ and the first day shot around the Sedona area....oh, beautiful country...wow! This was shot at golden light. I absolutely loved this scene, so......I shot the heck out of it till I got what I wanted...hehe. I was a bit hesitant to wait till we got to AZ to shoot, process and enter before deadline not knowing what to expect. Anyway, this is certainly a favorite of mine and will end up in the portfolio.....another reason to always participate.
From what I call a "purist" POV I agree with your evaluation,
My take on this whole LPS thing is we were given total creative control over using the tools of a photographer. In todays world of digital, a photographers darkroom is a wonderful program called Photoshop. Why would I not want to use ALL of the tools or "brushes" in my photographers tool box?
I still pressed the shutter and I still captured a photograph(s). Three times but they are still "getting the shot". Whether I use a darkroom to burn and dodge a wood nymph into place or I drag my model through the woods to pose in the wet.
As said this has all been covered before but I felt a need to express my feelings on the matter.
To tell you the truth only 3 of my entries in this contest have been composites anyway. FWIW I have joined PaulThomasMcKee in his quest for a no Photoshop round. No need to use all the tools all the time and still have just as much fun.
Well said.
Even if you don't want to count Photoshop work as a photographer's skill, shooting the components of a composite still is. Photorealistic composites do require the photographic understanding to create the illusion of a single click.
Like I said....I like the thought processes and how the images came to be but in all honesty this is an "art contest". Graphic illistrators may now enter this photo contest without even picking up a camera since they too may use all the tools at their disposal. I think we all understand that there should be some standards for a "photo" contest.
The rule that the image must be captured during the contest window is a significant restriction on the techniques of graphic illiustrators. My guess is that an image that was created entirely in a computer would be disqualified. Certainly an image created from a database of bits and pieces should be disqualified unless all those bits and pieces were captured by the artist during the contest window. Even rendered 3D graphics usually use textures which are captured from the real world sometimes with a camera, other times with a scanner. Arguably those textures would all need to be captured during the contest window; no using a concrete texture which came with your modelling software because that is someone else's image.
Well then I say if this is the thought process then Ansel Adams photos are not "getting the shot"...as he did use his "darkroom" to enhance his photos (from my research of his work). He did "composite" work to come up with that one great shot. Whether he did this all the time is unknown to me...but he did use his darkroom, as many other photographers before us have done.
I agree that I like to use PS when it comes to enhancing a photo. The world is about progress and when you think about it...HOW many photographers would there be if it were not for DIGITAL CAMERAS? I know myself in this day and age, unless I was very established in the world of photograhy I could not take on such an expensive "hobby" "passion" etc. I just couldn't afford the film or what it takes to develop film.
So as Digital Cameras are Progress, so has the darkroom progressed...it is now a Digi Darkroom, for some it is PS or any other program that is available to them.
Photo is Art and it depends on what the person perspective of Art is.
I also am doing this LPS16 w/o the use of PS except for the very basic enhancements such as crop, contrast etc.
(Did I ramble again.. )
You're only as good as your next photo....
One day, I started writing, not knowing that I had chained myself for life to a noble but merciless master. When God hands you a gift, he also hands you a whip; and the whip is intended solely for self-flagellation...I'm here alone in my dark madness, all by myself with my deck of cards --- and, of course, the whip God gave me." Truman Capote
Well then I say if this is the thought process then Ansel Adams photos are not "getting the shot"...as he did use his "darkroom" to enhance his photos (from my research of his work). He did "composite" work to come up with that one great shot. Whether he did this all the time is unknown to me...but he did use his darkroom, as many other photographers before us have done.
I'm gonna blog about the "Ansel Adams Excuse" soon, but let me say this: Ansel was a master not only in the darkroom but also of light and composition. To claim that his only skill was in the darkroom is to take the man completely out of context. Ansel knew when to press the shutter release and when to pack up his gear and go home -he did not take snap shots and then fix them later. For Mr. Adams the darkroom was a tool that he used to enhance his images and to bring his creative vision to a print. He NEVER used post processing as a crutch to compensate for poor technique.***
Last, but not least, to claim that a person is a photographer just because they use a camera is the same as calling someone a mechanic just because they are holding a wrench...
***Note: I'm not insinuating anything here -my comments are not directed at you, and I'm not evaluating your skills. I do see a lot of people on the web who couldn't shoot their way out of a wet paper bag and yet they call themselves photographers when their only claim to fame is possessing a cracked version of CS3 and it's to those individuals that I'm speaking to...
I'm gonna blog about the "Ansel Adams Excuse" soon, but let me say this: Ansel was a master not only in the darkroom but also of light and composition. To **claim that his only skill was in the darkroom is to take the man completely out of context. Ansel knew when to press the shutter release and when to pack up his gear and go home -he did not take snap shots and then fix them later. For Mr. Adams the darkroom was a tool that he used to enhance his images and to bring his creative vision to a print. He NEVER used post processing as a crutch to compensate for poor technique.***
Last, but not least, to claim that a person is a photographer just because they use a camera is the same as calling someone a mechanic just because they are holding a wrench...
***Note: I'm not insinuating anything here -my comments are not directed at you, and I'm not evaluating your skills. I do see a lot of people on the web who couldn't shoot their way out of a wet paper bag and yet they call themselves photographers when their only claim to fame is possessing a cracked version of CS3 and it's to those individuals that I'm speaking to...
It was never my intent to say that Ansel used post processing as a crutch, **I never indicated, or for that matter insinuated that his only skill was PPW, my point was that, even though as skilled a photographer as he was, he still utilized Darkroom Pprocedures...so I guess you validated my point or at least understood what I was trying to say, and my next point was about "Progress", and in todays world, we have the capability to make a GOOD photo a FABULOUS PHOTO, but I agree, you must have a GOOD photo to begin with and not just a snapshot, and that "progress" has made it easier for those of us to do what we love to do because of Digital.
In no way do I think that your comments are directed towards me, for in the world of photography, there will be those that like my work, and those that don't...but then again...that is the World of Art, some like Picasso, some like Van Gogh, and then there are those that like Michelangelo. I don't need validation in regards to my skills, for I am and have already been validated in the world of photography, but I never want to stop learning from those whose skills are even better than mine or have a different way of doing things.
I don't own a "cracked" version CS3, but I do own PS...
Peace:D
You're only as good as your next photo....
One day, I started writing, not knowing that I had chained myself for life to a noble but merciless master. When God hands you a gift, he also hands you a whip; and the whip is intended solely for self-flagellation...I'm here alone in my dark madness, all by myself with my deck of cards --- and, of course, the whip God gave me." Truman Capote
I don't own a "cracked" version CS3, but I do own PS...
Peace:D
I do think that Ansel would have used Photoshop since he said that how you get to the final image isn't important -the only thing that matters is the final image. But, IMHO, one should never use post processing to fix errors in technique and that's where the Ansel Adams Excuse falls flat.
I do think that Ansel would have used Photoshop since he said that how you get to the final image isn't important -the only thing that matters is the final image. But, IMHO, one should never use post processing to fix errors in technique and that's where the Ansel Adams Excuse falls flat.
I believe (JMO) Ansel would be the shining example of the following quote:
"Know the rules (all encompassing) of Photography that so you can break them artistically" :ivar
Have a Great one, and Good Luck on LPS16, look forward to viewing your entry.
Donna
PS: I never thought your entry was computer generated as I have also done the CD "water" drop shot (but I used glycerin instead of oil)...
You're only as good as your next photo....
One day, I started writing, not knowing that I had chained myself for life to a noble but merciless master. When God hands you a gift, he also hands you a whip; and the whip is intended solely for self-flagellation...I'm here alone in my dark madness, all by myself with my deck of cards --- and, of course, the whip God gave me." Truman Capote
Ansel Adams Zone System (which is often misrepresented today) was really a way of shooting with an awareness of what he was going to do in the darkroom. In particular, he would use detailed metering not just to determine the combination of exposure and developing time that would create the best rendering of the secene. I am sure the he also had at lest a rough idea of which portions of the print were going to be dogdged and burned before he released the shutter. The picture I have of the man is that while he was setting up the shot he could view in his mind's eye every step he was going to take with the plate from camera to print.
I think one can take a similar approach to digital photography. Rather than shooting first and fixing later, one shoots with an awareness of what will be done in the digital darkroom. Exposure blending is a simple example of this. When shooting landscapes, I often take 3 exposures, one is a scene average, one is for the sky and one is for the shadows. The process is really very similar to the zone system but rather than changing developing time, dodging and burning, I layer and mask in Photoshop.
But whatever you shoot, if you keep one eye on the post process when you have the camera in hand, you become something different from a graphic artist. Photoshop becomes an extension of the camera rather than a tool for combining stock images or fixing mistakes.
But whatever you shoot, if you keep one eye on the post process when you have the camera in hand, you become something different from a graphic artist. Photoshop becomes an extension of the camera rather than a tool for combining stock images or fixing mistakes.
Unfortunately there are too many people doing the later and convincing themselves that they are photographers...
Not to compare myself with Ansel (I'm no where near what his skill level was) but I often take an image knowing what I'm going to do to it later in post (frame for a portrait even though I'm holding the camera horizontally, underexpose to boost saturation and then bring the exposure up in post, etc.).
You're right about Adams -he could see the final image in his head before he looked through the view finder...
Unfortunately there are too many people doing the later and convincing themselves that they are photographers....
I agree that the competition should be a photo competition, not a graphic arts competition, but I must admit that I struggle to come to the same conclusion.
I just went back through the winners galleries (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/Dgrin%20Galleries/297262) and after looking through all the images, I could only find a handfull where the photoshop work is obvious and part of the composition.
They are:
LPS 4: Off With Their Heads
LPS 6: Angles of An Organge
LPS10: Reaching Out From Deep Within
LPS10: Hidden Legacy of War
LPS11: Metal Strategy
LPS11: Bionic
LPS11: The Measure of a Man
LPS12: All That Glitters
SF2: Pride of Workmanship
SF3: To Air is Human
SF3: Resplendent
SF3: A Gentleman's Adventure
SF3: Time Pilot (which looks like PS, but in fact, very little involved).
So out of 180 images, that's only 13 or 7%.
That doesn't include B&W conversions (although they are clearly PS'd) or HDR (of which I know there are a couple).
Even of the one's listed, some of them look fairly natural and I know they were PS'd because the photographers have been kind enough to post in the behind the scenes threads.
Even if you consider the first half of the competition against the second half (to this point), in the qualifying rounds, it breaks down to 2 of 75 (3%) v. 6 of 75 (8%), which doesn't strike me as a increase enough to conclude that the competition is a graphic arts comp and not a photo comp, or that PS is invading beyond an acceptable level.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there are more that others can see, but I just don't see justification to say that there are too many people using PS beyond normal tonal adjustment, cleanup and sharpening.
If you look at the current round, there are no entries so far that look like PS was the major part of the workflow.
Is that a fair summary, or have I missed something that others are seeing?
Regards,
Peter
It's not my camera's fault, I'm just visually illiterate
Peter
Your asessment is accurate except where the semi final numbers come to play. Looking at this last semi-final (bear with me as I'm not a numbers guy): 34 entries in all: 10 chosen: 5 of those clearly beyond the scope of "getting the shot". That would be 50%.
I've never been a proponent of "no photoshop"...that's never been my point (to which it seems everybody wants to go to that argument). It would be nice if it were a "photo" contest...that's all...not an "art" contest. Sorry, guy's floating with ballons is not a photograph (using this as an example, not saying it isn't well done). Just calling a spade a spade......nothing more nothing less.
Your asessment is accurate except where the semi final numbers come to play. Looking at this last semi-final (bear with me as I'm not a numbers guy): 34 entries in all: 10 chosen: 5 of those clearly beyond the scope of "getting the shot". That would be 50%.
I've never been a proponent of "no photoshop"...that's never been my point (to which it seems everybody wants to go to that argument). It would be nice if it were a "photo" contest...that's all...not an "art" contest. Sorry, guy's floating with ballons is not a photograph (using this as an example, not saying it isn't well done). Just calling a spade a spade......nothing more nothing less.
So then it isn't really about the competition as such, but only 1 semi-final in which the set of judges chose images that had a significant amount of PS work.
I can maybe see 4 significantly PS'd images in the last SF, throwing my own in there where I removed one person and added some blur in the foreground in post to add focus to the connection between the moving subject (captured that way in camera) and the end of the tunnel.
But, until that increase plays out in further rounds, then perhaps its the exception for the competition rather than the norm.
Regards,
Peter
It's not my camera's fault, I'm just visually illiterate
I just went back through the winners galleries (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/Dgrin%20Galleries/297262) and after looking through all the images, I could only find a handfull where the photoshop work is obvious and part of the composition.
So out of 180 images, that's only 13 or 7%.
I gotta chime in...
The top 3 vote getters on the last SF were of the "graphic artist" nature (Half of the total votes [47%] went to the top 3). So one of the points is not the amount of entries that are being submitted that would be considered graphic art, but its the amount of votes they are getting from the judges. The more the graphic art images are rewarded with votes the more of those types of images there will be later on. They're money. We are only 3/4 of the way through the first LPS (assuming this contest will be a yearly thing). The contest is young in the sense of how many of those images we see. But when people realize that their chances of winning all those prizes drastically improve if they enter a composite, then we'll see a lot more of them.
I gotta chime in...
The top 3 vote getters on the last SF were of the "graphic artist" nature (Half of the total votes [47%] went to the top 3)
Have you looked at the first page of this thread and seen how cmurph made the photo?
If a small amount of cloning to remove a pole is considered excessive then how was she supposed to get that shot? She could have easily taken multiple shots and composited them, but she didn't. It's almost straight out of the camera.
To me, a small amount of cloning is bad, when there was very little else involved. So in my opinion, the winner of the SF was a photo, not a graphic art image.
So one of the points is not the amount of entries that are being submitted that would be considered graphic art, but its the amount of votes they are getting from the judges.
That's why I went back through all the winning images so far and I can't see that the photos support me making the same conclusion. Overwhelmingly it seems to me that there is generally, only a little PS going on. Some images stand-out for their level of PS, but they are in the minority at the moment.
The more the graphic art images are rewarded with votes the more of those types of images there will be later on.
Absolutely, and that's where the public vote comes in to a degree, especially in the final shoot-out where the entire judging is by public vote. So if a certain type of image isn't wanted, then that will hopefully be shown by a low vote count.
Regards,
Peter
It's not my camera's fault, I'm just visually illiterate
Have you looked at the first page of this thread and seen how cmurph made the photo?
....
Absolutely, and that's where the public vote comes in to a degree, especially in the final shoot-out where the entire judging is by public vote. So if a certain type of image isn't wanted, then that will hopefully be shown by a low vote count.
Sorry, let me clarify... the top 3 of the judge's votes were composites... sorry for the confusion. Judges seem to like the composites, thats all I'm saying. And if you want at least a chance at being on the list to be voted by the popular vote, you have to get by the judges first in the qualifying rounds and then again for the top 10 in the SF's. Hope that clarifies.
I did see how cmurph made the photo and was glad cmurph was able to make a photo look like a composite, even though it's a single image. that's harder to do, in my mind, than a real composite ('real composite'..hmmmm).
Have you looked at the first page of this thread and seen how cmurph made the photo?
I think he meant these three in relation to the judges awarding them. I don't think he meant cmurphs.
Here are the results from the judges voting: Position - Points - post# - Photographer - Title
1 - 36 - 19 - shatch - To "Air" is Human
2 - 21 - 20 - sherstone - resplendent
3 - 18 - 25 - JFreeman - A Gentleman's Adventure
I think he meant these three in relation to the judges awarding them. I don't think he meant cmurphs.
Here are the results from the judges voting: Position - Points - post# - Photographer - Title
1 - 36 - 19 - shatch - To "Air" is Human
2 - 21 - 20 - sherstone - resplendent
3 - 18 - 25 - JFreeman - A Gentleman's Adventure
OK, yep my bad in misinterpreting what was meant by the top vote getters.
And I think it's a fair assessment for this SF, but not necessarily the competition overall. To me, a lot of the discussion has made implications about the competition in general, when really it's this last SF where the issue seems to be.
I also think it's fine to comment on that aspect of this last SF and am happy to acknowledge that the set of judges chose a number of images where PS work was fairly extensive.
It's not necessarily representative of the entire competition though and the strength of the public vote showed that the winning image for the semi was almost completely cooked in camera.
Regards,
Peter
It's not my camera's fault, I'm just visually illiterate
I did see how cmurph made the photo and was glad cmurph was able to make a photo look like a composite, even though it's a single image. that's harder to do, in my mind, than a real composite ('real composite'..hmmmm).
Actually, the fact that most composites look like composites indicates to me that while they are easy to do, they are hard to do well. In cmurph's shot, the reflection of the clock shows in the water and looks real enough to me that I concluded it must have been there at the time. If she had added that reflection in post, I would have been very impressed because most digitally created reflections look fake. So I disagree with you. If I was asked to recreate that image by the easiest possible way, I would have done it the way she did, because building an convincing composite of that scene is well beyond my skill set in Photoshop.
Well Swartzy, you certainly received a smoother ride than I did when I raised the same issue some months back, you're not alone, other people such as myself understand your point of view.
Once something is added to an image that was not there when the shutter was released it changes from being a photograph to something else.
I think maybe the point is LPS is not a just a photographic contest, if it were many of the images entered over the months would be disqualified.
How about this... just change the name of the contest away from the keyword "photographer" to end this debate, since the rules pretty much say that you at least have to start with taking a picture or two and after that anything goes.
Last Image Standing or Last Artist Using a Camera Standing (LAUCS) or Last Image That Actually Started as a Photograph(s) Standing (LITASPS)
How about this... just change the name of the contest away from the keyword "photographer" to end this debate, since the rules pretty much say that you at least have to start with taking a picture or two and after that anything goes.
Last Image Standing or Last Artist Using a Camera Standing (LAUCS) or Last Image That Actually Started as a Photograph(s) Standing (LITASPS)
There, debate over.
Because you are not the sole owner of the definition of the word "photographer." The dictionary at my desk doesn't have a unique definition for the word photographer, but it does define photography like so:
"The art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface by the action of light or other radiant energy."
If you are willing to stretch the definition of sensitized surface to include digital sensors (which I think is fair) then by the rules of LPS, every entrant must participate in photography, so it seems fair to me to call them phogographers regardless of what name you want to put on the final submission. I really don't see how someone stops being a photographer the moment they launch Photoshop. I think what you are looking for is photojournalisim competition which is a much more restrictive art form. If this competition was titled LPJS, I'd be right there with you.
Now if you step beyond that and start asking what kinds of images demonstrate skill as a photographer, you head into the world of the subjective and I do think Shay is wise to leave that decision up to the judges. If I was to ask for one change to this contest (and personally I don't think it is my place to ask for it), it would be that the judges be given a bit more guidance about how to make their decisions. That said, Shay is right than when you shoot for a magazine you aren't told how your images are going to be judged. Either the editor likes them or she doesn't.
You know, I've been over the whole argument in my mind several times... PS or no PS for the contest? It's Last Photographer Standing and if you're creating each photo in the composite during the time frame AND it's within the rules, who am I to complain?
But what I think WOULD be cool, though, is for the next LPS - next year - to have TWO versions. One in which anything goes PS-wise as long as it's created with photos within the time frame. And another that is a single photo (no composites) with minimal or no PSing done. (Maybe even only what you could do with Lightroom, for example, but that still leaves things open.)
Anyway, just a thought.
I think the photos entered that made it to the Finals are all wonderful photos and wonderful works of art! I think everyone did a phenomenal job in how they chose to compete!
But what I think WOULD be cool, though, is for the next LPS - next year - to have TWO versions. One in which anything goes PS-wise as long as it's created with photos within the time fram. And another that is a single photo (no composites) with minimal or no PSing done. (Maybe even only what you could do with Lightroom, for example, but that still leaves things open.)
The "just what you can do in Lightroom" competition would awesome. Probably I think so because that represents 99% of how I shoot when I shoot for myself. The problem is that not everyone has Lighroom so it doesn't really seem appropriate here. Maybe Adobe will sponsor such a thing. The JPEG right out of camera competition would also be fun.
The "just what you can do in Lightroom" competition would awesome. Probably I think so because that represents 99% of how I shoot when I shoot for myself. The problem is that not everyone has Lighroom so it doesn't really seem appropriate here. Maybe Adobe will sponsor such a thing. The JPEG right out of camera competition would also be fun.
Maybe I should rephrase! ! What I probably shoudl have said is the equivalent of what you can do in LR.... I know some people do use PS, but really don't use it to "PS" things, they just do color correction, etc.... I think it's more about the spirit of it rather than the actual program you're using.
But yeah, you're right... LR Rocks!! I, too, use it for 99% of what I do. Probably just as much out of laziness than anything! !
Comments
From what I call a "purist" POV I agree with your evaluation,
My take on this whole LPS thing is we were given total creative control over using the tools of a photographer. In todays world of digital, a photographers darkroom is a wonderful program called Photoshop. Why would I not want to use ALL of the tools or "brushes" in my photographers tool box?
I still pressed the shutter and I still captured a photograph(s). Three times but they are still "getting the shot". Whether I use a darkroom to burn and dodge a wood nymph into place or I drag my model through the woods to pose in the wet.
As said this has all been covered before but I felt a need to express my feelings on the matter.
To tell you the truth only 3 of my entries in this contest have been composites anyway. FWIW I have joined PaulThomasMcKee in his quest for a no Photoshop round. No need to use all the tools all the time and still have just as much fun.
But...what it boils down to is really an art contest.....Yes, photography is art....but adding eagles, a moon, overlaying several shots into one is not really "getting the shot" is all I want to mention. The idea of shooting a frame, composing, light considerations, etc. for a "photo" contest has moved beyond the scope of realism. Its not that I disagree that we shouldn't use all the tools available for our work, on the contrary. For a "photo" contest though, my personal opinion is that layering several images to achieve a particular objective should be re-considered.
Like I said....I like the thought processes and how the images came to be but in all honesty this is an "art contest". Graphic illistrators may now enter this photo contest without even picking up a camera since they too may use all the tools at their disposal. I think we all understand that there should be some standards for a "photo" contest.
I don't want to beat a dead horse. Everyone will see things differently. It simply needs to be called what it is, that's all.
For the behind the scenes on my entry: 5 of us went to AZ and the first day shot around the Sedona area....oh, beautiful country...wow! This was shot at golden light. I absolutely loved this scene, so......I shot the heck out of it till I got what I wanted...hehe. I was a bit hesitant to wait till we got to AZ to shoot, process and enter before deadline not knowing what to expect. Anyway, this is certainly a favorite of mine and will end up in the portfolio.....another reason to always participate.
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
Well said.
Even if you don't want to count Photoshop work as a photographer's skill, shooting the components of a composite still is. Photorealistic composites do require the photographic understanding to create the illusion of a single click.
The rule that the image must be captured during the contest window is a significant restriction on the techniques of graphic illiustrators. My guess is that an image that was created entirely in a computer would be disqualified. Certainly an image created from a database of bits and pieces should be disqualified unless all those bits and pieces were captured by the artist during the contest window. Even rendered 3D graphics usually use textures which are captured from the real world sometimes with a camera, other times with a scanner. Arguably those textures would all need to be captured during the contest window; no using a concrete texture which came with your modelling software because that is someone else's image.
I agree that I like to use PS when it comes to enhancing a photo. The world is about progress and when you think about it...HOW many photographers would there be if it were not for DIGITAL CAMERAS? I know myself in this day and age, unless I was very established in the world of photograhy I could not take on such an expensive "hobby" "passion" etc. I just couldn't afford the film or what it takes to develop film.
So as Digital Cameras are Progress, so has the darkroom progressed...it is now a Digi Darkroom, for some it is PS or any other program that is available to them.
Photo is Art and it depends on what the person perspective of Art is.
I also am doing this LPS16 w/o the use of PS except for the very basic enhancements such as crop, contrast etc.
(Did I ramble again..
I'm gonna blog about the "Ansel Adams Excuse" soon, but let me say this: Ansel was a master not only in the darkroom but also of light and composition. To claim that his only skill was in the darkroom is to take the man completely out of context. Ansel knew when to press the shutter release and when to pack up his gear and go home -he did not take snap shots and then fix them later. For Mr. Adams the darkroom was a tool that he used to enhance his images and to bring his creative vision to a print. He NEVER used post processing as a crutch to compensate for poor technique.***
Last, but not least, to claim that a person is a photographer just because they use a camera is the same as calling someone a mechanic just because they are holding a wrench...
***Note: I'm not insinuating anything here -my comments are not directed at you, and I'm not evaluating your skills. I do see a lot of people on the web who couldn't shoot their way out of a wet paper bag and yet they call themselves photographers when their only claim to fame is possessing a cracked version of CS3 and it's to those individuals that I'm speaking to...
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
It was never my intent to say that Ansel used post processing as a crutch, **I never indicated, or for that matter insinuated that his only skill was PPW, my point was that, even though as skilled a photographer as he was, he still utilized Darkroom Pprocedures...so I guess you validated my point or at least understood what I was trying to say, and my next point was about "Progress", and in todays world, we have the capability to make a GOOD photo a FABULOUS PHOTO, but I agree, you must have a GOOD photo to begin with and not just a snapshot, and that "progress" has made it easier for those of us to do what we love to do because of Digital.
In no way do I think that your comments are directed towards me, for in the world of photography, there will be those that like my work, and those that don't...but then again...that is the World of Art, some like Picasso, some like Van Gogh, and then there are those that like Michelangelo. I don't need validation in regards to my skills, for I am and have already been validated in the world of photography, but I never want to stop learning from those whose skills are even better than mine or have a different way of doing things.
Peace:D
I do think that Ansel would have used Photoshop since he said that how you get to the final image isn't important -the only thing that matters is the final image. But, IMHO, one should never use post processing to fix errors in technique and that's where the Ansel Adams Excuse falls flat.
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
I believe (JMO) Ansel would be the shining example of the following quote:
"Know the rules (all encompassing) of Photography that so you can break them artistically" :ivar
Have a Great one, and Good Luck on LPS16, look forward to viewing your entry.
Donna
PS: I never thought your entry was computer generated as I have also done the CD "water" drop shot (but I used glycerin instead of oil)...
I think one can take a similar approach to digital photography. Rather than shooting first and fixing later, one shoots with an awareness of what will be done in the digital darkroom. Exposure blending is a simple example of this. When shooting landscapes, I often take 3 exposures, one is a scene average, one is for the sky and one is for the shadows. The process is really very similar to the zone system but rather than changing developing time, dodging and burning, I layer and mask in Photoshop.
But whatever you shoot, if you keep one eye on the post process when you have the camera in hand, you become something different from a graphic artist. Photoshop becomes an extension of the camera rather than a tool for combining stock images or fixing mistakes.
Very true...
I'm going to have to try that and mineral oil...
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
Unfortunately there are too many people doing the later and convincing themselves that they are photographers...
Not to compare myself with Ansel (I'm no where near what his skill level was) but I often take an image knowing what I'm going to do to it later in post (frame for a portrait even though I'm holding the camera horizontally, underexpose to boost saturation and then bring the exposure up in post, etc.).
You're right about Adams -he could see the final image in his head before he looked through the view finder...
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
I agree that the competition should be a photo competition, not a graphic arts competition, but I must admit that I struggle to come to the same conclusion.
I just went back through the winners galleries (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/Dgrin%20Galleries/297262) and after looking through all the images, I could only find a handfull where the photoshop work is obvious and part of the composition.
They are:
LPS 4: Off With Their Heads
LPS 6: Angles of An Organge
LPS10: Reaching Out From Deep Within
LPS10: Hidden Legacy of War
LPS11: Metal Strategy
LPS11: Bionic
LPS11: The Measure of a Man
LPS12: All That Glitters
SF2: Pride of Workmanship
SF3: To Air is Human
SF3: Resplendent
SF3: A Gentleman's Adventure
SF3: Time Pilot (which looks like PS, but in fact, very little involved).
So out of 180 images, that's only 13 or 7%.
That doesn't include B&W conversions (although they are clearly PS'd) or HDR (of which I know there are a couple).
Even of the one's listed, some of them look fairly natural and I know they were PS'd because the photographers have been kind enough to post in the behind the scenes threads.
Even if you consider the first half of the competition against the second half (to this point), in the qualifying rounds, it breaks down to 2 of 75 (3%) v. 6 of 75 (8%), which doesn't strike me as a increase enough to conclude that the competition is a graphic arts comp and not a photo comp, or that PS is invading beyond an acceptable level.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there are more that others can see, but I just don't see justification to say that there are too many people using PS beyond normal tonal adjustment, cleanup and sharpening.
If you look at the current round, there are no entries so far that look like PS was the major part of the workflow.
Is that a fair summary, or have I missed something that others are seeing?
Regards,
Peter
Your asessment is accurate except where the semi final numbers come to play. Looking at this last semi-final (bear with me as I'm not a numbers guy): 34 entries in all: 10 chosen: 5 of those clearly beyond the scope of "getting the shot". That would be 50%.
I've never been a proponent of "no photoshop"...that's never been my point (to which it seems everybody wants to go to that argument). It would be nice if it were a "photo" contest...that's all...not an "art" contest. Sorry, guy's floating with ballons is not a photograph (using this as an example, not saying it isn't well done). Just calling a spade a spade......nothing more nothing less.
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
So then it isn't really about the competition as such, but only 1 semi-final in which the set of judges chose images that had a significant amount of PS work.
I can maybe see 4 significantly PS'd images in the last SF, throwing my own in there where I removed one person and added some blur in the foreground in post to add focus to the connection between the moving subject (captured that way in camera) and the end of the tunnel.
But, until that increase plays out in further rounds, then perhaps its the exception for the competition rather than the norm.
Regards,
Peter
...on the web in general, not necessarily here...
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
That, I totally agree with.
Regards,
Peter
I gotta chime in...
The top 3 vote getters on the last SF were of the "graphic artist" nature (Half of the total votes [47%] went to the top 3). So one of the points is not the amount of entries that are being submitted that would be considered graphic art, but its the amount of votes they are getting from the judges. The more the graphic art images are rewarded with votes the more of those types of images there will be later on. They're money. We are only 3/4 of the way through the first LPS (assuming this contest will be a yearly thing). The contest is young in the sense of how many of those images we see. But when people realize that their chances of winning all those prizes drastically improve if they enter a composite, then we'll see a lot more of them.
I think the level of difficulty with the themes plays a part in how many graphic art images we see.
Have you looked at the first page of this thread and seen how cmurph made the photo?
If a small amount of cloning to remove a pole is considered excessive then how was she supposed to get that shot? She could have easily taken multiple shots and composited them, but she didn't. It's almost straight out of the camera.
To me, a small amount of cloning is bad, when there was very little else involved. So in my opinion, the winner of the SF was a photo, not a graphic art image.
That's why I went back through all the winning images so far and I can't see that the photos support me making the same conclusion. Overwhelmingly it seems to me that there is generally, only a little PS going on. Some images stand-out for their level of PS, but they are in the minority at the moment.
Absolutely, and that's where the public vote comes in to a degree, especially in the final shoot-out where the entire judging is by public vote. So if a certain type of image isn't wanted, then that will hopefully be shown by a low vote count.
Regards,
Peter
Sorry, let me clarify... the top 3 of the judge's votes were composites... sorry for the confusion. Judges seem to like the composites, thats all I'm saying. And if you want at least a chance at being on the list to be voted by the popular vote, you have to get by the judges first in the qualifying rounds and then again for the top 10 in the SF's. Hope that clarifies.
I did see how cmurph made the photo and was glad cmurph was able to make a photo look like a composite, even though it's a single image. that's harder to do, in my mind, than a real composite ('real composite'..hmmmm).
I think he meant these three in relation to the judges awarding them. I don't think he meant cmurphs.
Here are the results from the judges voting:
Position - Points - post# - Photographer - Title
1 - 36 - 19 - shatch - To "Air" is Human
2 - 21 - 20 - sherstone - resplendent
3 - 18 - 25 - JFreeman - A Gentleman's Adventure
OK, yep my bad in misinterpreting what was meant by the top vote getters.
And I think it's a fair assessment for this SF, but not necessarily the competition overall. To me, a lot of the discussion has made implications about the competition in general, when really it's this last SF where the issue seems to be.
I also think it's fine to comment on that aspect of this last SF and am happy to acknowledge that the set of judges chose a number of images where PS work was fairly extensive.
It's not necessarily representative of the entire competition though and the strength of the public vote showed that the winning image for the semi was almost completely cooked in camera.
Regards,
Peter
Actually, the fact that most composites look like composites indicates to me that while they are easy to do, they are hard to do well. In cmurph's shot, the reflection of the clock shows in the water and looks real enough to me that I concluded it must have been there at the time. If she had added that reflection in post, I would have been very impressed because most digitally created reflections look fake. So I disagree with you. If I was asked to recreate that image by the easiest possible way, I would have done it the way she did, because building an convincing composite of that scene is well beyond my skill set in Photoshop.
Once something is added to an image that was not there when the shutter was released it changes from being a photograph to something else.
I think maybe the point is LPS is not a just a photographic contest, if it were many of the images entered over the months would be disqualified.
Charlie
You realize that your own entry for SF3 violiated this rule? Merge to HDR is a compositing technique.
Last Image Standing or
Last Artist Using a Camera Standing (LAUCS) or
Last Image That Actually Started as a Photograph(s) Standing (LITASPS)
There, debate over.
Because you are not the sole owner of the definition of the word "photographer." The dictionary at my desk doesn't have a unique definition for the word photographer, but it does define photography like so:
"The art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface by the action of light or other radiant energy."
If you are willing to stretch the definition of sensitized surface to include digital sensors (which I think is fair) then by the rules of LPS, every entrant must participate in photography, so it seems fair to me to call them phogographers regardless of what name you want to put on the final submission. I really don't see how someone stops being a photographer the moment they launch Photoshop. I think what you are looking for is photojournalisim competition which is a much more restrictive art form. If this competition was titled LPJS, I'd be right there with you.
Now if you step beyond that and start asking what kinds of images demonstrate skill as a photographer, you head into the world of the subjective and I do think Shay is wise to leave that decision up to the judges. If I was to ask for one change to this contest (and personally I don't think it is my place to ask for it), it would be that the judges be given a bit more guidance about how to make their decisions. That said, Shay is right than when you shoot for a magazine you aren't told how your images are going to be judged. Either the editor likes them or she doesn't.
But what I think WOULD be cool, though, is for the next LPS - next year - to have TWO versions. One in which anything goes PS-wise as long as it's created with photos within the time frame. And another that is a single photo (no composites) with minimal or no PSing done. (Maybe even only what you could do with Lightroom, for example, but that still leaves things open.)
Anyway, just a thought.
I think the photos entered that made it to the Finals are all wonderful photos and wonderful works of art! I think everyone did a phenomenal job in how they chose to compete!
www.tippiepics.com
The "just what you can do in Lightroom" competition would awesome. Probably I think so because that represents 99% of how I shoot when I shoot for myself. The problem is that not everyone has Lighroom so it doesn't really seem appropriate here. Maybe Adobe will sponsor such a thing. The JPEG right out of camera competition would also be fun.
Maybe I should rephrase!
But yeah, you're right... LR Rocks!! I, too, use it for 99% of what I do. Probably just as much out of laziness than anything!
www.tippiepics.com