All I've got to say

Swartzy · February 1, 2008

Is that viewing the entries so far...well, I'm blown away. There have been a few...and I mean a few that really lit me up in past challenges but honestly, the current entries for this semi final are outstanding. My congratulations to all who've entered thus far....wow.

I'll leave my unofficial faves for the bitter end as this is a public vote....I'm in awe.

imax · February 1, 2008

Wow, and here I was thinking the exact opposite! Just goes to show you

Different Strokes For Different Folks!

Joe

Swartzy · February 2, 2008

Yea...

imax wrote:

Wow, and here I was thinking the exact opposite! Just goes to show you

Different Strokes For Different Folks!

Joe

Funny how that works Joe....We've now entered the Zone of composite imagination.....An art contest.....the "Last Photoshopper Standing".

pyroPrints.com · February 2, 2008

Swartzy wrote:

Funny how that works Joe....We've now entered the Zone of composite imagination.....An art contest.....the "Last Photoshopper Standing".

I think this whole "Photoshop Contest" business is overstates, out of SF that qualified only 4 of 30 (13%) are straight up composites. Just to put a perspective on this thing =c)

DrDavid · February 2, 2008

pyroPrints.com wrote:

I think this whole "Photoshop Contest" business is overstates, out of SF that qualified only 4 of 30 (13%) are straight up composites. Just to put a perspective on this thing =c)

My own thought is that I use Photoshop to make the photo more striking and/or fix levels, etc.. My photos really have very little editing done to change things around.. I use old-school flashlights, strobes, flash, dark rooms, long exposures, wide apertures, etc.. to achieve my look.

Of course, I admire all the photos I've seen so far--so many are *excellent* photos, and *excellent* photoshop images, but, I think the rules state it clearly... It's a photo contest, not a photoshop contest.

Now, having said all that, my entry wiped away the models pores, veins in her eyes, enhanced her eyes and got rid of some stray hair.. I guess the issue really boils down to "How much photoshop makes a photo into a graphic"? Where does that division between reality and a "painting" (for lack of a better word) start and end.

David

Nikolai · February 2, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

...I think the rules state it clearly... It's a photo contest, not a photoshop contest...

With all due respect, the rules say exactly the opposite, i.e. there is no mentioning of any limitation to the amount or the nature of post processing.

MarkTodd · February 2, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

With all due respect, the rules say exactly the opposite, i.e. there is no mentioning of any limitation to the amount or the nature of post processing.

Exactly! This is a digital photo site and we should not forget everything that implies. Basically, I see it as a process of creating an image with which you wish to convey a message or feeling and the camera is one part of the process (an important part, but not the complete process).

Tentacion · February 2, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

#1 - Now, having said all that, my entry wiped away the models pores, veins in her eyes, enhanced her eyes and got rid of some stray hair..

#2 - I guess the issue really boils down to "How much photoshop makes a photo into a graphic"? Where does that division between reality and a "painting" (for lack of a better word) start and end.

David

Do I see another discussion about to take place??

I believe Dr. David expresses it wonderfully in his #2 comment.

and I totally agree with #1, nothing wrong with digi darkroom editing to enhance your photo, being a female, why not make a female look her best...

Swartzy · February 2, 2008

OH Boy
Am I in trouble now

sorry for smacking the hornet's nest....eeek!

DrDavid · February 2, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

With all due respect, the rules say exactly the opposite, i.e. there is no mentioning of any limitation to the amount or the nature of post processing.

Well, the rules say that there is no rule about photoshop vs. photo. But, it does go on to say that if Ps'd more than Photog, it better be a good Ps job!

Don't get me wrong; if I had to take a perfect picture, with camera alone (and no tricks in Ps, dodging, burning, using brushes with more feather than brush, and more flow than opacity, etc..), my photos wouldn't be half as interesting.

I absolutely love the photo of the woman hanging the moon -- which is heavy Ps'd. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Ps'ing should make a photo less or more worthy of votes (or not), etc.. All I tried to express was the question of when photos end, and graphics begin. When does my photo become a drawing, or my drawing a photo. Photos that have crossed that line.... Are they still a photo?

Just thinking out loud. I really don't want anyone to think I'm in any way trying to stir a hornets nest; nor suggest in any way that one photo over another should be the vote-getter in the semi-finals because of anything I wrote. I'm simply posing this as a philosophical question--one that, I doubt, has a clear-cut answer.

David

DrDavid · February 2, 2008

Tentacion wrote:

I totally agree with #1, nothing wrong with digi darkroom editing to enhance your photo, being a female, why not make a female look her best...

The model, in this case, is my wife. She's very pretty to begin with, but when I took the photo she had just come back from the salon and had had her makup done, etc.. So, how could I resist not only taking photos, but, applying some Ps'ing to make her face perfect.

I love the photo (of course, it's my wife, so, I'm biased.. lol).. I'm going to get it printed for Valentines day for her I think. That, and some nice portraits of our two girls.

So, win or lose in the Semi-Final, that photo will be appreciated by someone

Anyways, I'm being sentimental.. I'll stop now..

imax · February 2, 2008

Personally what I want is to have an image make me feel something. It doesn't matter if its a plain old photograph or 27 merged into one, I still want to get a feeling from the image. My point originally was that none of the entries did that and most of them still don't. From what I have seen over the past year each and everyone of the entries owners has the ability to do better and that is what they should be doing. Trying to submit their best.

Lets face it, top prize for the semi finals is $1500.00. Would any of the entries fetch that price anywhere? How about $100.00? I know it's not the popular opinion, and by opening my mouth like this will probably give me no chance in the final popularity contest, but the bottom line is we all can do better, the question is will we?

Joe

thebigsky · February 5, 2008

I don't think anybody should feel they have to apologise for giving an opinion. After SF3 I decided the competiton was too orientated towards PS for my liking and chose to no longer enter any work. As the rounds have progressed I believe PS has become more prevalent to the detriment of the competition.

However that doesn't mean I think it's wrong, just that it's no longer a competition I wish to compete in.

Charlie

seastack · February 6, 2008

imax wrote:

Personally what I want is to have an image make me feel something. It doesn't matter if its a plain old photograph or 27 merged into one, I still want to get a feeling from the image. My point originally was that none of the entries did that and most of them still don't. From what I have seen over the past year each and everyone of the entries owners has the ability to do better and that is what they should be doing. Trying to submit their best.

Lets face it, top prize for the semi finals is $1500.00. Would any of the entries fetch that price anywhere? How about $100.00? I know it's not the popular opinion, and by opening my mouth like this will probably give me no chance in the final popularity contest, but the bottom line is we all can do better, the question is will we?

Joe

Well Joe I just wrote a lengthy response, and then deleted it ... you seem very frustrated and a bit angry. Don't worry about the popularity contest ... don't worry that others are not living up to your expectations ... but just relax ... have a glass of Merlot ... ;-)

But Joe, really, don't sit in judgement and tell me I'm not trying to do my best. Your better than that brother. Peace.

imax · February 7, 2008

Well Joe I just wrote a lengthy response, and then deleted it ...

Me Too...........................

Best of luck in the finals

NeilL · February 7, 2008

There is some nostalgia value in drawing a line across progress of any kind and indulging in the good old days experience back behind it for a while. However, operating in the present does not diminish what was once achieved, nor does how we do things now become suspect. I think what is happening now in photography is entirely in the spirit of the original technology and techniques. Digital editing extends the possibilities of what a camera can produce. That idea has always excited us.

To be somewhat pure in the way it has been suggested would mean drawing a line at digital cameras and only allowing analogue technology - light and chemicals. Maybe. Digital technology uses sampling and probabilities on data generated in a different way, but light and film still did do sampling and probabilities processing. Think of the response characteristics of photosensitive chemicals. We sought to control and exploit all that, as we do the technology we are now developing. Molecule or electronic bit, which is more authentic?

There sometimes seems to be the assumption that digital editing always gives an advantage. Well, in my experience, as a viewer at least, that is not true. The DGrin contests, as others have justifiably pointed out, are about the skills of the photographer, and now at this stage in photographic history those can be very clearly evident in what that person produces by whatever technology. The better the technology the less it intrudes on the quality of the photographer, that is, the more it bares that quality. This is a gain in terms of what we have been discussing. It means we can judge all photographers on other merits than what they own and use. BUT, it IS the whole point of a contest to evoke difference in quality, not similarity. Limiting the technology used will not help that.

Felicia · February 7, 2008

NeilL wrote:

There is some nostalgia value in drawing a line across progress of any kind and indulging in the good old days experience back behind it for a while. However, operating in the present does not diminish what was once achieved, nor does how we do things now become suspect. I think what is happening now in photography is entirely in the spirit of the original technology and techniques. Digital editing extends the possibilities of what a camera can produce. That idea has always excited us.

To be somewhat pure in the way it has been suggested would mean drawing a line at digital cameras and only allowing analogue technology - light and chemicals. Maybe. Digital technology uses sampling and probabilities on data generated in a different way, but light and film still did do sampling and probabilities processing. Think of the response characteristics of photosensitive chemicals. We sought to control and exploit all that, as we do the technology we are now developing. Molecule or electronic bit, which is more authentic?

There sometimes seems to be the assumption that digital editing always gives an advantage. Well, in my experience, as a viewer at least, that is not true. The DGrin contests, as others have justifiably pointed out, are about the skills of the photographer, and now at this stage in photographic history those can be very clearly evident in what that person produces by whatever technology. The better the technology the less it intrudes on the quality of the photographer, that is, the more it bares that quality. This is a gain in terms of what we have been discussing. It means we can judge all photographers on other merits than what they own and use. BUT, it IS the whole point of a contest to evoke difference in quality, not similarity. Limiting the technology used will not help that.

Well... after I winnowed my way through the big words, I realized, "Wow! Great point and well put!"

NeilL · February 7, 2008

Felicia wrote:

Well... after I winnowed my way through the big words, I realized, "Wow! Great point and well put!"

Hehe... I had faith in ya!

Tango · February 7, 2008

i have a friend that refuses to use digital in anyway.
he refers to me as "the cheater" (often.)(friendly but still his opinion)
and i truly cant understand him. ( i feel bad for him, it seems he is just limiting himself)
i look at it like this...photoshop is not a bad thing.:D its now part of our new world.
ive mentioned a photo contest without PP before and it seems many were interested, but who is going to do all the necessary work to arrange it?
anyway, all im say'in is dont get sour over how things change, lets go with it and enjoy it.
besides, if there was not photoshop or lightroom it might be another 20 years before i produced a good photo:D

DoctorIt · February 7, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

i have a friend that refuses to use digital in anyway.

Silly, isn't it?

Unless he develops his own film, perhaps you can point out to him that at least you have individual control over your own photos from start to finish. Cheating as it may be.

Tango · February 7, 2008

DoctorIt wrote:

Silly, isn't it?

Unless he develops his own film, perhaps you can point out to him that at least you have individual control over your own photos from start to finish. Cheating as it may be.

i never thought about it until just now , but he uses a prolab for his film...maybe i should call him a cheater too...:D

the one thing i do understand about this fine friend of mine is that he enjoys it.

Tango · February 7, 2008

Felicia wrote:

Well... after I winnowed my way through the big words, I realized, "Wow! Great point and well put!"

Tango · February 7, 2008

Swartzy wrote:

Funny how that works Joe....We've now entered the Zone of composite imagination.....An art contest.....the "Last Photoshopper Standing".

isnt a photographer an artist?

KurtPreston · February 7, 2008

I'm not so sure that objection to 'photoshopping' is really a reaction to progress or even the tool itself. I think the main objection boils down to a question of acceptable photographic realism versus artistic fantasy. That line determines whether the person perceives it as still being a photograph as opposed to a painting or some other form of constructed art. I don't think it matters if they use photoshop, some other digital tool, photographic darkroom techniques, or even a hammer and chisel. I think the end result of the work being perceived as a photograph or not is the main objection.

I love both types of art, and have my own personal determining line, but for some people it can be as simple as if you add something to a photograph that wasn't in the viewfinder when you took the picture, or has been radically altered, then it ain't a photo.

KurtPreston · February 7, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

isnt a photographer an artist?

Yes. But not every artist is a photographer

Which I think was Swartzy's point.

Tango · February 7, 2008

KurtPreston wrote:

Yes. But not every artist is a photographer Which I think was Swartzy's point.

i see that point, but i dont think thats what is meant....

just wondering, see i also have some painter friends that dont see how a photographer is an artist period....so im always trying to defend my stance...

but thats another topic...

ChrisKraftPhoto · February 7, 2008

And if you look up the word 'artist'; a Photoshop user would fall under that too.

Why take away from the value of those photos "Photoshopped" when the only real difference is the application of a technique? Take dodging and burning for example. I did learn the PS method a little quicker than the darkroom way but I believe that it does take some expertise to apply the same technique using Photoshop.

IMHO; an artist using Photoshop is expressing his/her creativity and vision in a fashion similar to the photographer framing and/or developing a photograph. The final output, either way, still takes imagination and skill.

Swartzy · February 7, 2008

You've hit the nail on the head

KurtPreston wrote:

Yes. But not every artist is a photographer Which I think was Swartzy's point.

Much is lost in translation over the internet...articulaing concepts get lost often times. Some have suggested that it's only a particular percentage of entries, or its digital, or its interpretation, or or or. The point being exactly that a photo is a photo.....a photo altered (no matter how fabulously) adding things in from addtional frames takes on a different form.....ART.

Some have suggested that I nullify one's skill or downplay one's creativity when I make such a statement...calling this an art contest.....on the contrary..it takes a great deal of imagination and execution to create a composite...but I only wish it would be called what it is rather than trying to beat it six ways till Sunday....it's art, plain and simple. Not every artist is a photographer is indeed the point.

Tango · February 7, 2008

hey i agree 100% w/ psdude
i even defend farrah and body painting:D

Tango · February 7, 2008

Swartzy wrote:

Some have suggested that I nullify one's skill or downplay one's creativity when I make such a statement...calling this an art contest.....on the contrary..it takes a great deal of imagination and execution to create a composite....

sorry thats the way i read it....
no worries, just discussion....

but, anyway....my only point is even if its photoshoped it part of photography, it is art and not in a bad way like i thought you meant....

MarkTodd · February 7, 2008

KurtPreston wrote:

I'm not so sure that objection to 'photoshopping' is really a reaction to progress or even the tool itself. I think the main objection boils down to a question of acceptable photographic realism versus artistic fantasy. That line determines whether the person perceives it as still being a photograph as opposed to a painting or some other form of constructed art. I don't think it matters if they use photoshop, some other digital tool, photographic darkroom techniques, or even a hammer and chisel. I think the end result of the work being perceived as a photograph or not is the main objection.

I love both types of art, and have my own personal determining line, but for some people it can be as simple as if you add something to a photograph that wasn't in the viewfinder when you took the picture, or has been radically altered, then it ain't a photo.

The argument of constructed art vs reality takes us yet further down the slippery slope and we don't even need to discuss digital manipulation. One could argue that a photographer assembling props and lighting in a studio is constructed art. Is such a photo any less a photo? If Ansel Adams had set up his camera for the perfect shot only to find someone had dropped a foreign element within the frame, whould there be an outcry of fakery should he remove the unwanted item? I sincerely doubt it, but the fact remains that he's altered what appeared in the viewfinder.

All I've got to say

Comments