"HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE IMAGES (HDRI): OK, but like panoramas, only if the combined parts are made at about the same time. We don't want final images where the foreground was shot at noon and the sky at sunset."
Makes sense for National Geographic, they're a magazine that is journalistic by nature. They can't be passing off composites or photos with large chuncks cloned out as accurate descriptions of real life places and events.
DPC however is centered around the ART of photography. ART is not necissarily an accruate depiction of the world around us, though it certainly can be.
i imagine nick is pointing out how far apart dpc is from what NG considers acceptable photography
Originally posted by chazoe:
Makes sense for National Geographic, they're a magazine that is journalistic by nature. They can't be passing off composites or photos with large chuncks cloned out as accurate descriptions of real life places and events.
DPC however is centered around the ART of photography. ART is not necissarily an accruate depiction of the world around us, though it certainly can be.
i think there is a difference between photography as an art form and photography as a foundation for digital art
personally, while i can appreciate digital art (ie, the results of expert editing), i don't enjoy having digital art intermingled with photography the way it is here.
i think there is a difference between photography as an art form and photography as a foundation for digital art
personally, while i can appreciate digital art (ie, the results of expert editing), i don't enjoy having digital art intermingled with photography the way it is here.
+1
The fact that I have zero manipulation skills did not influence my viewpoint at all - hehe.
Truth be told, I do get a much happier warm glow when creating an image that leans towards being artsy within the basic rules set, than a digitally manufactured image.
I appreciate good images that have not been heavily edited as well as those that are the result of complete manipulation. I think we need to keep the different levels of editing, perhaps expanding our minds to accept all as art. Even entries using Expert Editing start with a camera and a vision.
As to the National Geographic rules, they make sense for National Geographic but I would hate to have duotones and other basic, global adjustments excluded just because the result is artistic rather than an actual representation of what is photographed.
