I just voted and seems like many of the images look to be just Advanced. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but expecting more in an Expert-level challenge.
I just voted and seems like many of the images look to be just Advanced. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but expecting more in an Expert-level challenge.
I actually expected there to be very few that were obvious Expert photos and just thought people would use the extra allowances for cloning etc but looks like the Photoshop wizards have been hard at work. When this is done well the results are superb! When it is done badly well that is a different matter but there is only one way to learn:)
I just voted and seems like many of the images look to be just Advanced. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but expecting more in an Expert-level challenge.
I actually expected there to be very few that were obvious Expert photos and just thought people would use the extra allowances for cloning etc but looks like the Photoshop wizards have been hard at work. When this is done well the results are superb! When it is done badly well that is a different matter but there is only one way to learn:)
Exactly. The advanced rules have lots of little "Gotchas" in them, from excessive cloaning to all the things that can possibly "add a new image area". I'm actually glad to see a lot of "normal" looking photos instead of composite art and flip and folds - it's what I was hoping for.
I always look a few times before voting. I'm very impressed with the variety & the high quality of the entries. Looks like those who fear Expert rules in a FS can relax now.
Seems that the next "Expert Free Study" is under the advanced rule set. ;)
Ha!!
Well I'm hoping that gets changed because this gallery looks great! From what I see, this will be a highly rated challenge and this monthly idea should continue on.
I really like having two free studies each month and I enjoyed doing something different with the expert ruleset.
Based on this line from the expert editing rules most of the photographs should look pretty much like real photographs and not overdone.
You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly
Based on this line from the expert editing rules most of the photographs should look pretty much like real photographs and not overdone.
You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly
So does abstractness equate to non-photographic in your view?
Based on this line from the expert editing rules most of the photographs should look pretty much like real photographs and not overdone.
You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly
"Photographic in nature" and "look pretty much like real photographs" is quite a leap, but we can interpret how we like. That's the beauty of expert editing and why I suggested this monthly challenge to begin with...we can do as much or as little as we choose. Pretty cool thing I think...sweet freedom.
I don't think there is a big leap at all, but as the rules state you take the chance of getting low scores if you alter the photograph in such a way to make it look totally cartoonish or into a Photo shopped piece of artwork that does not resemble a photograph.
Abstractness is a photograph if you deliberately take the shot with a camera, but if you rely on Photoshop to create it from a photograph that is not abstract in the first place then I would say no.
The bottom line the voters will decide for themselves, but my standards will be does it appear to be photo-realistic.
The bottom line the voters will decide for themselves, but my standards will be does it appear to be photo-realistic.
So someone who's REALLY good at 3D modelling and produces a photorealistic computer illustration is "more photographic" (even though no camera is involved) than someone who uses a photographic image and then morphs it into something entirely other? Out of curiosity, talking about conventional media, do you feel that collages are "less artistic" than actual "paintings"?
This is a "Digital Photography Challenge Site" Not a Photo-Chopping Site. I understand you need to provide a copy of the original photographs after the contest to verify the date and authenticity of the original.
Based on this line from the expert editing rules most of the photographs should look pretty much like real photographs and not overdone.
You should: keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly
Oh pls take a moment & tell me what "photographic in nature" means to you.
Because to me "photographic in nature " means that it looks like a photograph. A photograph is a print on paper. You hold it in your hands & it "looks like a photograph" independent of the subject. Nothing about the subject makes it "look like a photograph."
I don't think there is a big leap at all, but as the rules state you take the chance of getting low scores if you alter the photograph in such a way to make it look totally cartoonish or into a Photo shopped piece of artwork that does not resemble a photograph.
Abstractness is a photograph if you deliberately take the shot with a camera, but if you rely on Photoshop to create it from a photograph that is not abstract in the first place then I would say no.
The bottom line the voters will decide for themselves, but my standards will be does it appear to be photo-realistic.
So let me ask you this. I shoot a lot of infrared. A lot of IR photography is about what you do with the colors in post. Everything in IR can look "cartoonish" and Photoshopped. Just as a starting point here are 4 views of an IR image (the colors aren't great - it's winter, a bad time of year for this stuff and I don't have access to my full catalog)...
L-to-R you have straight out of camera, normal channel swap, an alternate channel swap, and a blue only channel swap, all of which are typical starting points for the IR photographer. An IR photographer relies on these types of manipulations, and they are by no means "abstract" in and of themselves.
I get why some people may not appreciate it, but your statement is not one of taste but of what is and is not a photograph, and by your definition an IR photo is not, and I (and a whole lot of other people) would take great exception with that point of view.
I can clearly see that those are photorealistic but if you had covered them with a lot of textures and ran them through some sort of filter software and turned them into something unnatural or into a painting or such I would give it a low score, zero if it were possible. I have seen many things that are being passed on as photographs and they are nowhere close to being.
If you want to use a bunch of pieces of photos and turn them into something else maybe you should consider adding a phot-chopping area.
I can clearly see that those are photorealistic but if you had covered them with a lot of textures and ran them through some sort of filter software and turned them into something unnatural or into a painting or such I would give it a low score, zero if it were possible. I have seen many things that are being passed on as photographs and they are nowhere close to being.
If you want to use a bunch of pieces of photos and turn them into something else maybe you should consider adding a phot-chopping area.
I am just curious - did you avoid the flip-n-blend challenge totally or were you able to find any 'photographic' type images in that challenge? (I get your point although I just happen to love abstract no matter how obtained - so I really had not considered the statement from the rules you brought up. I am still thinking about it and not sure if I will change my behavior or not. But I am finding the discussion useful.)
