Looking at the current homepage of ribbons, I figure it is about time to rename this website to www.dppchallenge.com (Digital Post Processing Challenge).
I sure do appreciate the ribbon winners who post their pre-processed photos (something I've only occasionally done) as a little connection with the photographic experience prior to sitting at the computer and turning a photo in fantasy-land. Of course, all my highest scoring images on DPPC have been highly PP'ed, almost beyond recognition. It cracks me up when DPPC folks cry out that a "photo" doesn't meet the challenge because it is too abstract, is more like digital art and not "real" enough.
Though this old scratchy record gets played off and on again in the DPPC forums, I'll dare to ask once again: What is digital photography and what is digital art? How do these worlds overlap and how are they unique? What is your view?
Note to all ribbon-winner wannabees: spend more time farting around on adobe photoshop, neat-image and other post-processing programs and processes, including tone mapping (something I'm currently clueless about). The game is played on computers as well as with cameras!
This is an un-answerable topic :-) With the new basic & trial rule sets, I think it works out pretty well. In the end I agree but it is what it is.... and it always has been when in the darkroom as well....
I know the photographer has alot todo with the beauty of your images... but you cant tell me you just hit auto levels resize and save.
You might want to try and fully read a person's post before you reply to it.
I just reread it. I dont see anything i didnt see the first time. His work isnt expert edited digital art like part of his post complains about.
But he does screw with curves, saturation and uses neat image.
I reread it a 3rd time.. see maybe a bit more, yes he admits to Post processing. But i dont see how that contributes to coutnering the problem that is viewed with the site and the processing.
Thats like Phillip Morris saying hey Smoking is bad for you lets keep doing it.
This is an un-answerable topic :-) With the new basic & trial rule sets, I think it works out pretty well. In the end I agree but it is what it is.... and it always has been when in the darkroom as well....
Personally i like the minimal editing. But heres Minimal Versus Advanced. I like being able to make the image more vivid... because god knows the camera did a bad job.
Minimal Editing
Advanced (required for selective editing)
Its a 4.0 Image either way but thats the difference between 4.0 and 4.7
Its not digital art so nothing to complain about. But its the only downside to minimal editing. It holds back the digital art but also holds back bad camera's. God knows film would have captured the color a bit better.
originally posted by RainMotorsports you cant tell me you just hit auto levels resize and save.
With two of the four images you posted from my homepage, there was only auto-levels and resizing in the post-processing. I'd put the originals up but I lost them in a computer crash a few month ago.
By the way, 'smoking' good image of "The Road".
I'm glad the SC has added Minimal and Expert editing challenges, an addition which helps folks focus more on the In-Camera aspect of photography or more on the Post-Processing aspect.
Im not sure if thats a compliment or an insult. If its a compliment are u serious lol.
The story is though, and i would have never uploaded it if i had not edited it the way i had. The image is 6 months or so old.
The story behind it is I got lost and walked 10 miles and started taking pictures and well that was one of them. I tossed it into the CRAP folder and came back toit a few days ago after learning 6 new editing techniques. That subtly add color.
Sorry to hear about the crash i suffered multiple hard drive failures recovered 98% of my pictures and 20% of my video. As far as my first post... i regret posting it might have jumped the gun.
Well, IMO, the photographer has to have the final image in their head BEFORE they hit the "shutter release" to be able to get it out in print (or on screen, whatever) to begin with, if there is no vision then chances are good there will be no ribbon winning image in the end. I guess what I am driving at is it is no different then being well versed in the darkroom back in the day, the photographer still had to know what they were after from the start to end up where they wanted to be...
Well, IMO, the photographer has to have the final image in their head BEFORE they hit the "shutter release" to be able to get it out in print (or on screen, whatever) to begin with, if there is no vision then chances are good there will be no ribbon winning image in the end. I guess what I am driving at is it is no different then being well versed in the darkroom back in the day, the photographer still had to know what they were after from the start to end up where they wanted to be...
Although i have no interest in doing film processing myself. (BTW I do have 2 35mm SLR's i just take my film to a developer) I would like to learn more about the tecniques.
Ive seen forged photos where they removed objects from it and this was before computers. Spot editing in the dark room?
Well, IMO, the photographer has to have the final image in their head BEFORE they hit the "shutter release" to be able to get it out in print (or on screen, whatever) to begin with, if there is no vision then chances are good there will be no ribbon winning image in the end. I guess what I am driving at is it is no different then being well versed in the darkroom back in the day, the photographer still had to know what they were after from the start to end up where they wanted to be...
Looking at the originals vs. edited thread, I can't help but feel lied to. I knew there was a lot of editing being done and that many pictures are mostly of a fictional fantasy land straight out of the photographer's head, but holy crap comparing the two really hammered that point in. It's really quite disappointing. To me, a photograph is something to capture reality, and if you are editing it you should do so to simply try to get what you actually saw, to fix what your camera captured. It seems that a lot of the pictures are simply photographers' ideas of what SHOULD be real, not what IS real.
I think fake images have their place, such as in drawings or obviously photoshopped images, but to say that something as edited as many of these "pictures" is a photograph is misleading, and I think wrong. Maybe it's just me as a newbie photographer who is still trying to figure all of this out, but many "photographs" are displayed to the layperson and it seems wrong to me to call them photographs. Most people expect that a "photograph" is an image depicting reality.
Looking at the originals vs. edited thread, I can't help but feel lied to. I knew there was a lot of editing being done and that many pictures are mostly of a fictional fantasy land straight out of the photographer's head, but holy crap comparing the two really hammered that point in. It's really quite disappointing. To me, a photograph is something to capture reality, and if you are editing it you should do so to simply try to get what you actually saw, to fix what your camera captured. It seems that a lot of the pictures are simply photographers' ideas of what SHOULD be real, not what IS real.
I think fake images have their place, such as in drawings or obviously photoshopped images, but to say that something as edited as many of these "pictures" is a photograph is misleading, and I think wrong. Maybe it's just me as a newbie photographer who is still trying to figure all of this out, but many "photographs" are displayed to the layperson and it seems wrong to me to call them photographs. Most people expect that a "photograph" is an image depicting reality.
For me it boils down to art or photorealism, it depends on the challenge on this site really, as for whether it is "real" or not, well I think it is a matter of weather you classify photography as art or documentation, Ansel Adams once said something along the lines of "The only thing that really matters is the final image...how you get there doesn't matter" I am sure I misquoted this so save the subsequent messages but the point is, if you can visualize it AND get it in print you have done your job as an artistic photographer, at least that is my interpertation of it...
For me it boils down to art or photorealism, it depends on the challenge on this site really, as for whether it is "real" or not, well I think it is a matter of weather you classify photography as art or documentation, Ansel Adams once said something along the lines of "The only thing that really matters is the final image...how you get there doesn't matter" I am sure I misquoted this so save the subsequent messages but the point is, if you can visualize it AND get it in print you have done your job as an artistic photographer, at least that is my interpertation of it...
I'm completely agreed with PDF. Now I was checking the rules for minimal edition and that should bring more work with the camera, and if anyone wants more post editing, well, there are the member challenge.
I'm completely agreed with PDF. Now I was checking the rules for minimal edition and that should bring more work with the camera, and if anyone wants more post editing, well, there are the member challenge.
Last i checked the Minimal Editing Challenges were all Member challenges so far.
Looking at the originals vs. edited thread, I can't help but feel lied to. I knew there was a lot of editing being done and that many pictures are mostly of a fictional fantasy land straight out of the photographer's head, but holy crap comparing the two really hammered that point in. It's really quite disappointing. To me, a photograph is something to capture reality, and if you are editing it you should do so to simply try to get what you actually saw, to fix what your camera captured. It seems that a lot of the pictures are simply photographers' ideas of what SHOULD be real, not what IS real.
I think fake images have their place, such as in drawings or obviously photoshopped images, but to say that something as edited as many of these "pictures" is a photograph is misleading, and I think wrong. Maybe it's just me as a newbie photographer who is still trying to figure all of this out, but many "photographs" are displayed to the layperson and it seems wrong to me to call them photographs. Most people expect that a "photograph" is an image depicting reality.
Reality really is subjective...just like any other form of art...
I think it is a matter of weather you classify photography as art or documentation
You're right. I think photography includes both art and documentation. A picture can be one or the other. I doubt anyone looks at a picture of a fork giving you "the finger" as documentation. I think it's perfectly fine to edit that picture as much as you want.
However, I think most of the times when people are taking pictures of landscapes, portraits, animals, flowers, etc. they're doing so to document. They're trying to document the beauty of nature or what a person looks like, etc. In those cases, where the vast majority of people would think they are getting a fairly accurate representation of reality, I think it's simply wrong to edit pictures too much. Otherwise you're not really documenting a real person/place/object's beauty or whatever inspired you to take the picture, you're just making your own fantasy land come to life and lying to people in the process.
I know that at least I USED to look at pictures and be at awe at some of the beautiful landscapes I see portrayed in images, and I'd want to go there and experience those amazing vistas. I thought post-processing would involve minimal editing to fix what the camera captured and turn it into what the photographer really saw. Now I can't trust that because it's possible that place never truly existed nor ever will. It's very disappointing, and it makes me wonder what else I'm being lied about. Are incredible nature documentaries such as planet earth really just a bunch of extremely edited pictures too? do those places REALLY exist? or are they also just the filmmakers' fantasy too?
Well, I didn't want to single out any one image, but I'll use that one.
That picture IMO is definitely digital graphic art (to steal zoomdak's term). I don't really have an issue with it because I think it is clear that it's graphic art, although it CAN lead one's perception of the original subject to be twisted... for example, the inside of the flower was in reality greenish yellow, but if you look at the final it's almost red (or it IS red) That little detail changes the whole picture, so I'm not exactly sure what to think of it.
Like you said, almost anyone could have taken the original shot but not many would have been able to get the finished product... when does one stop being a good photographer and instead turn into a good photoshopper?
Let's look at some of the comments on the final picture though:
"i love sunflowers and i think you have done them justice with this photo..you have captured their beauty with the strong vibrant colours and sharp detail"
I'd COMPLETELY disagree. Captured? bah. 90% of the beauty and "strong vibrant colors" are completely fake, especially the sky and the inside of the flower head.
"This is a great capture!!! [...] Looks like a painting to me... "
"It almost doesnt look real, like it's a studio shot or something "
"great capture, I'm revisiting and bumping your score, love the textures in the center of the flower"
Funny that most of the "great post processing" comments are AFTER the challenge.
