 Richard H. Hahn |
Replacing key elements Wow, I didn't know it was allowed to replace key elements of a digital image subject and present it as if it was photographed that way. Is there any control on the total computer manufacture of images? I would guess the answer is "no!". Is this contest simply a competition between those who are best at digital manipulation? Quality photography seems to be taking a back seat to digital art. No problem if the image is labeled as DA, but when it's labeled "nature", then it's a fraud.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
As a solution, for those few images that are about to be declared winners, it would be a good idea for the judges/management to look at an original, unedited version of the photograph. Then, before winners are designated, the degree of digital creation could be determined. If there are no limits on anything, then we, the contest participants, need to know. At this point, my conclusion is...There is no limit on digital manipulation of photographs. For example, President Bush's face could be pasted on Mount Rushmore and the photograph would be accepted as a legitimate landscape image.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
so which picture is it?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Yeah, right! Gregory... maybe the judges should have figured that out prior to putting up a manufactured image to one of the top awards. I had the opportunity to judge in October at a photo contest website that does require an original EXIF compliant image be submitted with the modified image. The "winner" recognized here at BPh was rejected there because of blatant primary element replacement. Would have been a great digital art image, but violated the "element replacement" prohibition for the category entered.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Okay. Thought it was a simple question. Never mind.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Hey Gregory! If it was one of your images that won big recognition, would you want someone snitching?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gianna Stadelmyer |
I haven't checked very recently (within the last month or so), but I remember the rules stating that a photo could have digital manipulation and still be put into any category. BUT they DO ask that the photographer be honest about that. I always list what I do to my photos. If I did a lot of manipulating: adding objects, combining photos using layers, creating effects like motion blur, etc., then I put it in the digital art category. If I only do a touch of soft focus or buZZ, then I might place it in a landscape category, animal category, etc. but I am still up front about the changes I have made. I did go back and look at the grand prize and first place winners since you said it was a big prize, and outside of my own (which IS in Digital Darkroom because I combined several photos of mine), I can't imagine which one was digitally manipulated outside of basic contrast and brightness levels... nor do I want to. Anyhow, I think that a good photo will hold it's own against any digitally manipulated one. Even ones manipulated need to be a good photos from the start. The computer can only do so much:-)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Good comments Jan! I agree with your philosophy. An honor system it is! Hopefully others will be upfront with the changes they've made to their images. The contest judges need to look just a little closer at their choices. That's all! When you know a major element has been replaced, it is obvious in the modified image to the naked eye.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
If something is removed from a picture, and another person says "there was something removed from that picture", where's the problem? What's who took the picture and did the removing have to do with anything? It was a curiosity anyway. wondering which one got you upset.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Gregory... the verb I used was "replaced", which is quite a bit different from "removed".
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Well, to replace something an item has to first be removed or else you're just adding on. But it's just symantics. If something is done to a photo, and that something is pointed out, there's no problem with saying what was done, if what is said was actually done. Like calling a duck with painted feathers a duck with painted feathers. No problems with saying the feathers were painted instead of actually growing that way. But weirder things have happened. One guy actually asked for an animal category to be added to the contest.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
And reinterate the never mind comment.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Rob Bishop |
I agree that the photographer should have been honest about what had been done with the image. I had to study it much closer than just a quick "wow, that's a great catch", to see what had been done. I suppose the judges should have looked at it close enough to see that this wasn't just a "natural" moment.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet Detota |
Is this discussion about a specific photo or just general thoughts? Richard's first post seems to be about a specific image.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gloria B. Wood |
Let me clarify please! Are you calling into question the expertise of the judges and their ability to look with professional skill and expertise at the submitted photos? Arey you calling into question the honesty of the photographer/artist about what they have done? Are you trying to clarify the rules so that they fit what you think they should be?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I don't get the beef! Everyone who enters BP regularly has to know the contest rules are somewhat loose. I figure since Jim Miotke owns the site he can set the rules any way he determines. I have also noticed manulipations to winning photos, and I assume if I notice it the judges do too.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Audrea Telkamp |
I do not have a problem with digitally manipulated images competing in the other categories, but when these changes are not noted by the author I can only assume that the author's intention was to deceive. This, I do have a problem with. I think requiring the original (with exif data) to be submitted would be a good idea. It would be useful for both the judges and for other BPers working on new techniques.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I could be wrong but I see a lot of winners that don't look like they've come straight from the camera. Does color manipulation count? I've seen many winners that have obviously been pumped up and drastically changed colorwise. It doesn't bother me, I figure everyone knows when they look at them they've been modified. They're still very pretty.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Audrea Telkamp |
You make a great point Sharon. Some changes are so obvious or have always been used in the traditional darkroom and I don't expect someone to note those. Which changes to note is probably a discussion with no end, which is probably why BP doesn't bother with it. I just wouldn't feel right about submitting an image to compete with more traditional photographers where I staged the scene in a major way and didn't note it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Audrea Telkamp |
Hmmm...reading through a discussion on this topic on another site has made me stop and reconsider my position. Are we competing here as artists or as photojournalists? If we are competing as artists (as I believe we are) then the sky should be the limit with no explanation required. Perhaps the only note needed to be made is if absolutely nothing (or very little) was done to the image. As a friend recently pointed out to me, the digital age is here to stay, has opened a floodgate of opportunity for the photographer to be even more creative, and is available to most anyone - certainly those with a computer competing online. I know from personal experience how many hours (months actually) are required to nail down a new PS technique - does this not count for anything? Have the purists been dragging me down??
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Rob Bishop |
Oh, Audrea, I like what you have brought to the table. If the final image looks like something that could have been captured naturally, if you had been there at exactly the right time under the perfect circumstances, then all is fair in the digital age. Yes, we are artists, so let's just move on ahead. Thank you.... Rob
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
As I suspected, there are no rules here. Or, none are being enforced! All categories are digital art. Element replacement is now encouraged wily-nily. So, go ahead! Paint away! It will soon be totally digital creation, with photography only an inconvenient front end process. Let full moons and flocks of geese be inserted into every sunset image. It's the way nature was meant to be, I guess...stylized and fanciful. For me, I prefer to improve my photography, rather than create cartoons. No offense intended to anyone. The world is full of choices.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Well, nature=natural so using photoshop to make nature look like you naturally got it dosen't count for anything. Because that's what makes it. A singer who really sings. A singer who puts on a good show with a track playing. One is better, the other dosen't compare as well. If you don't know which one is happening, you won't be disappointed, but there's a difference. One can do, the other needs help. So a guy with a pencil can draw something while looking at it instead of freestyling on a pad and it's still cool. But if he needs to trace something cause he has trouble getting it, then the ooohness goes way done. It's like the theory about all the life like paintings of the 15th century or sometime, there's a well supported theory that they weren't painted freehand but were actually done over tracings using mirrors and lenses to get the great detail. It's not as grand if it's done that way. But as far as asking about if there is or not any rules, you're asking the wrong people. Send an email to the ones holding the contest.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet Detota |
No need to bother them. Here's the link to the category descriptions. At the very bottom they describe what is allowed and their 'rules' on digital manipulations. My suggestion is if this bothers you so much, then find a contest that has more conservative policies. I'm sure there are several to choose from.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
I have already terminated my contest entries here. Will not renew my membership when it comes up for renewal. I'm absolutely certain this will not harm BPh.com and many will say "good riddance". There are other photo contests that encourage photographic excellence over "cartoon drawing". So, ignore me and paint away!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gloria B. Wood |
This is how wars get started, and it makes me sad because both sides have something to say. It seems there is mostly shouting, and sometimes name-calling and insults, but very little listening or understanding what each is saying! Don't we ever learn? To look at the world situation right now...I guess we know the answer!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I'll be sorry to see Richard go, I enjoy his phototography, but I can always see them at Digitalphotocontest.com if I want to. I also see no reason to blast BP. I think their "rules" are pretty straight forward, and they are loose! I agree painting something into the scenery could be a bit much without declaring it, but I see so many winners with color manipulation (a lot of color manipulation) that I just don't bother with that explaination anymore. I mean even if you wish to be a more of a purist there's still singh-ray filters. You sure can't produce a "natural" sunset using those kinds of tools. I could go on and on...what about Fuji film? Have you ever seen a scene in nature compared to Fuji? Talk about color manipulation, but I think those photos are really pretty! You can go to Digitalphotocontest.com if you want to. Looks like you've managed to established yourself there, but I don't like that site because they choose the same photographers day after day for POTD. I find it hard to believe they have so few choices each day or month, for that matter.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Well he is the one that said there needs to be an animal category, so all the drama isn't new. Not as dramatic as saying this is how wars get started. Great googamooga!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gloria B. Wood |
Well Greg...lacking the proper or relevant education, I don't know what the word googamooga means...could you possibly enlighten me..please? Thanks!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
I agree with you Richard. They should call it Better Manipulation instead of BP maybe. But it all does depend on what is supposed to be the final product. Is it art (which some arent qualified to judge) or is it pretty pictures? The term Better Photo indicates to me that they want photos, not just images, but Richard, I have had a similar experience as yours, just try to realize some dont know the difference.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I just all of a sudden felt scary
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
I heard that
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
The only thing I have to say is.....if you don't like the site and it's rules, then move on to somewhere else. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think that any photo, manipulated or not, is a form of creativity. And I think BP, with their classes, etc., believe that creativity is a wonderful thing. So, let;s stop all the fighting and continue to use BP as a fun site with great people!!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joy Brown |
I'm with Gloria - you guys need to get a life!!! I can't believe you would spend all this time "arguing" about what images should be accepted in a photography contest!!! Do you listen to the news or are you aware of all that is happening in this crazy world??? BP is an awesome site and allows all of us to be as creative as we love to be. It allows us to meet great people and view some unbelievable photography/art and take us away, even for a short time, from the ugliness that exists all around us. I'm with Char - if you're not happy with the site, then move on.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
I've already moved on. Thanks for showing me the door. Why are you guys beating a dead horse?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joy Brown |
We're expressing our feelings just as you did. Good luck!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
World isn't crazy if it's the same old thing.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
This is just a test to see if Gregory L. must have the last word. A test of his self control!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michelle Ross |
I don't come to this area of the Q/A very often but this thread caught my attention. I recently posted an inquiry as to which Photoshop to consider getting to do some of the "basic" and I mean "BASIC" editing that I would like to do to some of my photographs. One of the responses to me was to "get it right the first time" and an implication was made that photographers who know they can manipulate images in photoshop do not work as hard to capture the correct exposure/image, etc. I agree to a certain extent with this but when I asked my question I truly had in mind VERY BASIC editing(which could be a matter of opinion.) I feel I try my best to get the image right the first time with the correct exposure levels, and sometimes I experiment with different things to see what effect I get. I have entered a few pictures in the contest here at Better Photo and I will admit that I am intimidated by all the manipulation that goes on. But at the same time many of those same photos awe me as well. In order to make photoshop work you can't just snap your fingers and waa laaa the effect you want is there. You have to know how to work the program and have some knowledge of colors etc.(which I do not) to, in my opinion, truly make the photo something remarkable. I personally don't know how to use photoshop effectively and don't know if I really want to . . . my intent is to do a good job the first time but I realize also that sometimes editing can be your best friend and save an image in certain circumstances. This concept is what I'm referring to with basic editing rather than "manipulation". . I personally think there is a big difference. I read the rules before I entered the first time and understood that the manipulation was allowed and they did ask for the photographer to be honest and describe any manipulation that was done. If any of my photos are manipulated it's usually just to enhance color hues and/or saturation and I do not always go into great detail as to what specific settings I used but I do personally comment if I did anything at all to the photo! But again I will say that I do not ever expect to win any prizes in the contest because I know that I cannot compete, nor do I want to compete, with all of the manipulation. I enter the contest as a way to get my photos out there and hopefully catch the eye of someone who likes what I captured and will relay that to me.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
I ofter wonder about the "just fix it later in Photoshop" mindset - For me, getting the best shot I can works, becasue I don't want to spend hours on something in PS nor do I have the time (or desire) With that said, PS is a good editing tool and I don't see much wrong with using it as such.... In days gone by (the last century) even people like Ansel Adams where know to spend countless hours in the darkroom doing just what people are using PS to do (without all the chemicals) From the beginning photographys has been evolving and I don't see that changing anytime soon - so, perhaps this is what makes Photography an artform...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
How is it worse to replace a key element than it is to blur a background in PS? Wouldn't that be considered replacing a key element as well?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Sharon, a selective Gaussian blur of a background is usually an enhancement of something that existed in the original real life scene. No problem! The "drawing in" of a key element that did not exist in the scene is the technique that should push the image into the digital art category. Let's say the head of an elephant was not in the original image, but the photographer chose to paint in the head to make the photo more impressive. Might look nice, but it's not photography... it's painting. Should not be in the same category as a photograph. It's that simple.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet Detota |
I feel that only you knowing which manipulated photo was the start of this discussion is a bit unfair, Richard. First you say key elements were replaced, now you're saying things are being drawn in. I think you should tell us the specific photo you have a problem with that prompted you to start this discussion so we all are on the same page. Anyone else think this a legitimate request?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
The thing that's not fair nor very nice is to blast all the winners from your Bio who have won at BP because you have an issue with a winning photo. Not all images that win are manipulated, and the winning photos do have photographic excellence.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
He put it in his bio? Seems he would've changed his diaper a while ago instead of carrying around a full load. Maybe we can let the diva go (for the third time) Anybody got a left over international photog of the year bowl they can give him.Probably never would've had all this if he'd won something here.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Hey Greg, your comments are childish and very potty mouth. Take a chill pill. I'm still a member here, until my membership runs out. I have all the same rights and privileges that you have. It's not necessary to take the discussion to a low class level. Grow up! I'm certainly not going to identify the image with replaced elements. It's there for all to see. If the judges cared, they would check an EXIF compliant original for this kind of gross manipulation. But, as has been mentioned before, there are no rules and the judges do not care if key elements are replaced. My only purpose in responding to Sharon's comment about a selective Gaussian blur to the background, is that the digital change I can see is not anything like a bg blur. It is a replacement and insertion of key elements. That matters to me!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
Richard, I believe in free press, but to totally insult this site and the people in it, really is unnessary!!! If you don't like how this contest is judged, or the rules they have set, than why don't you just be on your way and call it a day. Offending people, who have used this site as a great learning tool, is unfair. You're not downloading anymore, so why not just go away nicely and leave the rest of us to our peace!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Hi Charlene, You seem to be reading a lot more into my comments than exists. I think it's fair to question the degree of digital cartoon drawing allowed, especially when it's presented as real life, natural photography. I'm not insulting anyone other than 'ol Greg L. and the person who won a major recognition here by replacing a key element. My membership runs for a few more months. I would flag your comment on this site as a great learning tool. The learning is in the digital manipulation area, less so in the area of improving photographic techniques. It's okay! There are no rules. Anything goes! That's fine. If people feel my pointing out rules are very, very loose is insulting, well, maybe it's a sensitive subject, which some would prefer not be mentioned.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
Well, I think your comments in your bio, in your member gallery, is insulting not only to Better Photo but to the rest of us. You won't tell us what photograph you are talking about or any specifics, so all this babble is a waste of your time and you shouldnt really care anymore. Dont you have something better to do than waste your time!!! Of course you're getting attention....and I guess that's what the whole idea is!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
If Gregory is being childish, how mature is it to slam everyone who wins at BP? How mature is it to say there is very little photographic excellence among the winners, or that the whole site is about nothing but digital manipulation? bla bla bla bla bla bla bla...how's that for childish? :D
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Audrea Telkamp |
I hope you don't mind me following up on this topic a bit. I do believe we are all competing here as artists (not photojournalists), and no explanation is required. Many generous people here at BP do share their technique with others though, and I think that is what this site is supposed to be all about. What I still have a problem with though - and I believe this is a big part of what Richard's original point was about - is a perceived dishonesty when someone presents an image with camera settings only, as if that were all that was required to arrive at the final product. It seems a bit like sharing a great recipe and leaving out a few key ingredients. Something to the effect of "editing done in PS" should be noted. As a beginner, it can be terribly frustrating to follow all given instructions and still not achieve the same end result. I believe if for some reason you don't want to share a technique (and hey - that's okay too), you shouldn't list anything at all. Okay, giddyup go horsey!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
It is all art to a degree we all agree there? But I think it's the presentation Richard has trouble with, and I see both points. I know there is a category here called digital darkroom, and maybe that needs to be defined and exposed better. Or simply have Miotke create a more defined parameter. Make an entire new category for "Camera Only" and one for "Enhancement" and allow entries to win based on those categories. That way, the purists would be happy as well as the experimenters.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
All the more reason for getting rid of the contest and move towards Q&A...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Hi Audrea! I agree Richard has some valid points. I think it would be nice if photographers would make some kind of note of their editing, but I've seen a few winning photos that have been drastically changed by use of camera filters or Photoshop curves, etc. That is where I don't get the gripe. To me there's little difference in adding a bird to a scene or adding/changing a color completely. I think John S. hit on a good solution. Maybe there should be a category for Camera Only. If so then I don't think any editing should be allowed :D
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Contest for Pure Photo (anything done with strictly camera including filters and settings) Contest for Digital Skill Obvious, logical, and correct.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kip T. Berger |
Hi All! :) Just another opinion...I'm an amateur photographer. I come here to enjoy looking at others' work, regardless whether it is strictly done in camera or further enhanced on the computer. To me I get enjoyment in seeing the pictures of others and sharing mine. The contest is a nice "perk" for the site, but I don't think it should become the sole reason we visit and share our work. No one is going to get rich over any contest here, and nobody will die if their submission isn't of the quality that the site judges deem a winning photo. I think we should just be glad to be able to use the site to meet fellow people who share our love for photography, and worry less of judging others based upon what they want to do with their images. If you like thier images, give them positive feedback. If you don't , give them constructive feedback or just don't add a response to the thread. I enjoy coming here to meet people I consider friends, to share my images, get feedback( both positive and constructive), and to try to learn or help in Q&A. I can see both sides of the enhance/non-enhanced issue, but still don't see where it is worth anyone's interest to get upset over it. Life's full of stress as is...I come here to relax and enjoy the work of all. Hope EVERYBODY has a great holiday, and is safe through-out the year. ~Peace~
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
AMEN!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Rob Bishop |
AMEN times 2!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
What's a pure photo? And why do purist always have a list of exceptions. Filters, machine color corrections and density corrections. Nobody's pure and nobody's ever been pure. But anyway, the big secret is it's the photo of the egrets. They put the head of the left bird on the right bird. That's it, that's the big travesty. Two funny things, it really wasn't necessary(http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.php?photoid=694697&sf=1) link for the original. And our resident martyr even lets the guy or lady(can't remember) know that he likes it. As the original that is. Mystery solved, drama put to rest(hopefully) cancel the new retinal identification scanners for the betterphoto site. Resume taking pictures until the next episode.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Hey, 'ol Greg L.! Your words are simply nonsense, but that's nothing new. Sorry little fella, you can't make me into the bad guy this time. Not a martyr...but, definitely a conscientous objector! The image in question is not the problem... the laxity of rules being the important issue. I certainly recognize your attempt to turn everything into a personal attack on me. Well, I won't react in kind.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
still having trouble finding the animal category?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
ENOUGH already!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Gregory can take care of himself but I will say this for him...I don't see him slamming BP and their winners right on his Bio, Mr. Good Guy!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Based on the facts, the allowance of "anything goes" digital manipulation appears to be the rule, rather than the exception. That isn't necessarily a slam on BPh or their winners. Maybe it's a compliment regarding their superior digital manipulation skills. I'd guess there is a strategic move by BPh to emphasize PhotoShop over Photography. In that case, it should be expected that BPh.com will soon be renamed BetterPhotoShop.com. That's okay! It's just not the reason I joined here in the first place. I prefer photography to excessive work on the computer. The balance, in my mind, should be 80% photography, 20% computer. .. not the other way around.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
I would not keep on in this, but you know every response goes to the computer because I did respond before. Rich, I did and do agree with your feeling about traditional skill in photography. Your complaint deals with digital manipulation in art. I gotta say this, why did you then name your own website HahnDigitalArts.com? That doesnt smack of "photo". It denotes the very theme you are opposed to.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Ok, #1 you did too bash everyone who is a BP winner in your Bio, Richard. You said there is very little photographic excellence. #2 I visit both BP and DPC regularly. I have viewed probably every single day at DPC for months. It blows my mind they choose the same photographers day in and day out. I dislike that site with the same fervor you dislike BP. Beautiful photography for sure, but no one is going to convince me there's so few entries they have to choose the same photographers every single day. At least BP spreads it around a little. They don't have the members here voting on their buddies photos either. #3 It's fairly easy to figure out which photo you were referring to. You aren't all that subtle. I guessed it and I imagine everyone in on this thread did if they visit both sites. If you didn't want it exposed you shouldn't have brought it up.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Ooops forgot something! I liked the photo in question! I love BP for allowing creativity!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Sharon, do you have some statistics on your DPC assertion? You should post those to support your claims. Otherwise, I see a broad spectrum of new and veteran winners there every month. John, my website name is appropriate for me and my digital photography. One of my galleries is labelled "Digital Art". More than 80% is unmanipulated digital photography. (Just standard processing of RAW format files. No replacement of key elements!)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Sharon, the photo in question is an outstanding digital art presentation. I like it very much myself. But, it shouldn't have won in the animal category.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I'm glad to hear DPC looks at new photographers occasionally. Anyone interested can do what I did...check out the POTDs and see which photographers are featured nearly every day. The only beef I have with you, Richard, is how you summarily dismissed every winner at BP because you have issues with this one photo. I've said it before on this post, and I'll say it again...I think your work is outstanding, BUT you shouldn't have put it right in your Bio that the contest is all digital manipulation and very little photographic excellence. Your words not mine.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard H. Hahn |
Sharon, good point. My words were not accurate. No one really knows the degree of digital manipulation involved in any photo. I'll change my words now to "...80% digital manipulation and 20% photographic excellence". There certainly are some really great photos by talented photographers that have not engaged in key element replacement.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Don't bother, we get it!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Goodbye, Richard.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dale Gast |
This has been an interesting Q&A thread! I have really enjoyed reading it. It reminds me of the diversity of all people!!! It also reminds me that along with that, comes intolerance! Unfortunately! The original thought behind starting this thread was that someone had won an award for their image that was obviously manipulated & not accounted for. Ok... there is a place for images that are manipulated. Digital darkroom. I image that some feel very upset because this image isn't where it should be. I don't think it's a blast on the image, just on placing it in the wrong category. RH has excellent images that belong in this catagory & they were passed up. Anyone can see the hurt of this. So, all of this has escalated to all of your comments. Some hurtful, some helpful! My thoughts on this all... go back & rethink what started this whole discussion! It was a healthy thread to start with. It had merit. What doesn't have merit is the mud-slinging. If you don't feel you have contributed to the mud-slinging, then great! If you have, than think of the impact your anger, your thoughts, YOUR mud-slinging has had. I am sure many do not RH to leave. He has beautiful images! And, is a talented artist. Perhaps, instead of all this mud-slinging, we could be adults, & leave "CONSTRUCTIVE criticism" for the person who has won. And advise them that we see a flaw & perhaps the image was entered into the wrong category. Or... you can keep posting to this thread! What have we done to our BP community? Have we had intorerance or diversity with power & greatness?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Im just wondering if anyone has brought this category parameter issue directly to the owner, Miotke. I for one wouldnt mind hearing his view since the category definitions are up to him.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
you can click on "catergorizations" on the contest page and read them yourself.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
StoneHorseStudios.com - Eric Highfield Contact Eric Highfield Eric Highfield's Gallery |
from the Guidlines: What We Do Not Take Into Account Digitally manipulated images Note on Digital Manipulation These categories are intended to help you enjoy the photo contest. They are not written in stone and are considered suggestions more than rules. We reserve the right to determine when a photo fits or does not fit into a particular category.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
I assume Eric is affiliated with better photo. Yes the categories are already there, and come to think of it, if people would read it and comply with it it will work for everybody Everything else seems to be debating and differing opinions. OK Eric and/or Jim, all we need now would be one more little category then called Opinion Poll (this would differ from just discussions) thanks,, Im out
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
StoneHorseStudios.com - Eric Highfield Contact Eric Highfield Eric Highfield's Gallery |
I'm not affiliated with Betterphoto. Just found this and thought I would share...seemed relevant to the thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Patricia A. Kuniega |
Sorry but I have to disagree with the premise of the the original message and the subsequnet reasoning behind it in later posts. If the photo in question was radically altered or a complete digital fabrication, I could see putting it into the category Digital Darkroom. The term radical alteration is key here. If the contest entry was largely manipulated from the original photograph by any means, it would be best entered in the DD category. But, in my opinion this was a moderate alteration. Not small, such as cloning out stray object, but not major, whereby the original image no longer resembled the beginning photograph. If you look at the entry, the overall integrity of the original photograph was intact. If you look at the original image you can appreciate why the photographer chose to alter it. It would seem like a good idea. Should it disqualify the photo because it was altered? No. By making the changes it did not create an animal which does not exist in nature. It did not for want of a better metaphor, pin an elephant's tail on a donkey. So in my opinion, this is not a radical change. It was an improvement to the original photo. The replacement "part" probably belonged to the same animal, and was part of a series of shots. It's a photo contest. Not a crime lab. This isn't a pair of Bruno Mali shoes and OJ Simpson. It's time to stop whining and be adults. Forget about it!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet Detota |
Yeah, what she said! And happy holidays to you all! :-)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dale Gast |
After reading the "RULES & SUGGESTIONS" that Eric kindly copied & pasted here, (Not made up by him, but by BP) I have to say that it does not matter to BP if an image is manipulated. Nor does it say that you have to state it. They only suggest that you do. I had read that before, but forgotten. Thanks for the reminder, Eric!!! With that in mind, the winner in question had every right to win in that category. The question here is: should the photographer have stated the manipulation? No matter how small or how much? Well, I guess that is not going to be answered in this Q&A! What is happening, is everyone is posting their opinion. I have my own, but, to me... sharing it in this forum isn't the answer. If someone is upset, I suggest taking to the owner of this site. And, I stand behind what I originally said... TOO BAD THERE'S SO MUCH MUDSLINGING!!! I bet that no one here has gained much from this thread. And, to Pat, I quote her... "It's a photo contest. Not a crime lab. This isn't a pair of Bruno Mali shoes and OJ Simpson. It's time to stop whining and be adults. Forget about it! " That about sums it up!!! On that note... I wish you all a happy holiday.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nancy Grace Chen |
Just my two cents on how I see and react to all this. I happen to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to photography. When I see something that is called a photo, I want to know that that was something that was seen in real life. That chance and skill came together, and a beautiful moment was captured. I personally try to do as little alterations to my photos as possible if I'm going to enter them into something called a Photo Contest. If I do make alterations, I mention them. All that being said, BP has made the rules, and the rules were here before we were. It's BP's site, and they have the right to run things the way they want. So I don't have a problem with what winners they choose. But I still have control over the way I do my art. It may be harder for those of us who like to do things the old fashioned way to win, but it shouldn't be all about winning anyways. A great photo will still be recognized. Happy clicking,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Kip and Dale - very well said! Don't sweat the small stuff! Peace on Earth and Happy Holidays! DDK
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Well, I'm no photoshop phobe but I will say that I prefer the orgiginal. I love how the feathers are blowing over like windblown hair--looks carefree like a true "moment". I don't care that the win is altered--but my preference would be the orginal...once I look at the real picture the neck and head in the altered look kind of weird. I guess if one thing does bother me about photoshop it's the desire to clone, paint, replace and airbrush every little object or element that doesn't strike us as absolutely perfect. I know for myself I've cloned away at a photo, then saved it. Later I go back and realize I prefer the original. But I still love cloning wrinkles! Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gianna Stadelmyer |
Hi all! I almost hate to add to this thread since it's like beating a dead horse, but I found a photography quote on a site I frequent and I thought of this thread when I read it. Thought it might be of interest, at least to some, so here goes... "One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it...If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only to make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -Galen Rowell
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
StoneHorseStudios.com - Eric Highfield Contact Eric Highfield Eric Highfield's Gallery |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||