 - Ken Smith  Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Special Effects versus Digital Darkroom Perhaps this is for the BP folks--what is the difference between Special Effects and Digital Darkroom categories? I thought special effects was stuff you did in the camera; e.g., zoom while you focus, or camera blur, or IR, or different filters, etc. But most of the finalists in Special Effects are really digital darkroom. So I'm assuming that the BP folks don't penalize a true DD entry, if it's placed in special effects, and vice versa? v/r Ken Smith
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
Makes me wonder if they shouldn't combine the two categories and free up a category for something people would use a little more. The SpFX category just doesn't seem to be understood by many and it surely has the fewest entries be a long ways. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Please don't combine the two. Special Effects are created in-camera...and usually are the result of a pre-conceived mental vision of how the final outcome will appear. Digital Darkroom images are most commonly created while looking at the computer screen and manipulating things until they look right. ...There is a big difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
I know there's a big difference, but the category is just not being used much is all I'm saying. Seems like there could be better utilized catgeories that more people would take advantage of. And doesn't anybody but me get tired of looking at blurry flowers?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hmmm? Good question. ;) Seems to me that S/E and DD kinda' meld together with no clear demarcation. It comes down to the "degree" of manipulation and no doubt someone's arbitrary definition of it. Making a blue sky a little deeper blue? In the days whan I did B&W, would not dodging and burning be a "special effect?" Afterall, it was not created in the camera. One could argue the elements of the photo were always there, but needed a little coaxing. Today, I dodge and burn with Adobe, and with the computer doing all the math; so I would have to call it DD. Instead of light being blocked or added to light sensitive paper, I can now do it much more precisely. In my opinion, ANY digital image, altered in ANY way is a (Special Effect) and done in my (Digital Darkroom.) Hmmm? Interesting question. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
I brought this up a couple of weeks ago in another thread. In last month's SE finalists there are photos (like the very first finalist) where there are no SEs at all, just DD. And it isn't like the photographers are hiding the fact, they state exactly what they did and sometimes the original photo. I could maybe just about understand if the judges were allowing photos that had DD to make it look like a SE (eg adding panning blur) because otherwise they have to be detectives as to whether it is in camera or not, but some of the finalists are just pure DD with no relation to in camera SEs. So it seems like there is no discrimination between the two categories.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
They are probably thinking "less competition in SpFX, so let's try to sneak one in over there". And it works.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
I know there's a blurry line. For example, I may do a long time exposure of car lights, and use a graduated density filter. I consider this "Special Effects." Well, I guess it could be Landscapes or Travel/Place. Then, I do the usual cropping, levels, saturation. Technically, these are DD, but they're so common and probably applied to any picture posted. So for my example, I consider it Special Effects. If someone innocently uploads a great DD work of art in Special Effects, I think BP should move it to the DD category. That way, it's not competing against the true Special Effects photos. Otherwise, I think it dilutes the SE category. Of course, this takes extra work by the BP staff and I'm sure they're busy enough keeping up with the contest in general. Maybe BP could relabel the category as "Special Effects--in Camera."
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
About to go off the deep end again? Either description is just as likely to come from preconceived notions or ideas and there isn't anything about either one that makes it or hints that it is. They're both vastly open to experimentation with unknown results, as well as having your end result in mind and knowing what to do to get there. And in the days of doing black and white, there wasn't a confusion of what was meant by a special affect and when you saw one, so why should there be now when you're doing the same kind of thing? Yall go read the category descriptions and compare the photos that won, not the finalist. You think you might find that maybe they do see a difference?
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
So why not combine them? I got a second in that category a few months ago, and there were only 15 finalists in the whole category, 2 of which belonged to the same person, so one of those would automatically be tossed. That left 14, so everybody was pretty much a shoo in for a medal of some sort. My point is, if the category isn't being used any more than that, maybe they should reconsider.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Because it was made that way in the attempt to placate the cries of they shouldn't be combined because it wasn't fair. So a change from the old categories cycles to a change from the current back to the old.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
I guess they are de facto the same category already looking at the finalists. If you want more chance of a finalist put your DD image in the SE category. For 1st/2nd place the judges appear to be a bit more discriminating it seems to me. How about still life special effects ;-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Pete Herman theory says if it wasn't in motion than it could be a still life.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Personally rather than still life I'd prefer to have a head wrapped in towel/t-shirt/veil/drapery category, that would make it easier to get a People finalist :-) Actually I don't like seeing a plethora of categories, it devalues the value of getting a finalist. I got a finalist in SE and it didn't feel half as satisfying as getting one in People. Usually I try and enter in People unless it is very clearly in one of the other categories so that if I get recognized by the judges it feels more like I deserved it rather than being selected in a small field of entries. Maybe they could just get rid of SE and not replace it with anything?
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"...it devalues the value of getting a finalist." You must've missed all the threads about why are there not as many as last month, or there needs to be a certain number or percentage so poor photographers won't get discourage.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
In that case would it be a good idea to have a "never had a finalist" category, a sort of beginners category to give people encouragement? So it's a level down in standard from the other categories but show's that the photographer is doing something right if they get a finalist in it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Hey, great shot!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
In camera special effects require effort and vision. I do not feel that any nods I have received in the SE category "devalues" my win in the least. It requires thought and skill with a camera to achieve a winning image. I do not have a digital camera capable of mulitle exposures but I know those take skill to achieve. You not only have to manipulate the camera to achieve shots like this but you need to know how to expose for these kinds of shots. Flurry of Flowers by Claudia Kuhn How difficult is it to take a pic of a person standing/sitting still for the photographer? My point is just because a person doesn't understand or appreciate the work involved in a SE doesn't mean camera effects take any less skill than say a portrait. To answer Ken's question...BP does not care if someone places a DD in any category, special effects included, although for myself I can't stand to see DD entries winning in SE. It totally is not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Sharon I was trying to say the more categories you have the less competition there is in each one and hence a finalist wouldn't hold the same value. I think as a rough rule of thumb it seems to me that the more entries there are in a category the harder it is to get a finalist. This probably isn't strictly true, as SE is kind of self-selecting to have better than average photographers to even have a clue how to do the Special Effects. On the other hand from my own anecdotal experience I've entered once I think into SE and got a finalist, and that was with a photo that didn't get a nod in People. Likewise with a Flowers photo I re-entered in DD. That's personally where I get the impression some categories are easier than others. Some of the categories seem to be brutal competition such as Flowers, Nature & Landscape and others seem a bit easier. Of course however much harder/easier different categories are doesn't cast judgement on any one individual photographer or photo, especially if it ends up winning the Grand Prize!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Jane, I have a 2nd place win in N&L as well as flowers and I do not value either of them any more (if as much) than I do my SE wins because they were both so much easier to accomplish as far as technical skill is concerned. I saw a leaf floating on the water and snapped a pic of it :o)! For me SE requires a little more thought than that. I enter SE a lot and have had a few wins in it, but more because I love special effects than because it's an easier category due to the small numbers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You missed her point and I think you internalized it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
"I think as a rough rule of thumb it seems to me that the more entries there are in a category the harder it is to get a finalist. This probably isn't strictly true, as SE is kind of self-selecting to have better than average photographers to even have a clue how to do the Special Effects." I think Jane had a good point. Sharon,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Gregory, that would be me :o)! Bob, I think all the categories are a crap shoot. Here's what they could do, eliminate SE and DD for General and Still Life. Then the SE and the DD could just be placed in the closest category. I mean really, what's the point of a DD category when you can stick a DD in any category anyway? Personally, I like the categories as they are. If anyone thinks their chances are better in SE due to the low entries in that category then they can just take a photo using "in camera" effects and get a win. How hard is that?
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Perhaps the label could be "Special Effects-in Camera." Another idea--for each contest category; e.g., Landscapes, People, etc, add an "About" link. For example, I go to Contest page then click Special Effects category. I see all the current thumbnails--like always. And I see another link right at the top of the page that says "About Special Effects." I click it to see what BP had in mind for this category.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
We can debate this til the cows come home and it won't make a bit of difference. They will do whatever they want, just like always. I'm sure they see what is being said and maybe they will see a need to change and maybe they won't. It's not our decision.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
That's a cool idea, Ken! I thought of something that I wouldn't mind seeing incorporated into the contest. There could be a few categories that you know in advance you will not win anything but recognition and a medal. I can understand why they wouldn't want to keep adding categories and prizes, but how about winning a medal? Those are fun to collect and they don't cost anything.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
How about a photo discussion with a long list of "Hey, great shot!"?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Skelton . |
In today's world of digital cameras, scanners and computers , Just about every photograph reguardless the means of capture is in some way digitally altered . What is lost when film or transparencies is scanned will most likely be corrected and/or enhanced digitally. The same is true with digital photographs . So as one can see there is a fuzzy line between all the categories and digital darkroom.Special Effects for me is not only in-camera but also an effect you create outside the camera just to take a photo ." Big Bang" in my gallery as a case in point. If as Sharon says, " BP doesn't care what category DD's are placed in" Then there isn't much that can be done to rectify the situation. But I do agree with Sharon that it would be nice to have a more defined structure for each category.Otherwise what the sense of having them in the first place. Until then we all have to play within the guidelines BP sets .As long as it's the same for all I can and will live with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Skelton . |
In today's world of digital cameras, scanners and computers , Just about every photograph reguardless the means of capture is in some way digitally altered . What is lost when film or transparencies is scanned will most likely be corrected and/or enhanced digitally. The same is true with digital photographs . So as one can see there is a fuzzy line between all the categories and digital darkroom.Special Effects for me is not only in-camera but also an effect you create outside the camera just to take a photo ." Big Bang" in my gallery as a case in point. If as Sharon says, " BP doesn't care what category DD's are placed in" Then there isn't much that can be done to rectify the situation. But I do agree with Sharon that it would be nice to have a more defined structure for each category.Otherwise what the sense of having them in the first place. Until then we all have to play within the guidelines BP sets .As long as it's the same for all I can and will live with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Skelton . |
In today's world of digital cameras, scanners and computers , Just about every photograph reguardless the means of capture is in some way digitally altered . What is lost when film or transparencies is scanned will most likely be corrected and/or enhanced digitally. The same is true with digital photographs . So as one can see there is a fuzzy line between all the categories and digital darkroom.Special Effects for me is not only in-camera but also an effect you create outside the camera just to take a photo ." Big Bang" in my gallery as a case in point. If as Sharon says, " BP doesn't care what category DD's are placed in" Then there isn't much that can be done to rectify the situation. But I do agree with Sharon that it would be nice to have a more defined structure for each category.Otherwise what the sense of having them in the first place. Until then we all have to play within the guidelines BP sets .As long as it's the same for all I can and will live with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
The line isn't that fuzzy, and it's not fuzzy at all between digital darkroom and the other categories. And yesterday's world is today's world because it's printed by machine or hand to taste, film is new and improved with saturation, or if it's not flowers but people, try the one made more neutral for skin tones. VR,VC,Provia,Sensia...Time to leave the false statements of higher fidelity and get over needing things written with permanent ink on stone. They're trying to give people some versatility with choices and it's shouldn't be such a big stumbling block. If you traveled and took a landscape picture, you know you can pick from at least two categories if you want. If the picture speaks of other countries instead of the regular farm that most can drive to with 2 hours, maybe that may lean you more towards travel instead of landscape. But lord, is it really something that puts people in that much of a bind? You can do some things like zoom blur with your lens or with photoshop. But they tell you that in the special affects category description. You have a digital camera and still can't figure it out, then do your zoom blur with the lens instead and enter it in the special affects. You put unrealistic color changes, cuts and paste, buzz filter, poster edges, distortions, the whole list of filters, it's not a hard thing to see what is meant by digital darkroom.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Skelton . |
These are not false statements , It is true that that todays film are much better but the fact of the matter is that there is loss changing from one platform or another. Just as there is making prints from negatives . I was not talking about taking a photograph of anyplace and listing it under landscape or travel . Should one know how to use their camera or not and changes it to something its not that is digitally altering the photography . If you want to say that is special effects and not digital darkroom , fine so be it . In the mean time get off your high horse God .
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
"You put unrealistic color changes, cuts and paste, buzz filter, poster edges, distortions, the whole list of filters, it's not a hard thing to see what is meant by digital darkroom." Gregory, there's wins with those kinds of works in the SE category as well, but if it's ok then I'll just start entering my "buzzed" entries there. Less competition :o)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Usually it's a finalist and not first or second. And usually it's the application of one photoshop trick like buzz filter, or dry brush, etc... At the very least that should tell people they some freedom to work with. That should be a good thing for an art contest. It shouldn't cause anybody to become vapor locked. In the mean time, giddyup!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
I agree, Gregory, BUT I think the SE that's been put through the Buzz should at least have some SE going on rather than a purely DD submit. How do you get un-vapor locked? I think I'll start putting DD in the SE. Fewer entries=easier to win :D.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
I truly believe that these two categories should be combined - they both have the least amount of entries entries and the most overlap because the difference isn't being understood. Also - Sharon - I'm a little confused - you point out a winner done with multiple exposure - but how is the wave filter SE? Is that not something in PS? Or is that a winner in DD?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Diane, Claudia started out with a SE multiple exposure created in camera. She just added a bit of filter to it. All categories allow digital darkroom effects, but I do not think they should be confused with an in camera effect or passed off as one. Also, not all the special effects are really camera effects. They also allow polaroid image transfers, polaroid emulsion transfers, polaroid SX-70 manipulations, and cross processed images (film developed in the wrong chemicals). These effects have nothing to do with Photoshop. I think what people are trying to point out is you would not expect to see a dog portrait in the finalists of the Nature & Landscapes category. It's really no different with SE. Those who make an effort to enter an honest to gosh special effect just prefer not to have to compete with a digital darkroom entry otherwise they'd just enter the SE. That by-the-way was just an explanation. I don't want Gregory accusing me of being vapor locked :O)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Perhaps we should all look back into our past, before we had computers (and Photoshop) and try to remember what we had to do to create pre-conceived mystic or surreal imagery armed only with our cameras...and our knowledge and understanding of light, focus, composition and exposure.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
If people would read the guidelines they have for clarifying the categories, I don't think there'd be a problem. But, like a police officer told me, they'll put traffic cones out to block off a parking lot entry to tell people the lot is full, no more cars. But regardless he'll still have countless numbers of people pull up and ask "Can I go in there?". Some people are just going to enter into the wrong category.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
That's true Gregory. I think a lot of people do that because the numbers in the SE category are so low and it seems like an easier way to place. It's beginning to look like the General category though. You're apt to see anything in there.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bill Wyatt |
I have to agree with Ken as much as I hate too. lol.. Special effects are for in camera effects and DD is for PS effects. I also agree that people put DD images in SE category because BP does not spell the categories out plain enough. I don't think they should be combined because if I pan an image or I intentionally blur a image or zoom an image, things that all take lots of practice to prefect or become proficient at I think they are a world apart from doing it while sitting in front of my computer on Photo Shop.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Bill, BP does do a pretty good job of spelling it out, but people do not read it or do not understand it and submit their DD to the SE category anyway.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
SX-70, polarioid transfer, cross process... done outside the camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Very true, Gregory, but BP does say those are acceptable in the SE category, and would be cool buzzed :D. Glad to see you're wearing your safety belt LOL.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
If the judges didn't pick DD finalists in the SE category it wouldn't matter that some people pay no attention to the guidelines.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Take note that those that look better suited for DD, they usually don't get above finalist in SE. But we're in the process of battling another flickr site thief. So there's something more important going on right at the moment.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
I guess my question is why do they even make finalist? Unfortunately some of my photos are on page 6 of that flickr site, perhaps BP could put their own faint copyright watermark on every uploaded photo?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Gregory, check out the August winners. I just now checked out the flicker thief. They seem to know how to steal photos better than take them. The last couple of pages or so are obviously not thefts.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Okay, checking them out as I type this. We have "zoom" made with a digital but used a slow shutter speed. Click the button before the train passes the house so the house shows thru. "irregular shadows" made with a hoya filter, not a program. "blush" overexposure "summer dance" slow shutter speed. "converging lines" slow shutter speed. Good use of making abstract with static to get similar elements. Could also put that in ED category. Ain't options wonderful. "fall aspens" you may have an issue with because of photoshop motion blur used with camera movement. But it's not the main focus of the picture. Not major photoshop work going on with that. "golden orb" backlight. "locomotive" may have increased the gold, or even changed the color to gold. "flurry of flowers" stacked layers and wave filter, looks better for DD. Unless that camera can do multiple exposures, then I'll accept it for SE. "flow flowers" shutter speed. "destination" slow shutter speed. So from that, I don't see any problem with who won for SE. There's one or two that you can argue over. But that still seems like a good percentage.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
"...perhaps BP could put their own faint copyright watermark on every uploaded photo?" Oh no way, they already do enough damage to the photos with their compression techniques. ever wonder why they're all so soft? anyways they also couldn't do that because that would be giving the credit to BP, as if we shot for BP, and we don't. That would make it like they took "our" images and put "their" copyright on it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Justin - point taken on damage LOL, I shouldn't have said 'copyright' as they obviously don't have that, maybe just a small logo in one corner. I find personal copyright logos very distracting because they vary so much, though I'm sure there would be much opposition to any BP logo too. Gregory - I'm guessing "fall aspens" is exactly the photo Sharon was referring to. The photographer stated there was a photoshop (ie DD) effect made for the motion blur and there are no other apparent special effects in that photo. Maybe the judges didn't read the description. I agree it's hard to enforce the difference but when the photographer spells it out... ??
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Just so everyone understands I'm not picking apart anyone's entries or wins. That would be too reminiscent of a Q&A way back when someone was accused of swapping out a bird's head :o)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Actually she said she used motion blur filter with camera movement. But like I said, to me it still goes with special effects because it wasn't a case of showcasing the abilties of photoshop overtly. That's why I would go towards DD with "flurry of flowers" because they may have had to keep using layers, plus the wave filter. To me, things like wave filter and swirl go into DD. Add to that, she may have combined photoshop techniques.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||