[CJ Swartz]

Please post any responses to entries in this month's competition here.

[ScubaMargie]

I tend to agree with Anna on this one. Also would like to know how Ant took his and what manipulation he did.

[CJ Swartz]

Kombizz, you don't post a PM (personal message) link or email, so when you read this or the competition thread, please give us info on how you created your image -- if it's photographic, please give us an idea of how you gave it more of a "graphic" look.

[CJ Swartz]

From the November '07 competition (theme - black & white)

Originally Posted by ScubaMargie

A question about the black and white theme. Does the picture have to be taken in black and white mode or can it be taken in colour and then desaturated?

My answer then was that either was allowed. No one seemed concerned with post-processing to make a color image into a black/white image.

Now there is a question of what methods are allowed for turning an image a certain hue. There are color gels for lighting, colored filters for lenses, changing WB (white balance) from actual lighting type - all photographic methods that can change/add color casts. The Photoshop black/white layer adjustment allows adding a color tint to a desaturated image.

Currently, the rules state "... We'd love to hear any shooting info you have (shutter speed, ISO, f-stop) as well as any regular photographic post-processing -- cropping, levels, saturation, dodge/burn, etc. This isn't the place for Photoshop art filters -- we have other forums for that."

My personal opinion is that the voters will decide what is acceptable and attractive to them, and post-processing doesn't bother me. That said, having this forum for Photography separated from the photo-art and retouching forums does make it legitimate to question which editing functions fit within this forum.

[ScubaMargie]

I know this site is primarily geared towards retouching and photo manipulation but this is a "photography" thread and I think that if you are going to process more than just basic curves and levels then what what is the point of having a photography thread?

The photos that I put in this thread only have basic adjustments done to them, primarily just enhancing the colour and contrast of the image. The image I took for the Black and White Image was taken in Black and white. i wanted to challenge myself with the theme, I know it could have been a picture with black and white colours but I wanted to know how to improve my skills as a photographer by using B&W.

I think the best way to keep this as a photography only thread would be to put in a rule which says only basic adjustments are allowed and let the camera speak, so to speak.

Challenge yourselves and don't let "PHOTOSHOP" do all the work!!!

[Janet Petty]

Talk about post processing? Talk about the recent black and white theme? Talk about film photography and digital photography with the same sort of "rules" and what does one get?

One gets a heated discussion with no winners and no losers, only polarized and often biased differences of opinion. Photoshop, in my humble opinion, is used in two basic, yet differing, ways. One, it is the modern darkroom where all of the old time darkroom methods have been digitized. One can use this modern darkroom for basic image corrections. Or one can use this modern darkroom for fine art. Or two, one can use this modern darkroom to push the envelope and delve into more drastic manipulations that remove the picture from picture status into the realm of art and surrealism.

If I understand this photography forum correctly, it is for the first of the two reasons that we submit images here. Certainly Ansel Adams would have been one of the first persons to wholeheartedly embrace photoshop as his darkroom. He constantly pushed his pictures into the realm of fine art with exceptional darkroom skills. And everyone applauds him for those skills. James Nachtwey, a famous photojournalist (http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/), manipulates his pictures in the darkroom to bring out their full potential without destroying their poignancy or editorial content.

Whether or not a person shot a picture in color and turned it to black and white in photoshop is such a nit that it is laughable. CJ was right when she mentioned there are filters and such that one adds to a camera for different effects--all perfectly acceptable and legal. Ant's image, again in my humble opinion, is acceptable for the reason stated above. Another image submitted that is more graphically/arty oriented rather than photographically oriented is not, unless that is a picture taken of artwork (but why do that?)

If this disqualifies me, then so be it. I personally correct for color, sharpness, and levels/curves on every picture I choose to process. The reason being that I shoot in RAW format (digital negative) with a Canon camera, which softens and somewhat distorts the actual colors I see with my naked eye. My goal is to restore the scene to what I saw when I shot the picture. This month's submission follows those parameters.

"Challenge yourselves and don't let "PHOTOSHOP" do all the work!!!" Oh, I do! I do challenge myself. I'm not sorry my darkroom isn't full of smelly chemicals any longer and that I can work with images without having to wait for developing and printing to make sure I got a once-in-a-lifetime shot or missed it by a mile.

Enjoy your cameras; and enjoy with your digital darkroom software the vast array of possibilities that are there for exploration, learning, and enhancement.

Janet

[palms1]

I have been reading what has been said here and would like to say I sat on my hands over my submission, it was very tempting to manipulate the colours and had i submitted it to the photo art section i would of done, but to me that wasnt the point.
What i did try, was a different setting on my camera, I tried the vivid light setting which made the skin tones much better but the eyes then had a more grey look, so i plumped for the blue eye look but with the not so good skin tones on the standard colour setting. Mind you there are quite a few ready for the recycle bin, It was a lot harder than i thought

And if any one can help explaining to a 5 year old what the cracks are in her eyes i would be grateful ( veins)

Palms

[ScubaMargie]

And now you have learnt a thing or two about your camera. That is the point here, going and using the camera and developing your skills.

I know there are filters and settings on the camera that change the way the shot is taken. I was curious as to how Ant got his picture looking the way he did, did he use a filter or maybe blue light or was it photoshop? and Kombizz's didn't look like a photo at all unless it was a picture taken of a picture.

[allieok]

After reading Mystical One's comments, I am wondering exactly where the line is drawn as far as changing an image for the contest. I changed the colors of the flowers somewhat to make them more blue using selective color in Photoshop and made small adjustments to other aspects of the image like sharpening some areas.

Mystical One seemed quite upset, and I suspect he had my entry in mind when he commented. I will be happy to take my entry out of the competition if the changes I made do not fall within the rules.

That being said, I'd like to comment about the the futility of drawing such distinctions. The line between photography and art is very fuzzy and attempts to police that line are frustrating for all concerned. There are always "purists" in any field who are slow to accept new innovations and scream foul when someone figures a better way to achieve something. There are plenty of these "purists" among photographers, bless their hearts. They are rightfully proud of their accomplishments with a camera and resent those who can create something just as impressive with a point-and-shoot camera and Photoshop.

I made my living as an artist for many years and it probably won't surprise you to know that many artists resent photographers exhibiting in the same art shows. There are some "purists" among them that even think it is cheating for an artist to use photographs as source material for their paintings.

It is human nature, I suppose, and that is not going to change. I don't care much how someone achieves an image if the end result is pleasing. Painters, photographers -- and all who fit somewhere in between -- need a good eye. Without that, they will not produce good pictures, even if they have all the tools available today. But why should someone with a good eye put limits on the tools they can use?

But I understand that this group has the right to do that, and for the purposes of this competition, can make any restrictions deemed proper. And although I do use Photoshop extensively in most of my work, on this photograph, the changes were few and I noted them with the entry. But if making minimal adjustments to a photograph in Photoshop is not within the rules, please let me know or simply take my entry off. I will not be offended, honestly. I've had my say.

[CJ Swartz]

Well, aren't we all having fun! A competition without any monetary prizes, set up to give "camera owners", photography enthusiasts, and/or pros alike added motivation to use their camera to create an image, and what happens? We have people on "opposite sides" of the debate deleting their entries...

As moderator, I suppose I could/should take some particular "stand on the issues", but it will NOT be a strong one for these reasons:

1. I don't know what Ant did to his entry (in a studio or with Photoshop) -- perhaps I'm supposed to be able to look at it and KNOW, but I don't.

2. I was surprised when I found out some years ago that photographs are not reproductions of the place, the person, the animal, the thing, etc. depicted in the image, but reproductions of what the photographer saw or wanted his audience to see. I grew up thinking photos were "a documented record" of the thing they depicted -- and that's what my photography attempted to do -- record something I wanted to remember as it was. It never occurred to me then that MY vision of it might be different from another's and that there might be more than one reality. It certainly didn't occur to me that images might depict more than "reality".

When I retired and took a few photography classes, I found that the darkroom could make all kinds of changes in an image, and that it was up to me to decide what the image would look like. Then digital photography and digital editing became feasible for me and many others, and I was surrounded by debates and discussion about "real" photography versus [insert any number of terms argued about over the last 10 years]. I've found myself at various points along the range as the years go by, and today find the whole argument as pointless as "Ford vs Chevy", "Betamax vs VHS", "my team vs your team"...

My new Nikon camera includes "retouching filters" as a part of the camera -- I can retouch "red-eye", create a sepia or cyanotype image, as well as adjust color balance or make a black/white image -- after the shutter was tripped. Who knows what effects cameras 5 years from now will offer?

I thought that people would take photos, and people would vote for their favorites. Those with the most votes win, but that doesn't mean the others are worthless.

I still think people should submit their images (or submit them again after deletion) and people should vote for their favorites. Some people may agree, and others may not. People can either choose to have fun with their camera and images or not have fun. I vote for fun.

Originally Posted by allieok

...But if making minimal adjustments to a photograph in Photoshop is not within the rules, please let me know or simply take my entry off. I will not be offended, honestly. I've had my say.

Originally Posted by Mystical One

my apologies, but ...I only joined this site due to the existence of a photography section. Given the above response, where it seems any photoshopping is permitted I will not bother in future.

maybe I am too puritanical, but the difference between changing an image from colour to B&W is vastly different to manipulating the image to fit the theme....I will now continue my journey elsewhere for those sites that cater for those who like to take photo's

[allieok]

Honestly, I wasn't upset and that is not why I took my entry off. I just thought if the Photographers forum was a place for purists, my entry did not fit. But... since I was asked to by the Moderator, I submitted my entry again. If the purists among us don't like the fact that I made minor adjustments in Photoshop, I won't expect any votes from them.

[Janet Petty]

Since I don't know how to add multiple quotes from different people in a reply, I'm just going to say in capital letters to CJ and Allieok one thing! WAY TO GO!!! Your comments are spot on. Thank you.

Janet

[ScubaMargie]

The definition of a photograph from wikipedia

A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip. Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see.

The goal of these friendly competitions is to inspire members to grab our camera and actually use it.

Kombizz, did you use a camera for your image? To me it looks like a photoshop creation.

I'm not saying don't use photoshop in your entries, I do but only on a basic level to give it a bit of oomph and bring back the detail that the camera has taken out. I want people to see what I see, I want my images to be as close to reality,my reality, as possible.

Kombizz on this occasion has gone past that. Does he see fish that way? Has he got a camera that takes photos like that? If so where did he get it because I would like one.

I noticed in your responses that nobody has actually referred to the image in question. Have any of you actually looked at the image? Do any of you see fish that way? That is what Mystical one was trying to point out to you, that this image did not involve anything to do with photography.

What did happen to Ants' image? I notice it is no longer in the comp. I was just curious as to how he achieved it.

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by ScubaMargie

...

I want people to see what I see, I want my images to be as close to reality,my reality, as possible.

That is your choice, and you are free to do that.

Originally Posted by ScubaMargie

... Kombizz on this occasion has gone past that. Does he see fish that way? Has he got a camera that takes photos like that? If so where did he get it because I would like one.

If you have looked at the Competition entry thread, you will see that I posted a question for Kombizz to explain his process (the same day that he posted it), but I haven't seen a response. He is not available by email or forum PM. I don't know if he used a camera to photograph something else that he created or not. People do photograph paintings, don't they?

Originally Posted by ScubaMargie

...What did happen to Ants' image? I notice it is no longer in the comp. I was just curious as to how he achieved it.

Your previous posts did not sound like you were curious (in my opinion), but that you were suspicious and critical. Ant deleted his entry - without being asked to do so, by the way.

Discussing people's different opinions about what is art, what is photography, what is blue, what is allowable in a competition -- that's all to be expected, and part of human nature. But why is it so important what someone else submits? What do you lose by someone else submitting something different than what you do? Is it all about the "competition" and the "winning"? Why do you think that voting members have to be told which entries should be ignored and which are honest representations worth a vote? What did you think would happen if you weren't able to disqualify the entries you disapprove of - please, help me understand why people couldn't just look at them, decide what they thought, and vote.

[Sweetlight]

My two cents (by this time I should have a pretty hefty total added up with all the two cents I offer.)

Anyways, among many of my clients one of the largest is the Associated Press and other media sources. Coming from an advertising/studio background it was quite a change for me to go from making folks think that mash potatoes were ice cream and that those nice grill marks on the steak were put there by a hot rod and the steak was actually raw. Now I move from commercial world to editorial world freely but at first I had to learn the new ropes of what was acceptable in this digital world of ours. I have to find my AP guidelines book for more accurate info but the overall sentiment is the following. A photographer may - Digitally remove dust spots, blemishes or any of the like as long as they were in no way part of the original scene. - No photographer shall remove elements of any image, not garbage not beer bottles, nothing that would alter the reality of the moment. - A slight bit of sharpness may be added depending on the printer used but not as to enhance or create a false reality - color saturation - shadows- highlights and overall tonality may be enhanced or de-enhanced as long as the intent of the creator is to as close to perfectly duplicate what was seen through the viewfinder. Any step outside of this is now a days a big no and highly looked down upon. One step out of line that causes question will forever be a little red mark on that shooter and skeptics will scrutinize. Most of this was brought to light by the New York Times shooter added actual image elements to a scene to make a much more dramatic image than the mundane one created. I love manipulating photos and do so as much as I can for advertising type work but any slip ups on the other side could seriously damage a shooters credibility and I have not worked 25 years to gain the respect I have. It truly makes no sense to me to do this. It's like cheating at games. Hell you win but you have to live knowing you really did not win. So many times we miss that decisive moment and so much want to go back but can’t and it's tempting to make one little click on the computer and make it so but is that ethics? I'd rather go on with my life, and karma will put an even better moment before me. That is why if I am on assignment and need a battery change or to change out media cards. I always turn my back because I have no desire to see the moment I missed and put me in a pissy mood for the rest of the day. Hope this was not too wordy.