Hi Mary - Can we bring the contest back?

I really enjoyed the photoshop contest. Will it be coming back?

I was thinking the same thing, only with a different flavor...

 

In the past, people posted images which needed 'fixing' in PS. This usually resulted in

creative and brilliant alterations towards a lost cause.

 

What I would propose is that instead of a 'rejected' image, post an image that is destined

to be a keeper Out of Camera (OOC) JPG or JPG converted directly from RAW and see how

users would crop, sharpen, convert to greyscale/sepia and make the image better for web

or print.

 

For me, it would be great if people would designate whether they were optimizing for a

great print or a great web image.

 

To me, that is where the bread is buttered. Trying to fix poorly lit, grainy or off-color

images doesn't really help me much with my workflow. Most of those hit the trash.

 

At the end, the OP could post their final version as well and users could vote as to whether

their version is better/worse than the best of the user modifications.

Sounds good. I am hopefully getting PS this week. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about a RAW photo contest that compares camera skills, not photoshop skills? In my mind the latter is a "photo-illustration", and the former is a "photograph".

RAW would be comparing RAW converter skills - not camera skills...Maybe a RAW converter comparison on one image using different converters by different people.

And that would be pure RAW converter - no Photoshop at all.

RAW files will be very large to look at in this forum. The future and present of photography is equal parts of a quality image and skilled post production, not for fixing but for artistry. Being a skilled out of the camera shooter is hardly enough now and will not regress as the future moves forward. I see this new facial recognition stuff and the technology getting better and better on non professional cameras, though it will never replace how to light and compose an image it will make "good enough" the real competetion for us. It will take spending the time to learn actions and PS to fine tune images or take them to a new level with toning and textures, good black and white conversions etc. You can shoot digital or scan film but it is time to wake up not be lazy, catch up and keep up. A before and after competition going for fine art looks is a good idea to help us all learn and get inspired.

Thanks Amy - I try to only do one "feature" every other month. Regas, I think that is a good idea. I will start things rolling and perhaps we'll be up and running in a few weeks.

 

A RAW image, as Steve rightly mentions will be too large. However....

Once we pick an image that will be used...the original file may be emailed to those who wish to work on the original file.

 

May I suggest to you all that anyone who feels they have a strong candidate for the forum - email me with a link to the image. I'll pick one.

 

Steve Levine - as a side note - You are entitled to your opinion but your comment about a "photo illustration" vs a "photo" is not helpful.

This is a whole other debate that belongs in the Philosophy or Casual Conversations forum - not here.

Call me old fashioned. But I admire photographers that know how to remove "trees protruding from heads" in their viewfinders.

 

 

Correcting grievous camera errors with photoshop, is for amateurs that can't get the results they seek without. If a pro wants to smooth out a few bumps here and there, that's another story. Making good great, isn't the same as making bad ,passable. IMHO, Photoshop wasn't invented to be a safety net for poor technique.

 

 

 

My original suggestion is a contest that requires camera/lighting/compositional skills, not computer skills. In other words create a theme, and over the next few weddings try to idealize the concept. (ie. first kisses, ceremony shots, tender moments, officiants, flower girls, bridal parties, etc.)

 

 

 

As for the term photo-illustration vs photo. These terms are used in many publishing houses. In fact the latter must be clearly labeled as such too.

Steve - Clearly it is important to get the ultimate shots "in-camera".

 

However, with all respect for your original suggestion...There is a large demand for photoshop skill threads. Furthermore, Regas called for: "crop, sharpen, convert to greyscale/sepia and make the image better for web or print." - so frankly I think you are a bit off base

as these are things someone would do in a non-digital darkroom.

 

You may feel free to start a thread asking for inspiration about a specific photographic theme such as "first kiss" shots or ceremony shots (but if you do ceremony it should be indoor or outdoor as the two are worlds apart).

 

Meanwhile, we will continue to do occassional photoshop threads.. I invite you to ignore them if they are not to your liking.

"RAW files will be very large to look at in this forum."

 

Mary has the right idea. There will only be one RAW file. People can work on it - only with a RAW converter and no Photoshop, and then post the 511 pixel JPEG from that RAW. I think this would show how different converters perform and how different people use different converters. Sounds interesting to me.

 

"The future and present of photography is equal parts of a quality image and skilled post production, not for fixing but for artistry. Being a skilled out of the camera shooter is hardly enough now and will not regress as the future moves forward."

 

This may all be very true, but the human eye is not beying replaced just yet ;) Framing, composition, light, angles, what lens one uses, perspective, are all things that no software can match today. I'm not downplaying post work at all - I quite agree with you, but it's 1/2 the work IMO.

 

Bogdan

Sounds interesting and all that, but certainly this will be no "test" of RAW converters nor

any valid and meaningful comparison...<p>

why?

<p>

1) Everyone's monitors are slightly (or grossly) different in calibration and set up for each

individual's own proofing/output needs. <p>

2) Images posted here will be scaled down and compressed using wildly differing steps...

some will be sRGB, some will have no profile, and undoubtedly some will post files that

are are Adobe RGB or some other color space. JPG compression settings will be all over

the place. Some images will have been scaled down and re-optimized / sharpened, while

others will not. etc... Obviously, there will be variance depending on the re-sizing /

compression performance of the software as well as the procedures involved... not just

RAW conversion alone.

<p>

3) Like any post-processing task, there should be a clear end to the means... in other

words, what is the intent of the processing... to generate a 300ppi JPG for your lab, to

send to your Epson printer, to upload to a proofing gallery, to post on photo.net.... etc.

Depending on the final output size/format of the file and the final media, the RAW

converter may perform differently.

 

<p>

I'm not saying this "contest" won't be interesting. I'm sure it will reveal many cool tricks

and be a beneficial learning experience. But it certainly won't be anywhere near a

scientific test..... and I also don't believe it should be... photography is NOT science...

which maybe is my point.... that these sort of techie contest/testing things are kind of

pointless... like what is the MTF curve or the LPM of such and such lens... who cares? It

doesn't make the image nor the photographer any better.

Ni,

 

It's not meant to be scientific. It's more of an idea really - see who can do what with their RAW converter of choice w/o using Photoshop. I'm not aware of a RAW converter that behaves differently depending on output size or ppi, but of course if this exercise were done, you would say (as I did) convert to 511x wide JPEG, and sRGB if you want (most browsers ignore it anwyay..).

 

Anyway, it's not a "contest" - just thought something different than the Photoshop ones.

 

You say:

 

"I'm sure it will reveal many cool tricks and be a beneficial learning experience."

 

And then talk about how techie tests are useless, etc. I think you misunderstood the intention here. Seems as if you're looking for such a test - I'm not.

 

"It doesn't make the image nor the photographer any better."

 

Maybe, maybe not. You said it will be a beneficial learning experience...

Bogdan