Thread #2, Pic 5: is that authentic or fabricated, and if so,

[babylonsister]

should it be or why would it be considered 'old'? Just asking, because I've got some old fabricated stuff I might have added, but don't know the rules.

[F.Gordon]

1. You mean "staged".... "in studio"

I thought it was very creative and well done. You should have entered your stuff. I had one of my own I was working on but stopped when I saw that one you are referring to. I'll go try to slap together a rough and post it before I hit the sack.... have to get up early and go snap some boids, flowers, and other nature stuff. A real stretch for me....
:silly:

BTW: Unless the Host/ess lays down something specific, which is rare, I don't think there are many "rules" with these things. Unless you have a particular fondness for sushi.
:spank:

[babylonsister]

2. So anything goes! Gotcha!

Yes, I have lots of old coins, bills, etc., around this old house that might have been amusing, and masks, and 'stuff', but didn't know 'in studio' would work. Thanks! I'm not that 'progressive' that way anyway with a camera, but it's food for thought.
BTW, I lurk all the time here; you guys and gals are, in keeping with the theme, 'swell'!

[ConsAreLiars]

3. We are very comfortable with loose rules.

It's pretty much up to the loungettes to decide if any entry gets down-voted for being off-topic. So far, they seem to do a good job of voting up some good pics, but on the other hand the pics submitted are generally all so good that even a random ballot would put some fine photos in top places.

My own sense of this is that this particular photo is very much within the (vague) rules - the stuff shown is indeed old - but that even if someone whose definition of "old" seemed very, uh, idiosyncratic, it would be a legitimate entry unless explicitly prohibited by the rules set out the contest host.

In short, it's all in good fun, and anything goes (unless the contest host decides otherwise).

[bvar22]

4. The typewriter itself is pretty old....

from the 1920's.....certainly older than the subject of many of the entries.
The photo itself is "new", 5-13-06.


I'm not sure what you mean by "fabricated".
Grouping objects together and photographing them in a way to evoke a mood or feeling is a foundation of creative photography.
In that sense, most good photographs are "fabricated".
Even landscapes are fabricated. The photographer manipulates subject, framing, lighting, and camera settings. Most modern landscapes have phone wires, water towers, and other unsightly items digitally removed.
If you check the contest archives, you will find many entries that were "fabricated". The Macro contest had several beautiful fabrications.

If you wish to enter your old photos, that is allowed under the rules.
I personally approach each contest as a challenge to expand my own boundaries as a novice photographer, and only once have I entered a photo from my archives.

Like most photogs, I like to walk around and photograph interesting things in interesting ways.
But I also want to develop the skill to photograph the images in my mind, the things I see in my imagination when my eyes are closed. In that respect, I was pretty happy with this picture. It is still very amateur, and I would change things if I reshot it (mostly lighting), but I'm getting better (which is the reason I am here).

Please enter your photographs in our contests. They would be welcome.

Cheers,
Bob
St Paul

[babylonsister]

6. I didn't mean for that to sound critical and am sorry if that's how

my comment sounded. Perhaps 'staged' is what I was grasping for. It's a terrific picture; I was just wondering if 'something old' had to actually be something old.
And I'm the ultimate amateur, but do enjoy scoping this group out. I hope one day to feel confident enough to enter something!

[Ms. Toad]

9. I would be surprised if this observation is correct:

"Most modern landscapes have phone wires, water towers, and other unsightly items digitally removed."

I do a lot of digital darkroom work, and I often de-emphasize unsightly items using the electronic equivalent of standard darkroom techniques - and I even occasionally remove items.

When I explain what I've done - even with such minimal manipulation as cropping - I often get a lot of flak for it. Since I do tend to explain what I've done a lot I have had a lot of discussion on this topic. Among purists, if the manipulation is not done in the camera what you get is no longer a photograph. The middle of the road folks (where I see myself) treat the resulting images created in camera or using standard darkroom techniques (electronic or physical) as purely photographic. Beyond that, the feedback I get indicates that once you start removing large objects (like water towers) you have removed the image so far from the reality of what was actually present when you took the shot that the result is something beyond a photograph. (Although there are some folks on the extreme end who treat anything that started in a camera - regardless of what happened after that - as pure photograph.)

Based on that feedback, I would guess that there is enough bias against digital manipulation among mainstream photographers that actual removal of items from artwork identified photography (landscape or otherwise) is still only done in a minority of such images. (From my connection with people who do news photography, those images to be closer to the purist line of thought - even post shot cropping is strongly discouraged or outright prohibited.)

That's not to say I think that doing so would (or should) be prohibited in the contests here. A lot of really phenomenal images have been created based on photographs that have been combined or heavily edited - I just don't think that extreme level of manipulation is accepted enough yet to comprise "most" modern landscapes.

(And yes - the more the merrier as far as entries. If the contest host wants to run an "unposed, straight out of the camera" theme some month the rules will need to be clear about it. Otherwise feel free to pose, manipulate, combine, or whatever else you think might be fun and improve your skills.)

[Blue_In_AK]

10. I had somebody over in the Lounge question

whether my photograph of Independence Mine was photoshopped. I sent him the original by PM to show him that what I did was minimal - cropped out some cable lines and removed some of the digital noise - and I got a nice apology. I think what happened was that the ambient conditions that day -- light misty rain -- sort of altered the depth perception and made the photo look kind of fake. I personally don't have any guilt about manipulating contrast, sharpness, etc. to more truly represent what I was seeing when I took the photo. I'm working on getting my in-camera exposures correct so that less manipulation is required, but it's a learning process.

[NashVegas]

12. Cloudy Days Emphasize Some Colors

In the director's commentary on the Strictly Ballroom DVD, Baz Lurhmann spoke of how he was endlessly being asked what filters/treatment he used during this one outdoor scene that featured unnaturally deep, vivid greens. He explained that he hadn't done anything, just got lucky: a thunderstorm was moving in.

[CC]

11. On "shopping"

some things like sharpening and even levels you can explain are done to overcome the digital process (whether digital camera or scans). There is a softness that is part of it no matter what camera your use, or scanner. There is also some softness in the printing process. As for pros I have run across, and I have been going out of my way to run across them :evilgrin:, fine art, commercial, portrait and wedding always use some form of digital manipulation including removing things, head switches in group shots etc. A great example is on this page http://www.deandigital.com/detected.php?page=&pass= Not sure about all of them but I got to see how the Hummer was done(print ad for the wheels). It was shot on location (Wilmington,DE) and in studio. When I saw it it had 238 layers. Though Floyd Dean shot everything(with a Canon D20), his photoshop guys are the ones that made it an attention getter. He will be the first one to tell you that and that he couldn't make what he does with out them.

Now the photojournalist I have run across it is a whole different story. They do not do more than slight levels and sharpening. Cropping very rarely and very minimal. There is a whole code of ethics on it for them. The reason is shopping and creative cropping can change the whole story the photo represents. There have been people caught doing things like that and they are out of a job over it. Links to code of ethics for photojournalism. http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html and http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/nppa.htm Though having now read them even they don't specifically say no to shopping.

On Dean Digital Imaging's site, in people, that blond guy in the red jacket in one shot and gray coat in a another (he is also in some other shots) interned for Floyd and is now in NYC getting a 4 year degree in photography. That is one very talented 20 year old and watching for him to be a fashion photog one day. Floyd refused to hire him, talked him into going to NY for more school so he could develop contacts in the industry there.

[JeffR]

5. More entries would have been very welcome this month

Take the plunge next time. It's virtually guaranteed to be a better-run contest than the current one.:eyes:

NanceGreggs says hi!:hi:

[babylonsister]

7. Oh stop, this contest is great, JeffR! I always look forward to them!

And please send my highest regards to Nance! :hi:

[intheflow]

8. One of my favorite parts of this contest is the loose rules.

I am constantly surprised and delighted by the varied interpretations of the themes. This one qualified for me because of the old typewriter and photo. Being artsy was just icing on the cake. :9