NZFF

What level of editing should be allowed in the monthly NZFF screenshot comp?

I say no (except for sharpening etc. to help those with lesser systems)

Ill go get my pentium1 outta the garage and start playing 95 at stutter mode ,, yeah right ,dam if i or anyone would do that for anyone else here ,
just like why would i have to lower my standard in scenery design to run on a pentium1 for a couple of people who dont put as much as i do into my system..
hey another thought i could also take my car down to the dump and swap it for a rolls can hardly ..
i mite aswell stop scenery design too as no one likes photoreal buildings ,they would much rather bitmaps pixels defaults ..
isnt that unfair too because i make my own and you cant ??or that i buy my addons and you dont ... come on thats not a vote thats being jealous


Id like to know what actually change the one year and acouple of months rule about editing in the first place ??
why ? what for ? and see it hasent really helped at all ..

Kelburn wrote:

QUOTE (Kelburn @ Apr 9 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I say no (except for sharpening etc. to help those with lesser systems)

Can I ask why?

well it's unfair for those with little or no budget or restrictive parents etc. whom don't get as good a quality pictures as you might on a high end system as this barley gives them a chance. Same thing for those without money to buy photoshop etc.

Restrictive Parents? Theres nothing stopping you to go get a job, and buy your own PC like I did...

Kelburn wrote:

QUOTE (Kelburn @ Apr 9 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well it's unfair for those with little or no budget or restrictive parents etc. whom don't get as good a quality pictures as you might on a high end system as this barley gives them a chance. Same thing for those without money to buy photoshop etc.

So because some others can't afford to buy PS/whatever (get a job...) we should lower the standard of the whole competition? Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me..

I can't afford to buy PhotoShop. I still enter the competition. And I occasionally win.
Actually, I'd be more wary of those who could afford to spend thousands of dollars on an art's degree. Or those with Imagination. Or those who are just prepared to give some real thought to the comp, and put in the time. Although really it's just the imaginative ones who give me the willies....

Hey Rob .... been a engineer for 30 years .. WHAT THE HELL IS A ART DREGREE, In tool makin angels /requirements .......imagination at times

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Apr 10 2008, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Rob .... been a engineer for 30 years .. WHAT THE HELL IS A ART DREGREE, In tool makin angels /requirements .......imagination at times

I'm not entirely sure what it is, I know that some people have them, and it makes them special and different. Those that want to appear normal hide theirs, so I don't know if I know anyone who has one.
However I suspect that not all of them have imagination, and I know that some engineers do, so in the end it doesn't really matter.

PS If you do have a BA, MA, or even a BAMA (whether on not you hide it), please don't take offence -- my only excuse is that I never had a proper education.

I dont think it really matters if people edit their pic or not. some are that good you cant tell if they been edited.

Jim

Hi Robin,

None taken.

Actually, a BA simply equips one with particular skills (nowadays mostly geared to the workforce, so gone are the days of learning logic, rhetoric, et al. <SIGH!> ); whilst an MA is the first post-graduate step towards contributing new knowledge to the academic world.

I think you are refering to a Fine Arts Degree (usually: painting, photography, sculpture et cetera).

I reserve my alphabet soup to dazzle prospective employers and clients, not my friends.

I'm a photographer in the real world so I have the attitude that you shouldn't need to edit an image's content after the fact - that's my job as a photographer. Apart from adjusting levels, saturation, colour balance and sharpness etc, if you don't like an object in the shot then you need to position yourself somewhere so that object is no longer part of the shot. I think that to 'photoshop things out' of a photograph is cheating.

I also think that for this competition, the challenge should be how to make the most awe-inspiring screenshots using only FS and add-ons. I would have thought that people would have gotten excited about the constraints of that as a challenge in itself.

I don't add screenshots at all myself, but that's because I'm an FS2004 user and don't have much in the way of scenery add-ons since my FPS would take a hit. I do know that I wouldn't enjoy looking through others' work as much if there was a possibility that it might have been merged with a real-world image.

Just my two cents.

greaneyr wrote:

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a photographer in the real world so I have the attitude that you shouldn't need to edit an image's content after the fact - that's my job as a photographer. Apart from adjusting levels, saturation, colour balance and sharpness etc, if you don't like an object in the shot then you need to position yourself somewhere so that object is no longer part of the shot. I think that to 'photoshop things out' of a photograph is cheating.
<snip>

Just my two cents.

Good point, I work the same way. I mentioned it in my earlier rant -- my job is to recreate what I saw. Technically, it gets a bit more complicated, as there is a fair amount of digital manipulation involved in matching that original vision. In fact I don't think I could do it without the magic invention of RAW, and the rather complicated process which extracts the final image:)

But I'm also aware that not everyone thinks this way, for others the goal is to create a vision which doesn't quite exist in the real world, and there is a place for that, as well. I think that what Jerry Uelsmanndoes is more art than photography, but this is done using only the photographic process. (Most of his work is created in the darkroom, rather than PhotoShop.)

I love this type of work, but I don't have the required ability to visualise in my head.

However I have done -- and still do occasionally -- a lot of bog-standard manipulation for other photographers, removing bits of rubbish etc. Much of what I do is based on someone else's need to sell a particular image, so the main reason for the work is to make money, but that's their -- and my -- business, so I'm happy to do it. 2007 was a bad year for my artistic integrity -- there were about 50,000 calendars out there with some seriously manipulated cover images:)

BUT, even in the narrow confines of 'screenshot art', merging real images with screenshots is a valid, respected and almost traditional subset of the art. There's a parodic saying -- 'I don't know what art is, but I know what I like.' Just because I don't like a particular genre or technique, doesn't make it any less art. And just because I like something, doesn't make it art, either. But no one person or group can determine what is art for everyone. The proof is in the audience reaction -- whether they buy it, or in our case whether they vote for it. If it doesn't work, then it won't get the votes, if it does work, despite pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, then it'll get the votes.

EDIT: I knew there was a reason I thought of Jerry Uelsmann when talking about this -- I'd listened to him talk about this on the web. Take a look at the Legends Online site, and go to the video clips -- in particular the post-visualisation process and challenging yourself.

I still believe let all types of editing in, if you don't like it, don't vote for it. I haven't entered or voted since that stupid rule was put in place.

Just for the record (my one cent) I voted "don't care either way" So I guess you can include my vote in which ever category comes out on top.

I guess ultimately it just depends what we're trying to produce. If it's the ultimate image, then sure, let's go all out and make it a 'no rules' thing. If it's the ultimate FS screenshot, then to me it has to be just that.

The numbers are heavily favouring the former at the moment. I'd say that will be the final result.

I like the current rules as they are but i guess it comes down to skill (oh and scenery etc.) That makes it a bit unfortunate for those with a limited budget, like me now apparently I'm not allowed to spend now anyway (which I don't), but then again freeware is easy for us. Does anyone here not have broadband and for those without photoshop use GIMP.

P.S. Ian what are you specs as your screenshots come out awesome (mine don't they always look better on my screen that they do in a jpeg)

The "I can't afford it" excuse it a poor one. Get a job.

I really hope that comment was intended as tongue in cheek.

Try living on one income between three people. I'm on the same income now as I was 4 years ago when I was single, the difference being the obvious two other mouths it now feeds. I'm hard pressed to justify spending $35 on a CD so I can fully see why spending $1000+ on a system that runs FSX might be beyond some people in this world, employed or not.