A Genuine Composite
Dec 13, 2016 10:21:32 #
Dave Chinn wrote:
Dave I concur with Minnie. IMO, putting together a... (show quote)
Think most of us are going along the same lines Dave, but would you ever feel there can be a time when there is no need to mention it's a composite?
Dec 13, 2016 10:28:33 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
The topic has come up a few times in FYC, most rec... (show quote)
Thanks for the link Linda - where's Chuck got to lately, is he on a sabbatical or did we frighten him off? Shame if the latter, he made a good contribution to FYC.
Back to my question, so have we actually reached the point where we should be told when first viewing an image whether there has been anything beyond basic pp applied? That might be the only way we will feel comfortable!
Dec 13, 2016 10:33:13 #
oldtigger wrote:
There are a million composites out there that deserve our praise but for me
they will never have the'magic', the 'exhilaration', of being in the right place, at the right time
and recognizing it.
they will never have the'magic', the 'exhilaration', of being in the right place, at the right time
and recognizing it.
Yes, think we all feel that and respect the image for it. I suppose, if we were buying the image, we might want a guarantee to that effect, so we know we have a 'genuine' article.
Dec 13, 2016 10:47:30 #
magnetoman wrote:
... so we know we have a 'genuine' article.
And as was bound to happen, that most suspect of words, "genuine" rears its ugly head
and in doing so relegates all composites to the lesser status of "fakes".
They are not genuine or fake, they are merely different.
Dec 13, 2016 13:27:29 #
magnetoman wrote:
so have we actually reached the point where we should be told when first viewing an image whether there has been anything beyond basic pp applied? That might be the only way we will feel comfortable!
Well, you can Google "it looks like it was photoshopped" and come up with 18 million hits, including sites that are of photos that look like they are but supposedly are not - ha.
I was thinking of starting a share/discussion thread along those lines, but decided instead to just post a couple of shots in Gallery with that theme. The second one, in particular, looks fake and I took it - lol
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-428505-1.html
-
Dec 13, 2016 13:50:02 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Well, you can Google "it looks like it was photoshopped" and come up with 18 million hits, including sites that are of photos that look like they are but supposedly are not - ha.
I was thinking of starting a share/discussion thread along those lines, but decided instead to just post a couple of shots in Gallery with that theme. The second one, in particular, looks fake and I took it - lol
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-428505-1.html
-
I was thinking of starting a share/discussion thread along those lines, but decided instead to just post a couple of shots in Gallery with that theme. The second one, in particular, looks fake and I took it - lol
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-428505-1.html
-
We'd need a written guarantee on that one Linda! 🤔
Dec 13, 2016 15:15:09 #
magnetoman wrote:
We'd need a written guarantee on that one Linda! 🤔
Dec 13, 2016 23:25:34 #
On my composites entered in the County Fair I have asked if they should be in the "computer manipulation" category, and been told I could enter them in either that or the general subject category of the image. Elves sitting on mushrooms of course were in the c.m.
Dec 14, 2016 03:29:25 #
neilds37 wrote:
On my composites entered in the County Fair I have asked if they should be in the "computer manipulation" category, and been told I could enter them in either that or the general subject category of the image. Elves sitting on mushrooms of course were in the c.m.
Were they the judges Neil? More seriously, should the entry rules have been clearer in regard to composites in catagories other than c.m.?
Dec 14, 2016 07:29:56 #
magnetoman wrote:
Were they the judges Neil? More seriously, should the entry rules have been clearer in regard to composites in categories other than c.m.?
Who know who the judge (singular) is? As to if the entry rules should have been clearer is a moot point. Just telling how the entry of composites was handled. This year, when I looked at the reduction/combining of categories (elimination of B&W, Animals instead of Wild and Pets, for examples) I didn't bother to enter.
Dec 14, 2016 08:56:37 #
magnetoman wrote:
Think most of us are going along the same lines Dave, but would you ever feel there can be a time when there is no need to mention it's a composite?
Dave, I feel the only time not to mention that a composite is a composite is when its obvious that it is a composite. In most cases I revel that its a composite, but sometimes I will wait to get feedback on the image to test on how well the composite was put together. One example was recently with my Portland Head Lighthouse, where I had moved the sunrise closer to the lighthouse. My intention was to revel that it was a composite but wanted feedback prior to that. If I had gotten called out on it then I knew it was poorly done. Thats my reasoning. Although, I do wonder, does cloning something out of an image make an image a composite? IMO, I say no, but others may have a different opinion on that subject.
Dave
Dec 14, 2016 08:59:59 #
Dave Chinn wrote:
... I do wonder, does cloning something out of an image make an image a composite? IMO, I say no, but others may have a different opinion on that subject.
Dave
Dave
This speaks to my thought on "significant changes to the story." If you clone out a parent from an image so that it makes a child appear lost or alone, then yes, I want to know. If you clone a single piece of trash from a landscape, it's OK
Dec 14, 2016 09:05:14 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
This speaks to my thought on "significant changes to the story." If you clone out a parent from an image so that it makes a child appear lost or alone, then yes, I want to know. If you clone a single piece of trash from a landscape, it's OK
I understand what your saying Linda, and agree to a certain degree, but does it make the image a composite by cloning out an object? Any object !!!
Dave
Dec 14, 2016 09:15:08 #
Dave Chinn wrote:
I understand what your saying Linda, and agree to a certain degree, but does it make the image a composite by cloning out an object? Any object !!!
Dave
Dave
Oh sorry, no coffee yet
My thought is a composite, by definition, means "adding to." But now I'm going to Google 'cause I'm curious!Dec 14, 2016 09:41:36 #
Dave Chinn wrote:
... does it make the image a composite by cloning out an object? ...
No, a composite must combine images to make a single image.
But:
Removing an element of an image with the intention of altering the story line belongs in the same group as composites
as does altering the spacial relationship of elements (moving a sunset closer to a light house).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.