|
majid_sabet
Feb 10, 2007, 11:39 PM
Post #1 of 52
(10570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Digital cheaters
When are going to stop posting your modified (rotated) digital images?
Who are you trying to impress? A 17 years old boulder n00b!!!!
Shame on you .
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Feb 11, 2007, 12:42 AM
Post #2 of 52
(10526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
I don't get it...plus, isn't this in the wrong forum?
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Feb 11, 2007, 3:01 AM
Post #4 of 52
(10462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
majid_sabet wrote: carabiner96 wrote: I don't get it...plus, isn't this in the wrong forum? which climbs looks harder ? The correct image or the incorrect rotated image? [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/97/untitled1ey5.jpg[/IMG]
The one on the right, not so much because it looks steeper like that, but mostly because that guy's chalk bag would be trying to fight gravity by crawling up his ass.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Feb 11, 2007, 3:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Feb 11, 2007, 3:23 AM
Post #5 of 52
(10449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
Why isn't this in the photography forum???
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Feb 11, 2007, 3:25 AM
Post #6 of 52
(10447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
majid_sabet wrote: Digital cheaters When are going to stop posting your modified (rotated) digital images? Who are you trying to impress? A 17 years old boulder n00b!!!! Shame on you . [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8609/rotwh8.jpg[/IMG]
Buddy, why do you care?
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Feb 11, 2007, 3:27 AM
Post #7 of 52
(10447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
I really don't see a problem with this at all. If you were climbing a slab and then rotated and cropped it to look like you were face climbing, that would be deceptive, but this is exactly the same picture no mater how you look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 11, 2007, 5:28 AM
Post #8 of 52
(10401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Why do you call it "digital cheaters"? This has been done for decades with film by all the climbing magazines. It's hardly a new practice, and by no means limited to climbing photography.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Feb 11, 2007, 5:39 AM
Post #9 of 52
(10391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
cintune wrote: I really don't see a problem with this at all. If you were climbing a slab and then rotated and cropped it to look like you were face climbing, that would be deceptive, but this is exactly the same picture no mater how you look at it.
First, the only way to make slab climbing look like face climbing is if the route in question is a slabby face climb.
Second, rotation of the image is not done to make the route look steeper. Its done to make an image look better. No more, no less.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Feb 11, 2007, 6:30 AM
Post #10 of 52
(10369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
petsfed wrote: First, the only way to make slab climbing look like face climbing is if the route in question is a slabby face climb.
If there are no trees or other visual cues in the background you can make any slope look steeper just by turning the picture off-plumb. There might still be little clues that this was done, but people do it anyway.
petsfed wrote: Second, rotation of the image is not done to make the route look steeper. Its done to make an image look better. No more, no less.
What it really does is make it look like the photographer was hanging from a line above the climber instead of just standing at the top. Maybe that's what Majid doesn't like, I really don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 11, 2007, 8:40 AM
Post #11 of 52
(10339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
 Just visit the RC photos site ,this thing is out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
anthonycuskelly
Feb 11, 2007, 1:32 PM
Post #12 of 52
(10287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2007
Posts: 51
|
Ummm... why 'digital' cheaters? It's a simple matter of turning the camera around when you take the photo. Geez.
And, given the axes involved, I'd say they're equally correct in terms of an accurate representation.
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Feb 11, 2007, 6:32 PM
Post #13 of 52
(10185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
Um, you don't need digital technology to rotate a photo. You can actually take the negative - or the actual physical photo - and... um... rotate it.
If you want to debate digital cheating, by all means, start with the alterations that are now possible in, and specific to, the digital realm via programs like Photoshop. And please do it in the Photo forum.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 12, 2007, 12:19 PM
Post #14 of 52
(10074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
It also depends on how the photographer is hanging himself. I would say that on your first example there's no difference for me, while in the second example, the right photo seems a bit more impressive than the left one. But again, I assume that it's no ALWAYS done on purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Feb 12, 2007, 2:06 PM
Post #15 of 52
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
I was just thinking about this issue the other day. On the Photographers Critque Forum, Krillen had submitted a photo and asked for a critque. Epoch suggested he rotate the photo 90 degrees. The resulting photo was much more powerful because it looked much steeper. My question is, is it really that steep or does the rotation exagerate it. Krillen replaced the original photo with the one having the new rotation so you cannot compare the before and after.
Krillen if your listening, could you put the two photos here for people to compare and tell us if the rotated photo reflects the true steepness?
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Feb 12, 2007, 3:02 PM
Post #16 of 52
(10004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
This thread is dumb.
Neither photo makes the route look harder.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Feb 12, 2007, 3:16 PM
Post #17 of 52
(9992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Yah, I said something like that too, but I got moderated..dang..first time in a while 
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Feb 12, 2007, 3:27 PM
Post #18 of 52
(9977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Paul_Y wrote: I was just thinking about this issue the other day. On the Photographers Critque Forum, Krillen had submitted a photo and asked for a critque. Epoch suggested he rotate the photo 90 degrees. The resulting photo was much more powerful because it looked much steeper. My question is, is it really that steep or does the rotation exagerate it. Krillen replaced the original photo with the one having the new rotation so you cannot compare the before and after. Krillen if your listening, could you put the two photos here for people to compare and tell us if the rotated photo reflects the true steepness? Paul
Pics posted with different rotations don't make a route look harder or easier, they are usually posted in whichever rotation fits with the posters personal preference.
In those first pics, he's still on a ledge with a no hands rest, how can flipping it make it look any harder? The only thing it does is confuse the point.
Anyway, the original post is a cry for attention, not a well-thought out point. No one has any right to say that soemone else's work in a subjective medium is correct or incorrect. We're not talking about exposures here, it's opinoin.
(This post was edited by krillen on Feb 12, 2007, 3:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 12, 2007, 8:54 PM
Post #19 of 52
(9870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
The second climb in the above post looks steeper, but before all more logical. I don't know why though!
|
|
|
|
|
dobson
Feb 12, 2007, 9:30 PM
Post #20 of 52
(9843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Posts: 104
|
I think that the vertical orientation looks better because the climber's body and the rope are now more vertical.
I find that when shooting nearly straight down the orientation sensor in the camera can easily give un-aesthetic shots. How do you tell how to hang the print? You simply go with what looks the best.
Phillip
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Feb 12, 2007, 9:53 PM
Post #21 of 52
(9818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
There's also the kinesthetic identification with the climber if you can project yourself into their orientation facing the rock. I think that actually has a lot to do with what makes it "look better."
|
|
|
|
|
foeslts16
Feb 12, 2007, 10:18 PM
Post #22 of 52
(9791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 210
|
yr high if you don't think the second photo looks like it's a harder climb.
and yeah, it's all subjective, but to say the op's point is not valid is just ignorant. the OP begs some interesting questions about how digital photography can allow us to alter photographs in bad and good ways.
worst-case scenario, this thread is better than most of the posts on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 12, 2007, 10:23 PM
Post #23 of 52
(9786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Dude... chill. Is this really a problem for you?
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Feb 12, 2007, 10:29 PM
Post #24 of 52
(9778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
foeslts16 wrote: and yeah, it's all subjective, but to say the op's point is not valid is just ignorant. the OP begs some interesting questions about how digital photography can allow us to alter photographs in bad and good ways.
If anything is obnoxious but also not related to digital enhancement, is the swell of war-faced climbers in red shirts above crash pads flipped to show their colorful backsides. Raaahhhhhh!!!!
(This post was edited by climbsomething on Feb 12, 2007, 10:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
br
Feb 12, 2007, 10:39 PM
Post #25 of 52
(9759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Posts: 82
|
People want to look as cool as possible, I know I do. Do you really want people to post boring looking pictures. Hell, jazz em up and keep me entertained. I don't care if it's real or not just make them look as good as possible. All this purity stuff is obnoxious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
