Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-19-2010, 08:03 AM   #1
Veteran Member
lavascript's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 390
PPG and IQ

The DSLR forum is probably not the right place for this, but I couldn't decide what was.

Anyhow, I haven't been to PPG in a long time and I'm browsing it this morning. One of the rules for PPG is no PP, right? All these images are straight out of the camera JPEGs? For those who have gotten into PPG, what in-camera settings are you using? Surely there's some contrast/saturation bumping, right? And do you usually send pics "as shot," or do you do a RAW>JPEG in-camera to get a more contrasty version?

03-19-2010, 08:13 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
Here is the actual rule in regards to PP:

QuoteQuote:
Photographs should not be overly manipulated with filters and effects unless done in-camera and loaded to the in-camera effects category. Some dodging and burning to reveal an image is allowed, however, it is not acceptable to move around pixels or add or remove elements. Cropping is allowed.
I think that the bolded portion is what you should pay attention to. If you are shooting RAW you will have to do some PP in order to get the levels and colors where you want them.
03-19-2010, 08:17 AM   #3
Zav
Pentaxian
Zav's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,336
QuoteOriginally posted by lavascript Quote
One of the rules for PPG is no PP, right?
Not exactly:
QuoteQuote:
Photographs should not be overly manipulated with filters and effects unless done in-camera and loaded to the in-camera effects category. Some dodging and burning to reveal an image is allowed, however, it is not acceptable to move around pixels or add or remove elements. Cropping is allowed.
Edit: Oh MrApollinax was quicker than me.
03-19-2010, 08:42 AM   #4
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,649
Most of the better photographers in the PPG shoot in raw. Everything is post processed. The trick is to keep it real looking.

Tim

03-19-2010, 08:46 AM   #5
Veteran Member
lavascript's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 390
Original Poster
Ah. Sorry for not really looking into it. I was remembering a post from quite some time ago where I got a manipulated image to display on my camera screen by some EXIF hacking and someone suggested that that method could be used to get an image into PPG.
03-20-2010, 09:28 PM   #6
MSM
Veteran Member
MSM's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alabama
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 994
I agree with the post processing. But, I was just at the PPG the other day voting on some images. I couldn't believe what someone was trying to pass off as a single image. My apologies if the photographer is a forum member. First, the image was cool, I'll say. But, it clearly is a violation of the rules. It involves a snowboarder going across a small body of water/ice on a railing similar to skateboarders. However, the photographer took a rapid sequence of shots and then in PS layered them. Then by masking, the final image shows the snowboarder starting on one end of the rail and also at multiple points on the rail and then on the other side of the water. Really neat photo, but I would say multiple pixels were added and removed to create that photo!

I am watching to see if that one makes it in.
03-23-2010, 11:29 AM   #7
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,216
QuoteOriginally posted by MSM Quote
I agree with the post processing. But, I was just at the PPG the other day voting on some images. I couldn't believe what someone was trying to pass off as a single image. My apologies if the photographer is a forum member. First, the image was cool, I'll say. But, it clearly is a violation of the rules. It involves a snowboarder going across a small body of water/ice on a railing similar to skateboarders. However, the photographer took a rapid sequence of shots and then in PS layered them. Then by masking, the final image shows the snowboarder starting on one end of the rail and also at multiple points on the rail and then on the other side of the water. Really neat photo, but I would say multiple pixels were added and removed to create that photo!

I am watching to see if that one makes it in.
I voted against it because it is an obvious sandwich and because, while clever, it was not particularly appealing (to me at least). My apologies to the photographer if he/she reads this.

Steve
03-23-2010, 03:13 PM   #8
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 365
While I haven't seen the snowboarder photo in question, I'm curious... Is it a result that wouldn't be possible with a simple use of the "Multiple Exposure" feature?

03-23-2010, 03:18 PM   #9
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,213
QuoteOriginally posted by atupdate Quote
Most of the better photographers in the PPG shoot in raw. Everything is post processed. The trick is to keep it real looking.

Tim
Mind if I ask... is this really true? The pros that I've met & read about shoot jpeg and get it right in camera rather than having to faff about with their stuff on a computer in pp...
03-23-2010, 04:19 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Fries's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gauw
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,831
The pro's I've met also shoot jpeg, but those are all news photographers and they generally don't have time to tinker around with there photo's. I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting raw and using PP to some extend.
04-09-2010, 05:40 AM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 167
I personally would not vote against an image just because it very PP'd.
Its about making a beautiful image through photographic media and this media allows and requires work post sensor exposure to light.
04-09-2010, 06:22 AM   #12
Zav
Pentaxian
Zav's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,336
QuoteOriginally posted by edumad Quote
I personally would not vote against an image just because it very PP'd.
Its about making a beautiful image through photographic media and this media allows and requires work post sensor exposure to light.
Too bad they made a "HDR" section
04-12-2010, 04:35 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Tuner571's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,550
Yea, the PPG does allow some PP on the photos, but nothing to crazy. I like this because it allows many photographers to show their handy work in photoshop.
04-15-2010, 06:04 PM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 832
I think the key with PP of photos submitted to the Pentax Photo Gallery is to be subtle, if the voters can't tell you've done some minor editing then you're fine IMO.

Don't bother submitting obviously PP'd images like the snow boarder sequence I'll automatically vote no on principle.

I'll also vote no if you write in the comments that you've done PP that violates the PPG rules - seen that a couple of times recently.
12-08-2010, 11:18 PM   #15
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 47
I absolutely agree with this and it should be encouraged in PPG. PPG is conservative and behind the times with its limitations. It won't attract younger more innovative amateurs; they have other interesting sites to post to anyway.

PPG was a good site to improve your conventional skills with focus, compositions, lovely colour, sense of a subject etc. But nowadays it's become so easy to submit a technically sufficient image, because pp software is easy to use. People vote yes without enough consideration of originality, or the concept or emotional impulse that goes into the image. I mean I want to see an image that was HARD WON in some way. The shooter put him/herself in a special place to take the shot; the shooter waited for the right light; the shooter had a special relationship with the model or human subject; the shooter spent a long time post-processing to get the most out of the original shot. Everything is too technical, as stipulated in the rules, but how often do you see a technically perfect shot of something you have seen hundreds of times before? It is a good place to learn how stock photography can be produced.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, in-camera, photography, ppg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PPG BillM General Talk 4 09-15-2010 03:11 AM
Got my first two into PPG davidreilly3207 Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 04-07-2010 11:03 AM
Abstract First PPG! Kryosphinx Post Your Photos! 5 01-15-2010 07:03 AM
Nature 2 for PPG sealonsf Post Your Photos! 3 11-07-2009 01:22 AM
three more for PPG... and for you! rparmar Post Your Photos! 0 04-26-2009 09:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top