Re: More on computers in 3d competitions

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> One concern is the situation where you have software so powerful that will
> create computer 3d images that beat a good original 3d image with very
> little input/effort from the user!  Imagine having a little 3d button that
> will transform your 2d image to 3d with minimum fuss.  You can have 3d
> photography from 2d images.  Is that OK?  

It's cheaper to have a second  lens on one's 2D
camera (like Realist cameras do) that converts the 2D image into 3D, but
if one wants to do it the spendy way, why not?

You still have to take a good picture to begin with.

> Is it fair that people with fast computers and expensive software can do
> this work while those without such toys cannot?  One can ask the same

Is it fair for Leica owners to compete with Konica owners in 2D competition?

To me, the answer is that it's the images that are in competition, not the
tools.  So, in general, I think that if one person did all of the creative
work involved in producing an image, that it's fair to compete with other
people who did all of the creative work in some other image.  More or less,
no matter what tools they used.  Bottom line is that they created a great
image in order to win.

There will always be an advantage to those with money. Doesn't mean they'll
win, but there will always be an edge.  Even if it's having money to take
a trip to -somewhere- and *be* at the only place where certain images can 
be taken. 

> question for people with expensive 3d cameras... But a $100 Realist can
> give you award-winning pictures... can a $100 computer allow you to do
> award-winning image-manipulation work?  Also, cameras are exclusive
> photography tools, computers are not.  Photographers are expected to invest

Many cameras *contain* computers.  I read where one of the Canon (I think
it was) SLRs have three microprocessors in it.

Even the old TDC Vivid had a mechanical computer, of sorts, on it.
Was using it "fair" back in the 50's?

> in better cameras, not faster computer... although this might be changing...
> 
> Another concern: One of the rules of competitions is that the image must be
> the original work of the maker.  What if you start from some stock flat
> image and create a 3d modified version of it?  Is this still your work? 

I'd say no on that one.  For that, I'd have a manipulation "category" kind of
like the Oscars have screenwriter awards separate for "original" and "adaptations".

It's ONLY the manipulation that is your work. When the base-image is yours
and the manipulations are yours (including the manipulations done during
the original photography -- we've already talked about how flash-fill, etc
is a form of manipulation) the entire image is yours -- and THAT would be okay
to represent as such.

> Boundaries are getting fuzzy.

IMHO, I don't think that one is.  Not wide-fuzz anyway.  :-)

> 
> Another concern:  Judges who are unfamiliar with computer work might not be
> qualified to judge such work, especially if it has this foreign-ness
> mentioned earlier that makes it difficult to associate/compare with the
> work they do are are familiar with.

If they are really good judges of images then there won't be a problem.  If
they are judging the means by which things were done, then yes.

All the rules of composition (etc) are exactly the same, it's only the subject
matter that has changed (for those strongly modified or computer-originals,
as opposed to those which are manipulated for "enhancement" purposes).

But yes, it may be hard to judge something unreal vs. something not.  But that's
true whether it was via computer manipulation or by some other optical or 
processing-lab manipulation methods.

> 
> -- George Themelis
> 

Mike K.


P.S. - My comments were with the understanding the the competition being talked about
       is a "pure" one -- one who's objective is to promote the generation of the
       best images possible.

       A competiton may have different objectives.  Like having fun.  Or simply to 
       give people a "push" to go and take pictures and/or to expand into different
       subject matter.  One could have a handicap'ed competition where one evolves
       a handicap number based on points scored in previous competitions, and this
       number is used to derate followup competitions.  This favors those who improve
       quickly from wherever they are now.  
> 


------------------------------