What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Photo of the Month Nominations - May 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rosy Cheeks

Rosy Cheeks

dancin' cheek to cheek
Veteran
It's not for me to say and the Nomination Rules does not deal with it, but I don't know if that pic - in its altered form - is nominable.

The pic is photoshopped, you can see the original posted in this thread.

Now, if you accept that people alter picture colors, contrast, background, etc, it kind of leaves the door open for all types of image alterations, such as making your colas bigger, fatter. You can even paste in trichs if you know your way around with graphic software, and suddenly taking a good pic with only a camera, photographic skills and a great plant becomes secondary.

It's only me, but I think that the only image alteration that should be allowed is taking out incriminating details and info, such as faces.

It's really up to the mods or the Administrator to take a stand on the issue. So, please do.
 
Last edited:
simpleword

simpleword

Active member
Rosy Cheeks said:
It's not for me to say and the Nomination Rules does not deal with it, but I don't know if that pic - in its altered form - is nominable.

The pic is photoshopped, you can see the original posted in this thread.

Now, if you accept that people alter picture colors, contrast, background, etc, it kind of leaves the door open for all types of image alterations, such as making your colas bigger, fatter. You can even paste in trichs if you know your way around with graphic software, and suddenly taking a good pic with only a camera, photographic skills and a great plant becomes secondary.

Well then how do you know people aren't already doing that? Things that are obviously shopped like this should be fine, it's an artistic take on the pic. It's the pics are more subtly edited, like the stuff you mentioned above, that no one ever says anything about and should be disqualified.

It's only me, but I think that the only image alteration that should be allowed is taking out incriminating details and info, such as faces.

It's really quite alright and with some cases necessary (people with DSLRs) to adjust levels, sharpness and saturation on photos. Especially with people that are using DSLRs (like me), that generally do not apply sharpening and other post processing in camera like point n shoot digitals do.
Click to expand...

Besides, both versions of the pic are beautiful!
 
Last edited:
Rosy Cheeks

Rosy Cheeks

dancin' cheek to cheek
Veteran
simpleword said:
Well then how do you know people aren't already doing that? Things that are obviously shopped like this should be fine, it's an artistic take on the pic. It's the pics are more subtly edited, like the stuff you mentioned above, that no one ever says anything about and should be disqualified.
Click to expand...

I don't. And as I said, it's not my call.

Artistic take? Sure, no problem. Let's make an "Artistic Budshot" thread (I think there are a couple already) or competition where you can swing it anyway you want, hopefully that will bring out lots of great artistic creations. I'm all in favor.

simpleword said:
It's really quite alright and with some cases necessary (people with DSLRs) to adjust levels, sharpness and saturation on photos. Especially with people that are using DSLRs (like me), that generally do not apply sharpening and other post processing in camera like point n shoot digitals do.
Click to expand...


I think so too, and it's not easy to define what is okay or not. Ever since the invention of photography, photographers have re-worked contrast, saturation, etc to bring the best out of a picture. I'm cool with that. Image cropping and composition equally affects the definition of a pic, I'm cool with that too. IMO, re-working sharpness in a digital photo isn't very much different from using an image stabilizer while taking the photo.

But, changing the colors of the plant or its physical appearance, isn't that kind of like showing a plant that doesn't exist?
So let's put it this way, re-working the image for the benefit of the eye, okay by me. Re-working the plant to make it look like something it isn't, no.

That's kind of what I meant with image alteration.

In the end, it comes down to whether ICmag wants to hand out a price to someone that just faked it (and I am not by any means referring to jiggywhompus' pic, which IS great without the re-working).
 
Kinderfeld

Kinderfeld

Member
Doesn't look like it mattered all that much for that pic, to me. Zoom out a little and mist them.

I like it, put my vote on the bubba.
 
3dDream

3dDream

Matter that Appreciates Matter
Veteran
Rosy, I agree, but are you too late? Hell, even national geographic moved the pyramids on the cover in 1982 because they couldn't all fit. One has to trust that people are honest or use your good judgment to decide how real something is. I admit that I adjust the color/contrast, but I do so for realism. The camera does not always catch the colors. I do not paint images though, I adjust the image's colors to bring out what I see. What's the difference between the tools on the camera that are used before you take an image and the ones you use once the images are taken off? You never dodged and burned? Are the pics in this thread art or documentary? The line is thin.

My vote is for the first pic by bogusik2.
 
I

IlluZiOn

New member
Shot by IlluZiOn
Strain: Bagseed
http://www.icmag.com/gallery/data/500/406681_leht.jpg
406681_leht.jpg

That is original picture not a modded one :joint:
 
Last edited:
Rosy Cheeks

Rosy Cheeks

dancin' cheek to cheek
Veteran
Obviously photoshopped HPS tint added to the pic... disqualified :D

Seriously though IlluZiOn, here's what you must add to your nomination:

Dutchgrown said:
Nomination Rules:


Each nomination MUST include:
  • the name of (or type of) the variety being nominated
  • the member's name who contributed the original photo
  • a link to the original IC Mag thread that the pic is shown in
  • a copy of the photo URL using image tags
Click to expand...
 
G

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
Rosy Cheeks said:
IMO, re-working sharpness in a digital photo isn't very much different from using an image stabilizer while taking the photo.
Click to expand...

It's very different, IMO.

Using extreme sharpness on bud shots like some people do is just as bad as drastically changing the colors IMO. It makes the buds look fake, because they don't look that way at all in real life. It's pretty easy to see who's been liberal with the "Sharpness" slider or button, lol.

:joint: :wave:
 
BiG H3rB Tr3E

BiG H3rB Tr3E

"No problem can be solved from the same level of c
Veteran
^^
uhh i nominate the FBI to come investigate who evers growing that bubba kush -- caus i dont think theyr from this planet... plants are supposed to be green not black!!! :muahaha: :muahaha:

respect to you -- that shit looks like alien weed
 
R

Raistlin Majere

SubN :friends: THANK YOU !! i am honored
D Rock, thanks 4 the kynd words






:smoweed:​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Exquisite Marijuana Seeds Hemp & CBD | Cannoptikum.
Top