| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2005 09:48:47 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I love my photo and don't care if many of you don't :-)
I gave myself 10 this time... |
I don't understand. What's the point of entering a challenge if you don't care what others think of your photo? Just hang it on the wall and admire it to your heart's content. :)
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Voters here like simple contrasty and clean photos,no kids ,pets or religious symbols will score good. |
I disagree, but even if it were true, what's wrong with that? The public likes what the public likes.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Top 5 photos are usually the best ones for the general public which is used to $5 throw-away camera and everything in focus type photos. |
I disagree with this statement too. Lots of different types of photos have made the top five.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Let's stop crying about why this or that photo got the ribbon ,if you really want ribbon than you have to abandon your way of taking photos and start following the DPC winning crowd (to become a whore photographer)which I will never do :-)
Just my 2 cents. |
So, you have to be a "whore photographer" to win a ribbon, eh? Were you whoring when you got your ribbons, or does this statement not apply to you?
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:28:07 PM · #102 |
Of course...
Nobody wins money,nobody loses home here..
It is all about practice,practice,practice..
Share experience,criticize each other and get ideas...
Message edited by author 2005-03-14 22:32:01. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:37:25 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Voters here like simple contrasty and clean photos,no kids ,pets or religious symbols will score good. |
In Light on White, a baby shot took the red ribbon...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-03-14 22:37:52.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:39:51 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Voters here like simple contrasty and clean photos,no kids ,pets or religious symbols will score good. |
In Light on White, a baby shot took the red ribbon...
Robt. |
Now Robert - don't ruin our day right when we think we have things all tied up in a neat little box.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:45:24 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Voters here like simple contrasty and clean photos,no kids ,pets or religious symbols will score good. |
In Light on White, a baby shot took the red ribbon...
Robt. |
And another kid took the yellow ribbon...
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 11:53:10 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by rex07734:
I did not enter the challenge or vote. I felt I did not know enough about Ansel to vote for photos that is of his style. The other reason is obvious, my eyes were fried and I had to go about a week without a computer or camera to get my eyes back right. This crap happens about twice a year. |
I think a lot of people knew not much about Ansel but entered anyway. Hope your eyes are betting better.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 05:25:02 AM · #107 |
Ansel Adams didn't use Neatimage probably would have been a better title.
The crux of the argument is that I for one dislike Neatimage / poor editing - anyone who has been part of this site over the last year knows that I am also vocal about it. I am also not alone but we are in the minority here.
I admit I find it disgraceful, what is so bad about that? I think using Neatimage to the point where you not only remove noise but you remove detail is sacrilege to photography.
You start saying anything negative on DPC, and people start throwing stones at you saying you shouldn't say anything but nice things on this forum. Yet those same people say they come here to learn.
Then there are the other users who believe if the majority of people think it's acceptable then so be it. (incidentally this is where problems begin)
It seems to me that one is not allowed to speak out because one is in the minority.
Take the horse image - I personally find the halo a negative thing. It's so obviously edited to the point where the editing is visually stronger than the subject. I would also add that because you can see a halo the editing hasn't been done properly in my opinion.
Now all this results in me being bemused as to why a over edited & poorly edited photograph can score 6.9 - that really does bug me when there are so many other photographs on here that don't get anywhere near that score. But it's just my taste. The same as some people don't get it when Britney Spears sells 10,000,000 records
It is nothing against the photographer whom took it - I actually think the original is pretty neat - but more I am annoyed with the voters.
And why shouldn't I be? I have been participating on this site for a few years, pay my money and have added comments, critiques and tutorials to the community and also taken some photographs. And if I don't like the way it's headed I have a right to express my concerns.
The thing that really does get me, is that this seems to be a DPC only thing (the love of Neatimage and detail missing images) and again I try to get that across.
New photographers on DPC quickly learn that noise is bad even in skies - every comment they get is 'go download Neatimage' so they do that, submit a super cream shot straight from the Wizard of Oz, and get a 6+.
They see this as the best way of taking photographs and it becomes a norm to them and to this site.
These same photographers harp on about wanting to learn, yet they refuse to listen why you say images lacking detail is a bad thing - or noise can be good.
And why do they refuse to listen? Because there are more people telling them (by their votes) that noise is a bad thing and Neatimage makes bad pictures good.
Message edited by author 2005-03-15 05:39:22. |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 05:40:58 AM · #108 |
Jon,
I appreciate your frustration AND your wish to improve the photography of the rest of us. That's why most of us are here after all. I'm not questioning your motives, only your methods.
Rather than telling us we're all disgraceful for submitting images with these flaws or giving them high votes I think you would have more success if you tempered your writing style a little and explained less emotively what you thought was wrong and how it could be improved.
Your contribution towards helping others improve is very much appreciated and would be 100% more effective if your message wasn't lost in a shower of offended posters.
I, for one, promise to listen and consider what you say and try not to be offended in future. I promise to pay anyone else here the same courtesy regardless of how many ribbons they've won.
John
Ps. Please god tell me you don't really have a fan club?
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 05:53:56 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by floyd:
Jon,
I appreciate your frustration AND your wish to improve the photography of the rest of us. That's why most of us are here after all. I'm not questioning your motives, only your methods.
Rather than telling us we're all disgraceful for submitting images with these flaws or giving them high votes I think you would have more success if you tempered your writing style a little and explained less emotively what you thought was wrong and how it could be improved.
Your contribution towards helping others improve is very much appreciated and would be 100% more effective if your message wasn't lost in a shower of offended posters.
I, for one, promise to listen and consider what you say and try not to be offended in future. I promise to pay anyone else here the same courtesy regardless of how many ribbons they've won.
John
Ps. Please god tell me you don't really have a fan club? |
I don't think people are disgraceful at all, just that I honestly get disappointed when i see good shots I like, ruined by what I don't like.
:D I really am bad at getting my point across in a nice way - I am the first to admit that. :D
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 05:58:33 AM · #110 |
This post should be a lesson to all of us. When communicating face to face the receiver of the message has the advantage of seeing/feeling the gist, the facial expressions, the nuances... In the written word those valuable indicators are lost hence the ease of misunderstanding the true message.
I must agree with floyed, jon, the importance of the wording is not what you say, but how you say it. I admire your work and in essence I agree with many of your points of view. There are many things I absolutely can not comprehend in this community. The fact that I have not participated in the last 4 challenges and are truely reconsidering any future participation is proof of my statement and my support for you.
However, check the scoreboard, the winners/scorers are the winners/scorers, we can not take that away from them. In their own way they earned it, even deserved it. That is something I have not earned or deserved. I can just imagine how I will feel if you/someone kick me in the nuts if I had just ribboned.
But to the point, be very careful using the written word... it has a tendancy to turn back and bite you in the ass. As I myself had learned so many times.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 06:06:00 AM · #111 |
Floyd - I think he's done pretty well in expressing himself in the previous post don't you think?
Originally posted by jonpink:
... They see this as the best way of taking photographs and it becomes a norm to them and to this site.
These same photographers harp on about wanting to learn, yet they refuse to listen why you say images lacking detail is a bad thing - or noise can be good.
And why do they refuse to listen? Because there are more people telling them (by their votes) that noise is a bad thing and Neatimage makes bad pictures good. |
Replace NeatImage with excessive editing and I think you've got it wrapped up here.
I for one am viewing ribbon winning with far less reverence now that editing has ventured into Toy Town. In fact, the lack of rewards for well taken, imaginative photography in favour of naff eye candy may lead to me moving away from this site altogether if the trend continues.
It's plain dull and teaches me nothing, while simultaneously suggesting to novices that shrouding one's photographic inexperience in silky FX is the way forward. |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 06:18:05 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
It's plain dull and teaches me nothing, while simultaneously suggesting to novices that shrouding one's photographic inexperience in silky FX is the way forward. |
i think it also removes the excitement of actually being on the beach, on the street, in the midst of life, trying to capture life and light, and replaces it with a dreary imprisonment in a dark room filled with computing hardware and wiring... |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 06:46:19 AM · #113 |
Personally I'm rather impressed with Jon's comments and analysis, additionally I feel his stong terms in the thread title to be appropriate in this case, in the case that softer words were used then the message would not have carried so well.
I'm here to learn, I'd much rather people be direct and say how they feel rather than wasting time by wrapping their words in cotton wool. I also think that many people on here felt the same way as Jon and were very pleased that someone had the guts to come right out and say it.
I've felt a little disillusioned with dpc of late, in my months of being here my photography improved dramatically, but over the past few months I feel that a little bit of my desire has been lost. I find myself thinking about taking a picture but dismissing it as it would be inadequate, this is a conditioning born from trying to please the dpc majority. Now I fully realise that this is my, and not dpc's issue and that dpc should exist as a supportive part of my photography and not a reason for it, but I think that many on here will agree about dpc's consuming effect.
I'm rambling now - I'll stop before mumbling more about 'real' photography vs the unrealistic, soulless eye candy.
I need to find a way to replace my sell-out shot as being my highest rated pic
Darren
Message edited by author 2005-03-15 06:47:55.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 07:05:09 AM · #114 |
Skip & colda - couldn't agree more.
Here's a link for some inspiration for taking great pics and some examples of supreme post processing:
Association of Photographers (got to the Members' Gallery). |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 07:08:35 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by bledford:
People tend to vote higher the more attractive image that somewhat meets the challenge than the mediocre image that fits it perfectly.
|
Is this a bad thing ? To me, I view this site about improving one's overall photography, and the challenges as a set of lines to help improve our focus while attempting to improve. While I agree that one should try to communicate the challenge as best possible, I think I'm going to be likely to vote higher on better shots (not completely regardless of the challenge title) than bland or "punny" shots that fit the category perfectly.
I'm actually not sure whether you were claiming your above quote as a good or bad thing :D, so just wondering. Also, I realise I'm pretty new to this site, so my opinion may be way off center here.
While I'm here, I think the winners in this challenge had great shots - not sure about how representative of Ansel Adams, not being so well educated in his work. All the same, I've been rather disappointed and felt disconnected with the line of voting when it's come to some of the other challenges. But over-all the entire experience on this site is really overwhelmingly positive.
[apologies for my wordiness] |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 07:10:17 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Skip & colda - couldn't agree more.
Here's a link for some inspiration for taking great pics and some examples of supreme post processing:
Association of Photographers (got to the Members' Gallery). |
Excellent link - thank you!
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 07:55:03 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Floyd - I think he's done pretty well in expressing himself in the previous post don't you think?
Originally posted by jonpink:
... They see this as the best way of taking photographs and it becomes a norm to them and to this site.
These same photographers harp on about wanting to learn, yet they refuse to listen why you say images lacking detail is a bad thing - or noise can be good.
And why do they refuse to listen? Because there are more people telling them (by their votes) that noise is a bad thing and Neatimage makes bad pictures good. |
Replace NeatImage with excessive editing and I think you've got it wrapped up here.
I for one am viewing ribbon winning with far less reverence now that editing has ventured into Toy Town. In fact, the lack of rewards for well taken, imaginative photography in favour of naff eye candy may lead to me moving away from this site altogether if the trend continues.
It's plain dull and teaches me nothing, while simultaneously suggesting to novices that shrouding one's photographic inexperience in silky FX is the way forward. |
I don't actually find neatimage to be much of a problem. The only problem is when it is applied so ineptly that it has visibly removed details. Neatimage is a great tool, until it becomes obvious in the image that it has been used. Just the same with dodging/ burning/ cloning etc. The problem isn't in the tool that is applied, it is in how it is applied, or really, how heavy handedly it is applied.
Noise isn't the end of the world. Grain certainly isn't. But some digital noise, particularly chromatic noise is really rather unpleasant. Tools to help compensate for that are worthwhile learning how to apply well.
It is just an issue of how well you can actually see the deterioration in the image caused by it. I get the impression that most users don't take the time to learn the tool to a point where they can apply it with skill. Many voters don't appear to be able to recognise the loss of detail that it causes either. This is particularly noticeable on the many plastic barbie doll looking portraits that get displayed. I find it difficult to believe that the photographer really likes that look - I think it is more likely that they are oblivious to how bad it looks.
I know as I've learned about techniques and have refined my editing style, there are things that now stand out as glaringly obvious that at the time I never even noticed. Halos due to sharpening on images that I thought were grand. Lost detail in highlights when I thought I was doing a great job of dynamic range. There is a peculiar part of education that, at least for me, I can't see problems in my images until I know to look for them. I think this neatimage blindness is a similar case. |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 08:13:12 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I know as I've learned about techniques and have refined my editing style, there are things that now stand out as glaringly obvious that at the time I never even noticed. Halos due to sharpening on images that I thought were grand. Lost detail in highlights when I thought I was doing a great job of dynamic range. There is a peculiar part of education that, at least for me, I can't see problems in my images until I know to look for them. I think this neatimage blindness is a similar case. |
I have trouble seeing accuratly what is on the screen sometimes. One thing I know for sure though is that is the images that get over processed were to be printed at 16x20 or larger any problems with over worked or ineptly applied editing will be easily noticed by even the most inexperienced.
When I take a picture I shoot with the final print in mind, not 640x640 web image. I try to be a minimalist when it come to post processing, because I have faith in the strength of the original image. Hell, I don't really even know what Neatimage is, and as far as I know I really haven't missed anything.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 01:31:37 PM · #119 |
I use NeatImage as a routine part of my post-processing for both print and DPC versions. I've NEVER had a comment that mentioned overuse, or even use, of NI. To my mind this means I'm using it "correctly". It's an extremely valuable tool, paricularly for those of us who don't use dSLR cameras and have to work with smaller sensors.
As a rule I HATE overprocessing, and I usually avoid it like the plague. Still, sometimes I make images that are purely dependent on obvious post-processing for their impact; see my entries in "70's" and in "Something New" for 2 challenge entries of that sort.
I'm not in principle opposed to extreme NI in the making of photographic art; if it works, it works. "Would I hang it on my wall?" is the question iask myself. I've seen what I consider to be some hauntingly good "over-processed" portraits and flowers on this site. I have a whole series of flowers, leaves, and buds that use EXTREME gaussian blur to siolate subject from background, even to the point of adjusting the parameters to produce noticeable soft halos, and these are some of my best-selling prints. I consider them to exist in a gray area between photography and digital art, and would not enter an image like that in a DPC challenge.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 02:31:37 PM · #120 |
Imagineer - yes I agree that Jon's later posts were well expressed and not inflamatory. My recent comments were meant as feedback on the post that originally started this thread.
One thing I think we need to be careful of here is that we don't start making photographs only for photographers. The more expert we become the more we notice the faults in our own and others work. However, we need to understand the the man or woman on the street doesn't see things the same way at all.
While I'm keen to make my images absolutely as good as they can be I also keep firmly in mind that I want my images to be viewed by others. Not necessarily expert photographers. For that reason I value greatly the "everyman" approach to voting that we see here. It gives me an insight onto what appeals to other people. I combine that information with what appeals to me and I try to make images that satisfy both.
It's the equivalent of novels that rely on the reader having read the classics. Sure they're artistic and worthy but they're unlikely to be appreciated by anyone other than similarly well read academics.
I want to be a technically proficient and artistically discriminate. But not as much as I want people to enjoy my work.
Now can someone tell me where I can read up on this "zone system" stuff that was mentioned about 50 posts ago? I'd like to learn more.
John
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 09:41:15 PM · #121 |
As a final word on this tiresome thread I want to confess that i stopped taking my zone 5 pills. That was a mistake. I still have a few bottles for those interested. ROFL
 |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 09:48:43 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I use NeatImage as a routine part of my post-processing for both print and DPC versions. I've NEVER had a comment that mentioned overuse, or even use, of NI. To my mind this means I'm using it "correctly". It's an extremely valuable tool, paricularly for those of us who don't use dSLR cameras and have to work with smaller sensors. |
Will this fix the noise problems I get with the darker skies I shoot? If so, may have to get it ... |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 09:56:26 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...I stopped taking my zone 5 pills. |
Ba dum bum. |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 10:09:48 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by floyd:
Imagineer - yes I agree that Jon's later posts were well expressed and not inflamatory. My recent comments were meant as feedback on the post that originally started this thread.
One thing I think we need to be careful of here is that we don't start making photographs only for photographers. The more expert we become the more we notice the faults in our own and others work. However, we need to understand the the man or woman on the street doesn't see things the same way at all.
While I'm keen to make my images absolutely as good as they can be I also keep firmly in mind that I want my images to be viewed by others. Not necessarily expert photographers. For that reason I value greatly the "everyman" approach to voting that we see here. It gives me an insight onto what appeals to other people. I combine that information with what appeals to me and I try to make images that satisfy both.
It's the equivalent of novels that rely on the reader having read the classics. Sure they're artistic and worthy but they're unlikely to be appreciated by anyone other than similarly well read academics.
I want to be a technically proficient and artistically discriminate. But not as much as I want people to enjoy my work.
Now can someone tell me where I can read up on this "zone system" stuff that was mentioned about 50 posts ago? I'd like to learn more.
John |
Ansel Adams wrota book titled The Nagative. It has an in depth explanation of the Zone system. Otherwise a quick web search should direct you to a few dozen sites that fully explain it.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 10:11:26 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bear_music:
I use NeatImage as a routine part of my post-processing for both print and DPC versions. I've NEVER had a comment that mentioned overuse, or even use, of NI. To my mind this means I'm using it "correctly". It's an extremely valuable tool, paricularly for those of us who don't use dSLR cameras and have to work with smaller sensors. |
Will this fix the noise problems I get with the darker skies I shoot? If so, may have to get it ... |
Yes. Definitely.
Robt.
|
|
