DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Overprocessed Silhouettes
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 68, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/23/2005 03:39:21 PM · #1
Without giving any specifics - just want to say I'm disappointed how some of the blatantly overprocessed entries tend to score high.


05/23/2005 03:42:49 PM · #2


Message edited by author 2005-05-23 17:58:25.
05/23/2005 09:04:09 PM · #3
Probably I'm alone in thinking this - oh, well - voters are always right.


05/23/2005 09:08:30 PM · #4
Originally posted by vfwlkr:

Probably I'm alone in thinking this - oh, well - voters are always right.


hahahahah no. they are not. just people's opinions. No one is 'right' or 'wrong' Don't sweat it. Everyone here has different tastes and also different levels of knowledge on what they think consitutes good photography.

Also, some shots can look processed when they in fact are not very much at all.

There are professionals that enter contests here that have never ribboned, yet they make their living shooting pics. Somehow they must not suck, yet they haven't ribboned? see what im getting at?
05/23/2005 09:09:02 PM · #5
Originally posted by vfwlkr:

Probably I'm alone in thinking this - oh, well - voters are always right.


They aren't necessarly always right but you know the saying..."majority rules".
05/23/2005 09:13:23 PM · #6
Why should it matter how much processing went into the image? I like to see pleasing, beautiful, interesting, entertaining, engaging, and creative images. I don't care how they're made, really.

If you mean you don't like the so-called "over-processed" look of an image, you might be saying you expect a scene to look as you'd expect it to look to your eyes if you were there. But photography is about communicating your artistic interpretation of the scene, and post-processing is just one tool photographers have to help communicate their interpretation to the viewer.
05/23/2005 09:23:30 PM · #7
Originally posted by skylen:

If you mean you don't like the so-called "over-processed" look of an image, you might be saying you expect a scene to look as you'd expect it to look to your eyes if you were there. But photography is about communicating your artistic interpretation of the scene,...


When I see an image that has all kinds of shades from extremely-dark to bright-white in the sky/clouds, but has a monotonic dark ground, you can tell its over-processed to the point of looking unpleasant. But then personal tastes vary...


05/23/2005 09:25:24 PM · #8
Originally posted by vfwlkr:

But then personal tastes vary...


Agreed.

Message edited by author 2005-05-23 21:25:37.
05/23/2005 09:28:57 PM · #9
Originally posted by petrakka:

Originally posted by vfwlkr:

Probably I'm alone in thinking this - oh, well - voters are always right.


hahahahah no. they are not. just people's opinions. No one is 'right' or 'wrong' Don't sweat it. Everyone here has different tastes and also different levels of knowledge on what they think consitutes good photography.

Also, some shots can look processed when they in fact are not very much at all.

There are professionals that enter contests here that have never ribboned, yet they make their living shooting pics. Somehow they must not suck, yet they haven't ribboned? see what im getting at?


Voters are NOT always right, except for themselves.

As one of those professionals that have never ribboned... We do commercial work, ads, signage, documentary, so on... which is alot different than ART. I just said this in another thread. DPC is more a photographic, digital art site. Why haven't I ribboned.... because I am learning to crop, sharpen, manipulate images to please DPCer's... Mostly I do it for companionship, a reason to go shoot something outside of work that is pretty much for me, and a little bit for thee.

(DPCer's may or may not (also) be able to sell an image in the commercial world, either....)
05/23/2005 09:29:41 PM · #10
my silhouette pic got a comment that it looked over processed. this is the original and the edited version. you can see that it wasn't over processed. my point is, you can't always tell how much processing was done.
05/23/2005 09:34:03 PM · #11
Originally posted by sofapez:

... DPC is more a photographic, digital art site.

the concern I think is dpc seems to be moving more towards digital art than photographic art.
05/23/2005 09:34:17 PM · #12
Originally posted by sher9204:

my silhouette pic got a comment that it looked over processed. this is the original and the edited version. you can see that it wasn't over processed. my point is, you can't always tell how much processing was done.


Maybe there monitor needs adjustment. It looks fine to me.
05/23/2005 09:36:38 PM · #13
Originally posted by gaurawa:

Originally posted by sofapez:

... DPC is more a photographic, digital art site.

the concern I think is dpc seems to be moving more towards digital art than photographic art.


Thanks for the agreement. The reason I feel it is that photographers are leaning on the post processing to accomplish their goal. Nothing wrong with that, but I like to call a spade a spade. In fact, much discussion on this on thread titled "straight from the camera", where suggestion is made to have a challenge with such.

Message edited by author 2005-05-23 21:37:44.
05/23/2005 09:50:22 PM · #14
My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.

05/23/2005 09:57:03 PM · #15
Originally posted by kirbic:

My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.

\
NO this is a gorgeous image. And makes me homesick, I was born and raised in the Seaside, Cannon Beach, Astoria Oregon area. The colors area realistic. The rock is "Haystack". When the tide is down, you can walk out on it and experience the Pacific ocean real estate under the waves... and even get shit on by a rampaging sea gull or two (hahaha).
05/23/2005 10:30:33 PM · #16
hope it okay to post them here
a little late coming but acually outtakes
some people doubted in a comment on my entry if this was a silhouette
i put the guitar right behind this orange sun-blind made of textile



just shows how wrong one can be..
05/23/2005 10:33:59 PM · #17
Originally posted by sofapez:

Originally posted by kirbic:

My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.

\
NO this is a gorgeous image. And makes me homesick, I was born and raised in the Seaside, Cannon Beach, Astoria Oregon area. The colors area realistic. The rock is "Haystack". When the tide is down, you can walk out on it and experience the Pacific ocean real estate under the waves... and even get shit on by a rampaging sea gull or two (hahaha).


And I agree. I could not bring myself to boost it up to artificial levels, it did not fit with my goals as an artist and photographer. But it does seem the preference is for "velvia reality."

Edit: And thank you, sofapez, for the kind words!

Message edited by author 2005-05-23 22:35:08.
05/23/2005 10:51:38 PM · #18
Originally posted by kirbic:

My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.


I think yours is definitely NOT overprocessed. It looks completely believable. I guess the trend towards overdoing to get a better score is what I dislike.


05/23/2005 10:52:55 PM · #19
Originally posted by sher9204:

my silhouette pic got a comment that it looked over processed. this is the original and the edited version. you can see that it wasn't over processed. my point is, you can't always tell how much processing was done.

Not sure how you got that comment - it didnt look over processed at all.

05/23/2005 10:56:37 PM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:

My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.

kirbic, your shot looks very realistic and the processing, IMO, was done only to restore what you saw by increasing the dynamic range of the photo. And it looks great. I don't think your image is over-processed. its processed well :)

But I see growing percentage of shots on dpc with way saturated colors and excessive burning which could be considered as dark-room practices, but gives the photo very made-up look rather than a captured look. Again its a personal taste.

Yes its art, but its more of a digital art to me
05/23/2005 10:57:53 PM · #21
Originally posted by vfwlkr:

Originally posted by sher9204:

my silhouette pic got a comment that it looked over processed. this is the original and the edited version. you can see that it wasn't over processed. my point is, you can't always tell how much processing was done.

Not sure how you got that comment - it didnt look over processed at all.


I think these comments come from users who just are not that familiar with how to achieve these effects in-camera, or with ver limited/simple post-processing. If we don't understand something, we tend to think it was modified significantly, using sophisticated techniques, when quite the opposite may be true.
05/24/2005 12:15:31 AM · #22
Originally posted by messerschmitt:

hope it okay to post them here
a little late coming but acually outtakes
some people doubted in a comment on my entry if this was a silhouette
i put the guitar right behind this orange sun-blind made of textile



just shows how wrong one can be..


I got the same type of comments you did. I was amazed at how narrowly people defined a silouette. It seemed (at least in my case) if you didn't have a 100% black outline, you didn't meet the challenge. Oh well, so much for subtleties.

For what it is worth, I think your shots are very well done. nice texture studies and, without a doubt, silouettes.

That being said, I have to complement everybody on this challenge. I am a very stingy voter and I have never given out as many 10s as I did in this one. Kudos to all!

Dave
05/24/2005 01:44:12 AM · #23
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by sofapez:

Originally posted by kirbic:

My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.

\
NO this is a gorgeous image. And makes me homesick, I was born and raised in the Seaside, Cannon Beach, Astoria Oregon area. The colors area realistic. The rock is "Haystack". When the tide is down, you can walk out on it and experience the Pacific ocean real estate under the waves... and even get shit on by a rampaging sea gull or two (hahaha).


And I agree. I could not bring myself to boost it up to artificial levels, it did not fit with my goals as an artist and photographer. But it does seem the preference is for "velvia reality."

Edit: And thank you, sofapez, for the kind words!

Just what I feel is true, and thank you! Next time you go, I'll give you a list of beautiful places to go and photograph. I miss the splender of the west coast (I'm in Indiana)and I was pleased to see your image and another one in Sillo's that I beleive was the wreck of the Peter Aredale (spell wrong). It was truely a pleasure to see them both well presented on this site.
05/24/2005 01:53:02 AM · #24
Originally posted by kirbic:


I think these comments come from users who just are not that familiar with how to achieve these effects in-camera, or with ver limited/simple post-processing. If we don't understand something, we tend to think it was modified significantly, using sophisticated techniques, when quite the opposite may be true.

I ABSOLUTELY agree, also maybe they don't beleive that any place could actually be that beautiful ( a little LOL).
We also look at images that are very processed by the hundreds (even thousands) which tends to condition us to expect that images should look in a certain way, be it right or be it wrong, it is the dpc way... (this is in no way a put down)
05/24/2005 01:58:25 AM · #25
Is combining two raw conversions of the same shot legal in advanced editing? I didn't think it was.

Originally posted by kirbic:

My shot was actually pretty heavily processed. I made two RAW conversions, one for sky, one for foreground and did significant work after combining them. Still, I tried to remain faithful to what I saw. I can't help but wonder, though, whether overdoing the colors would have netted me a better score.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/19/2025 04:57:47 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/19/2025 04:57:47 AM EDT.