| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2005 07:11:51 PM · #1 |
Has any one else felt that this is a real awkward subject to vote on? Besides just how we feel personally about high contrast photos, I have noticed that these photos have to be the hardest to present to other viewers due to the differences in monitors.
We each worked on our photos according to the monitor that we use, but we don't all have top-of-the-line monitors with the best displays to vote on them. I myself use a computer at work all day long, and the monitor is not as nice as my home monitor. However, due to time contstaints and T1 v dial-up connection speeds, I do most of my voting while at work.
With all of these differences, there has got to be quite a few, if not all, of the photos that have very good and bad votes just becuase of the difficulty of displaying the full tonal range in these high contrast images. Has anyone else thought about this while voting?
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 07:21:02 PM · #2 |
Yep, In the past I have noticed a big variation depending on what you view on, a friend submitted an entry in an earlier challenge, obviously to a lot of viewers all they saw was a black screen, on my monitor (19"lcd) you could see the image appear, almost 3dimensional, his entry got voted down I think due to limitations on some peoples equipment.
When I viewed the entry on other computers there was a noticeably large difference in the picture |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 07:21:38 PM · #3 |
Just don't be to narrow minded. A lack of super high contrast may well be compensated by other things. As long as it feels good score high.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 07:25:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Just don't be to narrow minded. A lack of super high contrast may well be compensated by other things. As long as it feels good score high. |
The problem I am having is that the really good high contrast images appear blown out in the highlights and completely unexposed in the shadows. It sucks!
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 07:29:26 PM · #5 |
My photo is contrasting so much voters have said it makes them sick to look at it. Guess I should have sat this challenge out.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2005 12:33:51 AM · #6 |
Alright I am in the middle of voting right now, but I pulled off because it would appear that most people are doing the opposite of High Contrast. Now there is some great photos out there that just aint meeting the High Contrast end of the deal, as a matter of fact sometimes it looks like they went out of their way to make it Low Contrast.
Listen somebody please explain High Contrast in lay-mans terms to me. That would make a world of difference for the way I vote. |
|
|
|
09/10/2005 12:50:39 AM · #7 |
Disregarding fringe approaches such as subject contrast (young and old, beautiful and ugly, whatever) and the like, there are basically two photographic approaches to contrast: "tonal contrast" and "color contrast".
B/W HC images rely entirely on tonal contrast; lots of bright, lots of black, relatively little mid-range tonality would be the classic approach here. Some people consider a mid-tone photo with exaggeratedly black sahdows and bright highlights to be "high contrast" as well. Others wouldn't agree with that.
Color HC images may relay on tonal contrast (bright and dark) and/or color contrast (colors from opposite sides of the color wheel contrast visually; a red and green of the same middle tonal range would nevertheless contrast dramatically if juxtaposed, for example).
That's a nutshell description of the orthodox approaches, without favoring one over the other.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2005 02:04:53 PM · #8 |
| To me the contrast is supposed to impact the photo, not just be a photo of contrasts. |
|
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: 06/07/2025 10:50:36 AM EDT.
