| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2002 10:29:39 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by sylk:
Wow! I love the original as well. I can see how the filter and sepia added to the old feel but this would have done it as well. Great exposure!
It's an awesome shot, either way. Sorry about what happened, I do love your picture. :)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 10:58:23 AM · #27 |
Ben, I seen your original photo and I would have given it a 10. You did a great job. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:04:09 AM · #28 |
Hey, i have an idea...maybe there should be a challenge where we can do whatever we want to our photo, you know really photoshop it up..it seems that we need to get it out of our systems and show creativity in that way..what do u think?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:06:08 AM · #29 |
Ben,
Sorry for what happened. You can and should be very proud of both the photo, and how you have handled what was a simple mistake on your part -which in no way changes the fact that you were the top choice of the voters. BTW, the original was maybe a better photo.
Jim |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:10:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
He has it linked here.
I definitely like the original better, but I'm a sucker for vivid color like that.
Drew |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:21:58 AM · #31 |
| I am sorry to hear about your disqualification. I think we sometimes try to get too cute with our editing and I don't know if it's influenced from what we read on this site or hear from others. Sometimes I just get so frustrated with the way people see an image that I want to put arrows on the picture and point out everything to them. Explain it to them, what the hell you are trying to show. I am not sure of the rules either for about everything you add to a picture is a filter. I just saw the original photo and that one stands alone by far the best I have seen on this site. Your a good photographer keep going in the direction your headed but remember you have to please yourself first and the rest will follow. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:35:18 AM · #32 |
Konador, I like the original color version WAY better than your sepia submission. I was one of those who originally commented on the picture looking "over processed" (although I never suggested a DQ). However, that is a matter of judgment and personal taste.
I feel bad about what had happened to your picture. However, when in doubt about whether is permissible, one should ask in the forums beforehand. I did so myself on a layer issue. The bad thing is some threads get buried quickly in all the thread traffic and a week later I saw similar questions popping up again.
I strongly feel that there ought to be a better description on the rules to avoid nasty stuff like this happening in future. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:43:41 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
...I'm a sucker...
Drew
hahaha
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 11:43:30 AM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:11:52 PM · #34 |
| Looks like I should have posted the original, judging from what you all think... Doh! :) |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:47:22 PM · #35 |
| i like the one you submitted better. it reminds me of many of the 18th-19th century books i own |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 02:55:12 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by konador:
Looks like I should have posted the original, judging from what you all think... Doh! :)
Konador,
did you, by chance, play around with a crop that would have excluded the dark spot from the upper left corner of that image? i really liked this image as well, but that dark spot kept grabbing my eye every time I went back to look at the photo...
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 03:01:25 PM · #37 |
I'm sorry you were disqualified, Ben. It is truly a great photo! One of the best I have seen here on this site. Nothing that has happened here should detract from that. The point of this site is to ultimately take great photos and you have definitely succeeded. You have a great attitude about this and I'm really looking forward to seeing your future submissions. I still consider you the winner.
T
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 03:10:02 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by konador:
Looks like I should have posted the original, judging from what you all think... Doh! :)
It's impossible to predict how the voters here will score a particular photograph. Both are great photos. You have the talent that it takes to do well here.
I've decided to just submit the photo that I like best. That way, I can get feedback on what I think is my best work.
Keith
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 3:09:48 PM. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 04:24:16 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by kmtolk:
I've decided to just submit the photo that I like best. That way, I can get feedback on what I think is my best work.
This is an excellent attitude (and, frankly, a great idea). I have definitely been too caught up in what I think will "score well" and I need to do more of what I like to see how it goes over.
Hmmm...I never really realized that I was acting that way until just now.
Rob |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 12:21:15 AM · #40 |
All:
In light of this incident, I realize what a wonderful community I have fallen into here. I believe that largely, the people using DPChallenge are an intelligent, civil and supportive lot, a state of affairs that is sadly uncommon in the Internet age.
Kudos to Konador for what is truly a great photograph. In my talking about the photo to another DPChallenge user, I offhandedly commented that the grain filter would normally make for a disqualification, but that thought was almost as quickly forgotten as the praise for the same photo flowed.
In the end, it is nice to see that folks realize that while a DQ was mandated by the rules, the impact of "Portchester Castle" remains, and that DPChallenge is not about picking apart people's photographs for miscompliance with the rules, but about recognizing the good work of others and of our own.
I am happy that I found you folks, and I am proud to say that I'm staying.
Now... Y'all go easy on MY submissions, when they come, ok? :)
Mark
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 12:30:21 AM · #41 |
| if you disregards the rules, the photo is still conveys old, even without any caption. can you see that same message in any other photos? |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 01:06:48 AM · #42 |
| You have a wonderful eye and a lot of talent and even if the way you handled that photo ended up being outside the rules here, it certainly should "have a life" in other competitions where the rules may differ and allow and encourage that. Your attitude and response to the decision here is to be commended also. My compliments on your artistry and your dignity. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 05:14:00 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
If this site allowed filters, no doubt lots of people would use them to improve their photos. That would be fine with me, since everyone would have the same opportunity. Since filters aren't allowed, photos that use them need to be disqualified.
[/i]
Any idea what Photoshop costs? How many filters are available for any editing program and mucht those filters cost? It would take an icredible amount of time to figure out wich filters are free and not. It would not be fair if someone uses Photoshop with very advanced and expensive filters because he has te money or the profession to be able to make use of it, compared to the low budget amateur who uses Irfanview to tweak the little bits that can be tweaked. So not everyone has the same opportunity.
Its a digital photography contest, not a digital tweaking contest IMHO.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 05:48:33 AM · #44 |
| Azrifel, what you say is true, but the same could be said about cameras. Expensive cameras have a lot of features that cheaper ones do not. Does that mean it is not fair to use a really expensive camera when others do not? |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 07:47:17 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by konador:
Azrifel, what you say is true, but the same could be said about cameras. Expensive cameras have a lot of features that cheaper ones do not. Does that mean it is not fair to use a really expensive camera when others do not?
Good point. But I think that is why you have to pay eaqual attention to the creativity level of a photograph as well. Besides, you can still make great photo's with a 2mp budget camera and make a mess of shots with a $2500 dSLR with a lens of $1000. The 640x480 viewing format irons out a lot of sharpness and noise issues.
The main advantages for people with 6mp expensive camera's are cropping, better low light capabilities, choosing the right lens for the situation and hooking the camera up to better (studio) flash systems. A lot of other set up issues with such camera's do require a photographer who knows what he's doing. So you might argue that it can even be harder to get a really good shot that lives up to the expectations people have of people whit such cameras. Fortunately you can not see who used what when voting. :-)
We all have a camera, else we couldn't participate. But I am sure that someone who tries to do his best with his budget camera will not have pro editing software. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 09:37:13 AM · #46 |
Some of the greatest photographers have taken some of the best pictures with regular point & shoot, pinhole or recyclabe cameras...
The problem with this site is that everyone has their own taste and a lot of people concentrate on "technical aspects" of the picture. Well, as far as I see...the "technical aspects" of a picture is only 10-30%...not necessarily making up the whole picture. In the very few weeks that i have been a member I have seen very original and well planned shots be under-rated for the "cliche" shots. Oh well...them be the breaks after all, we are taking pictures for ourselves and not someone else :)
Alternatively...Reflect upon things that many great photographers have done, using dodging, burning, overlaying multiple negatives...The really great ones were able to combine amazing shots on their own and make them even better...I seriously do think that the rules should be more lenient. Pictures that have been heavily modified will probably not succeed...I wish the rules were this simple:
No spot editing (cloning things out, adding things in that are not in the picture as it is) however, fixing hot/stuck/dead pixels IS allowed.
Picture must be taken between xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxxx
Filters is a touchy subject but every program is different...So, I would think this particular rule have to be very specific. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 09:44:30 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by psychephylax:
No spot editing (cloning things out, adding things in that are not in the picture as it is) however, fixing hot/stuck/dead pixels IS allowed.
Picture must be taken between xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxxx
So I'm confused - you say no spot editing, then describe using spot
editing to fix stuck/dead/ hot pixels
So which is it ? no spot editing or spot editing ?
Not picking on you in particular, as a lot of people making rules
suggestions have this kind of unclear thinking going on.
"Was that a highlight or a error in my sensor - oh I just edited it
out anyway, isn't that okay ?"
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 10:09:59 AM · #48 |
My personal preference would be to allow ONLY cropping, rotation and resizing. Nothing else. This would solve all questions of interpretation.
However, I recognize that this then leads to the equally challenging problem of trying to compare top-end cameras with budget point-and-shoots.
Thus, the issue is essentially unsolvable.
Therefore, the moderators should rewrite the rules to expunge the obvious ambiguities ("etc", for example), the members should accept them for what they are, and concentrate on composing great pix. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 10:20:49 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by jakking:
My personal preference would be to allow ONLY cropping, rotation and resizing. Nothing else. This would solve all questions of interpretation.
Just to be awkward I'd prefer to remove rotation from that list :)
A common thing people don't do is turn the camera - this would actually
help people maybe look at things differently.
But other than that, I'd like to have all the things I'd have
access to in a traditional darkroom. The problem with that is that it
is at least everything that is available on Photoshop, under the
image and filter menus. And there are more things you can do that
you can't easily do in Photoshop, although you can sort of get there.
Often in the comments I think that's the issue - people don't seem to
realise that 'old, traditional' photography includes things like
spot editing, spot colour changes, toning, colour shifts in different
channels, blurring, soft focus etc.
Photoshop doesn't add much more to what has been done traditionally,
other than an 'undo' option and the ability to do some things more easily.
And all of the photoshop stuff is available free in packages like
'the gimp' that is available for pretty much all platforms as well.
I think Hokie covered in best when he suggested that the digital
processing stuff is 'Digital Photography 102' To me that means it
isn't real advanced/ pro stuff, but an integral part of taking a
digital photograph, after you've learnt which end of the camera
takes the image
|
|
|
|
08/18/2002 03:52:28 PM · #50 |
HI;
First,
Congratulations! You obviously were doing something right to obtain first place.
Second,
You made an honest mistake. We learn best from our mistakes. I know from experience.....I personally gained the prestige of next to the last place in my texture submission. (a submission I thought was "pure texture.") I didn't realize that texture had to BE something recognizable. Now I've learned!
Third,
Your post here is very up-front about the mistake and I slaute you for your forthright acceptance of the judges decision.
Last?
Hang in there, you're an excellent photographer and you'd obviously make a good graphics editor as well ... :>)
Your friend in photography,
Shar |
|
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: 08/01/2025 08:39:51 AM EDT.
