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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Rules rewrite status and call for suggestions
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 451, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/13/2006 04:49:54 PM · #251
Simply put, it does not.

Originally posted by keegbow:

...

Well this was your response in a recent DQ

Gordon
FWIW, I don't see why your picture got DQed when the obviously non-moving, motion blurred jet plane was left in, but I'm not on the SC.

Scalvert
Me neither, and I am. :-/

How can this inspire confidence ?

02/13/2006 04:56:30 PM · #252
See..now here is a perfect example of where the BRANCH function would be very useful. There are a lot of topics brought up here that are related but not necessarily on the topic. It would be nice to have them all branched on the same thread instead of having to start/search through multiple threads to put it all together.

I say this since I have a question that relates to this thread but is not exactly on topic...but is relevant.
02/13/2006 05:24:51 PM · #253
Originally posted by keegbow:

This whole business of the rule changes is a joke ! The only thing that needs to be changed is how the SC interprets the rules because the SC interpretation overrules everything.

How about just giving SC a break huh? This constant beating-up on SC is boring, unproductive and totally unnecessary.

With 19 voting members on SC, there can be no such thing as a 'conspiracy' or 'group-conciousness' possible. If they make a decision, it will be a fair one - no other outcome is possible.

SC members give a HUGE amount of time to DPC and they don't need mindless aggro for it, please give them a break.

Brett
02/13/2006 05:30:13 PM · #254
Originally posted by mavrik:

Basic needs dodge/burn because it's ridiculous to do photography without it. Not to be absolutist, but "basic" photography skills include dodge and burn in the darkroom OR the digital darkroom.

No problem with your logic Marvik but I would be interested to see how it can be policed. At the moment, the demarcations are very clear for Basic, you have to apply adjustments to ALL of the image. If we let in dodge/burn which is selected pixel editing, then we open a HUGE can of worms.

Brett
02/13/2006 05:35:02 PM · #255
Originally posted by Falc:

I agree - keep it simple, let the community find its own level

I see a fallacy in that argument. The community has found a level which is not in tune with the purpose or spirit of DPC. As I outlined in the DNMC suggestion, the community has allowed sheep into 56th place when the challnge required "people".

Ergo:- The voters cannot be given the responsibility

Brett
02/13/2006 05:56:24 PM · #256
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by Falc:

I agree - keep it simple, let the community find its own level

I see a fallacy in that argument. The community has found a level which is not in tune with the purpose or spirit of DPC. As I outlined in the DNMC suggestion, the community has allowed sheep into 56th place when the challnge required "people".

Ergo:- The voters cannot be given the responsibility

Brett


Well judging by all the hoopla over SC decisions it would appear that SC members cannot fullfill their responsibilities also... You know mistakes do happen. Perhaps voters DIDN'T notice that the description said "people". When I first came on board and started voting I didn't notice there was a description to the challenge. Maybe make the text more obvious and also add it in the voting window were everyone has to see it with ever vote they cast.

Btw, I agree with mavrik. Keep it simple and maybe revisit this issue again in a year? When I first visited this site I thought basic editing was for the photography wizards and advance editing was for the photography wizards + photoshop wizards and to this day that still appears to be the case as each and every challenge results time and time again bare this out.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 18:00:49.
02/13/2006 06:21:14 PM · #257
Ok, a lot of the disagreement (not all) with my original suggestion is with dodge/burn. If it makes it easier to police and keep track of, take d&b out of my original equation - have basic be must apply to the image as a whole and have advanced the way I described above. :)

And it seems a few people (not this most recent discussion) have thought that my original post was against SC - it's definitely not. They have too tough of a job right now - it's crazy. Make it simpler so that they can have a better experience on the site too and not get bashed so much for doing their job. Simple is good. Simple is fewer DQs, fewer rants about DQs and fewer discussions about how bad SC did this or that. Simple may not appease everyone, but it sure does simplify the rules.

Nothing is going to appease everyone. It wouldn't be DPC is we just all rolled over and accepted change without chiming in tho. I still vote for simple.

M
02/13/2006 06:25:42 PM · #258
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

As I outlined in the DNMC suggestion, the community has allowed sheep into 56th place when the challnge required "people".

Ergo:- The voters cannot be given the responsibility


While I agree that meeting the challenge is critical, it's obviously not the only thing voters are looking for. I agree in this example that the shot should not be in the challenge. However, the rules changing to accomodate DNMC dqs and such would not be applied solely to images that were so clearcut. You know your example is a good one - but what about shots we can't find the connection until the photographer tells us after what he was thinking and then we say "well .. uh yes I guess that DOES meet the challenge, but not in the way I had thought??" We recommend it for DQ, the majority decides it's DNMC and the off the wall interpretation that pushes our thought and boundaries a little more is gone? I just can't accept that sort of boundary creation... I think voting accomplishes that.

02/13/2006 07:15:36 PM · #259
Isn't part of the challenge to find a way to creatively interpret the challenge. Sheep have stood in for people metaphorically in writings from the Bible to George Orwell and beyond.

I made sure to put "people" in my entry ...

02/13/2006 07:40:07 PM · #260
Originally posted by glad2badad:

My point is that it's not THAT difficult to stay within the guidelines. If you're worried about being over the line, then perhaps you should reconsider. Maybe some of the burden is on the photographer?

Take a clean photo, or at least one you can crop, without having to do major cleanup on in PP. It's really not that hard.

If the photographer takes care of their end, then the issue doesn't exist in the first place.


My problem with the major element question is not being a whiz at the whole advanced editing in the first place, I'm afraid that I'm simply not going to RECOGNIZE something as being potentially "Major Element" and try and fiddle with the advanced editing tools and inadvertantly break the rule.

I wholeheartedly second, third or whatever we're up to, the suggestion that visual cues be provided to point out the limits of what would be considered a major element.

I'm not trying to push any lines with editing, I'm simply trying to make sure I don't change something major without realizing it. Some of the things I've seen DQ'd for major elements I wouldn't have thought counted, where others I WOULD see as counting went through.. so yeah.

My issue isn't a rebelling against or stretching the rule to its breaking point, but determining what in my photo I can adjust without running afoul of the rule.

Which makes concrete visual examples a smart resource in my view.
02/13/2006 09:47:56 PM · #261
Originally posted by LucidLotus:

... Which makes concrete visual examples a smart resource in my view.

Sounds interesting. I wonder if they (SC/Admin) can come up with enough examples to cover every scenario? It could be helpful, but certainly not the end all solution. Might actually open more doors for uncertainties. For example..."the flag pole example image in the rules is at least 6 inches wide and mine was only 4, so mine should be ok right?" ;^)
02/13/2006 10:13:23 PM · #262
It took me two days but I read the whole thread, skimming quickly over some parts.

I think Bear's proposal is about the best so far if we decide to go to a whole new approach. But I don't like that he allows cloning in Basic. Other than that I could go for his ideas with a little fine tuning of the wording.

By the time I got to the end of the thread I began to think that maybe we don't need a complete makeover of the rules. Afterall, they have served us very well in almost all cases where the SC has had to make decisions, and there is going to be some level of interpretation by humans no matter what we use as our guidelines. The number of times that people have raised legitimate questions about their application is very small indeed; and on rare occasion, the SC has reversed, or modified, their own decisions. Maybe we are tilting at windmills in our quest to perfect the rules.

I am disappointed to see so many members of our community (including some SC members) use this as an occasion to try to advance their own personal agenda. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to the community to come up with some sort of mission statement that puts us squarely in the arena of photography, -- digital photography without digital art included in it, and not necessarily bound to the ways of film photography. Maybe that would slow down those who are always trying to take the site in the direction of less restriction on editing.

You can say that I am trying to advance my own agenda if you like, but at least give me credit for trying to keep the site true to it's origins.
02/13/2006 10:33:12 PM · #263
Originally posted by coolhar:

... By the time I got to the end of the thread I began to think that maybe we don't need a complete makeover of the rules. Afterall, they have served us very well in almost all cases where the SC has had to make decisions, and there is going to be some level of interpretation by humans no matter what we use as our guidelines. The number of times that people have raised legitimate questions about their application is very small indeed; and on rare occasion, the SC has reversed, or modified, their own decisions. Maybe we are tilting at windmills in our quest to perfect the rules. ...

Right on the money! ;^)
02/13/2006 10:34:38 PM · #264
Some people find it hard to accept change, because it does not fit in with thier way of thinking, reading this thread has given the site council a lot to think about,but as mentioned in the very beginning, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel,and were looking for members thoughts in the event they had missed something,I suggest we sit back and wait for the final edit.
02/14/2006 08:11:36 AM · #265
Sorry to direct this thread back on topic -- but while we're discussing the rules and possible revisions I have a few thoughts that have been tumbling around in the back of my mind during the day.

AS before, sorry for not including a precise wording for you to consider. But I find that an impossible task with the direction of the rewrite still a closely guarded secret.

Without knowing the guiding principles you have set for the rules to adhere to (and I hope for all our sakes these exist) I am at a loss on what it is you want help with.

Without knowing what areas are refusing to fit within these principles, I have no words to offer to help nail the subject into place.

Without seeing what you are working on, it is simply not possible for me to help you with it.

So, that leaves me with offering my thoughts up into the void and hope they stick to something useful.

---

Major Elements

The main thought here is a question -- How can a person remove (move or whatever) a major element without knowing it is major? The knee-jerk reaction is to assume ill-intent and say they can't, so therefore they must have known it was a major element when they modified it. But that is assuming guilt with no recourse for anything else -- and that never sits well with me. So I've thought on it some more.

The more I think on it the more I'm convinced that while it is easy enough to define what is an element of an image (and Bear has gone a long way toward doing so), defining what is major or minor requires a significance be placed upon the elements of the image. The significance has to be placed as to what elements are major and which are minor -- but who does the placing?

The answer, of course, is that we all do -- both the artist and viewers (individually, not collectively). But who's view of what is significant in the image is more 'right'? The more I think on this, the more convinced I become that it has to be the artist's assignment of significance that dictates what elements are major. The artist, after all, is the one who took the picture, the one who choose how to present it and most importantly is the one with the vision that is being shared with the viewers. Sure some viewers will not get it and some will disagree -- but can it be art without different views? Not considering the artist's intention first and foremost when determining what is a major element is light the fuse and placing a bomb in each and every image on the site. It's not a matter of 'if' they are going to blow up -- just 'when'.

This is not an invitation for no holds barred -- it is just the limit my thoughts can take me with the information I have available. Limitations can easily be written, limiting the freedoms the artist can take with the medium -- but writing those limitations requires a knowledge of the goals, purpose and direction DPC is being helmed. Without these all I am able to do is point out the source of the explosions seen recently is in judging the finished work based on the original exposure, but without the artist's intention.

Selections in Basic Editing

Congrats your still with me! :D

Now you can relax, this is a much less heavy one to deal with.

Originally posted by Current Basic Rules:

Spot-Editing: Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.

This, along with 'only adjustment layers' have been the defining limitations of the basic rules for a long time. But I'm concentrating on selections only for now.

The rules clearly state that no selections are allowed except when cropping -- but that is not hwo they are enforced. The common 'rule of thumb' that is given is that pixel selections can not be made, but selections based on color can be used as long as no pixel selection is made in the process of doing so. For the purpose of this discussion I am assuming a pixel selection is one in which either the marquee (marching ants) or a mask is created.

This leaves a host of ways to manipulate selected portions of the image based on the color of the pixels (including hue and tone) instead of their locations -- these include many of the every image editing tools such as levels and curves. Looking them over, it becomes clear that very little editing can take place with some selections -- so I think this needs to be clarified. Instead of forbidding selections completely and then enforcing something else, it makes much more sense to change the rules to reflect what is enforced instead of what it currently says.

To that end, I would suggest a change in the wording to allow selections by color (hue and/or tone) provided no selection by location is made. With this, there is no need to delve into specific tools within the rules, only how the selective manipulations are accomplished.

Layers in Basic Editing

Originally posted by Current Basic Rules:

Layers: Only Adjustment Layers (or the non-Photoshop equivalent) may be used. An Adjustment Layer is one that does not contain any pixel data, but rather is a special, non-image layer that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments to an image without permanently modifying the pixels. Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode. All other types of layers (including those that contain pixel data or masks) and all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited. Changing the opacity of an Adjustment Layer is permitted.

This is one limitations that I will admit I haven't understood why it existed. But a statement made earlier in this thread about the basic rules being restrictive toward the goal of helping those new to photography not be overwhelmed with it all brings a bit of sense to it. But why allow adjustment layers? That still puzzles me, how they work seems to be harder to grasp than pixel layers -- but so be it. It seems to be to allow non-destructive editing for the simpler adjustments, but restricts the use of the allowed filters and such to strictly destructive means. This has not made much sense, but I suppose it doesn't matter as it is easy to get around it and still use non-destructive editing.

What has given me the most cause for pause is the limitation on blending layers. It seems to be limiting the Blending Modes (ie. Normal, Multiple, Overlay and such) along with pixel layers to keep those new the post-processing from having to worry about the more advanced multi-layer editing techniques. All well and good, but I have found it worded in a confusing way.

The portion that states 'all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited' I always read as the modes in parenthesis to be clarifying what 'methods' it was referring to -- but when I asked about 'Blend if...', a blending option but not a mode, I was told (by a couple of the SC as personal opinion) it was restricted by the restriction on blending modes as well. This even when viewed with the current enforced interpretation of the selections rules I went into above. For those not familiar with 'Blend if...', it allows the blending of two layers to be tapered at the highlights and shadows. This protects from blowouts and blockages. To put it simply, it selectively blends based on either the tone or hue of the pixels -- not their location.

I'm fine with it either allowed or not, but I think consistent rules are simplest to undersand and enforce. I wanted to point these out so clarifications can be made to areas that have caused confusion -- at least for one person. :D

---

In conclusion, I want to make a suggestion. While rewriting the rules, give some thought to the relative importance of the various restrictions and allowances. Each person reading the rules will give the various elements different weights based on personal interest, which leads to confusions. by weighting the elements to be in alignment with the goals and purposes of the rules and site much confusion can be avoided. This also has the advantage of greatly simplifying the evaluation process both when the artist is deciding what editing steps to take and when the SC seek to validate the image. For instance, in the example I gave above (and the reason I gave it), I placed more weight on 'spot editing' than on 'layers' while the SC members seem to have placed the reverse significances.

This may sound confusing and hard to implement at first, but much of it will fall into place once a few key elements are placed as anchors. It should be noted the 'major elements' and 'letter or spirit of these rules' clauses are already weighted with so much lead they trump all other elements of the rules -- so the weighting of the rules has begun, it just needs to be taken control of and tamed.

David
02/14/2006 03:17:04 PM · #266
David.C, I disagree with you on the major element. It would allow photographers/artists to justfiy removing or moving any element.

Have it based on how much real estate it actually takes up in the final photo. No subjectivity just cold hard facts. I really don't care to tell you the truth since I rather have less restrictions than more but if the goal of this site is to learn things the "right way" which is another way of saying to do it the "hard way" than allowing major elements (as I described them) to be removed would go against that principle. Why be able to clone out a lightstand when the "right way" would have been to figure out a way to take the shot, get the lighting you want but without the lightstand in it?

Message edited by author 2006-02-14 15:19:28.
02/14/2006 03:27:25 PM · #267
Originally posted by yanko:

David.C, I disagree with you on the major element. It would allow photographers/artists to justfiy removing or moving any element.

Have it based on how much real estate it actually takes up in the final photo. No subjectivity just cold hard facts. I really don't care to tell you the truth since I rather have less restrictions than more but if the goal of this site is to learn things the "right way" which is another way of saying to do it the "hard way" than allowing major elements (as I described them) to be removed would go against that principles of that goal. Why be able to clone out a lightstand when the "right way" would have been to figure out a way to take the shot, get the lighting you want but without the lightstand in it?

As I said in the much too long essay -- once the purpose and direction of the site are well defined, the rules can be pulled in to preserve integrity without removing the photographers vision completely. It is the photographer's work, to remove that vision from the image reduces it to nothing more than cold, meaningless colored dots on the screen.

I am not advocating turning this site into a digital art playground, But I do strongly feel the photographer's intention when creating the image should be given the highest consideration. Sure th image will have to stand on its own, but the voting will take care of how well the photographer's intention was implemented -- that the rules are not about that. If an entry is in the challenge, it should be voted upon as if legal -- but when testing it's legality someone places significances on the elements. I just feel that someone should be the photographer.

David
02/14/2006 04:12:09 PM · #268
It's never going to please everybody - maybe not even the majority, that's compromise.

Basic: I think you need in calls on stuff rather then degrees with everything not mentioned been out (unless a special rules adds something). These need to be generic rather than PS or even in-camera specific =>
crop yes - unlimited;
dodge - yes/no unlimited;
noise reduction - yes/no unlimited regardless of tool used;
levels/curves - yes/no unlimited;
e.t.c

Advanced: Do whatever you like as long as it started with a photograph you took during the timeframe - no artwork pics e.t.c.

Then I would suggest a tick box added for DNMC - If >=xx% of voters ticked this then it's disqualified otherwise it stays and people have to deal with it.

Add an override for SC to cover the spirit of the site - no appeal process (no point) but all SC need to vote with some majority rules and be done with it (sory but seems to be too inconsistent on who in SC votes from the outside).

I would change the current tick box from recommend for disqual to recommend review to SC (saves SC having to look at all images to get review candidates).

Obviously validation would still take place - say maybe top x + random + questionable.

Not sure what this adds to the conversation but here it is anyway....
02/14/2006 04:48:23 PM · #269
Originally posted by David.C:

Originally posted by yanko:

David.C, I disagree with you on the major element. It would allow photographers/artists to justfiy removing or moving any element.

Have it based on how much real estate it actually takes up in the final photo. No subjectivity just cold hard facts. I really don't care to tell you the truth since I rather have less restrictions than more but if the goal of this site is to learn things the "right way" which is another way of saying to do it the "hard way" than allowing major elements (as I described them) to be removed would go against that principles of that goal. Why be able to clone out a lightstand when the "right way" would have been to figure out a way to take the shot, get the lighting you want but without the lightstand in it?

As I said in the much too long essay -- once the purpose and direction of the site are well defined, the rules can be pulled in to preserve integrity without removing the photographers vision completely. It is the photographer's work, to remove that vision from the image reduces it to nothing more than cold, meaningless colored dots on the screen.

I am not advocating turning this site into a digital art playground, But I do strongly feel the photographer's intention when creating the image should be given the highest consideration. Sure th image will have to stand on its own, but the voting will take care of how well the photographer's intention was implemented -- that the rules are not about that. If an entry is in the challenge, it should be voted upon as if legal -- but when testing it's legality someone places significances on the elements. I just feel that someone should be the photographer.

David


I agree with you in principle but what you say and what you propose contradict each other. If you truly felt the photographer should have the freedom to express his vision then there really shouldn't be any restrictions based upon what he/she does with their photo. It's like telling a sculptor you've carved away too much of the stone or painted it the wrong color or added some other foreign object to it that makes it look less traditional, less appealing or whatever. Now I know with digital art things can get pretty extreme but as you say let the voters decide on what was too extreme?

Message edited by author 2006-02-14 16:54:58.
02/14/2006 05:06:12 PM · #270
Originally posted by robs:


Advanced: Do whatever you like as long as it started with a photograph you took during the timeframe - no artwork pics e.t.c.


And that's the only thing that would work. Simple is good.

Message edited by author 2006-02-14 17:07:09.
02/14/2006 05:15:01 PM · #271
Originally posted by yanko:

I agree with you in principle but what you say and what you propose contradict each other. If you truly felt the photographer should have the freedom to express his vision then there really shouldn't be any restrictions based upon what he/she does with their photo. It's like telling a sculptor you've carved away too much of the stone or painted it the wrong color or added some other foreign object to it that makes it look less traditional, less appealing or whatever. Now I know with digital art things can get pretty extreme but as you say let the voters decide on what was too extreme?

Not contraditory at all, I don't think. Sure a photographer has the freedom to do as they please in their own work -- but that work may not fit within the confines of DPC challenges. No matter what restrictions are ultimately put in place for the challenges -- there is still a great deal freedom left to the photographer. This was made abundantly clear in the uber-restrictive Rubber Duck challenge last April. Regardless of the restrictions, when the photo is looked upon for validation certain considerations must be made for any element to be determined major or minor. I'm just advocating the photographer having a say in what is or is not a major element -- as it stands now the photographers intentions are not even requested, just the original and editing steps.

Their intention may not be taken as gospel -- and for many of the rules it won't matter one way or another. But for those rules that rely on judgement calls, making a judgement without giving the highest regard to the photographer's intention just seems to rip the heart and soul out of the creative process.

Again, this is not a call for giving the photographer a free hand with anything created being sacred -- that would be a disaster. But is there no room for the photographer's vision within the challenges?

David
02/14/2006 05:41:35 PM · #272
Originally posted by coolhar:


I am disappointed to see so many members of our community (including some SC members) use this as an occasion to try to advance their own personal agenda.


I guess you have misinterpreted many of the previous posts if this is your opinion. Certainly my intention is NOT to further any agenda except to make the job of SC easier and the arguments about DQ's go away.

I don't want a digital art site, but I don't want a site which is so restrictive that it becomes flat and boring.

I admit I'm one of the liberals when it comes to interpretation of challenge descriptions, I'm also one that is liberal in accepting post processing. I do know when my own feel for acceptability has been crossed and vote accordingly. If you go look at my pbase portfolio I don't think you will call it a digital art portfolio.

If you want DPC to continue to live a vibrant life you have to have a set of rules which will adapt as time goes by. Sometimes the community will be ultra conservative and at other times it will be liberal, the membership can make that happen in the voting. Right now it feels on the conservative side to me.

My only call all through this thread was intended to be make the rules simple, cut down on the SC requests, cut out all the DQ challenges, make life good again. In order to do this we need a very simple set of rules.

'Less is More' as they say.

The call for DNMC DQ's is just going to make the SC life more difficult, and for that reason alone it should not be considered.

Major Elements as we can see cannot be defined sufficiently tightly that SC can make anything but a judgement call. This again makes life difficult for SC, so my suggestion would be to drop it.

So I am certainly NOT trying to progress a personal agenda. However I do fundementally disagree with anything that makes the SC job and therefore life at DPC more difficult.
02/14/2006 09:56:31 PM · #273
Originally posted by Falc:

I guess you have misinterpreted many of the previous posts if this is your opinion. Certainly my intention is NOT to further any agenda except to make the job of SC easier and the arguments about DQ's go away. ...


Why do you think I have misinterpreted previous posts? If you think that my disappointment is aimed at your posts, that is your inference and not my implication. I was careful not to single out anyone.
02/14/2006 11:06:05 PM · #274
would like to see the use of motion blur and gaussian blur ALLOWED in advanved editing. I have heard no good reason yet which convinces me that the use of blur etc is wrong.

I'm sure the fundementalists will scream and shout about this, but as long as the tool is available to everyone and the rules are clear where the line is drawn then there is no problem.
I agree this to me is not removing any essential parts of the over all image. It is just toning down the elements in the background that takes away from the image. IMO.
02/15/2006 02:31:52 PM · #275
Couldn't help but remark that DrAchoo's very cool The Corrosive Touch of Time which just took a Blue ribbon in the Broken II challenge has several very noticeable sensor dust spots in it. Despite this it scored a very respectable 7.2 with the voters; and only one of about 40 commenters during voting even bothered to mention the dust spots. I beleive that our voters have come to understand that dust spots may be present in Basic rules entries, and to accept them without punishing the shot with a lowered vote.

Message edited by author 2006-02-15 14:33:16.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 02:57:17 PM

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: 07/23/2025 02:57:17 PM EDT.