| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2003 05:27:25 AM · #1 |
From a pure curiousity standpoint, I'd like people to take a look at the following photo:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=19637
Has it been overly processed? Are the colours real? Would it make a difference in your vote if you knew if they were real and not processed?
If so, please take a look at the original here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=20857
These are the colours as they came out of the camera. The shot was taken on a cloudy night, about 20 minutes after sunset. The sky was deep blue and the clouds were just starting to pick up the glow from the yellow streetlights. This is a 13 sec exposure in those conditions. In post processing I boosted the blues and magenta a little bit to make them a bit more pleasing (at least to me).
So, once again.. I ask if it makes a difference to your vote whether you think something has been overly processed or not..
Thanks for any responses!
-Matt |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 06:24:11 AM · #2 |
Matt,
I like the version you submitted a lot better.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 09:56:44 AM · #3 |
| Matt, i too prefer the version you submitted, has much more spark. I really like this image and had given it an 8. Actually like it just because it has an 'unreal' quality. You looked for an interesting light source. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 10:24:18 AM · #4 |
| I think processed looks better, and when I put my vote in for you I did take note of the fact that it had been processed and hence the colours shown were intended. Impressive colours on the original shot, originally thought you must have had to adjust the colours quite a bit to get your colouring, until I saw the original. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 10:37:22 AM · #5 |
That is incredible that the colors have come out of the camera like that. I do like how you tweeked it a bit, but if I hadn't seen the two side by side I may not have noticed too much difference. Also, I immediately assumed it was photoshopped. I am not sure how I would have voted it. You stopped me in my tracks... nice demonstration!
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 10:47:56 AM · #6 |
| Yes, i also thought it was much more processed than it actually was. Your submitted version has a much more color balance. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:03:39 PM · #7 |
Honestly, I HAVE marked shots down for ridiculous colors, but yours wasn't one of them. Why? The colors didn't jump to center stage and jump up and down carolling, "Look at MEEEEE!" They accentuated the image, instead of destroying it.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:26:15 PM · #8 |
I personally don't care too much, if a photo was processed/overprocessed/pushed/pulled or otherwise manipulated. What counts, after all, is the final image. If it 'looks' overly processed, as this shot does, IMO, in a 'big' way, I can't really appreciate it and would vote accordingly. There are indeed shots that benefit from 'overprocessing'. These are likely photographs capturing a particular visual aspect and or a genre of images, which cannot be had without some deliberate degree of process exploration, i.e. beyond 'enhancement'.
In this photo, I perceive no strong choice between process and product. The result is mediocre, rendering neither a successful enhancement nor anything new or better than another image of a car down the block. I have actually pondered over this one for a minute or so during voting, determined to 'find' a point of interest here. When I was sure I hadn't missed anything, I voted with conscience. I gave it a 2, I think.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:48:35 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
In this photo, I perceive no strong choice between process and product. The result is mediocre, rendering neither a successful enhancement nor anything new or better than another image of a car down the block. I have actually pondered over this one for a minute or so during voting, determined to 'find' a point of interest here. When I was sure I hadn't missed anything, I voted with conscience. I gave it a 2, I think. |
My bold.
Whilst I'm not about to nominate it for photo of the century, I think this a hugely unfair assessment - beyond the limits of personal opinion. Mediocre? Can you point us at an 'average' shot, so we can see what you mean?
The detail on the water is excellent, especially at that size. The colours are good - there's always something satisfying about the combination of a primary and secondary colour. Exposure is fine, though if it were mine I'd have wanted either a shallower or deeper depth of field - I think you've fallen a little between two stools here. Also the headlight annoys me compositionally - I think because it's too busy an object not to distract from the cleanness of the other lines of the car: would like to see a version with it cropped out.
Ed
Message edited by author 2003-05-07 12:54:19.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:51:24 PM · #10 |
what's the point? If he looked at the picture for 60 seconds, that's 6 times the average voter.
M - I like this shot - the colors are out of the ordinary. Just keep in mind WHO is giving you these votes.
M2.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:56:11 PM · #11 |
Very good responses, especially yours zeuszen.
The point of interest was indeed the colours - not necessarily the car. The car was just convienent subject. I took conventional pictures of the same car, in different types of lighting conditions. I settled on this submission because of the colours captured.
They looked like the result of tons of time spent in a photoediting program, rather than the result of a simple long exposure.
Anyone can take a picture of a car. Very few can take a picture of a car and make it look like more than a car... That's what I was attempting to do.
Thanks!
Matt |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:56:36 PM · #12 |
Mav - post now edited to explain more.
E
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 05:21:03 PM · #13 |
Mbardeen,
They are similar enough that in voting I dont think they would have produced significantly different results.
I personally liked the color, the angle, and the droplet detail. I thought u took a relatively pedestrian object and rendered it in a new way, a way that had interesting unreality to it.
However, I have found that some people like evocative flights of imagination and others are more literally inclined. :\
|
|
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: 10/13/2025 10:40:06 PM EDT.
