| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2006 09:06:40 AM · #301 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Let me first say, I hope "Expert Editing" stays and is allowed from time-to-time, however, I am a photographer, not a graphic artist. With that said, since I am given a vote and I intend to use it, I will vote "Photographs" higher than "graphic art." |
And on that note, I think I'll join an opera competition website and vote all the entries low (unless someone enters a rock tune). Because I'm not an opera singer, and I hate that shit anyway.
:-P
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 09:37:14 AM · #302 |
I vote for the phto based on whether I like it or not. Photo, or photo art - to me, it's an image.
I do struggle with some challenges that the photo really doesn't capture the title, but then, it's a really good photo, and I hate to give it a low score for that reason.... |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 10:08:07 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by Judi:
......and then there were the ones that openly admitted to not liking photo art techniques and went through and voted them all low. If they don't like it...then stay out! We all entered the same challenge...some of the images were obviously extensive editing and yet they suffered whilst the others didn't...and why...because they were classed as 'photo art'. Give me a break! |
That's exactly what we were asked to do.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly." |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You won't get disqualified for it, but remember that the voters are encouraged to vote down any entry that doesn't look like a photograph -- so it's probably in your best interest to keep it within reason. |
Originally posted by Ursula:
I should explain. The approach we're using for the most part is "let the voters decide" when it comes to how much is too much. The expectation is that way overdoing it will produce low scores (does't necessarily mean it will, but for the most part it probably will hold true). |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The voting system provides you, the voter, with an opportunity to provide the photographer with your opinion as to how well their entry comports with the goals and spirit of DPC as you see them. |
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 10:42:50 AM · #304 |
I'd vote high on well done images that didn't give me flashbacks to 80's metal album covers or pulp sci-fi books. I was surprised at the lack of unicorns and dolphins though. Seems like an opportunity was missed. There's some outstanding photographic editing work out there with multiple images, that doesn't look like it was chemically inspired.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 10:44:02.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 10:47:44 AM · #305 |
33 votes of 4 and under and I still manage a 6.3053. That tells me I did well :-)
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 10:52:39 AM · #306 |
I'm not going to quote MK's entire post, but it's *exactly* what I was going to say.
There seem to be just a few points, both in favor or against, made repeatedly:
1) If you don't like images that use the new rule set, don't vote!
Well, no. The SC asked us to tell them through voting whether we think something has gone too far from what we think is "photographic in nature"
In fact, it's what I said in my comments on the two entries I voted low because I thought they weren't "photographic in nature." I was also clear that I loved them as art.
That interpretation will vary from person to person, so don't assume that all composites got lower votes just because they were composites. I thought Tate's beautiful piece was art, not a photo. Same for Tim's fun shot. Whereas I thought Judi's was photographic, but just not to my taste. Kiwiness' entry, on the other hand, was just on the edge for me of photographic, but I liked it, so I voted it higher.
Also keep in mind that we still have our own tastes.
2) If you don't take full advantage of the new rules, why enter?
Well, no. The rule set is the limit, not the mandate. Why shouldn't a spectacular sky photo win, even it was barely touched? Personally, I'd like to see Larus stretch himself, but I still gave his shot a 10.
3) I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist
So enter what you like. But don't knock anything just because it's something you wouldn't do. Apply your judgement as to whether something is photographic, but the rules do allow us to go beyond a single image.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 10:55:21 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Judi:
......and then there were the ones that openly admitted to not liking photo art techniques and went through and voted them all low. If they don't like it...then stay out! We all entered the same challenge...some of the images were obviously extensive editing and yet they suffered whilst the others didn't...and why...because they were classed as 'photo art'. Give me a break! |
That's exactly what we were asked to do. |
Except you could also interpret the whole "photographic in nature" as being something like... don't use a filter that makes your entry look like chalk or pen strokes or whatever. The way I look at it, a composite that is made from parts of *photos* that still look like *photos* even though they're put together in a new way that you couldn't photograph... that is still photographic in nature. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 10:56:59 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Personally, I'd like to see Larus stretch himself, but I still gave his shot a 10. |
No! Kick him! That's the only way he'll learn!
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:00:52 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Judi:
......and then there were the ones that openly admitted to not liking photo art techniques and went through and voted them all low. If they don't like it...then stay out! We all entered the same challenge...some of the images were obviously extensive editing and yet they suffered whilst the others didn't...and why...because they were classed as 'photo art'. Give me a break! |
That's exactly what we were asked to do. |
Except you could also interpret the whole "photographic in nature" as being something like... don't use a filter that makes your entry look like chalk or pen strokes or whatever. The way I look at it, a composite that is made from parts of *photos* that still look like *photos* even though they're put together in a new way that you couldn't photograph... that is still photographic in nature. |
I agree. Also, I prefer "photographic in nature," which is in the actual ruleset, to "looks like a photograph," which was said by an SC or two. When I see a photograph I don't want it to "look like" anything. I want it to surprise me. Judi's and metatate's photos were clearly "photographic," they were derived unfiltered from photographs.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:04:30 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Judi's and metatate's photos were clearly "photographic," they were derived unfiltered from photographs. |
I agree and both recieved good votes from me.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:04:32 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Judi:
......and then there were the ones that openly admitted to not liking photo art techniques and went through and voted them all low. If they don't like it...then stay out! We all entered the same challenge...some of the images were obviously extensive editing and yet they suffered whilst the others didn't...and why...because they were classed as 'photo art'. Give me a break! |
That's exactly what we were asked to do. |
Except you could also interpret the whole "photographic in nature" as being something like... don't use a filter that makes your entry look like chalk or pen strokes or whatever. The way I look at it, a composite that is made from parts of *photos* that still look like *photos* even though they're put together in a new way that you couldn't photograph... that is still photographic in nature. |
You can interpret it any way you choose. If your interpretation is different than mine (it is), I'm not going to suddenly declare your opinion invalid and tell you not to vote. People voted according to their own opinions of what constituted "photographic in nature." There's nothing wrong with that.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 11:06:18. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:04:41 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by klstover:
The way I look at it, a composite that is made from parts of *photos* that still look like *photos* even though they're put together in a new way that you couldn't photograph... that is still photographic in nature. |
Kelli, you're definitely entitled to your interpretation of "photographic in nature." I figure we're all along a spectrum, because unless you always enter straight from the camera, you're doing at least some editing. "Too far" is in the eye of the viewer.
Why are we all arguing? :)
I should add that I, too, got several comments along the lines of "you went too far."
Given the high scores for some of the stuff I thought went too far, I've learned how the average voter thinks. It seems that my "too far" point wasn't far enough along compared to the average. That's good to know, and part of the point of these trials as far as I can tell.
I already know how far I'm going with the next one. *grin*
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:08:42 AM · #313 |
| Yes, I do realize that the interpretation is left up to the viewer... I just think maybe this all could work a little smoother. I like the idea that someone suggested of having an "unlimited editing on a photo" ruleset in addition to a "digital art" ruleset. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:13:37 AM · #314 |
Originally posted by mk:
If your interpretation is different than mine (it is), I'm not going to suddenly declare your opinion invalid and tell you not to vote. |
Oh yeah, I definitely don't think that is the attitude to be having. I have always been a fan of allowing the voter freedom to vote as he chooses. I'm not overjoyed about the fact that more people do not agree with my interpretation, but I also am not going to say that those who do not agree should have nothing to do with these challenges.
edit for clarity
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 11:14:13. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:22:34 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Yes, I do realize that the interpretation is left up to the viewer... I just think maybe this all could work a little smoother. I like the idea that someone suggested of having an "unlimited editing on a photo" ruleset in addition to a "digital art" ruleset. |
I don't think you're going to convince the powers-that-be to put in a "digital art" ruleset! :) I think the Expert Editing rules are just fine. I'm also fine with leaving the judgment to the voters. I often make decisions for esthetic reasons that I know will be punished by voters. The same goes for moving toward digital art. I want the freedom to make that "mistake."
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 11:22:53.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:29:50 AM · #316 |
As long as we are required to shoot the photos that are used in the final product ourselves within the challenge timeline, I see no problem with it being a violation of "photography".
Sure, some of us are better at polishing turds than others, but the results proved that you don't have to put together complex composites to score well.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:32:30 AM · #317 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I often make decisions for esthetic reasons that I know will be punished by voters. |
Leroy's shot is an interesting case for me. It's obviously a composite (or he's standing on a picture), whereas I tend to prefer shots where the editing isn't as obvious.
BUT. I LOVE flying. Love it, love it, love it. In fact, I'm a private pilot. But to soar with no mechanical contraption? THAT grabbed me.
Hence, I voted it a 7.
On a side note, I've never been thrilled with saying I gave something a score (I use that phrase, but every time it bugs me). It's more like the shot pulled that score out of me. It's not an act of generosity, but one of granting what's been earned.
Edited to correct a goofed-up quote.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 11:33:23.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:33:09 AM · #318 |
| I really think that lowering votes for "xtreme edited images" will also affect some other people who has managed to create a cool effect witout adding it in photoshop... I mean, there are clearly some pictures that are composites (mine as an example) but I readed somewere someone who was saying was recieving comments on his picture that sayed it looked like something made and actually it was a picture with a little editing... |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 11:44:01 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by Gaby_G:
I really think that lowering votes for "xtreme edited images" will also affect some other people who has managed to create a cool effect witout adding it in photoshop... I mean, there are clearly some pictures that are composites (mine as an example) but I readed somewere someone who was saying was recieving comments on his picture that sayed it looked like something made and actually it was a picture with a little editing... |
That happens even with the basic rules though too. E.g., this with zero post capture filtering or colour trickery, but plenty of 'too processed' comments.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 11:44:56.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 12:39:42 PM · #320 |
I think the new rule set is a great way to get people to expand their horizons, find in themselves, something inside that will make them want to learn to use their graphics editing programs much further than they have in the past. It will be a great learning tool and fun in the process.
For the purists that don't want to see DPChallenge become another worth1000.com site, fear not, it won't, but does give artists here an avenue to play and have fun.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:03:45 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by tooohip:
Let me first say, I hope "Expert Editing" stays and is allowed from time-to-time, however, I am a photographer, not a graphic artist. With that said, since I am given a vote and I intend to use it, I will vote "Photographs" higher than "graphic art." |
That doesn't even make sense. Because YOU are not a graphic artist, you will not vote graphic work highly even if its good? I'm assuming you are also not a sculptor, but you can appreciate the work of Michelangelo, right? Just because YOU can't create it, does not mean you cannot appreciate something. |
OK, if that didn’t make sense, then let me say it a bit simpler for you. I enjoy and will vote higher images that more closely resemble a photograph since this is a photography site.
Hopefully that makes sense to you.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:05:04 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by tooohip:
Let me first say, I hope "Expert Editing" stays and is allowed from time-to-time, however, I am a photographer, not a graphic artist. With that said, since I am given a vote and I intend to use it, I will vote "Photographs" higher than "graphic art." |
And on that note, I think I'll join an opera competition website and vote all the entries low (unless someone enters a rock tune). Because I'm not an opera singer, and I hate that shit anyway.
:-P |
I didn't join "This Photography" site to look at graphic art creations, but if you wish to join an opera site, please do and have a great time! ;-) |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:08:09 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
I enjoy and will vote higher images that more closely resemble a photograph since this is a photography site.
|
Do you believe you will always know the difference? I've seen some "real" photographs here that could pass for graphic art and graphic art that looks "real".
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:10:12 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Do you believe you will always know the difference? I've seen some "real" photographs here that could pass for graphic art and graphic art that looks "real". |
No and I don't expect to. If it's a well done photographic image, I will vote high regardless of process to get it on screen. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:16:25 PM · #325 |
So toohip is this real or fake?
I mean to say is it a Photograph?
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:20:02. |
|
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: 08/07/2025 06:52:52 PM EDT.
