| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2006 01:19:27 PM · #326 |
I'm happy to vote a composite high on expert editing, but I'm also of the opinion that if you are going to "go there" then you get to be judged on your composite abilities. That ratchets up the standard to include things like continuity of lighting, texture, contrast, etc. Non-composition shots don't have to worry about this so maybe in my vote you are taking more risk than it's worth by going with a composite.
I wouldn't have been disappointed if composites took the top 3, but will admit to being mildly pleased that "plain" photos won.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:24:02 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I think if these new rule sets are to "work" then the photos tailored for them should be the ones winning the ribbons and not photos that can be entered in say basic. Otherwise it totally defeats the point of these added rule sets, IMO. |
I don't understand this thinking, actually. I have never heard anyone complain that an image done to basic rules didn't deserve its high finish in an advanced challenge, for example. We're a photography website, the expert rules ask us to keep our entries "photographic in nature", they instruct the voters to bear this in mind in scoring, and they warn that you should be aware of the voters in creating your entry. That all seems reasonable to me.
I suspect that if extreme, obvious digital manipulation was sweeping the top places then the "experiment" would be considered a failure and the ruleset would be withdrawn.
As it is, I find the results heartening. A good mix of approaches in the top-scoring images, a very high-scoring challenge, what's to complain about? My second-place image could not have been made under the advanced ruleset, and it was nice to be able to work with these advanced techniques to create a more-perfect visualization of that scene.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 02:06:18 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So toohip is this real or fake?
I mean to say is it a Photograph? |
Not sure, but I'd probably vote it a 4 as it lacks any real punch. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 02:11:46 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So toohip is this real or fake?
I mean to say is it a Photograph? |
Not sure, but I'd probably vote it a 4 as it lacks any real punch. ;-) |
Fair enough on the vote but it is important to the discussion in regards to the rule set. The argument being is it "photographic in nature". And you don't know.
Anyone else know? So what does photographic in nature even mean? You make this argument but it holds no basis cuz you can't tell.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 14:31:02. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 02:45:04 PM · #330 |
Along the lines of "photographic in nature", I remember from the Shrek documentaries that the creators had to "dial back" the Feona character, because she looked too lifelike.
Not that many of us have the computing horsepower to create a CGI movie, but we could in reality do some very photorealistic images all from CGI.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 02:51:07 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Fair enough on the vote but it is important to the discussion in regards to the rule set. The argument being is it "photographic in nature". And you don't know.
Anyone else know? So what does photographic in nature even mean? You make this argument but it holds no basis cuz you can't tell. |
Holds "basis" for me. If it's an obvious graphic generation or over manipulated image, I'll vote it low. It's very cut and dry to me and that's all that matters to me. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 02:52:19 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Fair enough on the vote but it is important to the discussion in regards to the rule set. The argument being is it "photographic in nature". And you don't know.
Anyone else know? So what does photographic in nature even mean? You make this argument but it holds no basis cuz you can't tell. |
Holds "basis" for me. If it's an obvious graphic generation or over manipulated image, I'll vote it low. It's very cut and dry to me and that's all that matters to me. |
But its obvious you can't tell what is or is not in the extreme cases so still no basis ... sorry. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 02:53:17 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Along the lines of "photographic in nature", I remember from the Shrek documentaries that the creators had to "dial back" the Feona character, because she looked too lifelike.
|
That was no doubt to avoid having her fall into an uncanny valley and disturb too many viewers. There's a difference between looking too lifelike (but not quite there) and lifelike.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:11:34 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Along the lines of "photographic in nature", I remember from the Shrek documentaries that the creators had to "dial back" the Feona character, because she looked too lifelike.
|
That was no doubt to avoid having her fall into an uncanny valley and disturb too many viewers. There's a difference between looking too lifelike (but not quite there) and lifelike. |
True, but landscapes and structures are much more simplistic to render. I'm waiting on a CGI landscape to ribbon :-)
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:16:05 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
But its obvious you can't tell what is or is not in the extreme cases so still no basis ... sorry. |
Yeah...ok. As I tried to say, it doesn't matter to me if it is or isn't. It matters how it's presented. So if my reasoning holds no basis with you so be it. Frankly I don't give a damn what my reasoning means to you. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:21:42 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I think if these new rule sets are to "work" then the photos tailored for them should be the ones winning the ribbons and not photos that can be entered in say basic. Otherwise it totally defeats the point of these added rule sets, IMO. |
I don't understand this thinking, actually. I have never heard anyone complain that an image done to basic rules didn't deserve its high finish in an advanced challenge, for example. We're a photography website, the expert rules ask us to keep our entries "photographic in nature", they instruct the voters to bear this in mind in scoring, and they warn that you should be aware of the voters in creating your entry. That all seems reasonable to me. |
The expert rule set allows for "composites" therefore composites ARE "photographic in nature". If that wasn't the case then the expert editing rules is contradicting itself because it allows it and was promoted as such. It's one thing to take three photos and turn them into line art and quite another if you just place them into one image and do nothing else with them yet with the way voting went in this challenge it didn't matter. If it was a composite it was voted down, period. That's what I'm getting at. It's like people voting down spot editing in advance rule set because they feel you should only be using a basic rule set even though the challenge ran under advance.
Any time we are voting not on the photo's merit I find it a bad thing and that's what I feel happened here. Sure there were bad composites and good ones but it didn't matter. Obviously, people are free to do whatever they want with their vote but I don't think foolish voting should be encouraged.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I suspect that if extreme, obvious digital manipulation was sweeping the top places then the "experiment" would be considered a failure and the ruleset would be withdrawn.
As it is, I find the results heartening. A good mix of approaches in the top-scoring images, a very high-scoring challenge, what's to complain about? My second-place image could not have been made under the advanced ruleset, and it was nice to be able to work with these advanced techniques to create a more-perfect visualization of that scene.
R. |
That may very well had happened but I would have found that to be a shame. In my opinion photography includes composites includes advance retouching (moving things around) and while the rule set allows for this field of work you can't really enter it without getting hammered. The three photos that won did so because they weren't hammered for this bias. All great photos but nothing that couldn't have easily been done under advance or basic rules in which case explain to me again why we need this expert rule set if that's the case? |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:25:39 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Not that many of us have the computing horsepower to create a CGI movie, but we could in reality do some very photorealistic images all from CGI. |
You'd be amazed what you can do with desktop computers:
405 the Movie
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:30:57 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So toohip is this real or fake?
I mean to say is it a Photograph? |
I'll jump in, using my typical 5-second sweep when voting.
It's "photographic in nature" to me. Whether you created it on a computer or not, I'm willing to let the SC decide whether it'd be legal.
Yanko, I didn't vote down obvious composites en masse, I voted down composites that didn't strike me as a photo and I voted down photographic composites that I didn't like.
Tate's didn't strike me as a photo, but more as a painting. Tim's struck me as closer to photographic. Judi's was definitely photographic, but I didn't care for it. Leroy's was photographic to me, and in fact I voted it highly, even though it was obviously a composite.
So don't assume that every low vote was because something was a composite.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:32:45 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by yanko:
In my opinion photography includes composites includes advance retouching (moving things around) |
Key phrase: your opinion.
Why is it so important that others vote the way you do? Why can't it be a continuum, with others falling different places along the line?
Do you disagree that that's exactly what they wanted when they wrote into the rules "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."
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:50:03 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by yanko:
In my opinion photography includes composites includes advance retouching (moving things around) |
Key phrase: your opinion.
Why is it so important that others vote the way you do? Why can't it be a continuum, with others falling different places along the line?
Do you disagree that that's exactly what they wanted when they wrote into the rules "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." |
I'm not talking about personal tastes which are quite subjective. The expert rule set makes it quite clear that composites are allowed therefore the SITE has deemed that "practice" as photographic in nature. Of course like with anything else it can be taken to extreme but that's not the issue here. Notice I am not referring to any one entry. This sort of voting down on anything composite is no different than voting down just the roses in a flower challenge. Sure you are "allowed" to vote any which way you want but it most certainly shouldn't be praised or encouraged yet that's the sort of thing that is being done here. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:51:43 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
But its obvious you can't tell what is or is not in the extreme cases so still no basis ... sorry. |
Yeah...ok. As I tried to say, it doesn't matter to me if it is or isn't. It matters how it's presented. So if my reasoning holds no basis with you so be it. Frankly I don't give a damn what my reasoning means to you. |
Good the feeling is mutual. Sorry that you need to get emotional but the fact remains is that the term "photographic in nature" means nothing. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:52:54 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So toohip is this real or fake?
I mean to say is it a Photograph? |
I'll jump in, using my typical 5-second sweep when voting.
It's "photographic in nature" to me. Whether you created it on a computer or not, I'm willing to let the SC decide whether it'd be legal.
|
But is it real or not? |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:53:27 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I think if these new rule sets are to "work" then the photos tailored for them should be the ones winning the ribbons and not photos that can be entered in say basic. Otherwise it totally defeats the point of these added rule sets, IMO. |
I don't understand this thinking, actually. I have never heard anyone complain that an image done to basic rules didn't deserve its high finish in an advanced challenge, for example. We're a photography website, the expert rules ask us to keep our entries "photographic in nature", they instruct the voters to bear this in mind in scoring, and they warn that you should be aware of the voters in creating your entry. That all seems reasonable to me. |
The expert rule set allows for "composites" therefore composites ARE "photographic in nature". If that wasn't the case then the expert editing rules is contradicting itself because it allows it and was promoted as such. It's one thing to take three photos and turn them into line art and quite another if you just place them into one image and do nothing else with them yet with the way voting went in this challenge it didn't matter. If it was a composite it was voted down, period. That's what I'm getting at. It's like people voting down spot editing in advance rule set because they feel you should only be using a basic rule set even though the challenge ran under advance.
Any time we are voting not on the photo's merit I find it a bad thing and that's what I feel happened here. Sure there were bad composites and good ones but it didn't matter. Obviously, people are free to do whatever they want with their vote but I don't think foolish voting should be encouraged. |
You are interpreting "photographic in nature" as "consisting of photographic images"; others may interpret it as "looking like a photograph". There's no bias either way as far as the rules are concerned. Composite imagery that "looks realistic" (as if it might actually BE a photograph) is likely to fare better with the voters, and I don't have a problem with that myself.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I suspect that if extreme, obvious digital manipulation was sweeping the top places then the "experiment" would be considered a failure and the ruleset would be withdrawn.
As it is, I find the results heartening. A good mix of approaches in the top-scoring images, a very high-scoring challenge, what's to complain about? My second-place image could not have been made under the advanced ruleset, and it was nice to be able to work with these advanced techniques to create a more-perfect visualization of that scene.
R. |
That may very well had happened but I would have found that to be a shame. In my opinion photography includes composites includes advance retouching (moving things around) and while the rule set allows for this field of work you can't really enter it without getting hammered. The three photos that won did so because they weren't hammered for this bias. All great photos but nothing that couldn't have easily been done under advance or basic rules in which case explain to me again why we need this expert rule set if that's the case? |
That's true of 1st and 3rd, but it is emphatically NOT true of my image; it uses an illegal (under advanced rules) technique of merging 4 separate exposures into one; HDRI. If you flip what you are saying upside down, you;'re essentially saying that shots like mine (which look very "natural") have no right winning in an expert ruleset challenge, which I think is ridiculous; expert rules are the only ones that allow me to do this. PLUS, I added the birds to mine :-)
To see exactly what's involved in mine, and how it would have fared had I processed to advanced rules, see this thread.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 15:56:48.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:56:06 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So toohip is this real or fake?
I mean to say is it a Photograph? |
I'll jump in, using my typical 5-second sweep when voting.
It's "photographic in nature" to me. Whether you created it on a computer or not, I'm willing to let the SC decide whether it'd be legal.
|
But is it real or not? |
Is it really a picture of a real car that was sitting there just like that, with exactly those reflections, and nothing was added in a computer? No idea. Why is that relevant?
*scratches head*
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:57:18 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
PLUS, I added the birds to mine :-)
R. |
Oooh! Oooh! Wait! I wanna retract my 10. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:58:42 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Why is that relevant?
*scratches head* |
It is relevant to the discussion. Cuz what does photographic in nature mean? A real photo? looks like a photo? has part of a photo in it? what? The term means nothing ... |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:03:41 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Why is that relevant?
*scratches head* |
It is relevant to the discussion. Cuz what does photographic in nature mean? A real photo? looks like a photo? has part of a photo in it? what? The term means nothing ... |
Ah. I thought I mentioned that. To me, it means it looks to melike a photo or a few photos stuck together. Not Tate's entry, but yes Judi's entry. Barely Tim's entry.
Many people clearly disagreed with me on Tate's entry, which is just fine. :)
I don't think any term means anything until someone interprets it.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:08:07 PM · #348 |
I guess what I am trying to say is that if you can't tell if this image is real or not then there is no way to define "Photographic in nature".
I do agree that the voters will try. I guess that is half the fun ...
Will the SC validate this image? I guess that depends on how creative you are.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 16:08:17. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:15:22 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
PLUS, I added the birds to mine :-)
R. |
Oooh! Oooh! Wait! I wanna retract my 10. ;) |
Hahaha... If you think about it, true HDRI from multiple exposures ain't gonna work very well with birds in flight :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 04:23:14 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's true of 1st and 3rd, but it is emphatically NOT true of my image; it uses an illegal (under advanced rules) technique of merging 4 separate exposures into one; HDRI. If you flip what you are saying upside down, you;'re essentially saying that shots like mine (which look very "natural") have no right winning in an expert ruleset challenge, which I think is ridiculous; expert rules are the only ones that allow me to do this. PLUS, I added the birds to mine :-)
To see exactly what's involved in mine, and how it would have fared had I processed to advanced rules, see this thread.
R. |
I'm not saying you had no right of course you did. I'm saying what is the point of the rule set if you can only use a fraction of it? The way people voted suggests that's the case. The rules tell you composites are allowed BUT to KEEP your work photographic in nature. Some people did virtually no editing except to use multiple pictures and got hammered for it. If you're doing the bare minimum the new rules allow and you get hammered for it there's something wrong. It most certainly doesn't encourage you to expand your editing quite the contrary.
Btw, I noticed my cat photo didn't get hammered yet you could easily make the argument that it's over processed not quite photographic in nature, etc yet it was entered under advance editing. Had I entered it in Sky assuming for a second it fit the challenge, I'm pretty sure it would have gotten hammered also because I believe people voting low were voting low not on the merits of the image but on trying to make a statement about the expert rules. Across the board it doesn't matter how good or how bad the composites were they got that same treatment. I'm sorry but that's just not right. |
|
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 11:08:49 PM EDT.
