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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Suggested Editing Rules Part 2
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 158, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/05/2003 11:43:58 AM · #126
Originally posted by Konador:
I'm not going to be, because I think people who spend more money on equipment or software deserve to have better quality outputs. Thats how things work.


Ben - as per usual let's leave it to one of our youngest members to again make one of the most mature comments - this IS how reality works - I think people need to learn to deal with it.

Yes a £1000 camera might give you better results than a £100 one - given same photographer and knowledge of model.

Yes £500 worth of software gives more features than £50 worth.

It's up to each of us to spend what we want/ can afford to on this interest of ours and it's hardly fair or realistic to expect others to cater for our lack of investment.
 06/05/2003 11:46:48 AM · #127
Who really cares about the "superiority" of PS over PSP, The Gimp, or anything else? If you have selected your post-processing tool of choice then you'll have to live with its limitations, especially if you refuse to learn another tool which is free and may, in fact, be better.

Supposing there were fewer limitations on editing, then maybe some people will just have to live with the fact they're never going to win one of these challenges. If that's really what's bothering you, then you have to admit that you want to win in which case your photography habits have not been "opened up" by dpchallenge but extremely limited. Dpchallenge is not the path to being the best photographer you can be, but it certainly is a great resource along the way. But hey, there are many great resources available too.

Personally, I just use a text editor on my images.

Your shackles are your own.
 06/05/2003 11:47:12 AM · #128
Originally posted by Niten:
And the truth is I havent seen a SINGLE credible argument against them.

Tim



is it not credible enough to say there are people who don't have ps or psp and can't afford to get them?

As I see it right now there is a definate division of this site right now those who have the better programs and forget about those who don't and those who either have the software but also think of those who can't afford the software and those who can't afford it or just don't want it...so now is the site going to start discriminating against those who can't afford the software or just don't have enough time to sit and learn how to use the software?

06/05/2003 11:52:50 AM · #129
Originally posted by Kavey:
this IS how reality works - I think people need to learn to deal with it.


Where's the corruption to go with this reality? I'm going to start submitting my pictures of "bear in cave" along with a big, fat cheque for drew and/or langdon. No one will suspect a thing and even if they do, it's all just accepting reality.

Can you say cognitive dissonance?
 06/05/2003 11:53:22 AM · #130
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by Niten:
And the truth is I havent seen a SINGLE credible argument against them.

Tim



is it not credible enough to say there are people who don't have ps or psp and can't afford to get them?

As I see it right now there is a definate division of this site right now those who have the better programs and forget about those who don't and those who either have the software but also think of those who can't afford the software and those who can't afford it or just don't want it...so now is the site going to start discriminating against those who can't afford the software or just don't have enough time to sit and learn how to use the software?


No... that is not a credible argument.
 06/05/2003 11:53:53 AM · #131
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

is it not credible enough to say there are people who don't have ps or psp and can't afford to get them?


No it is not credible when there are free tools that are equivalently powerful in the areas that are being considered. They've been listed out many times. Ignoring the reality of this doesn't change it.

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

so now is the site going to start discriminating against those who can't afford the software or just don't have enough time to sit and learn how to use the software?


Should we discriminate against those who don't have enough time to sit and learn how to take a good picture ? After all that sounds about the same as what you are saying about not bothering to learn how to use the software that comes with your camera or can be downloaded for free.

I say yes. If people can't be bothered learning we should 'discriminate' against them. It is supposed to be a challenge for goodness sake. It says 'a digital photography contest' right under the word 'challenge' It is about 'digital photography' and everything that that encompasses and software is easily 50% of that process in the rest of the digital photographic world.
 06/05/2003 12:01:44 PM · #132
[quote=Gordon]
[quote=OneSweetSin]

Should we discriminate against those who don't have enough time to sit and learn how to take a good picture ? After all that sounds about the same as what you are saying about not bothering to learn how to use the software that comes with your camera or can be downloaded for free.
quote]

Downloaded for free???? Umm care to share where to download Photoshop for free? or even share where to download psp for free...You will get a pm from someone on site council for posting a link unless it is only a trial version and that won't help anyone who can't afford the software for more than 30 days. Again I am going to say it I just said it in another thread this whole issue will divide the site into two distinct groups. Those for it and those against it...then there is group number three that will come from out of no where and demand other editing options and also levels of expertise being considered in the challenges.
 06/05/2003 12:04:27 PM · #133
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by Niten:
And the truth is I havent seen a SINGLE credible argument against them.

Tim



is it not credible enough to say there are people who don't have ps or psp and can't afford to get them?

As I see it right now there is a definate division of this site right now those who have the better programs and forget about those who don't and those who either have the software but also think of those who can't afford the software and those who can't afford it or just don't want it...so now is the site going to start discriminating against those who can't afford the software or just don't have enough time to sit and learn how to use the software?


You have PSP 7.0 right? If you do, you have all the tools you need for the specified rules changes without needing any plug-ins. I started another thread call Paint Shop Pro, it has only photo editing tips, and tutorials. I found alot of cool stuff there that I didnt know, 7 pages worth..lol.. Check it out, its a good link for any PSP users that want photo editing tips only. Hope it helps :)
 06/05/2003 12:05:11 PM · #134
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Downloaded for free????

Gordon was probably talking about The Gimp. It's fantastic and it's free (as in liberty if I'm not mistaken).


Don't forget the uhh, fourth group in this bipolar split (uh huh): the ones that don't care one iota.
 06/05/2003 12:08:58 PM · #135
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
[quote=Gordon]
[quote=OneSweetSin]

Should we discriminate against those who don't have enough time to sit and learn how to take a good picture ? After all that sounds about the same as what you are saying about not bothering to learn how to use the software that comes with your camera or can be downloaded for free.
quote]

Downloaded for free???? .


As I've posted half a dozen times at least, there are tons of free tools available that do all of the things you are looking for. Yes you'd have to be willing to learn some new things. Yes, you'd have to be willing to spend some time trying out various packages until you find sometihng that does what you need.
 06/05/2003 12:30:23 PM · #136
Originally posted by Gordon:
As I've posted half a dozen times at least, there are tons of free tools available that do all of the things you are looking for. Yes you'd have to be willing to learn some new things. Yes, you'd have to be willing to spend some time trying out various packages until you find sometihng that does what you need.


So let me guess you don't work, you don't have kids, you don't have any responsibilities and you have all day to sit here and do that? Only reason I'm here all day is it's day number one of summer vacation and rainning so my little boy is spending the day watching tv. Oh well tomorrow you can have the discussion without me, we will be out at the park and off to other committments.

Btw I do have most of the plug ins needed for psp but I also know others don't have them and rather than being selfish I think of them as well!
 06/05/2003 12:36:11 PM · #137
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by Gordon:
As I've posted half a dozen times at least, there are tons of free tools available that do all of the things you are looking for. Yes you'd have to be willing to learn some new things. Yes, you'd have to be willing to spend some time trying out various packages until you find sometihng that does what you need.


So let me guess you don't work, you don't have kids, you don't have any responsibilities and you have all day to sit here and do that? Only reason I'm here all day is it's day number one of summer vacation and rainning so my little boy is spending the day watching tv. Oh well tomorrow you can have the discussion without me, we will be out at the park and off to other committments.

Btw I do have most of the plug ins needed for psp but I also know others don't have them and rather than being selfish I think of them as well!


Which bit of posting 15 cheap or free alternatives to photoshop and PSP are you assuming is selfish ? As to free time, I do a full time job, spend as much time as I can with my wife, train for triathlons and I'm in the middle of completing my third degree but happen to occasionally prioritise my photography hobby high enough to expend some effort to improve. This whole discussion seems to have gotten a bit pointless.

Message edited by author 2003-06-05 12:36:54.
 06/05/2003 01:36:19 PM · #138
1. Rules are vague and subjective
No, your third rule was vague and subjective. Rules in general are obviously needed. We have some now.

2. Afraid it turns into composite images (even though this was against the rule proposal)
(as an example) Sin, what's a composite image?

3. It would keep people from learning to use their cameras to the fullest extent.
You could do things the hard way, as in your Two Tone Tonic - you could figure out how to light it, or you could just edit the thing with spot editing tools and come up with a fairly similar effect (make the whole glass blue, select an area and darken the brightness to -100, turning it black, etc.)

4. Too much editing takes away from the photo.
For some people this is true, for others it's not. I like photos, not devart, so do most people here, including yourself. You trust people not to slide down that path, I don't. We agree on the rest.

5. Don̢۪t want it to become a digital art/manipulation contest.
See 4.

6. Not everyone can afford photoshop.
Fock em. Get it from Kazaa or get PSP 7, Gimp, etc.

7. Beginners would not get a good learning experience.
Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to submit their best shot. I'm not worried about the beginners. I'm worried about the intermediates. I'm worried about people who are so convinced they CAN beat you that they will spend TOO much time in PS and not enough taking dpc and OTHER shots - sure we can edit shots all week to learn the software, or we can make more pictures and learn other things. Intermediates would likely be the worst off - learning their cam in detail OR learning editing software in detail.

8. Don̢۪t wanna spend time to learn the techniques.
Fock em.

My biggest argument is I don't trust people. I don't trust Site Council to determine what is acceptable "as a photograph" and I don't trust DPC members to not create digital art. I guess I should, but I don't. I trust the members as people, but as artists, it's easy to be led astray.

Those who want to change the site are those who feel they've exhausted their dpc learning ability? They were ALWAYS the teachers..they always will be. I'm not afraid of change, and I'd support open editing, but that'd be the ONLY step - open or leave it this way. You trust the people and the voters? Then completely open the editing - let's see what happens.
 06/05/2003 01:54:25 PM · #139
Originally posted by mavrik:
Then completely open the editing - let's see what happens.


OK now you got my attention don't change things and only change them to benefit a few but open up editing and make anything premisable.
 06/05/2003 01:58:10 PM · #140
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Then completely open the editing - let's see what happens.


OK now you got my attention don't change things and only change them to benefit a few but open up editing and make anything premisable.


Why do you want to completely open up editing when you have been complaining of people only having limited software? This makes no sense to me at all!

The free software allows limited things to be done, but these limited things INCLUDE what would be allowed under the proposed change.

Opening up the editing completely would mean a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater advantage for photoshop users.

06/05/2003 02:07:01 PM · #141
I replied to the other thread that is now locked.. Clubjuggle is right.. We need to keep this discussion in one place. It is so confusing! I actually thought I was in this thread. :( Oh well. Thanks CJ. Anyway, for anyone who cares to read that, you can continue to comment here instead.
06/05/2003 02:14:14 PM · #142
It isn't about prima donnas, in fact quite the opposite. People are trying to extend the amount they can learn - I don't quite get why people are so dead set against stopping that. I hear lots of accusations of people being selfish for wanting change. How about those that don't want to learn any more but wish to constrain those that do ?
 06/05/2003 02:28:52 PM · #143
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
is it not credible enough to say there are people who don't have ps or psp and can't afford to get them?


I'm even loosly on your side, and I have to say, no, it's not a credible arguement. The rules changes proposed, or at least the spirit of them, are fairly limited in what can be done, and even with what little I know about graphics editing software, I know most of it can do these kinds of fixes.

What I do think is a credible arguement: The rules changes proposed in form don't adaquately define and/or limit the editing to the spirit of the changes that's been described.

I ask again, John, could you offer some suggestions on changes to the wording that would work for you, that give you the freedom you're looking for, but would still satisfy those who are concerned about changes that go beyond simply cleaning up and finishing the processing on your photos?
 06/05/2003 02:35:58 PM · #144
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Why have it as an extra challenge instead of replacing an existing challenge with it?


Because there are those who don't want the change or who simply don't have the time to sit and play all day in Photoshop or PSP to do all the little things to "tweak" a photo. If you are going to change it to allow spot editing then I would want to also be able to use masking techniques and the point is it suddenly becomes can you vote on an image in a challenge that looks like this?

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=23959

If you said you can, then answer this...is the actual photo in focus? was there a good dof used in the photo, is there a texture to it? The more editing that is used the more problems that will develop. Once spot editing is allowed I will start my own crying for masking such as in the above photo to be premitted and before you know it, it will no longer be a photo competition but an art competition.

But I don't see anything wrong with having it as an extra challenge occassionally. I like the idea of an occassional challenge allowing all types of editing but I don't like the idea of it for every challenge cause you suddenly will start seeing more graphics and less photos.


Are you for real? While we are proposing the use of all the tools available or at least more than we are allowed now, we are not proposing that kind of image manipulation. That is an obvious exaggeration to what we are proposing. The image would still have to maintain the visual integrity of the original photo. We would not be able to add anything to the photo as in your extreme example but rather only to remove unwanted elements that detract from the image. It would basically still have to look like the original photo with the majority of the enhancements going to adjust color balances and tonal values. We can have unlimited use of tools and still maintain restrictions pertaining to the visual appearance of the photo.

T
 06/05/2003 02:43:39 PM · #145
from the other thread:

From "Help"/"About" on the menu bar:
The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week. The idea quickly took off and became much more in the months that followed.

I think that most of us think that we can become better photographers by participating on this site.

If that is the point of this site, then maybe the site should state the original idea more up front and visible and add something like: "the images submitted for challenges should look like a photograph, not like digital art".

I think you get the idea. Then, less emphasis can be put on whether or not an image is illegally edited or not, the edit rules can be relaxed, and the voters can decide which image best meets the challenge under the above statement.

06/05/2003 02:58:04 PM · #146
It has been suggested before in this thread: let's just give it a try with a challenge and then open it up to a vote. A candid challenge would be perfect with such an experiment because it's particularly with opportunity shots that just about everybody would like to get rid of something distracting.

If we are going to extend the editing rules then it should be to really have no editing rules at all. A statement along the lines as suggested by goodtempo 'submission should look like a photograph not like digital art' should do it (although with the current rules submissions have been made that some voters considered overly processed or turned into digital art :)
 06/05/2003 03:09:34 PM · #147
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
If you are going to change it to allow spot editing then I would want to also be able to use masking techniques and the point is it suddenly becomes can you vote on an image in a challenge that looks like this?

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=23959

If you said you can, then answer this...is the actual photo in focus? was there a good dof used in the photo, is there a texture to it? The more editing that is used the more problems that will develop. Once spot editing is allowed I will start my own crying for masking such as in the above photo to be premitted and before you know it, it will no longer be a photo competition but an art competition.


With all due respect, OSS, this makes no sense! You are argueing against allowing the changes John's asked for, but if they are accepted then what you really want is to allow even more editing???? If that's what you really want, why don't you jump on the pro-change side of the fence and start lobbying there?
 06/05/2003 03:28:14 PM · #148
Originally posted by Journey:
A statement along the lines as suggested by goodtempo 'submission should look like a photograph not like digital art' should do it (although with the current rules submissions have been made that some voters considered overly processed or turned into digital art :)


And, unfortunately, all the compaints from any and all sides that come up now about "meeting the challenge" would just grow exponentially. "My picture looks like a photo"/"This doesn't look like a photo to me - 1" And, as someone pointed out somewhere in this mess, a lot of photos which meet the current rules, IMHO, would fail that criteria. If you're going to allow open editing, and then you're going to put a restriction, the restriction can't be subjective. Or at least "can't" without causing major open warfare!

I'm personally (at this point) for a limited, specific set of spot edits that would be allowed. D/B, removed hot/dead pixels, remove dust... I don't know exactly what the list should be, but once it's decided, allow things to run that way for a while - a month or two. If more freedom is desired, raise the issue again. At least we 1) make small movement to some middle ground without bringing in a lot of upheaval, and 2) can evaluate the effect of the small changes, and if they work well, we might have a better idea how a next phase of changes would turn out.

Message edited by author 2003-06-05 15:30:17.
 06/05/2003 03:31:01 PM · #149
i have a compromise type solution to propose.

altho i wonder if anyone will read this ......

how about changing the rules to allow/include selection ONLY as it pertains to localized changes in tonality, i.e. dodging and burning, which only means lightening and darking selected areas of the photos ...

BUT CONTINUE TO RULE OUT any manipulations that involve MOVING a pixel from it's original place, or painting over it with another pixel?

That would at least give the people who want more flexibility something new to play with AND would satisfy those that worry that it's going to turn into a photoshop challenge, because it's much more objective to define.

Just locally selectable levels adjustments. That seems like a decent compromise.
 06/05/2003 03:31:39 PM · #150
Originally posted by Journey:
It has been suggested before in this thread: let's just give it a try with a challenge and then open it up to a vote. A candid challenge would be perfect with such an experiment because it's particularly with opportunity shots that just about everybody would like to get rid of something distracting.

If we are going to extend the editing rules then it should be to really have no editing rules at all. A statement along the lines as suggested by goodtempo 'submission should look like a photograph not like digital art' should do it (although with the current rules submissions have been made that some voters considered overly processed or turned into digital art :)


I still don't think that takes it far enough. I feel that we should emphasize that no adding elements or compositing images is allowed. Only the removal of distracting elements and adjustments to tonal values and colors. Structurally the final image would still have to be a represention of the original photo. We can't create entirely new photos.

I honestly do not know a lot about traditional photography challenges or contests but I'm certain that many of the photographers print their images themselves or direct the process, and while they have more than enough tools and tricks available in the traditional darkroom to manipulate their photos into entirely new and wierd images they understand that it is really about bringing the most out of the original images. The winning images are most often from photographers that have top notch tools and equipment but that's normal in all endeavors. I go out and run a running race knowing that I don't have the $130 super lightwieght shoes nor do I have the same high level conditioning and experience as the top runners. That's just the way it is and I don't expect the top runners to run with ankle wieghts just so I can feel better about having a chance to win. That's ridiculous in that situation so why is it so inappropriate here? If winning is important to you then you will take the necessary steps to eventually get there.


T

Message edited by author 2003-06-05 15:36:14.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 12:00:30 AM

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: 09/19/2025 12:00:30 AM EDT.