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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Best of All Worlds?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 69, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/08/2003 04:59:20 PM · #26
"... learn to create and finish good photographs rather than trying to save bad ones. "

I believe this is a legitimate comment. It is all too easy to take your photos and then muck around in Photoshop trying to fix them. I'm learning Photoshop and enjoy reading tips about how to do certain things. However, I believe that I should be concentrating on taking better photos and getting the most out of my camera.

I prefer the idea of "no restrictions" on specific challenges (or set of challenges) but not all of them.
 06/08/2003 05:03:22 PM · #27
I totally agree with Terry's post. In a thread a couple of days ago I even suggested having a seperate "no holds barred" challenge each week to "cater" to those who are pushing for change - a compromise of sorts. Most of the feedback I got from that was negative; it's seems it's all or nothing.
06/08/2003 05:09:25 PM · #28
Originally posted by orussell:
In a thread a couple of days ago I even suggested having a seperate "no holds barred" challenge each week to "cater" to those who are pushing for change - a compromise of sorts. Most of the feedback I got from that was negative; it's seems it's all or nothing.


All or nothing huh... you keep bringing this up... 'no holds barred'... who is asking for that? did i miss that somewhere?
 06/08/2003 05:18:07 PM · #29
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by orussell:
In a thread a couple of days ago I even suggested having a seperate "no holds barred" challenge each week to "cater" to those who are pushing for change - a compromise of sorts. Most of the feedback I got from that was negative; it's seems it's all or nothing.


All or nothing huh... you keep bringing this up... 'no holds barred'... who is asking for that? did i miss that somewhere?


I think he's refering to a "occational challenge" with loosened rules, rather than a total rules change(regarding D/B). Everyone is talking about a total rules change, and when people bring up having it on occational challenge, it's dismissed, no one will discuss it. I have brought it up, as well as others, and seemed to have been tossed out as something not even to consider, Change the Permanent rules, or nothing. I think it's a good idea to have it on occational challenge. That way, everyone stays happy, no?

Message edited by author 2003-06-08 17:19:11.
 06/08/2003 05:25:25 PM · #30
We already do that.
 06/08/2003 05:31:39 PM · #31
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
We already do that.


MORE occational.
 06/08/2003 05:39:49 PM · #32
No I suggested having "two" seperate challenges each week. Let me try to simplify: One challenge using the rules that we currently have; A second challenge each week with relaxed editting rules. I realize that there are bandwidth issues to contend with. Would you settle for this John (and other proponents of change), if it was a viable option (viable to Drew and Langdon)? Would you settle for a compromise? It might even bode in your favour and affect more change in the future.
 06/08/2003 05:45:37 PM · #33
I didn't see the need to create a separate challenge just for the allowed use of the dodge and burn tools. I still don't. You can't create 'digital art' with the dodge and burn tools, and quite frankly, you don't even have to use those tools very often. Because of this, I coulnd't really see how it would create any significant changes in the images that get submitted here. Because of that, i didn't feel an additional challenge would be merited.
 06/08/2003 05:54:24 PM · #34
sounds like very few of the people who posted after me read my post. which is too bad. i discussed some very rational aspects of this situation, yet people posting after continue to act as if they're sticking their fingers in their ears yelling 'i cant hear you'. :)

i prefer to assume that they just didnt read it rather than having read it and then completely missed the points .....


06/08/2003 06:01:04 PM · #35
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I didn't see the need to create a separate challenge just for the allowed use of the dodge and burn tools. I still don't. You can't create 'digital art' with the dodge and burn tools, and quite frankly, you don't even have to use those tools very often. Because of this, I coulnd't really see how it would create any significant changes in the images that get submitted here. Because of that, i didn't feel an additional challenge would be merited.


So should we take this to mean that you won't accept a compromise? You didn't really answer my question. While we're being frank, is that the way you want it, all or nothing (on the dodge and burn issue)? Maybe Drew and Langdon would be interested in hosting another site entirely devoted to digital editting. Hell with your expertise you could even start your own.
06/08/2003 06:03:02 PM · #36
Originally posted by orussell:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I didn't see the need to create a separate challenge just for the allowed use of the dodge and burn tools. I still don't. You can't create 'digital art' with the dodge and burn tools, and quite frankly, you don't even have to use those tools very often. Because of this, I coulnd't really see how it would create any significant changes in the images that get submitted here. Because of that, i didn't feel an additional challenge would be merited.


So should we take this to mean that you won't accept a compromise? You didn't really answer my question. While we're being frank, is that the way you want it, all or nothing (on the dodge and burn issue)? Maybe Drew and Langdon would be interested in hosting another site entirely devoted to digital editting. Hell with your expertise you could even start your own.


I am out of comments on this idea. I have already answered these questions too many times in previous posts and in previous threads.
 06/08/2003 06:04:12 PM · #37
orussell, you keep saying that john is 'devoted' to digital editing. that's pretty irrational considering he just a few posts previously stated that was an erroneous assumption.

if you wish to have a discussion about an issue, please limit your comments to aspects that pertain to the actual issues :).
 06/08/2003 06:06:06 PM · #38
i think that people that are discussing this are probably getting frustrated with the fact that this is not a dialogue.

no one seems to actually listen to or hear or respond to the actual points, but continue to run off on different alarmist tangents that have little to do with reality. :)


06/08/2003 06:10:45 PM · #39
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i think that people that are discussing this are probably getting frustrated with the fact that this is not a dialogue.

no one seems to actually listen to or hear or respond to the actual points, but continue to run off on different alarmist tangents that have little to do with reality. :)

Plus, until the admins post either a poll or a rules change, there's not much else we can do right now anyway.
 06/08/2003 06:12:42 PM · #40
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i think that people that are discussing this are probably getting frustrated with the fact that this is not a dialogue.

no one seems to actually listen to or hear or respond to the actual points, but continue to run off on different alarmist tangents that have little to do with reality. :)


touché
 06/08/2003 06:14:38 PM · #41
GE, this is true. Yet that hasn't stopped threads like this one from being started.
 06/08/2003 06:15:00 PM · #42
?

Originally posted by orussell:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i think that people that are discussing this are probably getting frustrated with the fact that this is not a dialogue.

no one seems to actually listen to or hear or respond to the actual points, but continue to run off on different alarmist tangents that have little to do with reality. :)


touché

 06/08/2003 06:16:33 PM · #43
I have repeatedly seen comments made, by different people, stating that because what follows their post is a differing opinion, that no one must have read their post, that people must not understand their post or that they just haven't been doing a good enough job of expressing what they mean. Just because people don't agree, doesn't mean that they can't or didn't read. I'm surprised at the number of posters who seem to think that they've provided the Absolute Explanation and are shocked at the continuation of differing opinions.
 06/08/2003 06:20:26 PM · #44
it's not an opinion to point out that the vast majority of photo sites on the web feature photography that has allowed unlimited editing yet does not look like digital art. this is a fact, or at the very least, a very well-supported opinion :).

Yet people continue to cry like chicken littles that 'opening editing will lead to digital art', without looking at the reality that has just been pointed out to them. which is that hello, lol, it doesnt.

the capper of proof? the people that have been accused of wanting to turn dpc into "digital art sodom and gomorrah" dont have digital art in their own portfolios. if they were going to change dpc into that, wouldnt they at least have even been doing (gasp) digital art on their own?

'noooo, nooooo, chicken little, the sky is falling, allowing editing will turn the world into digital art, helppppp ... '

.. :)

Originally posted by mk:
I have repeatedly seen comments made, by different people, stating that because what follows their post is a differing opinion, that no one must have read their post, that people must not understand their post or that they just haven't been doing a good enough job of expressing what they mean. Just because people don't agree, doesn't mean that they can't or didn't read. I'm surprised at the number of posters who seem to think that they've provided the Absolute Explanation and are shocked at the continuation of differing opinions.


Message edited by author 2003-06-08 18:28:27.
 06/08/2003 06:42:27 PM · #45
I see no mention of a fear of digital art after your post. I would also contend that what occurs on other sites isn't really a valid argument for what happens here. Otherwise, why wouldn't the people who want more editing just go to one of the many sites you listed?
 06/08/2003 06:49:34 PM · #46
really? seems like a good 50% of them talk about it to me, with one even specifically using the words 'digital art'. :)

as quoted:

I didn't see the need to create a separate challenge just for the allowed use of the dodge and burn tools. I still don't. You can't create 'digital art' with the dodge and burn tools, and quite frankly, you don't even have to use those tools very often. Because of this, I coulnd't really see how it would create any significant changes in the images that get submitted here. Because of that, i didn't feel an additional challenge would be merited.


So should we take this to mean that you won't accept a compromise? You didn't really answer my question. While we're being frank, is that the way you want it, all or nothing (on the dodge and burn issue)? Maybe Drew and Langdon would be interested in hosting another site entirely devoted to digital editting. Hell with your expertise you could even start your own.

other terms for it = 'no holds barred editing' and 'adding things that aren't there', and 'entirely devoted to digital editing', all of which i use 'digital art' as shorthand for.

to answer your second question, the community here has been better than any of those other sites. a good synergy of personalities, skill levels, and energies here. this site is much more troll free than most yet still vibrant and active and interesting. pure and simple that's why people stay here, even when they don't participate as much in challenges :)

Originally posted by mk:
I see no mention of a fear of digital art after your post. I would also contend that what occurs on other sites isn't really a valid argument for what happens here. Otherwise, why wouldn't the people who want more editing just go to one of the many sites you listed?


Message edited by author 2003-06-08 18:50:27.
 06/08/2003 07:11:52 PM · #47
Oh Puh-leeez people! I have not seen such bickering since I can't remember.
I just went back and re-read Terr'y's opening post, and I believe that his ideas address the issues and accurately relfect the reality of the disagreement. His proposed solution is a model of compromise, and should receive more serious consideration here. What I see instead is a lot of folks with blinders on, on both sides.
On the one hand, the idea that yielding on the editing rules will cause a deluge of "digital art" is completely unsupportable, and not many posting here seem to actually believe it will happen. There is also little doubt that given the choice, most photographers here would in fact use the (editing) tools available to them if given the opportunity, and few would know the difference.
On the other hand this change would, to use Terry's words, "..be a fundamental change the focus of the site". As has been previously stated, there are multiple sites that allow spot editing. That is precisely what makes DPC unique. We have maintained a different approach that focuses on getting the best initial image. This unique attribute adds value to the site and we should not lightly consider throwing this away entirely.
The best compromise seems to be to run separate challenges, as Terry has suggested. If this is done regularly, we all have more choice, and more opportunity.
So, in conclusion...

> Let's have editing-enabled challenges; bring it on!
> Let's keep our editing-restricted challenges.

We certainly will not settle this in the forums; there is too much divided opinion. I don't look at this as bad, it is part of what makes this community what it is.
We need a poll to determine the best direction to proceed.

Fritz


06/08/2003 07:35:21 PM · #48
To have a separate challenge just to be able to dodge and burn - as John has already said in his own words - is rediculous. That's like having a separate challenge for people who want to sharpen their image.

It seems to me that some people who are against this are just ignorant about dodging and burning. It is simply a tool that allows one to expand the exposure threshold. Take Gordon's photo of the cliffs as an example (posted in one of these other threads). It is impossible in that situation to get a correct exposure for both the sky and the cliffs. Either the sky will be overblown or the cliffs will be too dark. D & B allowed him to correct the cliffs while keeping the sky as it was. Think of it as a selective levels adjustment. I feel it is a neccesary tool if one is striving to create the best photos possible.

Remember that we're only talking about dodging and burning here, not the whole shabang. To say that allowing these tools would completely change this site and drive members away is completely unfounded.

Message edited by author 2003-06-08 19:36:25.
 06/08/2003 07:58:12 PM · #49
Well, many of us see it as just a beginning I suppose. And other changes have been mentioned so much it is hard to seperate exactly what the discussion IS about. Some won't even clarify because the say they already have. And some aren't even happy when they are offered the whole "shabang" in a compromise. Next will you want to enter an old photo because you just now "dodged and burned" it?
Ask yourself one question......Does leaving the rules as they are make you a BETTER or WORSE photographer?

Message edited by author 2003-06-08 20:08:45.
 06/08/2003 08:27:14 PM · #50
Originally posted by David Ey:
Does leaving the rules as they are make you a BETTER or WORSE photographer?


Neither. However I think there is a potential learning experience to be had by all if we are allowed to produce the best output of a photo. I realize this isn't the only place that I can do that, but it is the only place that forces creativity, which is the main reason I am here.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 02:22:56 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 02:22:56 PM EDT.