| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2007 09:44:00 AM · #326 |
No, of course not. But I'll make sure I enter it in a challenge that supports/allows those editing techniques.
It's all about the rules. Everything's okay to somebody.
Just make sure it's submitted in the correct challenge. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 11:23:06 AM · #327 |
I think the point is that (and I hope this IS the case) when the voters vote on the pictures, they will take into account that a digital camera produces images that need a bit of sharpening in general or a bit of contrast or a bit of tweeking to bring out the shadows and may have the odd blemish or power line or pole. I have produced lots of shots that I have sumitted without any alterations other than sharpening. So it is possible and it will just make us work a bit harder and perhaps bracket our exposures a bit and think about how we are filling the frame. When I shot film I was always told on shots where you could do it and have the time of course you needed to "wash the frame" before pushing the shutter, in other words run your eye in both directions around the viewfinder and then when you are happy push the shutter.
Just another 2 cents worth LOL
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 11:49:58 AM · #328 |
I think minimal editing is great. It offers people who do not know/want/like to use Photoshop a more balanced competition. It's also great to bring us back to the time when we must do it all with the camera. Anyway, those who don't like the rules may always enter in another challenge...
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 11:58:23 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by loriprophoto:
I think the point is that (and I hope this IS the case) when the voters vote on the pictures, they will take into account that a digital camera produces images that need a bit of sharpening in general or a bit of contrast or a bit of tweeking to bring out the shadows and may have the odd blemish or power line or pole. |
So if I understand you correctly, while the CHALLENGE is to make the most perfect image you can without using any post-processing, you are hoping the VOTERS will be lenient enough to ignore imperfections in images since no post-processing was allowed?
Isn't that a little like looking at an entry in an Advanced Editing challenge and thinking "Gee, if he'd just done this, that, and the other this image would be stunningly good, so I'll give it a 10!"?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:03:05 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So if I understand you correctly, while the CHALLENGE is to make the most perfect image you can without using any post-processing, you are hoping the VOTERS will be lenient enough to ignore imperfections in images since no post-processing was allowed? |
It'd be nice if for example they didn't vote down shots with dust spots, for having dust spots.
Message edited by author 2007-01-24 12:03:14.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:11:07 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So if I understand you correctly, while the CHALLENGE is to make the most perfect image you can without using any post-processing, you are hoping the VOTERS will be lenient enough to ignore imperfections in images since no post-processing was allowed? |
It'd be nice if for example they didn't vote down shots with dust spots, for having dust spots. |
I concur! But, considering the culture here, I'd guess that dust spots will be cause for much lowering of votes. At least, that's what I expect. Some leniency would be helpful for this set of rules. Ironically, those who would clobber vote an image for a dust spot, which cannot be legally removed, will damage the long term viability of the straight-from-the-camera concept. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:19:42 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So if I understand you correctly, while the CHALLENGE is to make the most perfect image you can without using any post-processing, you are hoping the VOTERS will be lenient enough to ignore imperfections in images since no post-processing was allowed? |
It'd be nice if for example they didn't vote down shots with dust spots, for having dust spots. |
You could always just clean the sensor first if you are shooting for a challenge that won't allow editing out your dust.....
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:20:14 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Ironically, those who would clobber vote an image for a dust spot, which cannot be legally removed, will damage the long term viability of the straight-from-the-camera concept. |
I'm not sure why that follows. Why is it any more valid to ignore a dust spot than it is to ignore a faulty white balance or a crooked horizon, just to offer two examples? The challenge is to perfect the image in-camera; surely part of that is to be sure you have a clean sensor? How is the viability of the "straight-from-camera concept" in any way damaged by voters who think dust spots (or crooked horizons, or faulty WB) are imperfections in the image?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:45:11 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure why that follows. Why is it any more valid to ignore a dust spot than it is to ignore a faulty white balance or a crooked horizon, just to offer two examples? The challenge is to perfect the image in-camera; surely part of that is to be sure you have a clean sensor? How is the viability of the "straight-from-camera concept" in any way damaged by voters who think dust spots (or crooked horizons, or faulty WB) are imperfections in the image?
R. |
Agree. It's just another set of rules. I am very happy to see that we have more options every time to submit photos. For me that's good. And if I want to shot for this challenge I will consider the rules for that (even if I have to clean the sensor).
As I see it, this rules are challenging because you have to know a part of your camera that some usually don't use (me for example).
Ãlex. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:48:03 PM · #335 |
if there were just one thing i'd like to be able to 'edit' with these rules it'd be setting the white/black points...
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 12:53:31 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by idnic:
You could always just clean the sensor first if you are shooting for a challenge that won't allow editing out your dust..... |
That's nice if you happen to have an accessible sensor. Or are shooting in a studio environment or happen to never change a lens in the field I suppose, or don't include any areas of constant tonality or don't stop down your lens.
I do clean my sensor regularly. I'm careful when I change lenses. I even cleaned my sensor just before going out to shoot this. F22 and a clear sky conspired to find this. I guess it was my fault for changing a lens on a windy day.
Minimalism, as a general theme, seems potentially much more likely to suffer that kind of problem than most.
Message edited by author 2007-01-24 13:01:07.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:08:34 PM · #337 |
To be honest cloaning sensor dust has only been in the basic ruleset since the change, and yet somehow people managed before then not to submit photos week after week plagued with dust-spots.
Seriously, it's part of the challenge to deal with these things within the limitations of the rules. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:09:17 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Ironically, those who would clobber vote an image for a dust spot, which cannot be legally removed, will damage the long term viability of the straight-from-the-camera concept. |
I'm not sure why that follows. Why is it any more valid to ignore a dust spot than it is to ignore a faulty white balance or a crooked horizon, just to offer two examples? The challenge is to perfect the image in-camera; surely part of that is to be sure you have a clean sensor? How is the viability of the "straight-from-camera concept" in any way damaged by voters who think dust spots (or crooked horizons, or faulty WB) are imperfections in the image?
R. |
Yes, okay! I shot the minimalism challenge yesterday and came home with a very good image, but dust spots in the sky... mostly because I used a small f/16 aperture and the ubiquitous dust spots were on the sensor (or the lens). Cleaned the sensor last night and made sure the lens was immaculate. Went back out this early morning for a re-shoot. Not quite the same opportunity was present, but another opportunity presented itself. This time, I used f/8, which gave me adequate DOF... and I see no dust spots in the sky on the image. So, we adjust and adapt to the rules, as they are. Might be suboptimization of the tools we have available... but I have a good entry... without dust spots and meeting the challenge criteria and rules. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:14:10 PM · #339 |
Well, maybe this rule set will be a good reason for some of us to clean our sensors every so often :-)
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:50:38 PM · #340 |
I love your new rules. Now as a beginner I don't have to deal with the technical options that people use on their photos, and about which I am clueless. For me its just take the photo and that's it.
Your name "Site Council" sounds spacey, do you operate from a space ship and in which Galaxy ?.
leaglebeagle thanks for your response, and no offence taken
GC |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:53:47 PM · #341 |
| In your Author's colum it says NO CAMERA when I post a message. Why is that?. I do have a camera its a new Nikon D 200. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:55:28 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by GalacticCannibal:
In your Author's colum it says NO CAMERA when I post a message. Why is that?. I do have a camera its a new Nikon D 200. |
You need to go to "My Preferences" under the "My Home" menu and enter your camera. They can't see what model you have from the spaceship. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 01:56:28 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by GalacticCannibal:
In your Author's colum it says NO CAMERA when I post a message. Why is that?. I do have a camera its a new Nikon D 200. |
You need to go to "My Preferences" under the "My Home" menu and enter your camera. They can't see what model you have from the spaceship. |
If you wave it out of the window it'll get set correctly. It's like GPS.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 02:04:43 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by GalacticCannibal:
Your name "Site Council" sounds spacey, do you operate from a space ship and in which Galaxy ?.
|
No, I was one of them for a while, and I know. It's not a space ship, contrary to popular belief. They operate in an old Vanagon, yellow/orange, camouflaged with a bunch of flowers and swirls (that muckpond painted on the outside). They do not eat, or sleep, except on Mondays from 5 to 8 AM New Zealand time. They wear identical glasses, but otherwise are free to dress in whatever cute outfit they happen to like. |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 02:47:55 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GalacticCannibal:
Your name "Site Council" sounds spacey, do you operate from a space ship and in which Galaxy ?.
|
No, I was one of them for a while, and I know. It's not a space ship, contrary to popular belief. They operate in an old Vanagon, yellow/orange, camouflaged with a bunch of flowers and swirls (that muckpond painted on the outside). |
Interesting how many of the previous posts come from former SC members ... must've gotten carsick .... |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 03:04:00 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GalacticCannibal:
Your name "Site Council" sounds spacey, do you operate from a space ship and in which Galaxy ?.
|
No, I was one of them for a while, and I know. It's not a space ship, contrary to popular belief. They operate in an old Vanagon, yellow/orange, camouflaged with a bunch of flowers and swirls (that muckpond painted on the outside). |
Interesting how many of the previous posts come from former SC members ... must've gotten carsick .... |
Yeah, no more carsickness now :))) |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 03:08:13 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Interesting how many of the previous posts come from former SC members ... must've gotten carsick .... |
Yeah, no more carsickness now :))) |
I feel much better.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2007 03:12:26 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Interesting how many of the previous posts come from former SC members ... must've gotten carsick .... |
Yeah, no more carsickness now :))) |
I feel much better. |
I barfed in GeneralE's lap. :/ |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 03:14:19 PM · #349 |
| You know how I drive then ... ; ) |
|
|
|
01/24/2007 03:23:31 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Interesting how many of the previous posts come from former SC members ... must've gotten carsick .... |
Yeah, no more carsickness now :))) |
I feel much better. |
I barfed in GeneralE's lap. :/ |
Ewww! I remember that. It was gross. Yuk! |
|
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: 08/03/2025 04:48:26 AM EDT.
