| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2007 09:13:44 AM · #176 |
Votes: 65
Views: 84
Avg Vote: 5.7538
Comments: 3
Favorites: 1
:P
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 09:14:44 AM · #177 |
Votes: 66
Views: 174
Avg Vote: 6.1515
Comments: 7
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 09:10 am
Im MEEEEELTIIIIING!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh:::,............ . . .
Thanks for the FAV love ya |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 09:45:01 AM · #178 |
Votes: 66
Views: 103
Avg Vote: 4.0303
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
I'm going to hold that 4.. oh yes. There's a certain emotion I was hoping to get out of the commenters and it's not happening. My image is very powerful.. very powerful indeed. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 09:48:47 AM · #179 |
| Nope, not going to better my Free Study average. Kerplunked down to 5.7 from a healthy 6.2 last night. Recovered in the last 3 votes and climbed up to a 5.8...really had hoped to hold on to a 6. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 09:59:04 AM · #180 |
Votes: 69
Views: 96
Avg Vote: 6.0435
Maybe I can hold onto that 6!! :D |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 11:31:42 AM · #181 |
Votes: 68
Views: 93
Avg Vote: 5.2059
Comments: 4
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 11:28 am
I REALLY don't get it. This is the first time I can really say I can't figure out why the score is so low. I'm confused & disappointed.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 12:58:07 PM · #182 |
| How can someone give you a 2 on a photo tha is in focus and is a free study!? With no reason as to why? I have a 4.8 on a photo I was told was at least a 6! I think it is better than the 6's I currently have. I am so confused. Maybe it is the title , maybe I shouldnt have named it at all. People readt too much into a title. Help? What do you think? |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 12:58:53 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
Votes: 68
Views: 93
Avg Vote: 5.2059
Comments: 4
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 11:28 am
I REALLY don't get it. This is the first time I can really say I can't figure out why the score is so low. I'm confused & disappointed. |
I am with ya!!! I am sooooooo confused. LOL |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:00:18 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by militarygirl10:
Originally posted by larryslights:
Votes: 68
Views: 93
Avg Vote: 5.2059
Comments: 4
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 11:28 am
I REALLY don't get it. This is the first time I can really say I can't figure out why the score is so low. I'm confused & disappointed. |
I am with ya!!! I am sooooooo confused. LOL |
Me too! I am assuming a lot of people are in this boat. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:46:13 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by MAK:
Votes: 66
Views: 174
Avg Vote: 6.1515
Comments: 7
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 09:10 am
Im MEEEEELTIIIIING!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh:::,............ . . .
|
Votes: 71
Views: 117
Avg Vote: 6.5634
Comments: 2 <---------- :-(
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 01:41 pm
Me too... BIG drop since yesterday.... at least you're racking up the comments!!!
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:55:24 PM · #186 |
Votes: 84
Views: 125
Avg Vote: 6.9762
Comments: 5
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 05/02/07 01:54 pm
I'm verry happy whit this :) |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:09:01 PM · #187 |
I really stepped out of my box for this challenge- and so far am feeling pretty good about it
Votes: 81
Views: 108
Avg Vote: 6.4938
Comments: 5
Favorites: 3 <------ :D
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:09:09 PM · #188 |
I'm having fun with my Free Study entry with one exception...I'm getting some comments that lead me to believe people think I've used multiple images to create my entry (I didn't).
I'm flattered with the score and the comments, but it bugs me that there's even a question of photo authenticity and wondering if an image used quasi-photoshop skills to get results.
I really, really wish these expert editing rules would go away, or at least not be a factor in main event challenges like free studies. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:19:11 PM · #189 |
How is use of multiple images a "quasi Photoshop" skill????? It's an expert editing challenge and people like me who have taken this small advantage of using multiple images, are being hammered... Don't understand this attitude at all. I don't personally hold it against anyone who hasn't taken advantage of the EE rules, if I like the image, I like it... but to have a pet hate for those images which have made use of multiple images and other EE loopholes, is just narrow.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm having fun with my Free Study entry with one exception...I'm getting some comments that lead me to believe people think I've used multiple images to create my entry (I didn't).
I'm flattered with the score and the comments, but it bugs me that there's even a question of photo authenticity and wondering if an image used quasi-photoshop skills to get results.
I really, really wish these expert editing rules would go away, or at least not be a factor in main event challenges like free studies. |
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:26:17 PM · #190 |
To me, if I feel that the EE processing was used with purpose and not 'just because' then I will score fairly high for those well done.
On the other hand, if I feel that it was done 'just because' then the score won't be as good, even if the processing is done well.
Just how I approach this. Not intended to promote one method of scoring the images over another.
Just because the tools are available doesn't mean you have to use them. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:29:25 PM · #191 |
I'm going to preface this by pointing out that I have nothing against EE and even experimented with an EE technique on my photo, though I ultimately was unhappy with it and took that element out.
Anyway, going through this challenge, there are a lot of very obvious EE entries. I don't mind that it's obvious. What I do mind comes in the form of a list:
(1) When the EE is not very well done.
(2) When the EE adds nothing of value to the photo.
(3) When the photographer obviously just wanted to use EE but didn't really have a solid concept for it.
(4) When the photographer forgets that a clean composition is still important and the entry becomes cluttered.
When I went through the Free Study, I saw all four of those, but mostly #3. There are some that are excellent, but more that just seemed to be there for the sake of entering something using EE. For me, a photo done using EE needs something more than merely looking cool or unusual. It needs to be done with purpose, or it just becomes frivilous and self-indulgent.
Message edited by author 2007-05-02 14:31:57.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:30:26 PM · #192 |
Well, like it or not, my image is being lumped in with/or being considered a potential, multiple image photo. So, what (IMO of course) is a very fine photo on it's own merit is being looked at as something that couldn't have been accomplished without (in essence cheating legally) multiple images in post-processing.
The monthly free studies are like a monthly "Best Of" challenge. To force scrutiny, of what for many people are outstanding photos, under the light of expert editing doesn't seem right. It adds a question of photographic integrity that wouldn't exist under any other ruleset. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:31:56 PM · #193 |
| Well I didn't use the Expert Editing. It was more like Advanced. I think my entry is the best I've ever entered in a challenge, but the score won't even put it in my top 10. So I guess the theory of voters looking for a good picture is out. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 02:55:36 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
my image is being lumped in with/or being considered a potential, multiple image photo. |
Do you think you are being marked down because of this? Not wishing this to sound like a rhetorical question at all - I'm really interested. The very first EE challenge (I think it was the Harsh Environments one??) I submitted for that, using Advanced editing rules purely because I was tentatively new at this. It served me well and I placed in the top ten. I don't say that because it's EE we all have to use it. Agree with Rebecca et al who point out that there is a place for it and there is the danger of misusing it...
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So, what (IMO of course) is a very fine photo on it's own merit is being looked at as something that couldn't have been accomplished without (in essence cheating legally) multiple images in post-processing. |
but why do you consider use of multiple images "cheating" - that puts such a negative slant on the use thereof. Surely there is a place where multiple images actually complete a story for the photographer..? Even use of layers is not an honest image - it's a basic image which has been manipulated in an artificial way...not much except images in Minimal Editing (and even there we're allowed to sharpen) is authentic.. It's just a question of degrees of authenticity isn't it?
Ultimately the image one photographer captures is in itself a representation of the larger view. It's an interpretation. For me, layering several images together is like making a Symphony of Photography as opposed to performing a Solo.
Sorry guys for writing a tome at this point...back to scores :-)
My conglomorate image is getting 5.8 now - 3 comments...
Message edited by author 2007-05-02 14:56:41. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 03:12:24 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by faery:
Surely there is a place where multiple images actually complete a story for the photographer..? |
The difference is with EE the "story" can be "complete"d by adding new elements to the composition.
The question then becomes to the voter is the story being told the way it was naturally written, or has the story teller embellished with their own new characters (new elements - birds, sunrise/sunset, clouds, etc...)?
I think many voters recognize that it's easier to sit at the computer and embellish the story than it is to be a true photographer and go out and capture an enticing story that stands proud without embellishment.
As a viewer sifting thru hundreds of photos in this free study, the question hangs in the air - embellished fiction or astounding realism? |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 03:17:10 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, like it or not, my image is being lumped in with/or being considered a potential, multiple image photo. So, what (IMO of course) is a very fine photo on it's own merit is being looked at as something that couldn't have been accomplished without (in essence cheating legally) multiple images in post-processing.
The monthly free studies are like a monthly "Best Of" challenge. To force scrutiny, of what for many people are outstanding photos, under the light of expert editing doesn't seem right. It adds a question of photographic integrity that wouldn't exist under any other ruleset. |
You are right. But then DPC is not all about a single ruleset - rather it acknowledges the broad spectrum of types of photography (IMO, a good thing).
Personally, I wanted to take advantage of EE to spruce up an average shot and do not apologise for blatant photoshoppery!
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 03:18:52 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, like it or not, my image is being lumped in with/or being considered a potential, multiple image photo. So, what (IMO of course) is a very fine photo on it's own merit is being looked at as something that couldn't have been accomplished without (in essence cheating legally) multiple images in post-processing.
The monthly free studies are like a monthly "Best Of" challenge. To force scrutiny, of what for many people are outstanding photos, under the light of expert editing doesn't seem right. It adds a question of photographic integrity that wouldn't exist under any other ruleset. |
You are right. But then DPC is not all about a single ruleset - rather it acknowledges the broad spectrum of types of photography (IMO, a good thing).
Personally, I wanted to take advantage of EE to spruce up an average shot and do not apologise for blatant photoshoppery! |
I'm right there alongside you matt. mine is photoshopped to buggery! |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 03:20:47 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... embellished fiction or astounding realism? |
Perhaps that is EXACTLY the question the photographer was trying to provoke!!!
;-)
In that case.... mission accomplished!
Message edited by author 2007-05-02 15:21:31.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 03:25:59 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
dropping |
steady
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 03:26:57 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... embellished fiction or astounding realism? |
Perhaps that is EXACTLY the question the photographer was trying to provoke!!!
;-)
In that case.... mission accomplished! |
Ok. Kudo's to digital fiction weavers then. |
|
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: 08/11/2025 04:15:40 PM EDT.
