| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2008 02:04:51 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Think I need a few months (6, maybe more) out of DPC, just getting bored with the whole thing.. the people are pretty cool and I really enjoy the GTGs, but other than that there isn't really a hook for me anymore, does anyone else feel that way sometimes?
|
I've felt that way for the past eight months. The reasons I feel this way are that I see no real creativity here anymore (me included). People see what wins, then either try to duplicate the shot, or if they were the winner, continue to shoot the same ole subject over and over ad nauseam.
The same over-cooked skies, northern light night shots & water splashes can get to a feller after a while. ;-)
Originally posted by Simms:
I also don't feel there is a level playing field anymore, the new ruleset, whilst great for us who are pretty adept at photoshop, doesn't seem fair to the newer members or indeed those who don't have the time or natural ability to learn it. sure there are open challenges available for those, but the free studies are now getting too hard to compete in for those who just cant cut it on a manipulation level.
People who are new to photography and/or this site are also getting a somewhat skewed view of what is good photography, and what is good for DPC, the two are so far removed from each other and I actually feel to a certain point, this is bad for photography and those newer people altogether. |
This is where I disagree with you completely. The rule change has in no way made it an unfair playing field. That's the same as saying that allowing anyone to enter a photo into a challenge who used a studio setup creates an unfair advantage. That's just nonsense to me. If you don't want to use what the rule set allows, you don't have to and it's not going to hurt your chances at wining if you don't. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:05:09 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then on the flip side, there's the bizzare combination of an architecture challenge with basic editing rules. Architectural photography is one of the few commercially viable applications of HDR photography. It is a theme perfectly matched to the new HDR rule set. So its being run with basic rules. |
Yeah that is bizarre. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:08:46 PM · #28 |
| Maybe I'm missing something but what was added to the advance ruleset that is a problem? Time Lapse was removed. As far as I'm aware the only new thing added recently was now you can do true HDRI. Why would that be an issue? We've been allowing fake HDRI for quite some time and for a while even in basic editing. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:09:51 PM · #29 |
kindof in a slump also
might be winter blahs though
take pictures just for the sake of staying current but no real thought ..
seem to be running out of time often //
looking forward to SPRING (who want to take bird pics at -20C ??!!)
my advice take a DPC holiday runaway for a few weeks
rest / take pictures that are not fussy & over processed ..
relax . .. but stay intouch lest we get a series of postings that say "what ever happend to Simms?" |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:10:55 PM · #30 |
I'm not sure why so many people think the new advanced rules (now that they've eliminated time lapse from them) represent such a major shift. From my perspective, the change is minimal. Everything I can do now I could do before, basically, except in a few really extreme cases. I could take a single image in RAW, PP it to different exposures, merge them, tone map them, and have an image that's very, very close to what I do with multiple exposures. Indeed, for a lot of my landscapes the multiple exposure blending doesn't even WORK, because changes in fast-moving clouds, waves, wind movement of leaves etc make the composite fuzzy and unusable. My current entry in Best of 2007, for example, is processed from a single exposure.
It's very nice to have "true" HDRI available for when it works, but it's not a quantum leap forward over single-image, quasi-HDRI most of the time. And that single-image processing-through-layering has always been available to us. Meanwhile, they have REMOVED tone mapping from basic challenges, making them once again MUCH closer to "straight" photography than they were.
Now, I understand Brad to be saying that he'd wish we couldn't use ANY of this newfangled image manipulation technology in our submissions, and I don't understand that. But then, he's a master mechanic who tools around in a beat-up, completely unmodified 1960's VW bug, so clearly that's his general mindset; "keep it simple, resist the bells and whistles." And i can sympathize witht hat, but at the same time it seems to me there's something vaguely ludicrous about a photography competition website that REQUIRES that all images be created/processed with generations-old techniques, and effectively outlaws progress in the field.
Just my 2-cent's worth.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:10:58 PM · #31 |
After reading all of these posts, I'm glad that I'm not the only one feeling like things have gotten a little off track for me. I love photography, I suk at PS but want to learn, yet I don't do well in challenges because of it. If it were more about the photography and less about the post processing, I'd be far more excited about entering challenges (that don't end in III, IV, V, VI). The challenges have pushed me to learn and expand, but of late I'm improving...I'm stretching, I'm scoring much worse (but the photographic quality is much better when compared to older challenge entries) and it's just not that fun. There is always room to learn, but I agree that the playing field is not even. I also think it would be beneficial to do more challenges that touch on photographic skills and basic photography "lessons", i.e. rule of thirds, than "what can you do with PS to this topic?" Don't get me wrong, some of the heavily photo shopped shots are gorgeous, but not everyone on this site has an extensive photography background, so these types of challenges would be very beneficial to the photographers, voters, etc. There are plenty of sites out there now that will accommodate the heavily post processed photographs. There is a definite place for the post processing stuff, but IMO, it feels like there is far too much emphasis on post processing now than taking a great photograph to start with.
I originally joined this site to learn, but I feel as if I'm being stifled by the need for some to overdo and I'm not into that. It's great on some shots, but many I'm now seeing are just over the top and those that ARE into it seem to vote low for those of us not doing major post processing.. GREAT! But this is/was a learning site and it is very intimidating if you don't have the hours to spend in front of the computer.
I will continue to try to get the shot "straight from the camera", but I don't want my photography to become a graphics challenge. I'm do to reup in Oct. and I've already been thinking about whether or not I should. (Sorry for the long post.) |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:13:09 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I'd have to agree. Since people can now do HDR it seems like that a large portion of the entries are HDR. Then again, I know a lot of people enjoy the editing process and like the results. Maybe we need a larger portion of basic challenges? It seems like the member challenges ALL use the advanced ruleset. Why not have a free study done with basic editing? Just a thought. |
Then on the flip side, there's the bizzare combination of an architecture challenge with basic editing rules. Architectural photography is one of the few commercially viable applications of HDR photography. It is a theme perfectly matched to the new HDR rule set. So its being run with basic rules. Often it feels as if nobody is really paying much attention to the challenge definition and its just thrown out there as a last minute thing before Langdon goes to bed. |
Yeah, I kind of feel the same way too. It's also frustrating to see good challenge suggestions continue to get ignored. It wouldn't be too bad if they weren't getting passed over by the likes of Framing XVI and the like. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:13:45 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then on the flip side, there's the bizzare combination of an architecture challenge with basic editing rules. Architectural photography is one of the few commercially viable applications of HDR photography. It is a theme perfectly matched to the new HDR rule set. So its being run with basic rules. Often it feels as if nobody is really paying much attention to the challenge definition and its just thrown out there as a last minute thing before Langdon goes to bed. |
No kidding. My jaw hit the floor when I saw this challenge. As a retired professional architectural photographer, I'm perhaps more aware than most how downright silly this is. The photography of architecture is one of the most technically demanding fields there is. HDRI imaging was tailor-made for this subject.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:14:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe I'm missing something but what was added to the advance ruleset that is a problem? Time Lapse was removed. As far as I'm aware the only new thing added recently was now you can do true HDRI. Why would that be an issue? We've been allowing fake HDRI for quite some time and for a while even in basic editing. |
+ everyone was asking for it!!!!
please, really, stop freaking whining about the rules.
be happy and go do something. take photos. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:19:27 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I'd have to agree. Since people can now do HDR it seems like that a large portion of the entries are HDR. Then again, I know a lot of people enjoy the editing process and like the results. Maybe we need a larger portion of basic challenges? It seems like the member challenges ALL use the advanced ruleset. Why not have a free study done with basic editing? Just a thought. |
Then on the flip side, there's the bizzare combination of an architecture challenge with basic editing rules. Architectural photography is one of the few commercially viable applications of HDR photography. It is a theme perfectly matched to the new HDR rule set. So its being run with basic rules. Often it feels as if nobody is really paying much attention to the challenge definition and its just thrown out there as a last minute thing before Langdon goes to bed. |
Thats confirmed it, when I actually find myself agreeing with Gordon, the time for a break has definitely come! :) |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:20:13 PM · #36 |
Brad I like your thinking.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:23:24 PM · #37 |
| I've been here long enough to remember all sorts of fads, things come and go and often settle down a bit when the novelty had worn off, and probably used more sparingly/subtley - Like neatimage and Shadows/highlights. I like the look of HDR, I tried it... and it looked revolting! |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:24:22 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Thats confirmed it, when I actually find myself agreeing with Gordon, the time for a break has definitely come! :) |
Glad I can help ;) |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:25:55 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then on the flip side, there's the bizzare combination of an architecture challenge with basic editing rules. Architectural photography is one of the few commercially viable applications of HDR photography. It is a theme perfectly matched to the new HDR rule set. So its being run with basic rules. Often it feels as if nobody is really paying much attention to the challenge definition and its just thrown out there as a last minute thing before Langdon goes to bed. |
No kidding. My jaw hit the floor when I saw this challenge. As a retired professional architectural photographer, I'm perhaps more aware than most how downright silly this is. The photography of architecture is one of the most technically demanding fields there is. HDRI imaging was tailor-made for this subject.
R. |
Then again, architecture is a pretty basic genre of photography, along with portraits, florals, landscapes, and the like. It's a good theme for new photographers or for those of us who can't/won't process a shot to death.
You're forgetting one of the basic premises of this site: learning. If you keep something as basic as architecture for the masters and all but require something as complicated as HDR to compete, how are the rest of us supposed to learn and improve? |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:29:04 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Brad I like your thinking. |
Me too, and I wish he wouldn't stay so quiet about it. We need more strong voices along the line of thought he just presented.
Thanks Brad. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:29:14 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No kidding. My jaw hit the floor when I saw this challenge. As a retired professional architectural photographer, I'm perhaps more aware than most how downright silly this is. The photography of architecture is one of the most technically demanding fields there is. HDRI imaging was tailor-made for this subject.
R. |
Robert, can't you see this as a challenge? Photographing architecture without the HDR-stuff? |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:34:13 PM · #42 |
I remember being a DPC newbie. Still use the same lense and camera and no new camera toys, yet. Seeing the work here really inspired me, and the Basic challenges really trained my eye to look for the details, that I appreciate since I like to get that one shot. Even when shooting for Advanced, still have the Basic mindset. Yes, things have gotten a bit boring as the themes dont inspire as much anymore, mostly due because I've seen and been through an interation already. With similar challenges running, I don't usually find myself entering a similar theme more than once. But that shouldn't be an excuse. Mainly finding it harder to be more creative, maybe it's just because I set the bar higher for myself and also been exposed to so many photos I want to punch out originality, which I didn't care as much about in the beginning during the earlier learning stages. Try out many things and it naturally gets harder to find something new to experiment with. With real world contraints, work, family etc... I still have my conceptual still life style ;) I want more landscapes and portraits.
Still, simply put DPC is still different and interesting enough to keep me here. There's nothing like it. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:35:13 PM · #43 |
I am VERY new to DPC. The first time that I looked at the site, I thought "these pictures are awesome!"...I was referring to the ones on the main page. I knew that I could not take a picture like that with how new I am to photography. I felt intimidated to say the least. That first time that I visited the website, I didn't sign up for an account.....It took me 5 times to visit to say that I wanted to join. I know that I'm not going to win any ribbons, but I do want people to see my vision....even if it's "ordinary". I will not buy a membership simply b/c I have no clue how to post process to make my images to look the way the ones on the front page do. Basic is fine by me, I just wish that I could enter in both open challenges.
I'm not someone that has been around for years and been through all the rule changes, but I believe there should be a challenge for every skill set. Entering a challenge against pro's is disheartening, but I'm not on this board for recognition. I'm here to point and shoot. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:37:31 PM · #44 |
Yeah.... I dunno... I have rarely picked up the camera over the last few winter months (apart from kids snap-shots)..... The various challenges have not really interested me enough to shot for them but I have never been one to shoot for a challenge specifically anyway. Beyond that, the stuff I shoot was for me and I have just been mind numbed with work/real-life crap for a while, so last thing I wanted to do is hassle for shooting. Have been doing a lot of reading on photg & design related topics though, so who knows - the bug is still there.
I had entries for a couple of free challenges over the winter but didn't bother in the end cause I knew the images would be 20th percentile even though I like them. Anyway; They are not the style that tends to do well here obviously.... or maybe my shots are just plain crap or worse snap-shots :-)
I tend to enter free challenges cause I don't like to read rules to figure if something I do is not allowed - just sick to death of rules everywhere else. I don't have an answer but I know that there are fewer and fewer images here that I really like cause there is no feeling to me... just a pretty facade..... nice images still but no depth if that makes sense (there are obviously exceptions).
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:41:13 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by XMountaineer:
...
Entering a challenge against pro's is disheartening, but I'm not on this board for recognition. ... |
That's the best part isn't it? just don't give up, and you'll get there. My goal for each challenge is to at least score higher are close to my avg. Just shoot for that, and it'll get better. You'll feel great knowing you beat out a multi ribbon winner one day. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:41:38 PM · #46 |
Back to topic: am also in a low re contest submissions. Hope to perk up with the BW side challenge. Still finding stuff to see and learn from. BUT I find myself on both sides of the pp issue AND REALLY would like more challenges based on photographic/camera technique, salted here and there with zany/OOB topics/concepts, AND CERTAINLY some straight from the camera ones.
Bummer about the architecture challenge: just found the alignment gizmo in paintnet! |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:43:43 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tnun:
BUT I find myself on both sides of the pp issue AND REALLY would like more challenges based on photographic/camera technique, salted here and there with zany/OOB topics/concepts, AND CERTAINLY some straight from the camera ones.
|
Originally posted by tnun:
Bummer about the architecture challenge: just found the alignment gizmo in paintnet! |
Humm... But didn't you just say, you would prefer more straight from the camera stuff? LOL! |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:45:29 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:47:26 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Yup. |
Must be that dang female rule again I guess... |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 02:54:42 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by biteme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No kidding. My jaw hit the floor when I saw this challenge. As a retired professional architectural photographer, I'm perhaps more aware than most how downright silly this is. The photography of architecture is one of the most technically demanding fields there is. HDRI imaging was tailor-made for this subject.
R. |
Robert, can't you see this as a challenge? Photographing architecture without the HDR-stuff? |
It might be a challenge, but it is also ignoring most of the standard tools that architectural photographers use.
If it is a learning site, then allowing standard tools like perspective shifts, skew adjustments and HDR to be used, which are the basics for architectural work these days, would make more sense than banning them in the architecture challenge.
if we want to attract new people, picking a ruleset that excludes all the standard techniques used by people who work in that challenge field doesn't make much sense, they'll just move on, amused.
Sure we could go out and buy tilt/shift lenses and maybe work around it - but it still seems a not particularly well thought out matching of theme and rules. Perhaps it was consciously decided to exclude all the typical techniques and approaches used for architectural photography. Maybe that decision really was carefully made. I have my doubts though. |
|
