Why did this TA NK so hard? - DPChallenge Forums

10/08/2009 03:45:38 PM · #26

Originally posted by johst582:

I agree that your photo should have scored better, Zeuszen.

Since this was a free study advanced editing challenge, the DPC crowd may have been extra picky about the technical quality of the photo (and they are very anal about technicals to start with!). The bright white reflection in the top left and the grain in the dark parts may be a bit distracting, but the rest is wonderful. It looks just like an oil painting!

I added the grain and thought the petroglyphic reflection serendipitous! ::D
Hey, thanks for looking and sharing. I wouldn't have thought of this.

steve100

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

10/08/2009 04:01:06 PM · #27

I think the problem is simple , if the title was twisted OR curved your photo would probably have done better , most people (IMHO) when viewing to score, remember the title of the challenge ONLY. I feel some of the challenges are a liitle LOOSE lately and should be a little more stringent in what is being asked of the photographer , personally I believe there have been a lot of DNMC's lately due to the 'open' rules etc.

sorry late as usual this was in reply to the original post

Message edited by author 2009-10-08 16:01:52.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

10/08/2009 04:25:46 PM · #28

...

Message edited by author 2009-10-08 19:40:30.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

10/09/2009 08:38:14 AM · #29

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by Jac:
I don't see any twisting lines, lots of curvy lines but no twists. I didn't read any of the replies so please excuse me if I'm repeating what has been already pointed out. Love the shot though.

jacyou kind of confirmed my point made in an earlier post about how people vote more to meet the title and do not place as much importance on the description which in this case said "includes curved or twisted lines". So when I look at a challenge to create an image I try to put more priority on the title because I think it will connect with more voters.

I stopped reading the descriptions long ago. Title should say it all. A twist is not the same as a curve so the title should have been Twists and Curls or Twisted and Curved and not just Twisted. I think I'll participate in challenges that have no description apart from the title from now on since so many twist the description to their pov and block out all other interpretations, and then give many legitimate entries a low score. Typical DPC behaviour.

I agree, the twist title and the description for twist were not even what you would expect, it was like having a Blue challenge and saying in the description include something that is blue or green in your photo. You could go with green if you read the description but you would get hammered in voting because you did not have a blue subject. Moral of the story stay close to the title........

Good example. Langdon should try to leave the descriptions out for a while to see if the images will be more centered on what the title is depicting rather than a mish mash of everybody's interpretations. Maybe the quality of the images will go up too seeing we're all concentrated on one similar theme instead of trying this and that and whatnot.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

10/09/2009 08:46:17 AM · #30

Originally posted by Jac:

I don't think the descriptions are a bad thing whether people read them or not. It's bad when they don't match especially if the description add things that could be Challenges unto themselves. They just need to be authored well...or better.

Message edited by author 2009-10-09 08:47:57.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/09/2009 08:53:52 AM · #31

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by Jac:
I don't see any twisting lines, lots of curvy lines but no twists. I didn't read any of the replies so please excuse me if I'm repeating what has been already pointed out. Love the shot though.

jacyou kind of confirmed my point made in an earlier post about how people vote more to meet the title and do not place as much importance on the description which in this case said "includes curved or twisted lines". So when I look at a challenge to create an image I try to put more priority on the title because I think it will connect with more voters.

I stopped reading the descriptions long ago. Title should say it all. A twist is not the same as a curve so the title should have been Twists and Curls or Twisted and Curved and not just Twisted. I think I'll participate in challenges that have no description apart from the title from now on since so many twist the description to their pov and block out all other interpretations, and then give many legitimate entries a low score. Typical DPC behaviour.

I agree, the twist title and the description for twist were not even what you would expect, it was like having a Blue challenge and saying in the description include something that is blue or green in your photo. You could go with green if you read the description but you would get hammered in voting because you did not have a blue subject. Moral of the story stay close to the title........

Good example. Langdon should try to leave the descriptions out for a while to see if the images will be more centered on what the title is depicting rather than a mish mash of everybody's interpretations. Maybe the quality of the images will go up too seeing we're all concentrated on one similar theme instead of trying this and that and whatnot.

'Twist' and 'Twisted' being used in the same breath, yet their definitions aren't always the same.

Interesting exercise to search out the definitions of the word 'Twisted'; if that had been the challenge without a description it could mean...

(Merriam-Websters)
: mentally or emotionally unsound or disturbed : sick

(The Free Dictionary)
1. Something twisted or formed by twisting, especially:
a. A length of yarn, cord, or thread, especially a strong silk thread used mainly to bind the edges of buttonholes.
b. Tobacco leaves processed into the form of a rope or roll.
c. A loaf of bread or other bakery product made from pieces of dough twisted together.
d. A sliver of citrus peel twisted over or dropped into a beverage for flavoring.
2. The act of twisting or the condition of being twisted; a spin, twirl, or rotation.
3. Sports
a. A complete rotation of the body around its vertical axis, as in diving and gymnastics.
b. A spinning motion given to a ball when thrown or struck in a specific way.
4.
a. The state of being twisted into a spiral; torsional stress or strain.
b. The degree or angle of torsional stress.
5.
a. A contortion or distortion of the body, especially the face.
b. A distortion of meaning: gave my words a misleading twist.
6. A sprain or wrench, as of an ankle.
7. A change in direction; a turn: a sharp twist in the path.
8. An unexpected change in a process or a departure from a pattern, often producing a distortion or perversion: a twist of fate; a story with a quirky twist.
9. A personal inclination or eccentricity; a penchant or flaw: an odd twist to his character.
10. A dance characterized by vigorous gyrations of the hips and arms.

Personally, I like having challenge descriptions. Most of the time they are helpful.

edit - typo

Message edited by author 2009-10-09 08:54:40.

10/09/2009 09:38:33 AM · #32

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by johst582:
I agree that your photo should have scored better, Zeuszen.

the DPC crowd may have been extra picky about the technical quality of the photo (and they are very anal about technicals to start with!). The bright white reflection in the top left and the grain in the dark parts may be a bit distracting, but the rest is wonderful. It looks just like an oil painting!

I'd say if he did what he wanted to do and achieved the look he wanted, it's technically perfect.

Actually there are some serious technical issues, blown highlights and lack of focus. Personally I like those sorts of things, they give an image rawness, interpretation and life and this one (I mean the picture of the sea not my snotty one) is in my eyes just stupendeously wonderfull. However its a matter of taste

which is why such images score pretty nicely with commentators but tend to bomb with the rest of the viewers.

Message edited by author 2009-10-09 09:39:21.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/09/2009 09:43:28 AM · #33

1. your picture was fun and humorous, DPC voters hate that.
2. your picture required reading the challenge description, DPC voters hate that.

Face it, you were doomed.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/09/2009 11:05:01 PM · #34

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:

...Actually there are some serious technical issues, blown highlights and lack of focus...

The highlights, in fact, couldn't be more contained. There is detail in the brightest parts of the wave at 100% due to spot-metering the whitest whites of the shot. There is no detail in the flickering reflection painted against the near-black, because there was no detail to preserve in what was and is, essentially, pure light, if the human eye is the measure.

I suspect that what you perceived as lack of focus is in fact the result (and effect) of a slow exposure, 1/10s at f 11, to be precise. The degree of focus (whether or not the points of focus are sharp or not) may be judged by the solitary suspended drops and errant spray ahead of the wave.

Message edited by author 2009-10-09 23:05:51.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/10/2009 12:25:15 AM · #35

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:
...Actually there are some serious technical issues, blown highlights and lack of focus...

The highlights, in fact, couldn't be more contained. There is detail in the brightest parts of the wave at 100% due to spot-metering the whitest whites of the shot. There is no detail in the flickering reflection painted against the near-black, because there was no detail to preserve in what was and is, essentially, pure light, if the human eye is the measure.

I suspect that what you perceived as lack of focus is in fact the result (and effect) of a slow exposure, 1/10s at f 11, to be precise. The degree of focus (whether or not the points of focus are sharp or not) may be judged by the solitary suspended drops and errant spray ahead of the wave.

I'll back ya up on that; indeed, the image is a more-or-less perfect example of Zone System values, for whatever that's worth. Blown highlights? Ridiculous...

R.

10/10/2009 05:46:55 AM · #36

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:
...Actually there are some serious technical issues, blown highlights and lack of focus...

The highlights, in fact, couldn't be more contained. There is detail in the brightest parts of the wave at 100% due to spot-metering the whitest whites of the shot. There is no detail in the flickering reflection painted against the near-black, because there was no detail to preserve in what was and is, essentially, pure light, if the human eye is the measure.

I suspect that what you perceived as lack of focus is in fact the result (and effect) of a slow exposure, 1/10s at f 11, to be precise. The degree of focus (whether or not the points of focus are sharp or not) may be judged by the solitary suspended drops and errant spray ahead of the wave.

I'll back ya up on that; indeed, the image is a more-or-less perfect example of Zone System values, for whatever that's worth. Blown highlights? Ridiculous...

R.

10/10/2009 05:49:07 AM · #37

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:
...Actually there are some serious technical issues, blown highlights and lack of focus...

The highlights, in fact, couldn't be more contained. There is detail in the brightest parts of the wave at 100% due to spot-metering the whitest whites of the shot. There is no detail in the flickering reflection painted against the near-black, because there was no detail to preserve in what was and is, essentially, pure light, if the human eye is the measure.

I suspect that what you perceived as lack of focus is in fact the result (and effect) of a slow exposure, 1/10s at f 11, to be precise. The degree of focus (whether or not the points of focus are sharp or not) may be judged by the solitary suspended drops and errant spray ahead of the wave.

I'll back ya up on that; indeed, the image is a more-or-less perfect example of Zone System values, for whatever that's worth. Blown highlights? Ridiculous...

R.

Eeek don't misunderstand the inaccurate ramblings of a noob I think the image is just utterly fantastic if I'd voted it would have been an 8 or 9, I'm just trying to make sense of why photos like this sometimes bomb in DPC.

10/10/2009 06:51:25 AM · #38

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Dood I'm not trying to dish your picture, its amongst the best I've seen here. I was just trying to get into an overcritical mind set, role playing a troll if you like. Its not working though, I fail to see why your picture scored slightly less than my overprocessed tat ...

10/10/2009 11:44:49 AM · #39

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:

...Dood I'm not trying to dish your picture...

I get that and appreciate it, besides I invited any dishing anyone can come up with. I did, however, need to compare the specifics of your post with the facts, so these shouldn't get in the way of reality. I'm still grateful for your chiming in, although it is, admittedly, the first time, anyone called me a "dood".

Message edited by author 2009-10-10 12:57:56.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

10/10/2009 08:40:55 PM · #40

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:
...Dood I'm not trying to dish your picture...

although it is, admittedly, the first time, anyone called me a "dood".

oh dear !!!! please don't tell me that 'dood' is something horrid in Canadian.... in England it just means 'hey' with an implied downgrading or upgrading of emphasis (depending on context) with a gramatical assignment of third person singular.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

10/10/2009 09:45:12 PM · #41

That is a unique spelling, though I understood the meaning. I normally see it spelled as "dude".

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/10/2009 10:04:17 PM · #42

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

That is a unique spelling, though I understood the meaning. I normally see it spelled as "dude".

Yah, and its colloquial usage comes from California surfer culture. Originated there anyway, it's spread all over the world.

R.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/10/2009 10:31:56 PM · #43

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
That is a unique spelling, though I understood the meaning. I normally see it spelled as "dude".

Yah, and its colloquial usage comes from California surfer culture. Originated there anyway, it's spread all over the world.

R.

Knarly waves today, dood.

johst582

Nikon D80

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/11/2009 04:59:37 AM · #44

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I added the grain and thought the petroglyphic reflection serendipitous! ::D
Hey, thanks for looking and sharing. I wouldn't have thought of this.

Perhaps my monitor is set too bright, but to me it looks like the dark areas have a "streaky" kind of noise in the vertical direction. This could be something other than noise, but since the direction is against the flow of the water it doesn't look like it should be there. This photo is a lot about texture, and the texture in that area is not up to par with the fabulous texture of the frothing water in the brighter parts. I would have tried motion-blurring the dark water in the direction of flow to make it velvety smooth and thus create a contrast in texture between the dark and the bright.

(Diplomatic disclaimer: I like the photo and am only trying to help - I think you should have scored better.)

10/11/2009 06:14:42 AM · #45

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

That is a unique spelling, though I understood the meaning. I normally see it spelled as "dude".

Ah..... I'm dyslexic and there is no speling checker. Still joking aside the R key has fallen of my keboard, thats my excuse and I'm stikcing to it.