| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2009 11:00:49 PM · #76 |
I just loaded a shot for the free study in 800px (more landscape than portrait) and it looks sooooo much better than it would at 720px.
I gotta scroll/F11 to see an 800px in portrait on my laptop, but I think the decision to increase the size was ultimately the right one. For all the people who purchase DSLRs and DPC is your major reason for shooting on a regular basis (like me), it is a waste to have all that fire power just to post a 720px photo.
Once again, thank you Langdon. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 12:16:20 AM · #77 |
Hey Ken ( MrChevy),
How would you like it if someone took this photo of your ex-wife:
and posted it all over the internet, or on billboards, etc. and there would be little you could do about it?
If your answer is "that's fine", then you don't need watermarking. However, if this ticks you off, then maybe some watermarking is in order.
.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 00:17:21.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 05:11:02 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
Hey Ken ( MrChevy),
How would you like it if someone took this photo of your ex-wife:
and posted it all over the internet, or on billboards, etc. and there would be little you could do about it?
If your answer is "that's fine", then you don't need watermarking. However, if this ticks you off, then maybe some watermarking is in order.
. |
Don't we already have a wateramrking thread, or do you just like hijacking? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 02:13:23 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Don't we already have a wateramrking thread...? |
This one had morphed into a watermarking thread long ago.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 01:30:21 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by langdon:
Kind folks, we are considering the watermarking idea. Please keep the discussion limited to the topic at hand. If you want to continue the watermark discussion, create a new thread (or find one of the many existing threads). |
Guess you missed this one, Photologist. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 01:31:37 PM · #81 |
| Looking through the Rainbow challenge, I am ECSTATIC to finally see images on a decent monitor at high resolution that still maintain sufficient detail. Awesome, and thanks again, Langdon!! Now, onto more happy voting! |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 06:33:02 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
How stupid of me. I never realized DPC was a place to sell photos. Look how stupid I am, all of these years I thought it was a photo contest place.
It is sort of like you going to work in a really hi class restaurant as a waiter and as you hand the customers their menu's you tell them;"Here is MY business card, I DO photography on the side and would be glad to give you my rates and etc..."
I would just wager that the first manager who seen you do that would ask what you thought you were doing and then would hand you your paycheck and show you the door.
I see nothing wrong with watermarking on your own website, that is up to you. I know that when I go to websites to look at photos, that if they have big watermarks on them or names than I just click close on that browser window.
|
Apparently you have never seen the DPC Prints part of the site? I am pretty sure they are sellint prints there. However for visitors it is pretty easy if they see a print they like even on dpc prints to find the uploaded contest pic and now at the larger resolution many of them will find it "good enough" for them to print off. The problem with DPC prints is that it will now start working in reverse. It is supposed to allow someone who likes your contest pic to be able to purchase a print. Now with the larger resolution it will enable folks browsing dpc prints to find the original contest pic through a name search and just swipe that one for free at 800x800.
I voted FOR the larger resolution because I had an inkling it would come with a watermarking option. It didn't (so far) so I am unsure if I will be entering until we have a watermarking option. I may still enter vertical shots at the former 720 pixel resolution because as a vertical hopefully it would not get voted down for being that size.
My preference would be that since we now have the larger resolution we have a watermarking option which is #1 an option that you opt into so those that do not like it can choose not to....if you really believe it discourages others from viewing then your photos will get more views then mine because yours does not have the watermark! and #2 that there is NO watermarking during the voting so the photos are not obstructed in any way. I am sure 99% of the photos stolen from here are after the voting stage where they will live in perpetuity.
If watermarking is NOT implemented then the site needs to allow people to withdraw their photos at will. I would then pull all my photos after voting was over. We are presently giving DPC permission to keep them on the site forever (which is insane and needs to be changed...immediatly) and therefor DPC needs to give those that choose to, the ability to protect their work with a watermark. To stay relatively on topic that is essential now that we have the larger resolution available. Otherwise many (like myself) will be very selective in the work they enter. (if at all) |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 06:57:36 PM · #83 |
Ernie ( basssman7) - Your quote is messed up. That quote belongs to MrChevy, not Les ( Photologist). |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 07:24:28 PM · #84 |
I can't believe how many of you are in favor of this form of torture! I would think that there would be more compassionate people around here, willing to
Oooooooooh. My apologies. I thought this thread was about waterboarding. Sorry. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 07:29:45 PM · #85 |
Yeah, what he said!! Thanks, Barry.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 19:30:05.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:16:22 PM · #86 |
Seriously, quit discussing watermarking in this thread!
Instead, I'll try to steal the thread to bring up the idea of darkening the background of the page. Someone else mentioned it in the beginning of this thread, and it's been up before. Who does not agree that most images look better on a darker background? This gray is good for forums, but the photos deserve darkness!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:20:39 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by johst582:
Who does not agree that most images look better on a darker background? This gray is good for forums, but the photos deserve darkness! |
Industry professionals do not agree -- the industry standard ambient conditions for viewing images is 18% neutral gray. "Most images look better ..." suggests that some would not, and could give an unfair advantage to those which do.
If you feel your picture requires a darker background, you can add a border.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 14:22:25. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:28:25 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johst582:
Who does not agree that most images look better on a darker background? This gray is good for forums, but the photos deserve darkness! |
Industry professionals do not agree -- the industry standard ambient conditions for viewing images is 18% neutral gray. "Most images look better ..." suggests that some would not, and could give an unfair advantage to those which do.
If you feel your picture requires a darker background, you can add a border. |
It's not the first time that the industry professionals were wrong! I say darker background!! |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:31:17 PM · #89 |
As for the increased size...
Has it been considered that photo "flaws" may be magnified as well? For example, that noise is more apparent, thereby giving an increased advantage to those with high-end gear? Or am I wrong that this is the case?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:56:38 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johst582:
Who does not agree that most images look better on a darker background? This gray is good for forums, but the photos deserve darkness! |
Industry professionals do not agree -- the industry standard ambient conditions for viewing images is 18% neutral gray. "Most images look better ..." suggests that some would not, and could give an unfair advantage to those which do.
If you feel your picture requires a darker background, you can add a border. |
Paul, you've said that before. :-)
I'd still like to see choices available to the photographer when submitting a challenge entry. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:17:58 PM · #91 |
Seems to have been missed before too. The photographer has that choice now -- like I said, just add a border. Other than that, voting needs to be done under standardized conditions to be fair. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:43:53 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Seems to have been missed before too. The photographer has that choice now -- like I said, just add a border. Other than that, voting needs to be done under standardized conditions to be fair. |
I replied to this in the old thread. Reposting here:
Paul, what if we gave the voters a limited option to change the background? In other words, add three links at the bottom of the photo so that you can view the image in white, grey or black. The default can be grey like it is now. What would be wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:50:53 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Seems to have been missed before too. The photographer has that choice now -- like I said, just add a border. Other than that, voting needs to be done under standardized conditions to be fair. |
Oh yeah, SURE! Add a big border to your image and see what happens to your score...it wouldn't be pretty. :-( |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:17:15 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Oh yeah, SURE! Add a big border to your image and see what happens to your score...it wouldn't be pretty. :-( |
Did you happen to notice the results of Foliage? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:50:31 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Oh yeah, SURE! Add a big border to your image and see what happens to your score...it wouldn't be pretty. :-( |
Did you happen to notice the results of Foliage? |
Sure I did...those have letterbox borders, which are fairly common. Too get the impact of isolating an image with enough border to make a difference in presentation, you'd need somewhere in the range of 35-50 pixels on all four sides.
A solid background would be much more efficient. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 12:07:59 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Paul, what if we gave the voters a limited option to change the background? In other words, add three links at the bottom of the photo so that you can view the image in white, grey or black. The default can be grey like it is now. What would be wrong with that? |
The photographer having that option would be fine for Portfolio images, but I think that the challenge entries should all be judged under the same conditions. If the voting pages are now lighter than 18% gray, I'd be fine with darkening them to that extent -- I've never checked them myself, but I think someone mentioned they might only be 10% gray. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 12:57:53 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Paul, what if we gave the voters a limited option to change the background? In other words, add three links at the bottom of the photo so that you can view the image in white, grey or black. The default can be grey like it is now. What would be wrong with that? |
The photographer having that option would be fine for Portfolio images, but I think that the challenge entries should all be judged under the same conditions. If the voting pages are now lighter than 18% gray, I'd be fine with darkening them to that extent -- I've never checked them myself, but I think someone mentioned they might only be 10% gray. |
It's always been too light for me. When I edit in Photoshop I use a darker grey background and sometimes black. I cringe every time I look at my photos on this site. Even when I re-edit just for DPC it still doesn't look as intended. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 01:55:01 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
Yeah, what he said!! Thanks, Barry. |
Sorry about that. I stand happily corrected. :) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 09:04:37 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Paul, what if we gave the voters a limited option to change the background? In other words, add three links at the bottom of the photo so that you can view the image in white, grey or black. The default can be grey like it is now. What would be wrong with that? |
The photographer having that option would be fine for Portfolio images, but I think that the challenge entries should all be judged under the same conditions. If the voting pages are now lighter than 18% gray, I'd be fine with darkening them to that extent -- I've never checked them myself, but I think someone mentioned they might only be 10% gray. |
The choice being left to the photographer would be similar to changing the mat for printed photos being judged at an art show. Either the photographer made the right choice or not. Let the voters decide if they like the bg color choice made. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 09:06:34 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by yanko:
It's always been too light for me. When I edit in Photoshop I use a darker grey background and sometimes black. I cringe every time I look at my photos on this site. Even when I re-edit just for DPC it still doesn't look as intended. Oh well. |
Same here. I've started using the preview in web browser option in PSP X2 to see what my photo looks like on the DPC voting page bg color. Many times it's been disappointing to see the difference on the light gray vs black or charcoal gray. :-/ |
|
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: 08/07/2025 02:02:44 PM EDT.
