| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2004 07:30:47 AM · #1 |
Apparently, taking actual photographs isn't enough to maintain "integrity" anymore.
Here's a thought: Take off the magic "we know a PS job from a photograph" glasses, toss them in the garbage, and vote as though everything you see wasn't the product of über-editing.
The specious "integrity" argument reminds me of the "doesn't meet the challenge" threads (though the teams are slightly different).
I guess we need a big red administrator stamp that says "meets with some stupid idea of photographic integrity" so voters can make informed decisions.
Cases in point:
 |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 07:54:33 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 07:57:16 AM · #3 |
I think he means, that these shots were voted down for appearing to be too photoshopped, when in fact, they had minimal PS work. Correct me if Im wrong.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 08:09:27 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
I think he means, that these shots were voted down for appearing to be too photoshopped, when in fact, they had minimal PS work. Correct me if Im wrong. |
I'm pretty sure that is what he meant too. I didn't give the shots a 1 but two of them did score low for me simply because they didn't appeal to me. The candle shot did well, gave it an 8 even though I too thought it was heavily photoshopped, but the other two scored 4's simply because they didn't really appeal to me on a personal level, they didn't look realistic and I'm not into abstract that much. I still don't see or understand how the bottom shot was done, ellamay's I do since we also have a place nearby where you can do the same type thing but the effect she ended up with ended up looking more x-rayish than shadowish.
Deannda
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 08:33:45 AM · #5 |
Well, it turns out that these shots were photographs, and not acheived thru post processing.
I can definately see how someone would assume that though. I did not get to vote this challenge...Kudos to the photographers for their creativity. ... perhaps 'too creative'? :P
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 08:34:04 AM · #6 |
I think people are too soon to judge a bad image on photoshop techniques rather than pure insipid photography.
In my opinion, the shaddow challenge was dull, and it will always have been simply due to the challenge criteria. Taking a good shot of your own shaddow is nigh impossible.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 08:39:07 AM · #7 |
I really liked the Candle shot, I thought it was a very good idea, I did not really think it had that much PS work, it was just really well thought out to put a black glove on her hand. I would have gave her a 9! The other photos I did not vote on but if I did would not have scored very high just because they did not appeal too me that much..Sorry!
Melissa
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 10:12:19 AM · #8 |
I gave the candle shot a good score, because I like it.
I gave the other 2 low scores because I don't like them, not because they don't meet some standard for photographic integrity. I looked at them again, and I would not score them any differently now.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 11:15:35 AM · #9 |
The point is that "photographic integrity" can't exist in these challenges, except after voting. There's never enough information (exception: title) to know with certainty where an image falls within the editing spectrum.
Having a clause about it in the rules is irrelevant: People (tend to) vote based on how much they like an image. Besides, you cannot quell a wave of digital art voters. For now, there's a great leaning towards nearly-representational-minus-distraction images; who knows what it'll be like in a year.
While I think editing should be unrestricted, it seems that if challengers are not corraled by editing rules, voters tend to give the photographer less credit for their photography skills/creativity and attribute more to editing. In a way, the old rules were more challenging. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 11:16:33 AM · #10 |
thx dwool for adding my shot to your list, this was not one of my personal fav's of my own work, but as you were saying, it was NOT PS'ed to get effect, and I appreciate my 'integrity' being vouched for! Thank you!
p.s. i agree with the stamp idea! I also agree that the old rules at least made people think "i wonder how that was done', and if thought was PSed ask for dq and then get credit or not.
Message edited by author 2004-02-09 11:19:47. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 11:21:28 AM · #11 |
| They are voted down because there is no Cat/bug/flower/kid or sunset there! |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 11:44:16 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Apparently, taking actual photographs isn't enough to maintain "integrity" anymore.
Here's a thought: Take off the magic "we know a PS job from a photograph" glasses, toss them in the garbage, and vote as though everything you see wasn't the product of über-editing.
The specious "integrity" argument reminds me of the "doesn't meet the challenge" threads (though the teams are slightly different).
I guess we need a big red administrator stamp that says "meets with some stupid idea of photographic integrity" so voters can make informed decisions.
Cases in point: (3 examples) |
I fully and vehemently agree with dwoolridge.
What I find particularly appalling is the unexamined certainty of condemnations in the comments. I cannot count the times I have tried to encourage the use of question marks instead of periods and exclamation marks after such unsubstantiated statements of opinion.
It seems only reasonable that one asks for the facts before levying such heavy-handed judgement.
Message edited by author 2004-02-09 11:44:57.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 11:55:51 AM · #13 |
| Leaving comments is supposed to be a one way street for voters to give their insights and helpful tips. It is not supposed to be a device for initiating a two-way conversation during voting. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:01:06 PM · #14 |
| Yes, but is TELLING someone there shot is PSed when the fotog knows it is not helpful or insightful? I think zz's point is that these things should be 'assumed' vs. declared, and phrased tentatively vs. assuredly. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:16:10 PM · #15 |
| then one wouldn't mark the comment as helpful, that's all... nothing "appalling" about that... |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:19:31 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by basia03:
then one wouldn't mark the comment as helpful, that's all... nothing "appalling" about that... |
What is appalling, basia, is when someone is falsely accused of an act he/she did not commit.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:19:45 PM · #17 |
| Rather than get all upset because the commenter didn't use a question mark, why can't we all just understand that it's a given that whatever they write is their opinion? |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:24:33 PM · #18 |
| I agree ellamay. My point was that if you use a question mark some photographers will take that as an invitation to reply with more info about their entry. And BINGO, there goes anonymity. The identity of the photog, or the info in the reply, has an impact on the commenter and he decides to change the score from a 4 to a 7, or to a 1. And BINGO, there goes the integrity of the challenge. Until dpc goes back to commenters identity being kept secret during voting everyone who desires a fair competition should discourage the two way street that questions in comments open. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:26:20 PM · #19 |
you made your point, zeuszen, i just happen to disagree with you, that’s allâ€Â¦
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:30:06 PM · #20 |
But it's upsetting when their opinion is based on their own misperception/misinterpretation of what they are seeing. The term "PSed" is also only being used here in the pejorative sense, and is the functional equivalent to saying "you failed at taking this photo so you had to fake it with editing." It is always upsetting to be accused when you know you are innocent.
What's the appropriate resonse to such a comment? How do you get people to vote on what they see rather than how they assume (ASS+U+ME) it was achieved? Prejudice is almost always an ugly thing .... |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 12:48:14 PM · #21 |
Opinions are not the end all be all. Life is filled with things bigger than MY view. Subjectivity has a place, but so does objective reality.
( Gen E stated it very well.)
Message edited by author 2004-02-09 12:53:47. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 01:22:54 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But it's upsetting when their opinion is based on their own misperception/misinterpretation of what they are seeing. The term "PSed" is also only being used here in the pejorative sense, and is the functional equivalent to saying "you failed at taking this photo so you had to fake it with editing." It is always upsetting to be accused when you know you are innocent. |
indeed/agreed |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 01:30:44 PM · #23 |
People can only vote for themselves with their own perceptions and knowledge. I see a lot of people complaining, but I don't see anyone trying to educating voters to improve their perception and interpretation.
As coolhar said - voting is a one way street. By submitting shots to DPC you're accepting the voting public as they are. If you don't like the way they vote, either use the forums to provide insight to help these people, or don't submit. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 01:30:46 PM · #24 |
| Maybe it was a mistake to add to the rules the suggestion to include a comment with a low vote. Before the rules were changed many argued that relaxed rules would lead to digital art replacing digital photography but were told that the voters would discourage/prevent that. Isn't that what the voters are doing now? If so it should be accepted. Imagine for a moment that a voter is sincerely trying to vote on what they see rather than how they assume it was achieved, but what they see is, in their perception, digital art, or something that they don't believe can be acheived without the use of digital art type techniques, so they vote it low. Isn't that voter preforming the function that was projected for them when it was decided to relax the rules? Expecting and encouraging polite, carefully worded comments is desirable; but not at the price of discouraging the voters from policing the digital art. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 01:31:48 PM · #25 |
Personally, I try not to be arrogant enough to think that just because "I" can't think of a way to do a photo without drawing it in PhotoShop means that no one else can, either. I recognize that I don't know everything, so I have to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. I would have never thought of using the black glove for the candle, the only processing being to blur the glove a little to match the shadow. And indeed, when voting, I would have wondered how that effect was achieved. In wondering, however, I would have simply been excited to see the photog's comments after the challenge to see how it was done. I wouldn't just assume it was all done outside the realm of "photographic integrity" and vote it down.
|
|
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: 08/28/2025 11:04:03 AM EDT.
