| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2004 01:36:59 PM · #26 |
I don't think these shots scored low bc they were perceived as being PS-ed. I mean the winning shot was obviously PS-ed & it won. IMHO, these shots that you exemplified (with the exception of the first which faired pretty well in the rankings) are not that great of shots. There's nothing really special about them & are not so great to look at. Maybe, just maybe, they didnt score well bc they didnt appeal to the voters. I mean if voters are not looking at shots long enough to see everything in them then it stands to reason that most are not voting shots down bc they are too ps-ed.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 02:00:16 PM · #27 |
| Should the voter have to "give the photographer the benefit of the doubt"? Shouldn't the image convince the voter of it's "photographic integrity"? If the photog wants high scores his entry should convince beyoud doubt, because if it doesn't the ones that do will leave him in the dust. That is my view of how the voters will police out the digital art. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 02:32:05 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
I don't think these shots scored low bc they were perceived as being PS-ed. |
This image received the following comment:
"This doesn't even look like a photo, way too much editing."
Now the first part of that is fine, that's what it LOOKS LIKE to them. The second part is an unwarranted assumption which obviously influenced the voter's response. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 04:02:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
... 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. |
This has been attempted and articulated (trying to educate) via quite a few posts, eloquently, tactfully, even bluntly. The reality is, that while some consider and weigh such an effort, others either ignore or resist any information which could be beneficial to a context.
Ella's argument, as well as my supportive post, have little to do with liking or disliking the votes received for a given shot. It has to do with false accusations.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 04:15:33 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
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. |
I think this is a prime example of a question phrased as a statement...
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 05:10:11 PM · #31 |
one thing to keep in mind. the rules before also let you mangle up a photo pretty darn good. yet no one minded then when someone voting would say 'too ps'd'. or 'too much digital art'..
so what's changed? now that we have even more license to alter the heck out of a pic in post , that automatically should change our personal esthetic values to like pics that appear mangled albeit only under the old rules?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 05:31:39 PM · #32 |
I tend to agree with mag...
A comment that says 'looks too PSed' is valid, regardless if the image had any editing done at all. It still looks too edited for the tastes of the person voting after all.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 07:50:09 PM · #33 |
One more reason I'm glad I'm not a member. I'd vote everything I thought was photoshopped heavily (i.e. cloning, removing and adding stuff, changing the subject of the photo, creating a image) a big fat 1. I'm quite disappointed to see heavily photoshopped pictures winning the two most recent challenges. It has become a photoshop contest
No disrespect towards the winners. You were well within the rules and you deserved to win. You both did a great job and I'm in no way being critical of what you did.
PS this is just my opinion, I assure you nothing typed here can change my mind so please don't bother telling me that I'm wrong because I'm sure I am... |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 08:09:25 PM · #34 |
Perhaps, PaulMdx is following this thread, so he may see how the wind falls... ?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2004 10:09:04 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
I don't think these shots scored low bc they were perceived as being PS-ed. |
There's a common element in the three shots I posted and how well they should have done versus how well they did was certainly not it (for me). Personally, I think the candle shot is fantastic; I gave it a 10. I gave the winning photo a 9; it was clever. The other two shots scored below average (on my scale); they just didn't appeal to me.
Originally posted by Rooster:
Maybe, just maybe, they didnt score well bc they didnt appeal to the voters. |
Well, yeah.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
the rules before also let you mangle up a photo pretty darn good. yet no one minded then when someone voting would say 'too ps'd'. or 'too much digital art'.. |
Yeah, mangle is the right word. With the old rules you had to reach for extremes to achieve the "(over-)edited look". Just because no one said anything about PS-type comments, doesn't mean no one minded. Really.
Anyway, I certainly don't think it's about the editing rules per se nor about a change in aesthetic values. However, it has been made quite clear that, had the voter known the images were not photoshopped, they would have voted differently.
This hasn't happened in the past (old rules say) because the more restrictive (albeit too restrictive) editing rules also placed restrictions on the voters. With open editing comes a more open, interpretive voting process. Again, to me, this is a non-issue, but the "integrity" clause is a lame crutch, more so with less restrictions on editing.
Determining "integrity" is akin to measuring intent. Apart from magic, opening up the comment field or allowing actual conversation during voting both provide an opportunity for the photographer to convey intent and bring their integrity up for measure. If the image is to speak for itself, then voters ought to simply accept that it is a photograph first. Whether the voter likes the result is the only matter of importance. As for the process, it's simply speculation (during voting). |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 10:13:45 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
However, it has been made quite clear that, had the voter known the images were not photoshopped, they would have voted differently. |
It has? How so? |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 10:21:40 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by mk:
It has? How so? |
Figure it out. |
|
|
|
02/09/2004 10:23:15 PM · #38 |
ESP
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by mk:
It has? How so? |
Figure it out. |
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 06:37:22 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Determining "integrity" is akin to measuring intent. Apart from magic, opening up the comment field or allowing actual conversation during voting both provide an opportunity for the photographer to convey intent and bring their integrity up for measure. If the image is to speak for itself, then voters ought to simply accept that it is a photograph first. Whether the voter likes the result is the only matter of importance. As for the process, it's simply speculation (during voting). |
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - do we really care how it was produced, or do we just care that the end result looks unappealing ?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 07:36:46 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by gordon:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - do we really care how it was produced, or do we just care that the end result looks unappealing ? |
I think this is a prime example of a statement phrased as a question...
I think some people do care how it was produced. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 07:42:14 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think some people do care how it was produced. |
Why's that then ?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 07:45:05 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - do we really care how it was produced, or do we just care that the end result looks unappealing ? |
Sorry, I just don't agree with you that "looks too PSed" is equivalent to "this stopped being a photograph the minute you spilled PS milk all over it, so I'm voting like it ain't a photograph no more". Respected members of the community really ought to pay a little more respect to other photographers and photographs.
The process has become important (to some) when it ought not to be, not because it is unimportant, but because it is nearly completely unknown.
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 07:46:04. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 07:52:30 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think some people do care how it was produced. |
Why's that then ? |
It seem many people are more interested in the technical aspects of a photograph rather than the aesthetic qualities.
Perhaps we should have a dphowwasthattaken.com, then you don't even need the actual image. Those 'types' can just vote on it's technical description.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 07:53:54 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by louddog:
One more reason I'm glad I'm not a member. I'd vote everything I thought was photoshopped heavily (i.e. cloning, removing and adding stuff, changing the subject of the photo, creating a image) a big fat 1. I'm quite disappointed to see heavily photoshopped pictures winning the two most recent challenges. It has become a photoshop contest
|
And why would you do that.....? What do you have against removing some dust or dirt or adding some contrast etc etc
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 07:55:31 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by Gordon:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - do we really care how it was produced, or do we just care that the end result looks unappealing ? |
Sorry, I just don't agree with you that "looks too PSed" is equivalent to "this stopped being a photograph the minute you spilled PS milk all over it, so I'm voting like it ain't a photograph no more". Respected members of the community really ought to pay a little more respect to other photographers and photographs.
The process has become important (to some) when it ought not to be, not because it is unimportant, but because it is nearly completely unknown. |
or maybe, just maybe they are saying 'this looks like a really edited picture and I don't like pictures that look really edited.'
For me, personally I don't like the look of images that have been heavily and inexpertly or obviously photoshopped, not due to any dislike of the process, but because they look like cheap effects and are often uninteresting images.
If it was done with cokin filters I'd feel the same way - many of those images don't have any interest to me. I think people often articulate a dislike for photoshop when in fact they are trying to state that they dislike the end result, due to the obvious, heavy handed and poorly applied editing or effects.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 08:39:10 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why's that then ? |
Maybe it's because they place a higher value on camera skills than they do on editing skills.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
The process has become important (to some) when it ought not to be, not because it is unimportant, but because it is nearly completely unknown. |
The process became important when the rules were changed. Before that everyone used the same very basic editing techniques, so the process was known.
Originally posted by Gordon:
or maybe, just maybe they are saying 'this looks like a really edited picture and I don't like pictures that look really edited.' |
The votes from these people are valid too. Aren't the new rules supposed to produce better quality images? Are "pictures that look really edited" higher quality than ones that don't? I say no they are not, and therefore they should be voted lower. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 08:52:58 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why's that then ? |
Maybe it's because they place a higher value on camera skills than they do on editing skills. |
To which, I'd ask again - why's that ? What does the process have to do with the final image ? Do I care if someone braved rapids, climbed mountains and crawled on their hands and knees to make an average picture of a small plant ? Does the amount of effort that went in to it change what the final image looks like ? Why is the editing any
different ? Aren't we voting on the final image ?
Originally posted by coolhar:
Aren't the new rules supposed to produce better quality images? Are "pictures that look really edited" higher quality than ones that don't? I say no they are not, and therefore they should be voted lower. |
The rules give the potential for higher quality images. As I already said, images that are obviously heavily edited, typically are obviously badly edited (because if it wasn't obvious, it wouldn't look 'really edited'
i.e., if the effects applied are the most striking thing about an image, then often it is a poor image (after all, the point usually isn't the editing done or the effect used, it should be the actual image)
Regardless of if it is a gimmicky cokin glass filter or a PS filter. You don't want to see the 'man behind the curtain' in Wizard of Oz terms. Masterful photoshop work, like clever photographic work shouldn't be visible.
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 08:56:05.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 09:05:56 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
or maybe, just maybe they are saying 'this looks like a really edited picture and I don't like pictures that look really edited.' |
Yes, postmodernism is a double-edged sword.
I guess the new rules have placed us in this place where essentially all entries are valid. Of course, all opinions (comments & votes) are valid too. Where one might request an image be validated (disqualified or admin stamped), we don't do that now. Where I have taken issue with the analysis, however brief, in comments, I forget that my analysis has the benefit of hindsight. Only the photographer may legitimately respond to what they might consider unfair analysis (if it is given).
If the final result (the image) is of utmost importance during voting, then the vote itself must also be of utmost importance; the comment is merely a clue as to that voting process and may be only peripheral during voting, as confounding perhaps as the photographer's process.
In other words: Oops, I was wrong (and right!), but I can't promise it won't happen again. Apply liberally to others too.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 09:12:10 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by Gordon:
or maybe, just maybe they are saying 'this looks like a really edited picture and I don't like pictures that look really edited.' |
Yes, postmodernism is a double-edged sword.
I guess the new rules have placed us in this place where essentially all entries are valid. Of course, all opinions (comments & votes) are valid too. Where one might request an image be validated (disqualified or admin stamped), we don't do that now. Where I have taken issue with the analysis, however brief, in comments, I forget that my analysis has the benefit of hindsight. Only the photographer may legitimately respond to what they might consider unfair analysis (if it is given).
If the final result (the image) is of utmost importance during voting, then the vote itself must also be of utmost importance; the comment is merely a clue as to that voting process and may be only peripheral during voting, as confounding perhaps as the photographer's process.
In other words: Oops, I was wrong (and right!), but I can't promise it won't happen again. Apply liberally to others too. |
Urgh. I hate this :) no offense. Much like the deconstructionist approach that the photographer can't say what the image means with any more validity than someone looking at it can. They took the picture, they know why they took it, they understand the purpose and meaning better than anyone else can. All that can happen is viewers can explain what it means to them - but is that more valid ?
I don't think the new rules placed us in this position any more than the old rules did. Many common digital and film techniques are still not allowed by the current rules.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 09:30:45 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't think the new rules placed us in this position any more than the old rules did. Many common digital and film techniques are still not allowed by the current rules. |
Offense: non taken.
Yes, "valid" was just the closest word, not necessarily the nearest thought. Perhaps in another rant...
Since I don't know the stats on the number of DQ requests, I can't say with certainty one way or another whether the rules have changed it. I merely suspect it has.
I'm not a very good gauge on the "validity" side of things anyway. I wouldn't submit a DQ request under any set of rules. |
|
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 04:24:20 PM EDT.
