| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2010 02:35:42 AM · #26 |
At the risk of getting drawn into yet another pedantic DNMC discussion, I would like to point out that a score is not only representative of whether it meets the challenge. There are other aspects to be taken into account. Whether this image can be considered long exposure or not (to my mind it is not a great example of a long exposure, OK for motion blur but even then, not a great example of that), there are other elements at play which impact the score, so the assumption that the low score is only attributed to DNMC may be a bit off too.
I personally think the colours are over saturated, there is some banding in the sky (at least when looking on my crappy work monitor), overall it has a rather snapshotish feel to it. Clearly you put a lot of effort into it, but it certainly doesn't look like that. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 02:35:46 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Alex_Europa:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is 1/8th a long exposure?
 |
Yes...your motion blur is longer which would not have happened at 1/125th. OPs image at 1/8th would have had more of an impact. |
I agree. I tried to get something slower but I couldn't keep the foot even reasonably sharp.
- Alex |
I think a blur of the "pedaling" foot would have been nice.. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 02:43:02 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Alex_Europa:
Originally posted by Prash:
Alright boy. You were warned. |
First off, calling me "boy" is rude; especially since you know nothing about me. Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to question it.
|
I realize that. And I apologize.
Originally posted by Alex_Europa:
Originally posted by Prash:
[1] Now bring me a definition of long exposure that talks about a specific duration of time, and we will talk. |
That is precisely my point. There ISN'T specific duration, so what caused you to choose 1 second for yours? You ARE welcome to your opinion, I am simply trying to discuss WHY that's your opinion. That's what a DISCUSSION forum is for. |
But then there should be no discussion. Since there is no standard definition, each one would have their own interpretation. Would you then go to each voter and question their interpretation? Won't it be easier to self improve?
Originally posted by Alex_Europa:
Originally posted by Prash:
[2] Regardless of whether you opened the shutter for 1 second or 10 seconds, your entry lacks the visual appeal that would engage the viewer and make them rate it high. You can only force the voters to rate your image high: by creating engaging images. This one didn't. DrAchoo's did. No one had any idea what exposure time you used at the time of voting. The image was judged solely on it;s visual merit. |
I agree that it didn't have the visual appeal, but that's NOT what the discussion was about until DrAchoo said it. You said that it was judged solely on its visual merit; we BOTH know that some people voted low primarily because they did not think it met the challenge.
|
Ok in all fairness, none of us know exactly why it was voted down. We can only estimate by taking a few samples from the pool. What I was saying is: even if an image is DNMC (another subjective term - hard to define), but it has good visual appeal, it wont be voted down as much as mine did, or your did. Having a good picture in the first place helps.
Originally posted by Prash:
So learn how to improve, accept the shortcomings, and move on. Alright? |
I actually did that right after DrAchoo's reply, I even said so. I then moved on to discussing your post about 1 second.
- Alex [/quote]
Ok lets shoot for more favorites (or ribbons if thats what would inspire you:-).
I apologize for a hasty post before. I am trying to help you by saying that having discussions on 'subjective' topics will only cause distress to you. Rather, we can pick positive criticism from a willing few and move on to taking better pictures.
Take care... |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 03:18:03 AM · #29 |
Alex, I don't know about motion blur at 1/125s, but I can tell you that motion blur and 0.8s exposure can work for the Long exposure challenge, I have a proof of that on the front page :)
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with motion blur. In fact I can argue that motion blur of various kinds is the most common way we can identify long exposure (the only other kind I can think of are night scenes well-lit by Moon or starlight). I also agree that 1/125s by itself can be a long or a short exposure depending on the subject... For your subject, 1/125 was not long enough, there was not enough motion blur in your photo. Plus the shot did not have much visual appeal, so...
Message edited by author 2010-06-23 14:19:52. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 03:24:32 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by LevT:
the shot did not have much visual appeal, so... |
Bingo. Bottom line. <--- my true and honest feelings.
Hang in there, but move on. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 04:42:20 AM · #31 |
| Don't you love it how so often the Title and the Description of the Challenge are partially or completely at odds with eachother.... |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 06:47:26 AM · #32 |
I thought the blur was almost... incidential. It wasn't enough to evoke the sense of motion that some of the others have.
I didn't vote it high, because I felt that a better shot would have been achieved with a quicker shutter speed, or a slower one. I think the style you choose for a photograph should suit the picture, and I didn't feel that the long exposure you presented was well executed for that picture.
I thought the processing of the picture was good.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 06:54:37 AM · #33 |
i like the composition, i think that is perfect, but i do not think that is a long exposure photograph, at least as I understand it this genre...
but i like colors and post production in your shot...
that's why I gave you a 5 (not a 1!!) ;-) |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 08:04:09 AM · #34 |
I gave you a 5, too. It didn't say long exposure to me, and even if you argue that 1/125 sec was a long exposure for that type of shot, what's the point? All it does is screw up the shot, not improve it or give it anything special.
Message edited by author 2010-06-23 08:04:32. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 10:39:06 AM · #35 |
The biggest problem with this shot is that there isn't enough motion blur. The second biggest problem is that this lack of motion blur allows the viewer to see a very uninteresting background.
What you did well was choose the point of view/perspective - it would have worked better if it didn't also look like an upskirt shot but composition has already been addressed.
There is just nothing really all that compelling here to evoke any emotion from the viewer. It's someone on a scooter using it for it's intended purpose in an ordinary place.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:18:58 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Prash:
[1] Now bring me a definition of long exposure that talks about a specific duration of time, and we will talk. |
Irrelevant... We had a "2 Second" challenge a while back and the winner ignored that... It's been established that the "rules" don't include the description for good or bad - regardless of what each individual person might think of that.
It's all relative..... If one was "usually" shooting F1 from the end of a straight then 1/500 of a second might be "slower then normal" for that person (stupid exception just to make the point). Most here would are going to be looking for longer then a second or two, just cause most people will not see 1/125 as slower..... |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:38:09 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Alex_Europa:
A "normal" exposure FOR THIS SHOT would have frozen the scooter. By using a ND filter, I was able to "use a longer than normal exposure to create the impact of [my] image." What am I missing? |
I've emboldened what's missing. It's just not an engaging image.
This is a 30 second exposure. Anybody that knows anything about taking night shots knows it's a long exposure, but it just doesn't have any particular impact that sets it apart from any other reasonably well done night shot.
Some liked it, I got a fave, but in the end, it was a 5 because it simply did not have impact.
Like yours.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:51:41 PM · #38 |
I think yours has plenty of impact, NikonJeb. I gave it an 8. I loved the contrast between the crisp and clean light fitting in the front, and the rugged everything else.
then again you've used it before! 
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 02:34:16 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by robs:
|
...We had a "2 Second" challenge a while back and the winner ignored that...[/quote]
I think the person who did that should have been DQ'd. The rules were clear. I think if we're going to continue on like this, we need to rename rules as guidelines, or better yet, suggestions.
Frankly, I think this is one of the largest frustrations for me with DPC in general. You have a very vocal, yet small, population that insists that rules shouldn't really be rules, and that it's mostly a "starter" idea..
Well, I disagree... I know that I find the example above to be a particularly egregious example of people ignoring the rules, entering a pretty picture, and winning because the voters gave the submitter more credit than they deserved..
Basically as I see it most DPC'ers have a very high standard of honor, however, there are some that seem to have no appreciation for fair play, and instead of actually trying to enter a picture that is in the spirit of the challenge, they enter something that looks good. That lack of honor should be rewarded with a DQ.. I've no idea why SC and  Langdon don't actually pursue this issue a touch more aggressively... (all it would take is about four DQ's of top ten images before people would stop doing this type of dishonorable crap..)..
Clearly there are challenges like this one, that are too arbitrary by definition (long..) to actually enforce any rules, and the voters really do have to be the ones that reward or punish an image based on how well we perceive it to have fit the challenge.. However, the challenges that ARE distinct, like the 2sec challenge above are the ones I'm talking about...
Anyway, that's my rant here... Oh, and I'm not directing this at the OP in any way, his image met the challenge.. mostly.. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 02:56:53 PM · #40 |
| How would you objective quantify what was in the mind of the submitter when evaluating an image for DQ? |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 02:58:28 PM · #41 |
Part of the problem, Cory, is that not everyone agrees that a challenge 'description' is the same as a 'guideline', let alone a rule. In my experience, a majority wants a 'challenge description' to be very open ended, and want to add their own interpretation to what it means to them.
In case of the two seconds exposure challenge for example, the description says
"Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
However, I am willing to bet money that many would say 'this is just a description, not a rule. you can interpret it as you like'. And the winning image is a classic example of why a description is just that:-)
Since the day I joined, I took a challenge title and its description very seriously alongside the allowed editing rule-set (that's just me).
But it is evidently left 'open' to people's interpretation, in absence of any site regulations that would say otherwise. It is another one of those 'subjective' battles.
P.S. No offense to the image in question, but in my views, it is unfair to not have adhered to the theme and the description (of course the voter would have no idea if this was the case UNLESS it was mandatory to enter these fields (shutter speed etc) AND they were displayed alongside the entries during voting. The good thing is: they are verifiable via EXIF information.
In summary, there needs to be stricter guidelines in regard to what is a potential DNMC and what is a potential DQ. An alternative is to get rid of the challenge title descriptions altogether. What's the use? Let the interpretation be totally up to the authors and the voters:-)
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by robs:
...We had a "2 Second" challenge a while back and the winner ignored that... |
I think the person who did that should have been DQ'd. The rules were clear. I think if we're going to continue on like this, we need to rename rules as guidelines, or better yet, suggestions.
Frankly, I think this is one of the largest frustrations for me with DPC in general. You have a very vocal, yet small, population that insists that rules shouldn't really be rules, and that it's mostly a "starter" idea..
Well, I disagree... I know that I find the example above to be a particularly egregious example of people ignoring the rules, entering a pretty picture, and winning because the voters gave the submitter more credit than they deserved..
Basically as I see it most DPC'ers have a very high standard of honor, however, there are some that seem to have no appreciation for fair play, and instead of actually trying to enter a picture that is in the spirit of the challenge, they enter something that looks good. That lack of honor should be rewarded with a DQ.. I've no idea why SC and Langdon don't actually pursue this issue a touch more aggressively... (all it would take is about four DQ's of top ten images before people would stop doing this type of dishonorable crap..)..
Clearly there are challenges like this one, that are too arbitrary by definition (long..) to actually enforce any rules, and the voters really do have to be the ones that reward or punish an image based on how well we perceive it to have fit the challenge.. However, the challenges that ARE distinct, like the 2sec challenge above are the ones I'm talking about...
Anyway, that's my rant here... Oh, and I'm not directing this at the OP in any way, his image met the challenge.. mostly.. |
Message edited by author 2010-06-23 14:59:06. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 03:24:00 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LevT:
the shot did not have much visual appeal, so... |
Bingo. Bottom line. <--- my true and honest feelings.
Hang in there, but move on. |
Alex,
I have to agree with them. The image just isn't strong enough in general nor does it convey the challenge theme quick enough because it's too subtle. Subtlety rarely works in the challenges only the painfully obvious. This is because voters really don't care about doing a good job of voting, instead they race through it. If this were different and voters took the time to educate themselves on each photo there would be an explosion of meaningful comments. The words would flow like water, but I digress. Ultimately, you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator so in the future when it comes to the challenge theme just make sure it is as obvious as possible so that even a caveman would get it within 1-2 seconds. Now granted sometimes a shot will do very well even though it doesn't appear to meet the challenge but in order to do that your image has to really stand out visually from the pack.
Message edited by author 2010-06-23 15:27:47.
|
|
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: 08/06/2025 11:25:12 AM EDT.
