| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2012 12:18:29 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
Anyways, just wanted to say that I think this entry of mine will be a new PB, it's at least a personal favorite photograph. Here's hoping you all feel the same. |
Never say things like that before rollover :) |
we've all thought it, and we've all learned the hard way that this thinking almost always leads to disappointment. but i wish you luck bucking the trend! |
True. I've done it... time and time again. MAYBE if I STOP saying that I shot a new personal favorite, my score will soar?
Probably not.
If you like it, then that's all that should matter... if others like it... that's just an added bonus. :) |
I've showed it to friends and family and they are all quite pleased with it, as am I.
A "new PB" for me be beating a score of 5.0508. Not exactly a super hard thing to do. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 12:49:49 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by mefnj:
i used InfranView also (big fan).
you did your resize by percentage. i did mine by specifying the longest side to 800 pixels and allowing InfranView to scale proportionally the other side.
i assume those would both be legal ways to resize?? |
The general wisdom is that resizing in 25% increments preserves the integrity of the image... |
Incremental resizing is NOT allowed under Minimal rules -- you must resize in a single step. In my example I resized my image to 25% of the original size in a single step. Setting the new size to 800 (or fewer) pixels (regardless of what percentage that turns out to be) in a single step is also fine.
When incremental is allowed (in other rule sets), most recommendations I've seen are to reduce in 5% or 10% increments until reaching the final size, but I've also heard that this is no longer recommended (as much?) if using the Bicubic Sharper algorithm which came in with the Photoshop CS series. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 12:57:06 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by mefnj:
i used InfranView also (big fan).
you did your resize by percentage. i did mine by specifying the longest side to 800 pixels and allowing InfranView to scale proportionally the other side.
i assume those would both be legal ways to resize?? |
The general wisdom is that resizing in 25% increments preserves the integrity of the image... |
Incremental resizing is NOT allowed under Minimal rules -- you must resize in a single step. In my example I resized my image to 25% of the original size in a single step. Setting the new size to 800 (or fewer) pixels (regardless of what percentage that turns out to be) in a single step is also fine.
When incremental is allowed (in other rule sets), most recommendations I've seen are to reduce in 5% or 10% increments until reaching the final size, but I've also heard that this is no longer recommended (as much?) if using the Bicubic Sharper algorithm which came in with the Photoshop CS series. |
You said what I said, only I said it with more confusion.
I meant a factor of 25% (25%/50%/75%) and NOT to do increments which we know is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2012 01:06:03 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
Anyways, just wanted to say that I think this entry of mine will be a new PB, it's at least a personal favorite photograph. Here's hoping you all feel the same. |
Never say things like that before rollover :) |
we've all thought it, and we've all learned the hard way that this thinking almost always leads to disappointment. but i wish you luck bucking the trend! |
True. I've done it... time and time again. MAYBE if I STOP saying that I shot a new personal favorite, my score will soar?
Probably not.
If you like it, then that's all that should matter... if others like it... that's just an added bonus. :) |
I've showed it to friends and family and they are all quite pleased with it, as am I.
A "new PB" for me be beating a score of 5.0508. Not exactly a super hard thing to do. |
you'd be surprised how hard it can be to beat you highest rated photo... each challenge I entered i *thought* it would do better than the last... they actually scored much lower than I thought they would.
but I have two in the current 4 challenges being voted on that are new PBs.
the best of luck to you. :) |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 01:10:04 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
I meant a factor of 25% (25%/50%/75%) and NOT to do increments which we know is not allowed. |
Ah, yes, that's why I do 25% (and end up with a slightly smaller image) rather than making it the maximum size, but ending up with a reduction of something like 28.37%. I suspect (but can't prove) that there is a better chance of retaining image detail if the computation doesn't require using "fractional pixels" -- with a 25% reduction, you can average exactly four pixels to create the new one.
Also, the same applies to viewing the image on screen -- if the image seems to have "jaggies" or otherwise look a little "off," make sure the program is displaying the image at a "binary" percentage: 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% ... |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 01:31:12 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
I meant a factor of 25% (25%/50%/75%) and NOT to do increments which we know is not allowed. |
Ah, yes, that's why I do 25% (and end up with a slightly smaller image) rather than making it the maximum size, but ending up with a reduction of something like 28.37%. I suspect (but can't prove) that there is a better chance of retaining image detail if the computation doesn't require using "fractional pixels" -- with a 25% reduction, you can average exactly four pixels to create the new one.
Also, the same applies to viewing the image on screen -- if the image seems to have "jaggies" or otherwise look a little "off," make sure the program is displaying the image at a "binary" percentage: 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% ... |
It's actually not an average of 4 pixels. That would be a zero order downsample and most algos now use higher order math. Browsers on the otherhand use decimation so much better to downsample to display size instead of letting browser do it. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 04:05:15 PM · #82 |
| I'll never understand the joy of minimal editing. I have spent countless hours coming up with completely "meh" shots for this challenge. Even if I could just do curves, it would improve it immensely. But because of the way it was shot, it couldn't be controlled in camera. Another was was captured beautifully, but because the shot is a smidge wider than the view finder, it got more in the shot and ruined it. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 04:08:33 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
The general wisdom is that resizing in 25% increments preserves the integrity of the image... |
hmmm, but a 25% resize on an image that is 4800 odd pixel on the longest size only gets you down to 1200 pixels, correct? so you'd be 400 pixels over the DPC limit.
or am i missing something?
-m |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 04:12:32 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'll never understand the joy of minimal editing. I have spent countless hours coming up with completely "meh" shots for this challenge. Even if I could just do curves, it would improve it immensely. But because of the way it was shot, it couldn't be controlled in camera. Another was was captured beautifully, but because the shot is a smidge wider than the view finder, it got more in the shot and ruined it. |
I agree... but then part of the challenge is to overcome those problems and create a shot that will work within the parameters.
I shot for two ideas... but I've pretty much stuck with my first one because those came out of the camera pretty much like what I wanted. The others are potential free study contenders, so I can work them a little more with the RAW version...
|
|
|
|
04/05/2012 04:19:33 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
The general wisdom is that resizing in 25% increments preserves the integrity of the image... |
hmmm, but a 25% resize on an image that is 4800 odd pixel on the longest size only gets you down to 1200 pixels, correct? so you'd be 400 pixels over the DPC limit.
or am i missing something?
-m |
Correct.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2012 04:39:11 PM · #86 |
Question... one of the cameras I was using creates JPGs that are smaller than the RAW version... So the JPG it created in effect has already been resized. I can still resize it once myself right?
This was in RAW+JPG mode, not any in-camera post processing.
Never mind... the RAW was showing as smaller. (odd)
I'm in. Resized only.
Message edited by author 2012-04-05 17:54:08.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2012 06:39:38 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'll never understand the joy of minimal editing. I have spent countless hours coming up with completely "meh" shots for this challenge. Even if I could just do curves, it would improve it immensely. But because of the way it was shot, it couldn't be controlled in camera. Another was was captured beautifully, but because the shot is a smidge wider than the view finder, it got more in the shot and ruined it. |
I love editing, but before Digital era shooting was almost the only thing we had. We chose the right films and now we can choose the right settings on camera. Different work but funny! :) |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 07:10:06 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I love editing, but before Digital era shooting was almost the only thing we had. We chose the right films and now we can choose the right settings on camera. Different work but funny! :) |
This is what inspired my entry. I saw an image with a style I wanted to emulate without post processing. If it taught me one thing, it's how easy it really is in post! |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 07:17:41 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
The general wisdom is that resizing in 25% increments preserves the integrity of the image... |
hmmm, but a 25% resize on an image that is 4800 odd pixel on the longest size only gets you down to 1200 pixels, correct? so you'd be 400 pixels over the DPC limit.
or am i missing something?
-m |
Not everyone is starting with a 4800-pixel image ... with my camera, I do 25% because it takes the resized image down to 704 pixels, under the DPC limit but not "too" small. For cameras which capture larger images you may not be able to resize by an "even" percentage. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 07:37:27 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'll never understand the joy of minimal editing. I have spent countless hours coming up with completely "meh" shots for this challenge. Even if I could just do curves, it would improve it immensely. But because of the way it was shot, it couldn't be controlled in camera. Another was was captured beautifully, but because the shot is a smidge wider than the view finder, it got more in the shot and ruined it. |
I love editing, but before Digital era shooting was almost the only thing we had. We chose the right films and now we can choose the right settings on camera. Different work but funny! :) |
But we could always control the contrast in the printing process. Right now my camera only gives me small latitude in controlling the contrast. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 07:53:26 PM · #91 |
After shooting for this challenge, and having experienced challenges from all the current rulesets, I finally understand why people hate minimal... my image could be (and is after editing for another site) much better... but for this challenge i resized and sharpened and that's it. Within the ruleset i don't think it's so bad but with 10 min of editing it becomes much better. I suppose the difference is: 5 hours of setup vs. 10 min of post. I'm still a firm believer in keeping minimal even though it's quite frustrating sometimes.
Message edited by author 2012-04-05 19:53:41. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 08:08:09 PM · #92 |
| For me, editing is therapeutic, with the right shot I could sit and edit for hours. But I love the minimal challenges. We really don't have enough of them. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 08:27:02 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
But I love the minimal challenges. We really don't have enough of them. |
I knew I didn't like you for some reason! :P |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 08:42:43 PM · #94 |
| Yeah, the minimal ruleset is a bit more challenging, but that's really what makes it fun. But it does put a lot more emphasis on the camera. A lower quality camera can compete with a higher quality one when using advanced rules, but it's more difficult with minimal. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 08:57:15 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
But I love the minimal challenges. We really don't have enough of them. |
I knew I didn't like you for some reason! :P |
Hehe, I'm sure they're tons more reasons. :)
The minimals are challenging and I've never done well in them and here's the proof
Hopefully I can improve my minimal score history with this one.
Message edited by author 2012-04-05 21:04:28. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 09:29:04 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I love editing, but before Digital era shooting was almost the only thing we had. We chose the right films and now we can choose the right settings on camera. Different work but funny! :) |
But we could always control the contrast in the printing process. Right now my camera only gives me small latitude in controlling the contrast. |
Honestly, what percentage of people shooting at DPC do you think would have been developing/printing their own color images, such that they could "control" contrast, or much of anything else?
Nothing is preventing anyone from post-processing the heck out of their entry and posting it for comparison later. I think the "point" of Minimal challenges is to get people to think more about their setup, lighting, exposure, etc. in advance, with the idea that it is easier to post-process a "good" original into a great final product than rescuing a crappy original.
Of necessity I'm somewhat of an expert at the latter technique, but when I take the time to shoot for a minimal challenge, I do OK. Right now I my Free Study entry is hanging out above 5, and I followed the Minimal rule set for it -- the slight adjustments I tried didn't do "enough" to make it worthwhile, and I wanted to see if it made a significant difference in the score.
An interesting side challenge might be, after this challenge is over, to post our entry and the post-processed (Advanced Rules) version and see who needed the least PP ... |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 09:33:13 PM · #97 |
I've submitted my entry, I anticipate a 4-something score (hopefully it's good enough not to take a 3 score!) and look forward to voting.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2012 09:37:02 PM · #98 |
| Submitted. Remembered to turn off raw this time. Much happier with the results of round 2. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 09:37:53 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I love editing, but before Digital era shooting was almost the only thing we had. We chose the right films and now we can choose the right settings on camera. Different work but funny! :) |
But we could always control the contrast in the printing process. Right now my camera only gives me small latitude in controlling the contrast. |
Honestly, what percentage of people shooting at DPC do you think would have been developing/printing their own color images, such that they could "control" contrast, or much of anything else?
Nothing is preventing anyone from post-processing the heck out of their entry and posting it for comparison later. I think the "point" of Minimal challenges is to get people to think more about their setup, lighting, exposure, etc. in advance, with the idea that it is easier to post-process a "good" original into a great final product than rescuing a crappy original.
Of necessity I'm somewhat of an expert at the latter technique, but when I take the time to shoot for a minimal challenge, I do OK. Right now I my Free Study entry is hanging out above 5, and I followed the Minimal rule set for it -- the slight adjustments I tried didn't do "enough" to make it worthwhile, and I wanted to see if it made a significant difference in the score.
An interesting side challenge might be, after this challenge is over, to post our entry and the post-processed (Advanced Rules) version and see who needed the least PP ... |
Heheh... my control was bringing it back to ritz and asking them to print it at a -1 density. But I controlled it! :)
Message edited by author 2012-04-05 21:38:07. |
|
|
|
04/05/2012 10:07:01 PM · #100 |
I like my photo. I know it's doomed. So what?
|
|
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 01:32:13 PM EDT.
