| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2002 06:51:21 PM · #1 |
Anybody else out there "try out" their comments in [insert favorite editing program] before they actually comment on a given photo? Like converting an image to B&W, or playing with levels, or recropping to see how it looks in a different format?
I do it all the time -- sometimes I wish I could show those comps to the individuals whose picture I''m critiquing, but a) there''s really no way to do it due to the anonymous nature of things (and I don''t want to hang onto them to "distribute" later the next week) and b) I wonder if it would hurt more than an honest critique to see what someone else did to their work.
Just kind of a curiousity thread.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/11/2002 6:51:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2002 08:22:12 PM · #2 |
If I thought the photo had merit, I do. And I know someone did that with mine last week. It is a good way to see if there is really something wrong with the photo, or it was just adjusted strangely.
BWT, nice work on that web page, I see you do have some BW expirience. Do you wish you could enter some of those?
Originally posted by Patella:
Anybody else out there "try out" their comments in [insert favorite editing program] before they actually comment on a given photo? Like converting an image to B&W, or playing with levels, or recropping to see how it looks in a different format?
I do it all the time -- sometimes I wish I could show those comps to the individuals whose picture I''m critiquing, but a) there''s really no way to do it due to the anonymous nature of things (and I don''t want to hang onto them to "distribute" later the next week) and b) I wonder if it would hurt more than an honest critique to see what someone else did to their work.
Just kind of a curiousity thread.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/11/2002 8:22:00 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/11/2002 8:26:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2002 11:06:54 PM · #3 |
Zeiss,
Thanks on the positive take on the website. :-)
To answer your question, no, I don't really want to enter any of those pictures here. I don't even necessarily want to enter any of my old digital stuff here. I love this site because of the challenge aspect -- taking a new picture based on a certain set of guidelines. Somebody else in another thread likened it to a school assignment -- but it's one that I can choose to participate in if I want.
There are plenty of other sites out there that will comment and critique or let you compete with any old photos. If you really like your old stuff, find those sites. :-) I've been, and they offer me good stuff, but none of them are really making me go out and shoot new things. I think, for all my whinging and moaning about this that or the other, that this site is really great and hope to help it continue growing.
K, done brown-nosing now -- you guys reading this Drew and Langdon? LOL
|
|
|
|
06/11/2002 11:10:54 PM · #4 |
| I agree with you, Jeff... I have learned quite a bit about my lack of ability when I start working on a challenge topic. My lack of ability doesn't seem to be on the 'know how' with the camera. My shortcomings are on the creativity side for the most part. These challenges are makin me think 'creatively' these days and I think I'm starting to get better at it... I'm also looking at a lot more online photography than I ever have in the past as well... |
|
|
|
06/11/2002 11:22:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Patella:
Anybody else out there "try out" their comments in [insert favorite editing program] before they actually comment on a given photo? Like converting an image to B&W, or playing with levels, or recropping to see how it looks in a different format?
I do it all the time -- sometimes I wish I could show those comps to the individuals whose picture I''m critiquing, but a) there''s really no way to do it due to the anonymous nature of things (and I don''t want to hang onto them to "distribute" later the next week) and b) I wonder if it would hurt more than an honest critique to see what someone else did to their work.
Just kind of a curiousity thread.
I know in at least one case, someone made a comment on my image and left a url/ link to the changed version - don't really see any problem with that - the whole anonymous thing is over played anyway, especially for commentors. I personally think we should be able to see who commented and reply -there are comments I've got that show the person just mis-understood or made a comment that isn't actually true, or in some cases I'd just like to answer the question that was asked.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2002 11:46:41 PM · #6 |
Ok, that was me. Unless there's someone else out there re-editing photos. I just thought I try that out for last week's challenge and see what the reaction is like. This is the first feedback I've gotten. I just found that it was a lot easier to do than to describe what other possibilities I had in mind. I also agree with the comment about overrated anonymity that was made - you find out who made the comments anyway. I still think the photo submissions should remain anomymous during the voting.
Interesting thing about editing other photos is, I usually think maybe there's something I would've done differently in post-processing (and I'm not that good at that anyway) and most times I found out I couldn't do much better than what was submitted, and that influenced my voting and comments - I had more appreciation for the photo.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by Patella:
[i]Anybody else out there "try out" their comments in [insert favorite editing program] before they actually comment on a given photo? Like converting an image to B&W, or playing with levels, or recropping to see how it looks in a different format?
I do it all the time -- sometimes I wish I could show those comps to the individuals whose picture I''m critiquing, but a) there''s really no way to do it due to the anonymous nature of things (and I don''t want to hang onto them to "distribute" later the next week) and b) I wonder if it would hurt more than an honest critique to see what someone else did to their work.
Just kind of a curiousity thread.
I know in at least one case, someone made a comment on my image and left a url/ link to the changed version - don't really see any problem with that - the whole anonymous thing is over played anyway, especially for commentors. I personally think we should be able to see who commented and reply -there are comments I've got that show the person just mis-understood or made a comment that isn't actually true, or in some cases I'd just like to answer the question that was asked.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 12:05:17 AM · #7 |
I was using photoSIG for a while, but I asked to have my account deleted. There is too much porn and just plain offensive crap on there.
Frankly, I would really like to see how the stuff that I think is "good" would do here, but this is a neat site.
Originally posted by Patella:
Zeiss,
Thanks on the positive take on the website. :-)
To answer your question, no, I don't really want to enter any of those pictures here. I don't even necessarily want to enter any of my old digital stuff here. I love this site because of the challenge aspect -- taking a new picture based on a certain set of guidelines. Somebody else in another thread likened it to a school assignment -- but it's one that I can choose to participate in if I want.
There are plenty of other sites out there that will comment and critique or let you compete with any old photos. If you really like your old stuff, find those sites. :-) I've been, and they offer me good stuff, but none of them are really making me go out and shoot new things. I think, for all my whinging and moaning about this that or the other, that this site is really great and hope to help it continue growing.
K, done brown-nosing now -- you guys reading this Drew and Langdon? LOL
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 12:29:36 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by gr8photos:
Interesting thing about editing other photos is, I usually think maybe there's something I would've done differently in post-processing (and I'm not that good at that anyway) and most times I found out I couldn't do much better than what was submitted, and that influenced my voting and comments - I had more appreciation for the photo.
It's hard to get decent results when you're working on a file that's already been 'cooked', especially when it's been resized. Once highlights are gone they're gone for good, for example. I've opened up a couple of submissions in PS and played around, but on my dinosaur of a 'puter it takes too much time. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 12:37:15 AM · #9 |
Trust me, the kinds of changes I'm talking about making really don't do much to make a perfect finished product. Levels are one thing that you may or may not be able to do something with, "recropping" a horizontal picture into a vertical is whole different matter.
That was what really started this thread. I recropped a photo from a horizontal to a vertical -- however, in order to fill in some of the space I created, I just copied and pasted a portion of the road in where it needed to be a couple of times. It wasn't a pretty fix or one that anybody would mistake as an actual, out of the camera, photograph. Very much a down and dirty edit. But I liked the way I could see the picture that I was trying to describe. However, I worry that others might not see it that way -- or they might see the photo I'm suggesting and immediately say, "I COULDN'T take that photo because..." without understanding where I was trying to come from.
Oh well. If I mention something in a comment, and you want to see what I mean, let me know and I'll do a quick edit for you.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 01:58:52 AM · #10 |
The few times I've commented on photos with regards to different cropping, I've tested it out before making my comment. And sometimes I've refrained from commenting when, after trying out what I was going to say, I've found out that it really didn't work.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 08:59:22 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by gr8photos:
Ok, that was me. Unless there's someone else out there re-editing photos. I just thought I try that out for last week's challenge and see what the reaction is like. This is the first feedback I've gotten. I just found that it was a lot easier to do than to describe what other possibilities I had in mind. I also agree with the comment about overrated anonymity that was made - you find out who made the comments anyway. I still think the photo submissions should remain anomymous during the voting.
Interesting thing about editing other photos is, I usually think maybe there's something I would've done differently in post-processing (and I'm not that good at that anyway) and most times I found out I couldn't do much better than what was submitted, and that influenced my voting and comments - I had more appreciation for the photo.
Actually, it wasn't you :) I've also tried doing this a few times, but
I'm used to working with 16-bit images where there is a whole lot more
room to adjust colours/ contrast ranges etc than you find with the 8-bit jpegs that are posted for challenges here...
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 12:45:13 PM · #12 |
I think this kind of fits in this discussion thread about comments. I'm just wondering how people vote on pictures that are clearly showing compression artifacts and that have a very small file size.
I am making the assumption that people know how to do that kind of post-processing (I believe there's also some info in the tutorials) and deduct some point(s). Am I asking too much? Should I vote as if the file was of better quality? What do you guys do?
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 01:10:55 PM · #13 |
I usually make a comment, and vote pretty much as though the artifacts weren't there.
Originally posted by gr8photos:
I think this kind of fits in this discussion thread about comments. I'm just wondering how people vote on pictures that are clearly showing compression artifacts and that have a very small file size.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 01:29:58 PM · #14 |
im with reuben. i understand about compression, so I don't think it really has anything to do with how good the pic is.
it's sort of like judging music for the song and not the recording quality. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 01:35:37 PM · #15 |
On the other hand I might not enjoy the song (or at least the version I''m judging) if the recording quality is bad.
I''m just thinking that posting a good final version of your photo is as much of the technique to learn as using DOF and focus, adjusting contrast, etc.
Disclaimer: I understand that there are users out there with 1.3mp cameras that may have pixelated shots even though they are taking post-processing steps to minimize that and are using the available 150k - I don''t deduct anything there.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
im with reuben. i understand about compression, so I don''t think it really has anything to do with how good the pic is.
it''s sort of like judging music for the song and not the recording quality.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 1:35:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 02:11:20 PM · #16 |
| Absolutely. It's not a set in stone thing either. My point is that if I can see it's a good shot, good light, good setup, etc., some compression artifacts are not going to affect my rating. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 02:38:32 PM · #17 |
I think there's a difference between "some" compression artifacts (around the outside of a subject on a flat colored background, for instance) and a massively compressed file (where the whoile thing is heavily pixellated).
I won't claim to have the lowest end camera shooting on this site, but most of the images I've shot have been taken with a .7 MP and there's only a "minor" amount of artifacting going on in my images in comparison to some others. If I can do it, others should be able to as well.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 02:54:41 PM · #18 |
640x480 is only 0.6K. there is not reason to be getting artifacts unless there are compressing it in the camera, and then again to send it. Or it is just a bad camera.
Originally posted by Patella:
I think there's a difference between "some" compression artifacts (around the outside of a subject on a flat colored background, for instance) and a massively compressed file (where the whoile thing is heavily pixellated).
I won't claim to have the lowest end camera shooting on this site, but most of the images I've shot have been taken with a .7 MP and there's only a "minor" amount of artifacting going on in my images in comparison to some others. If I can do it, others should be able to as well.
|
|
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: 08/25/2025 04:31:58 PM EDT.
