| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2012 01:46:12 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Cory, setting aside the shot at Langdon, you are right. It would be best to be accurate with regards to define a technique or principle if possible. Soft focus is blurry, but high key blur implies more than just soft focus. A pinhole image is softly tack sharp in my eyes, but my wife describes it as blurry, and wonders why I don't use a L badged pinhole. ;) The op said soft focus, so I presume that the intention is high key soft focus, not blur blur. |
And just for the record, I do respect Langdon for the simple fact he helped to bring DPC together, but I don't really feel that he is due the same regard and forgiveness that the SC are... Langdon operates DPC as a for-profit entity, SC are unpaid. SC appear to take more care and have more investment in the site than Langdon. I see a problem. That is the source of my angst, as I feel the person who is making the money doesn't put in the effort they should. I pay my dues, but I expect a certain level of service for my money... This is one of those expected levels of service.
Frankly, that's a whole other issue, as we don't have any sort of SLA from Langdon, which is pretty darn rare in this sort of business model where people are paying for a service, look at Google or any other similar entity. Because of this lack of contractual agreement, we basically have to look at our membership fees as a gift of goodwill, since there is no guarantee of anything in return, contractually at least.
Now, is this attacking him? Dunno, perhaps. Is it unjustified? I'll just have to leave that decision up to you. But, issues like this certainly do cause me to feel that my money isn't really going where it should be in terms of services provided.
That's all. Feel free to disagree, but I am getting to a point where I am considering voting with my dollars when membership renewal comes up, unless I see someone at the helm doing something more to keep this ship off the rocks. I'm not leaving, but I might stop paying.
Cheers,
-CB |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 01:50:46 PM · #27 |
Jeez Spork,
Just because blur is one of the effects of soft focus, doesn't mean that blur is soft focus.
That's a bit like calling yourself a racecar driver simply because you can drive fast. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:04:13 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cory:
... but I am getting to a point where I am considering voting with my dollars when membership renewal comes up, unless I see someone at the helm doing something more to keep this ship off the rocks. I'm not leaving, but I might stop paying.
|
I already made my choice.
5 days to go. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:09:21 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Jeez Spork,
Just because blur is one of the effects of soft focus, doesn't mean that blur is soft focus.
That's a bit like calling yourself a racecar driver simply because you can drive fast. |
Since we're all visual people... maybe a venn diagram would be a good way to make your point.
All soft focus is a type of blur, but not all types of blur is soft focus.
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 14:10:00. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:10:51 PM · #30 |
A moment whilst I do my un-PC tongue in cheek comment. =P
Friggin aye guys, you are whiners!!!
I do not think you will give up your memberships, mostly cus you get more excitement out of the forums than you all do with photos.
Please notice smiley, sticking out tongue happy face! =)
|
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:13:31 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
A moment whilst I do my un-PC tongue in cheek comment. =P
Friggin aye guys, you are whiners!!!
I do not think you will give up your memberships, mostly cus you get more excitement out of the forums than you all do with photos.
Please notice smiley, sticking out tongue happy face! =) |
Hehe... But I can raise hell in here just as well without the paid membership... I just can't follow the threads to the member area or /rant. :)
ETA: And just to be fair, I think that demanding quality service is rather different from whining. :)
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 14:14:41. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:21:07 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
A moment whilst I do my un-PC tongue in cheek comment. =P
Friggin aye guys, you are whiners!!!
I do not think you will give up your memberships, mostly cus you get more excitement out of the forums than you all do with photos.
Please notice smiley, sticking out tongue happy face! =) |
the only thing that has me reconsidering would be if we started having more of the challenges that have been proposed over the last two days.
i haven't entered a challenge, except the free studies in i dont know how long. it has to be months.. so call my bluff if you wish. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 14:21:24. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:25:58 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
So basically Cory is still correct, it requires a special piece of hardware in order to achieve, so people intentionally blurring their images misses the point as it isn't true soft focus.
and inst that his argument? |
mike,
while it may not be as good as using a dedicated lens, you can do soft focus in pp using something like Nik Color Efex Pro... filters are almost infinitely adjustable and can be selectively applied ...
Color Efex Pro 4
(not meant to be a commercial, just FYI)
-m |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:29:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by mike_311:
So basically Cory is still correct, it requires a special piece of hardware in order to achieve, so people intentionally blurring their images misses the point as it isn't true soft focus.
and inst that his argument? |
mike,
while it may not be as good as using a dedicated lens, you can do soft focus in pp using something like Nik Color Efex Pro... filters are almost infinitely adjustable and can be selectively applied ...
Color Efex Pro 4
(not meant to be a commercial, just FYI)
-m |
I agree, the key to soft focus is actually the blurring of the highlight portions of the image, which in hardware is caused by the bleeding of light from brighter points in the image... Interestingly, dark areas tend to retain all detail and do not show equivalent blurring to the lighter areas.
You can do this in regular PS without any add-on, using any one of several techniques. But still, I know what soft-focus is, and it's more than just blur.
The details matter, they're the only real difference between a Ford and a Ferrari. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:35:54 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by mike_311:
So basically Cory is still correct, it requires a special piece of hardware in order to achieve, so people intentionally blurring their images misses the point as it isn't true soft focus.
and inst that his argument? |
mike,
while it may not be as good as using a dedicated lens, you can do soft focus in pp using something like Nik Color Efex Pro... filters are almost infinitely adjustable and can be selectively applied ...
Color Efex Pro 4
(not meant to be a commercial, just FYI)
-m |
I agree, the key to soft focus is actually the blurring of the highlight portions of the image, which in hardware is caused by the bleeding of light from brighter points in the image... Interestingly, dark areas tend to retain all detail and do not show equivalent blurring to the lighter areas.
You can do this in regular PS without any add-on, using any one of several techniques. But still, I know what soft-focus is, and it's more than just blur.
The details matter, they're the only real difference between a Ford and a Ferrari. |
You first said it's not blur (as you put in the thread title), now you're saying it is blur.
I'll agree that it's not motion blur or OOF blur, but without blurring, you can't have soft focus. Blurring is key to soft focus. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:36:33 PM · #36 |
Go old school man
!!!!!!!!!!!!VASELINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Double dog dare ya!! lol |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:37:10 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
A moment whilst I do my un-PC tongue in cheek comment. =P
Friggin aye guys, you are whiners!!!
I do not think you will give up your memberships, mostly cus you get more excitement out of the forums than you all do with photos.
Please notice smiley, sticking out tongue happy face! =) |
Humans seem to love drama.
Originally posted by mike_311:
the only thing that has me reconsidering would be if we started having more of the challenges that have been proposed over the last two days. |
What did I miss? |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:48:55 PM · #38 |
| I sense a low scoring challenge... I think I will sit this one out. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 02:52:56 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by mike_311:
So basically Cory is still correct, it requires a special piece of hardware in order to achieve, so people intentionally blurring their images misses the point as it isn't true soft focus.
and inst that his argument? |
mike,
while it may not be as good as using a dedicated lens, you can do soft focus in pp using something like Nik Color Efex Pro... filters are almost infinitely adjustable and can be selectively applied ...
Color Efex Pro 4
(not meant to be a commercial, just FYI)
-m |
I agree, the key to soft focus is actually the blurring of the highlight portions of the image, which in hardware is caused by the bleeding of light from brighter points in the image... Interestingly, dark areas tend to retain all detail and do not show equivalent blurring to the lighter areas.
You can do this in regular PS without any add-on, using any one of several techniques. But still, I know what soft-focus is, and it's more than just blur.
The details matter, they're the only real difference between a Ford and a Ferrari. |
You first said it's not blur (as you put in the thread title), now you're saying it is blur.
I'll agree that it's not motion blur or OOF blur, but without blurring, you can't have soft focus. Blurring is key to soft focus. |
While you're busy looking up words today, might I suggest Cavil be the next one you familiarize yourself with? |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:10:53 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
A moment whilst I do my un-PC tongue in cheek comment. =P
Friggin aye guys, you are whiners!!!
I do not think you will give up your memberships, mostly cus you get more excitement out of the forums than you all do with photos.
Please notice smiley, sticking out tongue happy face! =) |
Best thing I've read today, thanks for that. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:18:37 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Cory, setting aside the shot at Langdon, you are right. It would be best to be accurate with regards to define a technique or principle if possible. Soft focus is blurry, but high key blur implies more than just soft focus. A pinhole image is softly tack sharp in my eyes, but my wife describes it as blurry, and wonders why I don't use a L badged pinhole. ;) The op said soft focus, so I presume that the intention is high key soft focus, not blur blur. |
And just for the record, I do respect Langdon for the simple fact he helped to bring DPC together, but I don't really feel that he is due the same regard and forgiveness that the SC are... Langdon operates DPC as a for-profit entity, SC are unpaid. SC appear to take more care and have more investment in the site than Langdon. I see a problem. That is the source of my angst, as I feel the person who is making the money doesn't put in the effort they should. I pay my dues, but I expect a certain level of service for my money... This is one of those expected levels of service.
Frankly, that's a whole other issue, as we don't have any sort of SLA from Langdon, which is pretty darn rare in this sort of business model where people are paying for a service, look at Google or any other similar entity. Because of this lack of contractual agreement, we basically have to look at our membership fees as a gift of goodwill, since there is no guarantee of anything in return, contractually at least.
Now, is this attacking him? Dunno, perhaps. Is it unjustified? I'll just have to leave that decision up to you. But, issues like this certainly do cause me to feel that my money isn't really going where it should be in terms of services provided.
That's all. Feel free to disagree, but I am getting to a point where I am considering voting with my dollars when membership renewal comes up, unless I see someone at the helm doing something more to keep this ship off the rocks. I'm not leaving, but I might stop paying.
Cheers,
-CB |
Wow, things have gone pretty bad around here. Langdon getting stoned publicly in the forum!?! I think I am going to stick my head back into the sand for a while and hope for this sacrilegious ;-) behaviour to cease.
Tip: check the number of members and multiply it by 25$. You will see that Langdon is by no means getting rich with this site. Comparing it to Google is just ludicrous. This site has everything required to be great, except some civility at the moment. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:21:30 PM · #42 |
Perhaps it's time to review some DPC Tutorials which address this challenge topic:
Blurring to Improve a Mood
Diffusion for Better Portraits
Please confine your discussion to the thread topic, not each other. Thanks. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:26:49 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Cory:
While you're busy looking up words today, might I suggest Cavil be the next one you familiarize yourself with? |
I'm only looking up things as a service to you. You might consider a dictionary before saying something is or is not something else.
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 15:27:14. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:29:52 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
This site has everything required to be great, except some civility at the moment. |
We really shouldn't have to repeat this every few posts, in every thread. Stop the personal sniping or face the consequences ... |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:43:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
This site has everything required to be great, except some civility at the moment. |
We really shouldn't have to repeat this every few posts, in every thread. Stop the personal sniping or face the consequences ... |
Misty, you should have kept your head buried. :) |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 03:56:07 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Wow, things have gone pretty bad around here. Langdon getting stoned publicly in the forum!?! I think I am going to stick my head back into the sand for a while and hope for this sacrilegious ;-) behaviour to cease.
Tip: check the number of members and multiply it by 25$. You will see that Langdon is by no means getting rich with this site. Comparing it to Google is just ludicrous. This site has everything required to be great, except some civility at the moment. |
I see you misunderstood my point slightly.
I do not intend to "stone" Langdon, but I do wish to voice a feeling that I suspect I share with many others here. He has my respect for what he has done, and it is not my intention to tell him how to run his house, but, as someone who lives in that house, if I see a wall about to fall down, I feel the responsibility to let the person who owns the house know about it.
As for comparing the site to Google, it's a perfectly fair comparison. Google provides certain services to users that are paid services, if you are one of those paying customers (Google Apps for example), then you not only get direct access to customer support, which is incredibly good when compared to other companies, but also you get an SLA, which guarantees a certain number of expectations that you can have, including service quality and uptime. This is normal for basically any service type business. The size of the business should have very little to do with basic things like an SLA.
Actually, in many ways DPC compares far more favorably than you would think against Google, especially in terms of service response to non-paying users, DPC kills Google there.
ETA: I would also invite you to do the math, $25 per registered user as you point out.... While it's not a great full-time salary, you have also forgotten about the ads revenue, among other things like DPCPrints.
I think it's pretty clear that my position is not unjustified.
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 15:59:42. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 04:05:22 PM · #47 |
I sent a ticket to SC who said that they are working on it.
Please relax and enjoy the music while you wait...
|
|
|
|
07/27/2012 04:25:48 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Wow, things have gone pretty bad around here. Langdon getting stoned publicly in the forum!?! I think I am going to stick my head back into the sand for a while and hope for this sacrilegious ;-) behaviour to cease.
Tip: check the number of members and multiply it by 25$. You will see that Langdon is by no means getting rich with this site. Comparing it to Google is just ludicrous. This site has everything required to be great, except some civility at the moment. |
I see you misunderstood my point slightly.
I do not intend to "stone" Langdon, but I do wish to voice a feeling that I suspect I share with many others here. He has my respect for what he has done, and it is not my intention to tell him how to run his house, but, as someone who lives in that house, if I see a wall about to fall down, I feel the responsibility to let the person who owns the house know about it.
As for comparing the site to Google, it's a perfectly fair comparison. Google provides certain services to users that are paid services, if you are one of those paying customers (Google Apps for example), then you not only get direct access to customer support, which is incredibly good when compared to other companies, but also you get an SLA, which guarantees a certain number of expectations that you can have, including service quality and uptime. This is normal for basically any service type business. The size of the business should have very little to do with basic things like an SLA.
Actually, in many ways DPC compares far more favorably than you would think against Google, especially in terms of service response to non-paying users, DPC kills Google there.
ETA: I would also invite you to do the math, $25 per registered user as you point out.... While it's not a great full-time salary, you have also forgotten about the ads revenue, among other things like DPCPrints.
I think it's pretty clear that my position is not unjustified. |
This position is not at all unjustified. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 04:31:36 PM · #49 |
Soft focus is a type of blur.
The description is further giving direction on what type of blur to create for the challenge. Just like other challenge descriptions, it's up to the individual on how they choose to use or ignore it.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2012 04:52:28 PM · #50 |
| It might be up to the user to interpret the challenge definition but the the discussion threads start which pretty much sways the voters, the result is if the voter has to think about the image they are viewing or it is left of centre it's a guarantee to a low score. |
|
