| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2003 07:10:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why do you want to further restrict people's artistic freedom? If you don't like a small photo, then lower your vote |
I noticed a lot of small pictures in the Landscape challenge also, and I figured most of them must have been mistakes because I don't see any reason at all for making a tiny picture. Although someone might have a reason for this... but I think most were mistakes.
So I just left a comment on most of them stating that I was going to deduct several points for it (mistake or not) because to me the small size takes away from the picture 9 times out of 10. |
That is the reason I started this thread, hoping to educate the small photo posters. :) I personally cannot give a high mark on a photo that is too small to see any detail. |
|
|
|
01/15/2003 07:11:54 PM · #27 |
i agree :)
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why do you want to further restrict people's artistic freedom? If you don't like a small photo, then lower your vote -- that's the purpose of having a scale.
The person either made it small on purpose (for artistic or technical reasons) or by accident; in either case the photographer bears the consequences of their actions in their score.
We have a minimum size. Let's see if there's a problem with the new rules before we go making tons of changes. |
|
|
|
|
01/15/2003 07:15:15 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by sparky_mark:
Originally posted by Paige:
IMO a photo should be at least 500 pixels high or 700 pixels wide, many of the landscape photos are too small, I have a very hard time critiquing and rating a photo that I can hardly see. |
Since DP Challenge has a maximum dimension of 640 in one direction (and I think perhaps 400 in the other) your figures may be a bit high. However, I do agree with the concept.
Really small images make it hard to assess focus and even DOF. Perhaps a minimum of 400 in one dimension would complement the existing rules well. It would make it easier to judge from a "would this look ok hung on a wall" point of view - small images can hide so many faults. |
I just checked, the max is 640 on all sides and min is 160 on all sides.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2003 07:21:58 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Does it really matter what size? hmmmm.....why? I didn't mark ayone down for their photo being to small. It just does'nt make sence. ??? |
It depends how much detail there is in a picture. Sometimes it does matter, other times not. |
|
|
|
01/15/2003 07:38:04 PM · #30 |
I tend to agree as well. I find it very irratating to try to view and rate such small images. Since they are allowed I am trying to judge each photo for what they are. But often, what they are are photos that contain a lot of detail, like these landscapes, and if I can't see that detail than I don't rate it very high. How can I judge something i can't see. There are some photos that can look very good at a small size but not many IMO. Different aspect ratios are also allowed but that doesn't mean I can't dislike how it may be used on a particular photo. I think we are perfectly within our rights to rate a photo based on every aspect of a photo from the it's visual impact to it's presentation.
T
|
|
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: 06/18/2025 04:52:48 PM EDT.
