| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2012 02:49:17 PM · #51 |
| I see a big flaw in the OP. You need to separate member challenges from open challenges. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 03:00:28 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I see a big flaw in the OP. You need to separate member challenges from open challenges. |
New numbers for averages omitted open challenges:
(14) Expert - 57.1
(49) Advanced - 84.9
(8) Basic - 85.6
(0) Minimal
Standard deviations are practically the same.
Message edited by author 2012-10-12 15:00:43. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 04:09:35 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I see a big flaw in the OP. You need to separate member challenges from open challenges. |
New numbers for averages omitted open challenges:
(14) Expert - 57.1
(49) Advanced - 84.9
(8) Basic - 85.6
(0) Minimal
Standard deviations are practically the same. |
57 totally photographic challenges against 14 expert editing challenges. We can say 80% against 20%. Is it so hard to have 1 expert editing challenge every 4 regular challenges?
Ps. to make things more clear: I got 11 of my ribbons under advanced editing ruleset, so as for me Langdon could get rid of expert, but for me they are funny and a wonderful learning experience.
Ps2. Scores are not so important, but still Christophe is the best photographer here (IMO) |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 04:21:42 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Is it so hard to have 1 expert editing challenge every 4 regular challenges? |
I guess the same argument could be made for minimal and basic? No? |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 04:31:33 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Is it so hard to have 1 expert editing challenge every 4 regular challenges? |
I guess the same argument could be made for minimal and basic? No? |
No, basic and minimal are real photography exactly as advanced is. Moreover basic editing is completely meaningless. We could have more minimal challenges. |
|
|
|
10/12/2012 04:38:59 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Cory:
ETA: I do think the top scores should be an indicator of who is the best. Frankly, he is one of the best, and his Advanced editing photos show that. |
I was referring to individual photos and the nature of scores in general. It goes without saying that Gyaban is pretty good at winning challenges and doing so convincingly. His scores reflect that. What they don't reflect is how his photos measure up outside of the challenge. Nobody's score does that. For that you would need another measure since scores are relative to the challenge and should be taken in that context only.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2012 09:17:17 PM · #57 |
Totally agree. Seeing such masterful work every now and then is a treat in the creativity of people. Too much is saturation of a good thing.
Originally posted by kirbic:
I've often asked myself why we want this many Expert challenges. It's purely my personal opinion, but the Expert challenges are as much Photoshop challenges as they are photography challenges. For the most part I dislike voting them, and I probably won't shoot for them. I think they are fine once in a while, but not at anywhere near the frequency we are having them. |
|
|
|
|
10/13/2012 06:53:27 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
This is more than following the guidelines, however. The immediate ones in the expert editing challenges are more of pushing an agenda. There are many photos in advance and even basic that aren't edited in a photographic nature.
This one was edited to look like a painting:
Does this one look photographic to you?
Some of the overdone HDRs look like line drawings. They don't look photographic. Yet people seem to be able to vote on all of the different aspects of those images. They may get hit for the processing, but it's not an immediate one.
|
I wouldn't call it pushing an agenda, that's a little harsh. The difference between some of the expert entries and the examples you gave is I can still imagine seeing your examples in person, regardless of the edits. They are based in reality, and if I wanted to, could drive to that waterfall or the car NikonJeb shot and see it with my own eyes, regardless of the edits. So in that context, they are still somewhat photographic in nature because they depict something, or some event, which occurred and aren't completely fabricated from imagination. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 07:40:26 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
This is more than following the guidelines, however. The immediate ones in the expert editing challenges are more of pushing an agenda. There are many photos in advance and even basic that aren't edited in a photographic nature.
This one was edited to look like a painting:
Does this one look photographic to you?
Some of the overdone HDRs look like line drawings. They don't look photographic. Yet people seem to be able to vote on all of the different aspects of those images. They may get hit for the processing, but it's not an immediate one.
|
I wouldn't call it pushing an agenda, that's a little harsh. The difference between some of the expert entries and the examples you gave is I can still imagine seeing your examples in person, regardless of the edits. They are based in reality, and if I wanted to, could drive to that waterfall or the car NikonJeb shot and see it with my own eyes, regardless of the edits. So in that context, they are still somewhat photographic in nature because they depict something, or some event, which occurred and aren't completely fabricated from imagination. |
When you take a long exposure shot of water you can say that you have seen the silky water effect with your eyes? Or when you take a BW shot is what you have seen in that moment? We don't need expert editing to say that photography is not reality ;) |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 07:51:38 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Venser:
The difference between some of the expert entries and the examples you gave is I can still imagine seeing your examples in person, regardless of the edits. They are based in reality, and if I wanted to, could drive to that waterfall or the car NikonJeb shot and see it with my own eyes, regardless of the edits. So in that context, they are still somewhat photographic in nature because they depict something, or some event, which occurred and aren't completely fabricated from imagination. |
While photography can of course be used to depict direct reality, it surely is not reduced to that. For example, while way out of what I am able to do, I particularly like  jmritz's work. A classic:
Another example would be Jerry Uelsmann that has been suggested for a tribute challenge recently. You probably cannot say you could travel somewhere and see what he depicts with your own eyes: the scenes do come out of his imagination, and there is nothing wrong with that. I could quote many other examples.
Photographers, as other artists, have the right to express themselves the way they like, be it by showing the world through their lens as it is (or as they want to show it), or be it by creating sets and scenes because what they want to say is not to be found all ready to be photographed. Imagination is not a crime. Of course, you are totally free to like or dislike any kind of expression, but segregating different approaches to boxes for the sake of it is probably unnecessary.
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 07:52:43. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 08:32:13 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Imagination is not a crime. Of course, you are totally free to like or dislike any kind of expression, but segregating different approaches to boxes for the sake of it is probably unnecessary. |
All I was trying to point out by starting this thread is there always complaints about participation on DPC. I keep statistics on the website for other purposes, but noticed outside of open challenges that participation in expert challenges is significantly below the other rule sets. If we include open challenges it's even worse, but not a fair comparison as posthumous mentioned.
I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion as to why without travelling this often beaten path. Inevitably it always does and so here we are again talking about this.
I guess let me ask you this question gyaban, why do you think there's the huge discrepancy in participation between the various editing challenges?
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 08:32:54. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 09:04:14 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Venser:
I guess let me ask you this question gyaban, why do you think there's the huge discrepancy in participation between the various editing challenges? |
These statistics are normal and expected, for the same reason that there are less brain surgeons than general practitioners.
If you want to take advantage of the 'expert editing' rules, you need decent skills in both handling a camera, and post-processing. Learning these 2 fields takes time, a lot of it. Not mentioning the actual will to do so. Quite logically, most persons start with learning how to use a camera, so that they are able to produce something. From there, some simply stop as they are happy with a camera alone. Then some start learning some basic post-processing, to be able to optimize their photos. Finally, some go further and try to acquire more advanced/expert skills in PP. As a consequence, the number of persons that have chosen to go all the way to expert PP is lower.
Of course, I am convinced that a good idea, a good concept, created without much PP can easily beat a bad concept fully post-processed. It happened in the past, and it will happen more. People should not fear entering expert editing challenges based on their lack of PP skills, but I suppose it's natural to hesitate when you know you don't have all the tools the others have. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 09:59:08 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
....
Of course, I am convinced that a good idea, a good concept, created without much PP can easily beat a bad concept fully post-processed. It happened in the past, and it will happen more. People should not fear entering expert editing challenges based on their lack of PP skills, but I suppose it's natural to hesitate when you know you don't have all the tools the others have. |
gyaban, I admire and love to view your creations. Keep up the good work.
You do seem to insinuate that those who lack the PP skills you have developed are somehow inferior photographers. That's not true. Some of us prefer realism, over fantasy. One does not need to learn all the nuances of the bloated Photoship CS to generate outstanding photographic presentations. It's not ignorance on our part....it's a choice of presentations. Of course, this is not a new debate. It's akin to the f/64 Group vs. Pictorialism. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 10:08:14 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
You do seem to insinuate that those who lack the PP skills you have developed are somehow inferior photographers. |
Where did I say that? If such idea can be read through my lacking English, then it was not my intent. I absolutely understand that some prefer realism over fantasy, in which case learning how to do composites is totally useless, obviously. I am totally fine with that, and I do love many great photos done that way.
All I was trying to say is when you want to go the fantasy way, it does imply hours and hours of learning before even coming up with something decent, which can be discouraging, hence the lower participation.
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 10:08:25. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 10:56:57 AM · #65 |
I don't bother with expert challenges much anymore, just not my thing, guess I lean to a more realistic photographic approach. For me it has nothing to do with the editing required to do a decent expert job, it's just I mostly don't appreciate what an expert edit does. I do however understand that many people do like to see fantasy and digital art so I still think we need expert challenges, we might want to get rid of the rule that states they should stay photographic in nature though because a lot of images break that rule already.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:05:14 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I don't bother with expert challenges much anymore, just not my thing, guess I lean to a more realistic photographic approach. For me it has nothing to do with the editing required to do a decent expert job, it's just I mostly don't appreciate what an expert edit does. I do however understand that many people do like to see fantasy and digital art so I still think we need expert challenges, we might want to get rid of the rule that states they should stay photographic in nature though because a lot of images break that rule already. |
Digital and fantasy art are fun to see on occasion. I do agree that, if offerred, the photographic in nature clause should be removed from the expert set rules. What's the fun of doing fantasy art if restricted?
But it's pretty clear to me from the increasing low participation in the expert editing challenges, and from the increasing number of NON expert edits that get entered even by those who do participate, that as a group we've had enough for awhile.
I believe it would be in the best interest of DPC as a whole if we stick to the editing rules that attract the most photographers.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:10:06 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by hahn23:
You do seem to insinuate that those who lack the PP skills you have developed are somehow inferior photographers. |
Where did I say that? If such idea can be read through my lacking English, then it was not my intent. I absolutely understand that some prefer realism over fantasy, in which case learning how to do composites is totally useless, obviously. I am totally fine with that, and I do love many great photos done that way.
All I was trying to say is when you want to go the fantasy way, it does imply hours and hours of learning before even coming up with something decent, which can be discouraging, hence the lower participation. |
I still like your work better when you're restricted to the Advanced ruleset... That flashlight business in the Candlelight entry was pretty awesome.
Keep up the good work, and please don't construe my comments as anything against you in particular. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:19:57 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by jagar:
I don't bother with expert challenges much anymore, just not my thing, guess I lean to a more realistic photographic approach. For me it has nothing to do with the editing required to do a decent expert job, it's just I mostly don't appreciate what an expert edit does. I do however understand that many people do like to see fantasy and digital art so I still think we need expert challenges, we might want to get rid of the rule that states they should stay photographic in nature though because a lot of images break that rule already. |
Digital and fantasy art are fun to see on occasion. I do agree that, if offerred, the photographic in nature clause should be removed from the expert set rules. What's the fun of doing fantasy art if restricted?
But it's pretty clear to me from the increasing low participation in the expert editing challenges, and from the increasing number of NON expert edits that get entered even by those who do participate, that as a group we've had enough for awhile.
I believe it would be in the best interest of DPC as a whole if we stick to the editing rules that attract the most photographers. |
I agree with you, it's difficult to do this though without offending some of our most popular and talented photographers, if i was told that there would be no more candid or street challenges, i would be highly pissed. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:20:16 PM · #69 |
Never mind...
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 12:37:42. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:24:40 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by hahn23:
You do seem to insinuate that those who lack the PP skills you have developed are somehow inferior photographers. |
No offense my friend, but you might want to go back and read his comments anew... he said NOTHING of the sort.
You must get your share of exercise jumping to conclusions like that eh? :O)
Ray |
This point was directly addressed earlier by the photographer himself .. I think your comment -- despite the disclaimer -- is unnecessary and unnecessarily provocative ...
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by hahn23:
You do seem to insinuate that those who lack the PP skills you have developed are somehow inferior photographers. |
Where did I say that? If such idea can be read through my lacking English, then it was not my intent. I absolutely understand that some prefer realism over fantasy, in which case learning how to do composites is totally useless, obviously. I am totally fine with that, and I do love many great photos done that way. |
|
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:38:15 PM · #71 |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:41:24 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
OK... I edited mine.
Ray |
Perhaps more than was necessary ... |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:43:29 PM · #73 |
I am not a fan of Expert challenges. Nevertheless, it has to be said that, if the number posted here are correct, if we consider all the challenges available for the paying members to participate in (that is, open and member challenges), then there are as many Basic as there are Expert challenges. Therefore doesn't seem to be a preference towards Expert editing rules.
The unbalance is clear if you consider Minimal editing rules to be the correct comparison. In this case you would expect to have an equal proportion of basic and advance challenges. I have the feeling that that was the proportion some years ago, basic and advance more or less the same and expert and minimal sporadically.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:51:26 PM · #74 |
Could one of you please explain what "photographic in nature" means, exactly?
Message edited by author 2012-10-13 12:57:42. |
|
|
|
10/13/2012 12:52:16 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I still like your work better when you're restricted to the Advanced ruleset... That flashlight business in the Candlelight entry was pretty awesome. |
Thanks Cory, very kind of you. However, I personally prefer unrestricted rules. I'm sure you understand I first have to please myself, after all it's a hobby for me, not a paid assignment, so it's important I actually enjoy my time.
On a side note, most international challenges do not have rules restriction. Yet composites do not automagically win them every time, in fact it's quite the opposite. A few months ago, this image won me a gold medal at the "Trierenberg Super Circuit 2012", known as one of the biggest annual international contest. While my picture is obviously highly edited, it was standing next to many other incredible photos much more realistic. I believe there is room for every style, and I am very happy that DPC shows such tolerance for every kind of expression. I truly hope it stays that way. |
|
