| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2015 11:42:30 PM · #26 |
a great learning experience thank you for allowing to share, this is a good discussion and learning, a very hard decision to make.
SC thanks for the hard work as always. |
|
|
|
05/31/2015 04:18:41 AM · #27 |
| or bin the rules and save the hard work |
|
|
|
05/31/2015 09:07:29 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I can add blur and dodge to a landscape all I want, until it begins to look like finger of fog that I am creating from nothing. |
A little context goes a long way. Emphasis mine. |
you are correct, my earlier point was that all post processing changes the original photo. Whether its cropping, adjusting colors, adding blur, cloning out, etc. For some reason some of it is accepted and the rest is shunned. For some reason we refuse to allow certain types, I'm not faulting the SC, the DQ was justified, however the fact that we cant do certain stuff still boggles my mind. Tone mapping, adding color gradients and textures alter the image, for example, by adding interest that wasn't there to begin with.
We have these arbitrary rules that limit the final output for some reason, instead of allowing the voters to decide what is accepted. In this case we had two images win ribbons, so clearly the final product was accepted by the majority but becuase they a processing style that was deemed "too much", they got dq'd. They didn't create composites, they didn't use some else's artwork, all they did was modify was was there in a creative manner. They took an image of reality and showed us how they saw it and we liked it.
I hate to see creativity stifled. I want to see new stuff, new ideas, new techniques, not the same stuff rehashed over and over. Who cares how you get there, we had two images get there, they were accepted, and then they got taken away.
It really bothers me when I see a ribbon winner that wins because of a lot of creative processing and then one gets dq'd for a lot of creative processing simply because we have accepted that it went too far. We need to stop dq'd based on bias for a particular type of processing. We need a looser advanced set. I'm not saying get rid of all the rules, we need to have constraints, but what we don't need is picking and choosing what constraints we get to use with over regulation or processing, let the voters decide what they want.
Message edited by author 2015-05-31 09:08:57. |
|
|
|
05/31/2015 10:10:42 AM · #29 |
i ran this outtake from before i finished the pp on my entry by Bear, and he indicated it would likely have been acceptable b/c it still had aspects of the original image's leaf texture
however, to me, it wasn't abstract enough, which is why i processed it more.
Message edited by author 2015-05-31 10:11:13. |
|
|
|
05/31/2015 11:52:59 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Mike:
... let the voters decide what they want. |
The voters are supposed to free their minds during voting and "assume" that the image they are voting on was entered according to the rules. It's up to SC to verify, after the fact, that the rules were followed. The voters have to be able to vote in confidence that things such as what just happened do get sorted out afterwards by SC. |
|
|
|
05/31/2015 01:45:08 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Mike:
... let the voters decide what they want. |
The voters are supposed to free their minds during voting and "assume" that the image they are voting on was entered according to the rules. It's up to SC to verify, after the fact, that the rules were followed. The voters have to be able to vote in confidence that things such as what just happened do get sorted out afterwards by SC. |
the reason they got sorted out afterwards is because we continue to follow rules that we should get rid of. i just don't understand why we allow some processing techniques that drastically alter the tone of an image but disallow others. because we edit the pixels too much? blur them too much, smooth them too much? but its ok to drop a texture that we didn't even make over top? or change the colors to make smoke in fire?
|
|
|
|
05/31/2015 03:15:02 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Mike:
... let the voters decide what they want. |
The voters are supposed to free their minds during voting and "assume" that the image they are voting on was entered according to the rules. It's up to SC to verify, after the fact, that the rules were followed. The voters have to be able to vote in confidence that things such as what just happened do get sorted out afterwards by SC. |
the reason they got sorted out afterwards is because we continue to follow rules that we should get rid of. i just don't understand why we allow some processing techniques that drastically alter the tone of an image but disallow others. because we edit the pixels too much? blur them too much, smooth them too much? but its ok to drop a texture that we didn't even make over top? or change the colors to make smoke in fire? |
Obviously, where there's smoke, there's fire. :) |
|
|
|
05/31/2015 03:25:15 PM · #33 |
Seriously, though� I'm sorry to disagree, because you have to put up with me for the next number of weeks� :)
But I really do like that this is a photography site. I think there's a nice line between things that don't remotely resemble the original and things that hold true to the original. There are definitely things that I disagree with. I do think that Spiff's is questionable, but the ability to change colors has always been a part of things. Having a spring photo win a fall challenge (or was it the other way around�) because of the processing doesn't seem quite right to me either.
But it's a hard thing to put into rules, and it really does have to have a line somewhere. And I think the SC does a remarkable job of keeping the spirit of the challenges. Sometimes I disagree -- but the vast majority of the times I think they're spot on.
This one bothered me from the very beginning:  The original was so flat and so monotone, I was amazed, impressed, and yet disappointed that you can change things so much in processing.
I'm just glad I'm not on site council. Again, I think it's a good system. At least we're not doing basic anymore. No spot editing at all didn't make any sense to me. It's the same as bringing it into to Walmart for processing. |
|
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: 08/31/2025 11:14:22 PM EDT.
