| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2003 08:33:10 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Journey: you have been here long enough to know what people want :)
|
Yes, i know but i'm incorrigible :) I have learned, however, to never,never,never submit again something that is an attempt at humor. Those disasters have resulted in a lot of egg on my face that i'm still trying to scrape off. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 09:31:14 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by funnylooks:
Originally posted by Journey:
And then the pictures with the eye glasses. I believe that nowadays all eye glasses are really plastic or something like that (they don't break when you drop them). So, those pictures are definitely not meeting the challenge and ought to get 1s! No glass in the picture, just plastic! Cheating! |
I did not submit one of the eyeglass pictures, but my eyeglasses are real glass - they do still make them out of real glass! I don't think people are cheating here. |
My post really was meant jokingly. Thought that was understood from my previous posts in this thread here. I really don't accuse anyone of cheating and presumed that the eye glasses featured were of glass. Also, i very rarely give out 1s - only give them to pics that strongly rub me the wrong way. When a picture doesn't meet the challenge, in general i deduct not more than 2 points.
Sorry for any misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 09:46:28 PM · #28 |
Yeah, yeah, yeah...but some of the pictures are still a bit dark, are they not?
I thought so too, and had come to the very same conclusion even before I followed this thread to this point.
Art, scores, and personal interpretations aside, are they dark or are they fine for everyone else? And, yes, before you ask, I do have a calibrated system end to end.
If you go back and look at some of the other challenges, say, the recent triptych or should I saw multi-image challenge, and then tell me what you think? Overall, the calibre of submissions seems a bit off the recent standard too. But dare I go there?
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 10:42:18 PM · #29 |
| it's funny because it seems like I am not alone here. I have only received 2 comments on my photo, both kinda complaining about not knowing "what it is". is it this,is it that.......DOES IT MATTER!! I think it's pretty obvious it's glass! that was the challenge, wasn't it? did I miss something? it wasn't photograph a wine glass, it wasn't photograph your eye glasses, it wasn't photograph a window, although any of these would be within the challenge's boundrys. I was going to wait till the end of the challenge to rant, but since everyone else has commented about it, what the heck. I usually don't do abstract, though I like them ALOT, I can say this much, I'll think twice before I spend half a day taking an abstract photo for this site. it seems if it isn't super-obvious-in-your-face-here-it-is-you-cant-miss-it then nobody seems to care. |
|
|
|
05/08/2003 08:09:19 AM · #30 |
sad but sorta true ...
Originally posted by schurg:
it's funny because it seems like I am not alone here. I have only received 2 comments on my photo, both kinda complaining about not knowing "what it is". is it this,is it that.......DOES IT MATTER!! I think it's pretty obvious it's glass! that was the challenge, wasn't it? did I miss something? it wasn't photograph a wine glass, it wasn't photograph your eye glasses, it wasn't photograph a window, although any of these would be within the challenge's boundrys. I was going to wait till the end of the challenge to rant, but since everyone else has commented about it, what the heck. I usually don't do abstract, though I like them ALOT, I can say this much, I'll think twice before I spend half a day taking an abstract photo for this site. it seems if it isn't super-obvious-in-your-face-here-it-is-you-cant-miss-it then nobody seems to care. |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 08:11:10 AM · #31 |
Question -- what would people normally assess to be the percentage of 'good calibre' submissions in relation to all the submissions? 1%? 10%? 20%?
Originally posted by Morgan:
Overall, the calibre of submissions seems a bit off the recent standard too. But dare I go there? |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 08:21:40 AM · #32 |
My impression would be 10%. Obviously, including my own :-) <-- actually a serious point, as presumably we all think our pictures are high calibre.
Haven't looked at all the glass pictures yet, so can't add anything to that part of the debate, but I do think a number of voters here don't really 'get' dark photos - which are more often about high contrast and dynamic range than they are simply dark.
Another bugbear: people who use histograms as a measure of accurate exposure - we have eyes, use them. Look at a photo, don't measure it.
Ed
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 08:34:43 AM · #33 |
I think that there is nothing wrong with high contrast / dark / abstract photographs..... but it all comes down to how well you pull it off.... if you do it well everyone goes WOW! if you don't do it well everyone goes sheesh! so if you don't do it well you will get comments accordingly.... regardless of what it was meant to be....
remember that the voting part is why we are here.... if not you could drop you photos into pbase or whatever and then sit back and give youself a pat on the back for being soooo creative.... so if people criticize your work for being too dark then perhaps you need to look at the composition or whatever else it is that people didn't "get" about what you were trying to do.....
the other option is to ignore them......
easy really! |
|
|
|
05/08/2003 08:52:13 AM · #34 |
OK, I've sat and watched this thread, and have seen my score drop by .5 since it began. My image is dark, but of the 16 comments I have on it, only 1 says that it is too dark/contrasty for them.
I am a fan of abstract photography and my glass image conveys that. I set out on DPC to learn skills to help me become a better photographer. I have used every challenge to better my skills in all areas and it is now that I feel I need to start putting my vision and feelings into my work. Without that, I would be doing nothing more then trying to please the voters, and that's not what we should be seeking. We should be creating photographs that first please us, and if they work here, that's fine... if not, it doesn't mean that my artistic and photographic talents are weak, it just means that for this challenge, at this time, the voters didn't match up to my vision.
I hope that everyone votes based upon their own likes and dislikes, just be open minded enough to realize that not everyone's tastes match your own. So if you like something, chances are so will someone else. But, on the flip side, if you don't like something, chances are, so will someone else.
Happy Snappy y'all!
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:19:18 AM · #35 |
If you can't figure out what something is, why is that a vote against it for you? Maybe the 'fault' lies with you for not detecting the meaning or for what it might represent on a spiritual/artistic level because perhaps you don't take enough time or are not open to it or are too much appraising it for whether it meets the challenge or not?
I don't grade photos on spiritual quality. I grade on three axes: technical mastery (which includes focus use, light, composition, flow, cropping choice), fitting the theme, and beauty (a subjective measure, to be sure - whether it catches my eye, makes me want to sit and just look at it, kind of thing).
As a for example, in the Glass challenge, I graded photos that only contained glass as an incidental part of the image low, even if they were technically quite good and damn pretty. If the glass is not the star of the picture, I owe it to the people who DID make the glass the star of the picture to grade them higher. The other pictures might well have gotten 10s from me in some other theme, but not for glass.
I'm strict that way, what can I say. To me, photography is a visual art, and attempting to 'grade' spirituality is not only futile, it's stupid, because it's going to be different for anyone. That doesn't mean it's not an important factor, it just means I don't feel it's a valid quantifiable score for contests.
Feel free to disagree. :-> If everyone grades on their own scales, we get the best overall evaluation of the pictures, I think.
Message edited by author 2003-05-08 09:24:33.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:19:46 AM · #36 |
Yeah, see that's the thing - I'd say maybe 5% or so .. Either way .. I've found that as the challenges grow in numbers of entries, and my available time shrinks, it gets harder for me to wade through it all, and say anything meaningful. I personally learned more from looking at pictures I admired than from comments, anyway. The thing I got most from comments was validation that I was doing something right. Which is definitely valuable when you're first trying to find your 'photo legs'.
Regarding histograms, I respectfully disagree. Using a histo lets you get past whether or not the monitor or system is out of wack. It's like flying a plane using instruments when it's dark or no visibility; you can still tell exactly where the ground is. If everyone used histograms, I would guarantee the number of complaints about dark and light would drastically decrease :) ...
Originally posted by e301:
My impression would be 10%. Obviously, including my own :-) <-- actually a serious point, as presumably we all think our pictures are high calibre.
Haven't looked at all the glass pictures yet, so can't add anything to that part of the debate, but I do think a number of voters here don't really 'get' dark photos - which are more often about high contrast and dynamic range than they are simply dark.
Another bugbear: people who use histograms as a measure of accurate exposure - we have eyes, use them. Look at a photo, don't measure it.
Ed |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:25:21 AM · #37 |
Stupid question: what's a 'histogram'?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:30:00 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by eloise:
Stupid question: what's a 'histogram'? |
If yo have Photo editing program llike Paint shop pro 7 under Color adjust menu there is a Histogram adjust!
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:32:56 AM · #39 |
Here's a TUTORIAL for you ....
Levels, histograms, adjusting light and dark, etc
|
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:34:04 AM · #40 |
|
|
|
05/08/2003 09:45:26 AM · #41 |
If yo have Photo editing program llike Paint shop pro 7 under Color adjust menu there is a Histogram adjust!
Oh. Nevermind, I don't have a program that advanced. :-/ I do all my digicam tidying in ACDSee.
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 02:20:01 PM EDT.
