| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2005 09:51:42 AM · #26 |
You have my observations already...
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 09:55:56 AM · #27 |
If you were shooting for dpc, it was unusual and far too non-stock to do well.
If you were shooting for you, you should be happy. It's a very cool shot.
Without ranting, that's all I can say. Congrats on a good pic!
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 10:13:59 AM · #28 |
Thinking about it a little more as I read this thread than I did while voting.... I am surprised that it did not get DQ'ed for violation of the major elements rule. Though the smaller frame within takes few pixels of space, it has a major impact on how the shot is perceived, the impression it makes. Were there any requests for DQ on this shot? Did the SC really think this is within the letter and spirit of the rules?
Without the inner frame and the sel-desat the photo is average, or slightly above average, in execution but not very unique, or of interesting subject matter. The frame and sel-desat are it's hook. It's a gimmick that has not been seen before in the challenges (at least not that I can remember) so it captured a fair amount of attention. If the goal is to be "controversial", to come up with something different that captures people's imagination for the moment, this shot certainly succeeds.
However if the goal is to produce superior photographs, this shot is middle of the pack at best. I doubt it would have placed as well without the gimmick. My guess is it would have scored around 4.9 to 5.1. It's bell curve of votes has upturns at both ends of the scale. I'd venture that these votes were based on whether the voter liked, or disliked, the gimmick; and not on the merits of the photograph. How do you think it would have scored without the frame & sel-desat?
I wouldn't be too surprised to see a minor flood of this type of shots in upcoming challenges. To me, that will be confusing to say the least, because you won't know for sure if the voters are voting on the photograph, or on the gimmick.
As always, just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 10:39:22 AM · #29 |
I doubt that people will copy this idea as it will very quickly become tired. It was an experiment to see if I could realize an idea in a photograph, I never said that it was a very good idea.
The shot is actually really only raised above a snapshot by the longer than usual exposure of 1/60 second to give movement to the 'rain'
It took me five minutes in the garden to shoot and two minutes in photoshop to frame.
10 seconds checking my title spelling would have been an idea... let all readers take that away from this thread if nothing else.
Chris
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 11:04:20 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Pixelstate:
... 10 seconds checking my title spelling would have been an idea... let all readers take that away from this thread if nothing else. |
I learned that lesson the hard way too.
Now that the voting is over you can PM the admins and request that they correct the misspelling. They did that once for me, and at least one other time that I know of. But it can't be done while voting is still going on.
Just for the record, were you asked to submit the original for validation?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 11:04:49 AM · #31 |
I thought it was very clever and unique in the midst of some very good entries. I scored it an 8 also (and would have scored higher if the title had been spelled correctly). :-)
Beautiful shot.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:27:39 PM · #32 |
Hi Coolhar,
No, I was not asked for validation, but then it was a straight forward shot, just photoshoped with the frame and de-saturated....
Chris
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:34:26 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Pixelstate:
Hi Coolhar,
No, I was not asked for validation, but then it was a straight forward shot, just photoshoped with the frame and de-saturated....
Chris |
The SC discussed this image, but did not require submission of an original file. |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:48:00 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The SC discussed this image, but did not require submission of an original file. |
Is that to be taken as a ruling that the type of image in question is legal? Or is SC backing away from officially condoning it?
Would be nice to know in case such entries appear in future challenges.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 04:15:57 PM · #35 |
SC could change the rules to diss-allow frames within frames to discourage others ;-)
Nested framing hereafter to be known as 'doing a pixelstate' or 'pixelstated'
As in "DQ that pixelstated garbage!"
LOL
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 05:21:35 PM · #36 |
| I too have a difficulty discerning what is considered a major element and what is considered a minor element. It would be very helpful if when a photo was disqualified it didn't just quote the rule why it was disqualified but also the exact element in a photo that caused the disqualification. There were many DQ photo's that I can' tell which element was the problem. |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 06:15:17 PM · #37 |
Great point!
Originally posted by severin:
I too have a difficulty discerning what is considered a major element and what is considered a minor element. It would be very helpful if when a photo was disqualified it didn't just quote the rule why it was disqualified but also the exact element in a photo that caused the disqualification. There were many DQ photo's that I can' tell which element was the problem. |
|
|
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: 08/18/2025 03:06:47 AM EDT.
