| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2006 09:57:06 AM · #26 |
Good post processing should go unnoticed...
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 09:59:06 AM · #27 |
i think someone said that already ;}
Originally posted by dpaull:
And to be picky you're probably better off having the custom balance set off an underexposed (Zone V, if you like) white to avoid the (slight) possiblity of a clipped channel offsetting the WB setting.
|
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:01:11 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
There should have been a special rule added in this challenge IMO. NO blurring allowed in advanced editing. |
But then people who wanted to do it couldn't. We prefer to leave things to the discretion of the photographer and voters as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:09:54 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Basically, yes. If you only crop and resize, then that is editing, but basic. If I used dodge, burn, etc, then I used advanced editing. Then I get a comment that says "the use of advanced editing is against the spirit of a challenge". LOL.... You would probably get a comment that says "your photo would have looked better had you darkened the sky". LOL....BUT, that is neither here nor there. That is just another funny quip that commenters do. I love it when I get a comment on what I should do to a photo to make it better when it was AGAINST the editing rules. LOL...BUT, to say that it is against the spirit of a challenge to use ANY editing? That mystifies me. |
Rose,
I've read the comment in question, and I personally thing the above statement misrepresents it somewhat (and at the very least takes it out of contet), especially as it is enclosed in quotation marks. It certainly led me to believe that was the exact comment.
The actual comment you received was, "Blurring out the other people with your software somewhat goes against the spirit of the challenge..."
As I read it, that comment in no way states that the use of post-processing *at all* is a violation of the spirit of the challenge. At least to me, it reads that the use of post-processing to meet the challenge with a photograph that otherwise might not was not well received by that voter. Nothing more, nothing less.
Implicit in a comment like that is also a statement about the quality of the post-processing. Obviously something about the post-processing made it clear to the commenter that the DOF was achieved in post-processing, rather than in camera. If there's anything to take away from the comment, that might be it.
Far from being a wasted challenge, there is the opportunity to learn from the voters' response to your post-processing, which is part of your presentation. When one finds something to learn from a negative experience, that experience is not wasted.
~Terry |
Terry, I have to state here that I did not use the exact phrasing for a reason. That reason is because "council"..LOL..has advised in the past to NOT make direct quote of a comment made on your image in open forum.
I see that doesn't necessarily mean it is a rule for council?
What you have quoted of me above originally and in reference to your comments at all was not the comment I received. In that comment I was merely making an analogy just as that poster had posted to me an analogy of a situtation we may have both been in. What you perceived to be in quotes was not my actual comment as that would have been "against the rules", for me at least, to have posted.
I also do not see the comment as you do, now that you have posted it.
It specifically states that "Blurring out the other people with your software somewhat goes against the spirit of the challenge...".
So, Terry, let me ask you. Is blurring out of other people using PP in this challenge reason for DQ or DNMC, or going against the spirit of a challenge when it "IS" allowed in PP using the advanced editing rules? And, am I right in believing a special rule in this case should have been applied IF this was going to be such a unspirited move and cause voters to think this way?
By the way, it is only your perception, and the perception of a "few" that my particular PP was done incorrectly, if you are stating so. There is a difference between dof, bokeh, and shallow dof. Minimual dof to me, means shallow dof, and not a complete and only unblur of one subject or subject matter. Shallow dof to me means a confusion line before and after the subject, and not a complete blur of every single thing around a subject. BUT that is not my point here.
I do have other comments that say the photo is great. If you want, I can post them all in open forum? However, the use of blur in THIS particular challenge should not be a reason for a vote down, and if it was going to be, then I would not have entered if I couldn't get a photo I wanted that met challenge description, title, and with the proper use of editing rules AS stated.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:11:35 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
Good post processing should go unnoticed... |
not my point |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:13:19 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
There should have been a special rule added in this challenge IMO. NO blurring allowed in advanced editing. |
But then people who wanted to do it couldn't. We prefer to leave things to the discretion of the photographer and voters as much as possible. |
That's right. And then people who wanted to do it, couldn't. And a thread like this, and the other DQ thread, wouldn't have even been of issue. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:14:03 AM · #32 |
people can vote your image down for whatever reason they see fit. some may take the side that blurring in the manner you seemed to have used is cause to vote an image up - are they wrong too?
if your image is mostly pink - and i don't like pink at ALL, i am justified to lower my vote accordingly merely because i don't like the color...
bringing this type of conversation into the forums only makes it more difficult for people to leave honest insight when making comments, if they are going to comment at all. i can honestly say these types of threads have caused me to leave less comments during voting. i imagine i am not the only one who feels this way.
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 10:17:32.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:14:52 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
The use of blur in THIS particular challenge should not be a reason for a vote down |
Once again, any voter can vote however they like, on whatever criteria they like. It is up to the photographer to work out what voters will like. Thats part of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:17:33 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
AND your first sentence says it all EXACTLY. There should have been a special rule added in this challenge IMO. NO blurring allowed in advanced editing.
And again, I am not saying be it good, bad, or over blurring, or in how they perceive it to be in dof or shallow dof; but allowing ANY such process being used in this challenge was only setting others up for the fall. Had there been a special rule added, it would have avoided that particular PP usage and certain comments and votes - not to mention the threads that were made during voting process in which specified how this NOT be done instead of having it be threaded before challenge. |
I don't agree.
As the artist, the responsibility is yours to decide how best to present your vision to your audience. We merely provide guidelines on what tools may or may not be used. It is up to you to decide, within those guidelines, what tools should or should not be used, and to base that decision in part on your skill level in using them. I'm sure there are several users who used post-processing to create or enhance the shallow DOF in their entries with enough skill that the average voter will not be able to tell that this was done. It is certainly within their rights to do that, and the votes they receive will represent the overall quality of their presented work, just as the votes you receive represent the overall quality of your presented work.
One could argue that having challenge topics at all sets people up to fail, and that every challenge should be a free study. There are those who misinterpret almost every challenge topic, and there are those who execute each topic poorly. That said, themed challenges are part of the learning experience we provide, and when you present to a challenge, you should expect feedback on all aspects of your presentation, including composition, technical aspects, post-processing, frame (if you use one) and title. Whether you choose to use that feedback as a tool to learn and grow is up to you.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:18:10 AM · #35 |
bringing this type of conversation into the forums only makes it more difficult for people to leave honest insight when making comments, if they are going to comment at all. i can honestly say these types of threads have caused me to leave less comments during voting. i imagine i am not the only one who feels this way.
please move this to the rant section.
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 10:19:01.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:19:48 AM · #36 |
Can we move this to rant? Given the title and the argumentative nature, not to mention one more attempt at influencing/upsetting the voting segment of the site, it doesn't seem to belong here.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:22:22 AM · #37 |
Oh, I should have read the whole thread first.
Originally posted by soup:
i think someone said that already ;}
Originally posted by dpaull:
And to be picky you're probably better off having the custom balance set off an underexposed (Zone V, if you like) white to avoid the (slight) possiblity of a clipped channel offsetting the WB setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:28:00 AM · #38 |
Well, very few, if any, are "getting it". I am not going to keep repeating how it is NOT how PP is done, but IF it is done that matters over and over and over until someone opens up their mind and lets that in.
In closing I will just say that if a challenge is going to be offered up in which an in camera effect is to be the basis, then don't make it an advanced editing challenge unless you are going to implement a special rule that the in-camera effect for the challenge cannot be PP. It is MY opinion that in not implementing that special rule, you have opened up the door for a fall to those that may have used PP for this effect. Even if they did it well, (and I am sure many of the photos have been scrutinized since the other threads on this issue were made during voting process), if it is suspected it was done at all it will be a DNMC to most voters. I feel that many of the entries have used PP for this challenge.
Voters? Vote as you like, as always, and as I do as well. But it is my opinion that if a challenge allows for PP in which an in camera effect for that challenge can be used? Do not vote a photo down for it, or even worse, say it was unspirited. In was not all the entrants that made the challenge and its rules. Don't penalize the entrants for simply following them.
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:28:30 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by shamrock69:
Can we move this to rant? Given the title and the argumentative nature, not to mention one more attempt at influencing/upsetting the voting segment of the site, it doesn't seem to belong here. |
Move it however you like. I'm done with it.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:38:14 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Well, very few, if any, are "getting it". I am not going to keep repeating how it is NOT how PP is done, but IF it is done that matters over and over and over until someone opens up their mind and lets that in.
In closing I will just say that if a challenge is going to be offered up in which an in camera effect is to be the basis, then don't make it an advanced editing challenge unless you are going to implement a special rule that the in-camera effect for the challenge cannot be PP. It is MY opinion that in not implementing that special rule, you have opened up the door for a fall to those that may have used PP for this effect. Even if they did it well, (and I am sure many of the photos have been scrutinized since the other threads on this issue were made during voting process), if it is suspected it was done at all it will be a DNMC to most voters. I feel that many of the entries have used PP for this challenge. |
I don't get it...if you did it very well in post processing, how can anyone tell whether it's how it was shot or done in post? If people can obviously tell that your entry was done in post processing (and I have no idea, I do not know what entry is yours) then I'd agree that I'd vote it lower because of bad post...
Like I said, I'm confused though, I just don't get what you're complaining about...I thought what you are saying is the way that it is.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:11:13 AM · #41 |
People are gonna just vote how they vote. Rant away if it makes you feel better. You'll never stop people from voting however they want, regardless of how unreasonable their rationale seems to you.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:16:03 AM · #42 |
I have bumped up the "DQ for fake DOF" thread. Read it and then read my comments. Then maybe what I am saying will be clearer to you, dpaull.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:23:49 AM · #43 |
Posted in another thread by mistake, meant it for here:
I think people who make suggestions in comments better be sure of what they are looking at first. It seems obvious to me that although people do post process, some assume EVERY shot is processed to look how it does when entered. Are people so used to processing that a shot cannot be entered as it was out of camera?
Do you know how extremely frustrating and insulting it is to get comments like "you shouldn't have pushed the colors so much" when the shot is basically an out of camera shot? Or how maddening it is when you get something like "you over sharpened" when in fact no sharpening was done at all?
I like comments just as much as the next person, but comments that are born of incorrect assumptions are the worst. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:29:09 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Posted in another thread by mistake, meant it for here:
I think people who make suggestions in comments better be sure of what they are looking at first. It seems obvious to me that although people do post process, some assume EVERY shot is processed to look how it does when entered. Are people so used to processing that a shot cannot be entered as it was out of camera?
Do you know how extremely frustrating and insulting it is to get comments like "you shouldn't have pushed the colors so much" when the shot is basically an out of camera shot? Or how maddening it is when you get something like "you over sharpened" when in fact no sharpening was done at all?
I like comments just as much as the next person, but comments that are born of incorrect assumptions are the worst. |
Touche`! I'm with you 100% on that.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:30:29 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Terry, I have to state here that I did not use the exact phrasing for a reason. That reason is because "council"..LOL..has advised in the past to NOT make direct quote of a comment made on your image in open forum.
I see that doesn't necessarily mean it is a rule for council? |
Though I was not part of that conversation, I believe that "council"..LOL..made that request in the context of you publically calling out other users for their comments. Also, there is the danger that by posting a comment you can give away the challenge entry in question.
In this case, I believe the greater issue what that the comment had been misrepresented somewhat in your posts, and given that the comment does not give away your entry, my judgment as a member of Site Council was that posting the comment was the correct decision.
Originally posted by Rose8699:
What you have quoted of me above originally and in reference to your comments at all was not the comment I received. In that comment I was merely making an analogy just as that poster had posted to me an analogy of a situtation we may have both been in. What you perceived to be in quotes was not my actual comment as that would have been "against the rules", for me at least, to have posted. |
What I percieved to be in quotes, was in fact in quotes. As I felt it might mislead most readers (even though it may not have been your intention to do so) my judgment was (and is) that setting the record straight was the correct action to take. I certainly could have paraphrased the comment myself, but given the context of the thread, and the fact that posting the comment would reveal nothing that wasn't already revealed by the discussion, my judgement was that it was appropriate in this instance to post the comment.
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I also do not see the comment as you do, now that you have posted it.
It specifically states that "Blurring out the other people with your software somewhat goes against the spirit of the challenge...".
So, Terry, let me ask you. Is blurring out of other people using PP in this challenge reason for DQ or DNMC, or going against the spirit of a challenge when it "IS" allowed in PP using the advanced editing rules? And, am I right in believing a special rule in this case should have been applied IF this was going to be such a unspirited move and cause voters to think this way? |
Assuming that you are asking me as a member of Site Council:
- Blurring out other people in post-processing is not grounds for disqualification, unless the blurring is to so great an extent that it constitutes removing a major element.
- Site Council as a body does not establish or express an opinion on whether any entry concept or technique meets a given challenge. We believe that this is a decision best handled by the voters. We recognize that voters will have varying opinions on what does or does not meet each challenge, and believe that the community as a whole does a more effective job of policing this through their votes than we could through disqualification. Of course, each Site Council member, in his or her role as a voter, will have his or her own personal opinion of whether entries meet the challenge, and are free to vote accordingly. These opinions, however, are those of the individual members and should not be construed as a Site Council opinion.
Originally posted by Rose8699:
By the way, it is only your perception, and the perception of a "few" that my particular PP was done incorrectly, if you are stating so. There is a difference between dof, bokeh, and shallow dof. Minimual dof to me, means shallow dof, and not a complete and only unblur of one subject or subject matter. Shallow dof to me means a confusion line before and after the subject, and not a complete blur of every single thing around a subject. BUT that is not my point here.
I do have other comments that say the photo is great. If you want, I can post them all in open forum? However, the use of blur in THIS particular challenge should not be a reason for a vote down, and if it was going to be, then I would not have entered if I couldn't get a photo I wanted that met challenge description, title, and with the proper use of editing rules AS stated. |
If it's only the perception of a few, then what are you so worried about? Let those few vote how they like, and it will all average out in the end.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:30:33 AM · #46 |
This... is... insane...
R. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:31:35 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Do you know how extremely frustrating and insulting it is to get comments like "you shouldn't have pushed the colors so much" when the shot is basically an out of camera shot? Or how maddening it is when you get something like "you over sharpened" when in fact no sharpening was done at all? |
I agree completely, I've gotten comments like that as well...is my understanding correct that Rose DID use post processing to create a shallow DOF though? So, essentially, it's not the same, correct?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:33:00 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
I think people who make suggestions in comments better be sure of what they are looking at first. It seems obvious to me that although people do post process, some assume EVERY shot is processed to look how it does when entered. Are people so used to processing that a shot cannot be entered as it was out of camera?
Do you know how extremely frustrating and insulting it is to get comments like "you shouldn't have pushed the colors so much" when the shot is basically an out of camera shot? Or how maddening it is when you get something like "you over sharpened" when in fact no sharpening was done at all?
I like comments just as much as the next person, but comments that are born of incorrect assumptions are the worst. |
I was an Air Traffic Controller for 16 years. One specific, written rule that we were taught was that even if you could clearly see that a portion of the landing gear did not retract, you could not defnitively state so. As an observer of the aircraft you had to notify the pilot that "Your landing gear APPEARS to have not fully retracted." The operator of the aircraft (the photographer as it applies here) is in the best position to know or determine what the actual situation is.
Perhaps commenters should phrase their comments in this manner and say that "This image appears to be oversaturated in post processing", and when they don't, the photographer should remember that they alone know the image and how it was taken and processed.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:34:23 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I have bumped up the "DQ for fake DOF" thread. Read it and then read my comments. Then maybe what I am saying will be clearer to you, dpaull.
Rose |
Why not just provide a link instead?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:36:08 AM · #50 |
All I see is the same thing there that is said here -- if it's done properly, no one will know it's done in post...I still don't see the big deal...obviously, and sorry to be blunt here, but if people can tell yours is fake, your post processing needs some work. Good luck.
|
|
