| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2006 11:37:26 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
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? |
It does not matter what I did to my photo, but I still do agree with comments like the ones stated. :)
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:38:22 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
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. |
Oh, but you must read beyond only those expressions. The idea of the thread was that is was influencial, and others posted so as well.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:38:58 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by dpaull:
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? |
It does not matter what I did to my photo, but I still do agree with comments like the ones stated. :)
Rose |
It most certainly does matter what you did to your photo. If you used post processing badly and it didn't look good, then that puts everything into perspective.
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 11:39:54.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:43:04 AM · #54 |
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. |
Rose,
I believe you are confusing not "getting it" with not agreeing with your points. The two are not the same.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:45:45 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Oh, but you must read beyond only those expressions. The idea of the thread was that is was influencial, and others posted so as well. |
Doesn't this thread also seek to influence the voters? If not, what is its purpose?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:46:31 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
It most certainly does matter what you did to your photo. If you used post processing badly and it didn't look good, then that puts everything into perspective. |
Well, I see Rose's point of view and it is not a new one..although she may be experiencing it for the first time herself.
There has been and probably always will be a segment of photographers that feel ANY post processing beyond levels and sharpen makes the photo something OTHER than a "photo".
And, post processing is only bad if the photographer feels it should have been better. Lots of photos are processed to look different than a freakin stock photo. They may not score well here but it does not mean that the processing was bad. That is like saying Monet couldn't paint in focus :-/ |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:46:38 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by dpaull:
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. |
Oh, but you must read beyond only those expressions. The idea of the thread was that is was influencial, and others posted so as well.
Rose |
So, to put it in a nutshell you're saying you (and others who did what you did) would have gotten away with it if these threads hadn't alerted the voters to the situation? Frankly, I don't think you're giving the voters enough credit; I think they do and say exactly what they want to regardless of threads such as this, and I find it entirely plausible that in THIS challenge, given the very specific nature of the DOF component in the description, a LOT of voters are looking for "real" DOF entirely independently of this, or any other, thread on the topic.
R. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:48:17 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
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 |
I didn't think of it. Does it matter?
By the way, NO, it wasn't because I was calling out people as to why council made that comment about quoting direct comments. It was on another thread I read and one I wasn't even apart of, and goes to show how easily perception is misperception on the part of certain individuals when it comes to me. Your comment "assuming" it had to do with "me" is now another misperception that will be made.
Maybe you should lock this thread if it is agitating to you, or you could PM me as well, then to make false statements in regards to your replies towards me. I agree with Bear. This IS insane.
I am simply stating three things
1. That DOF using PP should not be reason for voters to lowball, when advanced editing is allowed and is able to be used to ascertain that effect. If they WANT to lowball, fine, but it is my OPINION that should not happen.
2. That a challenge in which an in camera effect is wanted, then it should be made clear that PP not be allowed to ascertain that effect.
3. That influencial threads during the voting process should not be allowed.
AND I asked for comments along those lines. This was not a thread about my particular usage of DOF and how well or poorly I used it.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:49:17 AM · #59 |
I agree with R.
--
That being said, the original post:
In the Singled Out challenge, shallow DOF is supposed to be an "important part" of the photograph.
So... if the shallow DOF is achieved in software rather than in-camera, does it become cause for DQ because a "major element" in the photograph for this challenge has been created rather than captured?
Was in the form of a question...and to clarify for himself, NOT to influence voters.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:52:20 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
1. That DOF using PP should not be reason for voters to lowball, when advanced editing is allowed and is able to be used to ascertain that effect. If they WANT to lowball, fine, but it is my OPINION that should not happen.
|
It IS reason for voters to vote low IF the PP is done badly, it is, always was, and always will be reason to vote low. Why is it your opinion that voting low for bad processing shouldn't happen?
Originally posted by Rose8699:
2. That a challenge in which an in camera effect is wanted, then it should be made clear that PP not be allowed to ascertain that effect.
|
It doesn't have to be an in-camera effect...you CAN and DID use processing to get the effect...unfortunately, you seem to have done a bad job at it, and it's obvious to the viewers, so you're getting low votes and comments.
Originally posted by Rose8699:
3. That influencial threads during the voting process should not be allowed. |
His thread was not influencial -- he asked a valid question.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:55:35 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by dpaull:
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. |
Oh, but you must read beyond only those expressions. The idea of the thread was that is was influencial, and others posted so as well.
Rose |
So, to put it in a nutshell you're saying you (and others who did what you did) would have gotten away with it if these threads hadn't alerted the voters to the situation? Frankly, I don't think you're giving the voters enough credit; I think they do and say exactly what they want to regardless of threads such as this, and I find it entirely plausible that in THIS challenge, given the very specific nature of the DOF component in the description, a LOT of voters are looking for "real" DOF entirely independently of this, or any other, thread on the topic.
R. |
That is a different story then one you wrote on the DQ thread in which you state "how RIDICULOUS" it would be not to use PP for the effect as most cameras don't allow for it????
If voters are looking for "real" dof, then from that thread they are now giving false comments to those like Laurielblack, in which she herself received a comment about her "fake" dof when it isn't EVEN fake.
The thread was clearly influential. I am sorry, but I will not see it any other way. I do give voters credit, where and WHEN credit is due. But to have a voter comment on my photo using the exact same phrase that was used by Pawdrix in the DQ thread means that thread was definately influential. And I am not the only one feeling that way, via Laurielblack on that same thread.
Now, does it matter in the long run? Not really. Am I "worried", Clubjungle? Not in the least. I expected a 5.0 on my entry, and have a 5.2. I am happy with my score, and my photo, no matter what is said about it. What I am NOT pleased about are the three things I listed which was the reason for this thread. Sorry if others find that annoying, but I can have a view just like the rest of you do, and that is my view.
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:58:29 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
That is a different story then one you wrote on the DQ thread in which you state "how RIDICULOUS" it would be not to use PP for the effect as most cameras don't allow for it????
|
I'm not going to go back and read it, but I think I was saying it was ridiculous that it was going to be allowed for this challenge to make a photo "meet the challenge" but in the rain entry, we were not allowed to 'create' rain to make it "meet the challenge"...and I still feel the same way on that, but that's over and done with...
I'm leaving my personal feelings on the whole thing aside and just trying to help you understand why you got a low score and a bad comment or two.
EDIT: bringing up that just made it worse, because if I got my way back there, you wouldn't have a low score or some bad comments, you'd have a DQ for 'using post processing to create DOF' -- which I think in this challenge, DOF constitutes a major element...one which can be (is, and was) altered, changed, or added, to allow the photo to meet the challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 12:03:25.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:01:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
That is a different story then one you wrote on the DQ thread in which you state "how RIDICULOUS" it would be not to use PP for the effect as most cameras don't allow for it???? |
For gawdsake, it's not a "story" at all, it's an OPINION regarding the independence of the voters. Personally, I'm FINE with using PP to get the shallow DOF. I couldn't care less how it was done. Evidently, the mass of voters are being fairly strict, IF one bases one's judgment ont he ecidence int hese two threads. I have no way of knowing until we see the results.
But, Rose, if you EVER want to see an example of why you get hammered on in these threads, just look back at your response to me (which I am quoting). You were SO QUICK to jump up in righteous indignation and expose my "inconsistency", which is not in fact an inconsistency at all. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way when you just, apparently out of habit, twist the facts any which way you want to support your own crusade-of-the-moment...
R.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:02:14 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
1. That DOF using PP should not be reason for voters to lowball, when advanced editing is allowed and is able to be used to ascertain that effect. If they WANT to lowball, fine, but it is my OPINION that should not happen.
|
It IS reason for voters to vote low IF the PP is done badly, it is, always was, and always will be reason to vote low. Why is it your opinion that voting low for bad processing shouldn't happen?
I am not talking about bad usage. I am talking about "the" usage
Originally posted by Rose8699:
2. That a challenge in which an in camera effect is wanted, then it should be made clear that PP not be allowed to ascertain that effect.
|
It doesn't have to be an in-camera effect...you CAN and DID use processing to get the effect...unfortunately, you seem to have done a bad job at it, and it's obvious to the viewers, so you're getting low votes and comments.
My votes are not low, and don't be so sarcastic. This thread is in reference to the comment on how it is "against the spirit of the challenge" to use the advanced editing rules to achieve the effect when it IS allowed, as per Bear Music's OWN words on the DQ thread, where he actually states how RIDICULOUS it would be not to use it if needed for certain cameras
Originally posted by Rose8699:
3. That influencial threads during the voting process should not be allowed. |
His thread was not influencial -- he asked a valid question. |
Your wrong. The thread is influential, and if you would read it, you would see that. Laurielblack and myself both received fake dof comments on the day of that thread, and anyone can ask a valid question and have it turn into chaos. You have proven that.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:05:20 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I am not talking about bad usage. I am talking about "the" usage
...
anyone can ask a valid question and have it turn into chaos. You have proven that. |
A) I am talking about bad useage, as we all are..."usage" which is not bad will not be detected!
B) I have proven that huh? I singlehandedly turned your rant, whiney, crybaby thread into chaos, right? All by myself? And...ladies and gentlemen...The pot just called the kettle black!
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:06:24 PM · #66 |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:06:35 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... and that is my view.
Rose |
Yes, everyone who has read any of this is well aware of that. It's just that many tend to not agree.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:06:57 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
This thread is in reference to the comment on how it is "against the spirit of the challenge" to use the advanced editing rules to achieve the effect when it IS allowed, as per Bear Music's OWN words on the DQ thread, where he actually states how RIDICULOUS it would be not to use it if needed for certain cameras. |
Just because it is allowed, doesn't mean people have to agree with it's usage. This is the basic fact that you don't seem to understand. It would be silly not to allow it because, some camera's can't get shallow DoF. It doesn't matter whether bear said that or not. Even so, if it's done well so that people don't know it's been done, it won't get marked down. If people can tell, it will. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:07:58 PM · #69 |
heh...ok folks, I'm done for two reasons...
1) I don't CARE because in reality it doesn't affect me...I did not enter, nor do I plan to vote.
2) I tried to explain nicely as many others have and I feel the point is missed.
3) I'm gonna go watch the NFL and get psyched for when the Steelers demolish the Broncos
4) I'm tired of typing and my eyes are sore.
5) Here we go Steelers Here we GO@!!!
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:09:15 PM · #70 |
I love it when the sky falls, such pretty colors. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:09:26 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
This thread is in reference to the comment on how it is "against the spirit of the challenge" to use the advanced editing rules to achieve the effect when it IS allowed, as per Bear Music's OWN words on the DQ thread, where he actually states how RIDICULOUS it would be not to use it if needed for certain cameras. |
Just because it is allowed, doesn't mean people have to agree with it's usage. This is the basic fact that you don't seem to understand. It would be silly not to allow it because, some camera's can't get shallow DoF. It doesn't matter whether bear said that or not. Even so, if it's done well so that people don't know it's been done, it won't get marked down. If people can tell, it will. Simple as that. |
Good nutshell, Ben; you have to allow it, rules-wise, but like anything else, if its done poorly it won't fare well. I really don't see where the argument is here :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:10:20 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
That is a different story then one you wrote on the DQ thread in which you state "how RIDICULOUS" it would be not to use PP for the effect as most cameras don't allow for it???? |
For gawdsake, it's not a "story" at all, it's an OPINION regarding the independence of the voters. Personally, I'm FINE with using PP to get the shallow DOF. I couldn't care less how it was done. Evidently, the mass of voters are being fairly strict, IF one bases one's judgment ont he ecidence int hese two threads. I have no way of knowing until we see the results.
But, Rose, if you EVER want to see an example of why you get hammered on in these threads, just look back at your response to me (which I am quoting). You were SO QUICK to jump up in righteous indignation and expose my "inconsistency", which is not in fact an inconsistency at all. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way when you just, apparently out of habit, twist the facts any which way you want to support your own crusade-of-the-moment...
R. |
I'm sorry Bear, but I feel that is exactly what is done to me.
Read back on this thread and see how it went from my original post here to "my bad PP and get over it" attitude? This is not why I get hammered, but why I end up usually doing THE hammering. OUT OF CONTEXT posts on my threads that are there to cause disruption rather than addressing the subject.
The end result of the challenge is also of no real significants any longer. There will always be challenges where others may feel certain individuals shouldn't win. I have won quite a few on another site and have had it referred to as "someone elses trash is anothers treasure". LOL....That doesn't matter to me, and I am trying to keep this in all fairness and uncomplicated as possible. I just simply do not agree with influencial threads during voting. I also do not agree with the excuse of saying advanced editing/shallow dof being left up to voters discretion. I didn't read it that way. I read it like "Oh, advanced editing??? Then this will be easy!!" and I wasn't just talking about myself. It simply said to me that you could point a shot at any crowd and turn it into minimal dof, and quite a few have admitted to using the option. But to say it isn't the "spirit" of the challenge to use editing is like saying the challenge itself, given the ruleset, was not spirited either.
Rose
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:11:21 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
heh...ok folks, I'm done for two reasons...
1) I don't CARE because in reality it doesn't affect me...I did not enter, nor do I plan to vote.
2) I tried to explain nicely as many others have and I feel the point is missed.
3) I'm gonna go watch the NFL and get psyched for when the Steelers demolish the Broncos
4) I'm tired of typing and my eyes are sore.
5) Here we go Steelers Here we GO@!!! |
I can agree with you about all but #3, I think you have it backwards. The Broncos will demolish the Steelers
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:13:12 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I didn't think of it. Does it matter? |
I was merely offering a suggestion.
Originally posted by Rose8699:
By the way, NO, it wasn't because I was calling out people as to why council made that comment about quoting direct comments. It was on another thread I read and one I wasn't even apart of, and goes to show how easily perception is misperception on the part of certain individuals when it comes to me. Your comment "assuming" it had to do with "me" is now another misperception that will be made.
Maybe you should lock this thread if it is agitating to you, or you could PM me as well, then to make false statements in regards to your replies towards me. I agree with Bear. This IS insane. |
I misread your statement and thought you were saying that the suggestion was made to you about posting comments. I apologize for my misinterpretation.
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I am simply stating three things
1. That DOF using PP should not be reason for voters to lowball, when advanced editing is allowed and is able to be used to ascertain that effect. If they WANT to lowball, fine, but it is my OPINION that should not happen.
2. That a challenge in which an in camera effect is wanted, then it should be made clear that PP not be allowed to ascertain that effect.
3. That influencial threads during the voting process should not be allowed.
AND I asked for comments along those lines. This was not a thread about my particular usage of DOF and how well or poorly I used it. |
You've made your statement, and the responses in this thread indicate that the overwhelming majority of the community disagree with at least your first two points. Given that this thread is in itself "influential," your third point seems a bit disingenuous.
Finally, the quality of the post-processing is inextricably tied to this issue. If it had been applied in a way that looked natural, the voter in question never would have noticed it.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:13:50 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I'm sorry Bear, but I feel that is exactly what is done to me. |
Got it. "They" do it to you so YOU do it to ME? Whatever...
R. |
|
