| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 05:08:25 PM · #1 |
I have seen this come up in several different discussions in different forms - Most recently this one.
How about having a link to the non-edited version (basic conversion if RAW) for challenge entries on the entry detail page and encourage people to provide a pre-edited version (same 640px size & 150K limit). It's nothing to do with validation and not even mandatory! I would just love to be able to get, say, the top x for each challenge and compare what they did to get to the final version and see the starting point.
I know I always learn something when I see the occasional before and after thread. Maybe make it an optional file upload on submission and store it outside of their portfolio space limit. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:17:57 PM · #2 |
| I like this idea, it could be a great insight into people's working technique. Heida's workshop on Post Processing editing was a great learing experience, watching a group at work who edited heavily and very well was a rare treat. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:24:08 PM · #3 |
Problem here is it would either eat up portfolio space or be a non-permanent solution, unless D+L set it up so the originals received the same sort of "free and permanent" archiving that challenge entries do... Those of us who enter a lot of cahllenges might have a problem otherwise.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:34:11 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Problem here is it would either eat up portfolio space or be a non-permanent solution, unless D+L set it up so the originals received the same sort of "free and permanent" archiving that challenge entries do... Those of us who enter a lot of cahllenges might have a problem otherwise.
Robt. |
Yeah - That's why I included the "and store it outside of their portfolio space limit." :-) I think it would add enough value to make it worth the site taking the space hit. Maybe make a limit of x per person and they can add/remove as they like. Making it set in stone like the submission might also work but it's less flexible and would take more space on the site. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:40:26 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by robs:
Yeah - That's why I included the "and store it outside of their portfolio space limit." :-) |
I missed that part, sorry. And here's another thought: there's no reason why this "comparison image" couldn't be stored at higher compression; it would still suffice to illustrate the editing. Like, 75Kb or even 50Kb...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:45:47 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
..And here's another thought: there's no reason why this "comparison image" couldn't be stored at higher compression; it would still suffice to illustrate the editing. Like, 75Kb or even 50Kb.. |
True. I find it useful to see the cropping choice, how far the colour is pushed one way or the other, where the d&b is done e.t.c. so nothing much in this would require the same file depth since even if the details are less clear it's not the point to me. IMO, It would be useful to keep the same dimensions because it's just easier to compare but not a huge deal either as long as it was not postage stamp size :). |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:47:52 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
..And here's another thought: there's no reason why this "comparison image" couldn't be stored at higher compression; it would still suffice to illustrate the editing. Like, 75Kb or even 50Kb.. |
True. I find it useful to see the cropping choice, how far the colour is pushed one way or the other, where the d&b is done e.t.c. so nothing much in this would require the same file depth since even if the details are less clear it's not the point to me. IMO, It would be useful to keep the same dimensions because it's just easier to compare but not a huge deal either as long as it was not postage stamp size :). |
I agree on the dimensions.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 06:01:23 PM · #8 |
There are possible reasons that a photographer might not want the original displayed to the general public -- for example they may have cropped out a recognizable person whose location should not be known (yes, there are valid legal reasons for this).
Other than that situation -- which could be solved with a checkbox on the "Upload Original for Validation" page -- what makes the most sense to me is that the site would automatically process the submitted original down to a 640 x N image using a standard, high-quality software, and save it to a site-maintained folder.
When the voting is over, the winning photos can have a link to the original incorporated into the formatting of the photo page, under the title or near the details or something.
Personally, I've uploaded a few resized originals and placed links in the comments section for my photos:
  |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 06:10:10 PM · #9 |
If people would agree to software generation of the original then that would be great! I didn't suggest that because I know it just causes issues here and you get onto a tangent - Personally, I am a fan of it in cases like this.
The checkbox you suggest would be an opt-out or a more friendy opt-in would also work :) If it's more palitable, let people blur out sections they don't want seen or let them manage it themselves by adding or removing as they like (still the space would be outside their allocation). |
|
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: 08/30/2025 04:57:31 PM EDT.
