'Photographic in nature' - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/15/2006 01:25:10 PM · #26

that's not even in the same ballpark as:

"voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly"

one's a warning, the other is a recommended course of action

Originally posted by scalvert:

This suggestion is not new BTW. In the old rules, it was worded, "Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters."

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 13:25:27.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

12/15/2006 01:30:36 PM · #27

Perhaps people are getting voted down as a result of altering while the image still appears to be made up of one or more photograph/s. I know of at least one comment that referenced the voting instruction as a reason for a lower score, even though it can easilly be interpretted as photogrpahic according to our discussion here.

Originally posted by scalvert:

WE (all DPCers) are the voters, so thanks for the vote of confidence. I think most humans beyond kindergarten are capable of figuring out if an image looks photographic or not. Whether it actually IS a photo is beyond the scope of the written recommendation.

This suggestion is not new BTW. In the old rules, it was worded, "Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters."

12/15/2006 01:32:56 PM · #28

To me, warning people against heavily filtered images and encouraging people to keep their entries from looking heavily filtered are two ends of the same candle.

12/15/2006 01:38:06 PM · #29

then why change the wording?

Originally posted by scalvert:

To me, warning people against heavily filtered images and encouraging people to keep their entries from looking heavily filtered are two ends of the same candle.

12/15/2006 01:38:49 PM · #30

Originally posted by scalvert:

I'm certainly not able to tell if an image is photographic just by looking at it. It must be nice to be so certain in your abilities though. I have plenty of comments on images that easily illustrate this lack of ability recognise a 'photographic' image.

Feel free to define photographic in meaningful terms any time you like too. If you mean 'looks like it came from a camera' you are on a different tack to the actual meaning of the word. You yourself heavily implied that 'solarized images' are not photographic - when that's was the original way to make them : solarization is a photographic technique.

But they get voted down as not looking enough like a photograph.

Cross polarized images get voted down as not looking enough like a photograph. Cross processed images too.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 13:45:02.

12/15/2006 01:49:26 PM · #31

Originally posted by Gordon:

solarization is a photographic technique.

But they get voted down as not looking enough like a photograph.

Cross polarized images get voted down as not looking enough like a photograph. Cross processed images too.

Exactly. As a newbie, I'd certainly want to know that these types of shots will score badly.

12/15/2006 01:52:56 PM · #32

Originally posted by scalvert:

Exactly. As a newbie, I'd certainly want to know that these types of shots will score badly.

Yup, but they don't score badly because they aren't photographic.
Just because the voters don't think they are photographic.

Yet you think that everyone can recognise photographic when they see it.

Interesting.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/15/2006 02:09:40 PM · #33

Originally posted by Gordon:

you think that everyone can recognise photographic when they see it.

Mock me all you want, funny guy. If you can't tell that one of these looks like a photo and the other looks more like a drawing, then you'll find out when you enter it. After all, it's only a suggestion.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

12/15/2006 02:12:01 PM · #34

This debate is funny. There is no one here who won't understand what is written in the rules. Why won't someone admit that they are looking for a way to get around it rather than accepting it for what it is?

12/15/2006 02:14:46 PM · #35

You think the original poster started this thread in an attempt to "get around" something?

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/15/2006 02:15:13 PM · #36

Originally posted by scalvert:

Mock me all you want, funny guy.

I'm not mocking you. Some time if you'll stop to think and not take things as a personal afront all the time you might realise that.

Without additional information there are plenty of entirely valid photographs that people don't think are photographic. You seem to find that a hard concept to grasp, yet there are plenty of examples. Sure you can throw a photo through some crappy photoshop filters and make it look like it was drawn in a computer. But this rule also applies to images entered straight out of a camera.

Without information you cannot differentiate the two. Please explain how you can, as you are obviously better at it than I am, given your statements.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:21:35.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

12/15/2006 02:16:08 PM · #37

Originally posted by hopper:

You think the original poster started this thread in an attempt to "get around" something?

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This debate is funny. There is no one here who won't understand what is written in the rules. Why won't someone admit that they are looking for a way to get around it rather than accepting it for what it is?

I'm pretty sure that's NOT what I said.

12/15/2006 02:18:46 PM · #38

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I'm pretty sure that's NOT what I said.

Feel free to define 'photographic' in easy to grasp terms then. Some feel it is something a 3 year old should understand, evidence to the contrary. If it is so straight foward, why do I enter images straight from a camera that get voted down for being too edited or not photographic ?

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:19:54.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/15/2006 02:22:32 PM · #39

I know debates such as this get annoying for people, so this will be my last post regarding it.

I'm with Gordon on this one, and clearly David agrees that the rules are at least a little bit confusing. And I think all three of us have proven ourselves to be "not newbies". So perhaps others are confused as well.

... or perhaps not.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

12/15/2006 02:24:06 PM · #40

Due to the nice array of images in this challenge, it looks like people are interpretting the term differently and voting that way. I think the real issue here is that the suggestion in the challenge is to VOTERS. Since it's a new type of challenge, they are trying to maintain the integrity of the site as photographic rather than an illustration site or simple eye-candy site.

If someone is getting comments that their image isn't "photographic" enough, I'm sure that's frustrating- especially if it meets the requirements we have ... ummm .... discussed here.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:34:37.

12/15/2006 02:27:15 PM · #41

Originally posted by metatate:

If someone is getting comments that their image isn't "photographic" enough, I'm sure that's frustrating- especially if it meets the requirements we have ... ummm .... discussed here.

Also understand that the cases I've mentioned are under the basic rules so to hope that it'll be more meaningful in the expert rules is, well, hopeful. And I'm one of the people who doesn't like digital art at the expense of photographic integrity.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:30:15.

12/15/2006 02:30:34 PM · #42

Originally posted by Gordon:

Without additional information there are plenty of entirely valid photographs that people don't think are photographic.

That's exactly the point. If an entry doesn't LOOK like a photo (even if it is one), it will often get voted down for that. It's like saying, "Photographers are encouraged to meet the challenge, and voters should take that into consideration." Meeting the challenge may be subjective, but at least you'd know that it's important to try.

As noted earlier, I personally don't think this applies to Expert Editing. It may have been accidentally carried over from Advanced.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:34:42.

12/15/2006 02:33:54 PM · #43

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Without additional information there are plenty of entirely valid photographs that people don't think are photographic.

That's exactly the point. If an entry doesn't LOOK like a photo (even if it is one), it will often get voted down for that. As noted earlier, I personally don't think this applies to Expert Editing. It may have been accidentally carried over from Advanced.

Right. and I think many people do not have the necessary understanding of what a photo looks like, to recognise that, without more information.

I've had many responses on my cross polarised image, where the person said if they'd understood the technique used, they would have voted it higher. It is not the first image where I've had similar responses. People assume too much filtering or photoshop trickery, if they don't know how something was done and vote it down for not being 'photographic'

But, because they didn't understand that it was a photo, they voted it down. Solarization is another fine example.

I don't believe many kindergarten kids can recognise a photo from a filtered image. They can in the trivially literal sense, which seems to be what you are also advocating.

I also think the preponderance of freakishly over-edited portraits that are entered and occasional win, also points in this direction too.

Also please explain how a photo can not look like a photo. That's a semantic gymnastic twist I can't get my head around.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:36:35.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/15/2006 02:38:27 PM · #44

Originally posted by Gordon:

I don't believe many kindergarten kids can recognise a photo from a filtered image. They can in the trivially literal sense, which seems to be what you are also advocating.

Trivially literal indeed. Heavy filter use, HDR (or even channel desaturation in Basic) WILL get some low votes from people who don't understand how it's possible. Bear that in mind when you submit.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

12/15/2006 02:38:55 PM · #45

In Advanced and Basic challenges, we are supposed to vote on what we like as an image ...
just because you did something outside of photoshop shouldn't matter (IMO).
In this challenge, we have new voting instructions.

Originally posted by Gordon:

I've had many responses on my cross polarised image, where the person said if they'd understood the technique used, they would have voted it higher. It is not the first image where I've had similar responses. People assume too much filtering or photoshop trickery, if they don't know how something was done and vote it down for not being 'photographic'
....
I also think the preponderance of freakishly over-edited portraits that are entered and occasional win, also points in this direction too.

12/15/2006 02:40:00 PM · #46

Originally posted by Gordon:

please explain how a photo can not look like a photo.

When it has been manipulated with software that transforms it into an illustration, line drawing, abstract blob, etc.

12/15/2006 02:41:27 PM · #47

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't believe many kindergarten kids can recognise a photo from a filtered image. They can in the trivially literal sense, which seems to be what you are also advocating.

Trivially literal indeed. Heavy filter use, HDR (or even channel desaturation in Basic) WILL get some low votes from people who don't understand how it's possible. Bear that in mind when you submit.

Ah. I get the misunderstanding now. You are considering it from a too much processing stand point.

My problem is, that it also covers a lot of straight from the camera, unmanipulated images too. It is too vague, without additional information, to be meaningful.

It is supposed, I assume, to stop people going to crazy with editing. Not with picture taking.

12/15/2006 02:42:38 PM · #48

Originally posted by Gordon:

It is supposed, I assume, to stop people going to crazy with editing. Not with picture taking.

Bingo.

It's only a suggestion, though. It's not hard to find heavily edited photos that ribboned, but those will generally face some backlash in the forums. One of the greatest tragedies is when someone captures a great shot and then runs it through a Plastic Wrap filter or some other bizarre effect that results in scoring suicide.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:46:36.