DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Quality of images in challenges on decline?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 133, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/09/2008 09:56:59 AM · #26
Danny, I thought your portrait and free study entrys were excellent. However I don't ever think I'll figure out what the voter thinks. There does seem to be an increase in entries. That will always result in more "mediocre" images as the digital proliferation continues to expand. It is a "contest" so I've a hard time discounting images that try to conform to what they think will win according to previous results.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 10:00:45.
 10/09/2008 10:35:53 AM · #27
Originally posted by neophyte:
Danny, I thought your portrait and free study entrys were excellent. However I don't ever think I'll figure out what the voter thinks. There does seem to be an increase in entries. That will always result in more "mediocre" images as the digital proliferation continues to expand. It is a "contest" so I've a hard time discounting images that try to conform to what they think will win according to previous results.


that's exactly the point imo. when dpc started everybody had their own style and so many different styles and ways of creating art were dropped into the challenges.
the result were challenges with many great and interesting, yet totally different compositions.
nowadays there seems to be more of pattern as to what might score best (i'm talking about a majority of photgraphs). i think most of the newer members and, excuse me to use that word, "newbies" or at least unexperienced photographers here look mostly at the front page to get their "inspiration" as to what to enter into the challenges. many of them fail and results are uninteresting compostions with a whole lot of photoshop work going on, because that's what these people can do the easiest way to "improve" their photos.
voters change their patterns accordingly, meaning that technicals are also a bigger emphesis than a few years ago. photos have to be sharp, colorful and should "jump" at the you even from the thumbs to get a high vote (i recall a thread where some people were discussing about "thumbnail voting". what stupid shit).
another "problem" as you mentioned is the higher number of entries. people don't take their time for voting and don't really try to "get" the intention of the photographer, rather just look at the technicals ad give their vote. many really good and thoughtful, but rather inconspicuous entries tend to get lost and overseen by most of the people and mostly tank in the challenges (thanks to posthumous and all the other people out there that bring these "lost" gems to our attention!).

sorry if that sounded harsh and i didn't want to offend or discourage anyone, but that's the feeling i'm getting by looking at most of the challenge results lately (the current FS was a big exception as i think it had a great amount of outstanding photographs) and by reading the forums, where newbies tend to ask a whole lot of questions about post processing (especially hdr) before they even stop to look at the compositon and lighting of their photographs...
 10/09/2008 11:05:47 AM · #28
This has been an interesting thread, and has made me consider that maybe this site is training us to be excessively critical and to look primarily for flaws and wow-factor. Are we actually evaluating someone else's entry, oir ust looking for a flaw to low vote it on? I do my share of dropping low votes on people and have made an effort to also tell them WHY I left a low vote. I won't stop giving a low vote to something when I think it should get it, but I will try in the future to also let the photographer know what they did RIGHT.
 10/09/2008 11:19:37 AM · #29
Originally posted by yospiff:
This has been an interesting thread, and has made me consider that maybe this site is training us to be excessively critical and to look primarily for flaws and wow-factor. Are we actually evaluating someone else's entry, oir ust looking for a flaw to low vote it on? I do my share of dropping low votes on people and have made an effort to also tell them WHY I left a low vote. I won't stop giving a low vote to something when I think it should get it, but I will try in the future to also let the photographer know what they did RIGHT.


Personally I think thats the wrong choice to make. While pointing out what they did right might help them build on something, I'd also make sure to tell them what you think they did wrong. Or why an image didnt work for you. This is suppose to be a learning site. How can anyone possibly learn if they arent told what they did wrong? Wether people want to hear it or not I always try to say how I feel and think about the photo. Maybe thats why I have so many comments not marked helpful..........its terrible to speak your mind in todays world, but I will continue to do so.

Matt

Edit to add reading comprehension hasnt always been my best subject, as I now see you said also..............meaning telling them both what they did right and wrong.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 11:20:34.
 10/09/2008 11:33:57 AM · #30
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My pig-- I mean, my pic resents that comment!


Care for a dissertation on the origins of roast pig?

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 11:40:43.
 10/09/2008 12:38:35 PM · #31
Just my 2¢ and an observation...

After trading emails recently with a member that has been mostly absent of late, and used to be quite prominent and very well respected...a discussion was had regarding the feeling that many on the site now seem to "feel the need" to use much post processing and that any photograph can be made great using software rather than taking a great photograph to start.

I am of the school that you can enhance a photograph with software, but I would much rather take a great photograph to start and not NEED to enhance/fix/save the shot to make is viewable. I'm debating my membership renewal as the styles and discussions on the current DPC have narrowed from Photography techniques in general to far more of post processing work. There also seems to be a propensity to comment on how everyone thinks you should "fix" your photo, many of whom want it fixed by post processing. Very little photography techniques are ever offered. This may be due to the lack of knowledge or that some aren't taking the time to look at photos and take the additional time to make a thoughtful comment. (Not wanting to get into that discussion, lol!) This is just my personal observation and opinion and not necessarily a good/bad thing...but there are some very talented individuals whose interest has wained due to the quantity of quality photographs appearing and the marked increase of individuals who would rather learn post processing than learn to take a great shot to begin with. :)

(Gets off soap box and gets back to work!)
 10/09/2008 12:48:39 PM · #32
Originally posted by MattO:
as I now see you said also..............meaning telling them both what they did right and wrong.


I was about to respond to that effect and then I saw your addition! I think someone can learn both from what they do right and what they do wrong. You can take something away from both.
 10/09/2008 12:54:16 PM · #33
Originally posted by bergiekat:
a discussion was had regarding the feeling that many on the site now seem to "feel the need" to use much post processing and that any photograph can be made great using software rather than taking a great photograph to start.


Garbage in, garbage out. I tried that the other day in an effort to improve my b/w PP skills and what I got was not what I was after. I started with what I knew was a poor photo and ended up with one that was ok at best and probably a little weird looking. When I posted the result here for feedback, I did get some good suggestions on other techniques to try in the future.

10/09/2008 01:01:17 PM · #34
Originally posted by yospiff:
This has been an interesting thread, and has made me consider that maybe this site is training us to be excessively critical and to look primarily for flaws and wow-factor.

Unfortunately, this is kind of unavoidable. I know that a lot of my own work seems lacking, and there's an awful lot of images that I do for people, events usually, that I think just plain suck, but generally when people outside the trade/craft/art look for pictures, they don't view them with the same kind of critical way that we do.

Part of the reason I like it here is because of the highly critical nature of the voting and I often find it amusing how much better response I get out in the "Real" world as opposed to our own little insular "Torture Chamber" of voting.......LOL!!!

It makes me work harder, and NOT settle for "Good Enough".

When I get the sh*ts of that, I just join up in a friendly side project.

BTW, if you count the side projects/challenges, there is some incredible work that although not time constrained, is generally subject specific and some beautiful work arises there.
 10/09/2008 01:01:18 PM · #35
Originally posted by bergiekat:
a discussion was had regarding the feeling that many on the site now seem to "feel the need" to use much post processing and that any photograph can be made great using software rather than taking a great photograph to start.


I try hard to take a picture and do as little PP as possible, since my photoshop skills are extremely limited. And I guess that will limit me in the challenges.
 10/09/2008 01:04:44 PM · #36
On the brite side though, waterdrop shots have been raised to a whole new level since 2003...



and even cooler, they NEVER seem to wane popularity.

Danny-I agree with you. I think too many people are more focused on nit picky details and overlook the entire point of taking interesting pictures. Even to the point where they can't recognize a decent shot. As for PP, that also has taken a front role.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 13:16:09.
 10/09/2008 02:04:50 PM · #37
I don't think I agree with blaming image quality on excessive post processing. Taking good photos is an art. Well-done post processing is also an art. And by well done, I mean in enhancing the viewer's experience of the photo and always in moderation. Proper application of the pair is the winning combination.

Good post processing is like salt - it enhances the flavor, but it is not a flavor substitute and should go largely unnoticed.
 10/09/2008 02:14:13 PM · #38
Originally posted by smurfguy:


Good post processing is like salt - it enhances the flavor, but it is not a flavor substitute and should go largely unnoticed.


Which is what I think much of the criticism is focusing on, is that there's a large amount of work where it is anything but largely unnoticed.

*EDIT* Edited to add that I am by no means criticizing it myself. Anyone looking at any of my small amount of work I've put up in my portfolio so far could see that I love experimenting with post-processing. heh.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 14:15:37.
 10/09/2008 02:19:43 PM · #39
Interestingly, I recently applied to IStockphoto and they seem to be even harder on the technicals than this place is. Some of my best images, including my second highest scoring entry here, were rejected for "visible artifacts" or "no clear focal point" when viewed at the full 1:1. Reminds me a little of how most corporate HR departments work, they are not looking for a reason to accept you, they are looking for a reason to filter you out.
 10/09/2008 02:22:10 PM · #40
Originally posted by yospiff:
Interestingly, I recently applied to IStockphoto and they seem to be even harder on the technicals than this place is. Some of my best images, including my second highest scoring entry here, were rejected for "visible artifacts" or "no clear focal point" when viewed at the full 1:1. Reminds me a little of how most corporate HR departments work, they are not looking for a reason to accept you, they are looking for a reason to filter you out.


There are thousands of users and tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) of photos on this site, we sift through hundreds every week in the challenges, of course we're going to end up wishing to filter them out.

Another reason the same ol' same ol' does so well. We don't have to work so hard.
 10/09/2008 02:22:20 PM · #41
Originally posted by crabappl3:
... have any of the other 'old-timers' noticed that overall the image quality of entry submissions have declined over the years?

FYI, another recent thread on the subject:
DPC 2008 Entries - Best Year Ever?
10/09/2008 02:33:52 PM · #42
Oddly, I often fly by the same ol' same ol' (but score them well) and search for the more unique, even if the technicals aren't spot on. I'm weird, though.
 10/09/2008 02:38:01 PM · #43
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oddly, I often fly by the same ol' same ol' (but score them well) and search for the more unique, even if the technicals aren't spot on. I'm weird, though.


There's always an odd one ;)

I do the same thing.
 10/09/2008 03:21:26 PM · #44
Originally posted by smurfguy:
I don't think I agree with blaming image quality on excessive post processing. Taking good photos is an art.


What I was saying was that people are more interested in PP than taking great photos OR that they are interested in taking good photos but don't know the difference between a great photo and an extremely average image that was well processed.

Or a third possibilty ...they are more focused on capturing a perfectly executed image in every way of something very common or boring.

These are just my opinions but things may or may not have slipped in general. There are some Challenges I'd noticed that are absolutely painful to go through and I don't recall that being the case when I first joined.

Honestly, I think my tastes have just changed and hopefully I've grown to the point where things that wowed me in 2005 no longer have the same jolt.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 15:22:55.
 10/09/2008 03:33:35 PM · #45
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Honestly, I think my tastes have just changed and hopefully I've grown to the point where things that wowed me in 2005 no longer have the same jolt.


This is by far one of the sagest things I've read on this site in a long time.

We forget too often that we to are growing and have changing tastes in our passion of photography.

I remember that living in NYC is an education everyday. Nice job Steve.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 16:18:03.
 10/09/2008 03:36:23 PM · #46
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Or a third possibilty ...they are more focused on capturing a perfectly executed image in every way of something very common or boring.


I actually like finding an interesting image that someone did of a normally mundane subject. I will often give a higher vote to those because that takes more skill and an eye for the light to make something like that interesting. It's easy to take a pleasing photo of a flower, but much harder to do something fascinating with a cardboard box or silverware. Maybe it's time for a "Sink Drain" challenge.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 15:38:07.
 10/09/2008 04:09:01 PM · #47
Mundane? William Eggleston wrote the book on that.

Mundane is cool if you're shining the light on something cool, just overlooked and maybe there's something deeper that many people don't see unless you show them. Warhols, Campbells Soup was in that line.

When I said boring I meant boring. Just opinions of course and keep in mind I bore pretty easy.

People sitting at a bus stop are boring no matter how you cut it...in my mind, anyway. Waiting around is boring and watching people wait is even worse...so a picture of people waiting(?)...Oy Vey. Just an an example.

eta: There is nothing interesting about silverware. Those images IMO are the most boring of all. AGAIN...just my opinion and I wouldn't dream of hanging that stuff on my walls. As for cardboard boxes...let's not go there... lol and a ;)



Now, those are mundane but awesome.

Message edited by author 2008-10-09 17:32:25.
 10/09/2008 04:57:25 PM · #48
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oddly, I often fly by the same ol' same ol' (but score them well) and search for the more unique, even if the technicals aren't spot on. I'm weird, though.


There's always an odd one ;)



Seems odd to see you call someone odd. :D

Matt
 10/09/2008 05:08:19 PM · #49
Originally posted by pawdrix:
As for cardboard boxes...let's not go there... lol and a ;)


Even cardboard boxes need a little TLC:

10/09/2008 05:23:41 PM · #50
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oddly, I often fly by the same ol' same ol' (but score them well) and search for the more unique, even if the technicals aren't spot on. I'm weird, though.


There's always an odd one ;)



Seems odd to see you call someone odd. :D

Matt


Hence the smiley
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 09:19:21 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/05/2025 09:19:21 AM EDT.