| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2017 09:20:43 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by insteps:
It was a long time coming but I appreciate the inclusion. Thanks to the squeaky wheels and drivers of DPC. |
Meh... it's a Minimal gain. ;-) |
A little sushi mixed in with the fried meats and GMO foods. |
|
|
|
01/18/2017 04:45:26 PM · #27 |
Quick, snide, defensive, deflective answers. I feel like I'm reading an email from work.
There is nothing wrong with change going in to the new year.
Just saying. |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 03:06:10 PM · #28 |
Funny aside.....
I spent a fair amount of time making my composition perfect for the Minimal Abstract Expressionism challenge.
I didn't go to the entry page to read the particulars, so when I went there to enter, I found out that cropping was allowed.
I had this *HUGE* pang of righteous indignation, and had to laugh at myself for being outraged by the sullying of the traditional Minimal ruleset.
Just for you, Barry! 8~)
|
|
|
|
01/22/2017 03:20:20 PM · #29 |
| sh*t. I missed that about the cropping too..... |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 03:46:21 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by tnun:
sh*t. I missed that about the cropping too..... |
+1 (but still some time left) and just wondering what makes it so hard to read the extra rules? (I didn't) |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 03:55:58 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... Just for you, Barry! 8~) |
 |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 05:04:30 PM · #32 |
here's my view on things :-)
imagine the following procedure was used to select challenges on dpc:
1) we suggest challenges and write them down on paper
2) all challenge suggestions are put in a large bag
3) when a new challenges must be produced, an unbiased adjudicator randomly pulls a slip of paper from the bag. this selection becomes the challenge.
4) the challenge does not go back into the bag
now. if there are an equal number of minimal/standard/extended challenges, then based on this procedure the rules of the selected challenges will be in the same proportion as those in the bag; in this case 1/3 minimal, 1/3 standard, and 1/3 extended. I think we have to consider that this would actually be fair since the selection method is unbiased.
now, of course the suggested rulesets are not equal, and if there is a skew on this distribution (say 1/10 minimal, 8/10 standard, 1/10 extended, arbitrarily selected) we would expect to see challenges with rules in proportion to the skew in the bag. once again, since the algorithm i proposed samples from our suggestions, so it is an unbiased democratic way of selecting challenges. and once again, i think we would have to agree that this is fair.
if you wanted, say, twice as many minimal challenges to be selected as are in the bag, there are ways of achieving this. but, this excess of minimal challenges would have to be taken away from the other suggestions. i don't know if this is what we want, and i think it would have to be discussed at considerable length. so, for this thought experiment let's please assume that we want to be fully democratic.
to get to my main point. there is a distribution over the announced challenges that we know (or at least we can calculate it over some time interval). additionally, there is a distribution over the rules for the challenges in the bag which we do not know. so, the only way to know if the SC's answer is BS or not is for the the proportions of minimal/standard/extended ruled challenges to be made known to us. this may not be easy to achieve, but at the very least it would help us understand the expected rate of minimal/standard/extended challenges moving forward.
for the record, i don't like minimal :-) but i absolutely think that they should occur in proportion to the suggestions.
Message edited by author 2017-01-22 17:04:37. |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 05:20:10 PM · #33 |
Imagine if the real world ran strictly according to statistical probabilities ... :-(
Right now there are (not counting the standing Monthly Free Studies and the special "Best of ...") six challenges open for submission:
Minimal: 2
Standard: 3
Extended: 1
Do people really have a problem with that? :-( |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 05:35:05 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do people really have a problem with that? :-( |
not i. i'm happy with the rulesets. my reply was trying to explain my interpretation about glad2badad's frustration, and a possible way of alleviating it. in general i would tend to be more concerned about the topic than the rules.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Imagine if the real world ran strictly according to statistical probabilities ... :-( |
oh but it basically does! :-) and i'm not even kidding! |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 05:51:50 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Imagine if the real world ran strictly according to statistical probabilities ... :-( |
oh but it basically does! :-) and i'm not even kidding! |
You have it backwards (at least in the perceptible Newtonian universe) -- statistical probabilities are born of the the way the world runs, and only if you ass|u|me it runs consistently forever ... |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 05:55:41 PM · #36 |
I think people are comparing apples to pears here. Fact is that minimal editing can be applied to all challenges, while the extended rule set only can be applied to only a few challenges. When in a given period there are 2 minimal, 3 standard and 1 extended challenge, the people that love to submit images based on the minimal rule set can easily do that in 5 of the 6 challenges, but people that like to work according to the extended rule set only have one possibility. I can understand that every now and then a minimal challenge is scheduled, in order to make it possible to compare images that are all of the same (minimal) rule set, but I don't think this should happen in the same amount of extended challenges.
Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 05:57:11 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Imagine if the real world ran strictly according to statistical probabilities ... :-( |
oh but it basically does! :-) and i'm not even kidding! |
You have it backwards (at least in the perceptible Newtonian universe) -- statistical probabilities are born of the the way the world runs, and only if you ass|u|me it runs consistently forever ... |
gonna take this to pm! :) |
|
|
|
01/22/2017 09:03:23 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Kroburg:
I think people are comparing apples to pears here. Fact is that minimal editing can be applied to all challenges, while the extended rule set only can be applied to only a few challenges. When in a given period there are 2 minimal, 3 standard and 1 extended challenge, the people that love to submit images based on the minimal rule set can easily do that in 5 of the 6 challenges, but people that like to work according to the extended rule set only have one possibility. I can understand that every now and then a minimal challenge is scheduled, in order to make it possible to compare images that are all of the same (minimal) rule set, but I don't think this should happen in the same amount of extended challenges.
Just my thoughts. |
Sure, anyone can submit a challenge entry using only Minimal editing rules - you are absolutely correct. However, why should we handicap ourselves against the competition? It's fun to compete against others' on an even playing field - and only fair.
For the record - I applaud the response by the SC (and Langdon). I think the "balance" is being considered and pretty much fairly applied for the past few weeks of challenge cycles. Thank you. |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 11:43:11 AM · #39 |
| I just entered my 1st challenge in 8 years, and WOW how things have changed. Debating rejoining as a member, but I would NEVER enter a minimal challenge, cause I would never shoot a jpg. Even if I was only shooting for the challenge, I would consider the image unusable for anything else, such as stock, etc. And my opinion is coming from someone who has +45000 chromes from the 80s-2000s, so I definitely know how to capture an image solely in camera. |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 11:59:28 AM · #40 |
| you can shoot in RAW+JPG. |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 12:30:22 PM · #41 |
IN MY NSHO if you want to shoot and enter minimal, do so on any of the challenges. Why bicker. If that's what you're interested in do it. No one dictates if you just want to shoot minimal. Some of you create awesome work in minimal and if that's your passion you should stay with it.
Just Sayin |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 12:49:00 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
you can shoot in RAW+JPG. |
I'm about to audio record an event for a client. I could record both WAV & mp3, but IMO it's silly to ever pollute your media with substandard formats. JPG was designed as an output medium for the web with it's high compression ability and narrow color gamut, and it's not even great at that as it's quite long in the tooth just like mp3. But just like with mp3, people are willing to forgo quality in a big way just for convenience. Even my wife's untrained ear couldn't believe the sound difference while comparing a song she purchased from iTunes & my Apple-Lossless copy of that same song. And considering the dynamic range of sound is SO much larger than the dynamic range of sight the difference in quality is more important in jpg + RAW. |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 12:54:00 PM · #43 |
You need to convert to JPEG before submitting anyway, so I don't see why shooting RAW+JPEG for a Minimal challenge is such a big deal ... you can also edit the RAW image -- it's not like we are asking you to only sell prints from the JPEG capture. :-(
And, maximizing quality within constraints is what the "challenge" is all about -- the limitations of JPEG are just one more constraint. |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 04:46:27 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You need to convert to JPEG before submitting anyway, so I don't see why shooting RAW+JPEG for a Minimal challenge is such a big deal ... you can also edit the RAW image -- it's not like we are asking you to only sell prints from the JPEG capture. :-(
And, maximizing quality within constraints is what the "challenge" is all about -- the limitations of JPEG are just one more constraint. |
This got me to thinking. Minimal asks us to "perfect" using a format that would rarely be used by a serious photographer. What good does that really do? Yes, it forces you to think about composition and settings, but you can do that with RAW. I've thought about using my phone to shoot for Minimal challenges, so far I've just skipped them. (Of course, I've been skipping the other challenges too. Lack of time, lack of comments.) |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 05:47:54 PM · #45 |
Look, proper exposure, white balance, contrast and all that stuff have always been hallmarks of dedicated photographers. There's no arguing, furthermore, that getting it right in-camera is preferable to NOT doing so, the wonders of RAW post-processing notwithstanding. And on a pure *craft* level, it's a satisfying endeavor. Then there's all that *other* stuff, the POV issues, the framing issues, the leveling of horizons (or tilting of same) etc etc, the *subjective* stuff. In the history of photography there have always been cadres of highly-skilled practitioners who made it their discipline to use the full frame, to never crop.
These are disciplines, externally-imposed limitations or frameworks, as it were, defining the context or the parameters of one's creation. Poets, similarly, might use a form such as a Sonnet or a Limerick to constrain their work. In any event, that's the backstory behind the Minimal Editing ruleset: it's not a dumbed-down, stupid ruleset for people that don't know how to do photography "right", but rather a ruleset that imposes some very specific, rigid constraints on how the photographer must create his/her work.
As long as Minimal challenges draw a good number of entries, we will continue to run them. It's a field everyone can play on, but those who choose not to may, of course, sit these challenges out. We have plenty of other things going on :-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 06:17:03 PM · #46 |
Well Said Bear. I believe statistically the minimal challenges have more participation than the extended, and isn't that what we're trying to achieve? Greater participation in the site
Message edited by author 2017-01-25 18:17:36. |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 07:09:45 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
[quote=GeneralE]Imagine if the real world ran strictly according to statistical probabilities ... :-( |
oh but it basically does! :-) and i'm not even kidding! |
You have it backwards (at least in the perceptible Newtonian universe) -- statistical probabilities are born of the the way the world runs, and only if you ass|u|me it runs consistently forever ... [/quote
Thank you. That's what I was trying to say but it didn't come across that way. :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2017 07:55:59 PM · #48 |
Seriously, people?!
You can learn from everything!
Is there a reason to teach math anymore? Just use a calculator. It's easier, faster, etc.
The minimal challenges give us the opportunity to hone our skills. A reason to not take the easy way out and figure we can fix it in post. The better are skills are, the better our final product -- however we get there. Why not practice ALL parts of it? I'm beginning to hate expert editing, because my skills have not grown as fast as the majority on here, and it frustrates me. And it's not the type of product I want to produce. Yet it definitely helps improve even my basic photoshopping skills.
Just think of where we would all be if we perfected all the techniques there were. It would free us up for a whole world of creativity.
So while I get irritated entering something that could be so much more with processing, if it helps me get better things to work with, helps me get faster getting the shot, helps it be more intuitive when taking the shot, it's well worth it.
If you're knitting a sweater -- it may turn out perfectly wonderful using walmart yarn, but it probably would be a lot better starting with angora. Any product that you're making is better if your raw materials have the highest quality possible. |
|
|
|
01/26/2017 09:38:41 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
JPG was designed as an output medium for the web with it's high compression ability and narrow color gamut, and it's not even great at that as it's quite long in the tooth just like mp3. But just like with mp3, people are willing to forgo quality in a big way just for convenience. And considering the dynamic range of sound is SO much larger than the dynamic range of sight the difference in quality is more important in jpg + RAW. |
All true, but not really the point. The point is to challenge yourself to shoot within those constraints. And this isn't the "Big Leagues". No contracts are won or lost due to image quality. This is supposed to be fun. So.....either step out of your normal venue and see what you can do photography-wise with one hand effectively tied behind your back, or just take a pass.
Message edited by author 2017-01-26 09:39:53.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2017 12:37:24 PM · #50 |
One reason I stepped away from the DPC was my opinion that over editing that had occurred, especially with HDR. Many of even ribbon winners, IMO, were looking more like paintings than photographs. As a purist, they reminded me more of velvet Elvis paintings than photography. If I want to shoot an image that had drastic luminance differences, to me that\'s what ND grads are for. But I keep my cameras in a flat state with sharpening, saturation & noise reduction turned all the way down to maximize dynamic range (& color grading video), as you never know when an image opportunity of a lifetime might occur. And it would suck if that moment, you had your camera set to maximize jpg quality because of a arbitrary rule set of a challenge. Also I KNOW you can shoot RAW + jpg, but I shot over 30,000 images last year, and the last thing I\'d want to do would be to double the number of files in my workflow and storage.
Lastly, almost 9% of the population is colorblind to some extent, and auto color balance on most cameras can be easily fooled.
Of course there\'s a really good chance that I just don\'t belong here, I know in the circles that I travel in the most popular camera is the Panasonic GH4, and here it\'s owned here by 1 user. Dpreview\'s 2016 pick for the best interchangable lens camera for $900-$1200 was the Panasonic G85, and it\'s not even offered as an camera option to use here. |
|
