| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/10/2002 08:05:19 PM · #1 |
didn't a loaf of bread in post WWII Germany cost like 200,000 marks or something?? : P Get your DotCom Dollars here!!
I've never hit the DQ button, or if I did I can't remember, but it probably takes you to a screen where you write your reason, out, right? I mean it's not like a dunk tank button that just drops you out the bottom of the web site. Is it?!?!?!
Originally posted by hokie:
I have voted lower than a 3 on stuff although I have thought about the same things amitchell mentions about artistic vision, etc.. But my vote is just my opinion (all 1/200th of a percent) and so I am not going to restrict myself to an arbitrary low...!
1/200th of a persent! That's lower than 2 cents and I thought we were guaranteed to at least be able to give our 2 cents...Maybe its the economy!!!
BTW....DQ button gotta go IMO. If someone has that big of a hissy over a photo then let them write a letter at least. The artist deserves at least that much over a stinking button ;-
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 07:20:35 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
CHARIOT: Thanks for the info. But basically we're talking linux, and no other non intel variants of unix?
That's correct. Actually Linux will run on many operating systems. But I think you talking about whatever is on those CGI machines. Those I don't know.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 06:55:21 PM · #3 |
I have voted lower than a 3 on stuff although I have thought about the same things amitchell mentions about artistic vision, etc.. But my vote is just my opinion (all 1/200th of a percent) and so I am not going to restrict myself to an arbitrary low...!
1/200th of a persent! That's lower than 2 cents and I thought we were guaranteed to at least be able to give our 2 cents...Maybe its the economy!!!
BTW....DQ button gotta go IMO. If someone has that big of a hissy over a photo then let them write a letter at least. The artist deserves at least that much over a stinking button ;-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/10/2002 6:56:06 PM. |
|
|
|
05/10/2002 04:08:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
excuse me, but I happen to be the drummer of Creed ..
just kidding : )
aieee! sorry!:) but that is just my point--just because i don't care for them doesn't mean they don't rock (to someone!), and picassos' sell for millions. public censorship is bad 'cause someone, somewhere probably likes something you don't!;)
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 03:43:09 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing the DQ button go away too. I have never used it myself. It seems a little redundant since we can just vote someone low if we think they don't meet the challenge criteria. I would think this could cover anything. I would rather let Drew and Langdon look for DQs because they have a good idea of what to look for. I'd rather assume that the pictures are legal and vote on them accordingly.
I've never DQ'ed an image, and I don't know what to look for either. Drew and Langdon have said that they don't look at an image until it gets at least two votes for DQ. I also assume that a photo is legal when voting, because I count on people who do know to spot the cheaters.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 02:55:29 PM · #6 |
excuse me, but I happen to be the drummer of Creed ..
just kidding : )
about the weekly blowups, it's kind of interesting in a way to see that all that stuff REALLY MATTERS to some people. It is really impacting their lives. They are walking around and obsessing about the happenings on this site. That's a tremendous testament to the site makers, as well as to the people who make this an interesting place to be. I am obsessing too, to some degree. I like to check my photo's status, and read and answer forums, but if something is happening here, it isn't going to get me to freak out. well, i take that back. when i submitted one of the first pictures, and someone was going thru saying it didnt have a mirror and an outstretched arm, i got pretty riled, and emailed that person to tell them they should read more carefully. But I've since become desensitized, because I realize I can take what gives me something frmo here, and leave the rest behind. . .
Now if only I could do that at work .. : )
CLAY: my wife is a vegetarian, yet she eats eggs. The reason I don't point out the flaw in her logic is because the way I see it, if I can get her to get all her nutrition, I'll keep my mouth shut, hehe
CHARIOT: Thanks for the info. But basically we're talking linux, and no other non intel variants of unix? |
|
|
|
05/10/2002 02:54:39 PM · #7 |
Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing the DQ button go away too. I have never used it myself. It seems a little redundant since we can just vote someone low if we think they don't meet the challenge criteria. I would think this could cover anything. I would rather let Drew and Langdon look for DQs because they have a good idea of what to look for. I'd rather assume that the pictures are legal and vote on them accordingly. It's not going to keep me awake at night if I find out I voted highly on a picture that was faked some how. There will always be people that try to get away with cheating and if they do succeed so be it, I hope they are proud of themselves. I don't feel like putting any energy into being a photo policeman.
Tim |
|
|
|
05/10/2002 01:46:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by sandip:
About the dead cow picture: it wasn't my choice of photo art, ethical statement, or "appetizing" ad. But I did have the option of just not re-viewing many times over. Same as "Rubber Baby Duckie-Chuckers" or whatever that was called! I have the option of ignoring it.
Good point Sandip! I guess this, like another thread from last week, just boils down to what I consider the biggest enemy of (any) art--**censorship**. I have always been opposed to this in any medium, since who are we (the public, i.e., not the artist) to crucify someone else's idea? For this reason I have never recommended a picture for DQ, nor have I voted lower than a 3. My reasoning for this is that just because I don't like them doesn't mean that their ideas aren't valid and perhaps even vastly popular--look at [the artist] Picasso and [the band] Creed!;) Point is, I don't envy Drew and Langdon's position on this particular issue. I would hate to have to sit in judgement for the majority of these posts since the opinions range to and from the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. I do think that with all of this input from everone, we are slowly but surely starting to polish off the edges of an already fabulous site, but that perhaps we should not be quite as nitpicky and quit getting so *riled-up*
over certain issues. Having an animated discussion is fun, blowing your top off is just silly. There seems to be at least one outbreak a week--perhaps, though, this is good to a certain extent because it helps us to get to know one another's ideas better--I know I appreciate everything I am learning. But back to the point, Drew and Langdon are perfectly capable of sorting out the bad-eggs, so maybe we should just let THEM handle it. I do wonder though, if we should just get rid of the dreaded DQ button altogether...?
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 01:28:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
question for you unix box people. do any unix machines have usb ports? or do you have to dump your pics on a PC or mac and then transfer them to your sun or sgi or whatever it is your using?
In some of the later distrobutions of Linux there are drivers for USB ports, drives, and some cameras. Also, if using Linux as a workstation there is an application called The Gimp which is supposed to be as powerful as Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 01:18:29 PM · #10 |
personally i dont like eggs. every time i see an egg i realize that it could have been a little chicken fetus. all it needed was a daddy. in fact, id say its half a chicken fetus being scrambled in pots all over the country. i have no problem with eating a chicken, it's lived its life. why kill the little chicken children? i dont eat straight eggs, nor do i enjoy seeing pictures of them, but i didnt complain.
so we have a basic rule: dont bitch. if you dont like seeing a dead cow to the point of where you are extremely vocal; theres something wrong with you |
|
|
|
05/10/2002 12:48:32 PM · #11 |
Oh! No it wasn't me who "broke down" that picture, either. "I'm innocent, Officer!"
The only thing I break are dishes, occasionally! |
|
|
|
05/10/2002 12:45:22 PM · #12 |
About the dead cow picture: it wasn't my choice of photo art, ethical statement, or "appetizing" ad. But I did have the option of just not re-viewing many times over. Same as "Rubber Baby Duckie-Chuckers" or whatever that was called! I have the option of ignoring it.
Which is what I should have done before sounding off so vehemently about another entry this week.
I should have remembered what my Dad told many times (and many years ago!) "If you can't say anything good about somebody, don't say anything at all!"
I will try to be more positive in the future. Especially about how Drew and Langdon are doing with this site. IT IS AWESOME!
|
|
|
|
05/10/2002 05:54:02 AM · #13 |
question for you unix box people. do any unix machines have usb ports? or do you have to dump your pics on a PC or mac and then transfer them to your sun or sgi or whatever it is your using?
interested. . .
Originally posted by rjhawkin:
[i]Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Who broke that photo down to that level to find that something was wrong with it? It was so well done I really wonder who caught the problem.. :) Someone has too much time on their hands :)
Im not the person who did it.
Its not even terribly hard to go though and check the pictures for this. All you need is a unix box, a program called XV, and access to the pictures. There is a feature of xv that scrambles the color table randomly, -random I believe is the option. So a simple little script that does the equivilent of find picture in directory load it with the random option and open it in a window. Once you have the picture up you can click random a couple more times if your unsure.
Im sure similar stuff can be done in photoshop if you create your own plugin/macro. It is easy to see when a picture has been gimicked. It takes no more time than looking at the pictures.
(typo correction[/i]
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:54:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
Here is a really great site about cross-platform gamma correction.
Thanks, Reuben. I like the clear explanation. Now if only I could afford Photoshop, instead of just Elements. ;-)
Originally posted by hokie:
When I am in real doubt about something serious I always print because prints are usually about .1 gamma or more darker than they will appear on monitors. If it looks good in print but maybe a bit too rich it will usually be ok for most people viewing.
To make matters even WORSE....most folks have their monitors way too dark because print looks better on darker monitors and most folks use their monitors for reading stuff.
Plus, I admit..I like my photos on the more saturated and dark side anyway
Mine printed just fine, but I have my home monitor and printer all calibrated, profile-matched, and whatever else I could find to do. It sounds as though if I liked my prints on the bright side, I'd be better off. Oh, well. I'll have to try following your instructions for tweaking the gamma or just hope people learn to love the dark. I've only gotten a couple of comments on it, but it makes me wish for the PNG format mentioned in Reuben's link.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 08:58:57 PM · #15 |
Ok..first of all...I'm not the one who checked the photo ( it's 11 pm and I just got home from working 12 hours, I don't have time)...but after he posted the original and the submitted and the caught....I checked it out. I can tell you that it's simple to do in Photoshop. All you have to do is bring the photo up and adjust the curves to the brightest point which is what that "caught" photo is. You don't need any special programs or plug-ins. Just thought I'd add to the convo here. And personally....I think the original would have gotten my highest score too..just like the submitted one. Live and learn. :)
K
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 07:18:11 PM · #16 |
| What do you expect in a politically correct world? I don't believe in censorship. If you disagree with something, the worst things you can do is hide it or cover it up? It is like people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves and they need someone to decide for them. I don't believe I voted or saw the pictures that were involved so how can I determine if it was right for me? If you think something is bad or poor taste then it probably is? Then the idiot that did this is the one to be looked down upon. How will anyone know if they cannot see the bad and good in the world to compare what is right? |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:42:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
Don't get me started on lighting! I thought the lighting of my image looked almost perfect on my Mac at home. I went in to work on Monday and came here with my (uncalibrated) Windows monitor to find some of the details darkened out.
Here is a really great site about cross-platform gamma correction.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:33:16 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Who broke that photo down to that level to find that something was wrong with it? It was so well done I really wonder who caught the problem.. :) Someone has too much time on their hands :)
Im not the person who did it.
Its not even terribly hard to go though and check the pictures for this. All you need is a unix box, a program called XV, and access to the pictures. There is a feature of xv that scrambles the color table randomly, -random I believe is the option. So a simple little script that does the equivilent of find picture in directory load it with the random option and open it in a window. Once you have the picture up you can click random a couple more times if your unsure.
Im sure similar stuff can be done in photoshop if you create your own plugin/macro. It is easy to see when a picture has been gimicked. It takes no more time than looking at the pictures.
(typo correction)
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 6:41:49 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:28:04 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
Don't get me started on lighting! I thought the lighting of my image looked almost perfect on my Mac at home. I went in to work on Monday and came here with my (uncalibrated) Windows monitor to find some of the details darkened out. I played around with my gamma settings at home, to see if it would look OK on Windows, but that doesn’t seem to have worked out too well. I can see it’s going to be a problem for me, since I like my images on the dark side.
Here is what I have learned.
Mac Monitors are lit brighter by about .2 in gamma.
Meaning if you have a mac and want to make sure you are seen by a windows monitor in the appropriate light you need to have your gamma set to .8 on your video card to get a close approximation of a windows monitor.
Likewise, if you are lighting in a windows monitor you need to lighten your gamma up to 1.2 to make things look like they would on a Mac. Although since windows outnumbers mac by about 99 to 1 windows users don't worry about mac users..hehe
Many professional web pages and graphics sites are designed around Macs though so when they tell you to set your monitor to a certain brightness and they (the pro graphics site) gives you a code bar to calibrate to it will mean most Windows users will have to move their gamma up a bit.
To complicate matters, I have my gamma set at 1.4 because I use a modeling program for my work that looks best at that setting. I need to see all the shading details.
Sooooooo. I have to make sure I make my photos brighter than I would like on my monitor so most folks can see them properly.
When I am in real doubt about something serious I always print because prints are usually about .1 gamma or more darker than they will appear on monitors. If it looks good in print but maybe a bit too rich it will usually be ok for most people viewing.
To make matters even WORSE....most folks have their monitors way too dark because print looks better on darker monitors and most folks use their monitors for reading stuff.
Plus, I admit..I like my photos on the more saturated and dark side anyway.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 6:29:48 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 05:18:08 PM · #20 |
| Lighting is the one instruction I would love to see on this site. My photo in this challenge could have been much better if I had some know how with lighting. It didn't help that I chose a product that is hard to light well. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 05:12:08 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I try to be more lenient in marking down small imperfections..especially lighting (dark lighting or glare ) because so few new people have access to quality lighting indoors.
Don't get me started on lighting! I thought the lighting of my image looked almost perfect on my Mac at home. I went in to work on Monday and came here with my (uncalibrated) Windows monitor to find some of the details darkened out. I played around with my gamma settings at home, to see if it would look OK on Windows, but that doesn’t seem to have worked out too well. I can see it’s going to be a problem for me, since I like my images on the dark side.
I prefer shooting most things in natural light, and I pretty much hate flashes (which aren’t a strong point for Nikons anyway). To get around my lack of professional lights, I sometimes use clip lights and shoot at night or in the day in my windowless bathroom where I can control the ambient light better. (No, there really isn’t enough room in the bathroom to be doing this, and I usually end up with a sore back/knee/neck/whatever, but I’ve gotten some good photos that way.)
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 04:27:04 PM · #22 |
actually, probably the most common constructive criticism i give on here has to do with lighting shots. i vote on a lot of pics that look like they were either lit with the oncamera flash, or the straight room lighting. and that's ok, because right when i was first starting out, it didn't occur to me to manipulate the lighting to improve the image, just as it didnt occur to me to manipulate the background, etc. i was just paying attention to the content, but not the presentation. ive since come to realize that something as simple as just using a single sidelight can make a picture 'come alive'. that's all i did with my dummy picture: one sidelight at a high angle. here's another sidelit shot: just on a table with a lamp low on the table to give those loong shadows .. 
|
|
05/09/2002 04:16:40 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
everything on this site, except some of this stuff on the newest | unsorted directory was lit with either the sunshine or ikea desklamps.
//www.pbase.com/magnetic9999
believe me, if you're creative, lighting is one area you DONT have to spend a lot of $ .. (or other monetary unit for our international friends)
Not a lot of money true..the thing is many folks never think about lighting until the shots getting ready to be made.
I think almost all of us here know that lighting (next to getting the shot in focus) is about the most important thing you can do to a photo. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 04:11:06 PM · #24 |
| alienbees arent that expensive and i hear they're pretty good. why dont you get one ? |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 04:02:26 PM · #25 |
| Yeah, you gotta make do with what you got. If you're creative, you can come up with some good stuff. I'd still like to get a set of AlienBee lights though.. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:33:12 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:33:12 AM EDT.
|
