| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2007 09:56:47 AM · #1 |
| I'd already shown mine around, and I wanted to enter something that hadn't been seen as much. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 09:12:13 AM · #2 |
| I didnt enter my best pic of 2006 into the BO2006 challenge cause I had already entered it into another challenge. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 08:52:40 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
My best of 2006 entry wasn't the best picture I made in 2006. |
I tried soooooooo hard to resist this and I just can't any longer.
Why didn't you enter your best picture?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:08:08 AM · #4 |
| My best of 2006 entry wasn't the best picture I made in 2006. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:36:21 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I remember being taught really early on in the image processing courses that I did, that if the image looks good enough, it is good enough.
If something looks like it met the challenge and a reasonable viewer believes that to be true, then it does meet the challenge. Reality be damned. |
Well put, sir!
I'm hereby stealing that for my signature!.....I'll credit you!
EDIT: Y'all have fun, Gordon sorted it for me.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 01:39:05.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:27:58 AM · #6 |
Now where was  doctornick's illustrative image? Oh, here it is
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:25:36 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I do get your argument though. You haven't brought it up yet but post processing can often give a false impression to the voter too. Dodge and burn, tone mapping as well as other things can give the impression of better light, color, etc than what was there originally. Sure when used heavily the voters will know it's an effect but not always. |
That's been precisely my contention with the detractors of PS.
Properly used, and in the hands of a skilled user, PS really does enhance, and/or better a photo without being able to tell.
And often, it's the difference between a very nice piece of work and a loss of the image entirely, a result I'm not willing to accept.
My Best of 2006, though not the greatest pic, would not have been possible without post-processing, and at that time, I only had the primitive PP program that comes with MS Office 2003. That very same photograph is what got me started down this path in the first place.
And that was after 25+ years of film. That shot transpired about three weeks after I got my first digital and sold me completely on the power and freedom of digital imaging.
And it has never seemed to anyone that it was a blatant usage of a PP program.....never even came up.
So I guess that this has been a false impression from the get-go.....but everybody that sees it is amused and delighted.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:09:55 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
...would someone please explain why that wouldn't work? |
History proves that we'd be arguing over whether something "appears to be..." by the end of the day. ;-) |
Hey! Let's not confuse the issue with historical facts!
That's worse than that whole threatening the beloved family pet!
Shannon, go to your room!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:04:43 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
The issue is not the zoo shot near as much as learning when to show your cards and when to hold them close to your chest. |
But wouldn't that be the same situational ethics you objected to in the first place?......8>) |
This is my watered down and revised PC view. My personal view still stands and if you wish, I'll support that point until my last breath but......... as I mentioned earlier in another thread, a posse threatened my pet Aardvark yesterday and suggested tone it down. So much for the tattoo of a cobra across my face. hmmmm. |
Threatening a beloved family pet is totally and completely over the line.
That's just wrong!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 10:11:26 PM · #10 |
It's not like DPC is strict news photojournalism..... it's supposed to be for fun and for challenging yourself!
Here's a challenge...... can anyone here go 21 days without making a single complaint..... verbal or typed, or written (just saw an article on that recently.... appently it's quite hard to do. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 09:42:23 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
BTW - I wonder how many people really thought this was a seed floating in the air? Great shot and execution, but it shows that many of us will go to various lengths to enter a high scoring shot, and that fooling the voters isn't such a rarity.
I just happened to use your example Doc, I'm sure there are many more out there. :D |
The difference here is that it just asked for a seed. How he portrayed the seed was left up to him. If the challenge had asked for a seed floating in air then this would have been unethical, IMO. |
Sorry for dragging this back to the front page. I was away this evening and wanted to clarify my point on this.
First - I have nothing against Jason ( DrAchoo), nor do I have any complaints with the photo of his I used as an example. Jason does some outstanding work and is a fine contributor to this site in many ways.
I'll admit that when I saw the "how I did it" details on this photo I was slightly disappointed (thought he caught it in midair for real), but then I just tucked that tidbit (how it was done) away for possible future reference. :D
The main reason I raised this photo (and there are others I'm sure) is to show that what we see in the challenges isn't always the truth (that's another debate - what's truth in photography?). I doubt that I was alone in believing the seed shot was really captured as it floated in the air.
The Wildlife vs Zoo debate is a similar situation in my mind. In many cases, "Wildlife" shots were presented to the voters and presented in a manner that you couldn't tell where the photo was taken. Did it look "natural"? Did it look like a "wildlife" photo? Was the viewer/voter tricked? Perhaps. My main point is tricking the viewer/voter isn't anything new and won't stop anytime soon.
Various points have been put forth on what is a "natural" environment for this wildlife challenge. One thing the challenge description didn't say is "you cannot take your photo in a zoo", it didn't say "you cannot take your photo in a fenced in controlled habitat". This could go back and forth forever probably...one thing is quite clear; not meeting the challenge description isn't grounds for a DQ and rules were not broken.
Ok. I feel caught up now, and can find my way to bed. Thanks for listening. :D |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 07:04:41 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I remember being taught really early on in the image processing courses that I did, that if the image looks good enough, it is good enough.
If something looks like it met the challenge and a reasonable viewer believes that to be true, then it does meet the challenge. Reality be damned. |
Which line were you taught and which one did you make up? ;-) |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:59:42 PM · #13 |
I remember being taught really early on in the image processing courses that I did, that if the image looks good enough, it is good enough.
If something looks like it met the challenge and a reasonable viewer believes that to be true, then it does meet the challenge. Reality be damned.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:58:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
.... Trolls are real, .... |
Now you tell me :( |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:54:57 PM · #15 |
| Do you think it's possible that one day Langdon and Drew are just going to throw up their hands and say, "That's it. We're done." ? |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:49:43 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
So your response is, instead of finding the right description, continue to throw up objections and never try to fix it, and continue to anger a decent number of people and continue having these threads? |
LOL! I'm not objecting. You asked somebody to explain why it won't work (I'm pretty sure it's been tried and probably will be again). Trolls are real, but the "right description" is a myth. ;-) |
Excellent! We have our first SC sponsor of a trial run at a new approach. ;)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:29:21 PM · #17 |
Hmm...maybe thats something to consider. A "two part ruleset". One part that addresses the technical (like our current minimal, basic, advanced, expert rulesets) and another ruleset for how stringent you have to adhere to the challenge. On the one extreme it is the rubber ducky uber-specific DQ if you don't follow them rules. On the other would be the Free Challenges where you can post whatever you want within the TOS. By the way, I'd like to see another challenge like the Rubber Ducky one. That was before I joined but it sounds like fun!
*corrected spelling
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 18:30:03.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:12:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
So your response is, instead of finding the right description, continue to throw up objections and never try to fix it, and continue to anger a decent number of people and continue having these threads? |
LOL! I'm not objecting. You asked somebody to explain why it won't work (I'm pretty sure it's been tried and probably will be again). Trolls are real, but the "right description" is a myth. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 18:13:19. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:11:27 PM · #19 |
I guess all that I am learning here is to embrace ambiguity, defer resposibility, defend unidentifiable rationalle, stand for nothing, claim misunderstanding, offer no clear solution and yet express deep concern for problems and finally win at all costs.
Hmmmmm .... no thanks. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:07:49 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
People can then debate whether that's the right approach, but they can't get upset about it not being clear. |
People got upset over the Rubber Ducky challenge, and that was the clearest instructions we've ever had. :-/ |
So your response is, instead of finding the right description, continue to throw up objections and never try to fix it, and continue to anger a decent number of people and continue having these threads?
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:06:27 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
What's the difference between shots that appear to be 2-second exposures and shots that appear to be 6-second exposures?
You can't put a technical requirement in and say have it appear technically correct, IMO.
In this case, just call it Long Exposure. But that would be different than requiring a specific shutter speed. |
Fair enough. So put "appears to be" in everything unless you add a DQ rule.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:05:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
That was actual face paint I used... |
LOL, I stand corrected! It illustrates my earlier point though... very often the only way we know whether that's makeup (or whether an animal photo is a zoo shot) is by the photographer's comments. This is a learning site, and the only real prize is knowledge. As long as an entry is legal, there is far more value in having these comments than there is in meeting some journalistic standards that simply don't apply here. Let's not discourage full disclosure of all techniques.
Worth noting that my last Wildlife entry was also shot at a zoo and finished in exactly the same spot- 10th. The first and second place finishers in that challenge were also taken at the zoo, yet it didn't even warrant a thread on the subject. It was fine! Arm waving over the ethics of something legal that's been done and accepted before (in identical challenges) does more harm than good IMO. |
I think Judi would have killed me had I faked it. :P That entry was my punishment for a bet I lost to her and consequently it was validated.
I do get your argument though. You haven't brought it up yet but post processing can often give a false impression to the voter too. Dodge and burn, tone mapping as well as other things can give the impression of better light, color, etc than what was there originally. Sure when used heavily the voters will know it's an effect but not always.
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 18:07:29.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:03:43 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
People can then debate whether that's the right approach, but they can't get upset about it not being clear. |
People got upset over the Rubber Ducky challenge, and that was the clearest instructions we've ever had. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:02:13 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The zoo shots could be of animals in 'their' natural environment. How do we know whether the animal was captured in the wild and placed in a zoo or was born and raised in the zoo? |
Blah blah blah. I just don't buy it. DPC is the only place other than the bizarro world where this would be considered true. I'm not going to argue about it. I'm just going to say the arguments are hollow and you know as well as I do they don't really hold water. |
huh? |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:59:39 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
...would someone please explain why that wouldn't work? |
History proves that we'd be arguing over whether something "appears to be..." by the end of the day. ;-) |
But see, Shannon, that puts the decision where it belongs: in the hands of the voters.
Look, I've seen this argument over and over, and over and over the general consensus seems to be that it's the image that matters most. So just make that clear.
People can then debate whether that's the right approach, but they can't get upset about it not being clear.
|
|
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: 04/25/2024 05:13:15 AM EDT.
