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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> "Texture Overlay" Results Recalculated X2
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 67, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/15/2015 06:28:57 PM · #26
This challenge did not call for the use of any filters. It did call for the judicious combining of two photographs.
 11/15/2015 06:45:29 PM · #27
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This challenge did not call for the use of any filters. It did call for the judicious combining of two photographs.


That still falls under post-PP tricks, imnsho, and how well you do them is all that matters.
 11/15/2015 06:47:52 PM · #28
I'm now wondering if we will get disqualified if we don't stitch photos together in the panoramic challenge? I'm finding it really hard to get a good resolution after I reduce the smalller side.

It's ok, I got the answer in the panorama thread.

Message edited by author 2015-11-15 22:14:46.
 11/15/2015 07:02:06 PM · #29
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
I'm just getting more confused, can you please explain how the current Red Ribbon differs from the latest DQ as (to me) they seem to have been treated the same way.

Hello Andi. I've posted originals to my challenge entry "Photographer's Comments" section for anyone to look at should it be helpful for inquiries such as yours. :-) Thanks!
11/15/2015 10:03:01 PM · #30
The dominant elements of this image are "Guitar" and "leaves" THey interact with each other very interestingly, but throughout they remain exactly what they are a guitar and some leaves. Nothing's transformed or altered in the making of this picture. By definition, any "texture" that maintains its own identity as it interacts with the main element(s) in the image, probably can't qualify as a texture. This image is of two DISTINCTLY different objects juxtaposed for effect; in other words, a montage.



On the other hand, in the "Autumn Bouquet" shot, we have a perfectly straightforward of a bouquet of flowers displayed against a fairly nondescript, splotchy wall, itself layered in at well less than full intensity. The wall texture is in no way competing with the object of the photo; it's a background element that merits little or no remark on its own.

11/15/2015 11:31:24 PM · #31
Those are leaves... but yeah. I see what you're saying.

I do think that... this challenge was so confusing with the extra rule and the "extra leniency" that... anything should have been legal if the two files were legal.

If this weren't true, more detailed rules should have been given.

I didn't enter... I don't have a "dog in this fight"... but... It was so confusing to me before... so I didn't enter.

If Langdon or SC had specific lines they'd "drawn in the sand" about what was to be allowed, more detail to us minions would have been appreciated, I think.

I don't count discussions in the threads as anything valid. We don't all read the threads.

It's either in the challenge rules or it's not. It can't even be in the challenge description...

It's a rule or not. And extra leniency was to be allowed. How far? Nobody knows.

I'm not for or against the DQ. I'd hate to have SC's job.

I'm just stirring the pot... apparently. *grin*

11/16/2015 01:21:48 AM · #32
Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.
 11/16/2015 04:16:50 AM · #33
Please, I can accept that my photo was disqualified; the podium is a great satisfaction but all is relative;It is more pleasant that most of you have enjoyed my image ...
I'm just saying that if I had known that the photo did not comply with the rules I would not have sent it ...
The extra rules, in this case, were more of a hindrance than a help to interpret the theme ....
From what we see the "regular shots" are simple textures overlay without particular emphases so the extra rules could well be omitted for not creating confusion.
As mentioned above, perhaps greater clarity would serve to avoid and put someone in the "pillory" of the disqualification
 11/16/2015 10:03:16 AM · #34
DQs always inspire a few too many "I don't want to play here any more" comments. Personally, I had a feeling as I was putting together my image, that many photogs might over-do the texture, so I tried not to be one of the many. In fact, my original image probably had enough texture (was shot through a fabric curtain) so I only needed to add a second image to meet the requirements of the challenge.

But anyway, some of my favorite images from this challenge should be DQ'd. So yeah, let's do a double exposure challenge ASAP to squelch the whining a bit.
 11/16/2015 10:41:00 AM · #35
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
I'm just getting more confused, can you please explain how the current Red Ribbon differs from the latest DQ as (to me) they seem to have been treated the same way.

Hello Andi. I've posted originals to my challenge entry "Photographer's Comments" section for anyone to look at should it be helpful for inquiries such as yours. :-) Thanks!


Thanks for that Barry. Even after Bears long reply I'm still a little confused by some images even though I understand (a little) more.And +1 for Lydia's comment (if the pot needs stirring then stir it girl).

SC have a difficult enough task without the added complication of vague guidelines/rules so I feel for them as much as anybody.
 11/16/2015 10:56:59 AM · #36
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.


Agreed.

I dug back into the original challenge discussion thread and I believe Paul was very clear in outlining what would and probably would not be acceptable in this post. That it exists outside the challenge description is unfortunate, but that seems to happen quite a bit.
 11/16/2015 11:41:05 AM · #37
I tend to stay out of challenge discussion forums. Would be a shame to use this information for scoring or DQ criteria. The challenge name, description, and rule set should be adequate.

I'm not a big fan of DQing an image based on content. Seems like the voters could handle that.

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.


Agreed.

I dug back into the original challenge discussion thread and I believe Paul was very clear in outlining what would and probably would not be acceptable in this post. That it exists outside the challenge description is unfortunate, but that seems to happen quite a bit.


Message edited by author 2015-11-16 11:44:29.
 11/16/2015 11:56:51 AM · #38
(Speaking of Sisto's guitar image)
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
By definition, any "texture" that maintains its own identity as it interacts with the main element(s) in the image, probably can't qualify as a texture. This image is of two DISTINCTLY different objects juxtaposed for effect; in other words, a montage.



Memberjomari said---

Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.

So, naturally, I and probably others looked at your entry, Bear... and you know, I think Marion has a good question, here.
Comment?
 11/16/2015 12:04:44 PM · #39
This is very close to steer towards rant... I hope it doesn't go too far :/
 11/16/2015 01:57:36 PM · #40
I really don't think this is a rant or a whine. It brings up some rather interesting questions about how things work when you play with 2 pictures. An exploratorium.
 11/16/2015 02:15:28 PM · #41
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.


Agreed.

I dug back into the original challenge discussion thread and I believe Paul was very clear in outlining what would and probably would not be acceptable in this post. That it exists outside the challenge description is unfortunate, but that seems to happen quite a bit.


This on the heels of several threads deploring ANY challenge description...

*sigh*
 11/16/2015 02:35:17 PM · #42
Originally posted by tnun:
I really don't think this is a rant or a whine. It brings up some rather interesting questions about how things work when you play with 2 pictures. An exploratorium.


I was talking of the discussion about Robert's image, just that :)
 11/16/2015 02:35:58 PM · #43
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.


Agreed.

I dug back into the original challenge discussion thread and I believe Paul was very clear in outlining what would and probably would not be acceptable in this post. That it exists outside the challenge description is unfortunate, but that seems to happen quite a bit.


This on the heels of several threads deploring ANY challenge description...

*sigh*


I think the simpler the description, the better. When they get verbose, people start getting confused. I'm still a believer in the N/A description, wish we had more of them. I think what goes on in the description discussion threads can be toxic. When people started debating what exactly an "automobile" was, I chose not to enter the automobile challenge because that sort of s*#t makes my head hurt, so it's best to just walk away...and I LOVE photographing automobiles. Not every hive needs poking, but I guess some people just can't resist when I comes to debating a description to death.
 11/16/2015 02:49:33 PM · #44
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering, Bear - do you think your own entry should be allowed? I don't. I think it is much less a combination of main photo and texture than is the guitar entry.


Agreed.

I dug back into the original challenge discussion thread and I believe Paul was very clear in outlining what would and probably would not be acceptable in this post. That it exists outside the challenge description is unfortunate, but that seems to happen quite a bit.


This on the heels of several threads deploring ANY challenge description...

*sigh*


To be clear, I am not complaining about it, just presenting the fact that for those who would like clarification it can usually be found. I was more than fine with the description as is, but likely would have DQ'd had I entered the original idea I was considering and am thankful that these things do get talked about.
 11/16/2015 03:05:25 PM · #45
PLEASE! NO BLAME! combining 2 images in any way is essentially unpredictable. there was, I believe, an inherent difficulty in trying to restrict it or define/describe what was meant. I looked at Bear's image and it looked like my own usual double exposures, although it could be argued, in many cases, that the doubling acted as texture one way or the other.

I find this way more a matter of interest than of criticising what has already been done.

11/16/2015 07:48:48 PM · #46
Originally posted by sfalice:
So, naturally, I and probably others looked at your entry, Bear... and you know, I think Marion has a good question, here.
Comment?

From my perspective, the semi-transparency of the "texture layer" keeps it on the safe side of the line. There are a number of them like that still standing.
 11/16/2015 08:25:00 PM · #47
But something that is an all over pattern, as the leaves, is viewable as a texture. Your image is made up of two distinct and competing scenes. It's a double exposure as I see it.
 11/16/2015 08:45:16 PM · #48
I see what Bear means. I hadn't thought of it that way, as a matter of the level of transparency. Prolly since I don't work that way. On the other hand I am perfectly capable of varying the exposure levels in my in-camera double exposures. But then I think we are still primarily dealing with the way in which the two exposures are working relative to each other, and NOT with the method. And a lot of subjectivity/aesthetic judgement must perforce come into play.

Again, this is not to prolong anything, but just in the interests of clarity.
 11/16/2015 11:24:39 PM · #49
the way I understand the word "texture", it refers to a small-scale regular or random pattern that is applied nearly uniformly over the span of an image. If you look at it separately, there should not be any compositional structure there, big discernible objects and such. Just a texture :). Transparency has nothing to do with it. In that sense, IMO leaves in the guitar image are closer to being a texture than trees in Bear's image.
11/16/2015 11:32:54 PM · #50
For the record, I'm in favor of fewer dqs for this poorly understood challenge, not more.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 02:42:52 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/23/2024 02:42:52 PM EDT.