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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Proposed Modification/Renaming of Challenge Rules
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/01/2016 07:46:49 PM · #51
Lots of good input. I'll clarify my earlier comment by adding that I favor allowing straightening and cropping in minimal. It is quite difficult enough to be required to get the exposure, color, contrast, depth of field, and focus right without any adjustments in post. Straighten/crop allows needed leeway when the viewfinder doesn't display exactly the same area that the sensor captures. Plus it probably will encourage more participation (testable hypothesis here).
04/01/2016 08:25:31 PM · #52
Originally posted by smardaz:

Is it just me thinking it strange this is posted April 1st?

That's me being weird, actually. I'm surprised nobody else has raised the issue. Props to you! But this is not a joke :-)
04/01/2016 10:01:44 PM · #53
I lean toward the no cropping minimal preference. But I am also all for whatever might bring more action here.

Great work whatever the final decision.
04/02/2016 12:28:23 AM · #54
I'm for cropping in Minimal as well.
04/02/2016 01:21:10 AM · #55
The changes look good to me. Thanks SC. And I have to say I'm all for cropping and/or straightening in minimal.
04/02/2016 03:04:07 AM · #56
So far, this all sounds really good.

My vote is NO to cropping and/or straightening in minimal..... what's the point calling it minimal if you allow something that can cause a VERY drastic change to the image.
04/02/2016 03:10:54 AM · #57
I'm not a big fan of minimal, but cropping can make it just interesting enough to participate. So a big YES for cropping.
And I love the new rules re cloning out in the Standard rule set. Great job, SC!
04/02/2016 03:53:27 AM · #58
Whilst looking at the rules please can we have some thought given to the rules of suspension.

In their current form I believe that they are Draconian and outdated, and possibly unnecessary given that a DQ is in itself is a sufficient form of admonishment for rule transgression. As one who has crossed the line twice (inadvertently, I may add) I now live in mortal fear of submitting a third.

I believe the current rules are not supportive of furthering creative photography and may be detrimental to increasing the number of members who stay with DPC.

Also, please consider the rule of anonymity and the ways in which is is being broken.

The submission phase of challenges has been carefully designed to remove any suggestion of authorship yet 'selfies' are regularly submitted. I suggest that a recognisable inclusion of oneself in a challenge be considered a transgression in the interests of anonymity.

Thank you.

Mond

Message edited by author 2016-04-02 04:01:40.
04/02/2016 08:15:58 AM · #59
There are tears of joy filling my eyes I can only hope it does not affect the message. What a wonderful announcement to be sure.
You are so splendid on the ole SC as I like to call it . Let's hope It all goes well and many new friends are encouraged to join "this challenge site to shame all others".
As for the cropping issue I would like to crop please,as in the darkroom this was a given.
Hope its ok to mention a darkroom as I guess you guys may have spent many an hour in one over the months it must have taken to make this site a greater place than anyone could ever imagine.
Love to all members,ole SC and users, you are he best.
04/02/2016 08:17:52 AM · #60
Thank you SC for some much needed changes. I can see the argument for both sides of the cropping issue and I am willing to play no matter what is decided. The biggest test for me in minimal is all the other stuff, contrast, focus, etc. Cropping is most beneficial with a macro.

Again, thanks for trying to make our home a better place to live.
04/02/2016 09:01:28 AM · #61
Originally posted by Mond:

Whilst looking at the rules please can we have some thought given to the rules of suspension.

In their current form I believe that they are Draconian and outdated, and possibly unnecessary given that a DQ is in itself is a sufficient form of admonishment for rule transgression. As one who has crossed the line twice (inadvertently, I may add) I now live in mortal fear of submitting a third.

I believe the current rules are not supportive of furthering creative photography and may be detrimental to increasing the number of members who stay with DPC.


I believe the rule change will go a long way to reducing the potential for accidental DQ. That said, I don't believe these are by any means "Draconian" as DQ's are only counted across the last 25 challenge submissions. 2 DQ's in 25 requires you to miss at most 4 challenges if the FS happens to be that week, 3 in 25 misses at most 7. And two months of faithful and careful submissions could wipe those away quickly (got a DQ? participate, participate, participate - if only to get 25 clean challenges behind you). It's not like the SC is profiling people.

Originally posted by Mond:

Also, please consider the rule of anonymity and the ways in which is is being broken.

The submission phase of challenges has been carefully designed to remove any suggestion of authorship yet 'selfies' are regularly submitted. I suggest that a recognisable inclusion of oneself in a challenge be considered a transgression in the interests of anonymity.


Yeah, this is one of those things that secretly annoys the heck out of me. When your "style" relies on your face you have to question where the line is drawn. And when you've been here for a decade and use family members and pets as frequent subjects it's hard to say where anonymity is purposefully being sacrificed vs. the old adage that if you have a willing model then you use it. I do believe there are some blatant abusers, but it's hard to draw that line and I understand why the SC may be unwilling to apply it one place but not another. I do believe some folks have been disciplined for transgressions in the past, though I cannot say for sure the specific reasons. So I will continue to allow this to bug the snot out of me while trusting the SC's judgement here.
04/02/2016 10:02:57 AM · #62
Cheers to the hard working folks who compose the SC and I salute the positive attitude towards proposing some very needed changes. The hard work is very appreciated by myself and it appears by everyone!
I use a variety of camera's but I don't enter minimal challenges very often. The view finder size of the cameras I use varies to less then 100% to way more than 100% depending on the lens being used. My input on cropping would be a yes. My train of thought for the minimal part or the restriction would be the actual editing like selections, layers, color changes, etc. To me, cropping something out of the frame that was not intended to be in the frame in the first place should be allowed. It happens to me when I use my rangefinder Leica. The frame in the viewfinder defines what will be in or out of the final photo, but there is a small percentage outside the frame line that you have to account for and sometimes during a quick moment, you can't frame it perfectly.
But I am happy no matter which way this decision goes!
04/02/2016 10:57:07 AM · #63
When will these new rules be effective?
04/02/2016 11:35:04 AM · #64
Originally posted by Mond:

Whilst looking at the rules please can we have some thought given to the rules of suspension.

In their current form I believe that they are Draconian and outdated, and possibly unnecessary given that a DQ is in itself is a sufficient form of admonishment for rule transgression. As one who has crossed the line twice (inadvertently, I may add) I now live in mortal fear of submitting a third.

I believe the current rules are not supportive of furthering creative photography and may be detrimental to increasing the number of members who stay with DPC.

I'd personally be in favor of some relaxation there as well. We have not discussed this as a group in SC yet, however. My thinking is that at least we should add a date range to the "25 submissions" rule; as things stand now, folks who only submit once a month, for example, have to wait TWO YEARS for the slate to be clean, and I think that's silly. I'd be in favor of something along the lines of "25 submissions or 60 days", for example, I think that's a no-brainer. Whether to do away with suspensions from submitting altogether is more problematical, though.

Originally posted by Mond:

Also, please consider the rule of anonymity and the ways in which is is being broken.

The submission phase of challenges has been carefully designed to remove any suggestion of authorship yet 'selfies' are regularly submitted. I suggest that a recognisable inclusion of oneself in a challenge be considered a transgression in the interests of anonymity.

There really is no "rule" on anonymity, actually, beyond that copyright information is not allowed. Realistically, I don't think selfies will ever be considered a rules transgression, THAT would be "draconian" (to borrow your earlier term). I also don't think there's any evidence that repeated publication of selfies leads to repeated high scores. In the cases of some members, like (say) Gyaban or sempermarine or Samantha_T, it might SEEM that way, but these folks are brilliant at what they do, there's no denying the high quality of the work. Speaking from my own personal experience, submission of a recognizable "selfie" doesn't guarantee me bubkes...

In a related vein, as Jake's pointed out, there are a LOT of ways to be "recognizable" and if you've been around long enough you can't help but be part of that matrix. When IreneM enters a challenge, I know it, and a Cuttooth used to be instantly spottable, though he's branched out a bit. There are certain themes and locations I return to often (it's a small peninsula I live on) and those always get recognized by many people. But they don't always score well. Sometimes I do a great job, other times not so much. I don't see how we can possibly legislate anonymity at that level; we just have to rely on voters to be fair-minded, not vote DOWN "people they don't like" or vote UP "people they do like".

Message edited by author 2016-04-02 11:38:54.
04/02/2016 11:37:07 AM · #65
Originally posted by Ja-9:

When will these new rules be effective?

No specific timetable but hopefully within weeks. It's not a simple task because at this level we need the tech side of the site involved in coding and placing them (SC can't do it on our own), but we'll try to expedite the process. Previous changes have sometimes just been tweaking of existing rules, and THAT we can do on our own.
04/02/2016 01:11:57 PM · #66
I love the new rule changes. I also support the idea of allowing cropping in minimal as it is hard to rotate and resize without cropping. I think you can still get the basic photo right and still be able to crop. As to the idea of anonymity I agree that "selfies" should be discouraged in some way. It is discouraging to read commnents after the challenge where people congratulate someone by name in the comment. It may not directly affect the scoring but it also may as someone may vote a friend's image higher. It's just human nature. There is a difference between a "style and a person being shown. You can guess at someone's style and sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong with a person's face right in front of you or their child who you have seen numerous times and recognize it is harder. Just my thoughts.
04/02/2016 01:43:53 PM · #67
I say yes to continued "selfies" as I would hate to see folks like gyaban, samantha_T, etc. etc. disappear over a rule like that. It's not the easiest thing in the world to find people willing to model, let alone do retakes when necessary.

Yes also, to cropping in minimal.

Message edited by author 2016-04-02 13:47:00.
04/02/2016 03:50:56 PM · #68
Some people's entire body of work revolves around selfies, and who are we to tell people what they can or can't shoot. Regarding voting, human nature aside, there is something called "spirit of the rules", to which we hope everyone is adhering.
04/02/2016 05:05:54 PM · #69
I like these proposals. I would also strongly endorse allowing lighting composites to standard editing.
It is very standard in still life photography to take a base exposure and then additional exposures where a light, or a reflector card are brought in. sometimes these end up visible in the composition, since they are only designed to affect a small part of the image. and sometimes there is no way to achieve this effect otherwise. I would argue that this is consistent with cloning "whatever we want", it is just cloned from a masked layer from a slightly different exposure. there are other techniques like removing objects one at a time so they don't reflect in a chrome item (but using the original full composition as a base. just compositing in the chrome item from the frame with clean reflections) which i also think are consistent with standard professional practice and the spirit of these rules.

the techniques i described above serve to create a cleaner, improved version of an essentially static composition, created photographically. I would argue that they belong in standard editing, and are quite distinct from the anything-goes digital illustrations allowed in extended editing.

i would be happy to provide some examples of what i am talking about if the descriptions weren't clear.
04/02/2016 05:12:36 PM · #70
Originally posted by magnumruss:

I like these proposals. I would also strongly endorse allowing lighting composites to standard editing.
It is very standard in still life photography to take a base exposure and then additional exposures where a light, or a reflector card are brought in. sometimes these end up visible in the composition, since they are only designed to affect a small part of the image. and sometimes there is no way to achieve this effect otherwise. I would argue that this is consistent with cloning "whatever we want", it is just cloned from a masked layer from a slightly different exposure. there are other techniques like removing objects one at a time so they don't reflect in a chrome item (but using the original full composition as a base. just compositing in the chrome item from the frame with clean reflections) which i also think are consistent with standard professional practice and the spirit of these rules.

the techniques i described above serve to create a cleaner, improved version of an essentially static composition, created photographically. I would argue that they belong in standard editing, and are quite distinct from the anything-goes digital illustrations allowed in extended editing.

That's a very interesting point. It seems to me entirely within the spirit of what we're trying to do by opening these rules up a bit. What do the rest of you think?
04/02/2016 05:28:31 PM · #71
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by magnumruss:

I like these proposals. I would also strongly endorse allowing lighting composites to standard editing.
It is very standard in still life photography to take a base exposure and then additional exposures where a light, or a reflector card are brought in. sometimes these end up visible in the composition, since they are only designed to affect a small part of the image. and sometimes there is no way to achieve this effect otherwise. I would argue that this is consistent with cloning "whatever we want", it is just cloned from a masked layer from a slightly different exposure. there are other techniques like removing objects one at a time so they don't reflect in a chrome item (but using the original full composition as a base. just compositing in the chrome item from the frame with clean reflections) which i also think are consistent with standard professional practice and the spirit of these rules.

the techniques i described above serve to create a cleaner, improved version of an essentially static composition, created photographically. I would argue that they belong in standard editing, and are quite distinct from the anything-goes digital illustrations allowed in extended editing.

That's a very interesting point. It seems to me entirely within the spirit of what we're trying to do by opening these rules up a bit. What do the rest of you think?


I need to catch up on this thread.

But working backwards... isn't this already allowed just by the fact that you can bracket, submit the multiple shots and mask whatever you want? While you're not physically adjusting the lighting -- it has the same effect. You have the same shot with different exposures and you pick and choose your lighting from there. And you can mess with the lighting in CEP with the darken lighten center.

So why wouldn't it acceptable to have multiple exposures with different lighting? It's the same shot... I haven't done it this way, but it seems like it would still fall into the advanced rules...

Or doesn't it, because if you had shadows, the shadows would be different?
04/02/2016 05:32:20 PM · #72
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by magnumruss:

I like these proposals. I would also strongly endorse allowing lighting composites to standard editing.
It is very standard in still life photography to take a base exposure and then additional exposures where a light, or a reflector card are brought in. sometimes these end up visible in the composition, since they are only designed to affect a small part of the image. and sometimes there is no way to achieve this effect otherwise. I would argue that this is consistent with cloning "whatever we want", it is just cloned from a masked layer from a slightly different exposure. there are other techniques like removing objects one at a time so they don't reflect in a chrome item (but using the original full composition as a base. just compositing in the chrome item from the frame with clean reflections) which i also think are consistent with standard professional practice and the spirit of these rules.

the techniques i described above serve to create a cleaner, improved version of an essentially static composition, created photographically. I would argue that they belong in standard editing, and are quite distinct from the anything-goes digital illustrations allowed in extended editing.

That's a very interesting point. It seems to me entirely within the spirit of what we're trying to do by opening these rules up a bit. What do the rest of you think?

As I understand the example, combining the images seems already-legal as a form of HDR processing. Cloning-out lights or reflectors seems allowed under the proposed rules, but likely illegal under the current Advanced rules.
04/02/2016 05:32:46 PM · #73
Not allowing selfies would so limit things. I HATE doing selfies -- but I've been doing them because I'm more and more interested in doing people shots instead of wildlife. I'm branching out, but I don't have many people to shoot. So I'm shooting myself. You may not want it. I don't want it. But it's either that or not be able to try the shots I want. That seems to completely defy the purpose of the site.

Yes. Am I tired of the fact that Samantha is gorgeous and can win on her looks alone compared to a frumpy middle-aged woman? Yes. Do I then realize that she's a darn good photographer? Yes. drat.
04/02/2016 05:33:27 PM · #74
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by magnumruss:

I like these proposals. I would also strongly endorse allowing lighting composites to standard editing.

That's a very interesting point. It seems to me entirely within the spirit of what we're trying to do by opening these rules up a bit. What do the rest of you think?


We're essentially talking about Harold Ross style light painting, right? There are ways of doing this that I'd love to see made legal, but other methods border on adding image area. Too frazzled at the moment to write the paragraph I want to write, so whatever you decide, but I believe this stretches Standard REALLY close to Expert or whatever it's called now.

That said, I was coming here to post that I would love to see the rules amended so that those of us who listened to Scott Kelby and converted all our raw files to DNG's when importing into Lightroom for the first time (and subsequently deleting all the original raw files since they were "the same thing") can use them as verification images.
04/02/2016 05:38:53 PM · #75
Originally posted by GeneralE:

As I understand the example, combining the images seems already-legal as a form of HDR processing. Cloning-out lights or reflectors seems allowed under the proposed rules, but likely illegal under the current Advanced rules.

Well, under the current rules we've considered changing the lighting setup mid-stream as changing the basic "scene" and it's not allowed. And under the current rules (or their predecessor) once someone was DQ'd for removing a lightstand in the BG because it wasn't a minor element. It's true that the latter (the cloning) would be allowed under these new rules. It's not immediately obvious that changing-lights scenario WOULD be (though I think it would, myself) so it would be good to add this to the "list of examples" we have in there...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 01:02:09 AM

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: 03/19/2024 01:02:09 AM EDT.