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 76 - 100 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/02/2016 05:41:58 PM · #76
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

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.

That just can't happen, I don't think. The bedrock of DPC validation has always been the time/date stamp, and the RAW-to-DNG conversion modifies that. Once you have ANY part of the data set modified, all the rest of it is called into question, basically.
04/02/2016 06:43:36 PM · #77
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

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 :-)


I did.
04/02/2016 06:53:11 PM · #78
Originally posted by GeneralE:

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.


Speaking of cloning out lights and/or reflectors and being DQ'd, anyone else remember this and the ruckus it raised? (NSFW, so not inserting the actual thumbnail:

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=219771

Message edited by Bear_Music - parsed.
04/02/2016 06:55:12 PM · #79
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

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.

That just can't happen, I don't think. The bedrock of DPC validation has always been the time/date stamp, and the RAW-to-DNG conversion modifies that. Once you have ANY part of the data set modified, all the rest of it is called into question, basically.


My bad for responding to the posts without making it through the entire thread first. You are referring to the same one I just referenced. I still think this shouldn't have been DQ'd.
04/02/2016 06:55:25 PM · #80
Yeah, that's the classic example of the problem ... uh, the one that's one post back ...

Message edited by author 2016-04-02 18:56:17.
04/03/2016 04:33:41 AM · #81
OK, so having read all the arguments and looked at some of the examples, I'm starting to come round to the idea of selfies. There are some wonderful images out there. So let's float another suggestion.

Let's create a level playing field by getting rid of anonymity altogether. If knowing who the photographer is has no bearing on how we vote, as most seem to think, then surely there is no reason not to know the name of every photographer at voting stage?

Just a serving suggestion.

04/03/2016 06:01:05 AM · #82
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

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.

That just can't happen, I don't think. The bedrock of DPC validation has always been the time/date stamp, and the RAW-to-DNG conversion modifies that. Once you have ANY part of the data set modified, all the rest of it is called into question, basically.


And for weekly challenges I agree with this. What I'm asking is why you can't use them for Hidden Gem challenges when create timestamp isn't important? Given that DNG files can only be created from a camera raw file, and since raw files cannot be edited in and of themselves (meaning you can slip in an edit and make it look like it was taken in-camera), if the source of the DNG is a raw format (NEF, CR2, etc.) then the resulting DNG file cannot have been visually modified. So the only thing modified is the only that that really doesn't matter in a Hidden Gem challenge.
04/03/2016 06:12:38 AM · #83
Originally posted by Mond:

OK, so having read all the arguments and looked at some of the examples, I'm starting to come round to the idea of selfies. There are some wonderful images out there. So let's float another suggestion.

Let's create a level playing field by getting rid of anonymity altogether. If knowing who the photographer is has no bearing on how we vote, as most seem to think, then surely there is no reason not to know the name of every photographer at voting stage?

Just a serving suggestion.


Not knowing the source when voting on anything is the only way to truly have a level playing field. There's not a person here whose vote could not be swayed by knowing the source, for good or bad. Put two wines side by side in a blind tasting and the same two wines side by side with the bottles and I can guarantee that if one is a Grande Crux Bordeaux and the other from the $10 bin, no matter how good or bad either wine is, knowing which is which before hand will color opinion in some way. So when I just happened to be a little cranky in my assessment of something in a discussion topic with some who did not take kindly to what I said, I fully expect that their assessment of my image would change were they, soon after, on the fence between two scores and knew it was mine as opposed to not knowing anything other than what they saw. It's only human, and we all fail at it.

For better or worse recognizable styles and subjects are part of being/becoming an artist, so if you're recognized I suspect you get it from both sides. As well as they may be done not everyone enjoys a gyaban composite or a gritty selfie of sempermarine, so scores will be what they'll be. But if you stick names up there during voting you might as well be putting likes up on Instagram, and I'll be terminating my membership immediately.
04/03/2016 06:50:33 AM · #84
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

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.

That just can't happen, I don't think. The bedrock of DPC validation has always been the time/date stamp, and the RAW-to-DNG conversion modifies that. Once you have ANY part of the data set modified, all the rest of it is called into question, basically.


And for weekly challenges I agree with this. What I'm asking is why you can't use them for Hidden Gem challenges when create timestamp isn't important? Given that DNG files can only be created from a camera raw file, and since raw files cannot be edited in and of themselves (meaning you can slip in an edit and make it look like it was taken in-camera), if the source of the DNG is a raw format (NEF, CR2, etc.) then the resulting DNG file cannot have been visually modified. So the only thing modified is the only that that really doesn't matter in a Hidden Gem challenge.


And to clarify, yes, it's possible to create a file with a DNG extension from a TIFF or JPEG, but they are fundamentally different in their content and the differences can quickly and easily be assessed.
04/03/2016 09:09:16 AM · #85
Oh -- and cropping in minimal is such a good idea.

Without it, the minimal always favored the setup shots, where you could frame things as you'd like. Also it would favor those with the good equipment: wildlife photographers with beautifully long lenses who could crop in camera. I can wait for the light, wait for the setup, wait for the bird to move in just the right spot -- but if I don't have the lens reach, I'm at a disadvantage. But if I could crop, I could get the shot for which I was working.
04/03/2016 09:11:12 AM · #86
Originally posted by vawendy:

Oh -- and cropping in minimal is such a good idea.

Without it, the minimal always favored the setup shots, where you could frame things as you'd like. Also it would favor those with the good equipment: wildlife photographers with beautifully long lenses who could crop in camera. I can wait for the light, wait for the setup, wait for the bird to move in just the right spot -- but if I don't have the lens reach, I'm at a disadvantage. But if I could crop, I could get the shot for which I was working.


Or you could shoot something other than birds for minimal. ;)
04/03/2016 09:14:12 AM · #87
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Oh -- and cropping in minimal is such a good idea.

Without it, the minimal always favored the setup shots, where you could frame things as you'd like. Also it would favor those with the good equipment: wildlife photographers with beautifully long lenses who could crop in camera. I can wait for the light, wait for the setup, wait for the bird to move in just the right spot -- but if I don't have the lens reach, I'm at a disadvantage. But if I could crop, I could get the shot for which I was working.


Or you could shoot something other than birds for minimal. ;)


I usually do -- specifically for that reason. :)

But it was irritating having to switch genres if I wanted to get something competitive.
04/03/2016 10:01:46 AM · #88
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Oh -- and cropping in minimal is such a good idea.

Without it, the minimal always favored the setup shots, where you could frame things as you'd like. Also it would favor those with the good equipment: wildlife photographers with beautifully long lenses who could crop in camera. I can wait for the light, wait for the setup, wait for the bird to move in just the right spot -- but if I don't have the lens reach, I'm at a disadvantage. But if I could crop, I could get the shot for which I was working.


Or you could shoot something other than birds for minimal. ;)


I usually do -- specifically for that reason. :)

But it was irritating having to switch genres if I wanted to get something competitive.


I hear you. But it's not that often, and I like the idea of having to get it right, right in the camera. Composition shouldn't be accidental, and while it isn't always that way when cropping, I know that even when I think I nailed it I'm often tweaking at home. At least once in a while folks should be rewarded for getting it right with the shutter click, even if it puts us on the outs for a challenge.
04/03/2016 10:24:40 AM · #89
But as Dennis said, and being a rangefinder shoot myself I empathise, some equipment just doesn't give you the precision to work in a WYSIWYG way.

I say crop for Minimal.
04/03/2016 10:36:34 AM · #90
Allow me to join the voices of appreciation for the time and energy of SC in general, and especially for taking on this important revision process!

I think I'm on the no cropping side of the minimal argument, however, minimal does imply more than no editing. The thing is, for us old slide film guys, getting it right in camera is among the most advanced type of photography and for me, it's a challenge I like to take on once in awhile. It really tends to s...l...o..w down the image creation process and forces me to think before I click. My suggestion, if this becomes a point of contention, would be to consider either a separate SOOC (Straight Out Of Compton Camera) ruleset... or at least the use of flags for occasional SOOC limitations in Minimal.

Edited for typo

Message edited by author 2016-04-03 11:05:27.
04/03/2016 10:39:56 AM · #91
The more I think about it, the more I feel that "cropping" isn't really the same as "processing", that the primary intent of the minimal editing rules is to "keep it real", to eliminate all the PS shenanigans that go into modern images these days. In other words, that "minimal" should be the new "basic". The old Basic Rules have been abandoned because they were overtaken by increased processing capabilities, basically, and would have had to be completely overhauled to be viable. It seems to me that this proposed "minimal" rewrite, if cropping and rotating are included, is a very viable ruleset. And for me, the clincher is that, as appropriate, we could ADD a flag to a given challenge mandating no cropping and no rotating, so we could STILL have straight-from-camera challenges wehen requested, on topics that warrant such.

ETA: Hah! I was composing this as Banning posted up his... :-)

Message edited by author 2016-04-03 10:40:48.
04/03/2016 11:41:30 AM · #92
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

And for weekly challenges I agree with this. What I'm asking is why you can't use them for Hidden Gem challenges when create timestamp isn't important? Given that DNG files can only be created from a camera raw file, and since raw files cannot be edited in and of themselves (meaning you can slip in an edit and make it look like it was taken in-camera), if the source of the DNG is a raw format (NEF, CR2, etc.) then the resulting DNG file cannot have been visually modified. So the only thing modified is the only that that really doesn't matter in a Hidden Gem challenge.


Even though the date rule is relaxed, it IS still limited to one year. We need to be able to validate that the image was taken within that time frame and not an earlier year :)
04/03/2016 11:54:33 AM · #93
Originally posted by Paul:

But as Dennis said, and being a rangefinder shoot myself I empathise, some equipment just doesn't give you the precision to work in a WYSIWYG way.

I say crop for Minimal.


I hear this and agree that if you can't see what you're composing in the viewfinder, cropping needs to be allowed. But the problem is that it's an all or nothing thing. If you say cropping is allowed it won't stop someone from cropping out half the image and to me that isn't minimal anymore. Also, to allow cropping and rotating is effectively allowing straightening. I like the minimal rule the way it is because it challenges me to think.
04/03/2016 12:04:14 PM · #94
I welcome any variation of the new rule sets. Hopefully we'll see these implemented soon.

Cropping and rotating for minimal doesn't really matter. We rarely have a challenge with this rule set.
04/03/2016 12:34:53 PM · #95
NO cropping in Minimal! That is all.
04/03/2016 12:44:17 PM · #96
Originally posted by bvy:

NO cropping in Minimal! That is all.


+1
04/03/2016 01:14:01 PM · #97
Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

And for weekly challenges I agree with this. What I'm asking is why you can't use them for Hidden Gem challenges when create timestamp isn't important? Given that DNG files can only be created from a camera raw file, and since raw files cannot be edited in and of themselves (meaning you can slip in an edit and make it look like it was taken in-camera), if the source of the DNG is a raw format (NEF, CR2, etc.) then the resulting DNG file cannot have been visually modified. So the only thing modified is the only that that really doesn't matter in a Hidden Gem challenge.

Even though the date rule is relaxed, it IS still limited to one year. We need to be able to validate that the image was taken within that time frame and not an earlier year :)

That's true for Best-of-Year, but Hidden Gem challenges are open for anything you shot in the past that you can provide a valid original for...
04/03/2016 01:47:27 PM · #98
A big well done on the proposed changes to the challenge rules, and also to the discussion beforehand.

I'm sitting on the fence for the minimal cropping debate, I do love the challenge side of trying to get everything right in camera but I nearly always regret not being able to crop, if you could crop though, I'm just not sure if the challenge would be a challenge if you get what I mean. Whatever happens I think we should have more minimal challenges, or at least the same amount as the proposed extended editing challenges, I've never understood why there are more expert than minimal challenges at the moment, there also should be a minimal free study like the expert one, that would be fair.

04/03/2016 02:29:09 PM · #99
Yes, there should be as many minimal challenges as expert IMHO.
The problem is (and to be honest I don't really care about this but since it involves participation it needs to be taken into consideration) there are members who post almost exclusively to expert challenges. Are there members who tend to post only when the challenge is minimal edit? Maybe we should try it and see. Maybe we should be encouraging participation in all rulesets (somehow).
04/03/2016 02:45:08 PM · #100
I would be amenable to a crop in minimal, related to straightening only, not for composition purposes.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 01:41:19 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 01:41:19 AM EDT.