| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2019 04:46:50 PM · #101 |
I feel partipation would plummet further, and we’d have a site with more poor quality images on the front page.
I’d much rather have active efforts to more regularly encourage ‘avant garde’ images intermixed with more conventional aesthetics.
Could be done with more ‘in the style of challenges’.
I think it’s really important to get great images on the front page, without that I believe growth (or absence of shrinkage) will be more difficult. |
|
|
|
02/27/2019 06:01:28 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Wait. Right now there's 11 challenges on the board, either in voting or open for entries. How'd you get 12 without Free Studies?
Without those (Free Studies) right now it'd be 9 challenges active. Are you proposing to INCREASE the number of challenges from 9 to 12? |
Not counting Free Studies, we schedule 3 challenges a week. That's roughly 12 a month, though there is some variation in month length obviously. That there are 9 "regular" challenges active now is a function of 2-wk submission + 1-wk voting: so a given challenge stays active for 3 weeks, not 4... |
|
|
|
02/27/2019 06:19:08 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Wait. Right now there's 11 challenges on the board, either in voting or open for entries. How'd you get 12 without Free Studies?
Without those (Free Studies) right now it'd be 9 challenges active. Are you proposing to INCREASE the number of challenges from 9 to 12? |
Not counting Free Studies, we schedule 3 challenges a week. That's roughly 12 a month, though there is some variation in month length obviously. That there are 9 "regular" challenges active now is a function of 2-wk submission + 1-wk voting: so a given challenge stays active for 3 weeks, not 4... |
Sounds like math! ;-} |
|
|
|
02/27/2019 06:33:35 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sounds like math! ;-} |
THIS sounds like math ... |
|
|
|
02/27/2019 09:17:06 PM · #105 |
Initially I was against increasing the frequency of Minimal challenges as I don't participate in them but if this change could be done in a simple way i.e. all Monday challenges are Minimal, all Wednesday Standard, and all Friday Extended then I am for it. I will just ignore all Monday challenges and focus on the other two.
Another suggestion - why not allow RAW in Minimal? That would stop people getting this wrong and wasting their effort. What was the reason for only JPEG? Wouldn't RAW be even more "minimal" than JPEG as a lot of processing can now be done in camera? RAW would stop taking the "easy" way out ;)
Another one - why have preconceived ideas about what topics could be done in Minimal and which must have Extended ruleset? I think  gyaban said some time ago that for him the difference between Minimal/Standard and Extended is that what he could do in software, he would have to recreate in the studio. If you look through his early shots at DPC you can find examples of images created under Standard that most people would have assumed used some "manipulation" in software. It really comes down to a a personal preference of whether to work hard preparing the setup of the shot or learn to use Photoshop to create your vision.
And that leads to another suggestion - why not have occasionally same topics for Minimal and Extended? It would be very interesting to compare the results and see empirically the impact on quality of the front page. |
|
|
|
02/27/2019 09:25:45 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by marnet:
...
And that leads to another suggestion - why not have occasionally same topics for Minimal and Extended? It would be very interesting to compare the results and see empirically the impact on quality of the front page. |
This would be interesting! |
|
|
|
02/27/2019 10:40:53 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Paul:
and we’d have a site with more poor quality images on the front page. |
You gotta stop saying this. Really. Just freakin' stop.
You're an awesome photog, and you've been around the block a time or two.
BUT.... This is DP Challenge. A learning site. The "poor quality images" you're talking about? Wanna see 'em? Go to my portfolio, look at my first entries, for quite some time. That was my learning curve. I worked for my ass off, took a sh*tload of pictures, and with the help of some good people, got pretty decent at this.
So you want to tell someone new at this who is putting his/her best foot forward trying to learn and grow his/her stuff are poor quality images?
I know how fragile my hopes were early on that I had any prayer of being any good some day. Had I heard this kind of reference it would have definitely gone over poorly. I can't imagine anyone reading this little statement you've trotted out would see it much different. I believe I mentioned it before. If you feel my point is unwarranted, please say so, but in turn, if anyone else has had the same reaction I have, say so as well.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2019 03:28:28 AM · #108 |
| Another suggestion - have an Archival challenge with Extended editing. It could be fun! :) |
|
|
|
02/28/2019 03:35:07 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I feel partipation would plummet further, and we’d have a site with more poor quality images on the front page.
I’d much rather have active efforts to more regularly encourage ‘avant garde’ images intermixed with more conventional aesthetics.
Could be done with more ‘in the style of challenges’.
I think it’s really important to get great images on the front page, without that I believe growth (or absence of shrinkage) will be more difficult. |
This might be true from your perspective paul, but what you think is poor and what you think is great is only what you think, it’s not what everyone would think. I’d probably have a similar perspective to you on what’s a great or poor image, but many other people wouldn’t adhere to our perspective. |
|
|
|
02/28/2019 04:29:23 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I feel partipation would plummet further, and we’d have a site with more poor quality images on the front page.
I’d much rather have active efforts to more regularly encourage ‘avant garde’ images intermixed with more conventional aesthetics.
Could be done with more ‘in the style of challenges’.
I think it’s really important to get great images on the front page, without that I believe growth (or absence of shrinkage) will be more difficult. |
DPC's minimal editing rule set, or a variation of this rule set, has been around as long as I can remember. Blaming this rule set for plummeting participation seems like a stretch. As a community, we'll never agree on what makes a poor quality image.
Paul, I miss reading the comments you once left on Free Study images. They were insightful and a nice reward, similar to a Posthumous Ribbon, for those who took a chance and didn't play it safe. |
|
|
|
02/28/2019 02:02:01 PM · #111 |
Yes, I probably ran in a bit hard there but...
The poor quality image thing is just about how a Standard editing image will, more often than not, be better than its Minimal editing version. That’s the whole point of the edit.
Why would we intentionally put more ‘lower quality’ images on the main advertising space of our community?
Is that really controversial? Do others feel that editing doesn’t add value? (Sure it can be overdone, but we don’t see much of that here).
I’m really not trying to upset people, I just think that photographers deserve to be able to put their best work forwards - and within the digital photography genre, Minimal editing will, more often than not, work against that aim.
I’d have little interest in straightoutofthecamera.com. Am I alone in that?
As for novices, the digital edit (‘optimisation’) is surely part of the learning process? I consider myself a novice in that regard too.
I don’t think anything I have said has been anti-novice. I just want to see people’s best work. Hell, I set up an run the Beat Your Own Average Knockout Challenge to try to level the competition playing field for people who were new, inexperienced or struggled to get recognised through their absolute scores.
And fellow members - thanks for the prod and the challenge, I appreciate you pointing out how harsh my words may have seen. I think this post is more measured, but let me know if it isn’t.
:-) |
|
|
|
03/01/2019 09:24:14 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Yes, I probably ran in a bit hard there but...
The poor quality image thing is just about how a Standard editing image will, more often than not, be better than its Minimal editing version. That’s the whole point of the edit. |
I just object to that particular phrasing. Of course the standard editing image would most likely be better.
Originally posted by Paul:
Why would we intentionally put more ‘lower quality’ images on the main advertising space of our community? |
IMNSHO, Minimal is a good example of the differential between quality photography & quality editing.
Originally posted by Paul:
Is that really controversial? Do others feel that editing doesn’t add value? (Sure it can be overdone, but we don’t see much of that here). |
That's funny! We've both been here long enough to know that "over-processed" used to be a mantra, especially from people who either couldn't, or wouldn't use PhotoShop.
Originally posted by Paul:
I’m really not trying to upset people, I just think that photographers deserve to be able to put their best work forwards - and within the digital photography genre, Minimal editing will, more often than not, work against that aim. |
Ah, yes, BUT.... This is where you get to see how good you are at composition, light, perspective, and luck at capturing that exquisite moment. It is unequivocally the most difficult ruleset to excel in.
Originally posted by Paul:
I’d have little interest in straightoutofthecamera.com. Am I alone in that? |
Nope. But.....it's useful, IMO, as a comparator, and it sure as heck keeps me humble!
Originally posted by Paul:
As for novices, the digital edit (‘optimisation’) is surely part of the learning process? I consider myself a novice in that regard too. |
That was always a frustration for me early on. I was convinced that because I couldn't PP for sh*t, I'd never be a good photographer. Now, if I can't "polish" an image in three to five minutes in PP, I think the image sucks. But novices will always feel that they need better PP skills to be good. It's the nature of the process being around digital editing.
Originally posted by Paul:
I don’t think anything I have said has been anti-novice. I just want to see people’s best work. Hell, I set up an run the Beat Your Own Average Knockout Challenge to try to level the competition playing field for people who were new, inexperienced or struggled to get recognised through their absolute scores. |
It still is the best foot forward. But I also think it's important to have Minimal semi-readily available to push oneself periodically. One of my images I'm most proud of is an HM in Minimal. Don't forget, only the top five show, and they're generally pretty good.
Originally posted by Paul:
And fellow members - thanks for the prod and the challenge, I appreciate you pointing out how harsh my words may have seen. I think this post is more measured, but let me know if it isn’t.
:-) |
This is DPC! Say anything remotely opinionated and some @$$hole's gonna take exception! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2019 01:15:27 AM · #113 |
| So what's happening with this? Any changes envisaged? |
|
|
|
03/02/2019 01:16:34 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by marnet:
So what's happening with this? Any changes envisaged? |
I was just speculating. No changes at this point, for sure. Any changes would require, at the least, a thorough discussion n SC and the issue has not been raised there. |
|
|
|
03/24/2019 07:28:17 PM · #115 |
I'd like to chime in here and just say that I don't know about others, but I would be much more inclined to enter minimal editing challenges if we were allowed to CROP. I don't think cropping would take anything away from the intent of this set of rules, but maybe I'm alone in that.
ETA: Ok, I searched through the thread after posting and see that there are others interested in allowing cropping. Who do we need to light a fire under? I mean metaphorically. ...probably.
Message edited by author 2019-03-24 19:30:20. |
|
|
|
03/24/2019 09:58:55 PM · #116 |
| Crop? Nah - don't need to. Just be careful in your composition. |
|
|
|
03/24/2019 10:26:19 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'd like to chime in here and just say that I don't know about others, but I would be much more inclined to enter minimal editing challenges if we were allowed to CROP. I don't think cropping would take anything away from the intent of this set of rules, but maybe I'm alone in that.
ETA: Ok, I searched through the thread after posting and see that there are others interested in allowing cropping. Who do we need to light a fire under? I mean metaphorically. ...probably. |
We ran a poll on this way back when, and a slight majority favored no-crop. We decided we'd run 'em both ways, sometimes flagging a Minimal challenge to allow cropping and free rotation. I've been lax at actually scheduling more that way though. Blame it on Alzheimer's :-) I'll try to be more proactive... |
|
|
|
03/25/2019 02:25:26 AM · #118 |
| Don’t try and blame some poor shmo called Al......it’s just because you’re really, really old....and cruddy. |
|
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 10:52:21 AM EDT.
