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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Size does matter....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/28/2002 11:44:09 AM · #1
Will 3:2 images be allowed this time around?
03/28/2002 12:28:37 PM · #2
Please. Please. PLEASE. Sometime soon.

I've pretty much lost interest in this until and unless 3:2 is allowed, it's just too much work to take zoomed-out shots and sit there in photoshop entering 4:3 ratios in the marquee tool to try and snag a part of the shot that's good.
03/28/2002 12:46:24 PM · #3
By the next challenge, 3:2 will be allowed. Langdon's going to do it.

So much to do, so little time :)
03/28/2002 10:20:26 PM · #4
Just thought I'd chime in while you're discussing rules changes. I've been making up a little list.

1) Might I suggest, rather than requiring a specific format or set of specific formats, that you just make the requirement "no longer than 640 pixels on the long dimension"? Photographs come in all shapes.

2) I'd love to see the rules allow any global changes to an image, ie. anything that affects the entire image witout masking portions from the effect. I love my camera for it's natural, realistic colors, but the general public seems to find them too flat, so I'd like to be able to match the color saturation of other posts. I'd also like to be able to convert an image to B/W in software, as some cameras don't have a B/W mode. Maybe hobbling the folks with more professional equipment a little will make novices more comfortable submitting at the outset, but I can't see it being beneficial in the long run. Seeing images at their best is an important part of the learning process.

3) An interesting addition to the Photographer Profiles would be the possibility of viewing all the comments by a particular photographer. I like the idea of being able to sort them by rank, as well.

Dang... I was sure I had more. {g} Thanks for reading.
03/29/2002 08:51:20 AM · #5
i really like the idea of submitting pics that ar not 4:3 ratio. There are certain aspects I may want to crop, and getting that 640x480 ratio back is near impossible!
03/29/2002 09:49:51 AM · #6
Irae - I understand where you're coming from on the B&W issue. . But color converted to B&W is not equal to taking the picture in B&W.
03/29/2002 01:18:53 PM · #7
I also feel that certain enhancements are exceptable. I mean in film photography, the photographer is not completely stuck with the exact image he/she takes. There are all sorts of tricks that are done to enhance and/or correct things during the print development process (for example, dodging, burning, unsharpen mask, vertical distortion correction, etc.). This sometimes separates the amature from the professional looking photographs.

Graphics editing software are capable of doing these same print enhancements in the digital format; we no longer have to have access to a photo lab, nor hang out with development chemicals (not pleasant) to make really beautiful prints. However, graphics editing software can do things that goes way beyond print enhancements (for example, rubber stamping Marilyn Monroe into a photograph of Bill Clinton). Once you tread into this realm, then it's no longer purely a photographic endeavor.

Personally, I like the fact that this site is primarily about the photographic endeavor (where the focus is photographic composition, with elements like lighting, spacing, patterns, perspective, movement, flow, etc.). No matter which enhancement are allowed or not allowed, if I see a submission that doesn't look like it is photographically possible, I would want to see the original unedited version to verify. Else, I would vote to disqualify it.
04/01/2002 08:28:38 AM · #8
I think the comment about the criteria being 'not longer than 640 pixels' is better than the current one.

The images straight from my camera don't resize perfectly to 640x480
so I have to add a couple of pixel deep lines down the side just to enter. I didn't happen to want to crop the image that I was submitting.

It is a pain trying to get the image into the right size, especially as I suspect the restriction is only really for display/ file size type reasons.
04/01/2002 08:46:00 AM · #9
Gordon -- I have a G2 also, and I know that it shoots in 4:3... and all of my images resize perfectly down to 640x480. What program are you using for editing? And what original-size are you shooting at?

Drew
04/01/2002 10:00:28 AM · #10
khanhx -

while i agree with your statements regarding print development vs. digital "development", i think this site needs to take into consideration that not everyone can afford or otherwise access a copy of adobe photoshop. sometimes it's easy to forget that photoshop is a $600 program.

- mike
04/01/2002 10:02:29 AM · #11
There is always The Gimp, no?

Originally posted by mci:
khanhx -

while i agree with your statements regarding print development vs. digital "development", i think this site needs to take into consideration that not everyone can afford or otherwise access a copy of adobe photoshop. sometimes it's easy to forget that photoshop is a $600 program.

- mike



04/01/2002 10:08:55 AM · #12
Originally posted by drewmedia:
[i]Gordon -- I have a G2 also, and I know that it shoots in 4:3... and all of my images resize perfectly down to 640x480. What program are you using for editing? And what original-size are you shooting at?

Shooting in RAW, using powershovel to convert, then Photoshop to resize.
It could be that the converter program is doing something odd on the way.
04/01/2002 10:27:50 AM · #13
Originally posted by Reign:
But color converted to B&W is not equal to taking the picture in B&W.

Okay... so when there's a B/W challenge, are those of us whose cameras don't shoot in B/W excluded?
04/01/2002 10:57:46 AM · #14
Originally posted by Reign:
Irae - I understand where you're coming from on the B&W issue. . But color converted to B&W is not equal to taking the picture in B&W.

That's true - typically the colour converted result is far superior to what you can do just shooting B&W in camera. I think the comment that stated any 'whole image' transforms should be allowed. I.e., levels, b&W convertion, toning, sharpening should be allowed. Even some dodging and burning seems resonable, after all you'd do that to a negative from a film camera.

I'd draw the line at adding new elements, but even cloning to remove dust/ noise/ unwanted traffic cones doesn't seem to unresonable. But I'm new here so I'll shut up!

Gordon
04/02/2002 07:50:09 AM · #15
I'm all for that, but would gladly give up (for here) spot edits if I could just get at the channel mixer. Heck, I'd settle for changing the mode to grayscale.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2019 08:20:45 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 © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/23/2019 08:20:45 PM EDT.