| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2002 06:51:04 PM · #51 |
i have Adobe ImageReady which does not save Exif information on the picture when i resize it to 640 x 480 for example. is resizing could be Violation to rules. otherwise any recommendation with a software that can do so.
thanks |
|
|
|
09/29/2002 06:55:19 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by waziz74:
i have Adobe ImageReady which does not save Exif information on the picture when i resize it to 640 x 480 for example. is resizing could be Violation to rules. otherwise any recommendation with a software that can do so.
thanks
When you save your image, use "Save As..." and give it a different name than your original. Just be sure to keep a copy of your original photo around somewhere and you'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 07:08:49 PM · #53 |
Regarding the cloning out of hot/stuck pixels, let me cast my vote of no, no, no, no!
Once you start down the slippering slope of allowing only spot-editing hot pixels, you've opened the door wide to other abuses.
Most hot pixels occur in single pixels-- and they generally only appear on long expsoures (dark or night shots)-- so we're talking about a fairly small amount of photos here percentage-wise.
I have yet to see a single photo on DPChallenge that exhibited any significant amount of hot pixels to the point of the score being lowered because of it.
Even if the hot pixels of my camera obscured the focus of a beatiful sunset, why should I be able to fix it by painting whatever I want over the hot pixels?
Even in an absolute worst case scenario, I could only concieve of allowing perhaps a single dark-frame subtraction for the sole purpose of removing hot pixels. Even this is overkill for DPChallenge, IMHO.
PS-- I would like to add that my camera has quite a few hot pixels apparent in night shots. In fact, my current challenge entry has a few hot pixels and I've not recieved one single comment about them, nor has it appeared to have affected my score in the slightest.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/29/2002 7:09:01 PM. |
|
|
|
09/29/2002 08:13:08 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by sohr:
<clip> ...my current challenge entry has a few hot pixels and I've not recieved one single comment about them, nor has it appeared to have affected my score in the slightest
A comment on my current pic, clipped to maintain anonimity...
9/23/2002 (1:17:00 AM) - <clip> and a few hot pixels, <clip>
Like I said, worse case is I don't submit here till I can afford to replace my camera... No big deal...
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 08:57:17 PM · #55 |
Let's reduce the max file size to 100k. This would speed up the voting process and should help everyone learn how to optimize their files to this size. I don't believe that there is any visible difference between 150k and 100k.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 09:37:24 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by sohr:
[i]I agree. I don't have a problem with a 640x100 crop. I do have a problem with a 100x100 crop. I just envision too many comments, too man complaints about how its unfair to lower the vote on a photo for it being too small. Maybe at least one side must be 240 or 320?
Good point. Something like requiring the longest side to be between 320 and 640 pixels? Is anyone against this?
[/i]
I'm not against it, I just don't see the need. If some one submits a 100x100 photo and gets low scores because it is too small to see, then they will know better next time. Besides this will give our friends witht the Casio watch cams a chance to compete. (The last said with tongue firmly in cheek.) Bottom line is we can create as many rules as we want, but the more rules there are the more complicated things get and the more griping there is. If I saw a 100x100 pic, I probably would suspect the entrant was hiding something and be reluctant to give it a top score. At the risk of resurecting another thread, last week it was all about unfair skin advantage. Many folks mentioned the "Between the Chaka Lakas (sp?) picture. There were calls for no skin rules. Check out where it rated. Some things are indeed self correcting.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2002 09:52:19 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Besides this will give our friends witht the Casio watch cams a chance to compete. (The last said with tongue firmly in cheek.)
Why? Seems like perfect equitment for the "Candid" challenge.
If I saw a 100x100 pic, I probably would suspect the entrant was hiding something and be reluctant to give it a top score.
Or, a person may have the desirable part of the image in a small portion of their relatively low-resolution frame. Under current rules, they are forced to upsample their image and degrade the quality. It should be the photographer's choice to display it smaller but of better image integrity. |
|
|
|
09/29/2002 10:11:10 PM · #58 |
I like the new rules proposed in the opening post. I feel it widens the spectre of artistic and technical alterations/corrections without adding a whole crazy world of spot editing and digital photo manipulation (which could often come down to who's better in Photoshop).
To the administrators and moderators: Good job guys and thanks for often taking the time to solicit our opinions. |
|
|
|
09/30/2002 10:34:12 PM · #59 |
Since comments can be just as useful (and generally more helpful) in the honing of photography skills as a raw vote, maybe the requirement could be something like "Vote on at least %20 for votes to be counted, and comment on at least 5%." This would be no problem for most voters, and would be immensely helpful to the photographers.
Martin |
|
|
|
10/01/2002 12:30:11 AM · #60 |
| The problem with that is that a lot of people still have dial up modems, and some have limited internet access. The combination of the 2 would take too much time to vote and comment. It could get costly, and I feel that those people would then just stop coming all together. I think this was tries awhile back, and it really didn't work. |
|
|
|
10/10/2002 02:38:49 PM · #61 |
I thought the main reason for allowing the padding (esp on one side) would be so that we don't have to continue DQing good pics just because they screwed up when cropping and created a slight border. I don't particularly want everyone adding borders to their shots as it has a lot more to do with post-processing than photography skills and can greatly enhance some shots (giving them an unfair advantage IMO).
Please don't reduce the file size tho. Forcing someone to learn how to optimize their size/quality isn't gonna happen. We already have a ton of poor quality shots. I use a modem and would still rather stick with the current size. |
|
|
|
10/10/2002 04:30:15 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
The problem with that is that a lot of people still have dial up modems, ...
another problem with that is that people expect the COMMENTS to be CRITIQUES, and get really upset when they're not
imagine how upset they'll be when people are required to COMMENT on more entries, and they get even MORE non-critiques ...
|
|
|
|
10/14/2002 03:53:44 PM · #63 |
Great additions and clarifications to the rules!
Here's my 2 cents on some of the "hot topics"...
Spot Editing - No Spot Editing should be allowed!!! I think the spirit of this site is to take a decent photograph with your camera and then be able to do small cleanups such as colors, cropping, etc. I like that this puts people on a level playing field and works their photography muscles, not their Photoshop muscles.
Cropping I like not being constrained to only 2 cropping proportions. The 640 is good maximum, I think a minimum would be helpful here too (perhaps 320).
Size I personally try to keep my photos under 50-60kb. I like the idea of having a slightly lower limit such as 100 (as someone else suggested). |
|
|
|
10/14/2002 04:11:02 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by psychephylax:
One thing I did not see mentioned is something that plagues almost every single digital camera out there.
Warm, stuck and dead pixels are a part of digital photography, some newer cameras allow for pixel mapping so that those pixels are not there anymore, but so many others do not. With different challenges and different techniques these warm pixels are going to be there and I think the
No spot editing rule should be bent a little bit to be more like
No spot editing with the exception of warm, hot, dead pixel removal, cloning out items that were present at the scene is strictly prohibited
Of course I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who are doing it right now.
The point of that is not to punish people who's cameras developed a 4 pixel hot-spot in some obvious part of the photograph which is present at every exposure and they can't fix it because their camera is out of warranty.
Right on, I have one dead pixel that shows up if that area of the photo has a dark background. I spot-edit that without even thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2002 05:07:08 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Let's reduce the max file size to 100k. This would speed up the voting process and should help everyone learn how to optimize their files to this size. I don't believe that there is any visible difference between 150k and 100k.
It really depends on the picture. Perhaps we should set a maximum
JPEG quality recommendation instead.
I have some images at 640x480 that at 80% compression are about 300-400k
If you have images with lots of details, they don't compress well without
problems.
This is the image
I'd also like to allow spot editing - but with the proviso that all edits
should be done to enhance an image while maintaining a natural looking
photograph (so we can spot edit out hot spots/ noise or dust/ scratches,
but not add clones of people or multiple heads) If we set the rule like
that, people that go too far will be voted down.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/14/2002 5:06:36 PM. |
|
|
|
10/15/2002 10:01:10 AM · #66 |
| Good job all. I agree with the rules that "works their photography muscles, not their Photoshop muscles" as stated above. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 12:47:43 PM EDT.
