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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> 'Off-Centered Subject II' Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 243, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/08/2006 12:01:08 PM · #76
Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/440/thumb/283627.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/440/thumb/283627.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16241/thumb/288748.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16241/thumb/288748.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


How is this legal?
I'd love to hear how this was legal and the shot of the girl next to the couch who brightened the couch out of the shot was not legal?

SC? PLEASE explain that one?

I'm with nsbca on this one - and I do believe if that's not the 1st time I've ever said that, it's close...

This is ... just explain how goodman's ribbon passes and the girl by the couch (high key - I'm sure you SC remember it) doesn't pass?

M

(edit: and I bumped this when scalvert, mk, hbunch, ursula were all online so let's see)


One thing that you should consider is that in comparing an entry to an original, the comparison is done at the same crop as the entry (the finished version). In other words, in comparing Lesley's finished image to her original, you need to first crop the original the same as the finished version. You'll notice that when you do so there will be verylittle identifyable background left, a bit of shirt on both sides, a bit of a zipper on the right side. Without the bit of zipper you wouldn't know hardly that it is shirts - it could be anything. So another way to think about this is: "is eliminating this little bit of background elimination of a major element?", or "is the blurred bit of zipper a major element?"

I think for many the answer would be no.


It damn sure takes up more of the image then my blur on the running gear does.
02/08/2006 12:02:18 PM · #77
Originally posted by rscorp:

... Personally I think it's humorous how many of the winning photos or photos that do extremely well look almost nothing LIKE a photograph anymore, after all the filters, layers, etc have been added, ...

That is pretty much my reaction after viewing the current crop of ribbon winners, the ones that were added to the front page after the most recent rollover. Not all of them for sure, but some look to be very heavily processed.

As always, just my two cents.
02/08/2006 12:02:43 PM · #78
mav. A sc member said yesterday they are still discussing that one. I brought up another issue with it with a sc member, but since I don't have the original, and can't assume the one in her port is the original, I can't say what the issue is.
02/08/2006 12:02:55 PM · #79
Originally posted by ursula:

In other words, in comparing Lesley's finished image to her original, you need to first crop the original the same as the finished version.

That 'original' is an outtake - It looks like it's already been post-processed to a degree.
02/08/2006 12:04:36 PM · #80
Originally posted by pcody:

mav. A sc member said yesterday they are still discussing that one. I brought up another issue with it with a sc member, but since I don't have the original, and can't assume the one in her port is the original, I can't say what the issue is.


Ah, thanks for that - well at least there's a chance that consistency will win then.

(I have forums off on the front page now so I miss a lot! I have to click community/forums to browse recent stuff)
02/08/2006 12:07:05 PM · #81
The answer for me is yes...that's a huge piece of the background, and a major element. There's no way this should be allowed. Put your money where your mouth is and set it to a poll on the front page.

Originally posted by ursula:

So another way to think about this is: "is eliminating this little bit of background elimination of a major element?", or "is the blurred bit of zipper a major element?"

I think for many the answer would be no.

02/08/2006 12:08:28 PM · #82
just ban the filters and be done with it.
02/08/2006 12:14:25 PM · #83
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

just ban the filters and be done with it.


Yes
02/08/2006 12:15:22 PM · #84
ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.
02/08/2006 12:17:15 PM · #85
Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by KaDi:

nsbca7,
I find your signature offensive. To me, it is equivalent to a personal attack. Surely you don't need to resort to such juvenile expressions to aid your discussion of an important topic.


I'm glad you see it for what it is. I take the DQ of this image as a personal attack.


I'd personally recommend that you be banned for life for such stupid, boorish, asinine, imbecilic, inappropriate behavior as you are resorting to. No questions, no parole. You need to get a grip. This is ridiculous.
02/08/2006 12:19:05 PM · #86
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

just ban the filters and be done with it.


Yes

Wait...I still want my gaussian blur. Is that considered a filter? A list here might be good.
02/08/2006 12:21:43 PM · #87
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.


Would have been a little hard to get that F4 to move no matter how long I waited, and it took a considerable bit longer then 30 seconds to add the blur. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. The question being posed here is one of consistency under the existing rules, not on what you would like to have for the future of DPC.

If it were up to me in the future keep it all to straight shots else we go the way of Deviant Art. But for now what?
02/08/2006 12:24:58 PM · #88
nsbca7, you should realize there are two different rules applied to the two images being discussed.

In your case it's the creation of a major element. Sort of like the shots that add flare in PS for effect and are DQd.

In Goodman's case, it's either the question of the removal/obliteration of the background, which has in the past been a source of DQ (e.g., KDOs image), and or the removal of a major element.

So these two images, while both good for discussion of the rules, are actually cases where different rules apply (removal versus addition).

It would be great if when DQ'ing the notes would provide an individualized SC statement of the issue, rather than the boilerplate text. I'd also like to see a case log available to us, with "position statements" discussing the issues from each of the SC's points of views. Sort of like the Supreme Court. Hey, I just realized SC = Site Council = Supreme Court. ;)

I would also like to see a flag/statement on images so we can tell when an image is (still) in "discussion" by the SC.


02/08/2006 12:29:48 PM · #89
Originally posted by muckpond:


the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques.


Maybe there needs to be more challenges with only Basic (clearly defined) Editing. Make the Advance Editing more like the Free Study challenges.

People start judging on the photograph based on how the editing was done. While I am enjoying learning all the editing options, I find that this site is becoming Digital PhotoArt Challenge rather than Digital Photography. That's not a negative view, but what is the general idea of this site?

I have only entered 2 challenges so maybe my opinion is not valid enough...but while I AGREE with all comments on my entries....most of them were telling me what post-editing I needed (I entered straight out of the camera). No one told me what I should have done to have gotten a better picture. (granted it was and advanced editing challenge so it was expected to have been edited)

Looks like we spend more time fighting over what to do with the computer rather than the camera.
02/08/2006 12:31:40 PM · #90
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.


The problem with this question is that it's a specific example of the larger photo vs. photoshop issue. I could ask that same question of, say, a sunset; Say somebody took a pic of a bridge in the middle of the day with clouds and then just jacked up the orange vs. waiting for a real sunset.

Once you get into allowing x, it's then a matter of how to write down the limits that apply on the use of x - it's subjective.

Not sure you can have a reasonable debate within this thread really :-)

As to this discussion: I can see the point but disagree with the way the discussion is happening. I find it hard to see how this example is "too far" (i.e. a major element) when other examples are - TO MY EYES (that subjective thing again) - further down that path then this one.

I don't see how this can work unless you just pull the plug out (ok tried for a round about pun) on all filters or allow anything.
02/08/2006 12:31:58 PM · #91
Originally posted by nshapiro:

I would also like to see a flag/statement on images so we can tell when an image is (still) in "discussion" by the SC.

Good idea.
02/08/2006 12:33:41 PM · #92
Originally posted by nshapiro:

nsbca7, you should realize there are two different rules applied to the two images being discussed.

In your case it's the creation of a major element. Sort of like the shots that add flare in PS for effect and are DQd.



' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/391/thumb/243795.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/391/thumb/243795.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This was also a stationary object.
02/08/2006 12:40:35 PM · #93
wahwahwahwah!

Leslie's photo effect could have very easily been done in a darkroom, using traditional techniques. No way you could say the same for nbsca7's.
02/08/2006 12:53:17 PM · #94
Originally posted by jemison:

wahwahwahwah!

Leslie's photo effect could have very easily been done in a darkroom, using traditional techniques. No way you could say the same for nbsca7's.


Is that the bar? What could be done in the darkroom? You'd be surprised what could be done in the darkroom. And yes, I would have no problems whatsoever duplicating what I did on the Red Dawn image in a darkroom.

But that isn't the point is it?
02/08/2006 12:54:53 PM · #95
Maybe I'm just way out there, but I have a greater problem removing the power lines than adding the motion blur (which IMO doesnít improve the image).

The blur could easily be identified as such, but the removal of the power lines is (IMO) inheritably sneakier. In the same challenge my entry could have been improved by the removal of the jetís contrail, but I didnít clone it out because I considered it ďcheatingĒ regardless of the rules.

As Iíve stated in other posts on similar topics, Iíd favor less digital art and more photography in the SC's rule overhaul. We shall see soon enough.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/441/thumb/287733.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/441/thumb/287733.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/08/2006 12:55:46 PM · #96
Originally posted by KaDi:

nsbca7,
I find your signature offensive. To me, it is equivalent to a personal attack. Surely you don't need to resort to such juvenile expressions to aid your discussion of an important topic.


I absolutely agree with you. Very offensive
02/08/2006 12:58:49 PM · #97
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Maybe I'm just way out there, but I have a greater problem removing the power lines than adding the motion blur (which IMO doesnít improve the image).

The blur could easily be identified as such, but the removal of the power lines is (IMO) inheritably sneakier.


I wouldn't have had much problem if that was what it had been for to tell the truth. that was what I had initially thought the DQ was for and had actually worried about that when I was working on the image. Seeing what had been done here in the past and what has been accepted I didn't give the motion blur another thought while I was editing.
02/08/2006 01:00:40 PM · #98
Even though your argument is irrelavant because it does not exist in the RULES which suppose to be the basis for disqualification, but I'll go with you on your arguments: That african kid photo where the background was removed, to do this out of the camera it would've required a studio with a black backdrop, why was this allowed in photoshop then? I think all the ones who spend tons of money on studio equipments will feel cheated now!!!!

Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, here's a question.

i didn't vote on nbsca's image, so i am a bit outside of this debate.

putting the ruleset entirely aside: do you think that it's fair for someone to use photoshop to simulate motion where no motion existed before?

you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? say we had a motion blur challenge and you spent 2 hours trying to get the exact look you wanted while the guy next to you spent 30 seconds snapping a shot and then 30 seconds applying a blur in photoshop. would you feel cheated? should that be allowed on dpc?

i'm really looking for a debate here. the ruleset now is structured to force people to use photographic techniques more than editing techniques. do you really think the two photos i described above are equally valid? i would like to hear your opinions.
02/08/2006 01:02:09 PM · #99
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Wait...I still want my gaussian blur. Is that considered a filter? A list here might be good.


Well, I would like to keep gaussian too, but I'd kill it if it meant we could get some easy to apply equally rules.

I always wondered about this shot...what am I looking at here? It doesn't really seem much different than nsbca7's shot (which I personally don't mind having been DQ'd as long as we apply it consistently).

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/374/thumb/225799.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/374/thumb/225799.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/391/thumb/243795.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/391/thumb/243795.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
This too, was clearly a stationary object so any argument about movement etc is silly. Unless there was a zoom blur in the original there was no blur to enhance (I will bet, although I haven't seen the original). Common sense dictates you are not standing in front of a large plane taking a picture while it is moving.

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 13:04:31.
02/08/2006 01:06:47 PM · #100
I guess I just don't see it. Is this how to get alot of review on a pic. I personally don't like the original, adding the blur and enhancing the sky still doesn't get my vote...but sure has caused alot of attention.

Based on the immaturity of the signature, I won't spend any more time on this rant.


Message edited by author 2006-02-08 13:08:24.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 02:35:14 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 © 2001-2020 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: 05/26/2020 02:35:14 PM EDT.