| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2006 02:32:28 PM · #1 |
Has anyone else noticed that the current home page, and most recent ribbon-winners, have't been especially brightly colored?
I could swear I read someone complain about how high saturation is a key to winning, but it doesn't look that way.
Or is DPC changing? |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:39:10 PM · #2 |
The tide seems to be shifting to favor more subdued entries, yes. But I don't think DPC itself is changing; soon enough the tide will reach its peak and start to ebb, and we'll see more highly-saturated images winning again. The key is to get in synch :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:45:57 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The key is to get in synch :-)R. |
Well, based on the sub-5 results on my last several entries, including the two now in, the key would seem to be a bit more than that. ;) |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:10:36 PM · #4 |
To me:
Beacon seems over-saturated.
There appears to be one well-saturated pic per winning category.
Perhaps just a coincidence that the balcnce are less sat'd.
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 15:11:17.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:25:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Perhaps just a coincidence that the balcnce are less sat'd. |
That, plus the fact we just had a "pastels" challenge and that may have opened voters' minds to less-than-oversaturated images :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:27:15 PM · #6 |
Henri Cartier-Bresson described colour photography as 'photographing the obvious'. But the obvious has never been a bad approach to getting ribbons around here. Personally, I'm finding the recent winning shots to be remarkably bland. Technically well executed, doubtless, but the current trend seems very much to be for the obvious.
The voting taste always goes through a different period in the northern hemisphere summer months though, and generally adjusts through autumn to its most interesting appreciation in the early months of the year. Why that is ... anyone have any ideas? |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:39:07 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by metatate:
To me:
Beacon seems over-saturated.
|
Hey - I heard that!! :P
However, I do think we are starting to swing a bit away from oversaturated images. For now. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:54:03 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by e301:
Henri Cartier-Bresson described colour photography as 'photographing the obvious'. But the obvious has never been a bad approach to getting ribbons around here. Personally, I'm finding the recent winning shots to be remarkably bland. Technically well executed, doubtless, but the current trend seems very much to be for the obvious.
The voting taste always goes through a different period in the northern hemisphere summer months though, and generally adjusts through autumn to its most interesting appreciation in the early months of the year. Why that is ... anyone have any ideas? |
'Cuz there's less color in the winter? :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:58:56 PM · #9 |
Beacon has a nice subject matter but..the thing that bothers me but didnt seem to bother the voters are the huge halo's in the photo.
Along the railing..really..everywhere.
But the subject matter is very nice.....
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 16:01:52. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 04:05:17 PM · #10 |
Color is sometimes tough though, as far as techinique / set-up. He's (Cartier-Bresson) pretty much refering to content in a compositional and meaningful sense I think ... Anotehr thing he might say was that color is simply 'eye-candy' ...
Sometimes I get so frustrated with it I just go to a very low-sat duotone effect ... y'know, for art's sake :[]
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by e301:
Henri Cartier-Bresson described colour photography as 'photographing the obvious'. But the obvious has never been a bad approach to getting ribbons around here. Personally, I'm finding the recent winning shots to be remarkably bland. Technically well executed, doubtless, but the current trend seems very much to be for the obvious.
The voting taste always goes through a different period in the northern hemisphere summer months though, and generally adjusts through autumn to its most interesting appreciation in the early months of the year. Why that is ... anyone have any ideas? |
'Cuz there's less color in the winter? :-)
R. |
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 04:06:55 PM · #11 |
I'm gonna guess there was some Shadow/Hilight used ... but it's not mentioned -- maybe that's something that neat image can cause?
PS: I too think it's a great image -- sorry if we're picking on it :9
We need input from mad brewer ... and perhaps a few of his home brews ???
Originally posted by hokie:
Beacon has a nice subject matter but..the thing that bothers me but didnt seem to bother the voters are the huge halo's in the photo.
Along the railing..really..everywhere.
But the subject matter is very nice..... |
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 16:09:08.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 04:20:27 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Beacon has a nice subject matter but..the thing that bothers me but didnt seem to bother the voters are the huge halo's in the photo.
Along the railing..really..everywhere.
But the subject matter is very nice..... |
I figured it was a large radius USM
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 05:35:13 PM · #13 |
OK, here's my input (without homebrew) to the haloing issue.
After I finished the picture on Monday night, I saved it and walked away from it. I've found that sometimes when I sit staring at the screen for a long time my eyes tend to miss things. When I checked on Tuesday the halos jumped out at me. I immediately thought I overdid it with the sharpening. I brought up the original picture and the halos were there. However, I do believe my processing brought the halos out more.
The original here was resized in GimpShop and saved. I didn't see a "save for web" option.
Submission:
Edit: If this were advanced editing, would it be legal to remove the halos since they were there in the original?
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 17:36:41. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 06:00:25 PM · #14 |
| Does your camera have sharpness settings? You might want to turn them down some. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 06:02:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Does your camera have sharpness settings? You might want to turn them down some. |
I was shooting RAW. Doesn't RAW ignore all of those in-camera settings? |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 06:08:58 PM · #16 |
| I think y'all (Texas term) are too darn picky. It's a lovely shot and I don't see any obvious halo'ing. Even when I look kinda hard, I just don't see it. Of course, I didn't see the pathetic grain in one of my current challenges due to some sort of overprocessing either, until I looked at it on my laptop. Huge difference from what I see at home... |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 07:19:53 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I think y'all (Texas term) are too darn picky. It's a lovely shot and I don't see any obvious halo'ing. Even when I look kinda hard, I just don't see it. Of course, I didn't see the pathetic grain in one of my current challenges due to some sort of overprocessing either, until I looked at it on my laptop. Huge difference from what I see at home... |
It's the BIG kind of haloing. Look to the right of the walkway in the water. There's also some around the columns for the carwalk. Thanks for the comment! |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 07:23:52 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
It's the BIG kind of haloing. Look to the right of the walkway in the water. There's also some around the columns for the carwalk. Thanks for the comment! |
OK, I see what you mean now, and you know what? Doesn't bother me at all. :-) |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 11:39:41 AM · #19 |
I don't see the haloing in the original but it is defenitely in the beautiful ribbon picture!
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
OK, here's my input (without homebrew) to the haloing issue.
After I finished the picture on Monday night, I saved it and walked away from it. I've found that sometimes when I sit staring at the screen for a long time my eyes tend to miss things. When I checked on Tuesday the halos jumped out at me. I immediately thought I overdid it with the sharpening. I brought up the original picture and the halos were there. However, I do believe my processing brought the halos out more.
The original here was resized in GimpShop and saved. I didn't see a "save for web" option.
Submission:
Edit: If this were advanced editing, would it be legal to remove the halos since they were there in the original? |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 12:06:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gunnsi:
I don't see the haloing in the original but it is defenitely in the beautiful ribbon picture!
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
OK, here's my input (without homebrew) to the haloing issue.
After I finished the picture on Monday night, I saved it and walked away from it. I've found that sometimes when I sit staring at the screen for a long time my eyes tend to miss things. When I checked on Tuesday the halos jumped out at me. I immediately thought I overdid it with the sharpening. I brought up the original picture and the halos were there. However, I do believe my processing brought the halos out more.
The original here was resized in GimpShop and saved. I didn't see a "save for web" option.
Submission:
Edit: If this were advanced editing, would it be legal to remove the halos since they were there in the original? |
|
Look between the catwalk and the cable railing. The whole area is a bit lighter and it can be seen a bit below it. I believe the effect in the water is actually from different waves. I was out near the lighthouse twice over the weekend and saw it both times. I think my PP really brought it out unfortunately.
As far as the original picture and not being able to see it, I have that same problem here at work. I share this room with other people and they tend to like having the bright fluorescent lights on. At home I can see it in the original. |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 12:19:02 PM · #21 |
IMO, the "haloing" in the original is an optical illusion. Nothing I do to the original without using specific area selections generates any haloing whatsoever. Here's a version using global levels and maximum color saturation, and there's no trace of it. If it was there in the original it should show up in this version.
I donno....
R.
Message edited by author 2006-10-03 12:20:28. |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 12:34:04 PM · #22 |
Naw, I disagree Robert. Using the eyedropper and the info window on total ink and 3x3 average, the sky next to the thick part of the first pole I get readings that are consistently about 20% less than moving a bit away from the pole.
If it's an illusion, it's fooling PS. I still think it was from applying a wide radius USM. Did you use one brewer?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 12:36:34 PM · #23 |
Check this out, +70 contrast, -70 brightness.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 12:39:10 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
IMO, the "haloing" in the original is an optical illusion. Nothing I do to the original without using specific area selections generates any haloing whatsoever. Here's a version using global levels and maximum color saturation, and there's no trace of it. If it was there in the original it should show up in this version.
I donno....
R. |
Maybe we need to look at different areas. In the final picture I see it around columns, along catwalk, and in water. The effect in the water is in original, at least to my eyes. I can't see it here at work, but I'm sure I saw it at home along the catwalk, especially between catwalk and right cable. Perhaps it was an illusion since I can't see it here. I don't see any haloing around the columns here or at home.
It possible that I looked at a somewhat processed image at home, but I don't really think so. I'll verify tonight.
Thanks all for the discussion! |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 12:41:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Naw, I disagree Robert. Using the eyedropper and the info window on total ink and 3x3 average, the sky next to the thick part of the first pole I get readings that are consistently about 20% less than moving a bit away from the pole.
If it's an illusion, it's fooling PS. I still think it was from applying a wide radius USM. Did you use one brewer? |
I believe I did. Are you referring to the original with your 20% reading?
So now that you brought it out in the original, why is there? Is this something from the lens, camera, me? |
|
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 10:36:56 AM EDT.
