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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Rules Revision Test Results and Expert Editing (Trial) Discussion
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/29/2007 09:29:00 PM · #251
Originally posted by Artyste:

On the second point, if you truly go through the entire Sci-Fi challenge, I challenge *you* to find me (once it's done) 10 examples that are "photographic by nature".


*I* found more than 10...

Message edited by author 2007-06-29 21:29:27.
06/29/2007 09:32:26 PM · #252
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Artyste:

What it *is* is simply another step to blurring lines that shouldn't be blurred.


The line is already blurred. It started blurred. It's been blurred since painters used camera obscura in the Renaissance.


Different line. There's a huge difference between finding better ways to capture what you see, or enhancing what is there... and creating entirely new works from half-a-dozen others, or, eventually, nothing at all but imagination.
06/29/2007 09:45:09 PM · #253
I guess I'm surprised that people who dislike the Expert Editing so much - stuff that is definitely going to have more of a "digital art" edge to it - would even bother going through and voting on such a challenge.

Personally, when there are challenges on subjects that I truly dislike, I don't even look at them. I don't bitch because other people like doing that kind of stuff; I just leave it alone. They have fun doing what they like, and I have fun doing what I like.

I'm all for digital art using photography, and am grateful that they implemented rules giving people who love that a little more latitude.
06/29/2007 09:46:08 PM · #254
Originally posted by LindaLee:

I guess I'm surprised that people who dislike the Expert Editing so much - stuff that is definitely going to have more of a "digital art" edge to it - would even bother going through and voting on such a challenge.

Personally, when there are challenges on subjects that I truly dislike, I don't even look at them. I don't bitch because other people like doing that kind of stuff; I just leave it alone. They have fun doing what they like, and I have fun doing what I like.

I'm all for digital art using photography, and am grateful that they implemented rules giving people who love that a little more latitude.


Well said.
06/29/2007 09:53:31 PM · #255
Thank you so much for the comment LindaLee...DPC would be such a better place for photographers and imagination if more people were like you....I love "the glass is half full" type people....

Thanks again.....

Originally posted by LindaLee:

I guess I'm surprised that people who dislike the Expert Editing so much - stuff that is definitely going to have more of a "digital art" edge to it - would even bother going through and voting on such a challenge.

Personally, when there are challenges on subjects that I truly dislike, I don't even look at them. I don't bitch because other people like doing that kind of stuff; I just leave it alone. They have fun doing what they like, and I have fun doing what I like.

I'm all for digital art using photography, and am grateful that they implemented rules giving people who love that a little more latitude.
06/29/2007 09:58:14 PM · #256
Originally posted by Artyste:

There's a huge difference between finding better ways to capture what you see, or enhancing what is there... and creating entirely new works from half-a-dozen others, or, eventually, nothing at all but imagination.

Bullwash! (cleaner version of Hogwash and Bullshit)
Multiple-exposures, shutter manipulation and timing tricks all can create something that does not represent visual reality.

I agree with Linda Lee. <--- that makes a catchy crowd chant
06/29/2007 09:59:11 PM · #257
YAY for LindaLee :)
06/29/2007 10:01:13 PM · #258
Originally posted by LindaLee:

Personally, when there are challenges on subjects that I truly dislike, I don't even look at them. I don't bitch because other people like doing that kind of stuff;

I just leave it alone. They have fun doing what they like, and I have fun doing what I like.

The problem is when it impedes or mixes with more traditional photography (read non-digital collages, multiple photo combo's, etc...).

The "Expert" ruleset challenges have been limited for the most part, and the Sci-Fi challenge really is a standalone subject that works well for this kind of "digital graphic" work.

The concern for some (myself included big time) is when this graphic stuff gets mixed in with the photographic challenges. For example Free Studies. I hope they NEVER do a Free Study with the Expert ruleset again. That really, really sucked. Wasn't fair for either group of participants to mix imagery types with the "marquee" monthly Free Study challenge.
06/29/2007 10:07:40 PM · #259
Originally posted by glad2badad:

I hope they NEVER do a Free Study with the Expert ruleset again. That really, really sucked. Wasn't fair for either group of participants to mix imagery types with the "marquee" monthly Free Study challenge.

Not sure what was "unfair" about it and the winner was processed within advanced editing rules.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/664/thumb/493752.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/664/thumb/493752.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

That said, I am all for keeping the expert editing limited in frequency and even keeping it out of free studies is ok, but maybe better to have exclusive free studies running concurrently minimal and expert.
06/29/2007 10:08:24 PM · #260
Originally posted by GeneralE:

How many Expert rules challenges have we had, maybe five? Out of over six hundred challenges?

To be fair, since the Expert ruleset was announced we've had approximately 100 challenges in the last 6 months. Even so, 5% being Expert isn't terrible - one Expert challenge a month is acceptable. The Sci-Fi challenge was perfect for it (hopefully not many submitted a regular photo to it thinking they had any chance of competing).
06/29/2007 10:15:58 PM · #261
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I hope they NEVER do a Free Study with the Expert ruleset again. That really, really sucked. Wasn't fair for either group of participants to mix imagery types with the "marquee" monthly Free Study challenge.

Not sure what was "unfair" about it and the winner was processed within advanced editing rules.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/664/thumb/493752.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/664/thumb/493752.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

That said, I am all for keeping the expert editing limited in frequency and even keeping it out of free studies is ok, but maybe better to have exclusive free studies running concurrently minimal and expert.

"Unfair" may not have been the correct word choice...the Free Study with Expert rules was certainly polarizing for DPC. Two extreme imagery types mixed together in a challenge of that size made it difficult to vote on IMO. Each "type" of imagery (multiple photo collages vs single exposures) have their place and really should be judged/scored exclusively from the other.

Concurrent Free Studies would work - Advanced and Expert.
06/29/2007 10:28:26 PM · #262
The truth is that this "Expert Editing" represents a total breakdown of all the rules. A viewer can not be assured of image integrity. That is, one does not really know what one is looking at. Probably good in very small doses but otherwise too out of character in contrast to the superb photographic work here at DPC.

There is a way to add more freedom in a.e. by allowing replication of parts of the image and only from elements within the original. Well, at least you can be assured that you are not looking at composites and items from another image or those rendered by algorithmic formulas. Of course, all rules are subject to loopholes and thereby destined for abuse.

I think it is nice to allow these challenges on a limited basis, but they are so wide open that it leaves both the artist and the viewers in some mild form of confusion. From the point of view of the author, they debate how far they can stretch the illusions. There is often no real attention to light and shadow because everything goes and in no particular order and with no restrictions. The author then tries to guess what may be appealing. Those that wish to use extended editing only without composites may suffer because not taking advantage of the total freedom may place their image under an unfavorable light.

From the point of view of the voter the problem or riddle before them may cause untold doubts. If they want pure photography they are not looking for it in this type of challenge. So, here they seek images that appeal more to the fancy of the imagination then to the aesthetic beauty of photography per se. At the very end, many voters are placed in a situation wherein they have to leave the safety comfort of their art/craft and judge and observe the realm of digital technique. While photography is employed it is simply relegated more to the digital process than to the field of photography.

To conclude: in small doses it allows total flight of fancy and display of digital prowess but may will just yawn and look the other way because their hearts is not really in seeing these mirage images. Some find it highly interesting but then they would have joined a Digital Site if this is what they really want.

I have done some of this work in the past but I shy from entering total composites even when the rules are dropped. No that I wish to keep others from doing them. It is just that this field is totally different and requires a different mind set. I do not like to employ both mindsets at the same time, but then certain images are not possible with standard rules. I enjoy the illusion but I rather create it first by maintaining the elusive and undiscribable "photographic integrity"

Same thing happens to my senses when even under a.e. the colors of sunsets are shifted to impossible hue combimations. When grass becomes Kelly green and where a vast scene is equally sharpened from foreground to the horizon and where colors at a distance are of the same hue strength and intensity as those in the immediate foreground. Well, many a pretty image can be so made and some will even appeal to interior decorators, but I would rather enjoy the beauty of a b/w rather then these fairylands. Of course, I am not putting these images down but simply observing that any wide departure from the norm can hurt any artistic endevour. Many of these images when not taken that far are indeed very pleasant to look at.

Even though I like artistic freedom, I have paramaters that I adhere to. In a way we all do and some of us are more strict while others are more lax. This is certainly a mixed bag here at DPC but I believe the majority prefer to be moved more by images created under a fixed ruleset rather than those images that abide by no rules. Just my two cents.

Message edited by author 2007-06-29 22:30:56.
06/29/2007 10:33:15 PM · #263
Originally posted by Artyste:

Left behind!? There are still painters in this world. There are still wood carvers. There are still people that make mosaics out of rocks. Nobody is being "left behind". Every art form is viable and relevant in its own right, and to take the stance that because another art form is the "new thing" means that anything else is old hat, obsolete, or in any other way "left behind" is a little silly.


Not at all and it's silly to think so. You have to not be paying attention if you haven't taken note of the fact that progress is what produces obsolescence in its own right.

And your examples are wrong for the point you're trying to make. The whole "Olde World Craftsman" thing is a stellar example of the dying breed of what will probably NOT be here for long.

Just by labor and material costs, the true artisans, and let's face it, you don't make a living being a wood carver unless you're really good, are so cost prohibitive that very few can afford them as furniture and cabinet mkers.

And how many people do you really know any more that cook from scratch, make their own clothes, or grow their own food? It just doesn't make good sense.

I completely rebuilt many cars from the ground up, and let me tell you, it's extraordinarily tedious, and costs more to do in most cases than what the car is worth when it's done. Yeah sure, you end up with a thing of beauty from bygone days, but they're also kinda useless except within narrow parameters. I don't do it any more and there's one less person with first hand experience working on the cars when they were new......I'm too old and cranky to drag cars out of the woods and strip them to nothing and start over. And that's what is happening all over the country......people my age and a little older are getting out of it nfd there won't be any more people around who bought and worked on the cars when they were new. When it comes to being able to really do something right like that, you have to learn at the hands of someone who did it from the outset.

I'm glad that I saved a few cars that may not have survived without my efforts, but I'm also really glad that I don't have to travel 600 miles in July with a car that doesn't have air conditioning and cruise control, without even getting into the benefits of the driveability factor brought on by computer management and safety and convenience factors the likes of which weren't even dreamed of when I first started working on cars.I just recently worked on the nicest example that I did in my 30 year career, and to tell you the truth, I'd rather slit my wrists that drive the damn thing across the country like I'd do in a heartbeat with the two year old sedan that I have.

This example applies to all too many facets of life these days.

Originally posted by Artyste:

I simply feel that this is a warning sign that we need to heed.. but by all means, if the majority rules and wants this kind of work to become an integral part of DPC, then by all means.. that's what is going to happen.. but I'm not going to sit back and just let it go without voicing my concerns. I was drawn to this website originally BECAUSE it wanted to try and preserve some integrity in the photographic process... but I guess if the masses only crave WOW, then this road was inevitable.. you can only wow people with the same cookie-cutter bullshit for so long.

May I point out that the D in DPC stands for digital, and that your very own profile calls out four of the things?

Aren't you being slightly selective in your purity?

I like it that I don't have a room full of toxic chemicals and the headache and expense of developing my own film.

I'm no PS junkie, but a lot of tht is 'cause I don't know how, but I also rarely have any shot that I print or post that is not digitally enhanced in one way or another.....it's the ease, convenience, and magic of PS that enables me to get, and/or reproduce the picture I saw in my mind's eye and/or through the viewfinder that sometimes I don't quite get right out of the gate.

BTW, just for the record......I have learned more about photography here than anything.....what little I know about post processing is merely an enhancement to what I've learned about simple straightforward things like aperture, shutter speed, the relationship between the two, rule of thirds, lighting, composition......

In all my years taking photographs, it wasn't 'til I got here that I ever had a camera that I used on full manual mode. I had an early Canon A-1, nd I used the thing on program mode the whole time I had it. Now I shoot in full manual......' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' cutlassdude70taught me how. He's my hero and mentor; I met him here, he's half my age and proof tht you *can* teach an old dog new tricks.

Disclaimer: These opinions and $0.50 will get you a cup of coffee *some* places.....YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)

06/29/2007 10:50:52 PM · #264
Originally posted by glad2badad:

I hope they NEVER do a Free Study with the Expert ruleset again. That really, really sucked. Wasn't fair for either group of participants to mix imagery types with the "marquee" monthly Free Study challenge.


That's a fairly ridiculous statement IMO and I'll chalk it up to your point of view, which you are obviously entitled to have.

It's a FREE study, and personally, I'd love to see one sometime with NO rules about the image other than the size just to see what would happen.

There are how many challenges in a week? How many weeks in a year?

Don't we also have a Minimalism set of guidelines?

Enter what you want and what inspires you in the challlenges that interest you and let anyone else do their thing elsewhere on the site.

Open your eyes and your mind and you may very well stumble across something that you've never seen before that you like.....and it will broaden your horizons as well......if nothing else, it will make you that much more appreciative of what you really like.

Edited for fat fingerz!

Message edited by author 2007-06-29 23:13:14.
06/29/2007 11:10:59 PM · #265
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I hope they NEVER do a Free Study with the Expert ruleset again. That really, really sucked. Wasn't fair for either group of participants to mix imagery types with the "marquee" monthly Free Study challenge.

That's a fairly ridiculous statement nd chalk it up to your point if view, which you are obviously entitled to have.

Yes. My opinion - I see you have an opinion as well - misplaced as it may be. :)

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

There are how many challenges in a week? How many weeks in a year?

12 Free Studies, plus the "Best of 200X". These are showcase challenges that draw 600-800 entries. As I've stated before (if you don't mind doing a little reading...scroll down a post or two), mixing the two imagery types is a mistake IMO. As suggested by Art (and brought up before everytime this debate comes around), have both an Expert and Advanced Free Study if you feel a free-for-all is needed.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Open your eyes and your mind...(blah, blah, blah)...it will make you tht much more appreciative of what you really like.

Thanks oh wise one. I have a firm handle on my likes/dislikes - now run off and find someone that needs your fine advice (check the mirror while you're at it). :P
06/29/2007 11:14:58 PM · #266
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Artyste:

The expert rules were *never* intended to allow work such as the like I see in that challenge.

I disagree. By their very nature, the rules allow that kind of work. Not that I, personally, like it much. For those that don't, you have the option of voting based on the photographic qualities of said images, just as the rules also allow (i.e., vote low).


Either way it's an editing contest. The only difference is the extreme edits make it quite clear what they are, where as the ones that "look" real could very well be just as fake as the extreme edits. That's the thing I don't like about the expert editing ruleset. You can't properly judge the images that look real.
06/29/2007 11:15:45 PM · #267
For those that don't like Expert editing rule sets, and only advocate out of camera truism, and can't be bothered with other forms of art...

....please get the TROLLING out of your systems so that the rest of us can have an enjoyable membership challenge.

Thank you.
06/29/2007 11:17:07 PM · #268
It is perhaps about balance.... "In camera" vs "a free for all" vs acceptable photographic practices AND trends vs graphic design. And balance in the frequency of challenges. We should perhaps not be too opiniated and allow for the full spectrum of photographic art. Resistance to change is on thing, going overboard the food for the voters, let the voters show the community's trend's acceptance or their dissatisfaction.
06/29/2007 11:21:36 PM · #269
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Thanks oh wise one. I have a firm handle on my likes/dislikes - now run off and find someone that needs your fine advice (check the mirror while you're at it). :P


Umm...this is really the kind of comment and information that prompted my *suggestion*.

I would certainly not presume to advise you as you obviously have oit all figured out.

I, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy and anticipate whatever new thing, or old thing I know nothing about, that comes along, and add it to the long list of new experiences in life that I have been privileged to have. The longer I'm alive and the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

This site with its wide range of styles and talents is a virtual treasure trove for me.

I hope the ever-changing, ever-evolving world of photography that I see here NEVER stops!
06/29/2007 11:50:22 PM · #270
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

For those that don't like Expert editing rule sets, and only advocate out of camera truism, and can't be bothered with other forms of art...

Not that anybody's listening, but I for one like the Expert ruleset and hope it stays, and I was able to use it in a way I liked in the one Expert challenge I entered. I'm not crazy about some of the sci-fi and fantasy stuff, or the stuff that looks less like photography and more like compositing, but I wouldn't want to see the ruleset go entirely just because some people don't find a portion of the entries photographic enough.
06/30/2007 12:29:11 AM · #271
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

The truth is that this "Expert Editing" represents a total breakdown of all the rules. A viewer can not be assured of image integrity. That is, one does not really know what one is looking at. Probably good in very small doses but otherwise too out of character in contrast to the superb photographic work here at DPC.

There is a way to add more freedom in a.e. by allowing replication of parts of the image and only from elements within the original. Well, at least you can be assured that you are not looking at composites and items from another image or those rendered by algorithmic formulas. Of course, all rules are subject to loopholes and thereby destined for abuse.

I think it is nice to allow these challenges on a limited basis, but they are so wide open that it leaves both the artist and the viewers in some mild form of confusion. From the point of view of the author, they debate how far they can stretch the illusions. There is often no real attention to light and shadow because everything goes and in no particular order and with no restrictions. The author then tries to guess what may be appealing. Those that wish to use extended editing only without composites may suffer because not taking advantage of the total freedom may place their image under an unfavorable light.

From the point of view of the voter the problem or riddle before them may cause untold doubts. If they want pure photography they are not looking for it in this type of challenge. So, here they seek images that appeal more to the fancy of the imagination then to the aesthetic beauty of photography per se. At the very end, many voters are placed in a situation wherein they have to leave the safety comfort of their art/craft and judge and observe the realm of digital technique. While photography is employed it is simply relegated more to the digital process than to the field of photography.

To conclude: in small doses it allows total flight of fancy and display of digital prowess but may will just yawn and look the other way because their hearts is not really in seeing these mirage images. Some find it highly interesting but then they would have joined a Digital Site if this is what they really want.

I have done some of this work in the past but I shy from entering total composites even when the rules are dropped. No that I wish to keep others from doing them. It is just that this field is totally different and requires a different mind set. I do not like to employ both mindsets at the same time, but then certain images are not possible with standard rules. I enjoy the illusion but I rather create it first by maintaining the elusive and undiscribable "photographic integrity"

Same thing happens to my senses when even under a.e. the colors of sunsets are shifted to impossible hue combimations. When grass becomes Kelly green and where a vast scene is equally sharpened from foreground to the horizon and where colors at a distance are of the same hue strength and intensity as those in the immediate foreground. Well, many a pretty image can be so made and some will even appeal to interior decorators, but I would rather enjoy the beauty of a b/w rather then these fairylands. Of course, I am not putting these images down but simply observing that any wide departure from the norm can hurt any artistic endevour. Many of these images when not taken that far are indeed very pleasant to look at.

Even though I like artistic freedom, I have paramaters that I adhere to. In a way we all do and some of us are more strict while others are more lax. This is certainly a mixed bag here at DPC but I believe the majority prefer to be moved more by images created under a fixed ruleset rather than those images that abide by no rules. Just my two cents.

On the vast majority of images I agree but as someone that was around photography in the 70's I have seen plenty of images done in an actual darkroom that were just as "out there" or pure flights of fancy as anything done in PS today...I am not disagreeing but just stating that some of the things we are arguing here are the same arguments I remember seeing then...It wasn't a problem for me at the time as I was no better at munipulating images in an actual darkroom as I am at doing it in PS but the argument is the same...I feel there is a place for these images here like there was then. Just my thoughts, I am no expert by any means!!! so take this with a grain of salt....
06/30/2007 02:02:50 AM · #272
Originally posted by Artyste:



This is a pointless bit to add really, as I never advocated getting rid of such, just making it much, much, much more separate. I know this site too well, if digital art work.. which "realism" in photography could never compete with on that all important mass market WOW scale that DPC pretty much *lives* off, is allowed to be incorporated on a scale like this latest challenge shows it's capable of.. well, it's worse case scenario obviously, but it's really quite disappointing.

Left behind!? There are still painters in this world. There are still wood carvers. There are still people that make mosaics out of rocks. Nobody is being "left behind". Every art form is viable and relevant in its own right, and to take the stance that because another art form is the "new thing" means that anything else is old hat, obsolete, or in any other way "left behind" is a little silly.

I think I actually left an idea on how DPC can use good business sense to offer a way for Digital Artists to thrive. Hmm.. Yup, I did. On the second point, if you truly go through the entire Sci-Fi challenge, I challenge *you* to find me (once it's done) 10 examples that are "photographic by nature".

I simply feel that this is a warning sign that we need to heed.. but by all means, if the majority rules and wants this kind of work to become an integral part of DPC, then by all means.. that's what is going to happen.. but I'm not going to sit back and just let it go without voicing my concerns. I was drawn to this website originally BECAUSE it wanted to try and preserve some integrity in the photographic process... but I guess if the masses only crave WOW, then this road was inevitable.. you can only wow people with the same cookie-cutter bullshit for so long.


Hey if your not woried about being left behind, and you want to try and preserve some integrity in the photographic process, then why did you purchase 4 digital cameras and why aren't you shooting film?
06/30/2007 02:06:44 AM · #273
Originally posted by LindaLee:

I guess I'm surprised that people who dislike the Expert Editing so much - stuff that is definitely going to have more of a "digital art" edge to it - would even bother going through and voting on such a challenge.

Personally, when there are challenges on subjects that I truly dislike, I don't even look at them. I don't bitch because other people like doing that kind of stuff; I just leave it alone. They have fun doing what they like, and I have fun doing what I like.

I'm all for digital art using photography, and am grateful that they implemented rules giving people who love that a little more latitude.


Like Judi says... Exactly!
06/30/2007 06:57:06 AM · #274
Originally posted by Snake:

Originally posted by Artyste:



This is a pointless bit to add really, as I never advocated getting rid of such, just making it much, much, much more separate. I know this site too well, if digital art work.. which "realism" in photography could never compete with on that all important mass market WOW scale that DPC pretty much *lives* off, is allowed to be incorporated on a scale like this latest challenge shows it's capable of.. well, it's worse case scenario obviously, but it's really quite disappointing.

Left behind!? There are still painters in this world. There are still wood carvers. There are still people that make mosaics out of rocks. Nobody is being "left behind". Every art form is viable and relevant in its own right, and to take the stance that because another art form is the "new thing" means that anything else is old hat, obsolete, or in any other way "left behind" is a little silly.

I think I actually left an idea on how DPC can use good business sense to offer a way for Digital Artists to thrive. Hmm.. Yup, I did. On the second point, if you truly go through the entire Sci-Fi challenge, I challenge *you* to find me (once it's done) 10 examples that are "photographic by nature".

I simply feel that this is a warning sign that we need to heed.. but by all means, if the majority rules and wants this kind of work to become an integral part of DPC, then by all means.. that's what is going to happen.. but I'm not going to sit back and just let it go without voicing my concerns. I was drawn to this website originally BECAUSE it wanted to try and preserve some integrity in the photographic process... but I guess if the masses only crave WOW, then this road was inevitable.. you can only wow people with the same cookie-cutter bullshit for so long.


Hey if your not woried about being left behind, and you want to try and preserve some integrity in the photographic process, then why did you purchase 4 digital cameras and why aren't you shooting film?


*sigh*. This has nothing to do with *anything* that I've been talking about, and if people want to continue to be idiots and muddy the discussion with inane statements, there is nothing I can do about it.
06/30/2007 08:09:23 AM · #275
Originally posted by glad2badad:

I hope they NEVER do a Free Study with the Expert ruleset again. That really, really sucked. Wasn't fair for either group of participants to mix imagery types with the "marquee" monthly Free Study challenge.


glad2badad - I get what you are saying. If the purpose of free studies is to showcase the previous month's photos, then you think it a bit unfair that good advanced editing shots have to compete with good expert editing shots, and people don't know whether the skill is in the use of the camera or the use of the computer.

However, the same argument could be used to say that it is unfair to allow advanced editing: great basic editing shots, or minimal editing shots, are discriminated against.

One way to reconsider it is that the monthly free study is posted in advance - it is not a retrospective challenge (though lots of people treat it that way). Go out and shoot for the free study that is posted, not treat it as a repository for any shots that you happen to have taken.

Perhaps another way of reconsidering the position is that t nature of a digital photo competition is to create an image that scores well - the end to end process for a digital competition is camera to computer. Skills must be demonstrated in all stages.

It is perhaps a mistake to think that the P in DPC is more important than the D.


Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 09:57:35 AM

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: 11/24/2020 09:57:35 AM EST.