| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2007 04:31:06 PM · #176 |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 04:35:33 PM · #177 |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:00:22 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
PEEEEEEEEEEE! |
The bathroom is that-a-way!!! -------> |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:07:26 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
PEEEEEEEEEEE! |
The bathroom is that-a-way!!! ------->  |
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:11:18 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by muur88:
Yes...but that would be 1 person going against the entire site that liked the image. Here we are an entire site of people who liked jj's image going against a specific ruleset that was put into place by I'm sure less than a majority. |
I'm sure if the image had been allowed to stay there would have been a lot more than one person bitching about it. It was a nice image, but illegal.
Let's drop the rules about when a photograph can be taken. That one really hampers MY creativity and that other one about it having to be my photo. Hate it.
I submit that rules help foster (not hinder) creativity. Rules are definitely a better teaching tool than lack of rules. Ofcourse we could all try to turn snap shots into masterpieces. |
I'll admit my wording was a bit off. When a photo wins a ribbon I would hope to feel it safe to say that the majority of voters enjoyed the image. And there would be quite a fewer number of people that disliked it than liked it.
I understand everybody plays by the site rules...my post was merely to show why I agree with seriously considering posthumous's initial post in this thread.
Some things it should be up to the voters to decide what is and isn't allowed. I think people should give more credit in people's ability on this site to figure out what was and wasn't done in post processing, perhaps then they'll step up and start spending more time actually looking at the images. |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:38:47 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by muur88:
Some things it should be up to the voters to decide what is and isn't allowed. I think people should give more credit in people's ability on this site to figure out what was and wasn't done in post processing, perhaps then they'll step up and start spending more time actually looking at the images. |
I found this statement a bit funny, considering Don (posthumous) often has a very different perspective than the average voters. and spend considerable time trying to get members to look at images they didn't "see" :-D
I've pretty much said all I need to, but I'm gonna end with this - I don't think this is one of Don's better ideas. And my reasoning is this - knowing that one can burn out backgrounds at will leads to sloppy, lazy photography. Sure you might have a lucky catch like JJ's that can benefit from burning the b/g. But, we shouldn't encourage this be the norm.
Anyway. I'm done. Got to get Wazz some TP.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:40:01 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Anyway. I'm done. Got to get Wazz some TP. |
Hurry up dammit! |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:41:55 PM · #183 |
| MORE expert editing challenges would take care of those of us who love to see what can be done in PP. I am not good enough to win a bluue ribbon in Expert Editing, but I loved viewing Judi's submissions and the work she put in to obtain it! |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:02:45 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by muur88:
I'll admit my wording was a bit off. When a photo wins a ribbon I would hope to feel it safe to say that the majority of voters enjoyed the image. And there would be quite a fewer number of people that disliked it than liked it.
|
You can't say that the majority of the voters liked the shot as a reason because they voted on it with it being illegal. I don't think it would have ribboned if the background was still there. |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:35:50 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
You can't say that the majority of the voters liked the shot as a reason because they voted on it with it being illegal. I don't think it would have ribboned if the background was still there. |
though whether or not the majority's taste towards JJ's winning entry has got much to do with the suggestion about allowing burning off backgrounds; i'd like to say that my description of JJ's photo wouldn't have changed even if the backgrounds were intact. but then my views are radical - Ursula could tell you that :P |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:44:48 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by crayon:
.... but then my views are radical - Ursula could tell you that :P |
I would never think of you as anything but a cute little baby :) |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 11:25:02 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by muur88:
Some things it should be up to the voters to decide what is and isn't allowed. I think people should give more credit in people's ability on this site to figure out what was and wasn't done in post processing, perhaps then they'll step up and start spending more time actually looking at the images. |
I found this statement a bit funny, considering Don (posthumous) often has a very different perspective than the average voters. and spend considerable time trying to get members to look at images they didn't "see" :-D
I've pretty much said all I need to, but I'm gonna end with this - I don't think this is one of Don's better ideas. And my reasoning is this - knowing that one can burn out backgrounds at will leads to sloppy, lazy photography. Sure you might have a lucky catch like JJ's that can benefit from burning the b/g. But, we shouldn't encourage this be the norm. Anyway. I'm done. Got to get Wazz some TP. |
What's funny is you believe you're saving the site from sloppy photography by keeping this silly rule alive in advanced editing. That and the "lucky catch" part.
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by muur88:
I'll admit my wording was a bit off. When a photo wins a ribbon I would hope to feel it safe to say that the majority of voters enjoyed the image. And there would be quite a fewer number of people that disliked it than liked it.
|
You can't say that the majority of the voters liked the shot as a reason because they voted on it with it being illegal. I don't think it would have ribboned if the background was still there. |
I agree the image wouldn't have been as well received if the background were there, but that wasn't my point. My point was it was enjoyed as is. Now I find it hard to believe most viewers would appreciate the image in question any more if a black sheet was held in the background and the setting was staged, than if a candid moment was captured and photoshop was used to remove distracting elements.
Both acheive the same result. Both have pros and cons. Why should one be legal and the other not?
And here's where we go back to the debate that the darkroom (photoshop) isn't a valid part of the photographic process... I've gotten as far as I did 2 years ago...I do officially give up debating. |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 11:54:24 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by muur88:
What's funny is you believe you're saving the site from sloppy photography by keeping this silly rule alive in advanced editing. That and the "lucky catch" part. |
And you think you are being progressive by supporting an unnecessary rule change, when there is already a set of rules that supports this. That's the silly part. We have the rules (EE) - a rule set that you haven't even bothered to compete under, yet you want to change AE? And you think we are being silly for not supporting this?
|
|
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: 04/18/2024 11:03:38 PM EDT.
