| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2007 02:07:39 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
to clarify: we are not against posting an announcement. we're not setting a trap. we (SC) just don't have the capability to "sticky" a thread on the home page or update the site news. we're at langdon's mercy for that, and we're working on it.
--
as for comments that this is a change in the rules, it's really not. it's a change in how we are interpreting the rules. i know that doesn't sound like much of a distinction, and for that i'm sorry.
the details of the rules are in place as guidelines, but the key to the basic ruleset is this:
Originally posted by basic rules:
These rules are intended to allow you to fine tune your entry and correct basic imperfections in exposure, contrast, color, etc. |
--
|
Thanks, Rob. It's always helpful to hear how the SC works.
As a point of discussion not directly relevant to whether these tools should be legal, the overarching principle doesn't seem to really rule the roost, esp. when it comes to color changes. I've definitely taken advantage of extreme color shifts in basic and been validated. I'm not arguing that should now be illegal, but rather using it to demonstrate that correcting "basic imperfections" hasn't been a meaningful limit in Basic for a long, long time.
Here's an example from my entries:
 became  , was tagged for validation during the challenge, and was validated.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 14:08:52.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:15:32 PM · #102 |
You know what? I didn't really say what I thought in my earlier post. I think all of these rules are horrid. I think as a creative artistic endeavor, we should be able to create a digital image however we see fit. Lambast me if you want, but I think even expert editing has limitations. Yes, this is a PHOTOGRAPHY site, but as Simms stated early on, it is DIGITAL and with it comes an advanced creative ability. If you choose not to do it, that doesn't mean that you still can't win a ribbon, or do well. What I do think is that it is very frustrating to not be able to utilize the digital capabilities to their fullest.
Ok, bring on the rotton fruit. I'm wearing a helmet and goggles. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:23:58 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
As a point of discussion not directly relevant to whether these tools should be legal, the overarching principle doesn't seem to really rule the roost, esp. when it comes to color changes. I've definitely taken advantage of extreme color shifts in basic and been validated. I'm not arguing that should now be illegal, but rather using it to demonstrate that correcting "basic imperfections" hasn't been a meaningful limit in Basic for a long, long time.
Here's an example from my entries:
became , was tagged for validation during the challenge, and was validated. |
while this isn't totally relevant to this thread, i'd like to address it.
we've gone around and around and around trying to come up with language that restricts extreme color shifts (like your example) and failed. we've not found a way to clarify color shifts without impacting the effects of bw/sepia/duotone conversion and selective desaturation.
while, personally, i'd like to see such extreme color shifts ruled out, there's not an easy way to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. therefore, those significant shifts have remained legal.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:27:16 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Yes, this is a PHOTOGRAPHY site, but as Simms stated early on, it is DIGITAL and with it comes an advanced creative ability. |
so, just because the image is captured digitally, we should allow any kind of digital manipulation to be done to it?
i don't think the medium should impact the final product. just because we have to use software (rather than a darkroom) to edit our images doesn't mean that we have to use all of the software's capabilities too?
there are plenty of other "digital art" sites on the web an everyone is more than welcome to post their work everywhere they see fit. this site focuses on photography (mostly), and the purpose of the rules are to keep the playing field level for the challenges.
otherwise it becomes less and less about the original photo and more and more about the post-processing. (some may argue that it's already that far gone.)
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:36:37 PM · #105 |
I'd love if it weekly there were a minimal editing AND an advanced or expert editing challenge. That would please everybody, no?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:42:44 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bassbone:
What about those who have already entered under the old rule set and will not check again in until after voting starts? |
This was already covered at the beginning of the thread.
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Simms:
what if we have an entry already in voting that uses one of more of these filters? |
Those entries will remain without removal or penalty. |
|
Not really, what I asked was regarding shots already being voted on that have tonemapping, like my current entry in the flora/fauna challenge. what Bassbone was talking about was the fact he took a shot this week, entered it and at rollover tonight it goes out to the voters ( a shot with tonemapping), would that still be allowed?
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 14:43:21. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:44:43 PM · #107 |
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that:
This new "rule" comes into effect with the open challenges that are announced on Wednesday, October 17th.
hopefully this clarifies things.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:44:44 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
we've gone around and around and around trying to come up with language that restricts extreme color shifts (like your example) and failed. we've not found a way to clarify color shifts without impacting the effects of bw/sepia/duotone conversion and selective desaturation. |
Thanks again! Perfectly reasonable.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:51:10 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
otherwise it becomes less and less about the original photo and more and more about the post-processing. (some may argue that it's already that far gone.) |
But surely muckp, thats digital photography for you. It is a different medium to film photography, why do we have to continously compare it to "the traditional darkroom", I have never been in a darkroom in all my life and have no intention to, so I am not bothered if we stay `traditional` or not. The site is even called Digital Photography Challenge. The voters are not stupid (in most cases), if they see a shot, in a basic or advanced (ignore expert for the moment) that they feel is far too overprocessed, they generally leave a comment stating that fact and vote it low (even tonemapping can be overdone, check my HDR entry). This leaves it to the photographer to decide whether less is more, which in a lot of cases is correct, or risk the wrath of the voter come rollover. Trust me, if a shot gets too much processing away from the original image, the voter will make the 'tog suffer. Continually referring to "whats possible in the darkroom" really doesnt help anyone, as I would imagine a large percentage of members here have never had to develop their own film and never will.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 14:52:22. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:53:07 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that:
This new "rule" comes into effect with the open challenges that are announced on Wednesday, October 17th.
hopefully this clarifies things. |
Perfect. nice one. and no way anyone can misinterpret that.... (famous last words) |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:04:05 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Continually referring to "whats possible in the darkroom" really doesnt help anyone, as I would imagine a large percentage of members here have never had to develop their own film and never will. |
i didn't say that we had to limit ourselves to what you can do in the darkroom. i did imply that the focus of the entries here should be on what you can do with the camera instead of the tools used to output the final image.
you can do a lot of crazy stuff in the darkroom that takes photos out of the realm of "photography" and into other kinds of artwork. and you can do that with your software tools too.
but the main focus of this site is the capture and not the post-processing. advanced gives you more leeway with the editing, but the end result should still be a photograph.
for the purposes of this site, the "digital darkroom" should be used for improving on the original capture, and not for producing purely digital art.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:11:23 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
for the purposes of this site, the "digital darkroom" should be used for improving on the original capture, and not for producing purely digital art. |
I could not agree with you more, I am 100% with you on that one. Tonemapping does improve the original AND when used sparingly does not produce digital art. I really couldn't of put it better myself. Thanks!
Sarcasm aside, I know and apprieicate the fact you guys and gals of the SC have a VERY hard job around here and 99% you do a truely sterling job, yes I know you dont get a penny for it either, but sometimes I, and a lot of people I talk to on here, feel the SC do not really listen to the paying (and non-paying) members enough, you make a decision and its set in stone, no referendum, no discussion (except for one like this after the decision has been made) I only kick up a stink becuase I am not one to take things lying down, especially if I think my point is fair and valid, others are not always as forthcoming, and a lot probably disagree with me, so please do not take these replies as an attack, its a debate, pure and simple.
Although I am right :)
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 15:11:30. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:25:14 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Simms:
the SC do not really listen to the paying (and non-paying) members enough, you make a decision and its set in stone, no referendum, no discussion (except for one like this after the decision has been made)... |
What happened to that 10 month old Photomatix discussion thread you were just complaining about? That certainly wasn't the only discussion on the topic, and we frequently post polls and threads for the express purpose of gauging site opinions. Nevermind countless tickets, chats, personal conversations, GTGs, reported posts, and the fact that we're members, too. You still appear to be hung up on some personal "out of touch" idea that has zero basis in reality.
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 15:25:53. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:30:03 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by muckpond:
for the purposes of this site, the "digital darkroom" should be used for improving on the original capture, and not for producing purely digital art. |
I could not agree with you more, I am 100% with you on that one. Tonemapping does improve the original AND when used sparingly does not produce digital art. I really couldn't of put it better myself. Thanks! |
oh, i know you're right. i know you're kicking up a stink. :P
we are trying to listen to members. we really are. in this case, we were listening to the numerous and plenty and re-occuring threads that have asked us to clarify our DQ process and make it more consistent. the only way to do that is to remove as much subjectivity from the rules as possible. instead of us voting, and arguing in private, and arguing in public about "how much of this filter is too much?" (which we have been bogged down in -- repeatedly -- for years), we need to clearly say "do not use tool X." subjectivity removed reduced.
and, as you pointed out, there was a public discussion about this. this recent decision is not out of the blue.
there have also been numerous and plenty threads about tonemapping's legality within the rulesets. there's been lots of confusion about it, and instead of us answering each thread that pops up every couple of weeks we've clarified our position and put it in an official announcement, complete with a Site News posting and everything.
i hope that you can understand -- that everyone can understand -- that this IS the result of us listening to the users. everything here stems from debates from threads and entries created by you guys. action has been requested on a number of fronts, and this is the way we chose to deal with it.
now, whether or not you agree with our decision is wholly yours to decide. but please stop implying that this was done willy-nilly just because  alanfreed decided to throw a hissy fit.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:30:39 PM · #115 |
*me shakes fist angrily at  scalvert for stealing my thunder*
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:34:54 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
now, whether or not you agree with our decision is wholly yours to decide. but please stop implying that this was done willy-nilly just because alanfreed decided to throw a hissy fit. |
For the record, I don't think that at all. I think you guys are listening to everyone and discussing like crazy, trying to find the best middle ground. Personally, I think tone mapping and S/H both should be basic legal, as TM does essentially the same thing and is non-photoshop, and S/H has become fundamental to the most basic workflow of an awful lot of people.
But, IMO, to be truly consistent if you are gonna persist in banning basic TM then you have to ban basic S/H.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:45:22 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What happened to that 10 month old Photomatix discussion thread you were just complaining about? That certainly wasn't the only discussion on the topic, and we frequently post polls and threads for the express purpose of gauging site opinions. Nevermind countless tickets, chats, personal conversations, GTGs, reported posts, and the fact that we're members, too. You still appear to be hung up on some personal "out of touch" idea that has zero basis in reality. |
Oh Shannon please. Do the polls work? I guess it all depends on the result.
One upon a time there was a poll about increasing image size to 720pixels, the first time around everyone voted that they didnt want to see it increased. The SC said, since the opinion was that the majority of people didnt want an increase, it would stay the same. Fair enough, voter power worked. hurrah for democracy (yes, before anyone says it, I know that DPC has never been, or pretended to be, a democracy).
Fast forward to the poll the second time around, technology had moved on, people had faster net connections and higher resolution monitors, the opinion was that people DID want to see an increase in the maximum size for images.. but lo and behold.. nothing happened. You run the poll, you gauged the opinion of the users and still nothing. Now maybe something is happening regarding this in the background at the moment, I certainly hope it is, but thats not for the likes of us to know. If I recall correctly the issue some had with the 720 pixel size was do to with watermarking the images as they would be larger and possibly more susceptible to image-theft.
So "out of touch" was possibly the wrong phrase to use, but something darn well near it.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong.
Maybe you could throw a thread out seeing what other polls people would like to see and vote on.. even a poll asking if people wuld like more polls?! :)
Maybe you could gauge the general feeling amongst the members about various different subjects?!
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 15:49:46. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:48:40 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
now, whether or not you agree with our decision is wholly yours to decide. but please stop implying that this was done willy-nilly just because alanfreed decided to throw a hissy fit. |
What??!?!
oh, and the other stuff, very well put. nice one. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:53:01 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Maybe you could gauge the general feeling amongst the members about various different subjects?! |
i've posted this before, but it bears repeating:
Originally posted by muckpond:
remember the scene in Shrek 2 where the gingerbread man was stomping through FarFarAway and he stepped on the Farbucks and all of the people ran out of that Farbucks and into the Farbucks right across the street?
those people are DPC, and the Farbucks' are the topics du jour. we just keep running from Farbucks to Farbucks over and over again. |
the 720px thing is far from forgotten. it's just at the Farbucks down the street.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:55:12 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Simms:
Maybe you could gauge the general feeling amongst the members about various different subjects?! |
i've posted this before, but it bears repeating:
Originally posted by muckpond:
remember the scene in Shrek 2 where the gingerbread man was stomping through FarFarAway and he stepped on the Farbucks and all of the people ran out of that Farbucks and into the Farbucks right across the street?
those people are DPC, and the Farbucks' are the topics du jour. we just keep running from Farbucks to Farbucks over and over again. |
the 720px thing is far from forgotten. it's just at the Farbucks down the street. |
So its going to happen? Fantastic!
personally I think it should be 800px :P
just kidding. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:03:55 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Simms:
So its going to happen? |
The poll had less than 1000 responses out of the 85,000+ people who have participated. The poll could be in favor of a change, but automated site statistics might show that 60% of newbies have small screens (for example). For a while, the Free Studies were all 720 pixels, so it's not like the poll was ignored. I dunno why they went back to 640 pixels, but I do remember seeing some complaints about scrolling. Like you said, it's not a democracy. In the end, it's D&L's site and they can do whatever they want.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:04:23 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by jdannels:
ETA:or what about 16-32-16 bit tonemapping emulation in this tutorial which currently is listed as ok for Basic Editing. It is CS2's equivalent of tonemapping for PhotoMatix. |
We'll get back to you on that one. Don't let us forget. |
Please do not forget on your own.
I understand it is still legal for the open challenges with submission deadlines set for tonight.
But!! how about the next open challenges to be anounced tonight? early submitters need to know, no later than tonight, if the tonemapping EMULATION (quoted by JDannels) will remain legal. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:15:44 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by jdannels:
ETA:or what about 16-32-16 bit tonemapping emulation in this tutorial which currently is listed as ok for Basic Editing. It is CS2's equivalent of tonemapping for PhotoMatix. |
We'll get back to you on that one. Don't let us forget. |
Please do not forget on your own.
I understand it is still legal for the open challenges with submission deadlines set for tonight.
But!! how about the next open challenges to be anounced tonight? early submitters need to know, no later than tonight, if the tonemapping EMULATION (quoted by JDannels) will remain legal. |
I believe it remains legal, but is in the same boat as the S/H discussion. ie. Its fine for now, as we discuss the implications and try to find a compromise. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:20:25 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by jdannels:
ETA:or what about 16-32-16 bit tonemapping emulation in this tutorial which currently is listed as ok for Basic Editing. It is CS2's equivalent of tonemapping for PhotoMatix. |
We'll get back to you on that one. Don't let us forget. |
Please do not forget on your own.
I understand it is still legal for the open challenges with submission deadlines set for tonight.
But!! how about the next open challenges to be anounced tonight? early submitters need to know, no later than tonight, if the tonemapping EMULATION (quoted by JDannels) will remain legal. |
I believe it remains legal, but is in the same boat as the S/H discussion. ie. Its fine for now, as we discuss the implications and try to find a compromise. |
Thanks!!
Please let us all know, in a timely manner and with a red banner in the left margin of the home page, SC's final decission in regards to S/H and Tonemapping Emulation (16-32-16).
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 16:21:07. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:25:11 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by levyj413:
As a point of discussion not directly relevant to whether these tools should be legal, the overarching principle doesn't seem to really rule the roost, esp. when it comes to color changes. I've definitely taken advantage of extreme color shifts in basic and been validated. I'm not arguing that should now be illegal, but rather using it to demonstrate that correcting "basic imperfections" hasn't been a meaningful limit in Basic for a long, long time.
Here's an example from my entries:
became , was tagged for validation during the challenge, and was validated. |
while this isn't totally relevant to this thread, i'd like to address it.
we've gone around and around and around trying to come up with language that restricts extreme color shifts (like your example) and failed. we've not found a way to clarify color shifts without impacting the effects of bw/sepia/duotone conversion and selective desaturation.
while, personally, i'd like to see such extreme color shifts ruled out, there's not an easy way to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. therefore, those significant shifts have remained legal. |
It wouldn't simply fall under the major elements rule? It certainly changes the average viewer's description of the image.
|
|
