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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Remove My Tutorials
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/19/2004 06:17:56 PM · #251
Originally posted by Quickshutter:

I think what this all boils down to is the importance of upholding the integrity of the photograph. cloning in trees is maintaining the photo, while adding people is destroying intergity.


Sounds all very fine, but what if the cloned person was as much in the background as was the tree?
04/19/2004 06:41:33 PM · #252
This site is called "dpchallenge" a digital photography contest. NOT a digital photoshop contest. This is what I understand from the title of the site. Just my opinion.
04/19/2004 06:51:46 PM · #253
I see this as just another step in the never ending complaining saga of this site.

Way back in the begining it was "I can't compete because I don't have a 4MP camera" to .... "I can't compete because I don't have a DSLR" to .... "I can't compete because I don't have PS" to .... "I have PS now, but still can't compete because I don't know how to use it." Next it will be I can't compete because I don't have an L lens, or now I am restricted by the second version of the advanced rules.

If people were truely against "digital art" on DPC because it taints the "true" photography on the site, then why isn't anyone mad about the digital art category in the galleries.

Also what if someone puts a pic in their porfolio and doesn't put it in any category, and it happens to be "digital art" and most think it's really a picture. People don't seem to care about being fooled by people's portfolios, but really get mad when there is a ribbon involved. It's just not consistant.
04/19/2004 06:57:01 PM · #254
I've been here for quite a while. Haven't posted to any challenges lately because I seem to have lost my spark, but I still enjoy the site.

For the record, I'm not a fan of advanced editing, but I've flexed when the site flexed and bent when the site bent. Everything is in a state of flux, to expect it to be to your liking at all times is unrealistic.

What is interesting to me is the incredible, exploding ego that a certain member has enjoyed. Of course it must feel great to have people place you on a pedestal and believe that all photography knowledge can be learned at your feet. But the arrogance I've seen in the past year is out of proportion - although if you look at the posterior smooching that's gone on, maybe it's not.

Yes, this thread absolutely was a call to the minions to rally round and beg. What I'm glad to see is that the names I recognize (magnetic9999, muckpond, karenb, generale, gordon) have managed to still remain voices of reason even though their talent is equal or greater to the thread originator's.
04/19/2004 06:59:13 PM · #255
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity.

John your tutorials are big time helpful, please don`t remove them!
Neil
04/19/2004 06:59:36 PM · #256
Originally posted by Dim7:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity.

John your tutorials are big time helpful, please don`t remove them!
Neil


they're gone already

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 19:00:30.
04/19/2004 07:04:16 PM · #257
Originally posted by nborton:

Originally posted by Dim7:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity.

John your tutorials are big time helpful, please don`t remove them!
Neil


they're gone already

Well this only hurts bumblers like me from doing any better!
04/19/2004 07:07:51 PM · #258


As some comments said about the background of my March Free Study that it would have looked better without the windmill in the background.

Although the composition would've been a lot better I just couldn't go throught with cloning it out. Plus even if I decided to I would not have done a great job.

I continue to mainly use the basic editing rules for my challenge entries even in the advance editing challenges. Either because of my less then professional knowledge of Photoshop, or my forgetfullness that it's a basic challenge or advance challenge I"ll continue to use the basic rules as much as I can.
04/19/2004 07:10:53 PM · #259
Buu-huh!


Message edited by author 2004-04-19 19:30:49.
04/19/2004 07:11:18 PM · #260
See, at least you have the guts to not go clone crazy, I gave in with my March Free Study shot though, kind of almost wishing I didn't now.


04/19/2004 07:12:48 PM · #261
For the record, I am all for cloning out hot pixels, glares, and small imperfections. Going back to basic wouldn't help this. I think the original intent of the advanced editing rules was for things like that.
04/19/2004 07:14:47 PM · #262
Originally posted by Dim7:

Originally posted by nborton:

Originally posted by Dim7:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity.

John your tutorials are big time helpful, please don`t remove them!
Neil


they're gone already

Well this only hurts bumblers like me from doing any better!


I'm sure there are a million other tutorials out there to replace his.

I'm sure there are many talented photographers at this site that can easily write some.

A childish decision was made, lets now move on.
04/19/2004 07:17:11 PM · #263
Originally posted by TerryGee:

Originally posted by Dim7:

Originally posted by nborton:

Originally posted by Dim7:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity.

John your tutorials are big time helpful, please don`t remove them!
Neil


they're gone already

Well this only hurts bumblers like me from doing any better!


I'm sure there are a million other tutorials out there to replace his.

I'm sure there are many talented photographers at this site that can easily write some.

A childish decision was made, lets now move on.


Well said Terry!

:D
04/19/2004 07:19:38 PM · #264
another thing that really gets to me in this whole discussion, is the bashing of PS and labuda (which i thought was against the rules).

people talk of PS like it's some 10,000 dollar program that only the elite who live in castles with butlers get to use. and then when you use it, a picture that was once a 1 magically becomes a 10. you can get past versions of PS for much much less, and they will do far more than most can handle.

secondly, publicly bashing labuda isn't right either (and i thought not allowed). most laws are reacationary. there weren't speed limits until people started pressing the limits of what was deemed responsible. by showing weaknesses in the current rules he is making the site better off in the long run.

04/19/2004 07:25:14 PM · #265
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity.


John, your tutorial for preparing a print was invaluable to me! I still refer to it from time to time. Before that tutorial, I never had a good understanding of aspect ratio and I never knew that one could actually increase the size of their photo without noticable loss to quality. I may not speak out on this site much but I have to talk now - if you remove your tutorials, people coming in new will be at a disadvantage.
04/19/2004 07:31:11 PM · #266
Originally posted by Rooster:

I hate to say this but I am noticing a change in tides here. There is more 'trickery' (for lack of a better wor) in the submissions than I care to admit. 2 of the 3 ribbon winners used ps manipulated shots. This hurts all entrants bc we all know that most people vote according to the standards of the pictures in the challenge & not just on one shot alone. Not sure if my camera can compete with PS.
I feel sad to say this, but a step has been taken, things are changing, & unfortunately we are moving away from digital photography & into digial art. Shall we return to basic edting for all or will we rewrite the rules with more specificity & less vagueness as to the purpose of DPC? The next few days should be interesting...
John, I understand why you wish to have your tutorials removed but I plead with you to not deprive us all of your vast knowledge. Let us find a more diplomatic way of addressing this growing problem. I am quite sure that the intent of this site has not changed just bc of a few shots.


This is exactly why I haven't entered any member's challenges since the editing rules changed - I can't compete with the PS created compositions. I no longer appreciate the "wow" factor in submissions. Ahh the good old days.
04/19/2004 07:36:13 PM · #267
just as an example. here is a "picture" that everyone seems to love here.



one of the most extreme examples of multi-imaging on the entire site. take a look at the comments. there are a lot of people praising this "picture" who are now up in arms and want to go back to basic editing.

because there is no ribbon involved no one cares. that's why when it gets right down to it, people are mad that they were beaten. if people were so for "photography integrity" then you would have to be against this picture as well.

if you're against "digital art" because it breaks the rules of advanced editing that's fine. however, at this point the rules haven't been changed to totally outlaw it.

the rules need some retooling, and i see no reason to be stunned that they need it.
04/19/2004 07:38:36 PM · #268
I have to say..
I'm disappointed.
04/19/2004 07:48:30 PM · #269
just to add. i am on the side of advanced editing, but not on the side of adding something to meet a challenge or "drawing/rendering" the main subject of the photo.
04/19/2004 07:52:00 PM · #270
Originally posted by nborton:



because there is no ribbon involved no one cares. that's why when it gets right down to it, people are mad that they were beaten. if people were so for "photography integrity" then you would have to be against this picture as well.


I love this 'image' or 'piece of art'. I think it takes some great talent to produce this. Do I know how to do it? No... Am I mad that Kiwi did it and posted it here because I don't know how to? No. Would I be upset if it were posted in a challenge (where photographic integrity is to be maintained and multi image compositions are against the rules) as a photograph and won a ribbon? Yes... why?

This is clearly against the rules. As are some of the other winning photos. This is no longer a 'photograph' holding 'photographic intergrity'. It is 'Digital Art'. (And Damn Good Digital Art if I may say so again).

I don't think the problem here is people creating digital art, but rather submitting that into the challenges.

I honestly think it has less to do with people mad because they were beaten and more to do with breaking of the rules.
04/19/2004 07:52:18 PM · #271
Originally posted by kathleenm:

I've been here for quite a while. Haven't posted to any challenges lately because I seem to have lost my spark, but I still enjoy the site.

For the record, I'm not a fan of advanced editing, but I've flexed when the site flexed and bent when the site bent. Everything is in a state of flux, to expect it to be to your liking at all times is unrealistic.

What is interesting to me is the incredible, exploding ego that a certain member has enjoyed. Of course it must feel great to have people place you on a pedestal and believe that all photography knowledge can be learned at your feet. But the arrogance I've seen in the past year is out of proportion - although if you look at the posterior smooching that's gone on, maybe it's not.

Yes, this thread absolutely was a call to the minions to rally round and beg. What I'm glad to see is that the names I recognize (magnetic9999, muckpond, karenb, generale, gordon) have managed to still remain voices of reason even though their talent is equal or greater to the thread originator's.


My God, did you read my mind or something?
04/19/2004 08:00:35 PM · #272
Originally posted by nborton:

I see this as just another step in the never ending complaining saga of this site.

Way back in the begining it was "I can't compete because I don't have a 4MP camera" to .... "I can't compete because I don't have a DSLR" to .... "I can't compete because I don't have PS" to .... "I have PS now, but still can't compete because I don't know how to use it." Next it will be I can't compete because I don't have an L lens, or now I am restricted by the second version of the advanced rules.

If people were truely against "digital art" on DPC because it taints the "true" photography on the site, then why isn't anyone mad about the digital art category in the galleries.

Also what if someone puts a pic in their porfolio and doesn't put it in any category, and it happens to be "digital art" and most think it's really a picture. People don't seem to care about being fooled by people's portfolios, but really get mad when there is a ribbon involved. It's just not consistant.


I don't think anyone really cares what other people put in their portfolios.
I do think people come here to participate in a photography contest. Lately the members challenge has been resembling a photoshop contest and people are complaining about that. Photoshop and photography are two different skills. That is why people are complaining. They went to a dance contest and it got changed to a pie eating contest.

I agree there are a lot of whiners on this site, crying about deserving better scores and how their shots are too artistic for voters to understand, or how the voters are all morons... that annoys me, but I don't believe this is one of those cases. People see something they enjoy turning into something they don't enjoy and they are speaking out.
04/19/2004 08:06:36 PM · #273
Originally posted by nborton:

people talk of PS like it's some 10,000 dollar program that only the elite who live in castles


I'd like to live in castle.
04/19/2004 08:14:37 PM · #274
Originally posted by Pedro:

Originally posted by nborton:

people talk of PS like it's some 10,000 dollar program that only the elite who live in castles


I'd like to live in castle.


Move to the UK - we all live in them there.
04/19/2004 08:28:28 PM · #275
Originally posted by Gordon:



Move to the UK - we all live in them there.


Don't ya live in Texas.. ? :-)
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:43:26 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:43:26 AM EDT.