| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2009 12:17:06 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dpatterson:
Personally, I think all challenges should be limited to basic editing. |
I think we have to acknowledge that post processing has always been part of photography and that it always will be. Hiding our heads from it here could just serve to make dpchallenge photography irrelevant beyond the borders of this site. If we want to highlight different photographic views we might want to ask a different question in the challenge or voting process rather than limiting the techniques that can be employed. For example... if the challenge is "Sad" then the question presented for voting should be "Does this image express sadness" As it stands today, I wonder if we are voting on the technical quality rather that the artistic quality because of the way we ask people to vote.
PS. Absolutely NO disrespect to the winners from me. The images are stunning. I just think if we want to see different images here we need to ask a different question rather than simply limiting techniques.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:21:16 PM · #27 |
Looking at the results, I had to get down into the 4's before I started seeing stuff that would not have ones friends and relatives saying what a good photog you are. I was seeing stuff I gave high votes to down into the low 5's.
One has to keep in mind that challenges on this site measure mass appeal. IMO, once an entry is above a 5.5, I believe the contest is more about mass appeal and wow-factor that of simply taking a good photograph. The blue was not the average landscape, however. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:25:47 PM · #28 |
This is a really interesting discussion. I'm sort of halfway between the pro and con processing point. For me, a photo ceases being a photo when the processing becomes so obvious we think "cool processing". This is my biggest gripe about HDR (as one example). It's very cool when done well, but most of the time it is not, and sticks out as a separate element which calls attention to itself.
I am clearly in the minority on this thinking, so participating on this site can be frustrating for me. I guess I fall more into the "purist" photography camp, where the capture itself should be good good, with editing used just for tweaking, not for completely transforming. And as a result, my scores have been incredibly consistent in the mid-5s. I do not often see the images I think ribbon-worthy get the scores I think they deserve because I am clearly looking for and seeing something other than what the majority of voters like.
So if I give you raves on your shot, I'm really sorry to tell you that you are likely not going to win :-) |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:30:14 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by dpatterson:
I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, it drives me nuts that every challenge seems to be judged this way. Almost every shot is photoshopped to death. Whatever happened to pure photography?
Personally, I think all challenges should be limited to basic editing. |
Then maybe you are on the wrong site. Its been like this long before you joined up. FWIW, my entry was not `photoshopped` to death, a crop, a border and and colour cast tweak, that was all, would of passed in a basic editing challenge quite nicely. |
I'm just throwing my two cents out there. I didn't realize I'd be opening up a can of worms. My appologies.
It's just a matter of personal preference. I think it requires a lot more skill, patience, and planning to capture an image like your entry where the dear are standing in front of the mist as the sun is just coming up or setting. Well done! As a result, I will always give an image of that caliber a much higher vote than any photo that was only made possible via photoshop or other software. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:34:05 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
This is a really interesting discussion. I'm sort of halfway between the pro and con processing point. For me, a photo ceases being a photo when the processing becomes so obvious we think "cool processing". This is my biggest gripe about HDR (as one example). It's very cool when done well, but most of the time it is not, and sticks out as a separate element which calls attention to itself.
I am clearly in the minority on this thinking, so participating on this site can be frustrating for me. I guess I fall more into the "purist" photography camp, where the capture itself should be good good, with editing used just for tweaking, not for completely transforming. And as a result, my scores have been incredibly consistent in the mid-5s. I do not often see the images I think ribbon-worthy get the scores I think they deserve because I am clearly looking for and seeing something other than what the majority of voters like.
So if I give you raves on your shot, I'm really sorry to tell you that you are likely not going to win :-) |
My thoughts exactly. I think you explained it much better though :) |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:34:48 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Simms:
FWIW, my entry was not `photoshopped` to death, a crop, a border and and colour cast tweak, that was all, would of passed in a basic editing challenge quite nicely. |
'Bout all for mine too. I was just glad my entry scored a 6+. I also have to agree with Simms. If over-processed/saturated images are gonna be a problem for people then they are at the wrong site. It's been that way for a long time around here and it's not gonna change.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:36:52 PM · #32 |
| IMO the OP's point is not about processing or not. It's about rating flawlessness higher than originality. Which is a bit boring... |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:37:08 PM · #33 |
| lets all remember why we are here??? to have FUN.know im gunna crawl back in the corner and be quiet...lol |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:45:48 PM · #34 |
I think the landscape photographer is getting the short end of the stick on this thread. The ribbon images are deserving. Take second for example. It's not like artvet can just conjure a sunrise like that at will. It's not like he can shoot it at 10:30AM after a nice breakfast and reading the paper. It's not like he isn't required to know about HDR in order to capture the most detail possible. All of that takes work and luck and skill. Why should it not be rewarded?
Certainly there are lots and lots of award winning shots in this challenge. Unfortunately there can only be three. And I bet if we went to an alternate universe and ran the voting again with the same entries, you may have three different winners.
So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:47:50 PM · #35 |
| One of the commenters in the 1000 challenge said about my shot,"because you have feelings about your photo, don't expect others to feel the same way." I am not sure what prompted that statement, but I already understood this at a basic level. I saw in this challenge many shots that were very meaningful to the photographer, but were not world rippers. I tried to not comment on tech as much as intent. I voted the same way. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:48:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography. |
Clap, clap!
And while I'm here, can someone PLEASE explain to me why that wonderful, exceptional, blue ribbon landscape is considered "overprocessed"? Puhleeze.....
R.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:50:20 PM · #37 |
>>One has to keep in mind that challenges on this site measure mass appeal. IMO, once an entry is above a 5.5, I believe the contest is more about mass appeal and wow-factor that of simply taking a good photograph. The blue was not the average landscape, however.<<
Well, there's "horses for courses". In other words, do you bring a knife to a gunfight? Or do you choose something that pleases yourself, will at least do "OK"? I usually choose the latter.
At the beginning of the scores thread I predicted 7 out of the top 10 would be landscapes. If you count the moon shot, it actually turned out to be 8. Of the top ten, the Taj and portraits are my favorites, scored highly. That's just DPC.
For my own entry, I took a 2004 jpg that I had recently reprocessed for 1x, my first entry over there and it did unexpectedly well. I knew entering it here would be a mistake if going for exalted scoring, but that some would like it, and with 97 comments and 20 faves, mission accomplished. Most of all, I love my own choice--the original I'd only toned, and processing it for color revealed a much more spectacular result. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:51:41 PM · #38 |
I have a question and I'm not pointing at any images in particular. Just a question I've had for a long time.
If a person spends 2 days building a set to photograph and they take 100 shots of this set and score very high, are they a good photographer or a good set builder?
Or, if person A builds the set and photographs it, and Person B just photographs it and they score the same, are they equaly good photographers? |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:53:35 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Clap, clap!
R. |
They have medicine for this I hear!! ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:56:04 PM · #40 |
And before we get into it at all, I want to state for the record I would have been perfectly happy to see Dan Cottle's shot of the pets take blue. :) I'm not biased to landscape over all else.
Message edited by author 2009-03-18 12:56:26. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:56:52 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography. |
Clap, clap!
And while I'm here, can someone PLEASE explain to me why that wonderful, exceptional, blue ribbon landscape is considered "overprocessed"? Puhleeze.....
R. |
Let me be the first to second Robert on this. To me, the blue ribbon is an astounding photo, and beautifully processed.
While my entry only (LOL) scored in the 75th percentile, I didn't expect higher. It's not "instant wow" it's one that must be considered. And even when it's considered at length, there are still plenty of better images in this challenge. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:58:04 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography. |
Oh dear, I confess to being a purist, but is my bourgeois showing Doc? I cannot speak for others, but I don't have a problem with processing in and of itself. This shot is a perfect example (and I am so disappointed it didn't ribbon):
It is clearly processed (converted to b/w, and likely much more), but the result is a breathtaking photo, not breathtaking effects. Also, considering the extraordinary diversity of the entries for this challenge, it would have been nice to have more than just landscapes ribbon :-)
As I said though, tastewise I run towards the less obvious use of processing. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 12:58:35 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I have a question and I'm not pointing at any images in particular. Just a question I've had for a long time.
If a person spends 2 days building a set to photograph and they take 100 shots of this set and score very high, are they a good photographer or a good set builder?
Or, if person A builds the set and photographs it, and Person B just photographs it and they score the same, are they equaly good photographers? |
The simplest way to look at it is, it's the image that counts, in the end, not the process by which it was attained. We'd all save ourselves a lot of angst, in the end, if we focused on judging images and ignored all the rest of it.
To answer your question more specifically, the label "photographer", as we've discovered in here, covers a lot of territory. So, for example, some people think if you use a lot of PP to get your image, you're not as good a "photographer" as someone who captures street images on the fly. Which I think is bullshit: it just means you're a different *kind* of photographer.
I *think* that answers your question, from my POV, if a trifle obliquely.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:04:54 PM · #44 |
DrAchoo, agreed on the pet portrait.
Inexplicable that it's not on the front page. But one of my other faves is:
Oh wait, they're all b/w!!!! It's a conspiracy!
Or maybe it's just cute animal shots that I favor... :-)
Message edited by author 2009-03-18 13:06:32. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:05:41 PM · #45 |
[/quote]... In other words, do you bring a knife to a gunfight? [/quote]
No just bring  Bear_Music and make sure he's on your side:)
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:09:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I can't believe this one didn't Blue...
It's easily the most original shot in the top 30-40. At least, it's nothing I've seen before. I could see that images being used as art, commercially...anywhere. |
My suggestion during the voting was to try and get it into one of those "More bars in more places" wireless commercials ... ;-) |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:09:21 PM · #47 |
| What Bear applauded DrAchoo for saying. Only three of the thirteen images I voted a 10 actually finished in the top 10, and none ribboned. The rest were 8-9 votes, and I think many succeeded on a higher average rather than actually being considered the "best" by the most people. Don't get me wrong– I think the winners fully deserve the placement (the blue was a borderline 9/10 for me), but our individual preferences aren't likely to match up with a group average. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:16:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
but our individual preferences aren't likely to match up with a group average. |
Thats a great way of putting it
|
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:51:58 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography. |
Just because I think there are images in the challenge that are more deserving of ribbons than the landscapes doesn't mean I think 1) processing is bad, and 2) street photography is the only true application for photography.
I like the landscapes given ribbons in this challenge. I don't love them, but they're well taken and processed. I think though, that there are many non-landscapes that are also well taken and processed. Landscapes always seem to score higher at DPC, sometimes regardless of the quality of the image itself (without the glowing sunset) or the quality of the processing (without the unnatural colors). I think another post-er hit it on the head - they are the least offensive images, not given to having reasons to vote them down. |
|
|
|
03/18/2009 01:57:35 PM · #50 |
For those that hinted at or stated overtly that the top images lacked meaning, I would ask them to produce a landscape that had 'meaning', or was that just an indictment of landscape photography in general. I think capturing something beautiful is enough to marvel at, you don't always need the photographer's "opinion" on the subject.
And on the subject of post-processing, I tend to fall in line with someone like  heida who inspired me to take images and sort of make them your own through manipulating light and such. I can totally see why purists and others think less of this, but that's the beauty of this site, we have Basic & Advanced editing sets, you can look and do what you want.
On a final note, I would love to see a feature that lets you sort by # of favorites, because I see favorites as the sort of equalizer to the score. Not all high scoring shots get a lot of faves, some low scoring shots get many. I think seeing which images got more faves would balance the attention paid across the range of scores. |
|
