| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2005 04:58:19 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Oh my, after reading Pawdrix's post on page two of this thread, I decided to do some sluething on the Blue Ribbon photo to find what was actually in the removed background. After a few phone calls to the NYC Central Park Authority, the results are surprising!!! See for yoruself! You be the judge:
 |
I love it. How could I missed that shot. Damn!!!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:58:30 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by dr3amz:
and the image does not rely on the effect to make the picture work. |
How does that image not rely on the zoom blur? Without it it is just another face screaming. |
For me, the concept of major element is really about major impact... and the blur added to the screaming face may not change as MUCH of the original image as has been changed on redmoon's image but it certainly is what creates the impact, just as much so.
Does anyone seriously content that the image would have scored anywhere NEAR as highly without that blur applied?
Anyway, I do feel very badly for David's DQ as I think there is a lack of consistency here but at the same time I also appreciate that it is hard to be consistent when the decision is so subjective.
I am not sure it helps for the DQd or not-DQd photographers to know that the decisions were borderline in terms of voting - to me that would just make it worse - to think I'd been DQd by the bare minimum of SC members required where the rest felt the image should stand!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:02:53 PM · #103 |
| I've always thought that motion blur of any kind should be banned as I mentioned here. It's only purpose is to fool the eye into believing there was actually motion in the shot. At least if it's only allowed in-camera people can learn a thing or two about technique. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:05:08 PM · #104 |
if you took a picture of a racing car, simply racing along the road, sure it might look nice - but it would lack any depth, any feeling.
if you then applied some nice motion blur to that to purvey a sense of speed - the image would immediately gain WOW factor (done properly of course).
i think its the same for the screaming man, but more so the walkway.
the screaming man may look alright without the radial blur, but it would certainly lose a lot of its impact - DQ'd? that would have to be debated more as to how much impact the original shot actually had.
the walkway shot is clear and simple in my eyes, its a great piece of art - but its been greatly modified to create that piece of art.
and for me it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, there will always be some fine lines - but trying to request an exact description of what is/is not allowed for every filter is absured.
as some have said here - edit your image, then compare to the original, if you think it looks greatly different - then fact is, it probably is.
the first thing you should then be thinking about doing, is ticking that box which states you fear it may get DQ'd.
that saves all this after discussion. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:05:19 PM · #105 |
i had a huge note typed here but i've deleted it.
i'm sorry if i came across as having been rude. i've been trying in great detail to answer the questions posed and feel as though those posts have been ignored or simplified to the point where they've lost value.
it's a subjective decision, yes. i've tried to explain the reasoning behind my thought processes, which i really have no obligation to do, in order to clarify the situation. unfortunately, i don't think it's done any good.
i'll step out and let other SC members answer the questions here. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:06:30 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
...to think I'd been DQd by the bare minimum of SC members required where the rest felt the image should stand! |
Hopefully, any forthcoming clarification of the rules will help us ALL reach a consensus and there will be fewer close votes. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:09:19 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by dr3amz:
if you took a picture of a racing car, simply racing along the road, sure it might look nice - but it would lack any depth, any feeling.
if you then applied some nice motion blur to that to purvey a sense of speed - the image would immediately gain WOW factor (done properly of course).
i think its the same for the screaming man, but more so the walkway.
the screaming man may look alright without the radial blur, but it would certainly lose a lot of its impact - DQ'd? that would have to be debated more as to how much impact the original shot actually had.
the walkway shot is clear and simple in my eyes, its a great piece of art - but its been greatly modified to create that piece of art.
and for me it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, there will always be some fine lines - but trying to request an exact description of what is/is not allowed for every filter is absured.
as some have said here - edit your image, then compare to the original, if you think it looks greatly different - then fact is, it probably is.
the first thing you should then be thinking about doing, is ticking that box which states you fear it may get DQ'd.
that saves all this after discussion. |
You can create the effect using photographic techniques. If you have a SLR and a zoom lens you can set your camera to a slow shutter speed and zoom whilst taking the photo. this creates almost exactly the same effect but photographically rather than digitally.
Here is an example.
Edit: Messed up the quote tags
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 17:10:49. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:11:45 PM · #108 |
| Muckpond, for what it's worth, *I* didn't think you were being rude. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:12:22 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i had a huge note typed here but i've deleted it.
i'm sorry if i came across as having been rude. i've been trying in great detail to answer the questions posed and feel as though those posts have been ignored or simplified to the point where they've lost value.
it's a subjective decision, yes. i've tried to explain the reasoning behind my thought processes, which i really have no obligation to do, in order to clarify the situation. unfortunately, i don't think it's done any good.
i'll step out and let other SC members answer the questions here. |
I agree that you've been really helpful in explaining the issue to the best of your ability but I think there's an element where it still remains confusing and I think it's naive to think that's surprising given the ambiguity of the rules and the major elements clause in particular.
If the SC find it hard to reach consensus surely it's understandable that, even after explanation, us mere mortals struggle to do so and fail?
I do appreciate that you didn't intend to be rude and perhaps I shouldn't have pointed it out but that comment just raised my shackles.
Friends?
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:13:55 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by rex:
I just want to make sure I don't cross that FINE and CONFUSING Line. |
We're working on that line right now with our crayons and magic markers to make it less fine and less confusing. Patience please. |
LOL!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:14:14 PM · #111 |
Strikeslip was on the right track...just not quite.
...and don't think I missed your comment dr3amz...those are some mighty strong words coming from someone with 1 challenge under their belt. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:14:47 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I've always thought that motion blur of any kind should be banned as I mentioned here. It's only purpose is to fool the eye into believing there was actually motion in the shot. At least if it's only allowed in-camera people can learn a thing or two about technique. |
This is a totally excellent idea...personally I've always thought that 'shopped motion and radial blurs were a bit cheesy...yikes...and not in a good way. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:15:37 PM · #113 |
[quote]
You can create the effect using photographic techniques. If you have a SLR and a zoom lens you can set your camera to a slow shutter speed and zoom whilst taking the photo. this creates almost exactly the same effect but photographically rather than digitally.
Here is an example.
Edit: Messed up the quote tags [/quote]
yes i've used this technique myself, one of my original comments (although a joke) was that the shot could have been taken walking/running, to get that `zoom` effect :-)
so thats different, thats a skill - not a simple filter ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 17:16:16. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:18:02 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by muur88:
Strikeslip was on the right track...just not quite.
...and don't think I missed your comment dr3amz...those are some mighty strong words coming from someone with 1 challenge under their belt. |
ROFL !!!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:20:20 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by muur88:
Strikeslip was on the right track...just not quite.
...and don't think I missed your comment dr3amz...those are some mighty strong words coming from someone with 1 challenge under their belt. |
ROFL !!!
|
oooooooooooooooooo ;-) it was a joke!
and thats three challenges to you Mr! ;-)
can i see the original of your shot? i'm curious as to where the handrail on the right hand side of the bridge has gone, given that the one on the left is so bright, and the light on the guys trousers is also equally vivid :P
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 17:23:50. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:32:20 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
... I think there's an element where it still remains confusing and I think it's naive to think that's surprising given the ambiguity of the rules and the major elements clause in particular.
If the SC find it hard to reach consensus surely it's understandable that, even after explanation, us mere mortals struggle to do so and fail? |
It's also important to for the participants to understand that such a subjective decision in no way implies either "cheating" or that it's not an outstanding image deserving of the appreciation it garnered.
These situations are inevitable any time the decision is based on subjective rather than objective criteria, and will arise whether the decision is that of acommittee, DQ Czar, or a vote of the entire membership ... |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:41:14 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by dr3amz:
can i see the original of your shot? i'm curious as to where the handrail on the right hand side of the bridge has gone, given that the one on the left is so bright, and the light on the guys trousers is also equally vivid :P |
The rail is there. It's in deep shadow. I can just barely make it out on the cheapo monitor at work. I'd be able to make it out better on my home monitor.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:49:41 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
I'm sorry, but this just confuses things even more. It seems that some people, and I have to assume this is within the site council since they make the decisions, are playing favorites.
|
Don't worry, I dislike you all equally. No favorites here! |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 05:53:40 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by dr3amz:
and thats three challenges to you Mr! ;-)
can i see the original of your shot? i'm curious as to where the handrail on the right hand side of the bridge has gone, given that the one on the left is so bright, and the light on the guys trousers is also equally vivid :P |
I will wait your current challenge results with bated breath.
The bottom line for my picture, as i tried to make clear in the write up, was that I wasn't that excited about the original...other than the composition. I'm not going to mar my current work any further by posting it. If this was a general challenge I probably wouldn't have entered it. But there is a thing called Photoshop and it helps do stuff you cant't do in-camera...kinda stuff you might do in the darkroom, so I'm not ashamed to say I use it. Flat pictures come out prettier when you can't control the lighting...like on Bow Bridge.
The background you see in my spoof is basically how dark I would have made it if I was forced to use only "general challenge" editing rules and still wanted to keep the rest of the scene presentable. I do believe I have done my good sumaritan deed to show the background in question for photographic integrity without the expense of artistic integrity...well maybe a little...but I like humor.
So the question still remains am I on DPC or DPJC(digital photo journalism challenge)? |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 08:34:47 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Actually, in the absence of a DQ we may assume it's been allowed to stand. There's NO precedent for SC to come into the forum to announce "Guess what! The blue ribbon shot is LEGAL!" And it would be a bad precedent to start... I find this aspect of the thread to be highly disturbing. It's as if the members, or some of them, have formed a vigilante gang or something, maybe an action group, to push their own perceptions on SC.
Robt. |
Why is it considered to be a vigilante group? Keep in mind I'm originally from Montana so when you make a general comment on something like that it tends to get my guard up a bit.
I asked a question, I asked the same question in another thread, I stated before that had I had time last week this would have already been settled before the voting ended, evidently I am the only one who sees the lines around the man and the edge of the rail and that they look a bit jagged and such. And yes, my monitor is calibrated, thank you.
As for murr88 not posting the original that's his decision. I personally would love to see it and see the steps he did take and possibly offer some advice how to get rid of the jagged edges that appear on the rail and the man.
Deannda
Done now |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 08:40:21 PM · #121 |
My comment was far from absolute; it was qualified several ways. And it refers to no individual. But the fact remains that an award-winning entry-in-good-standing is having its legality questioned publicly by people who have not seen the original, and I think that's bad form. If I were the photographer I'd be ticked off.
I have no quarrel with the rest of the thread, arguing the intricacies of motion/radial blur vis a vis the "scream" picture which was allowed to stand.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 08:59:01 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
..... But the fact remains that an award-winning entry-in-good-standing is having its legality questioned publicly by people who have not seen the original, and I think that's bad form. If I were the photographer I'd be ticked off.
.....
Robt. |
Then I have bad form. Not the first time, won't be the last I'm sure. If any of my shots were questioned like this one was I would immediately post the original for all to see, not just Site Council and explained the steps I took to acheive the effect I did.
I never once said it was a bad shot, just that I would have questioned it during the voting if I had time last week. If my photography can't stand up to a litte scruntiny and questioning then I shouldn't be putting it in public forums. muur88 himself said that he had to do a lot of photoshop to get the effect he wanted. So the question still remains, "How much is too much and should it be allowed?"
Deannda
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 09:20:59 PM · #123 |
Any, and I mean ANY participant in the challenges is under no obligation to provide the original to any group other than SC.
1) This entry is under review. If the entry is DQ'd then you will be notified when the results recalculate.
2) Determining the validity of an entry is the job of SC- not the site at large.
3) No user is under ANY obligation to post their original to a discussion thread. There is an implication that failing to do so in some way implies guilt. (And I'm not pointing fingers here.) That implication is incorrect. The only people a user needs to provide originals to is Site Council.
We have stated until we are blue in the face- we WILL NOT DISCUSS SPECIFICS ON THIS ENTRY UNTIL OUR DISCUSSION PERIOD AND VOTING HAVE CONCLUDED.
Now I appreciate that many of you find this confusing. We will work to clarify things AFTER we reach a decision. Until that time- this is really unfair to the photographer.
You guys may not like it- but you are just going to have to wait.
Clara |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:30:41 PM EDT.
