| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2005 09:38:04 PM · #1 |
| Hi, I am wondering if the pictures where only main object/person is faceless but there are faces on background (e.g., in the crowd) are qualified??? |
|
|
|
01/22/2005 09:41:24 PM · #2 |
| Everything is qualified, but I would probably score it lower than a comparable photo with no faces. |
|
|
|
01/22/2005 09:41:57 PM · #3 |
| There are many interpretations to every challenge, but unless the shot is really special, I'd avoid showing any faces. |
|
|
|
01/22/2005 10:39:11 PM · #4 |
LOL, who will bet that someone will "vote down" an image because "there's a face in that tree stump!"
C'mon peeps, if the subject of the photo is faceless, it meets the challenge, yes? What should it matter if there is an incidental face in the BG?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2005 11:23:01 PM · #5 |
If it is a good picture and somehow meets the chalenge (ie. if I get it) I would still score it high.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2005 11:26:52 PM · #6 |
| I agree, if there are non-subject faces in the background, I will likely vote lower unless those faces are sufficiently inconspicuous. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 01:12:22 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
What should it matter if there is an incidental face in the BG? |
You're gonna ruin it for all the anal voters out there...
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 01:18:27 AM · #8 |
Well there has to be at least one faceless person in the picture... perhaps surround for ones with faces for contrast.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 01:28:28 AM · #9 |
Actually....
The challenge description says:
Photograph human beings engaged in normal human activity. The restriction - they are faceless. Their faces must not be seen.
Any face should be DQ. :-) Keep that in mind before including ANY face in your photo..... |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 03:24:26 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jfaulkner:
Actually....
The challenge description says:
Photograph human beings engaged in normal human activity. The restriction - they are faceless. Their faces must not be seen.
Any face should be DQ. :-) Keep that in mind before including ANY face in your photo..... |
Just because a pictures doesn't follow the description isn't grounds for DQ
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 03:31:13 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by slipintoshadows:
Originally posted by jfaulkner:
Any face should be DQ. :-) Keep that in mind before including ANY face in your photo..... |
Just because a pictures doesn't follow the description isn't grounds for DQ |
If the focus or subject of the photo has no face then I will vote based on the merits of the image. I'm not drawing lines before I see it.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 03:42:26 AM · #12 |
| I'm the same, that is not drawing a line until I see the images but I think it would be best to avoid crowd shots even if the faces are in the background because I'm sure it will get voted down. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 03:48:52 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by slipintoshadows:
Just because a pictures doesn't follow the description isn't grounds for DQ |
Sadly that is true...
However, I wouldn't be including ANY faces if you want to score well. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 03:58:08 AM · #14 |
Have y'all seen that famous picture of Robert Kennedy, the night he was assassinated, in Los Angeles? Shot from behind, no face, recognizably Kennedy, a sea of faces in the audience, a little out of focus, looking up at him. Kennedy is clearly the "subject", but his interaction with these faces makes the picture.
This, for example, is a fabulous "faceless" picture that, IMO, does not meet the terms of the challenge.
I can't believe anyone would include ANY face in this challenge. The description CLEARLY states Photograph human beings engaged in normal human activity. The restriction - they are faceless. Their faces must not be seen. What's so difficult about that? "Their" faces MUST NOT BE SEEN. End of argument.
It absolutely stuns me sometimes how people will look for any loophole in what seems to me a clearly-written challenge description. I mean, sometimes there's a LOT of fudge-room, sometimes hardly any at all. Seems to me this is one of those times; NO FACES MAY BE SEEN, according to the challenge.
I swear I'll give an automatic 3-or-worse to any picture that shows any part of a face, even the eyes. If it's a really, really great picture I'll give it a 3. That's the best it deserves if it includes a face...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 04:47:47 AM · #15 |
Bear is saying exactly what I'm talking about.. I wouldn't include any faces if you want to score well. Now on the other side...
The picture MUST include human beings! If it doesn't.... |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 08:46:36 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jfaulkner:
Now on the other side...
The picture MUST include human beings! If it doesn't.... |
How many? |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 09:01:01 AM · #17 |
One is sufficient...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 02:20:53 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I can't believe anyone would include ANY face in this challenge. The description CLEARLY states Photograph human beings engaged in normal human activity. The restriction - they are faceless. Their faces must not be seen. What's so difficult about that? "Their" faces MUST NOT BE SEEN. End of argument.
Robt. |
I think it's still unclear if challenge description has to be applied to every person in the frame or to the main object only. Let take another challenge "Old and New". Nobody thinks that every object in the frame should have a pair (old and new), only main one should. "Architecture" does not mean that it should be nothing but architecture in the frame, etc. In other words, in every other challenge, the description specifies the main object only - focus of the picture. So, I am not very sure that in this specific challenge it has to be applied to the background also... |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 02:25:10 PM · #19 |
If you want to show faces of other people then do so.
Just don't come running to the forums with tales of woe when you get low marks and negative comments...
Message edited by author 2005-01-23 14:25:47. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 02:41:23 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Artan:
Just don't come running to the forums with tales of woe when you get low marks and negative comments... |
This is one very useful contribution to the discussion... |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 02:41:36 PM · #21 |
Max,
It's a little different in this one: if you want to appl,y that logical filter to this challenge, then it would only be ok to show faces of "other than the subject" if those other (non-subject) people were NOT engaged in a "normal, human activity"...
This way madness lies; first door on the left....
jejeejâ„¢
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2005 02:49:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by max90034:
Originally posted by Artan:
Just don't come running to the forums with tales of woe when you get low marks and negative comments... |
This is one very useful contribution to the discussion... |
Thanks I'm happy to help.
Or were you trying to be ironic....
Just because you didn't find it "usefull" doesn't change the fact that some people will mark images down if any faces are shown in the photograph.
Message edited by author 2005-01-23 14:50:52. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 05:01:55 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Max,
It's a little different in this one: if you want to appl,y that logical filter to this challenge, then it would only be ok to show faces of "other than the subject" if those other (non-subject) people were NOT engaged in a "normal, human activity"...
This way madness lies; first door on the left....
jejeejâ„¢
Robt. |
bear, I have to agree, at least, that average score will likely go down if any background face is shown since there is a controversy of opinions about the issue (this discussion illustrated it very clear). It could score down many nice pictures (not talking about mine :) ) which, in some opinions, still express very well the challenge idea. This is sad. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 05:04:33 PM · #24 |
| I already know I'm getting a low score. I'm rather outside the description. However, for me, it's not the score that matters as much as the knowledge gained in making the picture. Sure, the blue ribbon will be a kid with an umbrella in front of his face, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the pictures aren't up to that quality. That just means that that's what the voters like. C'est la vie. |
|
|
|
01/23/2005 05:13:35 PM · #25 |
| I can't believe people are arguing about this. The challenge directions are crystal clear. Its not like bokeh. No wonder there are so many lawyers. |
|
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 03:04:14 AM EDT.
