| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/31/2005 11:19:25 PM · #1 |
Comments on my Beauty entry show a distinct bias against grain/soft focus as an effect, in a challenge which allows advanced editing. The score reflects that maybe it is not just the commenters that feel this way, at a hair over 5.
Somebody 'splain it to me, how a legitimate photographic effect, whether done in the camera or done tastefully in post would be so offensive? Are we that far from film that grain is considered unattractive?
The score part, eh, isn't the thing. Maybe it's just the perception of my subject's beauty which is perfectly understandable. But the knee-jerk "grain" comments are a little grating, 9 so far and 1 saying the community would ding me for the softness. The original image was tack sharp, I just felt it looked better/more glamorous with the softer focus.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 11:22:03 PM · #2 |
Don't be down about it. Sounds like it's just a matter of their likes and dislikes.
I like grain/noise ..but I don't think it works 100% of the time. Some ppl hate it in everything.
Don't worry a new challenge is just around the corner and if you like your shot that's all that matters.
:) |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 11:27:43 PM · #3 |
someone also said mine seemed soft (they thought I did that on purpose in PS) but it just was like that on the original...oh well
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 11:35:33 PM · #4 |
Sometimes you get comments about Soft focus on the really sharp pictures... People don't always know the difference that well.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 11:36:02 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Sometimes you get comments about Soft focus on the really sharp pictures... People don't always know the difference that well. |
lol |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 11:45:52 PM · #6 |
| This is forever a topic of debate. The best thing to do is to follow your gut feelings. You know what you want to say and some will get it and others will not. It is simply a matter of personal preference. I know some very advance photographers who still debate these qualities in the digital area and they both go their own ways. I do like film grain but digital noise leaves something wanting in me, however, when an image is presented more as a graphical representation, I accept the noise. The soft focus is strictly an artistic decision and it either works or fails. But I agree with you there is a hyper sensitivity to noise and soft focus, even in glamour shots. |
|
|
|
06/01/2005 01:16:04 AM · #7 |
I wouldn't worry about it. If its in B&W, they want it in color. If it has short depth of field its either too short or not short enough. If the sky is blue they think it should be grey. etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 02:21:41 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wouldn't worry about it. If its in B&W, they want it in color. If it has short depth of field its either too short or not short enough. If the sky is blue they think it should be grey. etc. etc. etc. |
I wish it were that simple, but the examples you cite are essentially random matters of personal preference that average out among the voters.
However, the site (DPC collectively, through the voting) shows an extreme bias against noise/grain and nearly as extreme a bias against softness. It can be very frustrating. It's all fine and well to tell folks to ignore it and go with their artistic heart, but that can be extraordinarily frustrating when exceptionally lovely images that meet the challenge well score below the 50th percentile because the voters don't care for the "style" of the work.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 02:31:25 AM · #9 |
| many people here may not even be familiar with traditional film photographic effects. Bottom line it seems to me is, the clearer, sharper, and more vibrant etc. the photo is, the better it does. It often (not always) does not come down to creativity. It's more eye candy that does better than artistic endeavour. Don't worry about it. |
|
|
|
06/01/2005 02:37:35 AM · #10 |
It's reassuring to hear that it's not just me--and will just keep that regrettable prejudice in mind when looking at future shots in terms of whether they are "contest quality" vs niche appeal. Not depressed about it, was just a little baffled. I haven't done badly here, on one other challenge I'd used a vignette blur and got many negative comments about that. Since it was a portrait challenge (pet portrait), and i'd shot a tightly cropped head shot in motion, the vignette seemed to work. That image top tenned, but the comments should have been a clue.
Could we clarify "noise"? To me, there's the kind of noise that is chrominance noise, only appearing in the darker parts of the image, and which I find objectionable. The kind of digital noise I like is more equivalent to film grain. Uniform throughout the image.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 07:30:18 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I wish it were that simple, but the examples you cite are essentially random matters of personal preference that average out among the voters.
However, the site (DPC collectively, through the voting) shows an extreme bias against noise/grain and nearly as extreme a bias against softness. It can be very frustrating. It's all fine and well to tell folks to ignore it and go with their artistic heart, but that can be extraordinarily frustrating when exceptionally lovely images that meet the challenge well score below the 50th percentile because the voters don't care for the "style" of the work.
Robt. |
Robt. I completely agree with you. Sometimes I think people vote with blindfolds on (see my granular entry - WTFWVT? It sucked!) Pretty colors play well. Anything bright and shiny, collectively scores well. After about my 15th challenge, I figured it out. Don't do flowers, don't do pets, don't do children. Okay fine. Don't do grain, you have to clean up noise, sharpen the image until you have to clone out the noise, color is better, desat sucks, sepia is a nono, so is humor.
If I get a favorite or a comment that says the voter can relate or enjoyed the image or was impacted by the image, good enough for me.
The votes are frustating, yes - I'm not going to deny it. But I don't have to change. I'd rather do it my own way. Much more amusing.
The votes are not about artistry. The votes are about what appeals to a mass of people in 2 seconds. If the average person has to think about your entry, you're sunk.
Sorry to vent. Bad scores for good images and okay scores for bad ones. I'm clueless but happy.
d |
|
|
|
06/01/2005 07:59:26 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
Comments on my Beauty entry show a distinct bias against grain/soft focus as an effect, in a challenge which allows advanced editing. The score reflects that maybe it is not just the commenters that feel this way, at a hair over 5.
Somebody 'splain it to me, how a legitimate photographic effect, whether done in the camera or done tastefully in post would be so offensive? Are we that far from film that grain is considered unattractive?
The score part, eh, isn't the thing. Maybe it's just the perception of my subject's beauty which is perfectly understandable. But the knee-jerk "grain" comments are a little grating, 9 so far and 1 saying the community would ding me for the softness. The original image was tack sharp, I just felt it looked better/more glamorous with the softer focus. |
When I talk about things like these I really have a tendancy to get on
my soap box. :D I can't help but find it irritating when people learn
the "rules" of photography, and think that just because an image doesn't
follow the norm of the "rules" it is a flawed image. Now I don't know which pic your refering to so it makes it hard to understand where you
are comming from on this, but I like to often complain when people
say things like "centered composition is no good you should always use
the rule of thirds". Man-o-man, that just tweaks my melon!
oops! I squished my soapbox!
edit: stupid typo:D
Message edited by author 2005-06-01 10:37:42. |
|
|
|
06/01/2005 08:48:41 AM · #13 |
|
|
|
06/01/2005 08:55:29 AM · #14 |
DPC pretty much always has favoured stock-like clean, crisp, strong images. That's just the way it is.
A lot of DPC winners and good stock shots have the same trait: mass appeal, partially derived from being a clean, crisp and strong image.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 09:08:30 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Courtenay - I think your brush is a bit too all encompasing...
Originally posted by dahkota:
...Bad scores for good images and okay scores for bad ones. |
|
I was referring specifically to myself and my images. Not to any image that anyone else submitted. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
d |
|
|
|
06/03/2005 01:03:11 AM · #16 |
I think DPC serves a wonderful purpose as a sort of Nielsen's rating system for the tastes of people in general. There are sites devoted to showcasing a variety of artistic styles that tend to be much more tolerant and enthusiastic about the specific styles and treatments that are their forte. Go to a night-shots site and post a mid-day shot and expect to get some flak. Go to a landscape intense site and upload a portrait and see how it's received.
DPC is much more general in terms of what you're likely to see but fairly conservatively mainstream in terms of what's likely to be popular and there's nothing wrong with that. Does that mean a person shouldn't follow their heart or muse when shooting and submitting? No, not at all. Does it mean they should take their heart off their sleeve when they submit a photo that's unlikely to be fawned over because it isn't of the generally preferred style or content? Absolutely.
I the end, one needs to ask the self-directed question: Why am I here and what IS my objective in participating? If you're here to learn and grow as a taker or maker of photographs, then read and digest comments and assess scores with an understanding of what they represent -- the majority view of this particular audience. If you're here to collect ribbons, then you'd damn well better be paying attention to what sells and what doesn't.
It serves no one to sit amidst hundreds (or thousands) of bicycle enthusiasts and bemoan their lack of appreciation for your particular brand of skateboard. Learn and know the demographic -- then submit photos that serve the purpose you set out to serve. You'll have loads of fun and the community at large will grow richer as a result - as will you. |
|
|
|
06/03/2005 04:04:56 AM · #17 |
I think nobody should go with 'what the crowd wants or likes', but stick to your own believe and creativity. It's your photo, your mind and soul, never trade that for the likes of other people, or you would loose your identity.
I get low points and high points for the same picture, I don't care. I pick from the comments what's useful for me and sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree with the commenter, because most of the time they want to change your photo into something they like and forget that different people have different views.
Just be yourself and others could/should learn from you too.
Sometimes the voters see things that aren't there. I have a photo in a challenge that all think has been post processed a lot and all I did was some tiny bit of gammacorrection because the original came out a bit too dark.
Don't loose your identity because other people want to change you into something you're not.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 04:11:21 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
[...] I just felt it looked better/more glamorous with the softer focus. |
Maybe people aren't accepting 'glamourous' amd 'beautiful' as synonyms; I certainly don't.
e |
|
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: 04/17/2025 12:06:58 PM EDT.
