| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2004 06:52:23 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
well put. i agree completly.
and to say again what someone earlier said, voting a 1 because you dont like/want to discurage "photoshopped" pics is like voting a 1 on all cat picture because you think cat pictures are overused or whatever your reason may be. |
In the rules it doesnt say "please consider whether the photo is a cat or not in the highest regard when voting", but it does make that statement about a photo actually looking like a photo.
Message edited by author 2004-02-04 18:53:13.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 06:55:55 PM · #27 |
Wow, just read thru all this, and the bottom line is--I can still vote the way I want. Thanks guys :)
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 07:08:55 PM · #28 |
People vote "1" for no apparent reason on perfectly beautiful photographs.
This happens to be a site where using a digital camera to take photographs rather than a film camera to take photographs is the challenge. Let's not blow this out of proportion by suggesting going back to basic editing either. There are plenty of threads out there discussing this, so I will not detail that here.
We are here at "dpchallenge, a digital photography contest", not "dpchallenge, a digital art contest". Voters expressed their opinions. That happens every day of the week here. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 07:15:39 PM · #29 |
for the most part i have read in these forums that the quality of images has been improved with the new set of rules for members challenges... that being stated by others, and the fact that i saw numerous entries using the basic rules to the over extreme, says to me there will always be entries which have been modified to someones discretion too far...
vote realistically, give the photog the benefit of the doubt, and realize that in every challenge there will likely be an entry that through someones view did not hold photographic integerity in high regards when editing that entry.
why not focus more on the how to - or the greatness of than bitch and moan about this or that? make this site more enlightnening than annoying...
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 07:46:33 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
People vote "1" for no apparent reason on perfectly beautiful photographs... |
Apparently the reason is that many value topicality and conformity higher than beauty, and feel encouraged to do so. Not an artistic modus, but a prevalent one.
'It Hurts Me Too' in A minor.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 08:10:02 PM · #31 |
as well as what is beautiful to one may not be to the next..
Originally posted by KarenB:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vote "1" for no apparent reason on perfectly beautiful photographs...
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 08:28:33 PM · #32 |
[quote=soup] as well as what is beautiful to one may not be to the next..
That's the one she was talking about.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 08:40:58 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by soup:
for the most part i have read in these forums that the quality of images has been improved with the new set of rules for members challenges... that being stated by others, and the fact that i saw numerous entries using the basic rules to the over extreme, says to me there will always be entries which have been modified to someones discretion too far...
vote realistically, give the photog the benefit of the doubt, and realize that in every challenge there will likely be an entry that through someones view did not hold photographic integerity in high regards when editing that entry.
why not focus more on the how to - or the greatness of than bitch and moan about this or that? make this site more enlightnening than annoying... |
I would have to agree with soup on this one. I coudn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 08:45:55 PM · #34 |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 10:22:55 PM · #35 |
The issue regarding photographic integrity is not an issue of whether or not a photo was Photoshopped but rather what it ends up becoming. The rules are trying to encourage us to only edit to improve our photos and keep them looking like photos and not to turn them into something completely different like digital art. Where that line is drawn is certainly subjective but I think it is very clear when the editing is taken to an extreme as in the example in this forum. Because there is subjectivity involved the site counsel does not wish to try to police it. This is why we are trusting that members understand the intent of the advanced editing rules and work within them. Hopefully the voters will also understand this and vote accordingly.
T
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 10:52:50 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by timj351:
The issue regarding photographic integrity is not an issue of whether or not a photo was Photoshopped but rather what it ends up becoming. The rules are trying to encourage us to only edit to improve our photos and keep them looking like photos and not to turn them into something completely different like digital art. Where that line is drawn is certainly subjective but I think it is very clear when the editing is taken to an extreme as in the example in this forum. Because there is subjectivity involved the site counsel does not wish to try to police it. This is why we are trusting that members understand the intent of the advanced editing rules and work within them. Hopefully the voters will also understand this and vote accordingly.
T |
Thanks Tim :) I couldn't come up with a better way to say that for sure...
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 11:00:02 PM · #37 |
I got slammed with a "Photographic integrity" blah blah blah on a submition that was basically straight out of the camera with very little editing. Just because the commentor didn't know how the shot was made he/she assumed it was PSed to death, when in fact it was not. I would have had no problem with the "1" if it was for a crummy shot or one that didn't follow the guidelines of the challenge, but...
just needed to vent, thanks folks. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 11:09:27 PM · #38 |
^^^
that is a perfect example |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 11:10:26 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
^^^
that is a perfect example |
This will happen and i'm possibly guilty of it too.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 11:17:36 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Armadillo:
I got slammed with a "Photographic integrity" blah blah blah on a submition that was basically straight out of the camera with very little editing. Just because the commentor didn't know how the shot was made he/she assumed it was PSed to death, when in fact it was not. I would have had no problem with the "1" if it was for a crummy shot or one that didn't follow the guidelines of the challenge, but...
just needed to vent, thanks folks. |
I can understand your discouragement and it is regrettable but it is important to understand that with these new advanced editing rules this type of voting has to be expected. The most important thing is that you are satisfied with our photos but if you also want to score well you have to have a good idea of how voters will respond to your photos. Maybe the best answer if you want to do well in the ratings is to create photos that don't look manipulated in any way. That may not be very satisfactory when you enjoy being very creative with your photos.
T
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 01:37:52 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by timj351:
The issue regarding photographic integrity is not an issue of whether or not a photo was Photoshopped but rather what it ends up becoming. T |
Before the PWL challenge, I would have agreed with you.
Being a poor, naive fool, I voted the shot under consideration an 8 because I was amazed at the sharpness he managed to achieve using his pointer. If I had known that he had used a ps filter instead, I'd have given a 1.
Why?
Because there is such a thing as a wow factor for technical excellence which stands outside any artistic criteria. Some technicians manage to push the boundaries of what's possible with a camera, leaving the artists to copy and excel on that technique later.
I felt a bit cheated when I read in the photographer's comments that he had filtered his image. |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 05:00:50 AM · #42 |
I trot this example out everytime someone brings up "overprocessing" a photo, appologies if you've seen it already.
This  was the entry.
This  was the original.
Many people assumed the effect had been done in photoshop, where in fact it had come pretty much from the camera. Bumping up the saturation of the blues provided a boost to the sky. And mind you, this was under the first set of editing rules.
Did I maintain photographic integrity?
What about in this shot, where I removed the sunken boat, removed the dock to the left, and changed the shape of the dead tree?
Entry -
Original -
 |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 07:00:34 AM · #43 |
I am intrigued that the only comments on the photo to use the phrase "photographic integrity" were posted by site council members.
Is this:
i) a conspiracy,
ii) an example of great minds thinking alike, or
iii) proof that the SC is actually a collective incapable of individual thought ;)
Please send your answers on a postcard to... |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 08:30:08 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by robsmith:
I am intrigued that the only comments on the photo to use the phrase "photographic integrity" were posted by site council members.
Is this:
i) a conspiracy,
ii) an example of great minds thinking alike, or
iii) proof that the SC is actually a collective incapable of individual thought ;)
Please send your answers on a postcard to... |
i) no
ii) perhaps ;)
iii) resistance is futile. we will assimulate you into the collective. |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 08:49:27 AM · #45 |
Ok, I might as well throw my 2 cents in... This is a Digital Photography Contest, and using photoshop to enhance your images is great, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. IMHO the use of filters should be extremely limited...like Blur and Sharpen only. Gordon's Fantasia is a perfect example of the way to use photoshop to enhance and Siggi's "Glow in the Dark" and Harold's "Electric Laces" completely changed the pictures...I would have voted much higher on Harolds original. Let's keep this site as digital photography and enter photoshop contests if we so desire. Listed below are 2 great ones.
Thanks,
Donna
//www.photoshopcontest.com/
//www.worth1000.com/ |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 01:55:35 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by robsmith:
I am intrigued that the only comments on the photo to use the phrase "photographic integrity" were posted by site council members.
Is this:
i) a conspiracy,
ii) an example of great minds thinking alike, or
iii) proof that the SC is actually a collective incapable of individual thought ;)
Please send your answers on a postcard to... |
You have now convinced me to change my standard comment "I do not and probably never will truly appreciate this type of psychedelic over processed shot' to 'This shot does not maintain photographic integrity and therefore I can not truly appreciate it"... |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 02:03:52 PM · #47 |
I saw the original shot and I much prefer it to the shot that was entered. I gave the entry a one because I couldn't see where PWL was used and I found the resulting image unattractive. I would have scored the original shot much higher.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 02:14:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Konador:
I totally agree with John, and I will no longer make a comment when I vote a 1.
People always say "You should comment when you give a 1". Well, see what happens now? It just makes people hate you. Fun! |
Hate you? Doubtful. Ask for clarification? Most definetly. There's no need for drama. The submission in question followed the rules and with so many digi art discussions drawing no conclusions or rule changes, this photo was acceptable, if not, it would've been DQ'd, n'est pas? |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 03:38:03 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Konador:
I totally agree with John, and I will no longer make a comment when I vote a 1.
People always say "You should comment when you give a 1". Well, see what happens now? It just makes people hate you. Fun! |
Hate you? Doubtful. Ask for clarification? Most definetly. There's no need for drama. The submission in question followed the rules and with so many digi art discussions drawing no conclusions or rule changes, this photo was acceptable, if not, it would've been DQ'd, n'est pas? |
This situation has absolutely nothing to do with disqualifications. Yes, the photos in question are completely legal.
Is the photo 'acceptable' under the rules? Yes for some and no for others.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 03:49:39 PM · #50 |
| I would think that this has alot to do with disqualification since the heightened discussion seems centered around the rules and their interpretation. Leaving the rules wide open with a blurb about photographic integrity and then telling someone their interpration of PI is wrong, wouldn't that naturally progress to a discussion about the rules and what should qualify? And please no one post that voting a '1' for seemingly too much post processing doesn't imply that the photographer's view of PI is wrong, because it most certainly does. |
|
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: 03/14/2025 07:37:17 AM EDT.
