DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Followed the rules and still disqualified !!
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 375, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/02/2006 04:24:07 PM · #226
The name "unsharp mask" is a darkroom term borrowed for a digital process that tries to simulate it.

Originally posted by samanwar:

Originally posted by eckoe:

Think of it this way, (as I do)this is a digital photography challenge. Anything that can be done within a darkroom is likely legal. Colorshifts, etc fall into that, including over certain areas of the image.

That being said, the motion blur on the background, without effecting the birds, makes it really difficult for me to feel that it's legal, and side with the decision to DQ. If you want to try to explain to me how it was done in the darkroom, I'd be more than happy to change my mind.


Oh, one more thing, can you simulate the Unsharp Mask in a darkroom? Just wondering ..

02/02/2006 04:25:36 PM · #227
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dleach:

How about for "advanced editing" that there are no rules?


worth1000.com is for that.


Cool... didn't know this existed.
02/02/2006 04:33:29 PM · #228
What would be wrong with everyone having to use the same tools to edit.
Members join and with some special agreement with a software company, would download a program to use. No add-ons, no extras, just the same tools and limitations. Advanced editing could have spot editing to remove imperfections like sensor dust, etc and some of the basic drakroom tools used like dodge & burn. Basic challenges would be just enhancement to the image as a whole.

In car racing, some races have ALL the vehicles prepared identically (IROC) and becomes a race of driver skill, luck and pit crew effeciency.
We should be having a Photography Challenge, not a software or editing challenge, even though wasting countless hours in Photoshop is so much fun.

Just a thought. Sure would eliminate a lot of headaches and encourage us to get it right, or close to right in the camera.

02/02/2006 04:41:27 PM · #229
Originally posted by BradP:

Originally posted by Gordon:


Zoom the enlarger during the printing, combined with a mask.

I have done exactly that, about 30 years ago.

Zooming the enlarger and moving the mask are difficult to acheive to get the desired effect, as they need to move at different rates. Wasted a LOT of paper getting it right....


I'm not saying it would be easy or efficient - that's the one thing the digital darkroom is great for after all. Experimentation and repeatability.

However, it would be possible, which was all that was asked.
02/02/2006 04:42:06 PM · #230
Originally posted by muckpond:

to that end, if it's major enough to be in the description of the photo, i consider that a major element. i don't think a "major element" has to be something literally captured in the frame; rather, i think that effects/filters/techniques/pixelmovements/whatever that are ADDED in the post-processing can be elements as well.

and, as i've said before, my votes on these shots HAS been consistent.


I applaud your consistency, it's very unfortunate that the end result on subjective matters such as this hinge on the vote(s) of a few SC members. The flaw in this is that one image may be considered valid, while an identical image may be DQ'd based on the given voting population at the time. I propose that any image up for DQ should be voted on by the entire SC to keep such inconsistencies from happening. I'm not trying to instigate or even change your views. Your opinion is well founded and you are entitled to it, I just disagree (as do many others)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Brent_Ward on this one.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

...albeit consistantly wrong. An element and an effect are different. A tree is an element. A mountain is an element. If I through some background blur on an image to make the main focus of the image to pop a little more, what am I adding? An effect.


edit- sorry for the delay... had to pay some bills ;-)

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 16:42:58.
02/02/2006 04:42:28 PM · #231
Originally posted by samanwar:

Originally posted by eckoe:

Think of it this way, (as I do)this is a digital photography challenge. Anything that can be done within a darkroom is likely legal. Colorshifts, etc fall into that, including over certain areas of the image.

That being said, the motion blur on the background, without effecting the birds, makes it really difficult for me to feel that it's legal, and side with the decision to DQ. If you want to try to explain to me how it was done in the darkroom, I'd be more than happy to change my mind.


Oh, one more thing, can you simulate the Unsharp Mask in a darkroom? Just wondering ..


I find this particularly funny, given that 'unsharp mask' is a digital copy of a darkroom technique in the first place.

What's funny is the digital version doesn't actually create a mask that isn't sharp - which is how the darkroom version actually worked.
02/02/2006 04:43:47 PM · #232
Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by Gordon:

That's the problem with letting photographers vote on the entries ;) They care more about how it was done than what it looks like. I only mean this slightly tongue in cheek. Photographers are about the worst audience for photos. I much prefer getting feedback from people who can look at the image for what it is, not how it was made.

LOL, that's true enough. The "others" are sooooooo much easier to please and impress !

ingenuity, creativity and skill
No, actually that's entirely the opposite of what I mean.

"Others" being NON-photographers.... that is not what you meant ?????


No, meaning that non-photographers are much harder to please and much harder to impress. They don't care if the photo was hard or technical to take, they just care if the picture looks good.

While photographers tend to vote high on hard to take photographs or difficult to achieve effects. Things that they don't know how to do themselves. Non-photographers look at the picture, photographers worry about how it was achieved, or lit or how they can copy it - particularly photographers who are learning and are focused on technique more than end results.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 16:44:39.
02/02/2006 04:45:26 PM · #233
Originally posted by BradP:

What would be wrong with everyone having to use the same tools to edit.

That would imply that everyone use the same camera equipment to. That obviously can't happen.

People need to wake up to the fact that post processing with software editing tools IS photography now. All serious photographers MUST learn to use them to their fullest capabilities.
02/02/2006 04:45:43 PM · #234
Originally posted by BradP:

What would be wrong with everyone having to use the same tools to edit.
Members join and with some special agreement with a software company, would download a program to use. No add-ons, no extras, just the same tools and limitations. Advanced editing could have spot editing to remove imperfections like sensor dust, etc and some of the basic drakroom tools used like dodge & burn. Basic challenges would be just enhancement to the image as a whole.

In car racing, some races have ALL the vehicles prepared identically (IROC) and becomes a race of driver skill, luck and pit crew effeciency.
We should be having a Photography Challenge, not a software or editing challenge, even though wasting countless hours in Photoshop is so much fun.

Just a thought. Sure would eliminate a lot of headaches and encourage us to get it right, or close to right in the camera.


That would make perfect sense, as long as everyone was shooting with the same camera.

02/02/2006 04:47:39 PM · #235
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:


This flat out doesn't make sense. Why blame the tools ?



Because then we have black and white rules. If we want shades of gray then we should all shut up and just let the SC vote on things. If we want clear rules, we need to include and exclude things with the least amount of subjectivity possible.

As far as listing other programs etc, it is pretty clear what is a comparable filter. This is plenty practical as I'm sure 90% of post processing people use a photoshop derivative or PSP.

I'm only trying to come up with clear rules to be followed. Subjective works as well, but is much messier and seems to lead to big long threads like this.


You might think it is so, but reality disagrees with you. Try it some time. We looked at this many times in the past.
02/02/2006 04:49:22 PM · #236
Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by Gordon:

That's the problem with letting photographers vote on the entries ;) They care more about how it was done than what it looks like. I only mean this slightly tongue in cheek. Photographers are about the worst audience for photos. I much prefer getting feedback from people who can look at the image for what it is, not how it was made.

LOL, that's true enough. The "others" are sooooooo much easier to please and impress !


Finally! I understand why I like this site. You all please and impress me..
I'm constantly amazed and awed by the things I see here. And I rarely wonder about the PS tools because I'm too new to digital to have a clue.

For the record I won't share an opinion here. Clearly this discussion will never resolve itself peacefully.
..besides, I'm not a professional.
02/02/2006 04:56:58 PM · #237
Originally posted by thomaspeople:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by Gordon:

That's the problem with letting photographers vote on the entries ;) They care more about how it was done than what it looks like. I only mean this slightly tongue in cheek. Photographers are about the worst audience for photos. I much prefer getting feedback from people who can look at the image for what it is, not how it was made.

LOL, that's true enough. The "others" are sooooooo much easier to please and impress !


Finally! I understand why I like this site. You all please and impress me..
I'm constantly amazed and awed by the things I see here. And I rarely wonder about the PS tools because I'm too new to digital to have a clue.

For the record I won't share an opinion here. Clearly this discussion will never resolve itself peacefully.
..besides, I'm not a professional.


You don't need to be a professional to chime in! ;o)
02/02/2006 05:00:47 PM · #238
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You don't need to be a professional to chime in! ;o)


Yeah, just look at that Palmetto_Pixels guy... he won't shut up and he has no idea what he's talking about!!!
02/02/2006 05:02:41 PM · #239
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You don't need to be a professional to chime in! ;o)


Yeah, just look at that Palmetto_Pixels guy... he won't shut up and he has no idea what he's talking about!!!

HA - I see we have more in common than our stunning good looks!
:>))
02/02/2006 05:07:04 PM · #240
Originally posted by BradP:

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You don't need to be a professional to chime in! ;o)


Yeah, just look at that Palmetto_Pixels guy... he won't shut up and he has no idea what he's talking about!!!

HA - I see we have more in common than our stunning good looks!
:>))

Hey... you guys aren't the only good looking ones that don't know what they are talking about! I think I cut a rather fine profile myself.
02/02/2006 05:14:32 PM · #241
LOL... Gotta luv this site... we have quickly disintegrated from a well thought out and civil debate on the ineptitude of the site council to a "Hot or Not" discussion!

:-D
02/02/2006 05:18:01 PM · #242
We are ...
02/02/2006 05:18:44 PM · #243
Originally posted by GeneralE:

We are ...


...all some sexy bishes! ;o)
02/02/2006 05:20:08 PM · #244
Point taken, I'll hop back up into the realm of "on the fence" about the whole situation. I probably am a bit too "straight out of the camera" to really be fully objective anyway.

I do like the shot, and would have voted it well. If your origional matched everything but color, I would be completely blown away though.

I agree that the rules need to be tightened to make the debate less ambiguous, but someone will always be wrong.

My hats off again to the SC, to be able to make these tough calls time and time again, and be in a lose/lose situation with the shell of a smile... nice work.
02/02/2006 05:23:18 PM · #245
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We are ...


...all some sexy bishes! ;o)

I meant from the torches being held to our feet ...
02/02/2006 05:23:21 PM · #246
Something's been troubling me for quite some time and perhaps you all could shed some light for me. I do understand the rules and do think that for the most part they work very effectively and are administered fairly. My problem is with the concept of altering the look of a photo. I have seen so many 'GRUNGE' entries and every time I do I wonder how is it that they seem to be accepted so readily when they alter the look of the original dramatically. Yes I know it's applied to the whole image etc. but not too long ago someone posted a bunch of before and after pics and the difference was astounding.
02/02/2006 05:24:58 PM · #247
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We are ...


...all some sexy bishes! ;o)

I meant from the torches being held to our feet ...


Where's Godzilla when you need him?
02/02/2006 05:25:56 PM · #248
Originally posted by Qart:

Something's been troubling me for quite some time and perhaps you all could shed some light for me. I do understand the rules and do think that for the most part they work very effectively and are administered fairly. My problem is with the concept of altering the look of a photo. I have seen so many 'GRUNGE' entries and every time I do I wonder how is it that they seem to be accepted so readily when they alter the look of the original dramatically. Yes I know it's applied to the whole image etc. but not too long ago someone posted a bunch of before and after pics and the difference was astounding.


Very good question... best direct that one to muckpond... he seems to have a good grasp on the "major element" clause!

;-P
02/02/2006 05:27:00 PM · #249
Well, just like all things..people have an easier time accepting what they know.

Grunge and "Dragan" style has become an accepted practice and so people don't get as freaked out as they did when the first few people used the look.

Even common looks like High Key had to go through a phase of acceptance.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 17:27:49.
02/02/2006 05:33:13 PM · #250
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

...we have quickly disintegrated from a well thought out and civil debate on the ineptitude of the site council...


Gee, thanks for making me feel all warm and fuzzy. When can we get back to politely discussing our incompetence? :-(
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 05/30/2020 09:59:55 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/30/2020 09:59:55 AM EDT.