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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> I've been waiting all week to do this.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 64, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/21/2006 01:02:35 AM · #26
Is this the thread where we cry about how no one understands our great photo?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/537/thumb/379349.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/537/thumb/379349.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Heheh. I'll go cut off my ear now.
08/21/2006 01:09:34 AM · #27
Originally posted by Artyste:

And when you get opinions, you still act all surprised. Your response to Bear's post as an example.


Probably because I was surprised to get that response from someone so accomplished. Am I not allowed to be surprised?

The post was exasperated, but not accusatory. "Explain yourselves" was meant to be melodramatic, and in retrospect I don't expect anyone to realize this, but it's very indicative of my writing style lately, this sort of tongue in cheek melodrama. Did I want answers? Yes! Am I being a whiny pouty baby? Oh, probably a bit, but I'll get over it. I am not without self-awareness and I'm frankly beginning to get offended by your attack.
08/21/2006 01:12:51 AM · #28
Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Originally posted by Artyste:

And when you get opinions, you still act all surprised. Your response to Bear's post as an example.


Probably because I was surprised to get that response from someone so accomplished. Am I not allowed to be surprised?

The post was exasperated, but not accusatory. "Explain yourselves" was meant to be melodramatic, and in retrospect I don't expect anyone to realize this, but it's very indicative of my writing style lately, this sort of tongue in cheek melodrama. Did I want answers? Yes! Am I being a whiny pouty baby? Oh, probably a bit, but I'll get over it. I am not without self-awareness and I'm frankly beginning to get offended by your attack.


I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating some very obvious things in some very direct ways. I'm sorry that offends you, but you asked for it. Nothing I'm saying is a lie, untrue, or meant to be insulting. I'm simply trying to tell you, to the best of my ability, exactly what I believe you wanted to hear... as is everyone else on this thread.

Of course, if all you wanted to hear is "Oh, we're sorry, you're right, it is indeed an 8, I must have been blind"..

but I don't think that's what you wanted to hear.. is it?


08/21/2006 01:12:58 AM · #29
Originally posted by karmabreeze:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/537/thumb/379440.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/537/thumb/379440.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Explain yourselves. Tell me in very precise terms why this was deserving of less than a 6.


How can I do this when 6 is exactly what I gave you? The desat didn't even bother me.
08/21/2006 01:48:18 AM · #30
I didn't vote on this one, but if I had I likely would have given it a 4.

First, the amount of fire that was in that shot doesn't even take up 10% of the frame. For me, it would have missed the challenge because I'd suspect the photo was taken for something else, and just shoe-horned in the challenge because "Oh, it has fire in it."

Next, the selective saturation. By desaturating the background, you minimize it's importance. Thus, your argument that "every single person in the shot is looking" at the fire isn't as strong as it could be, because by desaturing them you seem to say that they are not important to the shot. Either they are important, stay saturated with color, and help move the viewers eye towards the focal point; or, they are unimportant, and therefore we are left with the one girl trying to direct our attention. MK said it best: selective desaturation is gimmicky, risky at best, and doesn't seem to add much to this shot in particular.

Lastly, at the end of the day, this is a shot of an average girl holding something barely recognizable as a snowball that just happens to have a little bit of flame. IMHO, it's just not really a super interesting visual.

So no, I wouldn't have thought it was illegally edited or altered. Girl looks more happy than surprised to me. As far was wanting "another boring flame shot" well, in this case, it appears boring is in the eyes of the beholder, no?

Hope this helps.

08/21/2006 02:12:29 AM · #31
Man, selective desaturation is getting killed in this thread. Well I like using it probably because so many hate it. It's one thing to say you don't like the look it's another to degrade it. I simply don't get that logic. Using a narrow DOF to accomplish the same thing isn't some difficult technique that only the experienced phtoographer can pull off. In fact that's just as cliche as selective desaturation and should be treated as such. Sure there are times when the selective desaturation doesn't work but criticize it's poor execution not the technique itself.

Karmabreeze, the truth is voters would rather hand a ribbon to a DNMC photo with lots of wow factor over one with much less wow factor but meets the challenge. That was your problem here. The flame also taking up so little real estate just gave voters more incentive to find other things wrong. To be honest, I scored it a 5. Even though you did a good job of trying to unclutter the background I was still drawn to it more so than the fire snowball and that bothered me. Since this was advance editing I would have probably cloned out the words on that girl's tshirt.

Too bad you didn't have a longer tele because if you were able to focus more on the flame it would have done much better. Voters would have then been able to focus more on the contradiction (i.e. snowball and fire) which would have gotten you your deserved bonus points for being different.

Message edited by author 2006-08-21 02:18:24.
08/21/2006 03:20:24 AM · #32
I gave this image a five. There was nothing "wrong" with it as such, but nothing particularly great about it either. Some other images had that extra special "something" that got a few more points out of it.

If it makes you feel better, I voted the 3rd place image as a 4...
08/21/2006 03:34:58 AM · #33
Originally posted by yanko:

Man, selective desaturation is getting killed in this thread. Well I like using it probably because so many hate it. It's one thing to say you don't like the look it's another to degrade it. I simply don't get that logic. Using a narrow DOF to accomplish the same thing isn't some difficult technique that only the experienced phtoographer can pull off. In fact that's just as cliche as selective desaturation and should be treated as such. Sure there are times when the selective desaturation doesn't work but criticize it's poor execution not the technique itself.


Shallow DOF to remove a distracting background and emphasize the subject is cliche? Perhaps you can explain that because I'm not really sure how you're coming to that conclusion.

My point was that selective desaturation is frequently used in situations where a shallow DOF would have been preferred but wasn't executed for whatever reason. For me, simply desaturating the background doesn't solve the problem of a distracting background. It's true that overall, I am not a fan of selective desaturation. There's nothing wrong with that, it's my personal opinion and I'm entitled to it. I see very few instances where it actually seems to work with the photo and isn't used as a gimmick or a crutch. This is one of the rare images where I felt it did work very well.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/254/thumb/102742.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/254/thumb/102742.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Karmabreeze's shot fell into the "didn't work" category for me. You're, of course, welcome to continue using it, especially if you enjoy using techniques that people don't like. But if you start a thread asking why people voted as they did, expect that people are going to say they don't like it.

08/21/2006 03:41:22 AM · #34
Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:



I like spectacular myself. And yet, I had to dig way down to 38th place before I found a single disembodied flame when ordered by my vote. All of my picks did something original and managed a good photo of it at the same time. And that was what made a spectacular photo in this challenge. In my opinion.


Your problem is that you wish the voters to conform to you, instead of you conforming to the voters. It's a common mistake. It's not going to happen. You will, eventually, decide to either:

A) Start submitting photographs that appeal to the masses in order to get the scores you crave

B) Decide that scores don't really matter and just submit what you like, get that small exposure for your work, and work on bettering yourself apart from DPC

or...

C) Eventually get so pissed off that nobody understands you and your work that you quit in a forum drama huff.. either to eventually come back a changed person (sometimes).. or never be heard from again.

It's your call, really, but the truth of the matter is.. Images here get scored where they generally deserve to get scored as pertains to DPC and the mob that are the voters. Every once in a while, threads get started to celebrate images that might have been overlooked, but it never changes anything.. and it never will.


What Arty said is bang on. The image received the score it deserved. As for the lack of comments, well, that's just how things happen. Images that stir people or wow them generate lots of comments.

And oh yeah, I gave it a five. Nowhere near to being in six-territory.

Message edited by author 2006-08-21 03:45:18.
08/21/2006 03:45:21 AM · #35
Originally posted by mk:



My point was that selective desaturation is frequently used in situations where a shallow DOF would have been preferred but wasn't executed for whatever reason. For me, simply desaturating the background doesn't solve the problem of a distracting background. It's true that overall, I am not a fan of selective desaturation. There's nothing wrong with that, it's my personal opinion and I'm entitled to it. I see very few instances where it actually seems to work with the photo and isn't used as a gimmick or a crutch. This is one of the rare images where I felt it did work very well.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10084/thumb/61991.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10084/thumb/61991.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' :P
08/21/2006 04:07:13 AM · #36
Originally posted by mk:


Shallow DOF to remove a distracting background and emphasize the subject is cliche? Perhaps you can explain that because I'm not really sure how you're coming to that conclusion.


Probably the same way one comes to the conclusion of using selective desaturation to minimize a distracting background as a crutch. Point I'm making is shallow DOF is used all the time also hence it is cliche in the same way anything else that is used a lot. If it makes you feel better I also think selective desaturation is cliche also. It has it's place just the same with every other in-camera/out-of-camera technique.

Originally posted by mk:


My point was that selective desaturation is frequently used in situations where a shallow DOF would have been preferred but wasn't executed for whatever reason.


Who is to say what is preferred? You may prefer a shallow dof over a selective desaturation but it's just your personal choice. Obviously the photographer thought otherwise. In my opinion it is a matter of choice not a right or wrong way to do it.

Originally posted by mk:


For me, simply desaturating the background doesn't solve the problem of a distracting background. It's true that overall, I am not a fan of selective desaturation. There's nothing wrong with that, it's my personal opinion and I'm entitled to it. I see very few instances where it actually seems to work with the photo and isn't used as a gimmick or a crutch. This is one of the rare images where I felt it did work very well.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/254/thumb/102742.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/254/thumb/102742.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


For you perhaps. Most images where I see it used is with candids, which often you don't have a choice in the matter. You can't tell the person hey, move further away from the background so I can totally blur it out. I typically use it because I like greys in my photos. You may think it's not needed, a crutch, amateurish or whatever. If I wanted a shallow DOF I would opt for that. It's a choice and that's what I'm getting at. Just as it is your right to not like something it is also the right of the photographer to choose how they want to present their photos.

Originally posted by mk:


You're, of course, welcome to continue using it, especially if you enjoy using techniques that people don't like. But if you start a thread asking why people voted as they did, expect that people are going to say they don't like it.


Well duh.

As for the photo you posted why do you think it "worked" in that case? Couldn't it have done just as well as a black/white or full color photo?

Message edited by author 2006-08-21 04:10:05.
08/21/2006 04:07:17 AM · #37
I had no problem with the desat, but had no real recognition for a flaming snowball. I mean, I can't think of a reason to make one. Had she been carrying 2 of them, perhaps you could have invoked 'Frosty' ;-)
08/21/2006 04:12:16 AM · #38
Originally posted by yanko:


For you perhaps. Most images where I see it used is with candids, which often you don't have a choice in the matter. You can't tell the person hey, move further away from the background so I can totally blur it out. I typically use it because I like greys in my photos. You may think it's not needed, a crutch, amateurish or whatever. If I wanted a shallow DOF I would opt for that. It's a choice and that's what I'm getting at. Just as it is your right to not like something it is also the right of the photographer to choose how they want to present their photos.


Yes, of course I mean for me. That's whose opinion I vote with. I'm not saying it's not anyone's right to do whatever they want with their damn photos. Process with your opinion and I'll vote with mine, right?
08/21/2006 04:20:44 AM · #39
Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by yanko:


For you perhaps. Most images where I see it used is with candids, which often you don't have a choice in the matter. You can't tell the person hey, move further away from the background so I can totally blur it out. I typically use it because I like greys in my photos. You may think it's not needed, a crutch, amateurish or whatever. If I wanted a shallow DOF I would opt for that. It's a choice and that's what I'm getting at. Just as it is your right to not like something it is also the right of the photographer to choose how they want to present their photos.


Yes, of course I mean for me. That's whose opinion I vote with. I'm not saying it's not anyone's right to do whatever they want with their damn photos. Process with your opinion and I'll vote with mine, right?


Are you getting upset? I never said you should vote differently. All I did was answer the questions you asked me. Well maybe not the first one. :P In any case you didn't answer my last question (why you think it worked in that photo you posted).
08/21/2006 04:26:37 AM · #40
I'm not upset at all. I think you're either misunderstanding or purposely contorting what I'm saying is all. I'm not sure that I can put into words why I think Soni's picture works. Because when I look at it, I'm not thinking SELECTIVE DESATURATION SELECTIVE DESATURATION like I so frequently do with many of that type of shot. It's subtle. It works with the overall composition. It doesn't appear to be used to make up for lacking technicals. It emphasizes the subject and not the technique. Just my opinion (and given the score, that of a few others as well).
08/21/2006 04:33:19 AM · #41
Ok so selective desaturation works when it's not noticed? Would it be noticed if it was missing entirely in the photo? I guess what I'm getting at is the selective desaturation actually "working" in that photo or is it really just not getting in the way of it's greatness?

Message edited by author 2006-08-21 04:34:03.
08/21/2006 04:37:48 AM · #42
I think any type of post processing works when it's not noticed. (Or works better, at least.) We shouldn't be looking at the photo and thinking about what was done in photoshop, we should be seeing the photo. I can't really comment on what the shot would look like with no desat because I don't know.
08/21/2006 04:40:42 AM · #43
A shallow DOF is quite noticeable right? It works because it's noticeable, right? So to get a better understanding of where you are coming from an "effect" done in camera (like shallow DOF, bokeh, etc) can "work" when noticeable but an effect done in photoshop should always be unnoticeable? Is that basically where you are coming from?

ETA: Sorry about the hijacking of this thread but I blame mk for that. :P

Message edited by author 2006-08-21 04:42:42.
08/21/2006 04:47:33 AM · #44
Originally posted by yanko:

A shallow DOF is quite noticeable right? It works because it's noticeable, right? So to get a better understanding of where you are coming from an "effect" done in camera (like shallow DOF, bokeh, etc) can "work" when noticeable but an effect done in photoshop should always be unnoticeable? Is that basically where you are coming from?

ETA: Sorry about the hijacking of this thread but I blame mk for that. :P


I wouldn't say "always" in either case. There are no real absolutes in photography, I don't think. And I'm not sure I'd especially say that a shallow DOF is "quite noticeable." I think it's less noticeable than a painfully busy background. What I'm saying is that when I, personally (me, myself, I, not you or anyone else or another photographer or someone's mom) look at a photo, I prefer to be thinking about what the photo is about, not what the processing is. In Karmabreeze's entry, for example, since this is her thread, when I look at it, I'm thinking more about the selective desat than I am about the actual intended subject matter.

Is my quiz almost over? I'm getting sleepy.
08/21/2006 04:50:31 AM · #45
Fine... I'll give you an incomplete. I'm tired also.
08/21/2006 06:53:50 AM · #46
Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:



I like spectacular myself. And yet, I had to dig way down to 38th place before I found a single disembodied flame when ordered by my vote. All of my picks did something original and managed a good photo of it at the same time. And that was what made a spectacular photo in this challenge. In my opinion.


Your problem is that you wish the voters to conform to you, instead of you conforming to the voters. It's a common mistake. It's not going to happen. You will, eventually, decide to either:

A) Start submitting photographs that appeal to the masses in order to get the scores you crave

B) Decide that scores don't really matter and just submit what you like, get that small exposure for your work, and work on bettering yourself apart from DPC

or...

C) Eventually get so pissed off that nobody understands you and your work that you quit in a forum drama huff.. either to eventually come back a changed person (sometimes).. or never be heard from again.

It's your call, really, but the truth of the matter is.. Images here get scored where they generally deserve to get scored as pertains to DPC and the mob that are the voters. Every once in a while, threads get started to celebrate images that might have been overlooked, but it never changes anything.. and it never will.


what he said. (impressively stated)

It's a shot of a cool experience and I'm sure someone trying to promote these types of experiences would be interested (like the reference to a brochure for the Scouts) but to someone who wasn't at the event and doesn't expect to ever need to be at such an event it just isn't a compelling image. Remember, it doesn't matter to the voters what you had to go through to get the shot, it doesn't matter who you met at the event or where it was held or how much the event mattered to you. All that matters to the voters is did you capture a compelling, "spectacular" (thanks Bear) image that they connect with; not one that "they could connect with if only they . . . ." If the viewers on DPC don't feel sucked into the bright, shiny image it just isn't going to get a high score (and fall back on Artyste's comments here).
08/21/2006 07:05:14 AM · #47
Originally posted by faidoi:

Originally posted by mk:



My point was that selective desaturation is frequently used in situations where a shallow DOF would have been preferred but wasn't executed for whatever reason. For me, simply desaturating the background doesn't solve the problem of a distracting background. It's true that overall, I am not a fan of selective desaturation. There's nothing wrong with that, it's my personal opinion and I'm entitled to it. I see very few instances where it actually seems to work with the photo and isn't used as a gimmick or a crutch. This is one of the rare images where I felt it did work very well.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10084/thumb/61991.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10084/thumb/61991.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' :P


Haha, cute tongue. In this posted image selective desaturation wasn't use to "declutter" the background; to the contrary, this image maintains its clutter (which seems considerably less than the background in the OP's image to start with) and selective desat was used to bring out a major element that runs through the whole image (greater than a small piece of the image that the firey snowball takes up in the OP's image).
08/21/2006 08:15:00 AM · #48
I think we have all had shots that we thought should have been voted higher. If shooting stock has taught me anything, itís that we need to accept other people's criticism with thick skin. Karma, donít take it personally. Youíre results this week are not a criticism of your abilities as a photographer.
08/21/2006 09:15:05 AM · #49
Originally posted by mk:

I think any type of post processing works when it's not noticed. (Or works better, at least.)


This is possibly the most valuable and to the point thing said in this thread. But what if it's not meant to be subtle? It seems to me one thing to say, "I can tell you you've post-processed this and that wasn't what you intended, and therefore it doesn't work" and "the pp couldn't be more obvious than if I were smacked in the face with a cast iron skillet, it was clearly an intended visual effect". But overall, this statement is probably the only thing that will stick with me after this thread has died.

Originally posted by L2:

First, the amount of fire that was in that shot doesn't even take up 10% of the frame. For me, it would have missed the challenge because I'd suspect the photo was taken for something else, and just shoe-horned in the challenge because "Oh, it has fire in it."


The third place image has the suggestion of fire but no fire at all. It isn't even the subject. And yet...

I also really don't understand this prevailing mentality that just because something looks found rather than staged then it MUST be a shoehorn or is somehow devalued. I actually went up the mountain that morning knowing fire was going to be a part of the camp and looking forward to it as I knew I had a Fire challenge to shoot for - nothing unintentional there at all. But as others have said, DPC seems to devalue anything that wouldn't sell in stock, and as much as people seem to talk about photojournalism, very few seem to appeciate it very much.

Originally posted by Artyste:

Of course, if all you wanted to hear is "Oh, we're sorry, you're right, it is indeed an 8, I must have been blind"..


You've misinterpreted me. I would have voted it an 8 on my scale, but the score I figured it would wind up at was actually 5.8-6.0 and I was okay with that. My scale is mine and I don't expect anyone else to vote according to it. My prediction on what people would vote for Fire was clearly faulty, but I don't expect anyone to use my methods.

Message edited by author 2006-08-21 09:18:13.
08/21/2006 09:28:13 AM · #50
Originally posted by karmabreeze:

I would have voted it an 8 on my scale...


So you're saying, with your average vote cast of 5.2 that you really think that if you randomly came across that photo in a challenge, that you would have voted that nearly 3 entire steps up from average and only two steps away from an entirely perfect photo? I find it hard to believe.

You just need to step back because you asked for feedback, you got it, but you're still arguing how your shot deserves higher placement and belittling other people (like the third place winner) because their entries don't 'fit the challenge' in your mind.

In all honesty, I think you're being selfish and stuborn. Just learn from this and move on. But while you're in the process, really step back and ask yourself (and only answer to yourself) what you would give that photograph if you stumbled upon it randomly in a challenge.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 03:48:28 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 © 2001-2021 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: 09/28/2021 03:48:28 AM EDT.