| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2002 08:59:21 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
... If you want to make a statement about your personal views or politics, this site will accept it. If you want to score well in the photo challenges, these items have not done well in the past...
Although... my current photo -- not shocking, but in a similar vein (also in vain...) -- is doing the best of all my entries so far. A few people disagreed with or missed my concept; many more commenters "got the point" (and liked it) than I was expecting.
I vote for having DQs only for technical violations (is that the latest policy anyway?), but none for content/interpretation except the site's existing global rules. If you don't think a photo meets the challenge (however you interpet that) then give it a 1. Otherwise, I don't think I'd ever vote a photo less than a 2. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:09:17 AM · #52 |
That is unfortunate... As I look at both photos, i would not have given you a different score for the unedited version.. that shot was one of my tens for this week...
Originally posted by greenem2:
Since some of you wanted to see examples of DQ'd photos I wanted to show you what not to do and how you can be caught. I was the one who took the "Absolut Abduction." photo. Shown here is the original(cropped), the one I submitted, and what it looks like with the levels over-boosted to show you what I did.
If you notice in the original, there is a halo effect around the neck. I tried getting rid of it using level adjustments and the like but couldn't do it. So, stupid me, I figured I'd bend the rules and simply erase it. I regret doing it now obviously (my average vote was around 7!). I don't feel I tried to "cheat" however. Just that this is not something you can do here. I do touch-ups like this for other pictures I post on the web as others do as well. Just let my DQ be a lesson for everyone who thinks they can get away with stuff like this. I'm still proud of the picture and the way it turned out. Anyways, I just wanted to share my woes with everyone and at least put my picture to rest.
-Matt
Original
Submitted
[url=//www.msu.edu/user/greenem2/images/absolutcurves.jpg]Caught[/link
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:13:03 AM · #53 |
i just can't stand it, i have to correct...:) you guys are trying to say LEWD, not lude, as in quaalude, as in the pill. sorry, i had to jump in!:) karma, when they say lewd, it mainly means obscene. i personally thought it was a little gross, but not anything to get up in arms about.
thanks for clearing that up for me, D or L used the spelling of lewd as lude, got me confused. :-)
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:13:20 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
That is unfortunate... As I look at both photos, i would not have given you a different score for the unedited version.. that shot was one of my tens for this week...
All I can say is I'm kicking myself in the ass right now.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 1:13:48 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:14:37 AM · #55 |
| Greenem, I hate it for you. The alteration doesn't even make that much difference to the picture. I guess that goes to show you no matter how tempted you are, don't make that little innocent adjustment. In the Curves Challenge, my entry had some little specks of reflection off of the background. I was tempted to erase them but didn't. Of course that was pointed out by someone but that's better than disqualification. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:14:41 AM · #56 |
Who broke that photo down to that level to find that something was wrong with it? It was so well done I really wonder who caught the problem.. :) Someone has too much time on their hands :)
Originally posted by greenem2:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]That is unfortunate... As I look at both photos, i would not have given you a different score for the unedited version.. that shot was one of my tens for this week...
All I can say is I'm kicking myself in the ass right now[/i]
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:17:50 AM · #57 |
greenem2....dude...what were you thinking?
That original was awesome, One of the best this week by a longshot and one of my top 3.
I would not have marked it down for that little halo effect either.
I agree, we all clean our photos up so often we forget how strict the rules are here. I submitted a photo this week that has a few light flares and I Know (cause I am getting comments on it) that it is costing me a few votes. These are so easy to clean in photoshop is seems a crime to limit this type of editing but thems the rules.
Still...fantastic photo...Feel good even if you got DQ'ed and I am glad you came back to repost it...thanks |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:20:13 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Who broke that photo down to that level to find that something was wrong with it? It was so well done I really wonder who caught the problem.. :) Someone has too much time on their hands :)
jm....I agree. Whoever broke that photo down..big whoop de doo.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:29:46 AM · #59 |
| i like the original better, damn that thing would have won by a longshot |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:47:43 AM · #60 |
| yep. the original is better. the cleaned up one looks cheesy. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 10:13:54 AM · #61 |
One of the things I like about this site is the strictness of the rules. It makes things a challenge. My photo in the current challenge has one problem in a small area that I took a lot of extra photos trying to fix. I was unsuccessful, but I submitted it anyway, and I learned more stuff in the attempt to fix it. I�m fairly good at turning good-to-average photos into decent art. I want to learn to take better photos in the first place.
BTW, I do take the strictness of the rules into account when voting on the photos. If I see very small imperfections that could be spot edited out, I try to ignore them when casting my vote.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 10:26:47 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
One of the things I like about this site is the strictness of the rules. It makes things a challenge. My photo in the current challenge has one problem in a small area that I took a lot of extra photos trying to fix. I was unsuccessful, but I submitted it anyway, and I learned more stuff in the attempt to fix it. I�m fairly good at turning good-to-average photos into decent art. I want to learn to take better photos in the first place.
BTW, I do take the strictness of the rules into account when voting on the photos. If I see very small imperfections that could be spot edited out, I try to ignore them when casting my vote.
I agree 100% with this.
I try to be more lenient in marking down small imperfections..especially lighting (dark lighting or glare ) because so few new people have access to quality lighting indoors. I even need to buy a cheap lighting kit as I am relying on either natural sunlight or some small desklamps I have and they both are unreliable. I gave all my strobes to my Sister 5 years ago and have never seen them again >:-(
If I see exceptionally clean photgraphy I will mark it up because I know how hard that is. But..umm..folks. If you have semi pro lighting kits, digital quality SLR's and megabuck photo editing software/hardware what in the world are you doing here? ..hehe
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:53:36 AM · #63 |
everything on this site, except some of this stuff on the newest | unsorted directory was lit with either the sunshine or ikea desklamps.
//www.pbase.com/magnetic9999
believe me, if you're creative, lighting is one area you DONT have to spend a lot of $ .. (or other monetary unit for our international friends)
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:02:26 PM · #64 |
| Yeah, you gotta make do with what you got. If you're creative, you can come up with some good stuff. I'd still like to get a set of AlienBee lights though.. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:11:06 PM · #65 |
| alienbees arent that expensive and i hear they're pretty good. why dont you get one ? |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:16:40 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
everything on this site, except some of this stuff on the newest | unsorted directory was lit with either the sunshine or ikea desklamps.
//www.pbase.com/magnetic9999
believe me, if you're creative, lighting is one area you DONT have to spend a lot of $ .. (or other monetary unit for our international friends)
Not a lot of money true..the thing is many folks never think about lighting until the shots getting ready to be made.
I think almost all of us here know that lighting (next to getting the shot in focus) is about the most important thing you can do to a photo. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:27:04 PM · #67 |
actually, probably the most common constructive criticism i give on here has to do with lighting shots. i vote on a lot of pics that look like they were either lit with the oncamera flash, or the straight room lighting. and that's ok, because right when i was first starting out, it didn't occur to me to manipulate the lighting to improve the image, just as it didnt occur to me to manipulate the background, etc. i was just paying attention to the content, but not the presentation. ive since come to realize that something as simple as just using a single sidelight can make a picture 'come alive'. that's all i did with my dummy picture: one sidelight at a high angle. here's another sidelit shot: just on a table with a lamp low on the table to give those loong shadows .. 
|
|
05/09/2002 01:12:08 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I try to be more lenient in marking down small imperfections..especially lighting (dark lighting or glare ) because so few new people have access to quality lighting indoors.
Don't get me started on lighting! I thought the lighting of my image looked almost perfect on my Mac at home. I went in to work on Monday and came here with my (uncalibrated) Windows monitor to find some of the details darkened out. I played around with my gamma settings at home, to see if it would look OK on Windows, but that doesn�t seem to have worked out too well. I can see it�s going to be a problem for me, since I like my images on the dark side.
I prefer shooting most things in natural light, and I pretty much hate flashes (which aren�t a strong point for Nikons anyway). To get around my lack of professional lights, I sometimes use clip lights and shoot at night or in the day in my windowless bathroom where I can control the ambient light better. (No, there really isn�t enough room in the bathroom to be doing this, and I usually end up with a sore back/knee/neck/whatever, but I�ve gotten some good photos that way.)
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 01:18:08 PM · #69 |
| Lighting is the one instruction I would love to see on this site. My photo in this challenge could have been much better if I had some know how with lighting. It didn't help that I chose a product that is hard to light well. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 02:28:04 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
Don't get me started on lighting! I thought the lighting of my image looked almost perfect on my Mac at home. I went in to work on Monday and came here with my (uncalibrated) Windows monitor to find some of the details darkened out. I played around with my gamma settings at home, to see if it would look OK on Windows, but that doesn�t seem to have worked out too well. I can see it�s going to be a problem for me, since I like my images on the dark side.
Here is what I have learned.
Mac Monitors are lit brighter by about .2 in gamma.
Meaning if you have a mac and want to make sure you are seen by a windows monitor in the appropriate light you need to have your gamma set to .8 on your video card to get a close approximation of a windows monitor.
Likewise, if you are lighting in a windows monitor you need to lighten your gamma up to 1.2 to make things look like they would on a Mac. Although since windows outnumbers mac by about 99 to 1 windows users don't worry about mac users..hehe
Many professional web pages and graphics sites are designed around Macs though so when they tell you to set your monitor to a certain brightness and they (the pro graphics site) gives you a code bar to calibrate to it will mean most Windows users will have to move their gamma up a bit.
To complicate matters, I have my gamma set at 1.4 because I use a modeling program for my work that looks best at that setting. I need to see all the shading details.
Sooooooo. I have to make sure I make my photos brighter than I would like on my monitor so most folks can see them properly.
When I am in real doubt about something serious I always print because prints are usually about .1 gamma or more darker than they will appear on monitors. If it looks good in print but maybe a bit too rich it will usually be ok for most people viewing.
To make matters even WORSE....most folks have their monitors way too dark because print looks better on darker monitors and most folks use their monitors for reading stuff.
Plus, I admit..I like my photos on the more saturated and dark side anyway.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 6:29:48 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 02:33:16 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Who broke that photo down to that level to find that something was wrong with it? It was so well done I really wonder who caught the problem.. :) Someone has too much time on their hands :)
Im not the person who did it.
Its not even terribly hard to go though and check the pictures for this. All you need is a unix box, a program called XV, and access to the pictures. There is a feature of xv that scrambles the color table randomly, -random I believe is the option. So a simple little script that does the equivilent of find picture in directory load it with the random option and open it in a window. Once you have the picture up you can click random a couple more times if your unsure.
Im sure similar stuff can be done in photoshop if you create your own plugin/macro. It is easy to see when a picture has been gimicked. It takes no more time than looking at the pictures.
(typo correction)
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 6:41:49 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 02:42:47 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
Don't get me started on lighting! I thought the lighting of my image looked almost perfect on my Mac at home. I went in to work on Monday and came here with my (uncalibrated) Windows monitor to find some of the details darkened out.
Here is a really great site about cross-platform gamma correction.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 03:18:11 PM · #73 |
| What do you expect in a politically correct world? I don't believe in censorship. If you disagree with something, the worst things you can do is hide it or cover it up? It is like people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves and they need someone to decide for them. I don't believe I voted or saw the pictures that were involved so how can I determine if it was right for me? If you think something is bad or poor taste then it probably is? Then the idiot that did this is the one to be looked down upon. How will anyone know if they cannot see the bad and good in the world to compare what is right? |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 04:58:57 PM · #74 |
Ok..first of all...I'm not the one who checked the photo ( it's 11 pm and I just got home from working 12 hours, I don't have time)...but after he posted the original and the submitted and the caught....I checked it out. I can tell you that it's simple to do in Photoshop. All you have to do is bring the photo up and adjust the curves to the brightest point which is what that "caught" photo is. You don't need any special programs or plug-ins. Just thought I'd add to the convo here. And personally....I think the original would have gotten my highest score too..just like the submitted one. Live and learn. :)
K
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 05:54:30 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
Here is a really great site about cross-platform gamma correction.
Thanks, Reuben. I like the clear explanation. Now if only I could afford Photoshop, instead of just Elements. ;-)
Originally posted by hokie:
When I am in real doubt about something serious I always print because prints are usually about .1 gamma or more darker than they will appear on monitors. If it looks good in print but maybe a bit too rich it will usually be ok for most people viewing.
To make matters even WORSE....most folks have their monitors way too dark because print looks better on darker monitors and most folks use their monitors for reading stuff.
Plus, I admit..I like my photos on the more saturated and dark side anyway
Mine printed just fine, but I have my home monitor and printer all calibrated, profile-matched, and whatever else I could find to do. It sounds as though if I liked my prints on the bright side, I'd be better off. Oh, well. I'll have to try following your instructions for tweaking the gamma or just hope people learn to love the dark. I've only gotten a couple of comments on it, but it makes me wish for the PNG format mentioned in Reuben's link.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/13/2025 02:44:31 PM  |
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: 04/13/2025 02:44:31 PM EDT.
|
