Comment about Challenge 8 voting

Dee Golden said:

Hedgehog

OK I kind of get what you are thinkiing of. I hate speadsheets, and
it wouldn't be easy for me to figure out how to do it. But an
experienced spread-sheeter would be able to do it.

Dee

Click to expand...

koo22 said:

please don't take offense, I simply am curious about this. You did
a great job. K.

Click to expand...

Shutter said:

You shouldn't need a disclaimer. This is a digital photography
forum, and I think it should be assumed that images are being
post-processed to some degree or other. And as someone said (sgt.
Pinback?), the end result should be all that matters.

My comments were only to reflect my limitations in evaluation,
and my need/desire to get passed my bias'. If we start labeling,
it would become a 'we' vs. 'they' mentality. May as well add
another category.

Please oh please oh please don't start making any disclaimers.
That would ruin a little bit of it for me. Its not your problem,
its mine.

Jim

cUrVe said:

David Pichevin said:

cUrVe said:

hey jim
i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this
misconception. it could have been anyone.
with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much.
and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of
acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have
successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and
are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.
i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems
because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they
could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites,
heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me
because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can
do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography
is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an
auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something
really needs fixing.

Click to expand...

I feel that way too. Although I'm not that much of a photographer
or grphic artist, I now try my best with the camera, but then use
Photoshop-like tools (if needed) as they belong to the array of
tools that make digital photography, the same way ass the film
photographer has his lab, his colored filters etc...

I think that some people unconsciously decide in their minds what a
"real" photo should look like, and what can only have been done
through processing.

When I did that Nosferatu photo for challenge 6, I had pretty good
comments and that was really cool, but I had the feeling that my
photo was just viewed as an original photoshop composite picture. I
had actually spent a lot of time with lamps, the geometry of my
staircase etc... to try to get the photo right and the only thing
that was done in software was only to give it the B&W grainy look
and a crop.

It makes you feel like yelling "THIS NOT A COMPOSITE" in order to
have people not dismiss it right away as it is for them not
photography but something else.

David.
--
My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

Click to expand...

--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Shay said:

Using a photo editor is the direct equivalent of the dark room.
How many great photographers submit their negatives as their
images?!?! How many great photographers take the photo and then
decide not to fine tune the development. Ansel adams spent as much
time photographing a subject as he did developing the negative and
tweeking the normal development to get the effect he was looking
for. Then when making a print from that negative he did the same
thing with development tweeks and dodging and burning to make the
final print. Photoshoped images are no different from the
traditional film photography you see every day, the only difference
is that you don't know what has been done behind the closed door of
the dark room whereas a phototographer who openly explains how a
photo was photoshopped gets less respect because the secret is
known..."Oh he used a composite, well thats not art or photography"
If only they knew how many traditional film photos were made using
those very same techniques ;-) But what is the point of the
challenge? Is it to grow personally, or to win the challenge? If
it is to grow personally, then your style and technique will
continue to improve and develop, if it is to win, then your images
will become stale and unimaginative as you attempt to please the
ever changing tastes of the viewers, like an entertainer who stops
growing and becomes a characature of himself trying to please the
critics. Regardless of the technique or technology used, follow
your style and improve your technique wherever that path leads you.
Unique points of view and beautiful images will bring pleasure to
both yourself and the viewers of your images.

I thought about submitting images anonomously so that no one would
know before hand how the image was created, but then you squelch
the discussion about how it was made, you deny others the chance to
offer suggestions and others the chance to learn something new. I
have decided that I have a developing style and technique that
indeed brings enjoyment to myself and others. Sharing techniques
also brings benefit to others. Eventually I will be able to create
images that are impossible not to enjoy. "Winning" a challenge is
not the goal, being considered a pure photographer is not the goal,
learning to create great images is the goal and to that goal may,
we all succeed.

Click to expand...

Shay said:

Using a photo editor is the direct equivalent of the dark room.
How many great photographers submit their negatives as their
images?!?! How many great photographers take the photo and then
decide not to fine tune the development. Ansel adams spent as much
time photographing a subject as he did developing the negative and
tweeking the normal development to get the effect he was looking
for. Then when making a print from that negative he did the same
thing with development tweeks and dodging and burning to make the
final print. Photoshoped images are no different from the
traditional film photography you see every day, the only difference
is that you don't know what has been done behind the closed door of
the dark room whereas a phototographer who openly explains how a
photo was photoshopped gets less respect because the secret is
known..."Oh he used a composite, well thats not art or photography"
If only they knew how many traditional film photos were made using
those very same techniques ;-) But what is the point of the
challenge? Is it to grow personally, or to win the challenge? If
it is to grow personally, then your style and technique will
continue to improve and develop, if it is to win, then your images
will become stale and unimaginative as you attempt to please the
ever changing tastes of the viewers, like an entertainer who stops
growing and becomes a characature of himself trying to please the
critics. Regardless of the technique or technology used, follow
your style and improve your technique wherever that path leads you.
Unique points of view and beautiful images will bring pleasure to
both yourself and the viewers of your images.

I thought about submitting images anonomously so that no one would
know before hand how the image was created, but then you squelch
the discussion about how it was made, you deny others the chance to
offer suggestions and others the chance to learn something new. I
have decided that I have a developing style and technique that
indeed brings enjoyment to myself and others. Sharing techniques
also brings benefit to others. Eventually I will be able to create
images that are impossible not to enjoy. "Winning" a challenge is
not the goal, being considered a pure photographer is not the goal,
learning to create great images is the goal and to that goal may,
we all succeed.
--
Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://f707.shay.ws/

Click to expand...

Hedgehog said:

You will probably win the next challenge. If you do, I volunteer to
do the tally for you if you adopt such a system. Making the
spreadsheet for it would be seriously trivial.

---------------

Dee Golden said:

Hedgehog

OK I kind of get what you are thinkiing of. I hate speadsheets, and
it wouldn't be easy for me to figure out how to do it. But an
experienced spread-sheeter would be able to do it.

Dee

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

cUrVe said:

Shutter said:

AVB and others,

Okay, that probably doesn't make sense. So, for example, I'm
pretty inept at post-processing and photo manipulation, but I love
to take landscapes, night shots, basically anything outdoors. When
evaluating a photo, do I respect a manipulated or composite photo
more/less becausue I haven't tried it (You Spin Me Round)? What
about a clarity of a nightshot that I have never been able to
achieve, but have tried and tried (Shay's Seattle shots)? Or
someone capturing a photo opportunity that just happens by (Walking
Alone Together).

Sadly, I think I need to broaden my perspective. I think I tend to
vote for and/or admire photos that I have tried or wished for
rather than those that I haven't tried. I suppose its somewhat
natural, but is it fair? Spin Me Round by cUrVe is a perfect
example. I really think its super cool (along with all of his
other stuff), but when it came down to it, I was pretty
conservative in my voting.

Click to expand...

i just want everybody to know that on my "you spin me round,
round..." photo, the colors are in fact a naturally occuring
phenomenon whereby the lazer etched patterns in the vinyl act like
prisms reflecting the light as the record rotates at 45 revolutions
per minute. with a 25 second exposure the colors appear randomly
scattered throughout the surface of the record as each revolution
brings differently shaped patterns into position, sometimes
overlapping previously imaged shapes to create a kaleidoscope of
colors. in other words i had nothing to do with it except press the
button and stand back.
the photoshop manipulation involved slight levels and contrast
tweaking only.
just so you know in the future, not one of my photos is a composite
and none have color or effects added to them other than what you
get when you go crazy with the contrast level.
the funny thing is, i almost didn't enter this photo and i also
almost pulled it because it is one of the least manipulated photos
i have ever taken.
--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

Click to expand...

Hedgehog said:

Hi Dee,

I liked your "Drip", but as you say, after writing comments to
PBASE for several images, it was just taking too long. I have a
fast connection on my side, so if the Challenge gallery comments
were also fast, I would write comments on all the images (I type
quickly too. . PBASE doesn't allow this. PBASE, however, does
post the images themselves quickly.

Perhaps we should keep posting the images on PBASE, but post the
comments elsewhere? Maybe at the recently constructed F-707
bulletin board? (That's very fast). I know that someone will
suggest a good solution.

=Hedgehog

Click to expand...

Shay said:

Using a photo editor is the direct equivalent of the dark room.
How many great photographers submit their negatives as their
images?!?! How many great photographers take the photo and then
decide not to fine tune the development. Ansel adams spent as much
time photographing a subject as he did developing the negative and
tweeking the normal development to get the effect he was looking
for. Then when making a print from that negative he did the same
thing with development tweeks and dodging and burning to make the
final print. Photoshoped images are no different from the
traditional film photography you see every day, the only difference
is that you don't know what has been done behind the closed door of
the dark room whereas a phototographer who openly explains how a
photo was photoshopped gets less respect because the secret is
known..."Oh he used a composite, well thats not art or photography"
If only they knew how many traditional film photos were made using
those very same techniques ;-) But what is the point of the
challenge? Is it to grow personally, or to win the challenge? If
it is to grow personally, then your style and technique will
continue to improve and develop, if it is to win, then your images
will become stale and unimaginative as you attempt to please the
ever changing tastes of the viewers, like an entertainer who stops
growing and becomes a characature of himself trying to please the
critics. Regardless of the technique or technology used, follow
your style and improve your technique wherever that path leads you.
Unique points of view and beautiful images will bring pleasure to
both yourself and the viewers of your images.

I thought about submitting images anonomously so that no one would
know before hand how the image was created, but then you squelch
the discussion about how it was made, you deny others the chance to
offer suggestions and others the chance to learn something new. I
have decided that I have a developing style and technique that
indeed brings enjoyment to myself and others. Sharing techniques
also brings benefit to others. Eventually I will be able to create
images that are impossible not to enjoy. "Winning" a challenge is
not the goal, being considered a pure photographer is not the goal,
learning to create great images is the goal and to that goal may,
we all succeed.
--
Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://f707.shay.ws/

Click to expand...

Dee Golden said:

Oh, I don't think I'll ever win a challenge. But it would be nice
to place. At one point I thought I would but now my photo is in 4th
place.

Click to expand...

Dee Golden said:

New board?

Click to expand...

Shutter said:

You shouldn't need a disclaimer. This is a digital photography
forum, and I think it should be assumed that images are being
post-processed to some degree or other. And as someone said (sgt.
Pinback?), the end result should be all that matters.

My comments were only to reflect my limitations in evaluation,
and my need/desire to get passed my bias'. If we start labeling,
it would become a 'we' vs. 'they' mentality. May as well add
another category.

Please oh please oh please don't start making any disclaimers.
That would ruin a little bit of it for me. Its not your problem,
its mine.

Jim

cUrVe said:

David Pichevin said:

cUrVe said:

hey jim
i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this
misconception. it could have been anyone.
with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much.
and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of
acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have
successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and
are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.
i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems
because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they
could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites,
heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me
because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can
do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography
is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an
auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something
really needs fixing.

Click to expand...

I feel that way too. Although I'm not that much of a photographer
or grphic artist, I now try my best with the camera, but then use
Photoshop-like tools (if needed) as they belong to the array of
tools that make digital photography, the same way ass the film
photographer has his lab, his colored filters etc...

I think that some people unconsciously decide in their minds what a
"real" photo should look like, and what can only have been done
through processing.

When I did that Nosferatu photo for challenge 6, I had pretty good
comments and that was really cool, but I had the feeling that my
photo was just viewed as an original photoshop composite picture. I
had actually spent a lot of time with lamps, the geometry of my
staircase etc... to try to get the photo right and the only thing
that was done in software was only to give it the B&W grainy look
and a crop.

It makes you feel like yelling "THIS NOT A COMPOSITE" in order to
have people not dismiss it right away as it is for them not
photography but something else.

David.
--
My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

Click to expand...

--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Shay said:

Using a photo editor is the direct equivalent of the dark room.
How many great photographers submit their negatives as their
images?!?! How many great photographers take the photo and then
decide not to fine tune the development. Ansel adams spent as much
time photographing a subject as he did developing the negative and
tweeking the normal development to get the effect he was looking
for. Then when making a print from that negative he did the same
thing with development tweeks and dodging and burning to make the
final print. Photoshoped images are no different from the
traditional film photography you see every day, the only difference
is that you don't know what has been done behind the closed door of
the dark room whereas a phototographer who openly explains how a
photo was photoshopped gets less respect because the secret is
known..."Oh he used a composite, well thats not art or photography"
If only they knew how many traditional film photos were made using
those very same techniques ;-) But what is the point of the
challenge? Is it to grow personally, or to win the challenge? If
it is to grow personally, then your style and technique will
continue to improve and develop, if it is to win, then your images
will become stale and unimaginative as you attempt to please the
ever changing tastes of the viewers, like an entertainer who stops
growing and becomes a characature of himself trying to please the
critics. Regardless of the technique or technology used, follow
your style and improve your technique wherever that path leads you.
Unique points of view and beautiful images will bring pleasure to
both yourself and the viewers of your images.

I thought about submitting images anonomously so that no one would
know before hand how the image was created, but then you squelch
the discussion about how it was made, you deny others the chance to
offer suggestions and others the chance to learn something new. I
have decided that I have a developing style and technique that
indeed brings enjoyment to myself and others. Sharing techniques
also brings benefit to others. Eventually I will be able to create
images that are impossible not to enjoy. "Winning" a challenge is
not the goal, being considered a pure photographer is not the goal,
learning to create great images is the goal and to that goal may,
we all succeed.
--
Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://f707.shay.ws/

Click to expand...

Shutter said:

Personally, I'm disappointed when a shot doesn't get any
comments, because then I just assume that its a bad shot and noone
wants to offend me. For instance, I actually pulled one motion
shot towards the end because it wasn't receiving any feedback, so I
thought I'd try something else. I would never pull a shot that
has any feedback, but I figured "who'd notice"?

Sometimes a shot may be very good technically, and really meet what
the challenge is going for, but be rather, umm, boring. That was
probably the case with the submission that I pulled. But then, I
didn't get any comments on the other two either :-( I would have
loved any comments, positive or otherwise as long as they were
constructive. I also understand with 150 entries, and a very slow
method for posting comments, that people prefer to comment on only
those that excite them.

I'm guilty of this, but not because I'm afraid to comment, but only
because I don't want to look like the "bad guy".

I'm glad I came after the hoopla about the 707, and right in time
to enjoy the challenges when they began to catch fire.

BTW: Anyone else notice how many people posted submissions in that
first challenge but haven't been seen since?

Thanks AVB,

Jim

A Van Beek said:

I actually have enjoyed hearing how people decide on what makes a
good picture as much as looking at the images themselves. It makes
me realize that I'm no more crazy in my subjectivity than anyone
else.

One thing that seems to be lacking from our Challenges (not that
they aren't great but why not improve it), is why people don't like
pictures or how they could be better. Getting compliments is great
but I tend to learn much more from mistakes than anything else. Two
people (Graeme and Dee) have mentioned that they would have
preferred to see "Bella Attack" cropped to center and I appreciate
their opinions.

Perhaps what we need as a part of the Challenge is the agreement
that we all critique eachother's work without worry about insulting
eachother. This would help everyone a great deal as long as we are
all willing to take it. It would also prompt people to explain what
they were getting at with their images.

Just a thought,
AVB

A Van Beek said:

This is a rhetorical comment:

After reading through all of the votes so far I am left with one
important impression:
What makes a good photo is very subjective and one should not
expect everyone to like what you do.

It's amazing to me how I can see an image and be so impressed by it
yet there are others who don't even vote for it. We are all so
affected by who we are when we look at images that our tastes vary
dramatically. We can all usually agree on what makes a good
technical image but what we like is usually a different matter.

It is this one fact that make photography so tirelessly interesting
and fun for me.

Regards,
AVB

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Dee Golden said:

Has anyone tallied up the number of people who submitted photos to
see if they all voted? Just curious. I haven't counted the
individual people entering, but it seems like there could be more
people voting.

Dee

Click to expand...