Yeah.... :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by kulrom^
Printable View
Yeah.... :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by kulrom^
It looks to me to be photographs of paintings. No offence meant @Atheist, but are these photographs of real landscapes or photographs of paintings (as you have mentioned in painting of a bridge)?Quote:
Originally Posted by akhileshbc
.
Honeybee, they are real, I'll vouch for that.
Perhaps you should have gone to Specsavers :D
There are so many stunning places out there... all over the world....!Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
If we have a good HD camera (which costs 50k or more ; which I can't afford :D), and a good skill to capture the beauty hidden in the nature or in anything, we will certainly be to able get those kind of photos... ! :wave: :thumb:
Have you heard of HDR Photographs?Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
While I neglected to say anything in this contest, my intent was to showcase the picture-taking skills of our members rather than their picture-editing skills. So while I've allowed them this time, in the future HDR and other heavily edited photos won't be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by abhijit
My first time submissions :blush: so please be gentle on me :lol:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36862954@N08/
Just in time:)Quote:
Originally Posted by koolsid
Time to vote!
View them all in one place.
Liss, I want the opportunity to alter my submissions then, if my photos are now to be "tainted" with the concept of pseudo-non-eligibility (some of them were edited on a PC), then I am at a disadvantage as I submitted them in good faith.
I don't know if you're serious or not but all the entries submitted in this contest, including yours, are okay under the current rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Are you sure about that?
HDR is a valid and well documented photographic technique. It is no more outlandish than noise reduction, saturation enhancement or tone mapping, all of which are built-in to many modern cameras.
I don't use it myself but I think that it is foolish to prohibit it because it involves some effort on the photographer's behalf.
Instead of barring certain techniques, why not have a few classes instead, one for advanced editing (HDR, depth merge, Orton etc...), one for regular enhancements (the normal stuff people use photoshop for) and another class for "holiday snaps" that have undergone no alterations at all ("so help me god").
This is a common problem I've seen in photo contests... and it always comes down to the quesiton of just how much editing should be allowed. Having different classes never works... because of that level of editing. Just how edited does something need to be before it qualifies for one category vs the other? The problem is that you've got people who know their stuff and can take advantage of things like that, and others who wouldn't know how to color saturate their way out of a black and white photo.
-tg
You have a point and your suggestion is not a bad idea. I'll bring it up again before the next contest.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
TG, granted the classes system is not a cure-all, but I think most people could be happy with three subgroups, than one big group full of controversy.
With classes, I think most people would vote in the class that most interests them anyway.
I agree with wossname. Some scenes (like Atheist's "Mill") can't be captured without multiple exposures.
I'm not a fan of the overcooked tone mapping though.
Where/how do i vote? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
See post #1
The problem with splitting it into subgroups is that you'll end up with a group with just Atheist. I don't think we have a large enough photography base to have subgroups.
HDR is a valid photographic technique... if the contest will be based on 'picture-taking skills' than shall I not use a lens with image stabilisation?
ILMV
i agree with ILMV; anyway Atheist's Mill photo was not my first choice! ;)
Okay, I appreciate the input that I've gotten and after thinking about it overnight I've withdrawn my objection to edited photos. What do you think about this? I'll ask entrants on a voluntary basis to briefly describe any outside-the-camera editing that was done on the photos. This will enable us to learn from each other. Case in point - I had never heard of HDR photos. I will also create a new "Best unedited photo" category for those that weren't edited.
My photos are real... No editing was done to the pics.... :wave:
I rotated one image 90 degrees.
Some one will need to explain HDR.... to me HDR is an architectural firm.
-tg
Mine were unedited too...
Though there is no harm in editing your pics to give them an extra edge but I like the idea of "Best unedited photo" category...
If you shoot in RAW mode, you do need to "edit" the photo before you can output it as a jpeg. Some of these edits not very different from what happens to film in the darkroom.
I have adjusted the exposure levels on each of the photos that I have submitted. A P & S (point & shoot) camera would do that for you automatically. So can a SLR if you prefer to shoot in jpeg mode.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=HDRQuote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
The term "HDR" is usually applied to any image which is a composite of multiple exposures, with dynamic range compressed so that it can be rendered in a sRGB colour space.
Technically speaking, a HDR image can't be displayed on a modern screen. The images which we are discussing have been tone mapped and are no longer HDR. In this case the term is referring to the process rather than the result.
Martin, I don't believe there is much merit to a category of "unedited" photos. As abhijit said, all photos have to be edited in some fashion, so it becomes a case of drawing an arbitrary line somewhere which could just lead to disagreement. For example, I fiddle with levels and curves on all of my shots and crop 99% of them as well, but I wouldn't call any of that editing. Someone else might.
I don't totally agree because certainly a picture uploaded directly from a point-and-shoot camera would not be edited but I recognize your point. Hopefully we could agree on a definition for editing such as anything done outside the camera (with perhaps the exception of cropping). That would make the processing of RAW images editing as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
My main purpose in bringing up the issue of "heavily edited" photos was that I felt that they had an advantage over photos taken by people who might not have access to PhotoShop, etcetera, but considering that none of my entries have been edited and that I've done fairly well may mean that it's not an issue. In any case if we can't agree on some reasonable definition then the worst thing that could happen is that I won't even ask and all images will be lumped into the same group which is the way it has been.
BTW, why hasn't everyone voted?
I voted for myself lol
btw, may i publicly ask if the Mendhak's photo #2 is edited at all? I love that photography and it's my favorite :)
Just so nobody is confused, he's joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by kulrom^
I don't think it's much of an issue, because as you said the "unedited" photos are often just as good if not better than "edited" ones. The image is what counts... enhancements are just that.
because the voting booth is blocked at work, and I haven't had time yet... sheesh Martin... keep your shirt on... no, really, I insist... keep it on.
:p
-tg
Thanks for sharing your awesome photos, everyone. :) mendhak, wossname and Atheist - you guys have my favorite sets.
:)
kulrom - #2 isn't edited, I used spot metering to get the mist properly.
I am in favor of the argument that editing doesn't matter. My #1 pick for this contest was a photograph where editing will not matter (can only make it worse).
All the entries were awesome. Congratulations to all! :thumb:
I hope this year I get some time off; last year keeping the job kept me busy. :cry:
Actually this makes perfect sense! :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv_rnjn