Photo Competition Discussion Thread

[Dary]

Originally Posted by zeppelin

Presumably, although it could be limited due to the forum software itself, in which case it can't be changed. Much the same way that only ten images are allowed per post, I'm guessing the poll option limit is because of a similar reason.

Enforcing a policy to allow only one vote between the two threads, in the case of more than 16 entries, would be the fairest and easiest way to address the issue.

believe me, it can be changed. and images per post can be changed too.

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by Dary

believe me, it can be changed. and images per post can be changed too.

Yes. VBulletin allows for unlimited polling options and image posting. However, this would affect the boards globally. So, there may be other considerations in play.

JT

[zeppelin]

That's what I was thinking (in the case of more options being possible), Wouter probably has reasons for allowing a maximum of 15 votes. Having 15 or more entries doesn't happen enough for me to bother him about changing it.

Originally Posted by Rockefella

Don't worry about what I've bolded. I know what it's like to run the photo comps and it gives you the feeling of your own hands being tied because it's so difficult to please every party involved in the issues present. I like the update though. Keep on keepin-on.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[aiasib]

say, has the Auto Comp (#218) been put on hiatus or sthng?

[Dary]

There is a lot of mess here,

- "Standing 2009" seems to be incorrect or not updated.
- Shot of the month, stopped.
- Timing for the new threads and polls.


I missed u Zeppelin.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Referring particularly to the last automotive competition (225), it may sound as an obvious and pretentious request due to pat_ernzen shot maybe, but I'm not referring to his shot in particular, it's something I noticed since some time:
Can we make it "mandatory" to list the exif and editing done to the shot?

I'm not complaining, trying to defend unedited shots or something.
It's more like trying to understand what's in that shot and what is making it looking that way, referring to all shots I mean.

Like, we understood why Henk's shot is so since he posted also a shot taken just a little before the flames came out of the exhausts in the entries thread.

On the other hand, I don't have a clue on how a lot of the other shots were taken, without the exif I don't know how to achieve a similar result, I can't say if it was dark or not as I don't know how much the exposition lasted, or I can't say if the shadows were so visible due to the sun or to improved blacks with PS and the likes.

Thoughts?

[cmcpokey]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

Referring particularly to the last automotive competition (225), it may sound as an obvious and pretentious request due to pat_ernzen shot maybe, but I'm not referring to his shot in particular, it's something I noticed since some time:
Can we make it "mandatory" to list the exif and editing done to the shot?

I'm not complaining, trying to defend unedited shots or something.
It's more like trying to understand what's in that shot and what is making it looking that way, referring to all shots I mean.

Like, we understood why Henk's shot is so since he posted also a shot taken just a little before the flames came out of the exhausts in the entries thread.

On the other hand, I don't have a clue on how a lot of the other shots were taken, without the exif I don't know how to achieve a similar result, I can't say if it was dark or not as I don't know how much the exposition lasted, or I can't say if the shadows were so visible due to the sun or to improved blacks with PS and the likes.

Thoughts?

im down with this. i only post what i do when it is something significant, other than contrast and brightness. but then again, i have no idea how to do the stuff that Pat and others do.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

...

I actually normally post my EXIF data at least, but the way I save them strips the data and when I posted my photo the HD with the originals wasn't connected (and isn't right now, internal SATA and my system drops it all the time, really annoying) at the moment. I'll post it once I restart my computer.

The amount of work done to my shots varies drastically. Since this one is for my magazine (likely the title image for this article) there was quite a bit done to it. I didn't take it or edit with the intent of entering it, but then I was like, "Eh, why not? I never enter contests any more." Obviously I'm one of the big supporters of post-processing and think that virtually any shot can be improved with minor processing. It's really an integral part of modern photography and when I see things like "unedited/uncropped", in most cases I just think about how much better the shot could be, not how I'm impressed with it being untouched... especially since the camera itself does some processing and it's likely not shot on full manual anyway.

EDIT: Restarted my computer and added info to the submission thread. Here it is again, though:

EXIF data:
f3.5
1/60s
200ISO
41mm
@ ~6:00PM while hanging from the passenger side of a Miata

[IBrake4Rainbows]

EXIF data is generally available via a "properties" search of a Photo correct?

Perhaps just not be lazy people?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows

EXIF data is generally available via a "properties" search of a Photo correct?

Perhaps just not be lazy people?

Sure, a lot of times it is, unless the picture was made by the "save for web" option, which strips the EXIF apart to save KBs.

My point is that a lot of people just won't do that, and it just gives a different approach to how the image is perceived. Not thinking about the voting thing.

I am one of those who even care if the photo has been cropped or not, as I'm one of those who always forgot there is the possibility to crop and I always "waste" a lot of time trying to get the right point of view.

In the end, as there has always been a bit of a "diatribe" between those who are into editing shots and those who would leave them alone all the time, I think it would be a right move to allows people recognizing who's the man behind the shot.
You may be into heavy photoshopping and be happy to know what has been done to the shot, or you can be into "natural" pics and be happy to know the image wasn't edited.
Or maybe you're just curious.

I think posting these details (editing and EXIF) is like posting only images taken during the time frame allowed by the competition.
I could save the shot so that the shooting date isn't viable anymore and claim it's a recent shot, which is silly, but still a possibility.

In the same way, why not describing a bit what's into the shot, technically?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The only people who will be affected by how an image was created are those who are interested.

Most of the people who vote in this competition are interested in shiny objects at pretty angles, and with nice colours and textures.

The serious photographers, the ones who give a damn, should make an effort to right click.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows

The serious photographers, the ones who give a damn, should make an effort to right click.

I just did that on Pokey's shot in competition 225. If you are able to tell me what the exiv data are, you must be a genius.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

well then change the upload arrangement so you dont lose that info.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows

well then change the upload arrangement so you dont lose that info.

it really starts with the way the (reduced size) pictures are saved. But you have just proven that your original comment about lazyness required some nuances....

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Lazyness on behalf of the viewer, or the poster?