Weren't you postulating that the more subtely edited shots would win the challenge?
High scores don't indicate voters like the editing rules, nor does it minimize the concerns of the 'tempest in the teapot' forum posters who would like to see the expert editing ruleset changed/dismissed.
It just means that computer generated art makes people drool. That shouldn't be news unless you haven't seen a blockbuster movie in the last decade or two.
It just means that computer generated art makes people drool. That shouldn't be news unless you haven't seen a blockbuster movie in the last decade or two.
It's news for some of the people on the site who think that the only thing DPC is good for is photography. Apparently lots of people come looking for a wide variety of stuff.
Weren't you postulating that the more subtely edited shots would win the challenge?
Still, I'd consider 6 of the Top 10 to have a lighter touch for where it could have gone. Sure they are not advanced legal, but they aren't dominated by composite editing.
or maybe after a steady dose of 300+ entry challenges, it was easy to go thru and vote on a sub 100 one? With fewer entries, wouldn't you expect higher scores since there's less chances of similiar images, which seems to bring the avgs down in the bigger entry challenges.
It just means that computer generated art makes people drool. That shouldn't be news unless you haven't seen a blockbuster movie in the last decade or two.
It's news for some of the people on the site who think that the only thing DPC is good for is photography. Apparently lots of people come looking for a wide variety of stuff.
Put a naked woman handing out beer in a gallery full of master's works and I can tell you where the line will form. That doesn't mean the gallery should change its purpose...
or maybe after a steady dose of 300+ entry challenges, it was easy to go thru and vote on a sub 100 one? With fewer entries, wouldn't you expect higher scores since there's less chances of similiar images, which seems to bring the avgs down in the bigger entry challenges.
I think statistics would say the opposite. More entries should produce more possible outliers. (Think of the smartest person in a room of 100 people. Are the odds higher or lower that he/she is smarter than the smartest person in a room of 100,000 people?)
More votes (on each entry) should produce more "regression to the mean" (lower standard deviation).
I would love to see DPChallenge create a "digital art" category and run a challenge every week where there are no editing rules or "expert editing" is the rule set.
I just think it should be separated from 'photography' completely.
I like digital art. Don't get me wrong. I just choose not to do it myself. It's not my interest. More traditional photography will not be able to compete with it, and I believe that it should be segregated.
I'm not arguing any different John. In fact, I agree completely. We've only had a handful of expert editing challenges anyway. It just seems like Henny Penny always screams the sky is falling every time one occurs.
I would love to see DPChallenge create a "digital art" category and run a challenge every week where there are no editing rules or "expert editing" is the rule set.
I just think it should be separated from 'photography' completely.
I like digital art. Don't get me wrong. I just choose not to do it myself. It's not my interest. More traditional photography will not be able to compete with it, and I believe that it should be segregated.
That is a good suggestion. Digital art vs photography aside, having a straight digital art rule set where anything goes would also make things a lot easier to understand. As it stands now I'm more confused about what you can and can't do under expert editing than before. Of course seeing the originals might help. :)
I enjoy seeing an Expert editing challenge every so often (like as often as we have seen them), but personally I wouldn't want it to be a regular feature. To me it just seems to muddy the intent of the site, which I like to think is "photography." I'm probably in the minority with that view, but what're ya gonna do :)
Ok... I know that having too many rules can be a problem too, but if we were to have a digital "free-for-all" classification wouldn't that...couldn't that take things to a point where a photo could become total imagination? Wouldn't we need even more rules to even the playing field fairly?
I just installed CS2 on my system and am playing with it...so NOTHING i could come with could compete with those of you who have gone thru so many Photoshop incarnations. Oh, it would provide impetus to learn more and faster, but I couldn't compete. So wouldn't we be leaving a pretty vast number of members behind if it was an all out PP ruleset...or lack-a-ruleset?
I enjoy seeing an Expert editing challenge every so often (like as often as we have seen them), but personally I wouldn't want it to be a regular feature. To me it just seems to muddy the intent of the site, which I like to think is "photography." I'm probably in the minority with that view, but what're ya gonna do :)
93 entries produce 10 7+ scores? For all the tempest-in-a-teapot the forum dwellers have contributed on this issue, apparently the voters like it.
Just an observation.
It was easy to vote higher...
1) No vested interest in it.
2) No impact on WPL.
3) The subject was very good for this type of digital art crafting.
BTW - My top scores went to those that managed to be creative and still keep the entry looking like a photo. IMO (no disrespect to elsapo intended) the Blue Ribbon entry looks nothing like a photo - very well put together piece of art (it's absolutely stunning), but not a photo anymore.
The 'Overview' from the Expert Editing ruleset has this piece of advice: "Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature..."
I think that line needs to go as it seems rather insignificant anymore.
I enjoy seeing an Expert editing challenge every so often (like as often as we have seen them), but personally I wouldn't want it to be a regular feature. To me it just seems to muddy the intent of the site, which I like to think is "photography." I'm probably in the minority with that view, but what're ya gonna do :)
I'm with you. I enjoy the images that come out of Expert editing challenges, I'd even like to give it a try sometime, but I'd prefer that Expert editing in its current version be for the occasional challenge, not a regular feature. Same reasons as Alan.
