The photo was taken with the iphone 7 plus using the 10x zoom in low light from a moving car. When all of those are just right the images have a thick heavy noise that gives them a "painterly" look.
The only post processing was increase saturation and increase contrast.
Statistics
Place: 26 out of 64 Avg (all users): 5.4912 Avg (commenters): 6.0000 Avg (participants): 5.7222 Avg (non-participants): 5.0952 Views since voting: 396 Views during voting: 112 Votes: 57 Comments: 7 Favorites: 0
It is your obnoxious presentation, not your comment, that is offensive. A ‘good’ photographer understands the technical details. An ‘excellent’ photographer has forgotten them. A ’soul-less’ photographer judges the worth of a photo by them.
These irrelevant generalisations don't suffice to hide the utter nonsense of your primary statement.
None of what I said has been in any way "obnoxious". After taking the trouble to vote on a contest (on a site that has rapidly diminsihing voter numbers), I have subsequently taken the trouble to clearly and politely comment, explaining my vote - something that, as I'm sure you're aware, increasingly few participants of the site do these days. Receiving this kind of information is something that I personally value very highly on my own work, from other voters. I have subsequently returned to the discussion to answer some snide remarks, and explain precisely why what I said was appropriate, technically correct, and why I stand behind it - again, clearly and politely.
As for the discussion on why I chose to rate images low in this contest that relied entirely on digital effects, that was well covered in the forum post that 2mccs also participated in at the time of the contest, and doesn't need to be rehashed here.
The fact is it's thin skinned critiqueophobes such as yourself who have driven the site into its current sorry state, where everyone is terrified of explaining their vote, or sharing the faults they found in the photograph with its creator - for fear of having some sanctimonious commenter attack them in the comments with some semi-ad-hominem generalisation rubbish, as you've done, about what a "soul-less photographer" does, because they have found fault in yours or someone else's image. The fact also is that most photographers come to this site to learn and improve their skills, and attitudes such as yours are directly interfering with them receiving the very critique they need.
I don't intend to bow to that sort of rubbish from you and others like you, but I do intend to call it out when I see it, because it's important that everyone here who complains about the current commentless state of the site is aware - it's exactly people like you who have brought it to this state.
I'm sorry if this offends you, but I stand entirely by my comment - this photograph is nothing at all without reliance on an entirely digital effect.
It is your obnoxious presentation, not your comment, that is offensive. A ‘good’ photographer understands the technical details. An ‘excellent’ photographer has forgotten them. A ’soul-less’ photographer judges the worth of a photo by them.
Relies on a photoshop filter to produce the majority of its value in meeting the challenge: 2.
broken preconceptions are gold.
This relies on the "digital zoom" feature of an iphone, which acts by blowing up the original image and tiling in new pixels in a bilateral blur, a "smart blur" effect; this is absolutely no different than a photoshop filter, the only change is that it's done by your phone's software instead of by photoshop. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I stand entirely by my comment - this photograph is nothing at all without reliance on an entirely digital effect.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
