Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [SI] Pointer to current rulz?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] Pointer to current rulz?

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
> On 2012-05-08 15:06 , Chemiker wrote:
>> Aside from the deadlines and size limits, what other rules are in
>> place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?

>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
>
> In a nutshell cropping is allowed, as are adjustments to
> tone/brightness/contrast, USM, etc.
>
> HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
> images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>
> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
> goal of the SI.
>
> PS: Posts referring to the SI should have SI in square brackets:
>
> [SI] Pointer to current rules.
>


Please define "extensive digital manipulation."

Is it converting from color to monochrome?
Is it: major color correction; noise removal; blurring; or selective
and/or overall sharpening?
Is it: removing a skin blemish; a people blemish; an object blemish? How
about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
have done in the darkroom.)
etc.

Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.

Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
reporting format.
--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gpsman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
On May 8, 8:03*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>
> > HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
> > images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.

>
> > Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
> > goal of the SI.

>
> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."


My definition would include HDR.

> How
> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
> have done in the darkroom.)
> etc.
>
> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.


I disagree. This seems to be intended a "shooting" [SI]
"assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.

> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
> reporting format.


I disagree. It is whatever the moderator says it is.

Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.

I sure as hell would not open a discussion of opinions of what the
mandates should be. I'm pretty sure moderating the [SI] in my manner
would be enough work for free, for me.
-----

- gpsman
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
On 5/9/2012 7:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On May 8, 8:03 pm, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>>
>>> HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
>>> images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.

>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.

>>
>> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."

>
> My definition would include HDR.
>
>> How
>> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
>> have done in the darkroom.)
>> etc.
>>
>> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.

>
> I disagree. This seems to be intended a "shooting" [SI]
> "assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.
>
>> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
>> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
>> reporting format.

>
> I disagree. It is whatever the moderator says it is.
>
> Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
> and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
> participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.


Always your right.


>
> I sure as hell would not open a discussion of opinions of what the
> mandates should be. I'm pretty sure moderating the [SI] in my manner
> would be enough work for free, for me.


Is asking for clarification opening a discussion. I can do any of the
items listed above in a darkroom. Just because I am using a digital
format doesn't mean there should be more restrictions.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On May 8, 8:03*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>>
>> > HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
>> > images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.

>>
>> > Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>> > goal of the SI.

>>
>> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."

>
>My definition would include HDR.
>
>> How
>> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
>> have done in the darkroom.)
>> etc.
>>
>> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.

>
>I disagree. This seems to be intended a "shooting" [SI]
>"assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.
>
>> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
>> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
>> reporting format.

>
>I disagree. It is whatever the moderator says it is.
>
>Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
>and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
>participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
>manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.


As soon as the SI starts offering cash prizes we'll welcome more
specific rules. In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
shooter.

Considering the turn-out in both submission of images and discussion
of the images posted, the prime objective of the moderator should be
keep it simple in order to keep it going. Turning away images should
not be a consideration.

About those cash prizes...sponsors are welcome. I think Alan will
accept your PayPal contribution.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2012
On Wed, 9 May 2012 18:32:09 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On May 9, 6:02*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
>> >and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
>> >participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
>> >manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.

>>
>> As soon as the SI starts offering cash prizes we'll welcome more
>> specific rules. *In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
>> somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
>> shooter.

>
>If that is the case I don't see much of a point of the "mandate".
>
>I have often been led astray on Usenet by what words mean.


If it helps, mentally translate "mandate" into "the subject suggested
for this round of the Shoot-In" and understand that there is no
disqualification or penalty for submitting something off-subject.

This is an informal showcase of photos submitted by some of the people
who regularly read this, and the related, newsgroups. Very informal.

>> Considering the turn-out in both submission of images and discussion
>> of the images posted, the prime objective of the moderator should be
>> keep it simple in order to keep it going.

>
>I would not have guessed my method would be more complicated.
>
>> Turning away images should
>> not be a consideration.

>
>Exaggeration for effect.
>
>> About those cash prizes...sponsors are welcome. *I think Alan will
>> accept your PayPal contribution.

>
>Who won last...?


There are no winners, no judges, no votes. Feel free, however, to
tell anyone who doesn't read the group that your submission was the
Grand Prize Winner.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pointer to pointer or reference to pointer A C++ 7 07-05-2011 07:49 PM
Pointer to pointer Vs References to Pointer bansalvikrant@gmail.com C++ 4 07-02-2009 10:20 AM
need to display id of the element under the pointer below the current pointer location Mel Javascript 5 04-21-2007 11:26 PM
passing the address of a pointer to a func that doesnt recieve a pointer-to-a-pointer jimjim C Programming 16 03-27-2006 11:03 PM
Pointer-to-pointer-to-pointer question masood.iqbal@lycos.com C Programming 10 02-04-2005 02:57 AM



Advertisments