Any interest in another type of "contest"?

[advres]

I have recently been hanging around a forum that has a "RAW edit contest" where a RAW file is posted and anyone is welcome to edit it any way they want and post it up. Nothing is out of bounds. I have been having fun doing it and seeing how others would edit a picture differently.

So anyone else think this would be a good idea? If there seems like interest I will get one going. If we do this, I think a week max is all we need as it doesn't take long to download a photo, edit and repost. That would give anyone ample time to participate. Then the thread starter picks a winner at the end of the week and the winner posts a raw for the next week.

Just an idea. Any thoughts?

[smmokan]

We did this a while back... if I remember correctly, it lasted 3-4 cycles and then just kind of fizzled out.

[hop]

The Maggot Post Processing Contest seems to have died.

[gpetrics]

As others have said: it already happened.

Here's the link to the first contest:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/181196-MPPC-1-Maggot-RAW-File-Post-Processing-Challenge

I enjoyed watching these, but did not participate.

As I recall, there was a pretty good debate about what the point of the contest was at all, and that kind of ultimately led to its demise. I think people were confused about what the end result of a "winning" post-process should be.

Some people thought that the winner should be the one who had the best finishing touches, but left the shot looking realistic--something that stood a chance of actually happening on earth. Then others thought the winner should be the one who did the best job turning the photo into something resembling a design by The Mountain Shirt Company (http://shop.themountain.me/product_images/o/239/10_6046_rt__95969_zoom.jpg)

I personally thought that the former should be the winner (i.e. if the photo no longer looks like it came from planet earth, I thought it should be disqualified), but perusing the winning shots I was always wrong.

If you wanted to lay down the rules ahead of time, I think there'd be more interest (maybe copy and paste the ones from the other forum if they're good rules?)... otherwise I think this will just stir up controversy about the purpose of the whole affair...

I for one don't want to see a bunch more photos with the "clarity" and "vibrance" sliders on "11"....

[Todds]

I was thinking the same thing and was going to suggest it.

A couple of days ago SchralphMacchio suggested I bump up the contrast on one of my photos and it got me thinking that a "post processing" contest would be a cool idea. I'd think the judging criteria would be same as the other contests.

You could provide everyone with the winning photo (unmodified version) from one of the previous contests and rerun the contest. It could be "Plants part 2". Same judging criteria. The only difference would be that everyone starts with the same image.

[gpetrics]

I was thinking the same thing and was going to suggest it.

A couple of days ago SchralphMacchio suggested I bump up the contrast on one of my photos and it got me thinking that a "post processing" contest would be a cool idea. I'd think the judging criteria would be same as the other contests.

You could provide everyone with the winning photo (unmodified version) from one of the previous contests and rerun the contest. It could be "Plants part 2". Same judging criteria. The only difference would be that everyone starts with the same image.

that's a pretty good way to source photos actually...

[Fuzz]

I don't think we need more rules. The voting maggots (as well as the contest starter who chooses the finalists) in effect decide what kind of PP works for which image (subtle or dramatic/fake). I mean, do we really need to do contests where we all bump up contrast or saturation in minute amounts? Do we really need to "learn" that? I'd rather learn from more artistic and creative PP, stuff that I'd never thought of trying.

So I say, keep it open, with minimal rules -- let the voters decide.

[advres]

Yes it was done before but it seems like a lot more mags are getting into photography now than were around 1.5 tears ago.

My thought was to make it different than previous contests. The contest starter puts one of their own RAW's up and then THEY judge which one they thought did the most justice to their picture, whatever the processing. Basically it is just another creative outlet for those who find just as much fun in processing images as they do in taking them.

Oh well, guess it's a lame idea...

[gunit130]

I don't think we need more rules. The voting maggots (as well as the contest starter who chooses the finalists) in effect decide what kind of PP works for which image (subtle or dramatic/fake). I mean, do we really need to do contests where we all bump up contrast or saturation in minute amounts? Do we really need to "learn" that? I'd rather learn from more artistic and creative PP, stuff that I'd never thought of trying.

So I say, keep it open, with minimal rules -- let the voters decide.

This.......

[gpetrics]

the last challenge on the books was the "kayak" one where sharks were digitally added, and teva signs digitally subtracted... needless to say things got ridiculous.

as for rules. i agree less is more, but none is not ideal either...

for example... do we allow pixel movement? or just value adjustments?

i guess the bottom line is i don't really care, but at the same time expect honest opinions on here. i guess it's good that no one really tends to hold back. you learn faster that way...

but at the same time folks have to be ready to get critiqued. there were some hurt butts over selective desaturation IIRC

that was annoying to wade through and doomed the old MPPC

[Fuzz]

the last challenge on the books was the "kayak" one where sharks were digitally added, and teva signs digitally subtracted... needless to say things got ridiculous.But ridiculous according to who? I personally agree that adding a shark was over the top, but removing the Teva sign is something that is a valid PP that some may need to do (e.g. removing logos for stock photos, or some stray object for a client shoot).


for example... do we allow pixel movement? or just value adjustments?How do you differentiate? Is adding a graduated filter in LR pixel editing or value adjustments? Technically it is changing the pixels, but you are applying overall values. Same with removing objects -- you could remove/hide a logo by say darkening a particular area. I can use a huge adjustment brush or a very small one in LR -- is one pixel editing while the other is not?


but at the same time folks have to be ready to get critiqued. there were some hurt butts over selective desaturation IIRCYes, I remember it was actually my submission that started that. I don't think I responded to the critiques, but I think the issue was the assertion that selective desat was "wrong" -- not bad, undesirable, amateurish (which are all acceptable critiques), but "wrong" (the irony was that those suggesting it was "wrong" also said that it was okay if clients like it; so it's "wrong" except when it's not). Btw, I don't do anymore selective desats, so I did learn something! :)

That whole discussion gave rise to the idea that some PP was more "proper" than others -- seems silly for an art project.

[gpetrics]

i think we're talking past each other... my point is that precisely because there is a debate is what killed the thing in the first place. i don't really care... as you'll notice if you look back i didn't get involved in the thing for these reasons. so take my comments as someone who'd like to get involved in future contests on here...

with that said: if we're upfront at the outset that the new MPPC is 100% artistic, and pixel motion/accentuated pixel value changes are A-OK, and the winner is the person who brings the most to the photo (in any way whatsoever) in post process... then game on.

just let's be forward about it at the outset.

i really like the idea mentioned above about using the MPC winner as the source for the MPPC...

that way we're guaranteed a well composed interesting shot with which to work.

another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the odd sensation i got viewing folks trying to "fix" or "make awesome" photos that were inherently sub-par... sourcing MPPC photos from MPC solves this nicely

[Fuzz]

i think we're talking past each other... my point is that precisely because there is a debate is what killed the thing in the first place. i don't really care... as you'll notice if you look back i didn't get involved in the thing for these reasons. so take my comments as someone who'd like to get involved in future contests on here...

with that said: if we're upfront at the outset that the new MPPC is 100% artistic, and pixel motion/accentuated pixel value changes are A-OK, and the winner is the person who brings the most to the photo (in any way whatsoever) in post process... then game on.

just let's be forward about it at the outset.Agreed.



another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the odd sensation i got viewing folks trying to "fix" or "make awesome" photos that were inherently sub-par... sourcing MPPC photos from MPC solves this nicelyI'm agnostic about whether we source MPC winners or new ones. I think the idea behind the original MPPC was intentionally to take a sub-par image and make it something interesting, i.e. the image/composition isn't good, but can PP save it? That way we can isolate (and gauge) the effectiveness of the PP separate from the artistic merit of the image itself. But like I said, I'm open to either option. Sourcing from the MPCs might generate more interest. I would expect the sourced image would have to be the pre-PP version of the MPC submission.