*** Unofficial but nevertheless asterisked Photo Contest Rules thread ***

If anyone has the stomach for it, let's see if we can settle this.

For starters, as CC pointed out the other day, part of the rules text went missing sometime in the last four years. Here's the missing text:



This wording used to appear just before the sentence:



So that's one problem solved.

Now, about frames, here's the poll regnaD kciN posted in November '07: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=280&topic_id=37182

The poll question was: Should frames be allowed in contest entries? 25 people cast a vote, and by 68% to 32%, the consensus was that they shouldn't. That's the nearest thing we have to an "official" group decision on this, but it was never incorporated into the contest rules. I think this needs to be re-litigated in light of there being two framed entries in the current contest, one of which is a runaway favorite already and a lock for the Final round. My guess is that frames might go a little viral in future contests, unless the no-frames folks are still in the majority and the rules are amended to specifically prohibit frames.

Just to complicate matters further, submission size might deserve reconsideration. Seems to me that upping the limits to 1000 pixels in the longest dimension and a file size of 250K wouldn't add greatly to the misery endured by voters with slow connections, and could give entries more "oomph" if they have a lot of fine detail.

Thoughts?

to see what I though about it back then and I pretty much feel the same way now. Whatever is decided, it should be consistant.

I've participated in shows and exhibits where I was required to submit examples of my work and in nearly every instance the guidelines were quite specific on how big the image needed to be both in pixel limits and file size. It makes it easier for the judges if the images are consistant.

Since the frame issue has come up again maybe there should be another poll.

Just my two cents.

but whatever...

I'll not use them, even if others do.

at least not in a contest. Been thinking about adding a simple frame around some stuff I'm posting on Flickr, but haven't decided yet.

On my laptop, I'd have to scroll to see the pic and that takes away from the impact of the photo for me. I don't imagine I'm the only one who has my resolution set that way.

I don't think the frame makes a picture but that a bunch of random frames does take away from the impact of a themed group of photos. I think the blue dress would have run away with this even if someone else had promised everyone voting a gold frame of their own.

The main rule needs to be that the person running the contest sets the rules and there is no arguing with the person running the contest because, for chrissake, it's just a freakin' internet contest and get over yourself already.

That is all. :P

I'll be back around 10:00 pdt so I hope folks will continue to keep the contest kicked because I won't be able to. Thank You!

:)

I like the notion, also touched on down below by Celebration, that the host is in charge and is the final authority in any given contest. That's something that should be explicitly stated in the permanent rules.

Yes on 1000 pixel for the largest side, because selfishly, I like it better, and I have a large monitor.

Thought:
Maybe we can run ONE contest with the larger photos.
Then ask the folks in GD in a 4th poll if they like it better or not.

After all, the most votes on our photos come from them, and we can frame the question in such a way that we want their input. This way we'll soon know how many dial ups and small monitors are around.
Maybe even with a column for:"other and suggestions" where they can tell us what they do and don't like about the contests.

I may get flamed for this suggestion, but that's OK.
I think they don't really get any recognition for their unwavering support with the votes.

Also, for sure, we need to make an internal decision about whether we need a consistent tiny logo image of Robb's desk in the right hand corner of each photo.
I'll be glad to design it and provide the art.

It's the glue that holds this group together.

Nice idea about trying to consult the voting public.

...they're a touch on overdrive. :D

On topic: if it came to a vote, I'd keep the pics the size they are, because I find it challenging.

I don't care much for frames, but I'm not particular enough to want to tell folks they can't use them.

Other than entering the contest, I feel that they should be able to override the suggestions for rules that we make through polls, if they want. There are bound to be issues that come up outside the stated rules, so at the very least there should be something in the rules stating their ultimate authority over all decisions.

New polls sound like a good idea, but I wouldn't mind an occasional contest with frames, if the host wanted it. Really horrible idea to always allow frames, though. Maybe every contest doesn't need to have the exact same size requirements. Just a thought. I don't care that much, but it should be made clear in the rules that the host is CZAR.

:thumbsup:

Perhaps we could come up with a list of variations that we include in the rules and then the host can just add a yes or no behind each rule. Frames, Size, Pixels, Post Processing, whatever other ideas folks may have. Seems simple enough.

I'm a fan of the bigger size, but I think we should check with any dial-up people in the group before making that rule change.

If we allow frames, I think it should be a set standard - like a 2 point black edge, or something along those lines. I agree with the above comment that the photo should stand on it's own, so either we have a set frame requirement (so a person can chose to frame with that set frame or go with no frame) or no frames at all.

Thirdly, you didn't mention this at all, but in the past there was a sort of unspoken "no extreme post processing" rule, unless a contest specifically stated otherwise. Over the past several contests, I've noticed more than a couple entries which would, at the very least, be walking the line towards extreme post processing. If I've missed an earlier rule change, then so be it, but I'd personally like to see this rule officially instated. Or at least discussed.

As to the acceptable limits of post-processing, that's always a conundrum. I'm not even sure if a definition for "extreme" could ever be arrived at. I can spend the better part of an hour on one image alone if I think it needs TLC, slaving over the RAW file and then doing further tweaks in Photoshop if warranted. I don't aim for an extremely processed look usually, but the changes can be fairly extreme compared to the original straight from the camera, especially on black & white conversions. I like the idea of periodic extreme processing as a theme in itself, but I don't like the ramifications of a technique like HDR becoming commonplace in contests.

My thoughts on image size:

I think 800 is a good size for an all around compromise. My problem with allowing larger isn't that I think it wouldn't be nice, or that it would be too big for most computers - it's what it would do to vertical images; see my next point:

I think that people would be wise to actually make their verticals a tad smaller than 800pixels on the long dimension, or just not enter a vertical unless you have nothing else to enter. This is because @ 800 pixels on the long dimension, the image is not fully shown on some computer screens (w/o scrolling). Just my gut talking, but it seems like I've seen this phenomenon hurt images once they are out in GD being voted on.


It would be cool to be allowed to enter a panoramic format, say, no more than 400 pixels on the short dimension *by* (whatever pixel count it comes to on the long dimension).

And yes, you are brilliant.

:fistbump:

I'm too tired tonight to think on it beyond the contest host is Czar. They do deserve something for winning beyond stress. I do like the idea of trying to find out how many GD/ Lounge people would be alright with larger photos. Notice it would be a problem for at least one photo groupie so might be one for a lot more people.

I worry if we go allowing too much after the shot manipulation that we might scare off people very new to photography. This is such a great, safe place to learn I would hate for any one to feel they weren't up to entering because of their camera or software. I already cringe when anyone mentions not being up to par with the pros because it isn't about what level you might be on but the sharing of photos and knowledge.

that should be settled "law" and have their integrity impugned because it isn't settled. We owe it to the hosts not to leave too many loose ends, and additionally to have it understood by all that what the host says, goes.

I once used a frame on a contest photo. :hide:


Now in my own defense I did not post it with a frame originally but others in the group felt it got lost on the page and REALLY needed something to separate it from the background. So I added a very simple very thin frame around it. If we do decide on a no frame policy I would leave a bit of leeway should that situation come up again for anyone. Would hate to lose an entry because it has a white background.




























































The guilty framed photo.





Jeez, that was a while ago. I also need to try doing it again with different types of flowers though doubt I will every find one so right for the vase as that tulip.

It crossed my mind last night, after some herb, that a possible solution would be simply to have hosts place each entry in a DU blockquote box, i.e. <div class="excerpt">photo</div> but with square brackets, of course. It's 50% gray and would provide a scaled, neutral matte for the pix. Thinking about it further, I think a little more herb might hit the spot...

both of your ideas are pretty good.

I am rhapsodic about this photo.
Did it win?

Was a tough crowd then like it is a tough crowd now. I went looking and shame so many of the pictures are missing, including Blue's. Here are the link for you so you don't have to try searching.
Look at the rules on that contest. I really haven't been reading them for a while.
Pretty sure Algomas was the winner of that one.


Entries

Prelims.



Also quite a few people that haven't been seen in a long time. sigh

God, I love that photo -- still one of my favorites! I remember the final picture in thread #2 won that contest: Yellow Flower In Desert. I really did think for sure your photo was going to win when I saw it posted. :hi:

I remember the frame discussion came up around a photo submitted to a VERY early contest, maybe by bvar22 or blueraven? Bah! I can't remember but I'm going to go look it up.

yours. lol Then was struck by how much WJMS kids have grown. Algonas deserved that win, that desert flower was perfect.

was TS'd before he could host the next contest? :rofl: Good times, '05! :D

Seeing the photo again was bittersweet, looking at it. It was taken at my friend Deb's cabin in the mountains, the last time I stayed there with her. She passed away from ovarian cancer in 2008 and the state is trying to take the cabin from her son, a young man of 20 who had lost both his parents by the time he was 17. She was my best friend. I miss her dreadfully every day.

I couldn't find the thread where we talked about frames, but it grew out of a photo that won the April '05 contest, ConsAreLiar's photo of the painted desert in NM. I found the contest thread but the photo had been removed. Then couldn't find the discussion I distinctly remember the group having. It was no doubt buried in some other thread, or even removed as having been a flamefest, we did have a couple of those back in the early days.

with a few others. Then there was Raging's 2 or 3 month contest because whatever could go wrong did. And people have been losing sleep hosting these contest. :rofl: BTW I would be one losing sleep.



Sorry that photo is bittersweet and more so the loss of your friend. I hope her son was able to keep the cabin and that you are still in touch with him even if only once in a while.

Seems like there were a few rules change discussions. I had a hard enough time looking for that one so doubt I would be any help on discussion threads.

Thanks to everyone who has chipped in on this discussion. I hope everyone else weighs in too. Let's get this behind us and not have to drop everything to address it again next month, or six months from now.

After 25 years I found myself taking family and vacation pictures and not much else. That being the case, I'm happy with any decisions the group feels are appropriate. I am in favor of allowing slightly larger contest entries. 1024 max width and 768 max height should be within reasonable limits for the majority of computer users in this day and age. At those resolutions, the 200 KB limit is still pretty easy to observe as well.

Sometimes they add to the impact of the photo, but not always. I don't have a problem with frames being used in the contest, unless it can be shown that they give an unfair advantage. I haven't seen them used enough to determine whether this is problem or not.

As to size, I'm one of those with a smaller screen. I wouldn't mind if the size were increased but like many others, I do most of my viewing on a laptop. At 17" an 800p vertical picture fills the entire window (tool bars take up an exorbitant amount of real estate). Anything larger than that requires scrolling to see the edges. I don't mind having to do that, but it is something to consider when cropping a photo. If you've got important elements on the edges of the photo, then someone with a small screen might not get the full impact. OTOH individual creativity shouldn't be limited by the constraints on others.

That's my 2 cents.

-----------------------------

I'm leaning towards not having frames, although I can see the point of having a very simple, small frame for white photos. As for size, my only concern is that shared by several others: vertical photos may suffer as a result.

it might be worth mentioning in the individual presentations that the F11 key toggles a browser between the standard screen and full screen. Also, to avoid forcing viewers to scroll through a photo, I only favor expanding the acceptable horizontal resolution. The current max vertical resolution should be cut from 800 to 768. Again, at this point, the majority of viewers are likely to be running at 1024 x 768 or better.

Most people do have higher res these days. I'd forgotten about the F11 toggle. Do you happen to know how to do that on a mac?

I'd probably recommend limiting vertical to 720 ish just to give a little viewing cushion.

And to keep horizontals from gaining advantage over verticals, I'm no longer keen on the idea of expanding horizontals beyond 800, except for panoramas, which could be defined by limiting the vertical resolution when allowing for an expanded horizontal resolution.

:think:

...this is the usual track along the road to secession and civil war... :D

That's always good for some fun.

but it would be interesting to see how the sectionalism would form. :D

I've definitely been reading too much on the antebellum period, although the drive through The South certainly came at an opportune time.

Peace be with you, friend.

wherein the various size formats are compared next to each other.

While I'm not sure frames will necessarily give one picture an advantage over another...the idea of keeping sizes and resolutions consistent has it's own reasons. I think to have or not to have frames also falls into this same type of reasoning.

Frames are distracting and 'may' in some case pose an advantage. So in fairness to keep the playing field as level as possible, I vote for no frames.

That said, what would happen to the white tulip that would appear to be floating in thin air? I propose that in the case of a picture that has no discernable boundaies or edges, a predetermined basic set of regs for a frame 'may' be used, if the floating image creates an unnecessary distraction from the message of the picture(from the perpective of the photographer).

Size? I have been content with 800 pixels for the height. My screen can handle a wider pic, but I sort of like scrolling down through the pics that seem to have a more uniform size. But in the final tally, no strong feelings about size.

No frames, or maybe only thin neutral frames. I worked as a picture framer for 8 years and I know that a frame can truly improve an image. Here's an example:

Original:


Framed:


I also cropped this shot which also changes it's overall impact, but I think the example of just the frame proves the point of how a frame can influence the perception of a shot. The background of the first shot just kind of blends into the white background of the web page. The thick black frame on the second shot makes the photo jump off the page plus it emphasizes the black in the photo. However, I do agree with others who think a thin frame around shots that would be otherwise lost in the white background could be acceptable, as CCs photo, above, from an earlier contest. I don't think a thin black frame around my photo posted here would have had the same impact as the thick black frame, but would let the photo be seen. I might prefer the frame be a consistent color, like black or medium grey.

I like the 800 pixel width, fits both my Mac (home) and PC (work) screens pretty nicely. However, I think we should start a letter writing campaign to petition computer makers to make square screens. A lot of very fine vertical photos get lost because they are in fact smaller so they don't catch people's eye's as firmly as the horizontal shots; they just don't show the same level of detail. Do you think the computer manufacturers will go for it?