General Photography Competition #170 [Run-off]

[zeppelin]

Vote for your favourite picture from our two finalists

Soloracer
"Day at the Museum"
November 2008
Nikon D60



G_13191
"DUBAI, the rising city"
the upcoming skyline of Dubai, including "burj dubai" covered by a giant cloud...
04/12/2008
Nikon D60 | ISO 100 | F22 | 1/15sec
increased contrast in adobe. removed under-construction buildings from bottom right.

Good luck to you both!

[sleekeywoowoo]

any alteration to Dubai city?

[John Thawley]

Again, this is a skewed run-off. Why is it so hard to get this right?

You have 10 options in the forum survey software... why not use them? Or at least a larger number that makes sense. People took the time to enter their photos... sure, maybe they won't win, but they deserve to see how their picture accurately fairs against the other images.

You are making an assumption that either of these photos would get more votes than photos they originally didn't run against. That is an incorrect assumption.

This isn't rocket science...

JT

[John Thawley]

any alteration to Dubai city?

It was stated in the original entry that construction buildings were removed in Photoshop.

JT

[shockwaveracing]

Again, this is a skewed run-off. Why is it so hard to get this right?

You have 10 options in the forum survey software... why not use them? Or at least a larger number that makes sense. People took the time to enter their photos... sure, maybe they won't win, but they deserve to see how their picture accurately fairs against the other images.

You are making an assumption that either of these photos would get more votes than photos they originally didn't run against. That is an incorrect assumption.

This isn't rocket science...

JT

dont worry mate this will always continue to happen, the fact that neither of these photos are the best submitted in either of their respective polls is a little worrying though... the first pic feels cold, which i wouldn't mind, but the poor framing just doesnt do it for me, and the second one just pushes my "holy contrast batman" button straight away...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Again, this is a skewed run-off. Why is it so hard to get this right?

You have 10 options in the forum survey software... why not use them? Or at least a larger number that makes sense. People took the time to enter their photos... sure, maybe they won't win, but they deserve to see how their picture accurately fairs against the other images.

You are making an assumption that either of these photos would get more votes than photos they originally didn't run against. That is an incorrect assumption.

This isn't rocket science...

JT

It's the best system we have. and it's quick to boot.

If you have any other suggestions.......

[John Thawley]

It's the best system we have. and it's quick to boot.

If you have any other suggestions.......

It is NOT by any means the best system we have.

The SIMPLE solution is... there are 10 survey options in the polling system. In the case of a run-off, use the top 10 (or highest number possible giving way to ties) for the run-off. DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING.

Again, this current option ASSUMES that either of these images would have been chosen over images it didn't compete against previously. It makes no sense whatsoever.

JT

[John Thawley]

... and the second one just pushes my "holy contrast batman" button straight away...

It does give new meaning to the term "post processing."

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I don't think thats the best solution either.

because it's still an arbitrary number by which you measure the popularity of a photo.

There is no guarantee that top 5 from one side would have been the same had those photos competed in the other poll.

And of course, when you have a tie during your tie break, then what? will we have to put the top 4 in so that it's not arbitrary?

This method has generally given the best photos from both groups a chance to vie for the prize properly. It's like a knock out competition - just because you had to beat different people to make the final doesn't mean your journey was any harder or softer than your competitors.


And in the end, it's only a photo competition.

[LeonOfTheDead]

the fact that a modified picture made it to the run-off it's weird.
this is not post-precessing, it's editing.
I prefer soloracer's one, but the point is we used to complain for images highly, or even moderately in some cases, edited in the basic settings like contrast and the likes.
removing a part of the landscape seems, to me, a little over the line.

[Kitdy]

It does give new meaning to the term "post processing."

Why is that bad?

[John Thawley]

Why is that bad?

Well... if I had to back engineer the steps, I'd say the saturation and contrast were pushed to the hilt. There's no reason to shoot 1/15 at f/22 in that light and that setting... just nothing to gain.

In all honesty, it also appears a gradient filter was used.... if the sun is as high as it is, the yellow / orange doesn't make a lot of sense... I could be wrong, but it looks odd. I shoot a lot of sunsets... and I'll always be will to post an image untouched. I'd like to see the out-of-the-camera shot for this one.

JT

[John Thawley]

I don't think thats the best solution either.

because it's still an arbitrary number by which you measure the popularity of a photo.

There is no guarantee that top 5 from one side would have been the same had those photos competed in the other poll.

And of course, when you have a tie during your tie break, then what? will we have to put the top 4 in so that it's not arbitrary?

This method has generally given the best photos from both groups a chance to vie for the prize properly. It's like a knock out competition - just because you had to beat different people to make the final doesn't mean your journey was any harder or softer than your competitors.


And in the end, it's only a photo competition.

It's still a better solution. And, more importantly, what could it hurt. I realize there is only one winner in the end. But, people should see were they placed in the big picture and be encouraged to continue. For someone, second place might be a big deal for now.

Either way, what I am suggesting produces a result closer to accurate and hurts nothing.

JT

[G_13191]

all i have to say is that im really really sorry for posting this "holy contrast batman" edited image in the contest... i should have not done so...

as said earlier, this was the first time for me to be posting anything, so i think u'll can excuse me a little....

and Mr John, no i didnot use any gradient filter, all i remember is i play a lot with layers...

and i guess ur points about the camera setting are helpful... what would u suggest as a GOOD setting in such a situation... mind i f i ask?

[Kitdy]

Well... if I had to back engineer the steps, I'd say the saturation and contrast were pushed to the hilt. There's no reason to shoot 1/15 at f/22 in that light and that setting... just nothing to gain.

In all honesty, it also appears a gradient filter was used.... if the sun is as high as it is, the yellow / orange doesn't make a lot of sense... I could be wrong, but it looks odd. I shoot a lot of sunsets... and I'll always be will to post an image untouched. I'd like to see the out-of-the-camera shot for this one.

JT

I don't care about any of that. It looks nice.

all i have to say is that im really really sorry for posting this "holy contrast batman" edited image in the contest... i should have not done so...

Don't be sorry. We've had battles over editing in the past and out photo competition holder - zeppelin - has decided editing is ok - so if it's fair game then go ahead.

I think your shot is extremely striking and almost surreally beautiful. As for the process you used to come up with it I don't really mind as I don't know much about these things. I appreciate the artist's work regardless of the steps they took to get to the end result.