pxleyes.com Forum

Hello Rob,

By now you have read the comments on Patty’s “stair” photo, titled Medieval Village.

The reason I’m sending you this note is to ask if there is any possibility that you could infuse a bit more excitement into the site by possibly changing the rules somewhat, to make it a bit more challenging and educational for the membership. There are many photo software programs available out there to help push ordinary photographs into the realm of extraordinary. By granting permission, with the caveat of making the process known mandatory, we could and would learn a lot more from each other. Perhaps you would consider granting ‘internal’ gifts to the best reviewer of the month (example allow an extra post in a contest…just a suggestion), perhaps you could offer something for most promising artist? Those are just some suggestions and I would not mind paying hard money to belong to a site that buoys my creative soul, so charging an annual membership fee might make the site a tad more exciting because as it is now it truly feels like we are just spinning our wheels in the mud.

Thank you for your time.
Olga aka Still26

I did read the modcomment and I feel it is misunderstood. See my comment there.

still26 wrote:Hello Rob,

By now you have read the comments on Patty’s “stair” photo, titled Medieval Village.

The reason I’m sending you this note is to ask if there is any possibility that you could infuse a bit more excitement into the site by possibly changing the rules somewhat, to make it a bit more challenging and educational for the membership. There are many photo software programs available out there to help push ordinary photographs into the realm of extraordinary. By granting permission, with the caveat of making the process known mandatory, we could and would learn a lot more from each other. Perhaps you would consider granting ‘internal’ gifts to the best reviewer of the month (example allow an extra post in a contest…just a suggestion), perhaps you could offer something for most promising artist? Those are just some suggestions and I would not mind paying hard money to belong to a site that buoys my creative soul, so charging an annual membership fee might make the site a tad more exciting because as it is now it truly feels like we are just spinning our wheels in the mud.

Thank you for your time.
Olga aka Still26

I'd love to answer but see no suggestions to change the rules as the title asks for.

You are not limited to any kind of software to enhance your entries, in the photo section specifically, you can use whatever software you want.

What is not allowed ATM is making changes which do not affect the whole image, in other words: selective editing. We've had lengthy discussions in the past about this but it all comes down to keeping the photo contests as photo contests or allowing selective editing and turn the photo contests towards the Ps contests, where photography skills are less important over Ps skills.
There's why we only allow filters and editing which affect the whole entry.

As for rewarding comments, creativity and so on we simply don't have the manpower or system. Who's going to judge that, what's the reward and so on will give big discussions. Rewarding with software or so takes a huge amount of time and effort just to be able to give them away, (contacting companies, building relations, getting software to giveaway all takes a lot of time) and THEN we have the same problem again as we had with the contests: people not wanting them since they use another program or already have it or simply do not want it.

- this is my personal answer and does not represent the mod team and or admin! -

Yes, it's a questions and suggestions forum as I see...thank you for the response. Any idea as to how to add a "stimulus package" from the admin team?

To Olga, I doubt changing any rules regarding selective editing would make the site more exciting.
Some of the contests are already challenging and educational but as we have seen from some past contests, very few people want to bother explaining how they edit something so making the editing process known mandatory might scare off even more members so even less would enter contests.

If we want to know about some editing process we can always ask and I am sure people will explain it but anyone who knows about editing already knows how most editing is done.

As for granting ‘internal’ gifts to the best reviewer of the month, you would get all the prizes since you love to review and do it regardless of whether there are prizes on offer or not.
Most promising artist? That would go to BWR every time. In my opinion he is currently the best photoshopper on the site who actually enters contests sometimes. It would be nice to see some entries from Spaceranger and CMYK and other older members whose work I admire but obviously they have more important things to do than make contest entries.

Paying annual membership fees might also cause some people to leave because not everyone earns any money so if they have no money, they can't afford any membership fees. It's hard enough for some pensioners to keep paying their internet bills without adding more costs to their budget.

To all who are reading... Regarding selective editing, I know we have had photo contests in the past which are all about selective editing so we obviously do have the opportunity to do that kind of creative editing at times.
However, when it comes to "selectively" editing a sky to make it brighter, I personally see nothing wrong with that. If that idea had been suggested to the artist in private instead of in public comments, no one would even notice the change in the sky. It's no different to dodging the area.
I think they even did that kind of selective editing in the olden days in the dark rooms when they developed photos. Dodging and burning in selective areas has been done since photography was invented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkroom
"During exposure, values in the image can be adjusted, most often by "dodging" (reducing the amount of light to a specific area of an image by selectively blocking light to it for part or all of the exposure time) and/or "burning" (giving additional exposure to specific area of an image by exposing only it while blocking light to the rest)."

It would be silly to dodge or brighten the whole photo when you only want a part of it brighter.

I also noticed on the comments on the entry in question that someone said Lightroom doesn't allow for selective editing. I happen to know that it does.
https://dreamypresets.com/blogs/learn/h ... -lightroom

I thought most photographers did a bit of dodging and burning, adjusting highlights and shadows, to their photos in post processing anyway so I personally would not call that kind of editing selective editing. It's not like they are changing the color of a blue to a red or green when they simply brighten it up.

I think LTD had good suggestions and ought not to have been chastised for suggesting them just because he mentioned the color picker and suggested to change the hue slightly. There are other ways to brighten the sky and get the same end result without using a color picker anyway, I think brightening a blue sky from a dark blue to a lighter blue is quite reasonable.

If that is considered selective editing then my entry in the before and after processing contest must also be selective editing since I darkened the sky which also changed it from the color it was straight out of camera.
All dodging and burning. brightening or darkening highlights and shadows on any photos is obviously selective.
So are we not allowed to adjust shadows to make them brighter and bring out more detail without making highlights brighter as well, or adjust highlights to make them darker and bring out more detail with also making shadows darker as well? I think common sense needs to be used and there is no way to draw a definite line and claim that brightening up a sky or darkening it as was the case in my entry, is selective editing.

sincerely Angel.

Thank you, Angel, for your insightful comments.

So, what kind of suggestions can we give to Rob to make this site a tad more attractive?

still26 wrote:Thank you, Angel, for your insightful comments.

So, what kind of suggestions can we give to Rob to make this site a tad more attractive?

I don't think it's up to Rob or any other single person to make the site more attractive.
It already has plenty of attractions with photo and photoshop contests and plenty of tutorials and things to read in the forums and it's all free. The only thing missing is meaningful communication. That would need all members to make an effort to communicate. However, no amount of persuasion will make anyone communicate about anything if they are not interested in doing it.
In my opinion people will enter contest and comment on entries only if they feel like it regardless of how many 'attractions' there might be on the site.

You and I both know from a previous site we were on that had plenty of reward systems for various things that those systems don't generate any meaningful interaction anyway. Most people don't want to be treated like donkeys which need carrots dangled in front of them to make them do anything. People just do what they like doing.

I suggest you simply accept the site as it is and keep doing the good work of encouraging people and setting a good example. Eventually others might start following your example and also have a go at critiquing entries and being helpful with tips. If not, at least you are still doing what you enjoy.

I think the novelty of photoshop and photo contests is just wearing off with the public in general. There seemed to be quite a lot of those type of sites with a lot of participation on the net in the past but over the years I noticed quite a few closed down due to lack of interest.