Any QC on DPS articles?

[Jim Poor]

I have the DPS feed in my reader and most of the time just blow by the articles as either something that doesn't apply, or something that is too vanilla for me. Every now and then something interesting pops up and I go read it.

However, far too often, when I do go read the article, it is a let down.
There was one a while back on depth of field that made plainly obvious that the author really had no idea what he/she was writing.

Today, there is one on HDR where the final image is pure garbage because of either poor processing or an incapable program. I'm actually a fan of HDR - both realistic processing AND purposely over-done processing for artistic effect, but one glance at the "after" in today's article shows huge halos around the trees. Then, when one looks further into it, it gets much worse. Worthy of Photoshopdisasters.com, I'd say.

I'm wondering if just anyone can do an article with no oversight from DPS before it is published or what? I mean the "S" in DPS does stand for "School" after all, and I would think it would be in the best interests of the site to post only quality content.

Yes, I'm being curmudgeonly, but sheesh, there are enough people that read this site that are so new to photography as to be easily mislead by things like this that I just don't get it.

For those who missed it, here is the article: Assemble HDR sequences QTPFSGUI


For the haters that will say things like "Well, where is your article if you know so much . . ." Rest assured that if I ever do have an article on DPS, it will be well researched, and well presented. I have a background in instructional systems design as well as years of experience in platform delivery of instructional material so I know very well that one must have one's ducks in a row before trying to teach anything.

[BCampbell]

I mostly agree, Jim.

I thinkin the case of the HDR article, unfortunately a lot of people out there ar elooking for that tonemapped look. When they think HDR, that's what they have in mind, so that article actually fills that need. Thankfully there's a backlash against that style brewing, but it'll still be a while before it goes the way of color reduction and oversaturation.

As for the overall point, I also have DPS in my reader, and I usually skip most articles. The hardware reviews are especially egregious. I have gotten something out of some of the articles; I wouldn't have looked into UFRaw otherwise, for example. But I'd say only around 5% of the articles are useful to me. Another 70% or so are basic info I already know, which is fine because DPS is really geared toward people at the lower end of the learning curve, and the other 25% are just blatantly bad or misleading.

Maybe it's a case of the site admins relaly wanting fresh material to draw readers. Hard to blame them, but you're right, quality over quantity here.

For my part, I'm actually working on a tutorial myself. Hopefully it'll be part of that 5%. Not to be pedantic but I'd suggest either contributing, or just ignoring the bad advice. I like to point out errors on the Internet as much as anyone, but at some point it becomes a waste of time that I could better spend on something productive.

[OsmosisStudios]

Here here.

There are many articles that state things in a way that blankets the world far too plainly. Other times it's patently wrong.

[Jim Poor]

Thanks BC.

I don't think the final image in that article fits with the "tonemapped look" though.

I also understand that DPS is aimed at the masses of aspiring photographers and hobbiests rather than at established professionals. To me, this makes bad instruction even worse because there are many who visit the site that will take anything on the front page as good, solid info.

I try to follow the adage of "if you have nothing nice to say . . ." however, sometimes my desire to help jumps in and takes hold. Yes, help. I think DPS could be far better than it is today (not that it is bad overall) if it stuck with more authoritative sources and quality content.

That sort of thinking is right in line with all the talk on how to make money from a blog which is what DPS is really about if you read pro-blogger and such so I don't understand the tendancy to allow "bad advice" in the articles. The forums are a whole different story and one has to sift carefully, but the articles published by the site itself really should be better policed.

[PowerPix]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

I don't think the final image in that article fits with the "tonemapped look" though.

QTPFSGUI is horrible......just sayin'.

[smc1377]

Sometimes for me, I click into them wanting more in-depth reviews or instructions and have left the article disappointed. But then I consider the possibility that the article wasn't targeted at someone like me.

However, far too often I've read articles that have spelling and grammatical errors. This really irks me. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to the forums area since we're all just regular members, but when it's supposed to be a "professional" article, it would be nice if it was proofread before being published since it does reflect ALL of us here at DPS.

[LeeR]

Perhaps we could take the Wikipedia approach. Anyone can write something, but if someone has something better to add the old is supplanted for the new. That way we always have the best, most accurate and most thoroughly researched, information available.

[sk66]

I do think there should be more "proofing", but who's going to do it?

I don't think most of the articles are aimed at advanced skills or understanding, and that's "ok", but it tends to "leave me out". Still, a major flaw in instruction is teaching above the level of your audience.


And just because it published somewhere doesn't make the author an expert, just like putting up a pic doesn't make you a pro photographer....It's just way too easy to claim/gain "credentials" on the web.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by LeeR

Perhaps we could take the Wikipedia approach. Anyone can write something, but if someone has something better to add the old is supplanted for the new. That way we always have the best, most accurate and most thoroughly researched, information available.

I like this idea, but who will supervise the bickering and decide "who's right"?

There is one out there but it rather sucks.

[sybren]

I sent an article to Darren once, but I never even got a reply. I'd like to write something for DPS, but if they don't even take the time to respond I won't retry.