| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2005 05:48:41 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
it seems to me that there's no reason to forbid people from posting their photos on other sites because the anonymity on this site is already somewhat compromised.
a photographer who has been shooting for awhile will almost certainly develop a style, whether it's in the subject (s)he shoots or with the post-processing. anyone who has been around this site for more than a few challenges can recognize the style or regular models used by the photographer. so, how do we keep that from happening? do we tell Sonifo, Jacko, Arnit and (gasp!) Dr. Jones that they have to find new models or they can't submit to the challenges? Do we tell Kiwi, Manny or Heida that they have to change their style of work so it's not easily recognizable? even i, in all my insignificance, get comments on almost every challenge photo that say "this must be a photo from sher". do i have to stop photographing and processing in the style i love just so my work isn't recognized. do i stop submitting to challenges for the sake of anonymity? where do we draw the line? |
I don't think it is as much about anonymity as much as seeing how a mass public appeal factor is or isn't there.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 05:53:19 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by mk:
No. Do you? Maybe then we could avoid the "boy, this is the most boring selection of entries I've ever seen and I fell asleep while voting" threads. I don't see any reason for anyone to have to refuse any kind of help that they could get, in any form. Isn't the whole purpose of this site to learn how to be a better photographer? Why crush that? |
So there is no kind, or amount, of help in preparing an entry that you would judge to be cheating? Am I understanding you correctly? Total anything goes? So someone who was a relative beginner, had a track of half a dozen entries without cracking 4.5 or so, could get enough help to cop a blue and you would think that was OK? What if they explicitly told their helpers it was for a competition where they had been doing badly and needed a good score? And what if the helpers are also dpc users? Where do you draw the line mk?
Originally posted by mk:
Why would that matter? If the photo has already been submitting and is being voted on, you can't change it anyway.
I think to act like we could police such things when it's fairly obvious that we cannot doesn't make much sense. |
It matters because people will vote differently on an entry if they know who's it is, or if they have read comments about it on another site. That would affect the scores and finishes of all the other people in the challenge. Is that OK with you?
It would be very easy to enforce assuming the rule change and a desire to enforce the rules.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:04:42 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by mk:
No. Do you? Maybe then we could avoid the "boy, this is the most boring selection of entries I've ever seen and I fell asleep while voting" threads. I don't see any reason for anyone to have to refuse any kind of help that they could get, in any form. Isn't the whole purpose of this site to learn how to be a better photographer? Why crush that? |
So there is no kind, or amount, of help in preparing an entry that you would judge to be cheating? Am I understanding you correctly? Total anything goes? So someone who was a relative beginner, had a track of half a dozen entries without cracking 4.5 or so, could get enough help to cop a blue and you would think that was OK? What if they explicitly told their helpers it was for a competition where they had been doing badly and needed a good score? And what if the helpers are also dpc users? Where do you draw the line mk?
Originally posted by mk:
Why would that matter? If the photo has already been submitting and is being voted on, you can't change it anyway.
I think to act like we could police such things when it's fairly obvious that we cannot doesn't make much sense. |
It matters because people will vote differently on an entry if they know who's it is, or if they have read comments about it on another site. That would affect the scores and finishes of all the other people in the challenge. Is that OK with you?
It would be very easy to enforce assuming the rule change and a desire to enforce the rules. |
With all due respect, this is getting ridiculous. Have you seen ANY evidence that this practice occurs on a regular basis? What MOST of us are talking about herte is the free interchange of ideas and information in this website. You seem to be intent on pursuing a worst-case scenario of how this so-called "laxity" could be abused.
Speaking only for myself, I prefer to see the free interchange encouraged even at the expense of p[ossible, occasional abuse, because this is what the community is about. We LEARN from each other, man. That's what we DO. Being so concerned about drawing the line that we begin to penalize the learning aspect of the site is a tradeoff I don't think is worthwhile.
Basically, as far as I'm concerned, your entire attitude here is an insult to the vast majority of rule-abiding, eager-to-learn members of the DPC community. I've seen NO evidence thus far that there's many (or any) people out there actively seeking ways to subvert the rules and submit images that are not their own (in any meaningful sense) in an attempt to get ribbons. Frankly, I'd assume anyone who was gonan go to that length would choose a place to do it where the rewards are more tangible. Plenty of those out there.
Robt. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:27:09 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
Originally posted by sher9204:
it seems to me that there's no reason to forbid people from posting their photos on other sites because the anonymity on this site is already somewhat compromised.
a photographer who has been shooting for awhile will almost certainly develop a style, whether it's in the subject (s)he shoots or with the post-processing. anyone who has been around this site for more than a few challenges can recognize the style or regular models used by the photographer. so, how do we keep that from happening? do we tell Sonifo, Jacko, Arnit and (gasp!) Dr. Jones that they have to find new models or they can't submit to the challenges? Do we tell Kiwi, Manny or Heida that they have to change their style of work so it's not easily recognizable? even i, in all my insignificance, get comments on almost every challenge photo that say "this must be a photo from sher". do i have to stop photographing and processing in the style i love just so my work isn't recognized. do i stop submitting to challenges for the sake of anonymity? where do we draw the line? |
I don't think it is as much about anonymity as much as seeing how a mass public appeal factor is or isn't there. |
Kylie should not be allowed to submit images from Sacramento.
With its world renowned and easily identifiable vistas that gives her an unfair advatange over the rest of us and it is obvious who must be submitting them.
Further unevening of the playing field is that she gets no help from seasoned professional photographers to inhibit and stiffle her growing creative skills. That is blatantly unfair!
I officially protest!
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:56:13 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Kylie:
Originally posted by sher9204:
it seems to me that there's no reason to forbid people from posting their photos on other sites because the anonymity on this site is already somewhat compromised.
a photographer who has been shooting for awhile will almost certainly develop a style, whether it's in the subject (s)he shoots or with the post-processing. anyone who has been around this site for more than a few challenges can recognize the style or regular models used by the photographer. so, how do we keep that from happening? do we tell Sonifo, Jacko, Arnit and (gasp!) Dr. Jones that they have to find new models or they can't submit to the challenges? Do we tell Kiwi, Manny or Heida that they have to change their style of work so it's not easily recognizable? even i, in all my insignificance, get comments on almost every challenge photo that say "this must be a photo from sher". do i have to stop photographing and processing in the style i love just so my work isn't recognized. do i stop submitting to challenges for the sake of anonymity? where do we draw the line? |
I don't think it is as much about anonymity as much as seeing how a mass public appeal factor is or isn't there. |
Kylie should not be allowed to submit images from Sacramento.
With its world renowned and easily identifiable vistas that gives her an unfair advatange over the rest of us and it is obvious who must be submitting them.
Further unevening of the playing field is that she gets no help from seasoned professional photographers to inhibit and stiffle her growing creative skills. That is blatantly unfair!
I officially protest! |
WooHoo! I have been saved . . . someone is coming to get me out of Sacramento . . . that is what you intended to do, right? LOL
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:29:23 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
So there is no kind, or amount, of help in preparing an entry that you would judge to be cheating? Am I understanding you correctly? Total anything goes? So someone who was a relative beginner, had a track of half a dozen entries without cracking 4.5 or so, could get enough help to cop a blue and you would think that was OK? What if they explicitly told their helpers it was for a competition where they had been doing badly and needed a good score? And what if the helpers are also dpc users? Where do you draw the line mk?
Cheating:
"Here's a photo I took, why don't you enter this?"
"Here's a photo I took, can you Photoshop it up for me?"
Not cheating:
"I think your photo would benefit from a tighter crop."
"Maybe you should adjust the contrast/levels/curves,etc."
"How would I adjust the [whatever] using Photoshop?"
[quote=coolhar]
It would be very easy to enforce assuming the rule change and a desire to enforce the rules. |
Would it? Should we call everyone's camera club and make sure they aren't submitting any photos that they are using for challenges here? The same with spouses? And anyone else? And what has that accomplished? Is the "playing field" anywhere near even now?
Please lay out exactly how this could be enforced and exactly what it would provide as I think most of us fail to see possibilities for either. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:32:15 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
You may not think it should be policed but this could actually be policed very easily. Whenever someone finds an image on another website that is currently in voting, or vice versa, they request a DQ and include the URL of the other website. If the SC checks it out and it's the same pic, or one very, very similiar to it, the entry is DQ'ed. Of course there would need to be a rule change, but it is not "impossible to control". |
That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 20:35:07.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:33:29 PM · #58 |
Can I just mention again that we are all playing for virtual ribbons????? Colored pixels???? Oy. This is crazy talk!!!!!
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:34:43 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Can I just mention again that we are all playing for virtual ribbons????? Colored pixels???? Oy. This is crazy talk!!!!! |
agreed
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:55:15 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Can I just mention again that we are all playing for virtual ribbons????? Colored pixels???? Oy. This is crazy talk!!!!! |
Don't trust her, she tried to heist my slide rule!
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:56:51 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Can I just mention again that we are all playing for virtual ribbons????? Colored pixels???? Oy. This is crazy talk!!!!! |
I concur... and truth be known... poor schmucks like me need all the help they can get. I know nothing of PS, composition, the rule of turds......ooops thirds ... or any other photograhic like terms. I need all the help I can get....
If I seek information and assistance from others, I am learning and that is the name of the game. Have no fear... I am not apt to purloin any virtual ribbon from anyone anytime soon.... if ever.
Just a thought... :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:59:45 PM · #62 |
HEAR, HEAR!!
and Kirbic...your slide rule is .. ummm... hidden nicely... Laurie wont even tell anyone where she hid it
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Can I just mention again that we are all playing for virtual ribbons????? Colored pixels???? Oy. This is crazy talk!!!!! |
agreed |
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:00:49 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
And I can't imagine why anyone would complain if, for example, "Member X" PM'd me and asked me "How do you get that misty effect and still keep the subject sharp?" and I obliged by sending him a description of how to achieve that effect. Isn't that what we're HERE for? |
Of course that's what we are here for, and why the site is here. But why should the benefit of your expertise be limited to Member X? Sharing it in these forums and by writing tutorials would benefit many more people and wouldn't give Member X any advantage in a challenge.
Did you miss this post bear?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:04:12 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by coolhar:
You may not think it should be policed but this could actually be policed very easily. Whenever someone finds an image on another website that is currently in voting, or vice versa, they request a DQ and include the URL of the other website. If the SC checks it out and it's the same pic, or one very, very similiar to it, the entry is DQ'ed. Of course there would need to be a rule change, but it is not "impossible to control". |
That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. |
Why is it stupid to want to make the playing field as level as we can? Please explain, as I really can't see what's so stupid about that desire.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:06:50 PM · #65 |
Who in heck assigned you to be the photo police? Dont get me started or they'll end up kicking me off this web site... GROW UP, this crap is juvenile and petty...
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by coolhar:
You may not think it should be policed but this could actually be policed very easily. Whenever someone finds an image on another website that is currently in voting, or vice versa, they request a DQ and include the URL of the other website. If the SC checks it out and it's the same pic, or one very, very similiar to it, the entry is DQ'ed. Of course there would need to be a rule change, but it is not "impossible to control". |
That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. |
Why is it stupid to want to make the playing field as level as we can? Please explain, as I really can't see what's so stupid about that desire. |
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:08:39 PM · #66 |
| All together now.........AOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... AOOOOOOMMMMMMMM... take a deep breath.......hehehehehe :O) |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:10:00 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Why is it stupid to want to make the playing field as level as we can? Please explain, as I really can't see what's so stupid about that desire. |
For starters this
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Can I just mention again that we are all playing for virtual ribbons????? Colored pixels???? Oy. This is crazy talk!!!!! |
If I ask my friend what he thinks as I did in the Cemetery and Bridges II Challenge what he thought about my shots and he said to bump the green to make the bridge and the grass have more pop. How is that cheating? My friend has nothing to do with this site and nothing to do with photography. He is a great mechanic though. It is virtual ribbon. That is just an extra perk for being included with such great photographers and learning from each other. That is what I thought this website was about and built on and if that changes by policing something such as e-mailing Bear_Music for help and not getting it then I don't want nothing more to do with this site.
Edited: Punctuation and Emphasis
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 21:19:56.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:15:18 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by coolhar:
You may not think it should be policed but this could actually be policed very easily. Whenever someone finds an image on another website that is currently in voting, or vice versa, they request a DQ and include the URL of the other website. If the SC checks it out and it's the same pic, or one very, very similiar to it, the entry is DQ'ed. Of course there would need to be a rule change, but it is not "impossible to control". |
That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. |
Why is it stupid to want to make the playing field as level as we can? Please explain, as I really can't see what's so stupid about that desire. |
It's not about making the playing field level, is it? It's about some kind of phantom idea you have that people on this website are getting unfair advantages from having their challenge entries up on personal websites.. or anywhere else on the internet. Explain to me how this makes the playing field anywhere *near* unlevel. It's clear to me that you have an unrealistic view of DPC which seems to confound and confuse everyone *but* yourself... and for what? virtual ribbons and the chance to get your work oohed and ahhhed at for a few days? Name me *one* informal contest anywhere in this world that operates under the mystical parameters that you seem to be setting.. it just doesn't happen.
To another point, When Bear offers *one* person, in a private message, help that was asked for, that person then submits to a challenge. He then might get messaged by 2 or 3 people, asking how he did it.. and he gives them answers. Those 2 or 3 then get messaged by 4 or 5.. see? The help spreads. Bear might also say.. "hhmm, someone asked me for help, and I helped them, and it worked.. so I will now post to the forums how I did it and help others". If everyone kept *YOUR* point-of-view.. we'd all be hoarding our precious talents in a bid to lust after virtual ribbons and the site would eventually fall into a stagnant, rotting corpse, where the people that know how eventually either leave out of boredom, or just continue piling on the ribbons, and the people that don't yet know how either give up out of frustration, or sit around bitching all the time.
What fun is that?
My suggestion is to just let go man.. let loose a little, try to have some fun here.. try to do a little learning of your own, and mayhaps, Pete forbid, share your challenge entries around with a few of your online friends that may have a bit of an objective view.. who knows.. it may help.
If that's too much to ask.. well.. there's always finding another place where your utopian view might, someday, be realized.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:44:01 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Why is it stupid to want to make the playing field as level as we can? |
Without a paid Site Council, I don't see this kind of change being possible. Simply put- there ain't enough of them. They volunteer their time and energy, and this is going to be asking a good deal of them.
I guess the confusion continues here over what you consider cheating. I mean, was I cheating when I asked ClubJuggle for input on a challenge entry that eventually ribboned? At that point in time, neither of us had ever ribboned. Both were sub 6 average shooters. Is that not cheating because Club isn't a "expert?" Was it cheating when I asked crabappl3 for input on another entry that ended up placing at a 5.3?
Is it only cheating if I ask a well established person? And if it is, then explain to me how in the name of all that's holy I'm supposed to ever improve if I can't get feedback?
Clara
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:47:46 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by blemt:
...explain to me how in the name of all that's holy I'm supposed to ever improve if I can't get feedback?
Clara |
If your pitcher's holy, you gotta clone over the holes. Hey, good thing I didn't give you that advice privately ;-)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:53:28 PM · #71 |
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm u cheateddddddddddddddddd
just ask coolhar.... hes a pro at this opinion....
Di
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by blemt:
...explain to me how in the name of all that's holy I'm supposed to ever improve if I can't get feedback?
Clara |
If your pitcher's holy, you gotta clone over the holes. Hey, good thing I didn't give you that advice privately ;-) |
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:57:14 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
If your pitcher's holy, you gotta clone over the holes. Hey, good thing I didn't give you that advice privately ;-) |
Dude! I'm gonna have to report you to SC. That's cheating!
Clara-wait...that could be a problem....hmmmm. Err. Yeah. Anyway- how bout them Nats?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 10:02:57 PM · #73 |
Artyst, have you read the entire thread? I am not in any way advocating that we do not share anything that would help anyone to become a better photographer. No where, at no time do I say that. I just want people to try to do the sharing, the learning and teaching, in a way and at a time that does not give anyone an advantage in the competitions. I think that's what the ownership rule is about. I am all in favor of the learning aspect of the site. This site is my first choice for all sorts of info about photography. And I try to help others when I can. I'm sure you have seen posts from me supporting that. I just feel that it is also important to try to keep the challenges a place where someone can have a fair chance of getting a good score for their own work. I want to think that when I enter a shot in a challenge that I am competing against other photographers, not against photographers with unlimited assistance from pros, instructors, family members, the public at large, etc. Is that too much to ask?
All this talk in the forums about everything being impossible to enforce; and why can't I get just a little bit of help here; and why can't she get a little help there? The end result is that people come to think that any kind of help is OK, and there goes the concept of it being your own work. Why is that so offensive to you?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 10:05:03 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Artyst, have you read the entire thread? I am not in any way advocating that we do not share anything that would help anyone to become a better photographer. No where, at no time do I say that. I just want people to try to do the sharing, the learning and teaching, in a way and at a time that does not give anyone an advantage in the competitions. I think that's what the ownership rule is about. I am all in favor of the learning aspect of the site. This site is my first choice for all sorts of info about photography. And I try to help others when I can. I'm sure you have seen posts from me supporting that. I just feel that it is also important to try to keep the challenges a place where someone can have a fair chance of getting a good score for their own work. I want to think that when I enter a shot in a challenge that I am competing against other photographers, not against photographers with unlimited assistance from pros, instructors, family members, the public at large, etc. Is that too much to ask?
All this talk in the forums about everything being impossible to enforce; and why can't I get just a little bit of help here; and why can't she get a little help there? The end result is that people come to think that any kind of help is OK, and there goes the concept of it being your own work. Why is that so offensive to you? |
Why is outside help for challenges so offensive to *you*? Nevermind, you've already answered that for yourself. Nothing is offensive to me.. I just don't see the point in the limitations you are trying to oppose for "in challenge" photographs. A persons work will always be *their* work.. no matter how much advice or technical help they get on it. They still saw what they wanted to shoot.. They still shot it with the camera.. and they'll still put a little bit, or a lot, of themselves in to the final image. I agree that someone should never take a photo someone *else* shot and submit it.. but that's not what anyone is talking about here.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 22:08:20.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 10:17:25 PM · #75 |
edit- deleted because I'm a grown up and dont need to say what I would like to say
Originally posted by coolhar:
Artyst, have you read the entire thread? I am not in any way advocating that we do not share anything that would help anyone to become a better photographer. No where, at no time do I say that. I just want people to try to do the sharing, the learning and teaching, in a way and at a time that does not give anyone an advantage in the competitions. I think that's what the ownership rule is about. I am all in favor of the learning aspect of the site. This site is my first choice for all sorts of info about photography. And I try to help others when I can. I'm sure you have seen posts from me supporting that. I just feel that it is also important to try to keep the challenges a place where someone can have a fair chance of getting a good score for their own work. I want to think that when I enter a shot in a challenge that I am competing against other photographers, not against photographers with unlimited assistance from pros, instructors, family members, the public at large, etc. Is that too much to ask?
All this talk in the forums about everything being impossible to enforce; and why can't I get just a little bit of help here; and why can't she get a little help there? The end result is that people come to think that any kind of help is OK, and there goes the concept of it being your own work. Why is that so offensive to you? |
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 22:19:55. |
|
