| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2005 05:23:12 PM · #76 |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 05:37:46 PM · #77 |
I'm pretty new on this board and it seems most ideas have already been shared earlier but I did think of a few points I'd like to make (not pointing out any specific photos).
On the point of drug use not being allowed because it's illegal (if that is in fact the reason) suicide is illegal in the US as well.
It was mentioned earlier about how kids shouldn't see disturbing images and should only goto "kid safe" web sites (I'm paraphrasing) I'd like to think of THIS site as kid safe. I enjoy photography with my family and see this site as the kind of site I'd like to be able to encourage my 14 year old son to visit to help his talents grow.
With that said I understand there will be nudity on the site from time to time which is acceptable to me as an artistic representation of form. There is not pornography allowed on this site though because that would be crossing the line. Is that to say a pornographic image cannot be artistic? Not at all, it's just not acceptable on a site open to the general public such as this one.
I believe there are also lines when it comes to violence depicted in pictures on a site like this as well. It's not to say the pictures are not artistic or that they are bad or evil - it's just to say some pictures may not be appropriate in such a venue.
This is a community of people with a broad set of ages and cultures. With our broad range of values and opinions I believe it is our responsibility to do our best to respect each other and the diversity of the members here. It's up to all members to decide as a group what type of site we'd like this to be. If it's going to be a family/teenage appropriate site please keep that in mind when posting an image and be respectful of the other members. If this is going to be a site geared towards adults only then perhaps we need to make that clear on the site from the very get go.
In any case whether a photo is seen as "good" or "bad" the only kind of "criticism" that should be given out is "constructive criticism". If it's not constructive and just accusatory nothing will change and we will just be left with debates that devolve into a shoving match over who's opinion is better. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 05:56:07 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
This is a community of people with a broad set of ages and cultures. With our broad range of values and opinions I believe it is our responsibility to do our best to respect each other and the diversity of the members here. It's up to all members to decide as a group what type of site we'd like this to be. If it's going to be a family/teenage appropriate site please keep that in mind when posting an image and be respectful of the other members. If this is going to be a site geared towards adults only then perhaps we need to make that clear on the site from the very get go. |
Actually, it's not up to all members to decide as a group, it's up to the site owners, Drew and Langdon, though I know they usually keep an eye on the opinions of their site council and members.
And my understanding is that whilst DPC isn't focused on adult-only content it is a site that is generally oriented to adults, hence the requirement for parents of any children under 13 years of age to sign a consent form before they can become participating members.
That certainly doesn't preclude respecting others opinions and diversity of ages, cultures and experiences but it does lean towards broad rather than restricted limits on suitable content.
How Drew and Langdon feel about the type of images being discussed, I have no idea, but that's the impression I have picked up over the years I've been hanging out here.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 08:37:06 PM · #79 |
Okay- sorry guys but this is getting locked until after midnight. It's not fair to continue this discussion while images are still in voting.
Clara |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 05:17:29 AM · #80 |
Clara
It seems to be that this discussion is no longer about specific individual images in a current challenge but a general discussion about what is and isn't/ should and shouldn't be part of DPC in general.
Given that there is always going to be a challenge going on, when will be a good time to discuss that kind of wide-ranging issue?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 07:25:10 AM · #81 |
Right now works. :)
Honestly, this was just a matter of trying to make sure that the suicide images in that challenge got a fair shake. The discussion was specific enough related to type of images that it wasn't fair to them to keep prodding this subject. Every time the thread bumped, new people were reading it. Those individuals may have been upset enough by the overall discussion to revise votes on those images downward.
If you had submitted one and the score started to drop after this thread started, you might have been a little annoyed. :)
This kind of discussion is always welcome. But, it was just specific enough that it was not fair for the images in voting this week. Voting is done, scores are up, so let's rock and roll. :)
Clara |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 07:37:15 AM · #82 |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 07:44:53 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Clara
It seems to be that this discussion is no longer about specific individual images in a current challenge but a general discussion about what is and isn't/ should and shouldn't be part of DPC in general.
Given that there is always going to be a challenge going on, when will be a good time to discuss that kind of wide-ranging issue? |
Before we can address what kind of "images is and isn't/ should and shouldn't be part of DPC", we need to determine if the community has the desire to put limits on what is displayed here. I'm talking about limits that go beyond the legal minimum to protect the site from lawsuits. I, for one, would like to see some limitations beyond the legal minimums. But everytime the discussion approaches any kind of control over controversial subjects (such as violence, suicide, illegal drugs, underage use of alcohol or tobacco) we hear the voices saying that these images are art, and saying that we shouldn't stifle creativity. I think it would be an important step to get those who would tolerate anything that anyone could call art, or creative, to agree to sacriface a bit of their position for the sake of taste and civility in the community.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 07:56:02 AM · #84 |
Hey why not go all the way and have a Patriot Act, or get the thought police in? Come on guys, the minute you start putting limitations on photography you kill the spirit. The only exception's are perhaps pornographic style images. Death effects us all.
20/20 Vision is an open mind, let's all try to improve our sight. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 08:00:12 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
On the point of drug use not being allowed because it's illegal (if that is in fact the reason) suicide is illegal in the US as well.
|
The whole illegality of suicide is a bit of a canard though. The law is designed that way to get authorities a way to protect people from themselves. It's also a throwback to very old Cannon law where the Church decided that suicide was a mortal sin, and as such if you killed yourself you could not be buried on consicrated ground, and your heirs in many cases would forfit your assets. There's actually some incredibly interesting history behind how these laws evolved. And I digress...
Originally posted by megatherian:
I believe there are also lines when it comes to violence depicted in pictures on a site like this as well. It's not to say the pictures are not artistic or that they are bad or evil - it's just to say some pictures may not be appropriate in such a venue.
|
And this is where it gets difficult. Because this site has a broad international membership it is very, very challenging to decide what is and isn't pushing the line. The US is actually very conservative overall when you compare us to the rest of the world when it comes to sex and nudity. On the flip side, when it comes to violence, we are almost on the other end of the spectrum. It's so incredibly subjective that is it impossible to come up with a set of guidelines that work.
When you consider just how many members we have, I think we have a very family friendly site. The percentage of "objectionable" images in any given challenge is usually less than 1 percent. Heck, that's better than what you get on the evening news! :)
Originally posted by megatherian:
In any case whether a photo is seen as "good" or "bad" the only kind of "criticism" that should be given out is "constructive criticism". If it's not constructive and just accusatory nothing will change and we will just be left with debates that devolve into a shoving match over who's opinion is better. |
Yeah! What she said. ;)
Clara |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 08:16:35 AM · #86 |
| Hi LaDY Monarda here. I was surprised my image placed so low in decision challenge. I decided not to give it the title it was about, because I thought the image spoke for itself. The decision was really about choosing a vase. That is why I showed four vases, and the final vase I chose for the flowers. Would it have made a difference if I had reflected that in my title? Very few comments, so I don't know what I really did wrong. I even folded the tablecloth to point to the vase I chose, yet still nobody seemed to think it a good image. The choice of texture in the vases was also important. I thought it would show better as a black and white contrast. I would really like to know what votes are based on. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 09:02:06 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
Hi LaDY Monarda here. I was surprised my image placed so low in decision challenge. I decided not to give it the title it was about, because I thought the image spoke for itself. The decision was really about choosing a vase. That is why I showed four vases, and the final vase I chose for the flowers. Would it have made a difference if I had reflected that in my title? Very few comments, so I don't know what I really did wrong. I even folded the tablecloth to point to the vase I chose, yet still nobody seemed to think it a good image. The choice of texture in the vases was also important. I thought it would show better as a black and white contrast. I would really like to know what votes are based on. |
I think a stronger title, something like "Choosing the Right Vase" of "The Best Vase for these Flowers", would have improved your score. The title you used is too easily misunderstood. It could be about your decision not to submit a color version, or it could be describing a clear-cut decision as opposed to one that involved grey areas.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 09:22:55 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I, for one, would like to see some limitations beyond the legal minimums. |
this piques my interest. i would like to know why you think there should be more limitations on submissions here. have there been many that have offended you personally? do you think some are age-inappropriate?
my opinion is that if you see an image that displeases you, vote it lower and move on. the person submitting the photo probably knows that the subject is controversial and has braced themselves for a lower score.
the suicide images might be "disturbing," but i don't see that any of them placed very well. by starting this and at least two other threads on the topic, i think they've been given far more attention than if they had just been submitted to the challenge and voted upon.
the irony of this goes far beyond dpc as well, and i don't understand it. there's a new statue here in town behind one of the art schools on a street that no one ever drives down. some self-righteous people have declared it "indecent" and started to crusade against it. now this "indecent" statue is plastered on the front page of newspapers and on the television news. instead of just leaving it alone, they caused a huge stink and now more people than ever have seen the statue and many are rallying toward its cause.
but, i digress...
i think it's safe to say that very few "controversial" photos do well here. in some cases i think that's unfortunate (that's a topic for an entirely different thread), but that's life at dpc. as it is, i think there are enough implicit limitations on photo topics to negate any need to put more "official" ones in place.
if we were really so conservative, i don't think DrJOnes' photos would do quite so well.
Message edited by author 2005-06-08 09:24:04. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 09:25:30 AM · #89 |
wow another long winded thread. If people would leave comments like they leave forum posts...
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 09:37:01 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think it would be an important step to get those who would tolerate anything that anyone could call art, or creative, to agree to sacriface a bit of their position for the sake of taste and civility in the community. |
And who decides what is tasteful and civil? Put it up for a vote? Isn't that what the voting process does now? As for censoring what you may find distasteful or uncivil, I respectfully disagree. And I'm not one of those voices who personally accepts anything. But if something offends me I move on, change the channel, choose not to look. Art has always been a voice for the minority, so I believe that majority rule isn't the best approach for deciding what should be allowed. Why should one group lose their voice in this (or any) community simply because it offends the sensibility of some? |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 11:54:06 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
this piques my interest. i would like to know why you think there should be more limitations on submissions here. have there been many that have offended you personally? do you think some are age-inappropriate? |
I am going to answer your post in a rather limited way. I am trying to stay focused on whether or not we should have some standards, and trying to avoid the discussion of where those standards, if any, should draw the line. I certainly don't expect the community to accept my own standards. And I would be very surprised if mine and the community's were the same.
I think we, as a group, would be better off if there were some limits on what types of images are permitted, limits that are more restrictive than the ones the lawyers make us use to avoid being sued. We do exert some limitations on what is allowed to be posted in the forums. Can't we do the same for images? Keeping the site appealing to as many as possible is an important consideration. And we need to avoid going overboard so we don't stifle creativity or stunt imagination. But I think we want to be known as a community that has something other than a totally "anything goes" standard. There is that clause in the ToS about taste, it's not there for legal purposes. Do we have any taste at all?
As for using the voting process to discourage that which is offensive, I thought that was officially discouraged. Aren't we supposed to vote objectivly on the quality of the photo with an eye to meeting the challenge? In the past I have advocated in these forums for using the vote to enforce one's own tastes and have been roundly called down for it. There is always going to be a certain amount of it because we are all human. Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't it been the collective wisdom that we should try to vote as objectively as possible and try to keep our personal views out of it?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:01:25 PM · #92 |
i appreciate your views. i'm still not sure how we are supposed to put limitations in place for "taste," when this is a site with a worldwide audience and a myriad of backgrounds and views.
Originally posted by coolhar:
Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't it been the collective wisdom that we should try to vote as objectively as possible and try to keep our personal views out of it? |
i've never advocated this position. your vote is your personal opinion. if you have distaste of the subject, feel free to use your vote to note that. the only voting restriction (or "suggestion") is that if you think a photo violates the challenge rules you should report that but vote as though you KNOW it is legal.
other than that, fire away. if you want to give a 10 to a white square, rock on. if you want to give a 1 to a suicide image, that's all good as well.
all i have been trying to enforce is that people keep their personal views to themselves until the challenge voting is over. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:04:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Blah Blah Blah Blah. Self-proclaimed expert. Blah Balh Blah. I'm right dammit!! Blah Blah Blah. Your stuff is crap!
Moral of this story is...........Blah Blah Blah!!!! |
Just to mention something that has been mentioned before. |
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:05:26 PM · #94 |
clarification: yes, i know the ToS specifically mentions images that are "offensive or in bad taste." i guess that "taste" is in the eye of the beholder here.
i think of that clause as a safety net for the site, so that images that could end up hurting the site can be removed if found to be absolutely necessary.
if something is SO shocking or SO offensive, the SC and/or D&L will make a ruling. if it's offensive to you, you should let that be known with your vote and or your comments. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:14:14 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
And who decides what is tasteful and civil? |
Rudy Giuliani
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:14:15 PM · #96 |
The point remains - who is going to draw these lines of acceptability and on what basis?
Also we have a wide variety of cultures represented here and pictures may offend one group and not another. You only need to see what is censored on TV in various countries to see how they differ. Suicide is not illegal in UK for example. (How do you prosecute someone who has killed themselves??????)
I walked into an art gallery, the Tate in London, and found a dead horse hanging down from the ceiling. This piece of art upset (offended?) me but was considered wonderful by others. Who has a right to say whether I was correct or others?
I would hate to be the one to say where the lines are drawn., By the way, were there not recent photos in "Decisions" that showed lines of pseudo cocaine? Do these not go against the rules of showing drugs and so were these DQ'd?
Pauline |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:15:46 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
The point remains - who is going to draw these lines of acceptability and on what basis?
Pauline |
Again....Rudy Guiliani
Message edited by author 2005-06-08 12:16:04.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:17:19 PM · #98 |
>SNIIP>>>appreciate your views. i'm still not sure how we are supposed to put limitations in place for "taste," when this is a site with a worldwide audience and a myriad of backgrounds and views.
Just to tag on to this..w/my two cents..
There are a few here that in the past have objected strongly about bug and spider shots.
It's a fine line and hard to draw in the sand.
As has been suggested, use your vote and comments to make your objections.
justine
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:20:56 PM · #99 |
| If you get a feeling of disgust or any other strong emotion from an image then the image was successful of telling a story. You just may not like the story being told. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:24:59 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i appreciate your views. i'm still not sure how we are supposed to put limitations in place for "taste," when this is a site with a worldwide audience and a myriad of backgrounds and views. |
I think this would almost impossible. With such an incredibly diverse range of members, cultures, experiences, moralities and preferences how would we possibly define "taste"?
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't it been the collective wisdom that we should try to vote as objectively as possible and try to keep our personal views out of it? |
i've never advocated this position. your vote is your personal opinion. if you have distaste of the subject, feel free to use your vote to note that. the only voting restriction (or "suggestion") is that if you think a photo violates the challenge rules you should report that but vote as though you KNOW it is legal.
other than that, fire away. if you want to give a 10 to a white square, rock on. if you want to give a 1 to a suicide image, that's all good as well. |
I am, once again, with mucky on this one. I don't understand why so many people expect or desire voting to be "objective" when that's impossible to achieve anyway. One can either consciously allow one's own tastes and mindset to intrude on one's voting or pretend one is being objective but have it intrude subconsciously anyway. What IS is that makes one person give an image a 10 and another give it a 5? It's not just that they judge the technical aspects that differently, I'm sure but about their opinion on how well it meets the challenge (something that is wholly subjective as it relates to our own interpretations of language and concepts) and their opinion on how appealing the image is (also wholly subjective).
Isn't the whole point of DPC improving not only in technique but also improving in one's ability to create work that appeals to the masses?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 12:49:49 PM EDT.
