| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/06/2005 10:09:36 PM · #1 |
As a result of the treatment received in this thread
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=236484
Especially this comment:
3) No user is under ANY obligation to post their original to a discussion thread. There is an implication that failing to do so in some way implies guilt. (And I'm not pointing fingers here.) That implication is incorrect. The only people a user needs to provide originals to is Site Council.
and the private message received from the maker of said comment I think I shall be taking a break from DPC for a bit.
When one can no longer express an opinion without be publically and privately shut down I have to wonder just where the site is headed.
At no time did I ever imply that the original picture was not legal, at no time did I even say that muur88 HAD to post his original, I asked politely, I said that if I had come under that kind of scrunity that I would have post the original simply because that is who I am. When one questions my work I am willing to back it up, show what I did. I did not accuse anyone of any wrong doing, I did not accuse anyone of anything. I asked a few questions and got called a vigilante and was not so politely told it was none of my business.
Well, guess you're right, it's not my business, I'm not site council, I'm just a paying member who came here to learn and to question techniques and methods. Evidently that's not what it's all about anymore. My bad.
Deannda
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 11:08:18 PM · #2 |
| Its unfortunate that a site meant for fun and learning experience brings out the worst in some people. |
|
|
|
07/06/2005 11:19:54 PM · #3 |
The whole "shroud of mystery" surrounding said blue ribbon winner has got me baffled. The SC members I've spoken to are like "oh, it's pretty easy" so why are they still debating it? And why the big mystery?
Anyways, if a SC pm'd you something untoward, I'd be surprised. If it was "STFU" I wouldn't be.
On a related rant/note - has ANYONE ever been a member of a site where threads were locked as frequently as on dpc?
M
|
|
|
|
07/06/2005 11:20:43 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 12:08:45 AM · #5 |
Deannda -- sorry if you were offended. i think it's great that you are willing to back up your work if and when it is questioned. however, that decision is totally up to the individual photographer.
we spent a great deal of time trying to end the speculation about the blue ribbon shot because it really was unfair to the photographer. had he not put anything in the details the shot would not nearly have inspired as much debate -- and we're trying to ENCOURAGE people to put as much detail with shots as possible to help everyone learn.
the point of having an SC is so that issues such as these can be weighed without parading the debate through the general public. that's so we can be as fair as possible to the photographers.
as for the thread locking, the bulk of it seems to be eliminating duplicate threads. when a site's forums move as quickly as ours do, it's only fair to try and keep the busier topics on the home page, but contained in one thread. this morning alone there were 4 threads about the 2012 olympics, for example. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 12:24:49 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... this morning alone there were 4 threads about the 2012 olympics, for example. |
Better then the classic look what I ordered/got threads :P
Edit: wrong quote.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 00:25:38. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 12:31:35 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
On a related rant/note - has ANYONE ever been a member of a site where threads were locked as frequently as on dpc?
M |
On the high-end poetry site I frequent, we get a LOT of threads locked down because people get nasty. DPC is really tame and well-behaved by comparison. part of the reason is that SC are vigilant and reasonable. Plus, most of the locked threads are to eliminate redundancy, I think.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 04:57:34 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
As a result of the treatment received in this thread
Especially this comment:
and the private message received from the maker of said comment |
I'm completely with Deannda on this one. I actually guessed who made the comment/PM, which I think says a lot.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 05:44:41 AM · #9 |
Sorry to post this here but the other thread has been locked and I am still confused
What is the difference between the blue ribbon winner being legal KDO's image being DQ'd
KDO's Image:
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:26:57 AM · #10 |
See ya Neuferland...
I don't think you have to go, though...
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 08:28:47.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 09:14:54 AM · #11 |
I am sorry that you feel my comment was out of line. I thought I did a good job explaining why we needed to temporarilly shut that thread down. Apparently I did not.
As I said then, a bit of a witch hunt mentality had developed around that image, which was not fair to the photographer. Particularly since SC was still in discussion phase and unable to discuss the entry fully. Because we could not address specifics, the thread contained nothing but speculation.
As discussion has ended, that thread has been unlocked. I'm waiting for permission from the photographer to post some additional specifics. If I get that permission, I'll post the examples. Failing that, all I can do is state that when you look at the cropped original, the actual removal of elements is minor.
I'm more than willing to post the text of the PM I sent you here in an effort to get some feedback from folks on ways to improve tone. I await your permission to do so. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 09:37:12 AM · #12 |
It's been shown here enough times that by now, there's something we all should know:
Dragging an argument into a public forum never ends well. Everyone who reads it picks a side based on almost no information and things get heated.
If a site counsel member has legitimately been rude to you, you should immediately send the owners of the site a PM explaining. Let them handle it. If another member has been rude, send a PM to the site counsel and let them handle it.
What has ever been gained here at dpc by turning a misunderstanding into a public debate? |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:04:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by colda:
What is the difference between the blue ribbon winner being legal KDO's image being DQ'd |
KDO changed a detailed background to all white. Muur88 started and ended with a very dark, essentially featureless background (despite any conclusions you might infer from his comments). |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:08:56 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by colda:
What is the difference between the blue ribbon winner being legal KDO's image being DQ'd |
KDO changed a detailed background to all white. Muur88 started and ended with a very dark, essentially featureless background (despite any conclusions you might infer from his comments). |
Okies - thanks Shannon :)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:08:57 AM · #15 |
Muur88 seemed to use a wonderful feature in photography by perceiving the way that the light at the scene could be used to create a beautiful image in the darkroom. This is not digit art or anything like that...in fact, I think this technique has much more integrity than something like NeatImage.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:11:20 AM · #16 |
which is exactly why all the comments about him "removing" the background were unfair, which is why we were trying to put the kibosh on the speculation.
i really think this entire situation has been blown out of proportion. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:16:51 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
which is exactly why all the comments about him "removing" the background were unfair, which is why we were trying to put the kibosh on the speculation.
i really think this entire situation has been blown out of proportion. |
I agree completely.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:29:46 AM · #18 |
I've never been one to cause a thread lock-down (too nice I guess), but I sure kill threads often (too boring I guess).
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:36:37 AM · #19 |
Forgetting the background trees in that image, I was actually more concerned with the side rail of the bridge, not being at all visible, with such a great amount of sunlight hitting the man and the opposite rail.
I'd be curious to see the original...not for a DQ's sake but to see what is deemed as acceptable. Maybe as a guideline? It's all good to me but if there was a major, visible portion of that side rail in the original, you may also have opened up a can of worms, if/when others start to knock out certain elements. Where's the line?
Congrats Muur88!!! Well done.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 10:40:03.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:54:25 AM · #20 |
Boo Hoo! If your gonna leave, then do it. Why do you feel you need to make a big scene about it, stomp your feet and slam the door?
Sorry I'm so harsh, but I don't understand the point of this whole thing. Someone pissed you off, so your gonna call them out in a public forum in hopes that everyone else rushes to your side and strokes your ego? Sorry, doesn't work with me.
Let the blasting begin! |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 11:02:12 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I was actually more concerned with the side rail of the bridge, not being at all visible, with such a great amount of sunlight hitting the man and the opposite rail. |
When curves are applied to the entire image to achieve the heavy contrast you see on the left rail (legal even in Basic Editing), the trees and right side rail all but disappear in heavy shadow. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 11:34:03 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by papa:
Boo Hoo! If your gonna leave, then do it. Why do you feel you need to make a big scene about it, stomp your feet and slam the door?
Sorry I'm so harsh, but I don't understand the point of this whole thing. Someone pissed you off, so your gonna call them out in a public forum in hopes that everyone else rushes to your side and strokes your ego? Sorry, doesn't work with me.
Let the blasting begin! |
I can't belive someone actually jumped in and said this. This community is like family and to jump in and say this is totally rude and uncalled for. It was put in the rant section....if you don't want to see rants then go to your preferences and shut them off. Uncalled for to state what you stated.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 11:34:35. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 11:56:57 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by papa:
Boo Hoo! If your gonna leave, then do it. Why do you feel you need to make a big scene about it, stomp your feet and slam the door?
Sorry I'm so harsh, but I don't understand the point of this whole thing. Someone pissed you off, so your gonna call them out in a public forum in hopes that everyone else rushes to your side and strokes your ego? Sorry, doesn't work with me.
Let the blasting begin! |
I can't belive someone actually jumped in and said this. This community is like family and to jump in and say this is totally rude and uncalled for. It was put in the rant section....if you don't want to see rants then go to your preferences and shut them off. Uncalled for to state what you stated. |
while i agree that papa's post was a bit harsh, i have to say that i also see his point. the original poster was upset about something they received in a PM. there's no reason to bring this out into the forums, even in the Rant section. this should have been handled in private between the two parties. just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 12:10:21 PM · #24 |
I have a photo of that bridge from last year and the right rail is only slightly visible in my (heavily post-edited) photo. I can see the right railing in his photo as well on my computer, and I absolutely love his photo!
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 12:25:05 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I was actually more concerned with the side rail of the bridge, not being at all visible, with such a great amount of sunlight hitting the man and the opposite rail. |
When curves are applied to the entire image to achieve the heavy contrast you see on the left rail (legal even in Basic Editing), the trees and right side rail all but disappear in heavy shadow. |
Here is an example of same idea, no editting except for resizing:
50mm, F1.8, 1/250th, ISO 400, 7:46PM
50mm, F10, 1/250th, ISO 400, Flash, 7:46PM
Both shots were within a minute of each other.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 12:26:08. |
|
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: 06/15/2025 02:43:35 PM EDT.
