| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2006 10:20:23 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Then I noticed how in every thread I have read where graphicfunk was speaking, or some others here at DPC, you are completely in their defense when someone goes against them. I just find that a bit un-nerving. |
You find it unnerving that I agree with some people and not with others?
R. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:20:27 PM · #27 |
We can use this thread to help members avoid DQ. You see you work on an image and it hurts so bad to have a team dq it. Dq's are essential to keep the place honest but look at how many fall into this trap because they horse the controls. Do we not owe these people the warning?
Yes, my editing views are conservative and they will keep many from receiving a DQ.
Many fine photographers have questioned many validations. They are judgement calls and it all depends what voting block judged. Another block may vote different.
The rules as written have created a lot of DQ's. Are we not interested in making things easier for members? |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:24:34 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Then I noticed how in every thread I have read where graphicfunk was speaking, or some others here at DPC, you are completely in their defense when someone goes against them. I just find that a bit un-nerving. |
You find it unnerving that I agree with some people and not with others?
R. |
Perhaps Bear is just giving his opinion, and it has nothing to do with you. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:25:41 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Then I noticed how in every thread I have read where graphicfunk was speaking, or some others here at DPC, you are completely in their defense when someone goes against them. I just find that a bit un-nerving. |
You find it unnerving that I agree with some people and not with others?
R. |
No, that is not what I am saying, and I don't want to make this a full blown shout out here and get this thread locked. However, to be blunt and totally honest with you, I just think it is a bit hypocritical to stand behind one person who has a view and opinion and opens a thread on it, but when someone like myself does, it is "there are no guarantees in life....." and a kind of "go wipe your nose and someone pass her the kleenex" kind of reply.
Sometimes I think such things have to be said to make the other person aware of how they are perceived. But don't worry if you think that hasn't happened to me. LOL...I am working on my flaws, but unfortunately I think tonight I am just a bit tired and trying to stay awake for rollover, so maybe I shouldn't have spoke of it at all.
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:25:48 PM · #30 |
Ppppppssshhh....It's these types of threads that make me not like this site sometimes.
I know that you were trying to clarify some things about the rules here. But why not just let it be? The only thing you win on this site is a number on your computer screen in between 1 and 10 and if people like you enough you get a little colored ribbon to go with it.
Chill out dudes and dudettes. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:26:49 PM · #31 |
Let's step back for a minute..
graphicfunk, I'm all for clarifying the rules more. Personally I like having things clearly defined and have found it frustrating that there does not seem to be anyone on this site who can give definitive answers to questions on this site.
With that said though, how many people are getting DQ'd per challenge? Maybe 1-2%? It seems like for the most part people aren't having a problem, really I think it's the people who either are ignoring the rules trying to get away with it or just really pushing the envelope.
Like I said, I'm not against this crusade, but let's put it in perspective, right now it sounds like the biggest problem on the site with a massive amount of DQs when in reality it is a relatively small number. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:28:39 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by A1275:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Then I noticed how in every thread I have read where graphicfunk was speaking, or some others here at DPC, you are completely in their defense when someone goes against them. I just find that a bit un-nerving. |
You find it unnerving that I agree with some people and not with others?
R. |
Perhaps Bear is just giving his opinion, and it has nothing to do with you. |
Actually, he was and it didn't have anything to do with me. However, as a person who has also posted on a few threads here in my time, I have also received comments from bearmusic. I found them mystifying compared to the defenses he gives here. So, now, I have stated my opinion, JUST like you did at fotofight, in which that thread there had nothing to do with you, nor did the situation you spoke of.
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:29:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Sometimes I think such things have to be said to make the other person aware of how they are perceived. But don't worry if you think that hasn't happened to me. LOL...I am working on my flaws, but unfortunately I think tonight I am just a bit tired and trying to stay awake for rollover, so maybe I shouldn't have spoke of it at all.
Rose |
Awareness of how one is perceived by others is always good. I highly recommend it to you :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:32:09 PM · #34 |
Rose...Robert, Dan, myself, and a number of other members are Free Masons. We are not allowed to disagree with each other.
If you don't buy that, then at least Robt. and Dan have beards. That puts them in some sort of secret society right there... |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:33:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by stare_at_the_sun:
Ppppppssshhh....It's these types of threads that make me not like this site sometimes.
I know that you were trying to clarify some things about the rules here. But why not just let it be? The only thing you win on this site is a number on your computer screen in between 1 and 10 and if people like you enough you get a little colored ribbon to go with it.
Chill out dudes and dudettes. |
I'm with you. I'm stepping BACK from the computer now. LOL...I am tired and probably inserting foot to mouth here. I will not disrupt the conversation further by thinking out loud. LOL....
There is a thunderstorm brewing in my area, and a few tornado warnings. Perhaps I will get a good free study photo out of it. LOL...I'm stepping over to the window now where it is less dangerous :) LOL....Hopefully the clock will move faster for the rollover in the meantime.
:)
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:33:33 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rose...Robert, Dan, myself, and a number of other members are Free Masons. We are not allowed to disagree with each other.
If you don't buy that, then at least Robt. and Dan have beards. That puts them in some sort of secret society right there... |
LMAO
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:36:25 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rose...Robert, Dan, myself, and a number of other members are Free Masons. We are not allowed to disagree with each other.
If you don't buy that, then at least Robt. and Dan have beards. That puts them in some sort of secret society right there... |
BradP used to be one of us, until his daughter whacked his beard. He's on probation now. But he's at least fully aware of what we think of him, and I know he'll be a better man for it.
R. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:41:03 PM · #38 |
Dan, in your last thread, you railed against the individual voice because it made things too unclear. And yet now your solution is to present, with your individual voice, the voice of someone who is not even on the deciding committee, inaccurate information to help clarify things? You speak frequently of logic and this just does not strike me as logical.
If you truly wish to help clarify things, perhaps you would like to make a draft of the rules as you feel they should be and submit them to the admins and/or Site Council. I'm sure we would appreciate your help. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:41:40 PM · #39 |
I always thought it appropo to support those whose thoughts and ideas coincided with mine, just selfish that way....and curmudgeonly express disagreemant when, likewise, appropo. I find little to agree with in the opinions expressed by "Rose NoOnesBusiness", but that does not invalidate her opinion...afterall, she cannot become a freemason!
Message edited by author 2006-01-01 22:44:26. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:42:20 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Actually, he was and it didn't have anything to do with me. However, as a person who has also posted on a few threads here in my time, I have also received comments from bearmusic. I found them mystifying compared to the defenses he gives here. So, now, I have stated my opinion, JUST like you did at fotofight, in which that thread there had nothing to do with you, nor did the situation you spoke of.
Rose |
You've missed the point again. My original post here in this thread was meant to get you to consider the fact that Maybe, Just Maybe, people say things that aren't directly related to you. Isn't the thought that someone isn't persecuting you something to be looked upon favorably?
This personal attack bringing up past threads previously unmentioned (unlike the other) is unwarranted and unwelcome. Perhaps a PM is in order, if you harbor residual bitter feelings about it? |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:49:56 PM · #41 |
To address a few misconceptions... the overriding intent of the editing rules (both Basic and Advanced)is to allow the photographer to make the most of his or her capture. Obviously, you have more tools in your arsenal to accomplish this in advanced editing, but validation will depend (largely) upon a comparison of what you captured vs. what you entered.
You can't add any objects or shapes (major or otherwise), and you can't remove anything significant to the image you captured. Now, what is significant (i.e. a major element) will differ from person to person, but it's generally anything that might be listed if you were describing the image in basic terms to someone who hasn't seen it, or an object dominant enough to affect the composition. The exception here is color.
Colors may always be shifted (globally in Basic and selectively in Advanced). This means you can make a color image grayscale, sepia or another color entirely. Want to make those green suspenders pruple? Go right ahead! It's been done before...
 
Likewise, you can shift the color of a background or other area, whether it's flat or textured. What you CAN'T do is replace a detailed background with flat color. Neither can you take a flat background and add new features to it. You can only work with the features already in the capture. And, yes, you can even turn day into night- as long as everything in the original is still discernible in the entry.
As for filters... radial blurs, motion, blurs, distortions, liquify, etc. are all legal in Advanced. The key is that they should be used for touchup, and not to create new features that weren't in the original. If there's motion in the capture, then you can emphasize it a little more with a blur. I've used Liquify myself to help clone out imperfections or smooth an irregular shape. When the distortion or filter itself becomes an obvious (added) feature, THEN you're getting into risky territory. For example, you could use the Lens Flare tool to touch up an existing flare, but you couldn't use it to create artificial "sparkles" on your entry. Hope that helps. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 10:54:02 PM · #42 |
I respect the opinions of other, but certainly don't agree.
After readin some stuff that grapicfunk has enlightened the DPC community on is just some of the stuff that I first was complaining about when I first registered onto this site.
graphicfunk has just found the strenght to put down in detail what alot of us in site have alway wondered, asked about, and to the end have fallen on deaf ears.
Clarity in the language of the rules, the precise wording of the rules is at question here.
Like Pres. Clinton asked at his hearing, "What does the word 'the' mean?"
It's inconsistancies like this that are in the rules that keep threads on the rules alive.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:08:31 PM · #43 |
point #1:
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Like Pres. Clinton asked at his hearing, "What does the word 'the' mean?" |
i think you mean "it depends on what the definition of is is"
--
point #2:
i don't think it's fair to brand this thread with a word like "warning!" the SC has been quite accomodating in trying to answer questions about the advanced editing rules.
we are trying to maintain the delicate balance between artistic freedom and photographic integrity. i believe, on the whole, this site does fairly well at achieving that balance.
the rules, as has been stated before, are developed in such a way that we are trying to get users to use the camera and its capabilities as their primary tools when creating a photo. the post-processing, while a vital part of the process, is meaningless without an existing photo.
as mk said, we are open to suggestions from all walks of life. but posting repeated diatribes about what you think is wrong with the site without posting constructive suggestions is not helpful. branding such threads as "warning!" further enrage the situation.
--
point #3:
bear and rose: don't MAKE me pull this car over! :P |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:10:44 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
point #1:
i think you mean "it depends on what the definition of is is"
--
|
I knew it was a sinlge syllable word, does that count?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:10:52 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
To address a few misconceptions... the overriding intent of the editing rules (both Basic and Advanced)is to allow the photographer to make the most of his or her capture. Obviously, you have more tools in your arsenal to accomplish this in advanced editing, but validation will depend (largely) upon a comparison of what you captured vs. what you entered.
You can't add any objects or shapes (major or otherwise), and you can't remove anything significant to the image you captured. Now, what is significant (i.e. a major element) will differ from person to person, but it's generally anything that might be listed if you were describing the image in basic terms to someone who hasn't seen it, or an object dominant enough to affect the composition. The exception here is color.
Colors may always be shifted (globally in Basic and selectively in Advanced). This means you can make a color image grayscale, sepia or another color entirely. Want to make those green suspenders pruple? Go right ahead! It's been done before...
Likewise, you can shift the color of a background or other area, whether it's flat or textured. What you CAN'T do is replace a detailed background with flat color. Neither can you take a flat background and add new features to it. You can only work with the features already in the capture. And, yes, you can even turn day into night- as long as everything in the original is still discernible in the entry.
As for filters... radial blurs, motion, blurs, distortions, liquify, etc. are all legal in Advanced. The key is that they should be used for touchup, and not to create new features that weren't in the original. If there's motion in the capture, then you can emphasize it a little more with a blur. I've used Liquify myself to help clone out imperfections or smooth an irregular shape. When the distortion or filter itself becomes an obvious (added) feature, THEN you're getting into risky territory. For example, you could use the Lens Flare tool to touch up an existing flare, but you couldn't use it to create artificial "sparkles" on your entry. Hope that helps. ;-) |
Thank you for your clarifications.
Now, if they truly are valid examples, in the opinion of the majority of the present SC members, not merely your interpretations, then write them down somewhere offical.
When you buy a copy of the rules of golf, you get 20 pages of rules and 100 pages of interpretations clarifying different scenarios. Why isn't this the case here? Why are we afraid to footnote the rules with examples? |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:13:52 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by mystopia:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I just noticed his little guy isn't lit up |
LOL Rose ... I can't help but laugh!!! |
I'm taking this entirely out of context, because I can.
back to topic ... |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:15:39 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
When you buy a copy of the rules of golf, you get 20 pages of rules and 100 pages of interpretations clarifying different scenarios. Why isn't this the case here? Why are we afraid to footnote the rules with examples? |
Please tell me you aren't serious. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:17:13 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
When you buy a copy of the rules of golf, you get 20 pages of rules and 100 pages of interpretations clarifying different scenarios. Why isn't this the case here? Why are we afraid to footnote the rules with examples? |
disqualified entries appear at the end of each challenge's results, with a general reason as to why they were disqualified. those are examples.
the originals are not posted out of respect of the photographers, but many post the originals in the forums for discussion or consolation. |
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:23:41 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
Why are we afraid to footnote the rules with examples? |
This is in part why we chose to list DQ's at the end of the challenge results, and validated photos at the beginning of the challenge results. So people can see what we DQ and why. One of our other confusing 'rules' is the 'artwork' rule. We have since added a tutorial on our best definition of what we consider to be literal representation of artwork. Noted WITH photo examples.
This would not be a bad thing to do with 'major element' rule as well. HOWEVER, it takes a lot of time to come up with this tutorial, since it's a group effort, and you'll just have to be patient with us in the meantime. We're working on the clarification issue. ~Heather~
|
|
|
|
01/01/2006 11:25:17 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
To address a few misconceptions... the overriding intent of the editing rules (both Basic and Advanced)is to allow the photographer to make the most of his or her capture. Obviously, you have more tools in your arsenal to accomplish this in advanced editing, but validation will depend (largely) upon a comparison of what you captured vs. what you entered.
You can't add any objects or shapes (major or otherwise), and you can't remove anything significant to the image you captured. Now, what is significant (i.e. a major element) will differ from person to person, but it's generally anything that might be listed if you were describing the image in basic terms to someone who hasn't seen it, or an object dominant enough to affect the composition. The exception here is color.
Colors may always be shifted (globally in Basic and selectively in Advanced). This means you can make a color image grayscale, sepia or another color entirely. Want to make those green suspenders pruple? Go right ahead! It's been done before...
Likewise, you can shift the color of a background or other area, whether it's flat or textured. What you CAN'T do is replace a detailed background with flat color. Neither can you take a flat background and add new features to it. You can only work with the features already in the capture. And, yes, you can even turn day into night- as long as everything in the original is still discernible in the entry.
As for filters... radial blurs, motion, blurs, distortions, liquify, etc. are all legal in Advanced. The key is that they should be used for touchup, and not to create new features that weren't in the original. If there's motion in the capture, then you can emphasize it a little more with a blur. I've used Liquify myself to help clone out imperfections or smooth an irregular shape. When the distortion or filter itself becomes an obvious (added) feature, THEN you're getting into risky territory. For example, you could use the Lens Flare tool to touch up an existing flare, but you couldn't use it to create artificial "sparkles" on your entry. Hope that helps. ;-) |
*****************************************************************
The best clear posting so far. Notice that there is no bitterness in the language. We all appreciate the last paragraph because it clarifies part of the unwritten rules.
My intent is to warn the new comer. Even DrJones suffered a dq on a nude challenge where the main object is the nude. A light was used for special effectlighting and then cloned and then DQ. How much work do you think this member put into his effort. But the rules were never that clear because you can find opposing views of whether the light constituted a major element. I am not arguing against it but simply that major elements are open to disagrement. Suppose a challnge is to consist of just a single leaf. Some shoot it individually and others hold it and then remove their hand. The main subject is the leaf and while the hand occupies a space, two schools of thought can rise to argue for both sides. Some will say, he cropped right up to the finger tips, that is alright and others will say it is not okay to remove the finger tips. One side has the sole subject (the leaf) as the main and others are looking at the fingertips as a major element.
Is it not worth it to discuss what causes a DQ?
Anytime anything is posted that affect the S/C there is much commotion about nothing. Each member must read the official rules, I have but they leave a lot wanting. Those smarter than me need not attack us slower people. We are mentally challenge. You are the light: enlighten me. |
|
