| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2006 01:29:56 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So isn't that just saying you 'should' use that scale ? I've always hated writing specs, just for this reason... |
No, you must use that scale so it's the same for everyone. 1 is bad, 10 is good, and everthing else falls in between. Using a scale like "1 is bad, 6 is good, and everything higher is reserved for my buddies" will get you in trouble.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 13:31:44. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:31:14 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by ursula:
IMO, and this is just MY opinion, there are too many rules as it is in the world and at DPC.
The DPC rules are there for the challenges. The basics of the challenges are that images (one shutter actuation, unfortunately) be made with a digital camera, be the photographer's own work, and be made within the one week time for each challenge. Then there's the disctinction between basic and advanced. In basic any adjustments to the image have to be done to the entire image (after cropping), whereas in advanced users can adjust portions of the image. Personally I find the distinction between basic and advanced somewhat silly, but so be it.
So, what's important to me with the rules is that the image be made with a digital camera, not be stolen from someone else, and be made within the time frame of the challenge.
The biggest point to me in the rewrite is the loosening of the artwork rule. I found the former artwork rule not workable (for me). I like the current approach better.
I don't understand what the point is of trying to limit creativity and experimentation with "you can do this, but you can't do that". And that goes both for those of us who work on writing the rules and the users who try to figure out how to get around them. Both are limiting, and waste too much time and energy on all sorts of stuff that (in general) doesn't really lead anywhere beautiful.
But I do see the point of keeping to digital/the photographer's own work/within the time frame of the challenge.
------
He, he, I was going to stay out of this one, but here I am. Silly me. |
Thats about the most sense I've read in this thread. Well said !
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:32:44 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, you must use that scale so it's the same for everyone. 1 is bad, 10 is good, and everthing else falls in between. Using a scale like "1 is bad, 6 is good, and everything higher is reserved for my buddies" will get you in trouble. |
Will using a scale such as "1 is bad, 6 is good, and I didn't get around to adjusting my 6's so there are no higher votes" get me in trouble?
edit to add: I'm not trying to be funny here. It's a serious question. I'd like to be able to dump my votes before roll-over on occasion because I didn't have time to finish them up.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 13:45:09.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:08:25 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Well - given that this is the discussion period and the thread about discussing them - doesn't it seem like the time to raise the points for consideration - now ? |
no I think the time to raise the points was back when they first alluded to a change was forth-coming..., now it is just hashing out what you don't like about it. I hope that you put this much effort into that discussion time.
I would like to see this section used to clarify the rules for proper interpretation, not to debate the new rules....The debate is just making the waters muddy.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:12:37 PM · #205 |
Okay, I'll let my newbie status truly shine, can someone in short tell me what a "Hot Pixel" is? I should probably just go look it up but I didn't know if that is an 'official' photography term.
I have an idea, but just want to confirm.
Thanks,
Adam
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:25:28 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Will using a scale such as "1 is bad, 6 is good, and I didn't get around to adjusting my 6's so there are no higher votes" get me in trouble? |
No. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:28:50 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by dallasdux:
can someone in short tell me what a "Hot Pixel" is? |
It's a defect in the sensor that sometimes appears in longer exposures as an abnormally bright or white dot with dimmer edges in a cross shape. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:29:44 PM · #208 |
Okay, if you truly have a problem with RGB, as several of you have stated, please, for the love of all that is cute and furry, offer your suggestion(s) for how we can reword it.
Remember, it needs to disallow things like RGB, but allow color conversions and adjustments (otherwise, as has been pointed out, bw conversions or desaturations, or even upping the saturation, will be illegal).
And we were going for simplicity here, so it really needs to be less than 1500 words. :) |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:29:56 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Will using a scale such as "1 is bad, 6 is good, and I didn't get around to adjusting my 6's so there are no higher votes" get me in trouble? |
No. ;-) |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, you must use that scale so it's the same for everyone. 1 is bad, 10 is good, and everything else falls in between. |
Then I really don't get why this is a 'you must' when you just said you don't have to ?
I get what you are trying to say, but the voting guide isn't saying that.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:32:17 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then I really don't get why this is a 'you must' when you just said you don't have to ? |
She IS using the same scale (as indicated by "didn't get around to adjusting..."). She just didn't finish.
If you want to play the semantics game, fine... you MUST use that scale because it's the only one available on the voting page! ;-P
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 14:35:00. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:35:09 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, if you truly have a problem with RGB, as several of you have stated, please, for the love of all that is cute and furry, offer your suggestion(s) for how we can reword it. |
I already did when I suggested including an elephant test. It would just require the SC to follow through on it.
Originally posted by and stolen from wikipedia:
The term elephant test refers to the ability to recognise something while being unable to describe it[...]
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart is famous for a quotation from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it. |
It just needs an SC willing to follow through on voting on the intent/spirit/integrity point of view, rather than finding a line in the rules to justify each decision.
We've gone around trying to define this since at least early 2002 that I'm aware, I doubt that now, 5 years later, we are going to come up with words that define it well. But if it smells bad, it is bad. Have the courage to call it, that's all I'd suggest.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:36:52 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then I really don't get why this is a 'you must' when you just said you don't have to ? |
She IS using the same scale (as indicated by "didn't get around to adjusting..."). She just didn't finish.
If you want to play the semantics game, fine... you MUST use that scale because it's the only one available on the voting page! ;-P |
No, I'm not trying to play a semantics game, I'm just curious that if for whatever reason, someone considers 'good' to be better than someone else considers 'good' do they get in trouble for never voting images a 10, or a 9, or an 8. The term has been promoted from a 'should' in the old rules to a 'must' in the new rules so I'm just assuming this means something.
What's the voting average and deviation you get into trouble for thinking differently ? Otherwise, why state it as a 'you must use a range from 1 to 10' ?
Like I said - I'm an engineer, I write specs. 'must' costs about 3 times as much as a 'should' :)
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 14:43:21.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:41:43 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
But if it smells bad, it is bad. |
I'm pretty sure "I know it when I see it" has been repeatedly railed against in the forums as bad policy. Without a specific rule to point to, that approach invariably draws howls of protest. We have to be able to show WHY it's bad or we look like vindictive bad guys (when the truth is we're not all guys). ;-) |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:41:53 PM · #214 |
The biggest problem I have with that, gordon, is that new users to the site aren't going to be able to read the rule and know that we did (are doing) the "elephant test."
We want the users to be able to read the rules and know what is and is not allowed, to the greatest creative extent possible. Your suggestion simply won't work. I remember when I started at dpc, fairly close to its inception (I think it was 3 or 4 months old) that that is exactly how d&l defined "pornography." But, what I define as porn and what you define may be different.
The same applies here. What is okay to me, may not be to others. If we were going to apply your suggestion, we could simply say, "Okay, folks, here's the deal. Here at dpc, we want you to use a digital camera to take a picture. Your end result must be photography, but not digital art. We are not going to define digital art for you, but we will know it when we see it."
That would make our jobs a heck of a lot easier, in a lot of ways. But, it would make for some really unhappy users.
It doesn't fly. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:44:43 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The term has been promoted from a 'should' in the old rules to a 'must' in the new rules so I'm just assuming this means something. |
Yeah... it means that's the only scale available on the voting page, so you don't have a choice. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:44:46 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It just needs an SC willing to follow through on voting on the intent/spirit/integrity point of view, rather than finding a line in the rules to justify each decision.
We've gone around trying to define this since at least early 2002 that I'm aware, I doubt that now, 5 years later, we are going to come up with words that define it well. But if it smells bad, it is bad. Have the courage to call it, that's all I'd suggest. |
Just because I want to get it clear in my head what it is you're saying, are you saying that images such as RGB smoke and John's pink rope climber should have been disqualified? |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:47:30 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The biggest problem I have with that, gordon, is that new users to the site aren't going to be able to read the rule and know that we did (are doing) the "elephant test."
We want the users to be able to read the rules and know what is and is not allowed, to the greatest creative extent possible. Your suggestion simply won't work. I remember when I started at dpc, fairly close to its inception (I think it was 3 or 4 months old) that that is exactly how d&l defined "pornography." But, what I define as porn and what you define may be different.
The same applies here. What is okay to me, may not be to others. If we were going to apply your suggestion, we could simply say, "Okay, folks, here's the deal. Here at dpc, we want you to use a digital camera to take a picture. Your end result must be photography, but not digital art. We are not going to define digital art for you, but we will know it when we see it."
That would make our jobs a heck of a lot easier, in a lot of ways. But, it would make for some really unhappy users.
It doesn't fly. |
My point has been for a few years now, that the other way doesn't fly either. The fact is as you say, what is okay for one, is not okay for the other. That's why there is more than one person on the SC. But you should be empowered to make those decisions and define it in an ambiguous way.
Otherwise you end up tied in bizarre knots, trying to define the undefinable and describe the intangible.
If its good enough for the real supreme court, you'd think the DPC SC would have at least a subset of their issues - but that's how things are left undefined there.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:48:24 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The term has been promoted from a 'should' in the old rules to a 'must' in the new rules so I'm just assuming this means something. |
Yeah... it means that's the only scale available on the voting page, so you don't have a choice. ;-) |
OK, SC disagreement time. The "You must rate images on a scale of 1 to 10" bothers me also. The "must" there refers to "rate images" not to the available scale. I would prefer "should". |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:52:21 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Just because I want to get it clear in my head what it is you're saying, are you saying that images such as RGB smoke and John's pink rope climber should have been disqualified? |
In my mind, yes. Both of them violate the spirit of the challenge as I understand it to be. In both cases the merit or fitness to the challenge only comes from things added or dramatically changed in post processing.
The pink rope climber in the pink challenge, was a yellow rope climber and nothing to do with the challenge as an original photograph.
The smoke in the smoke challenge was just some smoke, until it became 'RGB' smoke and had a 'wow' factor added that wasn't present in the photograph.
They probably don't break any specific rule in any of the 5 revisions of the rules that you could meaningfully point to. But to me, in my own little world, they violate the spirit of the challenges, or break some sort of moral/ethical pact with the voters that this is a challenge that has something to do with photography.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:55:13 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The term has been promoted from a 'should' in the old rules to a 'must' in the new rules so I'm just assuming this means something. |
Yeah... it means that's the only scale available on the voting page, so you don't have a choice. ;-) |
OK, SC disagreement time. The "You must rate images on a scale of 1 to 10" bothers me also. The "must" there refers to "rate images" not to the available scale. I would prefer "should". |
How about, instead of "You must rate entries on a scale of 1 to 10. A score of 1 is a âbadâ photo, and a score of 10 is a âgoodâ photo.", try;
"You must use the provided scale to vote on entries, bearing in mind that a 1 is the lowest possible vote and a 10 is the highest possible vote."
What bothers me is the blanket statement that "a score of '10' is a good photo"... If you take that literally, how can you differentiate the good ones from the great ones?
R. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 02:56:19 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In both cases the merit or fitness to the challenge only comes from things added or dramatically changed in post processing.
The pink rope climber in the pink challenge, was a yellow rope climber and nothing to do with the challenge as an original photograph.
The smoke in the smoke challenge was just some smoke, until it became 'RGB' smoke and had a 'wow' factor added that wasn't present in the photograph. |
It's pretty obvious in this shot that the color, impact, and challenge connection were all created in post, but the voters didn't seem to have a problem with it.
 |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:00:01 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Just because I want to get it clear in my head what it is you're saying, are you saying that images such as RGB smoke and John's pink rope climber should have been disqualified? |
In my mind, yes. Both of them violate the spirit of the challenge as I understand it to be. In both cases the merit or fitness to the challenge only comes from things added or dramatically changed in post processing.
The pink rope climber in the pink challenge, was a yellow rope climber and nothing to do with the challenge as an original photograph.
The smoke in the smoke challenge was just some smoke, until it became 'RGB' smoke and had a 'wow' factor added that wasn't present in the photograph.
They probably don't break any specific rule in any of the 5 revisions of the rules that you could meaningfully point to. But to me, in my own little world, they violate the spirit of the challenges, or break some sort of moral/ethical pact with the voters that this is a challenge that has something to do with photography. |
OK, I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. You are saying that the spirit of the challenges can't really be put into rules, that the upright thing to do would be to DQ images that break the moral/ethical pact with the voters that the challenges have something to do with photography.
What you're saying is that since DPC is a digital "photography" site, images that rely mainly on post-processing for their impact are not really photography but something else, and should be disqualified from the challenges. Is that close?
Added. That's not it. It's not the post-processing. It's whether you're cheating the viewers into thinking that something is something that it isn't?
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 15:23:48. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:06:47 PM · #223 |
I think the wording is fine, and an image such as RGB Smoke is very rare - but in my opinion, don't be afraid to use the "spirit of the rule" card if/when an image like RGB Smoke appears.
(this is not speaking of the pink/yellow photo - which is a different issue imo)
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, if you truly have a problem with RGB, as several of you have stated, please, for the love of all that is cute and furry, offer your suggestion(s) for how we can reword it.
Remember, it needs to disallow things like RGB, but allow color conversions and adjustments (otherwise, as has been pointed out, bw conversions or desaturations, or even upping the saturation, will be illegal).
And we were going for simplicity here, so it really needs to be less than 1500 words. :) |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:20:20 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's pretty obvious in this shot that the color, impact, and challenge connection were all created in post, but the voters didn't seem to have a problem with it.
|
Yup, and scored higher than the 'real' thing
I haven't claimed to be some sort of conduit for the site zeitgeist, but I'd happily say that a red stop sign changed to be green, in a green challenge, also breaks that ethical/moral pact that I was alluding to, as well. Giving it a catchy title seems to smooth the way though.
Also, there is no deceit being practiced here. All the viewers know what was going on. Nobody thought it really was a green sign. So maybe that's the distinction. The other cases are less honest.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 15:32:11.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:24:18 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by ursula:
images that rely mainly on post-processing for their impact are not really photography but something else, and should be disqualified from the challenges. |
remove the word "impact" .... insert the word "content"
:) |
|
