| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2006 06:15:07 AM · #1751 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
Originally posted by skewsme:
why not a pp challenge for svet? ppchallenge.com |
thank you Skewsme! can anyone participate there? |
ppchallenge is independent, I believe.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:16:53 AM · #1752 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
Originally posted by raish:
I exaggerate, I'm sure, but I claim poetic licence. |
We like poets here. |
whew! |
Whew indeed. I thought I was risking it by outing my closet poet image:
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:26:44 AM · #1753 |
Originally posted by raish:
I think you just pressed that button. When Bruno Ganz spoke of the problems he had in immersing himself in the role of Adolf Hitler, he said something along the lines of: "genocidal megalomaniacs are people, too". I think maybe the same could be said of gormless morons and after all, they (we?) need protection.
Editing to add, sickdog, that as this thread and community enables expressions of indignation etc, I'm feeling for you and I totally agree :) |
well said raish. good form. i will stop my rant now.
i guess since the subject matter of my death photo was something that i find profoundly personal, i was more sensitive to the comment that set me off.
i will now start thinking more about my "for sale" photo.
thank you again old bean. (this is a term of endearment from television's "batman" and not meant to be offensive in any way) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:32:48 AM · #1754 |
I wouldlike to apologise to dear team and everyone:)
I've just been disqualified for the third time in a row so I can't participate in challenges until the next year.
I am sorry for that and it's my fault because the year on my camera was set to 2005.......
yeah:) it happens. more often with someone than with others but still...happens.
Svetlana, just think about the positive aspects of this. You must have rattled someoneĂ¢€™s cage to get noticed out of the what, about 1000 weekly challenge photos. Well this is one butterfly chaser that will step it up a notch or two in honor of our leaderĂ¢€Â¦
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:47:42 AM · #1755 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
THIS THREAD MUST DIE lol |
Not much danger of that.
It's like the fundamentally unchaseable butterflies that are torn and tattered by the wind and waves and birds and bees but in the end pairs of them hucker down and lay thousands of eggs and the whole thing starts over again and thousands die but never the template because it's all one organism.
I exaggerate, I'm sure, but I claim poetic licence. |
We are the borg? |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 08:55:39 AM · #1756 |
Originally posted by sickdog:
i guess since the subject matter of my death photo was something that i find profoundly personal, i was more sensitive to the comment that set me off.
|
 sickdog You have me extremely curious about your entry. I have a couple of ideas what it might be, but am not sure.
I like the idea of a side challenge in honor of  silverfoxx, as I'll really miss your stuff while you are unable to participate, Svetlana. Let's do it!
I'm going to try a truly bizarre, suckworthy dirt photo today. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 09:00:54 AM · #1757 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Svetlana, just think about the positive aspects of this. You must have rattled someoneĂ¢€™s cage to get noticed out of the what, about 1000 weekly challenge photos. Well this is one butterfly chaser that will step it up a notch or two in honor of our leaderĂ¢€Â¦ |
dear Alan:) you are so wonderful! everyone!
sending you a new version of the logo now, please tell me what you think! |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 09:03:54 AM · #1758 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
I'm going to try a truly bizarre, suckworthy dirt photo today. |
thank you so much Catherine!
:) I am SO LOOKING FORWARD to your bizzar picture!! a weird photo a day keeps minds awake:)
(though not sure about the doctors, too much bizzar can make the opposite effect for them:))
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 11:05:45 AM · #1759 |
Originally posted by sickdog:
funny... one of the best new photographers on team suck has been DQed...
i think it's "the man" trying to keep team suck down.
i look forward to your return to the challenges silver. i'm sorry that they hate the way they do but when you're that good you should expect it. |
Sickdog, I sincerely hope you're joking, but in case you aren't, I have to respond especially to your last paragraph.
Svetlana was DQd for the same reason I was: time/date stamp on the picture. It had nothing to do with her pictures. In fact, it's about the least involved DQ the SC ever does. Time/date wrong? DQ. No judgement at all about the picture. The "no exceptions" rule came about because too many people claimed that they'd just forgotten, and the SC was put in the unhappy position of deciding who was honest and who was lying to sneak in an old picture. The concept of a time-specific challenge is so central to this site's purpose that they didn't like making that determination. And I fully support it.
That said, even other, more difficult DQs generally have nothing to do with subject, lighting, etc., unless they show sex, genitalia, or otherwise violate the terms of service. Nothing I've seen of Svetlana's work comes even close to those problems. Non-date DQs are usually about over-the-top editing.
I just don't want anyone, esp. new people, to think the SC DQs on artistic choices.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 11:47:49 AM · #1760 |
thank you Chris! somehow I just oversaw that message.
no, no, please! I was just silly and absent-minded and my second dq was also because of the date and I adjusted the TIME but didn't look at the YEAR... so this time it was year 2005...
and please, I am not good! not yet. I don't know what I am:) really, I am just trying things. I am just a silly girl who is absent-minded sometimes.
well, I have learnt something from this I hope. and now I've got some free time to learn HDR and other exciting things:)
Jeffrey, have you also been dq-ed because of the date? anyway I think it's a nice and honest rule. the only one which is objective. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 12:27:22 PM · #1761 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
THIS THREAD MUST DIE lol |
Not much danger of that.
It's like the fundamentally unchaseable butterflies that are torn and tattered by the wind and waves and birds and bees but in the end pairs of them hucker down and lay thousands of eggs and the whole thing starts over again and thousands die but never the template because it's all one organism.
I exaggerate, I'm sure, but I claim poetic licence. |
We are the borg? |
As in:
A race of cyborgs in the Star Trek universe. They are characterized by relentless pursuit of targets for assimilation, rapid adaptability to almost any defense, and the ability to continue functioning properly despite seemingly devastating blows. Humm that sounds right.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 12:29:31 PM · #1762 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
Jeffrey, have you also been dq-ed because of the date? anyway I think it's a nice and honest rule. the only one which is objective. |
Actually I defend the SC on their objectivity. The rules are straight forward and don't leave much room for subjectivity in the DQ process. Date/Time (objective), post-processing violation (objective), genitalia (objective) are all rules violations and automatic DQs. Poor taste (subjective) and DNMC (subjective) are not grounds for DQ. So where is this complaint coming from? |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 12:31:49 PM · #1763 |
sure, that's what I tried to say! they are really objective. I like the way the site is orginised technically and the rules as well. I can't image how difficult it might be to create any *objectie* set of rules for something so subjective as photography.
:) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 12:54:17 PM · #1764 |
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
Jeffrey, have you also been dq-ed because of the date? anyway I think it's a nice and honest rule. the only one which is objective. |
Actually I defend the SC on their objectivity. The rules are straight forward and don't leave much room for subjectivity in the DQ process. Date/Time (objective), post-processing violation (objective), genitalia (objective) are all rules violations and automatic DQs. Poor taste (subjective) and DNMC (subjective) are not grounds for DQ. So where is this complaint coming from? |
Actually, there are plenty of subjective DQ calls. After all, whatever rules you have, some people will want to test the boundaries of those rules. SC used to have to determine what a major element was, now they have to determine what a major "feature" is. And the "genitalia" rule extends to obscenity, which is an entirely subjective call and got Leroy and Shutterpug dq'd. So, you can call them fair if you want, but not objective. I am not a fan of blaming authorities for one's difficulties (which silverfoxx is NOT doing), but neither am I a fan of not questioning authority.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 01:39:19 PM · #1765 |
"but neither am I a fan of not questioning authority."
Posthumous - will this like be in the next Dan Brown novel?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:28:03 PM · #1766 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
Jeffrey, have you also been dq-ed because of the date? |
Yep - just two challenges ago, in the Famous Last Words challenge:
I didn't set my clock back when daylight saving time ended in October. Thus, when I shot my entry at 11:53 pm, the camera said 12:53 am (after the challenge had closed). I even started a thread to discuss the ethics of self-reporting:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=505229
What's funny, and I suspected this would happen, is that my entry is now getting loads more views than it would've with the 5.3ish score it had when it was DQd. 137 post-challenge views so far, compared to, for example, 116 for 19th place.
That often happens with DQd shots - people look at them and the lowest scoring shots to learn from them. Your other DQ in Headwear has been viewed more times since that challenge ended than the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th place shots. :)
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:33:20 PM · #1767 |
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
I wouldlike to apologise to dear team and everyone:)
I've just been disqualified for the third time in a row so I can't participate in challenges until the next year.
I am sorry for that and it's my fault because the year on my camera was set to 2005.......
yeah:) it happens. more often with someone than with others but still...happens. |
Oops. It's a shame if you get a suspension for a wrong date, which is clearly just a mistake. I suppose they have to apply the rules though.
Make sure to set it for the new year, when you can come back in to take more shots! |
Yep, silverfoxx, and next year is 2007 not 2006. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:11:32 PM · #1768 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
That often happens with DQd shots - people look at them and the lowest scoring shots to learn from them. Your other DQ in Headwear has been viewed more times since that challenge ended than the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th place shots. :) |
I don't know, I jsut hope it's not only because it's been dqed but also because there's some meaning in it. or maybe not.:)
my nudes get so much more views, too, and somehow I think it's not because of the photos' quality... |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:13:19 PM · #1769 |
| That's just (male) human nature. If it says nude, they'll look. And look again. Not a concept that I understand, but any of the guys here will tell you that. It's hard-wired, so to speak. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:13:28 PM · #1770 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
So, you can call them fair if you want, but not objective. I am not a fan of blaming authorities for one's difficulties (which silverfoxx is NOT doing), but neither am I a fan of not questioning authority. |
no Don, of course I wasn't blaming anyone. it's an eternal question about subjectivity/objectivity even though both terms are subjctive:) there's nothing "subjective" or "objective" in nature, things just *are*.:) my opinion. I agree with you about questioning authorities when it's necessary though.
:) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:15:09 PM · #1771 |
Originally posted by sodoff:
Yep, silverfoxx, and next year is 2007 not 2006. |
hmmm, is it? :) what if we make it something more interesting? say, 1920?
:) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:16:53 PM · #1772 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
That's just (male) human nature. If it says nude, they'll look. And look again. Not a concept that I understand, but any of the guys here will tell you that. It's hard-wired, so to speak. |
I was really critisised once on one site because I didn't mark one of my photos as "nude" so I do it here even if it's only one back, or neck, or whatever:) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:32:33 PM · #1773 |
| Nude,,,nude, did someone say nude...... |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 04:44:48 PM · #1774 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Nude,,,nude, did someone say nude...... |
See what I mean? :-) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:21:45 PM · #1775 |
Originally posted by bryantbus:
"but neither am I a fan of not questioning authority."
Posthumous - will this like be in the next Dan Brown novel? |
let's see, an awkward double negative, yeah, that's about the level of Dan Brown's writing...
meow...
|
|
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: 08/09/2025 10:30:56 AM EDT.
