| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2007 11:44:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by littlegett:
I took an image of an 'pet' for the challenge.
(omitted see above) |
So you're saying in that moment you captured him he was "non-domesticated" because that's what the challenge specifically required. Don't take that the wrong way because I think yours was definitely in the realm of out of the box thinking while fitting the challenge and gave yours a 6. Would have been higher if I liked the look of the image better. |
Thank you for the score, and in a manner of speaking. Yes, for that moment she was running wild, free of restriction or rules. No fences no gates just the sand the sun and her.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2007 11:56:12 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Who WRITES the rules? Or, more specifically, who wrote the rules for this Challenge? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Let's get specific....it says challenge DETAILS, right?
NOT RULES!!!!!
I know that I have given 4s out for entries because I couldn't be sure what the photographer meant, but I couldn't definitively say that he/she did *NOT* meet the challenge by my interpretation, so I had to take that aspect out of the criteria and vote the entry on technical merits. |
Originally posted by yanko:
So if I entered a shot of a person and nothing else would you deduct anything for not meeting the challenge? If you would, why? |
That's hard to say and kinda broad......for pretty much of anything, I'd say no, it didn't meet the challenge....but if you showed me a picture of a feral kid like that boy in the movie, The Road Warrior, I couldn't possibly say it was a DNMC, because I can understand the attempt, and having seen the behavior of aforementioned feral kid, it would definitely fall into a loosely held interpretation of Wildlife. There would be voters on the other hand that wouls just categorically dismiss the interpretation because in their OPINION.....it ain't wildlife.
Now.....read this:
"Description
For the purpose of this challenge, "wildlife" should be considered non-domesticated mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians living in a natural environment. Now that you know what to photograph, take your best shot!"
A feral child could certainly be interpreted as a non-domesticated mammal, right?
So....that answer your question from where I would look at it?
I'm not saying that my read on the entry is right, I would admire the heck out of the photographer who went down this path.....and if that feral child was standing on top of a rocky promontory with a crude spear in one hand, the torn and dismembered remains of some large bird in the other, with a dirty and blood-encrusted face looking fierce against the sky in the waning daylight, I'd probably give it a 10 and a glowing comment.
You mileage may vary......8>)
|
|
|
|
01/29/2007 11:59:01 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
should be considered |
I see a guide line, not an absolute there.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:01:44 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
I certainly challenged myself to get a shot that was in the spirit of this challenge. |
Good for you! How did you finish compared to those who shot in zoos?
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:05:38 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
At what point do you value integrity? All for a virtual ribbon? |
It IS all about the virtual ribbon. What else should it be about? This is a GAME. Play to win or take your ball and go home :)
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:10:18 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by littlegett:
I took an image of an 'pet' for the challenge.
(omitted see above) |
So you're saying in that moment you captured him he was "non-domesticated" because that's what the challenge specifically required. Don't take that the wrong way because I think yours was definitely in the realm of out of the box thinking while fitting the challenge and gave yours a 6. Would have been higher if I liked the look of the image better. |
Thank you for the score, and in a manner of speaking. Yes, for that moment she was running wild, free of restriction or rules. No fences no gates just the sand the sun and her. |
And that in my mind is what *is* a challenge.....going that little extra bit to get a different viewpoint on it.
If you go back though the winners of the blue ribbons, the ones that seem to stand out are the ones that are the most spectacualr both technically and how they please the voter with the interpretation of the challenge.
A friend of mine, a guy here I like to think of as a mentor, has had two blues in the recent past and both of his winners were not only out of the box, but off the wall.
But they were both really good off the wall and got him ribbons.
This and this 
He taught me that this was a good thing and I have tried to emulate him.
I did that in the last couple of weeks.....my first attempt got me from a best showing of a 78th place to a red ribbon, my second attempt damn near got me tarred and feathered and I learned how this interpretation is all about the voters out there.
The one that worked:
And then this one was next:
I had a lot more fun with my B&W entry once I got over the initial shock of how badly out of joint some voters got and started to enjoy it.
It was a learning experience I'll never forget and I keep learning more and more all the time.
I'm getting an education with my 3.8 Minimalism entry right at the moment....I learned that sometimes, I just don't even need to try!....8>)
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:14:26 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by yanko:
So if I entered a shot of a person and nothing else would you deduct anything for not meeting the challenge? If you would, why? |
That's hard to say and kinda broad......for pretty much of anything, I'd say no, it didn't meet the challenge....but if you showed me a picture of a feral kid like that boy in the movie, The Road Warrior, I couldn't possibly say it was a DNMC, because I can understand the attempt, and having seen the behavior of aforementioned feral kid, it would definitely fall into a loosely held interpretation of Wildlife. There would be voters on the other hand that wouls just categorically dismiss the interpretation because in their OPINION.....it ain't wildlife.) |
I think we are of the same opinion. However, for this challenge how many zoo photos depicted the equivalent? For that matter how many non-zoo photos did that? That's probably the real issue here and not the exact location of the animal at the time it was shot. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:23:15 AM · #58 |
| Next Challenge, can someone please tell me what I have to take literally and what I can take figuratively? And, does anyone know of a good taxidermist in the Boulder, CO area? I'm trying to get some ideas for Wildlife IV. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:29:10 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Absolutely frightening! This is exactly what happened with Enron. Do you condone that as well? At what point do you value integrity? All for a virtual ribbon? Heaven forbid it was for something tangible like ...... hmmmmm .... respect and true admiration for effort.
"Well kids, go ahead and cheat on the exam as long as they "think" you do it right, its alllllll good! Yikes! |
How you can compare the disgrace of what happened with Enron to a recreational photography website is absurd.
Look, since reason won't do anything for your closed mind, let's do this.....since your interpretation doesn't match mine, you vote your way and I'll vote mine.
That's a choice that we both get to make.
But I got a big fat clue for ya.....before you question my integirty and ethics any more, READ the GUIDELINES and make your choice and don't tell me I have no ethics or integrity because I don't have the same closed mind you do.
My INTERPRETATION and OPINION is different as to the essence of the GUIDELINES of the challenge.
DIFFERENT, not unethical, not demonstrating any lack of integrity.
Who the Hell are you to call into question my ethics or integrity?
Especially over an issue so irrelevant!
Knock it off.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:30:12 AM · #60 |
I thought about going to South Beach/Miami for the "wildlife" challenge shot. I hear that it's wild there.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:31:32 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Next Challenge, can someone please tell me what I have to take literally and what I can take figuratively? And, does anyone know of a good taxidermist in the Boulder, CO area? I'm trying to get some ideas for Wildlife IV. |
I think if you poke that honkin' big ol' hornet's nest just a little bit more to the right, you can get 'em all riled up!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:32:16 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ivo:
This is exactly what happened with Enron. Do you condone that as well? At what point do you value integrity?... |
What Enron did was illegal. Creating an image that appears to meet the challenge is NOT illegal (assuming you followed the editing rules). Wildlife I and Wildlife II both featured zoo shots without complaint, and the description was no different this time. Worth noting: several entries scoring 6+ in the At the Zoo challenge were actually shot at home or in the wild *gasp*, and nobody cried foul.
The challenge description is a guideline that explains what the voters expect to see. It does NOT generally specify how you must achieve that expectation. A topic might describe magic or UFOs, but that doesn't mean we have to find actual magic or UFOs- just make it look like we did. With a well composed and presented entry, you might not have any idea whether the challenge was met unless the photographer left an explanation. IMO there is far more value in having such details available to learn from than driving photographers to leave those comments blank just to avoid criticism on a perfectly legal shot.
I really admire people who were able to find breathtaking images out in the wild (or a park), but I also know that making an artificial environment appear natural presents its own set of challenges. I certainly don't feel any shame in enduring sub-zero wind chills for 4 hours at the zoo trying to find something natural when I could have easily thrown some birdseed in the back yard and parked by a window with a cup of hot cocoa. The REAL shame would be waiting to see how a spectacular image was achieved only to find N/A in the comments section due to threads like this! :-/ |
Geez Shannon, cut the crap! You really can spin this any way you wish and though what Enron did was illegal, the zoo crap is just plain unethical and lazy. No ..... just a plain need to please. If you could plant your butt out there to shoot a zoo cat for four hours then you could have certainly done the same with a bird or some other form of "wildlife" in you locale. Lets face it, the need to score high outweighed your need to employ some of your creativity with the subjects at hand.
Considering your position on the site council, many would have expected higher ground rather than a need to defend a weak and transparent need to justify something that is clearly wrong. Yes, there is no need to explain to me but you do have something to explain to:
  
Please do not waste my time by spinning this babble as I hear enough of this in my everyday life and you know what? Its boring!
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:37:42 AM · #63 |
Hmmmm....This debate is nothing new. It reminds me of the 4 to 5am challenge. At that time I was upset. (I time stamp my image for verification..lol) The longer your here the less this is a issue and you appreciate great images. No harm no foul....imo
Just couple on the same debate.
#1 (corrected)
#2
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 01:25:55. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:39:07 AM · #64 |
Ivo, you've been here for quite a while, so surely you've seen this problem before?
For example, I couldn't believe the results in the 4:00-5:00am challenge. Frankly, if I had gotten up at that hour I would've been pretty angry at how the third place image was achieved.
But I've finally just come to accept that to score well, you have to do what others have said: convince the viewer you've met the challenge. Actually meeting the challenge turns out to be irrelevant unless there's a specific rule. And those rules have come sometimes.
So we all have a choice: do we accept that concept and participate here, or do we skip it?
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:39:18 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Absolutely frightening! This is exactly what happened with Enron. Do you condone that as well? At what point do you value integrity? All for a virtual ribbon? Heaven forbid it was for something tangible like ...... hmmmmm .... respect and true admiration for effort.
"Well kids, go ahead and cheat on the exam as long as they "think" you do it right, its alllllll good! Yikes! |
How you can compare the disgrace of what happened with Enron to a recreational photography website is absurd.
Look, since reason won't do anything for your closed mind, let's do this.....since your interpretation doesn't match mine, you vote your way and I'll vote mine.
That's a choice that we both get to make.
But I got a big fat clue for ya.....before you question my integirty and ethics any more, READ the GUIDELINES and make your choice and don't tell me I have no ethics or integrity because I don't have the same closed mind you do.
My INTERPRETATION and OPINION is different as to the essence of the GUIDELINES of the challenge.
DIFFERENT, not unethical, not demonstrating any lack of integrity.
Who the Hell are you to call into question my ethics or integrity?
Especially over an issue so irrelevant!
Knock it off. |
NikonJeb ..... you've said enough already. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:42:01 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by ace flyman:
Hmmmm....This debate is nothing new. It reminds me of the 4 to 5am challenge. At that time I was upset. (I time stamp my image for verification..lol) The longer your here the less this is a issue and you appreciate great images. No harm no foul....imo
Just couple on the same debate.
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=320454&page=1
(corrected from ace's original post)
#2 |
Lol. You hit "post" faster than I did! :)
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Next Challenge, can someone please tell me what I have to take literally and what I can take figuratively? And, does anyone know of a good taxidermist in the Boulder, CO area? I'm trying to get some ideas for Wildlife IV. |
Here you go:
Take nothing literally. If your image convinces the viewer you met the challenge, then you're all set. I'm with the folks who think this shouldn't be the way it is, but I also see the difficulty in enforcing that approach. So I've decided to go along; I mean, equal footing is what matters in the end more than specific interpretations.
Now for my next trick, I'll clearly define how every viewer defines "meeting the challenge." ;)
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 00:46:48.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:57:05 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Considering your position on the site council, many would have expected higher ground rather than a need to defend a weak and transparent need to justify something that is clearly wrong. |
You've been here long enough to know that meeting the challenge is not a rule, and there have been COUNTLESS well regarded images based entirely on the illusion of meeting the challenge. Creating such an illusion is neither illegal nor unethical in this particular game. Here's an interesting bit of irony though... if it WERE against the rules and you were voting low because of it, then YOU would be breaking the rules:
"You may not: give an entry a lower score because you believe it violates the Challenge Rules."
;-) |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 01:01:26 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Considering your position on the site council, many would have expected higher ground rather than a need to defend a weak and transparent need to justify something that is clearly wrong. |
You've been here long enough to know that meeting the challenge is not a rule, and there have been COUNTLESS well regarded images based entirely on the illusion of meeting the challenge. Creating such an illusion is neither illegal nor unethical in this particular game. Here's an interesting bit of irony though... if it WERE against the rules and you were voting low because of it, then YOU would be breaking the rules:
"You may not: give an entry a lower score because you believe it violates the Challenge Rules."
;-) |
If the shoe fits....... Oh well, I'm done with this thread as I've had my fun. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 01:01:27 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Considering your position on the site council, many would have expected higher ground rather than a need to defend a weak and transparent need to justify something that is clearly wrong. |
You've been here long enough to know that meeting the challenge is not a rule, and there have been COUNTLESS well regarded images based entirely on the illusion of meeting the challenge. Creating such an illusion is neither illegal nor unethical in this particular game. Here's an interesting bit of irony though... if it WERE against the rules and you were voting low because of it, then YOU would be breaking the rules:
"You may not: give an entry a lower score because you believe it violates the Challenge Rules."
;-) |
If the shoe fits....... Oh well, I'm done with this thread as I've had my fun. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 01:11:25 AM · #70 |
Come on Ivo. The rules do not say you're required to meet the challenge. I too interpreted the challenge to mean no zoo shots but fact is it did not come right out and say "no zoo shots" and even if it had it's still not a DQ offense. You can feel free to think Scalvert took the easy route (which is debatable) but why are you trying to judge his character?
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 01:12:17. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 01:26:20 AM · #71 |
Maybe it is late, but as I was reading through the thread, I was like, "Oh, I don't remember Enron. Who was he? What scandal is everyone talking about". I swear I thought Enron was a DPC member who did some awful thing....heh. I didn't think about the company for about 10 minutes...
Wow...must-sleep-now...
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 01:26:48 AM · #72 |
Thanks levyj413, should had tested first.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 07:27:18 AM · #73 |
it's an interesting conundrum...
when is "wildlife" wild ? ? ? ?
But some like shooting animals in cages, others like to go out and get dirty.
There's wildlife everywhere, but it's not always easy to get a close up of. There's nothing like an Africa Safari, but they are not in most peoples budgets. There's nothing like shooting migrating birds in Northern China, but hey, who lives there?
What is interesting is that the top two, who's photoshop skills are legendary, win a wildlife challenge with images that don't even look real. (Now this is not a criticism, they both were in my top 10). They'd both look ecellent on a black velvet background sold at a Bangkok market!!! that's for sure!
So when is wild, wild and does it matter if the rules are such that you can make them look surreal anyway? Many times a lion on the serengeti cannot make time to keep his mane clean and clear, he has nasty scars on his face and wound in his side. Photogenic?? Yeah baby!! Besides, for Cats, you can pick the zoo ones a mile off (apart from the nice coat) because they are always fat. check out all the tigers in the challenge.. lol. It'd be a spirited challenge if anyone could find one in the wild and get even 100 times as close.
Still . . . . it's wild if it'd bite you and not fetch a stick. that's my motto. So if your kids bite and won;t fetch a stick, they may be in the next challenge!!
Rob
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 07:28:58 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I thought part of the effort was to seek out wildlife rather than taking a "frozen fuzzy" out of the closet. |
Welcome to DPC, where frozen fuzzy scores 8+ and creative, artistic scores 5.5. ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 08:21:05 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by Ivo:
I thought part of the effort was to seek out wildlife rather than taking a "frozen fuzzy" out of the closet. |
Welcome to DPC, where frozen fuzzy scores 8+ and creative, artistic scores 5.5. ;-) |
exactly. |
|
