| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:51:48 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you asked 100 people on the street if a zoo represented a natural environment, at least 95 would say "no". You know this. I know this. It is obvious.) |
The problem I have and what I keep trying to find out is why we can't get this thread, this train of thought, this concept on one track.
There are no absolutes, and you can *NOT* make a statement like "It's obvious".
You're projecting.
And 100 people on the street are not the people here.
I'd venture to say that the majority of the people here *are* those five other people out of 100 from all over.
That's pretty obvious to me!....8>)
There will *always* be debate, so can't we agree that there really are no hard and fast rules?
We *do* have hard and fast rules for editing, they are spelled out, and people seem to accept them......you have to have that.
But to me, part of the fun of the challenge, in fact what makes it a challenge, is not only to take a better shot, but to have a better idea or interpretation of what the challenge details are.
If I take it too far, the voters will take care of it, I don't need to be slapped down by some self-righteous, pedantic, self-proclaimed keeper of the rules who invariably had nothing to do with setting forth the details anyway.
I haven't even been here a year yet and I'd say I have the dubious honor of having been slapped around by the voters as thoroughly as anyone when I went out on a limb, it broke, dropped me in the lake, I went over the spillway, down the river, yadda, yadda......but it was FUN!!!!!!
The only objection I have, and what takes a lot of the fun out of it is when someone takes it upon themself to tell me I "violated" something, or didn't keep the "spirit", or that I was unethical or lacked integrity.
Ya takes yer chances, and if you go too far, OH WELL!!!!!
I'm sitting on a 3.8 in Minimalism right now and that really bugs me 'cause it's just a bad pic......duh Jeb!
But my blooper, the one I out-clevered myself on and whooped it up with?
I got a 4.48, 69 comments, and days of FUN!
It was a flat freakin' HOWL!!!!!
And the only thing that put a damper on it was the people that decided that what I did was somehow wrong, instead of just different.
If someone does something wrong, then it's for site council to decide, if you don't think it meets the challenge, fine, vote accordingly and trash me if you like with a low score.
But I would suggest that before you give someone a DNMC that you're pretty doggone sure of what the actual intent of the details are by what they say.....and that there isn't some way to look at the pic and reread the title to get the photog's intent as well.
And one thing that is for sure.....if the details are N/A, it's pretty hard to bust someone for DNMC under those conditions.
Even someone who puts a color picture in a B&W challenge!......8>)
It may not have been your idea of a Black and White Portrait, but that didn't make it wrong, just weird.
And I might have a clue now as to where NOT to venture....or not!...8>)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:51:58 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
you admitted in the very first words of your description that you knew you were on thin ice. |
Heh... no, I acknowledged that some people would complain because there was a thread about it before the challenge started, just as there was before the last two wildlife challenges started. In each of those threads, you'll find a few people who are totally against zoo shots. Hooray for them. I tip my hat. Most responders tended to note that zoo shots are perfectly legal and that they'd be judging the quality of the photo and/or whether it appeared to meet the challenge. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:53:45 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
you admitted in the very first words of your description that you knew you were on thin ice. |
Heh... no, I acknowledged that some people would complain because there was a thread about it before the challenge started, just as there was before the last two wildlife challenges started. In each of those threads, you'll find a few people who are totally against zoo shots. Hooray for them. I tip my hat. Most responders tended to note that zoo shots are perfectly legal and that they'd be judging the quality of the photo and/or whether it appeared to meet the challenge. |
You must have diven your parents nutts! ;-) |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:54:08 PM · #179 |
| I did not feel as "violated" by zoo shots in the wildlife challenge as I did by those not taken between 4 and 5 AM (and a few other challenges very specific descriptions.) I voted a couple of points lower for those that looked like they were probably zoo shots, though. Normally a DNMC is a 3 or below, but there was usually no way to be positive so I just made a deduction. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:54:18 PM · #180 |
you know . . . .
I almost went back and shot this guy again for the wildlife challenge,
He's in a museum, and also not alive. ;-)
Instead, I entered this,
Also in a museum, but alive. Part of the live frog exhibit at the Museum of Natural Science in Houston.
I think we all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.
If no one is upset with Alex's red ribbon shot, then the zoo shots also have to be OK. Richmaond Park in London is hardly "in the wild". A buck like that would survive about 3 seconds out in the open in Texas this time of year, let alone 4 or 5 bucks strolling together as seen in other very high scoring shots.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:58:31 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
you know . . . .
I almost went back and shot this guy again for the wildlife challenge,
He's in a museum, and also not alive. ;-)
Instead, I entered this,
Also in a museum, but alive. Part of the live frog exhibit at the Museum of Natural Science in Houston.
I think we all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.
If no one is upset with Alex's red ribbon shot, then the zoo shots also have to be OK. Richmaond Park in London is hardly "in the wild". A buck like that would survive about 3 seconds out in the open in Texas this time of year, let alone 4 or 5 bucks strolling together as seen in other very high scoring shots. |
Yep already checked that one out, it appears the Deer are free roaming and graze to sustain themselves. The do ask for handouts now and then and catch a ride in a cab on occaision. Furthermore, Alex kept his little secret to himslef. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:02:52 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
you know . . . .
I almost went back and shot this guy again for the wildlife challenge,
He's in a museum, and also not alive. ;-)
Instead, I entered this,
Also in a museum, but alive. Part of the live frog exhibit at the Museum of Natural Science in Houston.
I think we all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.
If no one is upset with Alex's red ribbon shot, then the zoo shots also have to be OK. Richmond Park in London is hardly "in the wild". A buck like that would survive about 3 seconds out in the open in Texas this time of year, let alone 4 or 5 bucks strolling together as seen in other very high scoring shots. |
Yep already checked that one out, it appears the Deer are free roaming and graze to sustain themselves. The do ask for handouts now and then and catch a ride in a cab on occasion. Furthermore, Alex kept his little secret to himslef. |
But without natural predators and/or hunters they are little more than free range cattle. You just can't get open shots like that very often in the wild.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the zoo shots and all. My point is, if you are going to separate them, where do you draw the line? Zoos, preserves, wildlife parks, bird sanctuaries, . . . . ?
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:07:41 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
But without natural predators and/or hunters they are little more than free range cattle. You just can't get open shots like that very often in the wild.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the zoo shots and all. My point is, if you are going to separate them, where do you draw the line? Zoos, preserves, wildlife parks, bird sanctuaries, . . . . ? |
The issue is not the zoo shot near as much as learning when to show your cards and when to hold them close to your chest. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:10:52 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
The issue is not the zoo shot near as much as learning when to show your cards and when to hold them close to your chest. |
But wouldn't that be the same situational ethics you objected to in the first place?......8>)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:14:29 PM · #185 |
I'm curious as to how many people in favor of zoo shots also had no problem with Justin's 1/2 seconds shot in 2-second exposure (description: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds. )?
I know Shannon was consistent with his opinion, but are others as well? |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:17:56 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
The issue is not the zoo shot near as much as learning when to show your cards and when to hold them close to your chest. |
But wouldn't that be the same situational ethics you objected to in the first place?......8>) |
This is my watered down and revised PC view. My personal view still stands and if you wish, I'll support that point until my last breath but......... as I mentioned earlier in another thread, a posse threatened my pet Aardvark yesterday and suggested tone it down. So much for the tattoo of a cobra across my face. hmmmm.
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 17:18:40. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:18:59 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm curious as to how many people in favor of zoo shots also had no problem with Justin's 1/2 seconds shot in 2-second exposure (description: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds. )?
I know Shannon was consistent with his opinion, but are others as well? |
Well, to your earlier argument, one is verifiable, the other isn't.
I have more of a problem with the 2-second exposure issue than with the zoo issue. I believe a technical requirement is different than a visual one. So I am OK with the apparent contradiction.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:25:04 PM · #188 |
Basically my bottom line:
A) Technical requirements which can be verfied (on EXIF for example) but aren't obvious to the voter should be flagged as DQable offenses so the voter can have confidence while voting that the spirit of the challenge is kept. (2-second exposure is a good example. 4-5AM is another example.)
B) Descriptions should avoid framing the challenge in ways that cannot be verfied by the voter nor the SC. (the zoo clause in Wildlife being a prime example). In the meantime, I agree, impression is key and really what will rule the day. Still, avoid sticking your thumb in the eye of the voter.
C) Entry descriptions which are easily verifiable by the viewer do not need extra rule flags for DQs. The current Good and Bad challenges are good examples. We do not need to have an extra DQ rule because anything with food in it will obviously get hammered by the voter.
That's where I stand. Any questions?
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 17:27:12. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:26:26 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my bottom line:
A) Technical requirements which can be verfied (on EXIF for example) but aren't obvious to the voter should be flagged as DQable offenses so the voter can have confidence while voting that the spirit of the challenge is kept.
B) Descriptions should avoid framing the challenge in ways that cannot be verfied by the voter nor the SC. (the zoo clause in Wildlife being a prime example).
C) Entry descriptions which are easily verifiable by the viewer do not need extra rule flags for DQs. The current Good and Bad challenges are good examples. We do not need to have an extra DQ rule because anything with food in it will obviously get hammered by the voter.
That's where I stand. Any questions? |
Nope, I'm good.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:27:26 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Any questions? |
Yeah how many licks does it take to get to the center of a lolly pop?
:-P |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:31:30 PM · #191 |
I dunno, I've had a problem with this ethics thing since I started entering challenges. My second entry, in "footwear", got blasted with DNMC's, after I went to great lengths to make the monkey slippers not be obviously slippers. I just couldn't understand it.
In my naive view, if the challenge called for footwear, of COURSE the shot contained footwear or nobody would even THINK of entering it!
Boy, of all the things I've learned at DPC that was the first that was drummed into me through a horrendous score; challenge descriptions don't count for much and people, through experience, are ready to mistrust. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:32:33 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by yanko:
That was actual face paint I used... |
LOL, I stand corrected! It illustrates my earlier point though... very often the only way we know whether that's makeup (or whether an animal photo is a zoo shot) is by the photographer's comments. This is a learning site, and the only real prize is knowledge. As long as an entry is legal, there is far more value in having these comments than there is in meeting some journalistic standards that simply don't apply here. Let's not discourage full disclosure of all techniques.
Worth noting that my last Wildlife entry was also shot at a zoo and finished in exactly the same spot- 10th. The first and second place finishers in that challenge were also taken at the zoo, yet it didn't even warrant a thread on the subject. It was fine! Arm waving over the ethics of something legal that's been done and accepted before (in identical challenges) does more harm than good IMO. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:39:21 PM · #193 |
Scalvert... You say it so much better than I.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:45:57 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Any questions? |
I generally agree with your outline, but there are limitations on what is verifiable. There's little hope of proving whether an animal was shot at a zoo or not unless the photographer says so. If the challenge calls for 4-5am, you could simply change the time on your camera and shoot at noon. A photographer might set up a shot with strobe lights in a dark room flickering for exactly two seconds, but leave the shutter open for 10 seconds to get it. Personally, I would consider that meeting a 2-second exposure challenge (the sensor was exposed for 2 seconds), but EXIF would disagree. Within the limits of practicality though, I concur. |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:51:27 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Any questions? |
I generally agree with your outline, but there are limitations on what is verifiable. There's little hope of proving whether an animal was shot at a zoo or not unless the photographer says so. If the challenge calls for 4-5am, you could simply change the time on your camera and shoot at noon. A photographer might set up a shot with strobe lights in a dark room flickering for exactly two seconds, but leave the shutter open for 10 seconds to get it. Personally, I would consider that meeting a 2-second exposure challenge (the sensor was exposed for 2 seconds), but EXIF would disagree. Within the limits of practicality though, I concur. |
Well, the rubber meeting the road is always hard. In the 4-5AM shot, you could definitely change your camera time. However, this is blatant cheating (as you check that your time is accurate). There is no safeguard against this except the conscious of the photographer. The zoo shot is covered by my second point and I would merely say we should avoid descriptions like that. The final shot would be DQ'd. It's that simple. If the extra rules say "DQ for shots that aren't 2-seconds" then how could you argue? |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:52:54 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my bottom line:
A) Technical requirements which can be verfied (on EXIF for example) but aren't obvious to the voter should be flagged as DQable offenses so the voter can have confidence while voting that the spirit of the challenge is kept. (2-second exposure is a good example. 4-5AM is another example.)
B) Descriptions should avoid framing the challenge in ways that cannot be verfied by the voter nor the SC. (the zoo clause in Wildlife being a prime example). In the meantime, I agree, impression is key and really what will rule the day. Still, avoid sticking your thumb in the eye of the voter.
C) Entry descriptions which are easily verifiable by the viewer do not need extra rule flags for DQs. The current Good and Bad challenges are good examples. We do not need to have an extra DQ rule because anything with food in it will obviously get hammered by the voter.
That's where I stand. Any questions? |
That's all fine. But I still haven't heard anyone address why we shouldn't simply make it clear in the challenge descriptions that it's appearances that count. That would remove the need to split things into three categories.
My response to "just shoot what you want" is that when that happens, we get threads like this one. The camp that thinks it's fine to shoot in zoos for wildlife shots always feels okay, and the camp that think that's inappropriate always feels bad. Same as 4-5 am, night shot, etc.
So why not make it all go away and just say right in the description "Take a shot that appears to ... blah blah blah"?
Instead of arguing the merits of one camp's points or the other's, would someone please explain why that wouldn't work?
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:55:06 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
...would someone please explain why that wouldn't work? |
History proves that we'd be arguing over whether something "appears to be..." by the end of the day. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:56:53 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my bottom line:
A) Technical requirements which can be verfied (on EXIF for example) but aren't obvious to the voter should be flagged as DQable offenses so the voter can have confidence while voting that the spirit of the challenge is kept. (2-second exposure is a good example. 4-5AM is another example.)
B) Descriptions should avoid framing the challenge in ways that cannot be verfied by the voter nor the SC. (the zoo clause in Wildlife being a prime example). In the meantime, I agree, impression is key and really what will rule the day. Still, avoid sticking your thumb in the eye of the voter.
C) Entry descriptions which are easily verifiable by the viewer do not need extra rule flags for DQs. The current Good and Bad challenges are good examples. We do not need to have an extra DQ rule because anything with food in it will obviously get hammered by the voter.
That's where I stand. Any questions? |
That's all fine. But I still haven't heard anyone address why we shouldn't simply make it clear in the challenge descriptions that it's appearances that count. That would remove the need to split things into three categories.
My response to "just shoot what you want" is that when that happens, we get threads like this one. The camp that thinks it's fine to shoot in zoos for wildlife shots always feels okay, and the camp that think that's inappropriate always feels bad. Same as 4-5 am, night shot, etc.
So why not make it all go away and just say right in the description "Take a shot that appears to ... blah blah blah"?
Instead of arguing the merits of one camp's points or the other's, would someone please explain why that wouldn't work? |
I'll take this one . . .
What's the difference between shots that appear to be 2-second exposures and shots that appear to be 6-second exposures?
You can't put a technical requirement in and say have it appear technically correct, IMO.
In this case, just call it Long Exposure. But that would be different than requiring a specific shutter speed.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:57:59 PM · #199 |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:59:39 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
...would someone please explain why that wouldn't work? |
History proves that we'd be arguing over whether something "appears to be..." by the end of the day. ;-) |
But see, Shannon, that puts the decision where it belongs: in the hands of the voters.
Look, I've seen this argument over and over, and over and over the general consensus seems to be that it's the image that matters most. So just make that clear.
People can then debate whether that's the right approach, but they can't get upset about it not being clear.
|
|
