DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> change a typical viewer's description of the photo
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 43 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/07/2007 06:15:34 PM · #26
Originally posted by TIHadi:
Or what if SC chose 5 ( or any number) active and willing DPC members whom have not participated in that one challenge and ask them to make a ruling to whether the editing had changed their "description" of what an original is.


We already have that. The Site Council is made up of considerably more than 5 DPC Members, and most of us have to look at the image and vote on it for validation or DQ. The rule is that you can't alter something that would change "a typical viewer's decription" of the photo (you are forgetting that key word). Essentially, we compare the entry to the original and decide if the editing would change how most people would describe the image in basic terms. Removing the entire background, for example, will generally result in a DQ since it removes the context of the shot. Changes in color or tone are exempt as long as they don't obscure something prominent.
 04/07/2007 06:22:18 PM · #27
Scalvert he said nothing about the size of the SC. He was speaking of 5 or whatever NON SC members.

Not that it matters.
 04/07/2007 06:27:32 PM · #28
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
He was speaking of 5 or whatever NON SC members.


He just said "DPC Members." The Site Council members are all just regular members, but with a little extra behind-the-scenes access.
 04/07/2007 06:49:28 PM · #29
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
He was speaking of 5 or whatever NON SC members.


He just said "DPC Members." The Site Council members are all just regular members, but with a little extra behind-the-scenes access.


Well he said what if the SC CHOSE 5 DPC Members. This completly alters the context to say that the existing site council no matter how large or small, would be chosing 5 DPC members.

either way it doesnt change what you have said. Just that fact that he wasnt talking about recruiting SC members or anythign else about SC members for that matter.

Kinda unrelated to the real discussion but was just calrifying what he said thats all.

Message edited by author 2007-04-07 18:50:18.
 04/07/2007 07:28:02 PM · #30
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Well he said what if the SC CHOSE 5 DPC Members.


The original DPC "overlords" (Drew and Langdon) chose a regular group of people to act as judges on photos brought up for validation... the DPC Site Council. Back in February, the Site Council chose 5 DPC members to do the same thing: dsidwell, L2, mk, nshapiro, sher9204... EXACTLY what TiHadi said. ;-)
 04/07/2007 07:33:49 PM · #31
.

Message edited by author 2007-04-07 19:41:25.
 04/07/2007 07:40:39 PM · #32
I wanted to edit again but need to seperate this

TiHadi in post 2 said "A viewer : Is anyone that is a member of DPC or a committee of five of the SC's "

In post 3
said "Or what if SC chose 5 ( or any number) active and willing DPC members whom have not participated in that one challenge and ask them to make a ruling to whether the editing had changed their "description" of what an original is."

They were 2 seperate thoughts.

Thought 1 - A group of 5 SC Members

Thought 2 - A group of 5 DPC Members

5 new SC members were chosen todo examine photo's in the way that TiHadi describes. But then the OP goes back to say well how about 5 DPC members.

I think its an authority complex some people have. What if 5 members that did not participate in the challenge at hand and do not have any other site authority dispute the problem. This would probly also mean that those 5 members arent always the same. Random judges... would be hard to pull off though and kind of pointless theirs always some bias somewhere.

Message edited by author 2007-04-07 19:44:04.
 04/07/2007 08:13:01 PM · #33
And then when someone doesn't like that decision they'll suggest that those folks select five other members, and so on ad infinitum.

SC members are the committee which has been selected to review pictures -- and more than five have to do so to DQ an image. I don't see what good adding more levels of bureaucracy will do.

You are welcome to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of any DQ decision in a public forum thread once the voting for that challenge has concluded -- there you will probably find that there is also a diversity of opinions ...

Message edited by author 2007-04-07 20:13:38.
 04/07/2007 08:19:39 PM · #34
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And then when someone doesn't like that decision they'll suggest that those folks select five other members, and so on ad infinitum.


Of course lol pretty soon you have political parties and the SC has to serve in 6 month terms and be relected.

Don't you know thats how humanity works.
and thats how it will be destroyed... oh well.
 04/07/2007 10:36:46 PM · #35
Originally posted by TIHadi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by samanwar:
Hi Karma, so back to your example, why should it matter? Does it make someone less of a photographer to capture a shot of a lion with a fly on his nose if the fly is cloned out?

It doesn't make anyone less of a photographer, but it changes the meaning and emotional feel of the photo. A photo of the lion looking at a fly would be odd-looking but logical. To come across a lion that just sits there cross-eyed would be rather bizzare, and inspire quite different thoughts in the viewer.

To me, it's not so much the degree to which the physical description of the picture changes which matters, as it's how much does the underlying message or meaning change. If an editing change alters the story conveyed by the photo, then it's a significant change to me.
GeneralE and karametI gather from your replies that you have not seen the photo in question, and I have a question for both of you, please. When it's said the SC has reviewed the submission, does this mean 1 SC or more than 1, and how many if more than 1. Or is the decision left to only ONE person to decide according to his or her "description"

because my submission does not have as much or little change as you have suggested.


Sorry, just now seeing this. When I posted, I said I didn't recall which photograph was yours. When I'm voting on a dq/no dq of a photograph, I rarely, if ever, pay attention to who it belongs to. Because of this thread, I went back and looked, and yes, remember yours. So, I had reviewed it, I just didn't know it was yours at the time (of voting to dq or of this thread). FWIW, more than 5 or 6 SC reviewed this picture.

I invite you to post your original and the edit after the challenge has finished voting. I, for one, would be interested in hearing what the general populous has to say.
 04/07/2007 10:39:58 PM · #36
Originally posted by samanwar:
why should it matter? Does it make someone less of a photographer to capture a shot of a lion with a fly on his nose if the fly is cloned out?
If someone use an editing tool/technique that is allowed, and it causes the "typical viewer description" to be altered, why should that be prohibited? I mean conceptually.


Because this is a photography site, not a "do anything you could possibly do with Photoshop" site. It's basically impossible to list all the ways you could legally use the tools, so instead there are limits on what you can do with them.

I highly recommend submitting ideas beforehand. Give the SC a few days, though, because they're always busy with other presubmissions and at least two challenges that are current in voting.

I've gotten very nice responses when I've done it. The one time there seemed to be some concern, I went another direction.
 04/07/2007 11:56:12 PM · #37
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by samanwar:
why should it matter? Does it make someone less of a photographer to capture a shot of a lion with a fly on his nose if the fly is cloned out?
If someone use an editing tool/technique that is allowed, and it causes the "typical viewer description" to be altered, why should that be prohibited? I mean conceptually.


Because this is a photography site, not a "do anything you could possibly do with Photoshop" site. It's basically impossible to list all the ways you could legally use the tools, so instead there are limits on what you can do with them.

I highly recommend submitting ideas beforehand. Give the SC a few days, though, because they're always busy with other presubmissions and at least two challenges that are current in voting.

I've gotten very nice responses when I've done it. The one time there seemed to be some concern, I went another direction.


Yes, good advice. You will need to give us time, especially, if it's "borderline" case (which is typically why people ask). In such cases, we basically have to have time to discuss it and possibly even do a "pre" vote.
 04/08/2007 12:16:52 AM · #38
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Yes, good advice. You will need to give us time, especially, if it's "borderline" case (which is typically why people ask). In such cases, we basically have to have time to discuss it and possibly even do a "pre" vote.


Of course if they evr change their mind, figure out that it wasnt disqualifiable (maybe it could happen?) then the fact that they pull it before voting is over nullifies its chance of any sort of placment anyways.

Just a odd though if it was marked for DQ and then when the challenge was over it goes in as a DQ. It has a full chance of scoring in case of a recall.

My guess would be is that a DQ was never retracted and this possible problem doesnt need a solution.
 04/08/2007 12:42:48 AM · #39
Just so I get this straight. You would like DPC uses to view your submission and have them vote on wether or not your entry was DQable? If so and those selected few say that you should not have been DQ'd what would the chances be that your picture would be deemd legal? If that is even do-able. I haven't been on this site very long but I've never seen a picture come out of a DQ status.

I also gather that even if your picture stays as a DQ you are just trying to warn others that they might be DQ'd also for the same or near same editing.
04/08/2007 12:44:44 AM · #40
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Yes, good advice. You will need to give us time, especially, if it's "borderline" case (which is typically why people ask). In such cases, we basically have to have time to discuss it and possibly even do a "pre" vote.


Of course if they evr change their mind, figure out that it wasnt disqualifiable (maybe it could happen?) then the fact that they pull it before voting is over nullifies its chance of any sort of placment anyways.

Just a odd though if it was marked for DQ and then when the challenge was over it goes in as a DQ. It has a full chance of scoring in case of a recall.

My guess would be is that a DQ was never retracted and this possible problem doesnt need a solution.


okay for whatever odd reason my page hasn't refreshed in a while and I just say this post after I posted the other. Just an FYI. hahaha
 04/08/2007 01:12:47 AM · #41
Originally posted by TIHadi:
The ruling was made by the SC; fine, it's not the end of the world, this is only a game and it should be fun; however, one phrase in the rules strike me as vague and ambiguous to be part of rules "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph"!!
I think this opens the door for all kinds of interpretations where people can greatly differ; while I accept the passed ruling, I do strongly believe that my editing did not "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph" and I stand behind my changes.
The ruling is done; but I need to have this phrase, in the rules, cleared and defined and made clear to all, it is an open thing that can be used in every which way.


It might normally open the door for many interpretations, but not in your case. You took a picture of a crab, its shadow and a background. You removed the background. The description has changed. I am not sure what other interpretation you might possibly receive but it was changed. OK?
 04/08/2007 02:57:14 AM · #42
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by TIHadi:
The ruling was made by the SC; fine, it's not the end of the world, this is only a game and it should be fun; however, one phrase in the rules strike me as vague and ambiguous to be part of rules "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph"!!
I think this opens the door for all kinds of interpretations where people can greatly differ; while I accept the passed ruling, I do strongly believe that my editing did not "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph" and I stand behind my changes.
The ruling is done; but I need to have this phrase, in the rules, cleared and defined and made clear to all, it is an open thing that can be used in every which way.


It might normally open the door for many interpretations, but not in your case. You took a picture of a crab, its shadow and a background. You removed the background. The description has changed. I am not sure what other interpretation you might possibly receive but it was changed. OK?


You quoted me!!!! Can't you read?! Or is it a matter of comprehension? Look again the answer for your (OK?) is up there. Read again OK?
 04/08/2007 06:34:54 PM · #43
Clubjuggle asked you, in the second post of this thread, what you would suggest.

So, what would you suggest?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 03:57:13 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/24/2025 03:57:13 PM EDT.