| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2007 11:32:40 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
I think we just want to burn our backgrounds in the time honored photographic tradition.
what are you people talking about? |
I just want to own slaves and and shoot people I don't agree with in the time honored tradition, but goshdarnit... that's against the stupid rules now. What difference does it make what you could do with film in the context of this site? |
weak
We're asking for a change in the rules. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:33:58 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
... with your very low vote cast i would say that you were in effect making your placing higher with every single vote and you would know it. |
I have a problem with this type of generalization and unsupported accusation.
If the individual is consistent in his voting patterns, I have no problems whatsoever with what scores are doled out.
The suggestion that his vote would favourably increase his own scores could only be substantiated if he had some inkling as to what scores he was receiving, which is not the least likely.
We all have our preferences and scoring methods, and casting aspersions on those that are perhaps more critical than others does nothing for the betterment of this community.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:35:27 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
weak |
Why? Composite prints made from multiple images were common in darkroom days. If time-honored is the criteria, then PS composites should be allowed here too. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:36:39 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Fine, open your wallet and pay for a panel to adjudicate the contests. I for one deeply resent the implied accusation of bias, and would be glad to relinquish the workload. Let me know when you've hired my replacement. |
Oh hi. We do open our wallets. Why aren't you being paid? |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:36:52 PM · #105 |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOkay, back on topic, now that we're so close. The Site Suggestion is to allow the removal of backgrounds. So... where do you draw the line? At what point is something "background" and what makes it part of the main subject? How much is too much? Can we eventually remove everything but an Oreo cookie in the middle of the image?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:38:00 PM · #106 |
Yes Elvis, it is a conflict. However neither your vote nor my oh-so-low vote will knock an image off the front page, so the situation is not the same.
You guys/gals can be as insulted as you care to. I've not accused anyone of acting improperly. The same bunch who implements statistical voting mechanisms to find cheaters are obviously a bit touchy about any sort of sensible approach to putting in the same sort of watchguards on high. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:39:13 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
I think we just want to burn our backgrounds in the time honored photographic tradition.
what are you people talking about? |
I just want to own slaves and and shoot people I don't agree with in the time honored tradition, but goshdarnit... that's against the stupid rules now. What difference does it make what you could do with film in the context of this site? |
um... so to follow your analogy... you are correcting the wrongs of the tradition of photography with this site? You are taking back photography from Man Ray, Surrealism, and other Modernist and postmodern rabble-rousers? Fascinating. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:41:37 PM · #108 |
Can this thread be moved to rant?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:41:38 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The same bunch who implements statistical voting mechanisms to find cheaters are obviously a bit touchy about any sort of sensible approach to putting in the same sort of watchguards on high. |
You haven't suggested one, nor does it have anything to do with this thread. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:41:50 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The suggestion that his vote would favourably increase his own scores could only be substantiated if he had some inkling as to what scores he was receiving, which is not the least likely. |
Just a reminder that in your Preferences you can set an option to see your scores during the voting. Paid members can use the "update button" to refresh their score every few seconds, and even track each individual vote. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:42:44 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by idnic:
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOkay, back on topic, now that we're so close. The Site Suggestion is to allow the removal of backgrounds. So... where do you draw the line? At what point is something "background" and what makes it part of the main subject? How much is too much? Can we eventually remove everything but an Oreo cookie in the middle of the image? |
Why not? What are the horrible consequences of such a thing? A picture of an Oreo in a field of white or black? And what score do you think that would get?
But if that's too radical an idea, then leave it up to the SC to determine what a background is, just like now they are determining what "a typical viewer's response" is. There's no difference in the judgement involved. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:43:16 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Can this thread be moved to rant? |
oh, great. thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:44:18 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by idnic:
Can this thread be moved to rant? |
oh, great. thanks a lot. |
Sorry, was trying to get on topic, but seemed the only one interested.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:44:53 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The same bunch who implements statistical voting mechanisms to find cheaters are obviously a bit touchy about any sort of sensible approach to putting in the same sort of watchguards on high. |
You haven't suggested one, nor does it have anything to do with this thread. |
Yeah NOW let's get back on topic. I did suggest one, you and your pals were just frothing at the mouth over it. Scroll down. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:45:32 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
... with your very low vote cast i would say that you were in effect making your placing higher with every single vote and you would know it. |
I have a problem with this type of generalization and unsupported accusation.
If the individual is consistent in his voting patterns, I have no problems whatsoever with what scores are doled out.
The suggestion that his vote would favourably increase his own scores could only be substantiated if he had some inkling as to what scores he was receiving, which is not the least likely.
We all have our preferences and scoring methods, and casting aspersions on those that are perhaps more critical than others does nothing for the betterment of this community.
Ray |
I don't care how he votes. and yes as long as it it the same across the board it doesn't matter. my point is that he is throwing around conflicts of interest, i was just pointing out that his particular voting pattern makes his placement higher. if he didn't vote those other shots in the challenge lower than his vote received then everyone other than him would have a higher score than they do after he votes,so in the end he COULD be making his placement higher by voting.
again I could give a rats ass how or if he votes just that it was hypocritical. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:46:35 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... you are correcting the wrongs of the tradition of photography with this site? You are taking back photography from Man Ray, Surrealism, and other Modernist and postmodern rabble-rousers? Fascinating. |
No, we are trying to have an enforcable set of rules. I think you are asking to inject a greater degree of subjectivity into SC decisions on these issues than the current rule does. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:48:29 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The same bunch who implements statistical voting mechanisms to find cheaters are obviously a bit touchy about any sort of sensible approach to putting in the same sort of watchguards on high. |
...Langdon's the programmer, not the SC. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:50:08 PM · #118 |
DPC is not a democracy. No one was born with certain inalienable rights to participate in challenges at DPC. The site belongs to Drew and Langdon and it is they, and their assigned who allow us to all play along --- IF we play within the rules they have set forth. If we don't like those rules or cannot play within them, we have a zillion other options on the internet where we can find some rules which better suit us.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:51:25 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
.. so to follow your analogy... |
What do past film photographers have to do with it? Should we just drop the rules and make it 'anything goes' because some famous photographer at some point used whatever technique you care to try? Do you have a similar complaint against restrictions on spot editing in Basic? The rule exists to prevent the wholesale creation or removal of *anything* since PS makes it so easy to do so. If that's too restrictive for the budding Man Ray, there's always Expert. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:53:07 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by idnic:
DPC is not a democracy. No one was born with certain inalienable rights to participate in challenges at DPC. The site belongs to Drew and Langdon and it is they, and their assigned who allow us to all play along --- IF we play within the rules they have set forth. If we don't like those rules or cannot play within them, we have a zillion other options on the internet where we can find some rules which better suit us. |
as the self-proclaimed public relations offier of the site, i'd like to request that these sort of words be refrained for it does not benefit the overall public impression of the site, and the site owner :P |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:53:12 PM · #121 |
simply asking for a small change
world peace is not at stake
Why are the powers that be so resistant to change?
Just try one little tiny challenge - just see.
If we are right, the SC has less to police. You've gone to great lengths to tell us how hard your SC lives are - why not try it? |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:54:28 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
.. so to follow your analogy... |
What do past film photographers have to do with it? Should we just drop the rules and make it 'anything goes' because some famous photographer at some point used whatever technique you care to try? Do you have a similar complaint against restrictions on spot editing in Basic? The rule exists to prevent the wholesale creation or removal of *anything* since PS makes it so easy to do so. If that's too restrictive for the budding Man Ray, there's always Expert. |
What do past film photographers have to do with photography? I'm speechless.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:56:25 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
simply asking for a small change
world peace is not at stake
Why are the powers that be so resistant to change?
Just try one little tiny challenge - just see.
If we are right, the SC has less to police. You've gone to great lengths to tell us how hard your SC lives are - why not try it? |
I honestly would like to do this (burn the background) sometimes but think it would be really abused by allot of people. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:57:45 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
No, we are trying to have an enforcable set of rules. |
Some people are questioning your enforcement in this thread. But I am not questioning enforcement. I am questioning the rule itself. And I am OP here, for whatever good that does me.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think you are asking to inject a greater degree of subjectivity into SC decisions on these issues than the current rule does. |
I disagree. Every rule has an edge that people can sidle up to. I don't see any difference in the level of subjectivity. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:58:08 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
simply asking for a small change.... |
To oblitherate the background of an image and still call it photography? Didn't you also argue against too much Expert editing?
|
|
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: 08/25/2025 11:35:31 PM EDT.
