Ironic - DPChallenge Forums

08/22/2003 05:09:15 PM · #2

John's original got 7 1's from the prudes here.

Autool avoided those.

M

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

08/22/2003 05:21:27 PM · #3

Interesting, I enjoyed seeing the "copy" before seeing the original. Now after seeing them both I would (if voting) still vote the copy higher. Just because to me it is a more interesting shot because the forbidden fruit could be male or female (apple hides all) plus the impressing that it is a child. So I got an entirely different impression of what the forbidden fruit implied. Don't get me wrong both are wonderful shots and show creativity, just never having seen the original the "copy" spoke to me on several different levels. Humour mixed with a serious social problem.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/22/2003 05:55:55 PM · #4

Although I find your observation very interesting, I am surprised by your use of the term strange.

John himself has contributed recently with a very interesting article discussing (among the other issues) what's the importance of the technique in a photo compared to the relevance of the message in it.

John's photo had great technique while inviting to bite the apple.

Richard's photo may have been less technically perfect, but conveyed a great humoristic message.

The conclusion, in my opinion, is that DPC's public has a slightly preference to laugh about the apple compared to biting it and that not necessarily is a tragedy.

BTW, speaking of comparisons, I am very surprised that nobody noticed that with the same idea it is possible to win two blue ribbons:

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=9982

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=21678

Which one do you prefer?
My preference is clearly stated in my favorites even if I went for the less popular.

Message edited by author 2003-08-22 17:59:51.

RHoldenSr

Canon EOS-5D

08/22/2003 10:59:39 PM · #5

Antonio

I think you misunderstood my use of the term strange.

I was referring simply to the fact that Richard's "more humorous" shot received a slightly higher voting average over John's which was "somewhat more serious" shot and that is all. Especially seeing as how Richard's was a spin-off.

If I had been here at the time of voting, I would probably given both of them a 7 or 8 maybe even a 9. But I would have voted Richard's lower because of the lack of originality and the fact that it was a spin-off.

Both of the photographs I'am referring to in my post are excellent work. There is very little to be found wrong with either one of them. And the two photographers are doing excellent work. And they both hold places in my favorites.

I would have thought that a site for the more serious photographers (both amateurs and advanced) would tend to support the more serious side of the art/hobby. But it shows in this case that they support the very humorous side of it also even when it is a spin-off.

Concerning the two photographs you refer to in your post, they also are very good photographs done by very good photographers. But the work was not a total copy as is with the two photographs I'am talking about.

I'am sorry if you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

Calvus

Originally posted by glimpses:

Message edited by author 2003-08-22 23:06:37.

08/23/2003 06:37:07 AM · #6

Hi Robin,

thanks for you explanation that helped me in better understanding your point.

What I appreciated of the Richard's spin-off, apart from the great humour, was that the reference to John's work was explicitly and nicely stated in the title.

After all, to have spin-offs it is always a strong sign of the level of quality produced in the first case. I would love, one day, to have spin-offs inspired by my own pictures! =)

ttreit

Canon EOS-50D

08/23/2003 07:45:48 AM · #7

I think the variance needs to be taken into account. You don't have the same people voting on both (well not the exact same people) and those who rate photos on a Bell curve are only rating the photo's against other's in the same challenge.

In either case you can't look at a 6/100 of a point as being statistically significant in this environment.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/23/2003 09:04:31 AM · #8

- 7.238

- 7.226

Two of the same object. Different background - two almost identical scores. How do you win TWO blue ribbons with the SAME object. lol

M

Message edited by author 2003-08-23 09:05:25.

08/23/2003 09:26:31 AM · #9

Originally posted by mavrik:

Two of the same object. Different background - two almost identical scores. How do you win TWO blue ribbons with the SAME object. lol
M

I could not believe it, but it is incredibly TRUE.
In that case I think that the second one should have been seriously considered to being DQ'd or, even better, the author could have retired it from the competition after winning it.
I do not think that is an example helping the spirit of these challenges.

08/23/2003 09:31:34 AM · #10

Hey there's nothing wrong with taking a winning formula and doing it again :) It's certainly not against the rules and would never be DQd!

08/23/2003 09:37:29 AM · #11

Originally posted by Konador:

Hey there's nothing wrong with taking a winning formula and doing it again :) It's certainly not against the rules and would never be DQd!

Well, considering that there is a rule that imposes not to re-post the same photo to a different challenge, I see that case as an evident attempt to bend an existing rule.

Basically, a successful cheat invites to cheat. That's how a case like that does not produce a positive effect on the overall community.

It is about fairness most of all, although even other issues like creativity could be addressed in that case.

The fact that the author is copying himself, it does not exclude that is a copy.

08/23/2003 09:47:33 AM · #12

Its not the same photo tho so it isn't cheating. I've done loads of photos using the same subject (self portraits). One got 3rd place, one got 4th, one got 9th (I think). That doesn't mean I'm cheating.

08/23/2003 09:51:29 AM · #13

Originally posted by Konador:

Well, I hope you used a different angle and, however, a human being is a much more complex subject than a glass.

A simple subject as a glass (even an originally designed one), shot from the same angle and just changing the background it can be considered a copy.

I am not forcing a decision or saying that definitely it should be DQ'q.

I am just raising questions which, in my opinion, makes sense to raise.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/23/2003 11:39:08 AM · #14

I definitely didn't post Mcmurma's post to suggest such a thing, btw. I think he's SMART for reusing it...though if he did it again, I'd have to seriously just go break the glass. ;)

He has a great prop - it's the same as reusing a model (done plenty on this site).

M

08/23/2003 11:51:45 AM · #15

I have used my daughter in at least 9 separate challenges. If I ever win with one (which I should since she's the cutest kid on the planet) you can bet your last nickle I'll emulate that shot any time it would fit the challenge. There is nothing, nada, zilch, zip wrong with revisiting a successful shot.

Note to other parents : Yes, I am fully aware that your child is also the cutest kid on the planet...

08/23/2003 12:19:52 PM · #16

Originally posted by myqyl:

Not to mention your Square/Windows entries :P

08/23/2003 12:20:32 PM · #17

(sig)

edit: thats better :)

Message edited by author 2003-08-23 12:21:00.

08/23/2003 12:26:31 PM · #18

Originally posted by myqyl:

There is nothing, nada, zilch, zip wrong with revisiting a successful shot.

Of course there is nothing wrong in revisiting a successful shot (nor in revisiting an unsuccessful one for what matters).

The issue is about submitting to a challenge the revisitation of a shot previously submitted in another challenge.
And I still think that it is a pretty questionable issue.

08/23/2003 12:32:15 PM · #19

Originally posted by Konador:

Not to mention your Square/Windows entries :P

LoL! Ummm, yeah... That too :)

08/23/2003 12:35:11 PM · #20

Originally posted by glimpses:

The issue is about submitting to a challenge the revisitation of a shot previously submitted in another challenge.
And I still think that it is a pretty questionable issue.

Is there something in the rules that makes you think this? There is a very real possibility that your right... I haven't read the rules since DPC II came on-line so I may just not remember...

Edit : By the way, Sweet Dreams is a killer shot! I didn't get it's connection to the challenge (not an Anne Lenox fan), but it's definitely firmly on my favorites list. Congrats on that catch :)

Message edited by author 2003-08-23 12:38:25.

08/23/2003 12:48:44 PM · #21

Originally posted by myqyl:

Is there something in the rules that makes you think this?

Yes. As I mentioned, it is the rule that you cannot re-submit the same photo one of the reasons which let me think about it.

I think is a good rule and I think is there to enforce creativity.

The major issue, then, is about similarity. We have three examples of similarity in this thread:

[1] a spin-off
[2] the same abstract idea / technique
[3] the same (simple/specific) subject (from mostly the same angle)

I have a feeling that the first two cases are ok and the third case is not, but that's just my feeling.

==========
Thanks for "Sweet Dreams". It truly was a lucky shot. (I have been unable to reproduce or improve that level in my next two challenge submissions, regardless what the rating says). I still find very difficult to submit something proper for a challenge, with the time limit constrain, but I am not criticizing that difficulty at all: on the contrary, the more difficult it is, the funnier I find it! ;)
My observations strongly work (or try to work) in a direction which could improve the site and the community (which are already excellent btw - but it is never enough).

08/23/2003 01:00:45 PM · #22

I see what your saying now, but that rule is meant to stop someone from entering the same image, not a similar shot, in two separate challenges. A good example is my Skylight ^ 2 and Skylight that ran the same week in 2 separate challenges. They were 2 different exposures. When the admins told me 1 would need to be DQ'd, I sent both images and told them that if they felt I had broken even the spirit of the rules, that I would gladly remove one. They ruled it was within the letter and the spirit of the rules. The 2 shots were actually taken in exposure burst mode :)

Interestingly enough, they scored .3 points apart :)