| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/22/2007 02:18:16 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I am more concerned about someone who uses the same image (different frame number) in two challenges and gets two ribbons out of it. I used to think I had no morals, but I think that is morally wrong.
Don't get me wrong, incredible shot, and well deserving of ONE ribbon. Makes the whole dpc front page look like a farce. |
You gotta be kidding????? What has this got to do with morals??? How is it immoral to submit a shot to the Free Study and another one from the same shoot into another challenge? Nothing against the rules and nothing "immoral" about that.
Jealousy and sour grapes... |
Not at all. As I said, it is a great shot. "A" being the operative word. IT would be illegal to enter the same exact photo in two different challenges correct? So why should someone be able to get around this by taking two, basically identical photos? If he had changed the composition, moved the couple, whatever...then it would be a "different" shot from the same shoot. This is in fact an identical shot, just with a different frame number. I think it is very poor sportsmanship on the part of the photographer to see how it does after a couple days, and since it is scoring well, then enter the same shot in another challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:21:42 PM · #77 |
| Not identical - the people are in a different pose. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:22:28 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Descriptions are good only for killing the creativity and for the trolls. |
Get real man. The descriptions are there as boundries and guidelines for entries. If you can't play the game by the rules then sit on the sidelines and watch. They are intended to keep people from entering cows into a horse challenge in which ultimately somebody would proclaiming "what's the difference, they both have 4 legs." Then after the challenge they initiate a thread complaining because their score was low and people are simple and can't think "outside the box." Where's the creativity in that? Creativity is being able to take a photo that conforms to the description and do well with it. Shoe-horning in a pretty picture with a nifty title trying to convince yourself and the voters that it fits is not being creative.
As far as trolls go, they don't care if it meets the challenge or not.
Personally I don't have a problem with any of the winners.
Message edited by author 2007-08-22 14:25:44. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:22:51 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Not at all. As I said, it is a great shot. "A" being the operative word. IT would be illegal to enter the same exact photo in two different challenges correct? So why should someone be able to get around this by taking two, basically identical photos? If he had changed the composition, moved the couple, whatever...then it would be a "different" shot from the same shoot. This is in fact an identical shot, just with a different frame number. I think it is very poor sportsmanship on the part of the photographer to see how it does after a couple days, and since it is scoring well, then enter the same shot in another challenge. |
In some cases, essentially the same shot has taken a couple of ribbons in the same challenge, so this isn't anything new.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:23:40 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
Not identical - the people are in a different pose. |
That is kinda like saying "the wind blew so the trees moved their leaves, so it is different".
The tripod never moved, the camera never moved. The exposure is identical. The crop is identical. It is the same.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:24:50 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In some cases, essentially the same shot has taken a couple of ribbons in the same challenge, so this isn't anything new. |
So that means it should be tolerated?
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:25:15 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Not at all. As I said, it is a great shot. "A" being the operative word. IT would be illegal to enter the same exact photo in two different challenges correct? So why should someone be able to get around this by taking two, basically identical photos? If he had changed the composition, moved the couple, whatever...then it would be a "different" shot from the same shoot. This is in fact an identical shot, just with a different frame number. I think it is very poor sportsmanship on the part of the photographer to see how it does after a couple days, and since it is scoring well, then enter the same shot in another challenge. |
I disagree, looking at the two photos together, they are quite clearly different. Is it that similar photos were entered in successive challenges? Many photographers successful in DPC challenges ribbon with recurring themes -  IreneM springs to mind, although there are many others. Indeed many of our most celebrated artists work new versions of their own paintings - I know Edward Munch painted several versions of The Scream, for example. Let us celebrate good photographs for what they are. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:26:18 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In some cases, essentially the same shot has taken a couple of ribbons in the same challenge, so this isn't anything new. |
So that means it should be tolerated? |
can you find somewhere that states it isn't allowed ?
Can you find a big up swing of voters disagreeing with seeing it multiple times ?
Or are you morally outraged on a little island of your own ?
and if the camera & tripod didn't move, then that bridge certainly waves around in the breeze.
Message edited by author 2007-08-22 14:26:54.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:30:10 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
That is kinda like saying "the wind blew so the trees moved their leaves, so it is different".
The tripod never moved, the camera never moved. The exposure is identical. The crop is identical. It is the same. |
No, it is not 'kinda like saying' anything. I only pointed out your statement that they were 'identical' except for frame number was incorrect. The tripod may not have moved, but they are not the same exposure or the same crop - close, but not the same.
I am only pointing out facts, I do not wish to argue. Already sorry I posted once and now twice here. Besides this is kinda off topic isn't it?
Message edited by author 2007-08-22 14:31:06. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:32:26 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
I disagree, looking at the two photos together, they are quite clearly different. Is it that similar photos were entered in successive challenges? Many photographers successful in DPC challenges ribbon with recurring themes - IreneM springs to mind, although there are many others. Indeed many of our most celebrated artists work new versions of their own paintings - I know Edward Munch painted several versions of The Scream, for example. Let us celebrate good photographs for what they are. |
If you want to go to the same place and take basically the same type of photo on different occasions, have at it, but to take two photos consecutively and enter them both in challenges after the first one tests the waters for a couple of days is just wrong.
But hey, obviously I am the only one that it bothers here, so I will just make sure I take duplicates of all my photos from now on so when I get a good one, I can make full use of it. :)
Why do you think there is a rule that says you cannot enter the same photo in more than one challenge? Oh well, as I said, I voiced my opinion and as usual in this "clique" oriented place got no support, so I will get out of the forums now and just keep taking pictures for me, screw everybody else. (and yes...you will likely see very similar photos from me if they score well, since the precident has been set, and now confirmed that it is ok to do so)
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:36:12 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
can you find somewhere that states it isn't allowed ?
Can you find a big up swing of voters disagreeing with seeing it multiple times ?
Or are you morally outraged on a little island of your own ?
and if the camera & tripod didn't move, then that bridge certainly waves around in the breeze. |
As I believe someone else has already stated in this thread, it is your kind of unnecessary harshness and sarcasm that drives people from this site. Whatever will you do with yourself when you have no one left to bully?
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:39:25 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
No, it is not 'kinda like saying' anything. I only pointed out your statement that they were 'identical' except for frame number was incorrect. The tripod may not have moved, but they are not the same exposure or the same crop - close, but not the same.
I am only pointing out facts, I do not wish to argue. Already sorry I posted once and now twice here. Besides this is kinda off topic isn't it? |
Challenge: Urban Landscapes II (Basic Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-20D
Lens: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Date: Aug 11, 2007
Aperture: 5.6
ISO: 400
Shutter: 30
Challenge: Free Study XVII (Advanced Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-20D
Lens: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Date: Aug 12, 2007
Aperture: 5.6
ISO: 400
Shutter: 30
Looks like the same exposure to me!
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:41:15 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Gordon:
can you find somewhere that states it isn't allowed ?
Can you find a big up swing of voters disagreeing with seeing it multiple times ?
Or are you morally outraged on a little island of your own ?
and if the camera & tripod didn't move, then that bridge certainly waves around in the breeze. |
As I believe someone else has already stated in this thread, it is your kind of unnecessary harshness and sarcasm that drives people from this site. Whatever will you do with yourself when you have no one left to bully? |
Okay. In a non sarcastic way I'll say exactly the same thing.
You are in a very small minority in your opinion, given the votes and comments on the particular image you are claiming to be immoral. Or are you just insulting the photographer's morals who took it ? Being sarcastic might be harsh, but accusing random people who you've never met of being immoral seems somewhat worse. If you are going to start throwing out accusations like that, why be surprised when people disagree with you ? Given that 4 out of your top 5 images include two versions of the same images, I could understand why you might be sensitive to this though.
The images are different, including but not limited to, the camera position & crop.
Message edited by author 2007-08-22 14:45:00.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:45:55 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Okay. In a non sarcastic way I'll say exactly the same thing.
You are in a very small minority in your opinion, given the votes and comments on the particular image you are claiming to be immoral. Or are you just insulting the photographer's morals who took it ? Being sarcastic might be harsh, but accusing random people who you've never met of being immoral seems somewhat worse. If you are going to start throwing out accusations like that, why be surprised when people disagree with you ?
The images are different, including but not limited to, the camera position & crop. |
Much nicer. That wasn't so hard now was it?
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:46:38 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by CEJ:
No, it is not 'kinda like saying' anything. I only pointed out your statement that they were 'identical' except for frame number was incorrect. The tripod may not have moved, but they are not the same exposure or the same crop - close, but not the same.
I am only pointing out facts, I do not wish to argue. Already sorry I posted once and now twice here. Besides this is kinda off topic isn't it? |
Challenge: Urban Landscapes II (Basic Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-20D
Lens: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Date: Aug 11, 2007
Aperture: 5.6
ISO: 400
Shutter: 30
Challenge: Free Study XVII (Advanced Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-20D
Lens: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Date: Aug 12, 2007
Aperture: 5.6
ISO: 400
Shutter: 30
Looks like the same exposure to me! |
The camera settings may be the same, but they're not the same picture. They don't even "feel" the same. In one, the focus (not the camera focus, the picture's focus, the theme so to say) is on the couple - they are kissing in that beautiful place. In the other, it's on the bridge - the couple is looking at the bridge and so are we. They are not the same.
If anything, I would say that they should have been switched - the image where the couple is kissing for the free study, the one where they're looking at the bridge for urban. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:52:43 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by CEJ:
No, it is not 'kinda like saying' anything. I only pointed out your statement that they were 'identical' except for frame number was incorrect. The tripod may not have moved, but they are not the same exposure or the same crop - close, but not the same.
I am only pointing out facts, I do not wish to argue. Already sorry I posted once and now twice here. Besides this is kinda off topic isn't it? |
Challenge: Urban Landscapes II (Basic Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-20D
Lens: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Date: Aug 11, 2007
Aperture: 5.6
ISO: 400
Shutter: 30
Challenge: Free Study XVII (Advanced Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-20D
Lens: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Date: Aug 12, 2007
Aperture: 5.6
ISO: 400
Shutter: 30
Looks like the same exposure to me! |
The camera settings may be the same, but they're not the same picture. They don't even "feel" the same. In one, the focus (not the camera focus, the picture's focus, the theme so to say) is on the couple - they are kissing in that beautiful place. In the other, it's on the bridge - the couple is looking at the bridge and so are we. They are not the same.
If anything, I would say that they should have been switched - the image where the couple is kissing for the free study, the one where they're looking at the bridge for urban. |
Just out of curiousity, what about the different dates? |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 02:58:13 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by pekesty:
Just out of curiousity, what about the different dates? |
A typo I suppose. They were both made on the 11th. The photog's details are typed in, and we don't go by those for validation purposes (in case you're wondering). |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 03:01:13 PM · #93 |
| I suspect the different dates resulted from an input error on the drop down date thingie when entering one or the other. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 03:10:26 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by pekesty:
Just out of curiousity, what about the different dates? |
A typo I suppose. They were both made on the 11th. The photog's details are typed in, and we don't go by those for validation purposes (in case you're wondering). |
Figured typo...just curious since bass chose to use it as part of his arguement. Wondered how the discussion would change if they were taken on two different days!
Message edited by author 2007-08-22 15:13:01. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 03:20:49 PM · #95 |
Just had a quick read through this thread and noticed one thing everyone seemed to be missing, but which OP eluded to. The challenge being discussed was Rural Landscape.
The ribbon winners are great photos, but only one is a true Rural Landscape. Blue is a Rural Wildlife Study, Red is An Action Study, neither are Landscapes.
But if the voters like them and vote accordingly, then so be it.
So, let's keep the description, it does help a little when the topic is slightly obscure. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 03:44:42 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
...Why do you think there is a rule that says you cannot enter the same photo in more than one challenge? Oh well, as I said, I voiced my opinion and as usual in this "clique" oriented place got no support, so I will get out of the forums now and just keep taking pictures for me, screw everybody else. (and yes...you will likely see very similar photos from me if they score well, since the precident has been set, and now confirmed that it is ok to do so) |
What clique? Because people disagree with you they are in a clique? Throwing insults around sure will not make you any friends...
edit: and they are NOT the same photos...look closely
Message edited by author 2007-08-22 15:45:45.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 03:50:18 PM · #97 |
You're not my type anyway.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2007 03:54:20 PM · #98 |
I prefer posse. Clique sounds so snooty...posse sounds badass.  |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 04:03:02 PM · #99 |
posse with my peeps.
werd. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 04:04:00 PM · #100 |
I have to say that in my Opinion,the bridge pictures (urban and Free study) are similar yet not identical. Both pictures are good shots and worthy of ribbons. However, this said, what prevents someone else in the future to take the same setting move an object here a little and shoot it from a slight different angle and submit it to several challenges the image fits?
I mean if people started to do this, would most of us be ok with that? (Imagine the time it would save most of us if we started to do this)
The answer is yours, I think the contestant was clever in knowing how to get around the rules, but hey! It didn’t break the rules. So I won’t complain.
|
|
