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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> the art of deception , a photograph & a DQ (long)
Pages:  
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 237, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/16/2007 02:20:51 PM · #151
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You may use a printed representation or video representation of another photograph as a backdrop if it effectively acts as a solid background, a gradient, or a texture.
You may not use a printed representation or video representation of another photograph as an object, subject, or contextual background in your photograph unless it is obvious the object, subject or background is a photograph.


as soon as you say "obvious," you're introducing subjectivity.

users/members have frequently asked for consistency in SC DQ decisions. the only way to do this is to make the rules more objective.

so, we do that and now we're doing that wrong too. what is up?

there is no ruleset that is going to make everyone happy. we say "go nuts" and people complain about planets being pasted in. we say "polish your original capture" and people introduce colors and hues that aren't found in any kind of natural setting.

we don't like DQ'ing photos! stop pushing the rules so much and just go take a nice photograph.

and, jason, i don't know if i'm breaking some kind of SC code of ethics here, but we spent a full week debating your attempt to circumvent the basic editing rules and introduce vignettes to images. why are you arguing for more restrictions when in the past you've gone to great pains to get around the rules that are already in place?
 10/16/2007 02:20:58 PM · #152
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is exactly the picture my wording would disallow and I do not feel should be allowed.

This one?



;-)


You bet! and this one too (the only other time I've used the trick):


10/16/2007 02:29:09 PM · #153
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You bet! and this one too (the only other time I've used the trick):



this could be sparklers or fireworks or something too. to me, it's not "obvious" that this is a monitor or a computer-generated background.
 10/16/2007 02:31:58 PM · #154
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You bet! and this one too (the only other time I've used the trick):



this could be sparklers or fireworks or something too. to me, it's not "obvious" that this is a monitor or a computer-generated background.


which is why I would want it DQ'd under the new rules. I may have gained the vote because people thought, "Wow, that was really tricky how he set it up with sparklers or some other contraption." when all I did was make some sparklers in PS and use it for a background.
 10/16/2007 03:55:42 PM · #155
Originally posted by muckpond:
as soon as you say "obvious," you're introducing subjectivity.

users/members have frequently asked for consistency in SC DQ decisions. the only way to do this is to make the rules more objective.


Objectivity is impossible. Try transparency.
 10/16/2007 03:57:21 PM · #156
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by muckpond:
as soon as you say "obvious," you're introducing subjectivity.

users/members have frequently asked for consistency in SC DQ decisions. the only way to do this is to make the rules more objective.


Objectivity is impossible. Try transparency.


:-D agreed
 10/16/2007 04:00:07 PM · #157
is that tongue in cheek? i'm not really sure what you mean?
 10/16/2007 04:04:09 PM · #158
Originally posted by muckpond:
is that tongue in cheek? i'm not really sure what you mean?


Not at all. Every rule has an "edge." Decisions on that edge will not be unanimous. They will be subjective.

Transparency means that when you dq an image you explain specifically why that image was dq'd to the photographer. Photos dq'd for subjective reasons are not so frequent that this would be a big burden. If you run into a challenge with confusing rules that generates a lot of dq's, then make an announcement explaining your decisions to dq on a group basis.
 10/16/2007 04:19:10 PM · #159
i'd argue that we've seriously increased our transparency by posting dq'd images at the end of each challenge's results page. the message explaining the reasoning for the DQ is clearly posted next to the image.

how is that not transparent?
 10/16/2007 04:25:53 PM · #160
Originally posted by muckpond:
how is that not transparent?

We want names!
 10/16/2007 04:31:48 PM · #161
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
how is that not transparent?

We want names!


Bill, Robert, Patricia, Irene, Mercedes, Lexus, Portia, Walter.
 10/16/2007 05:00:58 PM · #162
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
how is that not transparent?

We want names!


Bill, Robert, Patricia, Irene, Mercedes, Lexus, Portia, Walter.


Are you picking on Bill again...sheez! You old stick in the mud...can't you change your ways...I mean poor Ben is missing out!!!

(this is meant to be tongue in cheek!!) DOH!!
 10/16/2007 05:18:18 PM · #163
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
how is that not transparent?

We want names!


Bill, Robert, Patricia, Irene, Mercedes, Lexus, Portia, Walter.


Are you picking on Bill again...sheez! You old stick in the mud...can't you change your ways...I mean poor Ben is missing out!!!

(this is meant to be tongue in cheek!!) DOH!!


You know every time someone uses that phrase I wonder which cheek they are referring to. :P

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 17:18:27.
 10/16/2007 05:20:34 PM · #164
I have nothing significant to contribute, but just wanted to share how dufusy I felt because it never occurred to me that folks might be using back drops! I thought you all were REALLY that good!
 10/16/2007 05:40:05 PM · #165
Originally posted by yanko:
You know every time someone uses that phrase I wonder which cheek they are referring to. :P


um. ew.
 10/16/2007 06:06:59 PM · #166
you know a thread has outlived it's usefulness when....
 10/16/2007 08:31:42 PM · #167
Originally posted by muckpond:
i'd argue that we've seriously increased our transparency by posting dq'd images at the end of each challenge's results page. the message explaining the reasoning for the DQ is clearly posted next to the image.

how is that not transparent?


because it is not "a message explaining the reasoning for the DQ". It is the quoting of a rule that the photo supposedly broke, with no explanation of how this photo was interpreted to have broken that rule. In the case of the owl, it clearly did not break the rule that was quoted. I think in the long run you'd save yourselves time by explaining up front, because you'd avoid threads like these where any old jackass (41 is old, right?) can chime in.
 10/16/2007 09:05:39 PM · #168
As stated in my previous post, I think SC's subjective decisions are really the only thing that will work.

That said, I gotta agree with the old guy posthumous - if you spend a long while deliberating, spend a minute and explain the conclusion you came to, maybe along with the specific rule.

Perhaps Ralph would have been more content with "While this was a very close call, the majority of SC felt that the owl was the primary subject of the photo, causing it to violate rule blah blah blah"

Pardon me, is my middle child showing? =D
 10/16/2007 09:51:32 PM · #169
honestly, i don't think we should reveal what we know about the individual photographer's editing processes.

when we request proof for an entry, the photographer submits his or her editing steps in confidence. we should not turn around and post that information all over the user's entry for everyone to see.

if s/he is comfortable sharing the info, they are more than welcome to. but many photographers don't like to share their editing process for their valid entries, let alone their DQs. we should not force them to do so.
 10/16/2007 10:05:01 PM · #170
Perhaps a valid point, though I wouldn't think a violation explanation would be too revealing. Perhaps you could make the DQ notice a little friendlier. =D

Originally posted by SC:

Hey Jeff,

We loved your recent submission to Free Study 2007-08! Your participation in the site is highly valued - as is your yearly cash inflow!

It was a tough decision - even arm wrestled over the outcome - but in the end we were unfortunately required to disqualify your entry because of those darn rules! Damn Drew & Langdon, anyway!

But hey, you'll get'em next time, kid!

Best regards,
Your cheery Site Council
10/16/2007 10:30:41 PM · #171
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Perhaps a valid point, though I wouldn't think a violation explanation would be too revealing. Perhaps you could make the DQ notice a little friendlier. =D

Originally posted by SC:

Hey Jeff,

We loved your recent submission to Free Study 2007-08! Your participation in the site is highly valued - as is your yearly cash inflow!

It was a tough decision - even arm wrestled over the outcome - but in the end we were unfortunately required to disqualify your entry because of those darn rules! Damn Drew & Langdon, anyway!

But hey, you'll get'em next time, kid!

Best regards,
Your cheery Site Council

I don't think that would help :P

10/16/2007 10:38:35 PM · #172
What I don't understand is why the SC must always disqualify images that might cause so much controversy, instead of simply validating them. If it's the decision is really that close between a DQ or an allowance (as they always say it is in these complaint threads), then why not just pass the image and save yourself all this pointless explaining. You don't harm anyone by passing an image, but shot's like these always attribute to sour attitudes when they are punished.

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 22:40:36.
 10/16/2007 10:53:16 PM · #173
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What I don't understand is why the SC must always disqualify images that might cause so much controversy, instead of simply validating them. If it's the decision is really that close between a DQ or an allowance (as they always say it is in these complaint threads), then why not just pass the image and save yourself all this pointless explaining. You don't harm anyone by passing an image, but shot's like these always attribute to sour attitudes when they are punished.

no .. there are rules which we follow for a purpose - & i understand this rule (not necessarily in this case but it ain't my call )
i don't like people purposefully trying to get around rules either

though part of what makes this fun is to stretch your knowledge of photography & try NEW things / in my case i hit a rule instead / dmn & oops
i certainly was NOT thinking of this rule when taking the picture
but will keep it mind in the future ..

10/16/2007 11:07:20 PM · #174
Requiring a super majority on DQ voting wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO. Actually, I thought initially that's how it was being done or it was like a jury where everyone had to agree to DQ.
 10/16/2007 11:08:34 PM · #175
Originally posted by yanko:
Requiring a super majority on DQ voting wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO. Actually, I thought initially that's how it was being done or it was like a jury where everyone had to agree to DQ.


Should require whatever majority is required to get entry size limits raised.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 06:03:08 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: 08/23/2025 06:03:08 PM EDT.