| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2007 01:33:49 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Simms:
[
2 words...
common sense. |
Your common sense?
or mine?
or joe's down the street?
or maybe bob's?
While it may be easy to "say" use common sense, what I've found is that even then there are exceptions, grey areas and whatnot.
Common sense says not to run out into a busy road. But, if my child is in danger, then the "common sense" changes, a bit.
I hear your frustration about this particular shot, but I don't share it. Be it a language barrier, be it a different take on "self" or be it a downright obstinate photographer, he entered it, it scored well, end of story. He violated no rules. In this thread, there have been a couple of explanations for what he *might* have been thinking. I don't know if any of them are correct, or not, but it at least shows the confusion that could ensue in trying to "prove" such issues and make them dq'able.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:35:00 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by karmat:
And that my friend is the million dollar question, and the crux of the problem that I have with dq'ing shots that don't "meet" the challenge.
Based on the arguments here, yes, this would not meet the "spirit" of the challenge. There is no "true" reflection there. Actually, there is no reflection at all. . . .
(That is NOT MY opinion, btw, but you asked)
And it is an EXCELLENT example of why dq'ing an image because we don't "think" it meets the challenge is not a good idea. The arguments and headaches it would cause make me nauseous. :) |
Oh, absolutely. And not only that, there are other definitions of the word "to reflect", including the act of pondering something. I'd happily accept a shot of Rodin's "Thinker" as a "valid" entry in a "reflections" challenge, or in "Reflections without Mirrors". Probably wouldn't score it very well, but that's another story :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:35:12 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I'm talking about a value proposition as well. My values say turn the other cheek, don't sweat the small stuff, etc.
I think constant carping about whether something meets the challenge or not harms the site more than those few shots that clearly don't. And I think that involving a DQ for DNMC would be a blow to the spirit of the site far, far greater than the DNMC was.
I'd rather let the occasional animal come and drink at the watering hole than erect a huge ugly fence around it, to use your analogy. The problem harms me little. The solution harms me more, and directly reduces creativity and interpretation.
If Bear_Music's shot (referenced above) had been DQ'd we'd all be poorer for it. I don't know that I think it belongs, but it challenges me and that's good for me. If this other shot is not a SP, that's unfortunate, but in no way does it make me poorer.
Sometimes you gotta roll with the punches. |
You and I are definitely on the same page on this one. If I get fooled once in awhile because someone didn't meet the challenge topic or spirit ... oh, well. Finishing one place lower than I otherwise would have is hardly worth getting upset over, and that's the worst consequence someone else's cheating could have *to me.*
I have no problem with DQing for technically not meeting a challenge when it's objectively something one can glean from the EXIF data. Sujective DNMCs ... BIG can o' worms. I have gone back through after challenges and read the photographer's notes on entries I didn't think met the challenge and realized I was totally missing a really creative interpretation. I want to keep making those discoveries. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:36:17 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by manish:
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, so I think what I am hearing some of you say is this --
When an entry obviously does not meet the challenge, and the spirit of the challenge is not met, that entry should be dq'ed.
Right? |
After reading so many viewpoints, i agree with you.
The very sprit of a challenge is to think creative and force yourself into a new stuation. The rules here are so clear for any kind of manipulations in the image for eg for Basic challenge it goes like this
'ensure that your camera date and time are correctly set to your home time zone before shooting your entry. If the date recorded in your original image file is not within the specified challenge dates, your entry will be disqualified â₉€œ NO exceptions! If your photo was taken in a different location than indicated in your profile, please note the location in the submission form so that we can adjust accordingly.'
if a DQ can happen if teh date on the camera is not set correctly, what about the case where the face in front of the camera which is not correct? I know i am stretching the argument , but this one is specially for people who talk about expressing the creativity aspect of photography. I think every art form is a limitless expression of ones own individuality but with a setup like DPC, one has to be a part of the group which follow a certain set of rules. |
just to be clear -- that is not my opinion. I was just trying to succintly restate what I *think* others are saying. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:36:36 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Simms:
[
2 words...
common sense. |
Your common sense?
or mine?
or joe's down the street?
Common sense says not to run out into a busy road. But, if my child is in danger, then the "common sense" changes, a bit.
|
No, that would be instinct. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:36:49 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Did  Bear_Music get such a hard time when he entered this in Self Portrait III? ;-P
 |
Dunno, but massive breach of the spirit of the site IMO. The funny thing is how surprised he seemed that it came second to last. TO be honest I am surprised it did that well. |
Man, if I thought that was the spirit of the site I would be outta here. It's still possible to convince me. Good luck with that.
And how come nobody's questioning  smurfguy, who clearly took a picture of Quentin Tarantino?? I'm pretty sure I also saw a picture of Stockard Channing from the early 80's. Why isn't anybody DQ-ing these people? |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:46:26 PM · #82 |
A girl can surely enter the SP challenge with an image of a rose because deep in her heart a woman can see herself as prettyr as a rose, or a guy can submit an image of 'George Bush' coz he may see himself as president of US. Some lesser mortals like me can shoot a pet Dog or a Cat.
If the meaning of words vary so much, its better to keep silent. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:01:36 PM · #83 |
The answer to all this mish mosh is:
All the challenges should be titled "take a picture" .. that's the only thing we can be sure of. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:04:41 PM · #84 |
ART: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
Now then, DNMC away...
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 14:27:17. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:09:37 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by love:
The answer to all this mish mosh is:
All the challenges should be titled "take a picture" .. that's the only thing we can be sure of. |
Very true. why so much fuss??? |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:16:44 PM · #86 |
Nobody has yet confirmed whether it is him or not. Personally, I think the strife and stress around here could explain the slight difference in appearance.
 
Heck, I used to have long hair when I first joined the site!
The twins really threw me - I thought for sure someone messed up, but I always assume the best and let it get sorted out at the end by the SC, which it always does, albeit with the occasional controversy - but then what would this place be without that?? :P
Simple solution for this (IMO, isolated but not totally uncommon) incident would be to flag the rules for special DQ violations. If that doesn't happen in the next SP challenge, I'll submit something like this. :D
Cheers. Now y'all get along. :) |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:19:39 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by banmorn:
ART: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic object |
Although, I would argue that Art is not always conscious. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:27:12 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by MattO:
While shoehorning in a shot was always done, I feel its now being widely accepted and even voted highly. Seems we can put a flower, water drop, nude, ect. into just about every challenge and they get voted high, in the past they were usually voted down and landed somewhere in the middle and werent rewarded when they dont meet the challenge. Now its essentially a free study all the time with technically good photos with good editing ending up in the upper amount wether they meet the challenge or not.
|
Just wanted to repeat this cause it's exactly to the point. And add it is not a problem of DQing but a problem of voting. I surely am not the only one (to be honest, I know it) that was quite sure it was no self portrait and thus voted it lower or didn't vote at all. Yet the majority of voters didn't even think about it. It is acceptable in this case where there was no proof during the challenge, but it isn't acceptable in challenges where the shoehorning is obvious.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:28:53 PM · #89 |
Sorry, read it wrong!
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 14:39:22. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:30:23 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Nobody has yet confirmed whether it is him or not. Personally, I think the strife and stress around here could explain the slight difference in appearance.
|
I think the shape of the nose pretty well precludes that possibility :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:31:38 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Simms:
2 words...
common sense. |
Common sense is not so common
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:32:21 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But on the technical challenges, I think we should have special rules in place requiring photographers to adhere to the letter of the challenge.
R. |
I tend to agree - but then again...
I guess everyone agrees that "Bokeh" is a technical challenge - but from several discussions here I also know that there are as many opinions about what "Bokeh" means as there are members. So, even in technical challenges I don't believe that a DQ for not meeting the challenge would work as they give room for interpretation as well... |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:32:59 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by slaakso:
Part of the rules state that one cannot vote based on meeting the challenge. Why have challenge word suggestions? |
Say what? From the voting rules: "You should: consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly."
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:35:55 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by slaakso:
Part of the rules state that one cannot vote based on meeting the challenge. Why have challenge word suggestions?
|
Huh ? The voting guidelines say the complete opposite to what you say here.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:36:48 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by silverscreen:
I guess everyone agrees that "Bokeh" is a technical challenge |
No, bokeh isn't a [measurable] technical challenge, other than 'use a lens' would be a technical challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 14:38:53.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:49:45 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by silverscreen:
I guess everyone agrees that "Bokeh" is a technical challenge |
No, bokeh isn't a [measurable] technical challenge, other than 'use a lens' would be a technical challenge. |
No, you are right - it's not measurable - but it's still technical...
But, my point is just that even technical challenges can be interpretated in many different ways - and that's why I'm against DQ'ing based on DNMC.
It would only be possible to do that in very few cases, like the 2 sec. exposure challenge, but I find it hard to see a lot of other challenges where an objective ruling would be possible. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:57:28 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
I surely am not the only one (to be honest, I know it) that was quite sure it was no self portrait and thus voted it lower or didn't vote at all. |
How could you be sure, except through a prejudice? Maybe you and Simms could form your own DPC with its own spirit. I promise not to haunt it. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:01:35 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by eyewave:
I surely am not the only one (to be honest, I know it) that was quite sure it was no self portrait and thus voted it lower or didn't vote at all. |
How could you be sure, except through a prejudice? Maybe you and Simms could form your own DPC with its own spirit. I promise not to haunt it. |
I'm curious as well. With remote shutter releases, or even a timer, this shot could very well have been a SP. Who's to say during the voting period?
As for those suggesting a special DQ rule for this challenge in the future I wonder how it would be validated? Submit a photo of yourself? :-P
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:05:26 PM · #99 |
How do you know that the guy in the ID photo is really a photo of himself? After all, my ID picture is certainly not a photo of me. Although it feels like it sometimes.
I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt, afterall it is a great photograph. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:11:12 PM · #100 |
And to be technical on the matter, the blue and red ribbons arn't "portraits", why hasn't any asked these be DQ'd?
:D |
|
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: 08/21/2025 02:50:03 PM EDT.
