| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2007 05:04:25 AM · #151 |
What say we let it rest and move on? Be accountable to yourself - work within the spirit of the challenge and do your best. Should you feel a challenge entry is not in the spirit of the challenge based on your own interpretation and personal values and guidelines, vote accordingly. If it's a gorgeous shot, but just not in line with the challenge, vote it lower but leave a comment about the value of the shot outside the challenge, and that you personally don't see the fit. It may well be that the photographer saw it another way, but that didn't get conveyed to you - that's valid feedback for the photographer.
Go forth and shoot something. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 05:49:48 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by Gibun:
So, here is a challenge; If you submitted a pic of someone else, ie not a SELFPORTRAIT as per the challenge description, stand up and be counted. Say these words "Hi, my name is ___________ and I am a non-DPC spiriter. I cheated so I need group counselling to tell me how I should terminate my life with or without much pain". Then the clan will say "Who said you are a non-spiriter if you are only a bad spirit, and who said you cheated if you only abused the rules" and then the storm in a teacup will be gone until you do it again. ;-))))
Maybe "Not meeting a challenge" should become a DQ rule? |
Probably the least intelligent comment on this entire thread. Well done. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 06:18:35 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
What say we let it rest and move on? Be accountable to yourself - work within the spirit of the challenge and do your best. Should you feel a challenge entry is not in the spirit of the challenge based on your own interpretation and personal values and guidelines, vote accordingly. If it's a gorgeous shot, but just not in line with the challenge, vote it lower but leave a comment about the value of the shot outside the challenge, and that you personally don't see the fit. It may well be that the photographer saw it another way, but that didn't get conveyed to you - that's valid feedback for the photographer.
Go forth and shoot something. :-) |
yup.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 06:19:50 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well he hasn't posted the reasons why he entered what he entered. If what Bear stated earlier was what he was trying to achieve I'd say he met the challenge far better than most who totally ignored the creative part, let alone express something real in their portrait. Personally, I'd rather see someone break the rules while trying to create something worthwhile than someone who follows them yet produces crap. But then again I'm more into art than stock although I'll be the first to admit I've produce plenty of stock crap. |
and, again, yup.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 06:20:39 AM · #155 |
just an idle query - do you think the anonymity of the internet encourages people to be rude and abrasive?
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 08:24:49 AM · #156 |
| just found this thread - wow - can I just say thanks to bear music for saying what I would have said, but much better - my version would be as follows - if this picture tells me something new and personal and true about the author then it is a self portrait, regardless of the subject matter |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 08:46:34 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by xianart:
just an idle query - do you think the anonymity of the internet encourages people to be rude and abrasive? |
No, I don't. Shut up!
[[;)]] |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 09:27:06 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by xianart:
just an idle query - do you think the anonymity of the internet encourages people to be rude and abrasive? |
No, I don't. Shut up!
[[;)]] |
Hehe. Reminds me of that line: "'Shut up', I explained."
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 09:40:03 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Citadel:
The reason I say that the shot should be DQ'd is because normally if a shot DNMC challenge the voters have the option to vote it down. For self-portait? While we might know the faces of a lot of people on this site we can't be expected to know them all and there is no way to tell during voting if a shot truly is a self-portrait or not.
I know we have debated DQing DNMC entries a lot in the past but I think this particular challenge is different for the reason stated above. |
IIRC there have been some challenges where the rules state that conditions XYZ must be met or the shot will be DQ'd. Cant see why it would be such a hard thing to enforce.. Taking into account the SP challenge, if people still entered shots that were not of themselves, then it shows they are not here, to learn, have fun and win a few ribbons. But to cheat others out of a good, wholesome experience.
Just found one of the challenges with explicit rules on what must be accomplished or else it would be DQ'd.
Vanish Challenge |
Another challenge that could be DQ'd for dnmc was the rubber ducky challenge.
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_results.php?CHALLENGE_ID=326
I think, for specific challenges you can do this. Most challenges should be left open for interpretation by the photographer, and judged by the voters. Otherwise we would have endless arguements about whether a shot met the challenge or not, and it would ultimately stifle creativity. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 09:57:15 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Gibun:
So, here is a challenge; If you submitted a pic of someone else, ie not a SELFPORTRAIT as per the challenge description, stand up and be counted. Say these words "Hi, my name is ___________ and I am a non-DPC spiriter. I cheated so I need group counselling to tell me how I should terminate my life with or without much pain". Then the clan will say "Who said you are a non-spiriter if you are only a bad spirit, and who said you cheated if you only abused the rules" and then the storm in a teacup will be gone until you do it again. ;-))))
Maybe "Not meeting a challenge" should become a DQ rule? |
Probably the least intelligent comment on this entire thread. Well done. |
You're kidding, right? |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 09:58:58 AM · #161 |
It sucks when people just enter whatever the hell they want to and disregard everyone else like they're the only ones that exist. I hate it when they do it in the real world too (that's why I hate people at walmart), not just this site.
I said something back when we had the scene it challenge and most people were like " but it was the DVD cover, it had potential to be a theme, or it couldve been a theme" Yeh no crap. The photos looked great. But why would you willingly submit something even though it didnt fit the description. I thought of a lot of covers I could do. But most of them were NOT scenes.
I just gave up on trying to explain to "those" people. They are stuck in their own little worlds and will never change.
As long as I keep entering what I feel is right and going about my life like I do, I'm happy with that. To hell with the others. This thread will be 10 pages long and they still wont get your point. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:25:24 AM · #162 |
I really don't get why some are taking it so personally that  tigmo may or may not have entered a self portrait. I'm still thinking there may be a bit of a language barrier, perhaps this is the reason he has not responded this thread. Look at his comments given, very simple. I'm willing to believe he had no malicious intent at all, contrary to the thinking of some here.
I seriously have better things to bitch and moan about other then perceived wrongs at a photography site that is supposed to be about "friendly" competition and learning.
Some of you are acting like he pissed in your coffee.
Get some perspective already.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:26:15 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by Gibun:
So, here is a challenge; If you submitted a pic of someone else, ie not a SELFPORTRAIT as per the challenge description, stand up and be counted. Say these words "Hi, my name is ___________ and I am a non-DPC spiriter. I cheated so I need group counselling to tell me how I should terminate my life with or without much pain". Then the clan will say "Who said you are a non-spiriter if you are only a bad spirit, and who said you cheated if you only abused the rules" and then the storm in a teacup will be gone until you do it again. ;-))))
Maybe "Not meeting a challenge" should become a DQ rule? |
For the challenges where it is so blatantly obvious and is easily verifiable what meets the challenge, this could probably work. All we need in the description for these challenges is a special rule which states that not meeting the challenge will result in a DQ.
A site wide rule for this is not enforceable since in a lot of cases the challenge description does not have anything concrete that can be verified with the information required for validation. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:27:38 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Hello, people, a ribbon winner for 2-second exposure didn't use a 2 second exposure. The rules are clear on this point. No DQ. |
Which is bullshit and so is a non-self portrait in a self portrait not getting a DQ.
Time to DQ clear and cut DNMCs. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:30:35 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Hello, people, a ribbon winner for 2-second exposure didn't use a 2 second exposure. The rules are clear on this point. No DQ. |
Which is bullshit and so is a non-self portrait in a self portrait not getting a DQ.
Time to DQ clear and cut DNMCs. |
But, as has been stated several times already, we don't know that this is a dnmc. We suspect it is.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnd, for perhaps the umpteenth time, who is going to be responsible for deciding it does or does not meet the challenge. Several explanations have been given for why this could fit self-portrait, even if it is not him. Who are we (or you, the general reader at this point) to decide that? Is that something you really want to be a dq'able offense? |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:32:31 AM · #166 |
I'm still waiting on someone to tell me which of the three self-portrait candidates I posted are actually self portraits of me. Extra credit if you can tell me how to prove it in each case.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:33:34 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
just found this thread - wow - can I just say thanks to bear music for saying what I would have said, but much better - my version would be as follows - if this picture tells me something new and personal and true about the author then it is a self portrait, regardless of the subject matter |
I second (third?) that notion. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:37:00 AM · #168 |
Ummm...how would SC validate an entry for meeting the challenge when it's a self-portrait? Is the photographers photo id in the EXIF somewhere?
I agree with  RKT's last post...
...this thread is 7 pages long now?! Amazing, but nonetheless an interesting read as usual in the "Days and Lives of DPC" soap. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:40:32 AM · #169 |
well IMO those photos you posted probably wouldnt score well anyway, especially in a SP (maybe the first one would). So personally I dont need to worry about a low scoring image. It's about the people who enter GREAT top 20/30 images meanwhile not following the description. In his image you can clearly see it's two different people. I dont think it should be DQ'ed but I just wish people would follow the description when it CLEARLY states something.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm still waiting on someone to tell me which of the three self-portrait candidates I posted are actually self portraits of me. Extra credit if you can tell me how to prove it in each case. |
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 10:45:56 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
well IMO those photos you posted probably wouldnt score well anyway, especially in a SP (maybe the first one would). So personally I dont need to worry about a low scoring image. It's about the people who enter GREAT top 20/30 images meanwhile not following the description. |
Ah well, as long as they are crap we can just ignore them and the fact that we've got no idea what's a self portrait and what isn't.
Message edited by author 2007-12-13 10:49:53. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:10:29 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MAK:
I think the self portrait should be of one's self .. simple. |
Head has to be visible ? Can it be a reflection ? What about if it is the reflection of the photographer in someone's eye ?
Does it have to be recognizable ? In focus ?
As is often the case in these 'simple' rules, doing it in a way that doesn't quickly lead to lots of either special cases or arguments is usually difficult. The extremes are easy, most people enter in the grey areas - which is why the SC decided a long time ago to avoid this particular rathole, by not DQed for DNMC. I think it was the right decision then and the right decision now.
valid ? I can't see my head
valid ? Could be me, might not be
valid ? Again, could be me, might not be
Let me know which ones are actually valid self portraits of me and which are passers-by and we can talk about sensible DNMC DQ rules. |
And to make it even more ridiculous, how would SC validate the entries? Would we have to send notarized sworn affidavits with our passports or driving licenses to prove that the person in the shot is actually us? :) |
just quoting myself quoting Gordon :)
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:11:37 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm still waiting on someone to tell me which of the three self-portrait candidates I posted are actually self portraits of me. Extra credit if you can tell me how to prove it in each case. |
You are going to wait for a loooong time! Want some popcorn while you wait?
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:15:01 AM · #173 |
LOL
Originally posted by doctornick:
just quoting myself quoting Gordon :)
|
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:31:18 AM · #174 |
To be fair, we really should differentiate between two things:
The primary position being pushed by the law 'n order crowd is something like this: If you take a portrait of someone else and enter it in a self-portrait challenge, it arguably should be disqualified, and is certainly contrary to the spirit of the site.
That has somehow morphed into a discussion of "What exactly qualifies as a "self-portrait, anyway, and should an image that is "clearly" not a self-portrait be disqualified?"
Now, in the first instance there is actually a valid point being made. The fear, I believe, is that if we don't do "something" we will get a rash of people shooting beautiful models (for example) and scoring well with them, then sitting on their (virtual) ribbons and laughing at how they fooled us, the poor voters.
Personally, I don't think the people taking that position are giving the rest of us much credit; I don't think hardly any of us would ever do that, frankly. I don't see it becoming a widespread issue. BUT, I can understand the concern, and I don't think I need to put anybody down for having it.
The second instance, I believe, isn't so much an issue of people actually proposing that if an image doesn't meet some arbitrary definition of what a SP actually is, it should be disqualified. What's really happening is that people are saying once we try to define "self-portrait" where do we draw the line?
I don't think that position holds water either. IF it were determined that something needed to be done to counter the first possibility, then the "definition" could be restricted to a narrow expression: "If your image contains a primary human subject, that person must be you." Something like this would allow for all the rest of the creative SPs that do not actually use a person as their subject; like my dew-drop SP of a few years ago.
This, of course, begs the question of how we'd validate if we included this special rule, but that's not the point I'm making; I'm nor personally in favor of such a rule. My point is that, for those who ARE in the "no cheats" camp, they can't be logically refuted by the red herring of "where do we draw the line?".
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-13 11:32:27.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:54:36 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This, of course, begs the question of how we'd validate if we included this special rule, but that's not the point I'm making; I'm nor personally in favor of such a rule. My point is that, for those who ARE in the "no cheats" camp, they can't be logically refuted by the red herring of "where do we draw the line?".
. |
At least for me, I'm asking how do we prove it, or disprove it come to that. If it is completely unenforceable, it isn't much point having as a rule.
There's the entire separate discussion about if a self-portrait has to actually include a picture of you to be useful, as well. The more obvious examples of a picture of a parent being the self you are going to be some time in the future and so on, too. I don't really see the point of an unenforceable rule being used to define how everyone is allowed to see or express themselves as themselves, anyway.
The 3 photos above that I used are merely to point out that its an unenforceable position, which is why as a SC we decided to not DQ for not meeting the challenge, or not meeting unprovable and unenforceable rules. Dates get a DQ because its a hard and fast, provable thing. Existence or absence of a ducky can be used. I personally think 2 second exposures could have been used as well.
But if someone wants to define themselves as a tree, or a landscape or the people they shoot on a daily basis, who's to judge if that's an accurate portrayal of who they are or not ?
We still don't even know in the case under discussion if its an honest mistake, deliberate betrayal and rejection of the spirit of the site, random entry, metaphysical representation or just some random farmer he met on a hike. It could even still be the photographer. If someone wants to prove he wasn't trying to make a point about feeling old and connected to the land, then maybe we can DQ it, but until then, its fairly open ended.
Message edited by author 2007-12-13 11:56:52. |
|
