| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 09:48:28 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Prash:
then I just dont understand why the reluctance to put the same comments on the picture page. |
It's a pointless exercise. The only rules that matter are the ones in effect when you enter, and as I said before the Nightbulb entry might very well be valid under the current rules. The only safe assumption you can make is that NO entry submitted under prior rules should be considered precedent for a current entry. There's no reason to indicate it one old photo when it's true for all of them. |
Prash, Shannon is correct. His Nightbulb shot was under a different ruleset (Basic) that contained a completely different artwork rule and really doesn't relate to this discussion.
The fireworks shot is also under a different Advanced ruleset than we are using now, but the artwork clause is the same. That is the only reason someone might get confused. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:52:58 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I saw others doing it and not being DQ'd (not just Lydia's) and therefore, felt that it was ok! SC had not DQ'd others for it! Why shouldn't I use it too??? |
Again, you made a poor assumption. Not DQ'd is not necessarily validated, and there have certainly been recent artwork DQs. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:59:18 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
How can you expect anyone to understand the rules, when the SC doesnt understand them. If they did there would never have to be discussions on if an entry is valid or not. It would be cut and dry. |
Woo... and we'd all run through fields of butterflies and daisies, singing folk songs under clear blue skies. SC is a group of regular members, and we have different opinions and interpretations just like any other group of members. At one point we discussed the artwork for months, we haggled over the wording, we discussed what sort of artwork use should and shouldn't be allowed, we voted on a gallery of sample entries that used artwork, and then we worked on the wording some more to get a consensus. Even then, when we voted on the final wording it was 14-1.... and I think that might have been the previous artwork rule before it changed again. If you think 15 people are always going to agree on any rule in the subjective world of art, you're living in a fairytale. |
You are not getting my point. You stated in your post that the member had clicked the tick saying that they read and understood the rules as they are presented. How can anyone with 100% assurance enter something knowing it wont break the rules when no one can agree on what the rules really are. You are reading way too much into my post, and having an attitude with it.
Matt |
I SO agree with this idea Matt. We all click on that button because we feel that we DO understand the rules and have read them. I certainly felt that I understood them and went checking other archives to find that others had done what I had done and not been DQ'd for it. Yet, Lydia and I were both DQ'd for the same things that other had done. I'm sure that just as I did, Lydia also thought the same thing. Then, to come in and find that even SC can't fully agree upon when and how it should or can be used???? Until that is cleared up in the rules fully, how can anyone know for sure that they're not entering anything illegal? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:01:21 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I saw others doing it and not being DQ'd (not just Lydia's) and therefore, felt that it was ok! SC had not DQ'd others for it! Why shouldn't I use it too??? |
Again, you made a poor assumption. Not DQ'd is not necessarily validated, and there have certainly been recent artwork DQs. |
We've been through this about 100 posts ago, already as to the "assumption" part.
How can anyone know any differently than what has been done already successfully? Should we ALL write to SC with every entry for a seal of approval first then?! How many emails and shots do you all want to go through each challenge?! :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:05:24 PM · #305 |
To say that we don't understand the rules isn't quite fair. When the issue is one of fact, there is no doubt. When the issue is subjective, it's a matter of judgment. Only when the issue is a matter of judgment can there be a split vote.
Did this photog clone something other than dust/hotpixel, in or out, in a Basic Editing challenge? Yep = DQ. The End. Easy Peasy - no questions.
Did this photog fool the voters into believing that the artwork used in the submission was part of the original scene when the submission was shot? Hmm, take a look at the comments, make a judgment call and determine whether a reasonable person would be fooled, that's where it gets subjective, and that's where split vote decisions come from. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:12:18 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by L2:
To say that we don't understand the rules isn't quite fair. When the issue is one of fact, there is no doubt. When the issue is subjective, it's a matter of judgment. Only when the issue is a matter of judgment can there be a split vote.
Did this photog clone something other than dust/hotpixel, in or out, in a Basic Editing challenge? Yep = DQ. The End. Easy Peasy - no questions.
Did this photog fool the voters into believing that the artwork used in the submission was part of the original scene when the submission was shot? Hmm, take a look at the comments, make a judgment call and determine whether a reasonable person would be fooled, that's where it gets subjective, and that's where split vote decisions come from. |
With all due respect to everyone, when I voted on the image, I thought it was a real deal background... |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:14:36 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
... We all click on that button because we feel that we DO understand the rules and have read them. I certainly felt that I understood them and went checking other archives to find that others had done what I had done and not been DQ'd for it. ... |
Did you happen to consider the date & age of the archived images you considered for comparison? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:15:48 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
How can anyone know any differently than what has been done already successfully? |
I wouldn't exactly consider a pending DQ successful, and that's what you apparently used as a reference. If you're going to determine legality from a prior entry, you might want to at least make sure the entry was actually validated first (and under the same rules). |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:19:21 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
 |
This is not a good example for this discussion, cause it isn t a photo but a real fish. [/quote]
I thought so. Thanks for chiming in Jorge. (Recuse this photo from the discussion!) ;) I can only imagine you must have had a wet kitchen floor after this shoot! (and maybe an irritated fish)
***
As to the other stuff, I would hate to see creativity stifled with additional rules... I think pushing the limits is good for the creative juices, just don't be surprised to get a SC beatdown. :)
For the record--I don't think Lydia was pushing the limits, she just bumped into a floating line that can't be defined for each and every situation. Personally the manatee shot perturbs me more than the other photos in the discussion, mainly because I figured that shot required great effort and skill. And although it was nicely composed and skillfully edited, in the end it was a photo of a statue. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:19:29 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Few things in life come with 100% assurance... |
100% Certainty of DQ Avoidance: don't enter any challenges.
Since Lydia's entry took (apparently) quite some time to disposition, since at least one SC member has indicated in this thread that she does not consider it a DQ, and since Alan (at the beginning of this thread) made separate clarifying statements as to how the rule interpretation was applied to the image that are not obvious from reading the rule itself, it seems reasonable to to say that from now on this will be a cause for DQ, and to add those amplifications of the rule's interpretation to the rule itself. If Alan's own detailed description of the specific reasons for this particular DQ are somehow not sufficiently clear to be added as a clarification to the existing rule, how are they then clear enough and acceptable as a reason for the DQ?
While most DQs seem to be simple failure to provide an original file, or the date/time thing, a single thread where all "editing" or "technique" or "content" DQ's are automatically posted so that people can understand how the rule is interpreted/applied is a very reasonable request.
The over-arching disappointment for me in this whole thing is not that the rule is subjective and therefore vague--some interpretation is a given--or even that the DQ will stand (though I disagree with the retroactive and inconsistent application of the new interpretation)...
No, the biggest disappointment to me is the defensive and even infallible adversarial tone taken here by some members of the SC. After nearly 1.5 years here with no such experience, and of supporting the SC in some of the other silly "evil site council" sorta threads, this shocks me a little more than it really should, I suppose. Maybe I will set this thread to "ignore" -- just as I feel ignored here.
Oh well. I still enjoy seeing everyone's work here, and Posthumous's thread is worth the price of admission for me. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:22:13 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Oh well. I still enjoy seeing everyone's work here, and Posthumous's thread is worth the price of admission for me. |
Very well stated.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 22:23:28. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:23:24 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by L2:
To say that we don't understand the rules isn't quite fair. When the issue is one of fact, there is no doubt. When the issue is subjective, it's a matter of judgment. Only when the issue is a matter of judgment can there be a split vote.
Did this photog clone something other than dust/hotpixel, in or out, in a Basic Editing challenge? Yep = DQ. The End. Easy Peasy - no questions.
Did this photog fool the voters into believing that the artwork used in the submission was part of the original scene when the submission was shot? Hmm, take a look at the comments, make a judgment call and determine whether a reasonable person would be fooled, that's where it gets subjective, and that's where split vote decisions come from. |
Ok, these points are very well understood. Let's take the example of Lydia's shot and the idea that you may have had to have questioned what other "reasonable" people might have seen or might have thought in what she did with this photo etc., in all reality, if you all had to sit and wonder all of this, then the rules themselves are not very clear, even to all of you, are they? So, reasonably, now can anyone entering a challenge assess all of this as well? And, since it took all of you that much deciphering to figure out, what's to say that had she sent this idea in ahead of time, asking for approval of its legality, all of you (had she gotten that many members of SC's consensus) would have been able to agree on it being "ok" or not ok? Add to that, the idea that what if other's saw Lydia's shot as her intention to simply photograph a "Toast" to a "Feast"...or Toast to a memory of a feast gone by?
The point I'm making here is that if a rule is that subjective to have to go through those kinds of contortions to figure it out even by SC members then, the rest of us are also going to be entering shots, praying that we've interpretted things correctly. In my mind, HAD Lydia intended her shot to be a toast to a feast gone by, it may have been considered a shoehorn but, it would have fit the challenge in a loose way. Had she shot that same shot, glass in front, heavy DOF into the background, live....it would have been considered "legal" even though the background would have been the same look to it. She took the shot that she used as the background, hours earlier. The only difference was...it was on her monitor, rather than live. That's all semantics in saying that had it been live, rather than a shot taken by her earlier and on a monitor behind that glass, means that the shot itself hasn't changed in ANY context, has it?! The ONLY difference is the "live" and the "monitor"!! Isn't that what this all really boils down to? Picture vs live? It still would have been the same context!
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:24:36 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Few things in life come with 100% assurance... |
100% Certainty of DQ Avoidance: don't enter any challenges. |
Dump all rules other than the timeframe in which shots must be taken. Would solve many problems and create none. Leave the interpretation and appreciation of each photo to the public. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:26:22 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Few things in life come with 100% assurance... |
100% Certainty of DQ Avoidance: don't enter any challenges. |
Dump all rules other than the timeframe in which shots must be taken. Would solve many problems and create none. Leave the interpretation and appreciation of each photo to the public. |
No thanks. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:26:29 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
How can anyone know any differently than what has been done already successfully? |
I wouldn't exactly consider a pending DQ successful, and that's what you apparently used as a reference. If you're going to determine legality from a prior entry, you might want to at least make sure the entry was actually validated first (and under the same rules). |
Again, 100 post or better back again....Hotpasta's and Konador's had already been put through without being DQ'd! Shall we request validation on every shot that we see up in previous challenges prior to attempting a similar shot then? Again, how many emails do you want in a day? :)
ETA: I DID base mine on Lydia's idea first and foremost...BUT....I ALSO checked other challenges as well before submitting! That's when I found Ben's and Enzo's and a few others and figured it was fine!
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 22:27:37. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:30:23 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by violinist123:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Few things in life come with 100% assurance... |
100% Certainty of DQ Avoidance: don't enter any challenges. |
Dump all rules other than the timeframe in which shots must be taken. Would solve many problems and create none. Leave the interpretation and appreciation of each photo to the public. |
No thanks. |
That feeling of warmth and security felt inside the tiny little box is just an illusion. Climb out. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:32:16 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Hotpasta's and Konador's had already been put through without being DQ'd! |
Once again, not DQ'd does not equal validated. Using those two shots as a reference for DPC legality is only slightly better than using a random photo off Flickr since none of them were validated, discussed or even considered. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:34:08 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by violinist123:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Few things in life come with 100% assurance... |
100% Certainty of DQ Avoidance: don't enter any challenges. |
Dump all rules other than the timeframe in which shots must be taken. Would solve many problems and create none. Leave the interpretation and appreciation of each photo to the public. |
No thanks. |
That feeling of warmth and security felt inside the tiny little box is just an illusion. Climb out. |
Each boxer is in his corner. Lets get ready to RUMBLE... ;) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:35:09 PM · #319 |
With regard to the allegation that this interpretation was "new" (it isn't): the following shots have all been DQ'd for the same rule, for the same reason, all within the past year, just without as much fanfare:
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:35:27 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Few things in life come with 100% assurance... |
100% Certainty of DQ Avoidance: don't enter any challenges.
Since Lydia's entry took (apparently) quite some time to disposition, since at least one SC member has indicated in this thread that she does not consider it a DQ, and since Alan (at the beginning of this thread) made separate clarifying statements as to how the rule interpretation was applied to the image that are not obvious from reading the rule itself, it seems reasonable to to say that from now on this will be a cause for DQ, and to add those amplifications of the rule's interpretation to the rule itself. If Alan's own detailed description of the specific reasons for this particular DQ are somehow not sufficiently clear to be added as a clarification to the existing rule, how are they then clear enough and acceptable as a reason for the DQ?
While most DQs seem to be simple failure to provide an original file, or the date/time thing, a single thread where all "editing" or "technique" or "content" DQ's are automatically posted so that people can understand how the rule is interpreted/applied is a very reasonable request.
The over-arching disappointment for me in this whole thing is not that the rule is subjective and therefore vague--some interpretation is a given--or even that the DQ will stand (though I disagree with the retroactive and inconsistent application of the new interpretation)...
No, the biggest disappointment to me is the defensive and even infallible adversarial tone taken here by some members of the SC. After nearly 1.5 years here with no such experience, and of supporting the SC in some of the other silly "evil site council" sorta threads, this shocks me a little more than it really should, I suppose. Maybe I will set this thread to "ignore" -- just as I feel ignored here.
Oh well. I still enjoy seeing everyone's work here, and Posthumous's thread is worth the price of admission for me. |
I so agree with the points that you have made here in the aspect that I'm totally disgruntled with some SC's member's defense of an obvious dubious rule and DQ that was also unfair given the amount of confusion over the interpretation of it even amongst themselves.
After 2 years of being a member of this site, I am finding this hugely disillusioned with even staying on as a member. The ONLY thing that has kept me here over recent months now, are some really great people! It's a shame to see one person (even though I don't know her, personally) hurt like this because the rules are so dubious.
SC needs to change the rule for FUTURE entry clarifications for members/entrants and, in all honesty, I feel that Lydia's DQ should be rescinded, counting it as a "pre-rule clarification/change" entry. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:39:27 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by L2:
the following shots have all been DQ'd for the same rule, for the same reason, all within the past year, just without as much fanfare... |
A more direct comparison:
 |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:39:32 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Hotpasta's and Konador's had already been put through without being DQ'd! |
Once again, not DQ'd does not equal validated. Using those two shots as a reference for DPC legality is only slightly better than using a random photo off Flickr since none of them were validated, discussed or even considered. |
Ok, then are we to assume that NO photo in this site is "legal" unless it has a "validation" sticker on it?! Are we to assume that every shot in here that hasn't been validated MAY have something illegal to it? Because if that is the case (and, that's what you seem to be saying here) then, it's only fitting to ALSO assume that if we can do it well and hide the "illegalities", we can "get away with it".
Oh, and I might go and use and idea off of Flickr if it gave me an idea, but I'm certainly NOT stupid enough to come in here with an illegal version of it. Come on...I'm not a moron so, quick making the assumption that I am! |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:41:05 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by L2:
the following shots have all been DQ'd for the same rule, for the same reason, all within the past year, just without as much fanfare... |
A more direct comparison:
|
Was it a ribbon winning photo? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:41:42 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by L2:
To say that we don't understand the rules isn't quite fair. When the issue is one of fact, there is no doubt. When the issue is subjective, it's a matter of judgment. Only when the issue is a matter of judgment can there be a split vote.
Did this photog clone something other than dust/hotpixel, in or out, in a Basic Editing challenge? Yep = DQ. The End. Easy Peasy - no questions.
Did this photog fool the voters into believing that the artwork used in the submission was part of the original scene when the submission was shot? Hmm, take a look at the comments, make a judgment call and determine whether a reasonable person would be fooled, that's where it gets subjective, and that's where split vote decisions come from. |
Ok, these points are very well understood. Let's take the example of Lydia's shot and the idea that you may have had to have questioned what other "reasonable" people might have seen or might have thought in what she did with this photo etc., in all reality, if you all had to sit and wonder all of this, then the rules themselves are not very clear, even to all of you, are they? So, reasonably, now can anyone entering a challenge assess all of this as well? And, since it took all of you that much deciphering to figure out, what's to say that had she sent this idea in ahead of time, asking for approval of its legality, all of you (had she gotten that many members of SC's consensus) would have been able to agree on it being "ok" or not ok? Add to that, the idea that what if other's saw Lydia's shot as her intention to simply photograph a "Toast" to a "Feast"...or Toast to a memory of a feast gone by?
The point I'm making here is that if a rule is that subjective to have to go through those kinds of contortions to figure it out even by SC members then, the rest of us are also going to be entering shots, praying that we've interpretted things correctly. In my mind, HAD Lydia intended her shot to be a toast to a feast gone by, it may have been considered a shoehorn but, it would have fit the challenge in a loose way. Had she shot that same shot, glass in front, heavy DOF into the background, live....it would have been considered "legal" even though the background would have been the same look to it. She took the shot that she used as the background, hours earlier. The only difference was...it was on her monitor, rather than live. That's all semantics in saying that had it been live, rather than a shot taken by her earlier and on a monitor behind that glass, means that the shot itself hasn't changed in ANY context, has it?! The ONLY difference is the "live" and the "monitor"!! Isn't that what this all really boils down to? Picture vs live? It still would have been the same context! |
If you don't want subjective, then we'll have to go "no artwork, period" since "any artwork, whatever" means that there is no challenge to getting a shot of a specific theme during a specific date period. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that "no artwork, period" isn't going to fly very far.
And you are quite right, it does boil down to prior artwork vs. live. You can't use artwork if it means that people are voting on the prior artwork rather than what you added to the shot. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:42:34 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by L2:
the following shots have all been DQ'd for the same rule, for the same reason, all within the past year, just without as much fanfare... |
A more direct comparison:
|
Was it a ribbon winning photo? |
It doesn't matter whether it won a ribbon or not, the rules don't apply only to ribbon winners. |
|
