| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 10:43:26 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
are we to assume that NO photo in this site is "legal" unless it has a "validation" sticker on it?! |
No, but you can't assume it's been judged legal, either. We assume all photos are submitted in good faith, but we still request validation on some to make sure. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:46:03 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by L2:
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. |
You have just answered your own question right there in this line......You can't use artwork if it means that people are voting on the prior artwork rather than what you added to the shot.
THAT is what should be in the rules, RIGHT THERE!
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:51:13 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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? |
Let me ask you...do YOU check every entry that you look at to see what the date was and what the rules were at that time? :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:55:19 PM · #329 |
Look PhotoInterest, it's clear you are upset about your DQ. We never like to disqualify any image, truly we don't. This whole thread was started because we wanted to avoid in future the very situation that you find yourself in right now.
As I see it: you got DQ'd and claim it's not fair because a) someone else slipped through and got away with it under a different ruleset b) Lydia hadn't been disqualified yet when you submitted your shot, c) you thought you understood the rules and it was a good-faith entry on your part, and d) you appear to believe that we don't understand the rules either.
With regard to a) we can't help it, we didn't know about it at the time and it's not relevant anyway. With regard to b) we can't help that either; Lydia deserved the full benefit of everyone's point of view before a final decision was made. With regard to c) we can't help that, we have no idea what inspires you to create a submission. Further, we have no wish to penalize good-faith mistakes in judgment and that's why there is no suspension penalty for just one disqualification every 25 entries. With regard to d) it's just not so. We started this very thread to help others understand them.
Again, I'm very sorry that you were disqualified. Better luck in the next challenge.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:56:37 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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? |
Let me ask you...do YOU check every entry that you look at to see what the date was and what the rules were at that time? :) |
ummm, actually, I do, thank you. Not on this site, necessarily, but on others that I submit to. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:57:15 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
|
|
You have just answered your own question right there in this line......You can't use artwork if it means that people are voting on the prior artwork rather than what you added to the shot.
THAT is what should be in the rules, RIGHT THERE! |
Yes, I also think that would go a long way in clarifying the rule in question.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:03:32 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by L2:
Look PhotoInterest, it's clear you are upset about your DQ. We never like to disqualify any image, truly we don't. This whole thread was started because we wanted to avoid in future the very situation that you find yourself in right now.
As I see it: you got DQ'd and claim it's not fair because a) someone else slipped through and got away with it under a different ruleset b) Lydia hadn't been disqualified yet when you submitted your shot, c) you thought you understood the rules and it was a good-faith entry on your part, and d) you appear to believe that we don't understand the rules either.
With regard to a) we can't help it, we didn't know about it at the time and it's not relevant anyway. With regard to b) we can't help that either; Lydia deserved the full benefit of everyone's point of view before a final decision was made. With regard to c) we can't help that, we have no idea what inspires you to create a submission. Further, we have no wish to penalize good-faith mistakes in judgment and that's why there is no suspension penalty for just one disqualification every 25 entries. With regard to d) it's just not so. We started this very thread to help others understand them.
Again, I'm very sorry that you were disqualified. Better luck in the next challenge. |
This isn't about my disqualification at all. It's about the confusion there is over this rule and how people have obviously gotten confused with it, others have slipped by with it and not been caught. This is about a rule that needs to be changed and clarified. I was not a ribbon winner nor, was I going to be with my shot, so it is NO skin off of my nose to have it DQ'd.
The sheer number of responses in this thread from other members, expressing the exact same sentiments, opinions and feelings as I have and have NOT been DQ'd is pointing to the very fact that the RULE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED/CLARIFIED, period! THAT is what this is about.
Lastly, your tone with me is condescending and I take offense to it totally. Especially, when SC members cannot admit that there was a problem with the rules and clarity on it. This entire thread has seen nothing by SC members DEFENDING a rule that is not clear to even all of you as a whole and has a lot of ambiguitiy to it.
Now, you can all go on defending this and yourselves, but the truth is, HUNDREDS of posts later and with other members having asked for the same thing, admit that the rule needs changing and quit trying to avoid that action! It's quite small.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:08:51 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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? |
Let me ask you...do YOU check every entry that you look at to see what the date was and what the rules were at that time? :) |
I have no need to check other prior entries for confirming/checking if something I want to enter is within the rules or is allowed. I'm fairly conservative (don't push the rule boundaries), and have been here long enough to have a decent handle on the rules.
However, if I DID need to seek out prior entries to check on the validity of an idea I had for an entry, knowing me, yes, I would find it prudent to check the ruleset that the entries I was looking at were run under. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:13:06 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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? |
Let me ask you...do YOU check every entry that you look at to see what the date was and what the rules were at that time? :) |
I have no need to check other prior entries for confirming/checking if something I want to enter is within the rules or is allowed. I'm fairly conservative (don't push the rule boundaries), and have been here long enough to have a decent handle on the rules.
However, if I DID need to seek out prior entries to check on the validity of an idea I had for an entry, knowing me, yes, I would find it prudent to check the ruleset that the entries I was looking at were run under. |
Well, KUDOS to you then for being so original and rule saavy that you don't peruse other photos to spark ideas within yourself! I applaud you for that! :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:19:56 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by L2:
Look PhotoInterest, it's clear you are upset about your DQ. We never like to disqualify any image, truly we don't. This whole thread was started because we wanted to avoid in future the very situation that you find yourself in right now.
As I see it: you got DQ'd and claim it's not fair because a) someone else slipped through and got away with it under a different ruleset b) Lydia hadn't been disqualified yet when you submitted your shot, c) you thought you understood the rules and it was a good-faith entry on your part, and d) you appear to believe that we don't understand the rules either.
With regard to a) we can't help it, we didn't know about it at the time and it's not relevant anyway. With regard to b) we can't help that either; Lydia deserved the full benefit of everyone's point of view before a final decision was made. With regard to c) we can't help that, we have no idea what inspires you to create a submission. Further, we have no wish to penalize good-faith mistakes in judgment and that's why there is no suspension penalty for just one disqualification every 25 entries. With regard to d) it's just not so. We started this very thread to help others understand them.
Again, I'm very sorry that you were disqualified. Better luck in the next challenge. |
This isn't about my disqualification at all. It's about the confusion there is over this rule and how people have obviously gotten confused with it, others have slipped by with it and not been caught. This is about a rule that needs to be changed and clarified. I was not a ribbon winner nor, was I going to be with my shot, so it is NO skin off of my nose to have it DQ'd.
The sheer number of responses in this thread from other members, expressing the exact same sentiments, opinions and feelings as I have and have NOT been DQ'd is pointing to the very fact that the RULE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED/CLARIFIED, period! THAT is what this is about.
Lastly, your tone with me is condescending and I take offense to it totally. Especially, when SC members cannot admit that there was a problem with the rules and clarity on it. This entire thread has seen nothing by SC members DEFENDING a rule that is not clear to even all of you as a whole and has a lot of ambiguitiy to it.
Now, you can all go on defending this and yourselves, but the truth is, HUNDREDS of posts later and with other members having asked for the same thing, admit that the rule needs changing and quit trying to avoid that action! It's quite small. |
Oh come on now, we've done our level best to explain and provide examples. That particular rule has been the same for a few years now, it's nothing new, we're not interpreting it any differently than we said we would when we announced them. There are numerous examples of the rule in action resulting in disqualification just in the last year that were available to everyone to look at. So far, I've only seen one shot that probably should have been disqualified but wasn't, and we've offered to put a note on it but that offer didn't get far.
Yes, we have gone back and forth about how to make it clearer, that's what this very thread is about. If there was a wish to hide a problem, we wouldn't have started a thread about it now, would we?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:46:58 PM · #336 |
This thread has been going for about 12 hours now, has over 300 posts, and almost 5,000 views.
Therefore, I would venture a guess that this is a topic that many people are concerned about and are trying
to glean information from.
While the present rule set has been in place for some time now, it obviously could stand clarification.
That's why people continue to try to suggest ways to help this process.
I hope that all those Site Council members who have been so gracious with their time and energy throughout
this discussion understand this.
 L2 Your words of a few posts ago added to the rule in question would probably help in this regard: You can't use artwork if it means that people are voting on the prior artwork rather than what you added to the shot. While still open to 'interpretation' it would be more definitive. Or at least I think so.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:48:29 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
This thread has been going for about 12 hours now, has over 300 posts, and almost 5,000 views.
Therefore, I would venture a guess that this is a topic that many people are concerned about and are trying
to glean information from. ... |
Or - It's a slow day and this makes for a great soap opera! :-P |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:02:13 AM · #338 |
I don;t get exactly why it is percieved as a bad thing to have successfully fooled the voters. Indeed, in the illusions challenge it was the goal to successfully fool voters. The concept makes me very nervous as some folk are a great deal easier to fool than others. The
I'd also like to back Bear's points - this DQ has recieved the resistance it has because it feels wrong to many of us. I personally don't like that the image was legal under the rules, but then I think this is indicative of a flaw in the rules rather than a flaw in the picture. Can't we just give Lydia her ribbon, and ammend the rules to prevent this being legal in the future?
On a side note - the idea of banning all artwork is even more frightening as what consititutes art is itself very subjective. We don't want to enter a world where a DQ is arguable because soemone percieves a hair-cut to be artistic. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:31:11 AM · #339 |
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. |
The fact that the image in question is from an SC member, and it DID win a ribbon is reason enough for me to see an example being set. Why is it that one shies away from admitting if their entry won at 'that' time but could not have won today, yet be teh first one to comment on a mistaken rule violation?
Nobody is asking you to DQ that image... the only request is to put a comment in there so others may know that something that was valid then is not valid anymore.
Aarggh.... the stubbornly council here!! Is it too much to ask to do teh right thing by admitting a good example and show the way to others????????????????????????
Jeeeeeeeeeez!!
ETA: I have a question: Who elects the SC? Is it a nominated body?
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 00:32:04. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:51:54 AM · #340 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Why is it that one shies away from admitting if their entry won at 'that' time but could not have won today... |
How many times do I need to repeat my quote that the entry would be borderline today?
Originally posted by Prash:
the only request is to put a comment in there so others may know that something that was valid then is not valid anymore. |
OK, just in case anyone is still unclear that different rules mean different things are legal: HERE YE, HERE YE... *ALL* ENTRIES THAT WERE VALID THEN ARE NOT NECESSARILY VALID NOW!! Thank you. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:56:46 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Who elects the SC? Is it a nominated body? |
Yep. They're nominated, then SC members consider each candidate's relative sanity, composure, understanding of rules and policies, diversity, location (for 24 hour coverage), site participation, etc. and vote on the "finalists." Familiarity and reason are more important than agreement or popularity. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:59:02 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Prash:
Who elects the SC? Is it a nominated body? |
Yep. They're nominated, then SC members consider each candidate's relative sanity, composure, understanding of rules and policies, diversity, location (for 24 hour coverage), site participation, etc. and vote on the "finalists." Familiarity and reason are more important than agreement or popularity. |
Where are the Aussie SC's????????? Aren't we good enough....or....are we just considered too crazy?????? LOL!
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:01:06 AM · #343 |
It isn't an outlandish suggestion to leave a note on an extremely popular image pointing out that it uses techniques that are no longer legal. In the spirit of helping people avoid frustration. If that's a concern.
Info published via the forums basically has a lifespan of a week or two for all intents and purposes. After that it disappears into the unsearchable ether. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:03:03 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Where are the Aussie SC's????????? Aren't we good enough....or....are we just considered too crazy?????? LOL! |
Oh my... would you look at the time! Gotta get to sleep!
;-) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:04:40 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Judi:
Where are the Aussie SC's????????? Aren't we good enough....or....are we just considered too crazy?????? LOL! |
Oh my... would you look at the time! Gotta get to sleep!
;-) |
You Chickernnnnnnnnnnnn Sh*t!!!
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:22:43 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Ok, then are we to assume that NO photo in this site is "legal" unless it has a "validation" sticker on it?! |
People always know when mine are legal, but it doesn't seem to help the score ... :-(
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:50:07 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I am hoping to help clear up a little bit of confusion regarding one of the rules that appears in both the Advanced and Basic rule sets:
You may... include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Back in the "old days" of DPC, it was actually illegal to photograph "literal representations of artwork," including currency, other photos, and other works of art. I believe the old rules even prohibited photographing statues as a sole subject of an entry.
We have backed off of that in the most recent rule sets, allowing those things to a degree. The rule as it is written now is meant to prohibit people from using a photograph as a replacement for an actual, integral scene of a submission. In other words, it is not acceptable to make a submission that uses an existing photo (whether it is a new photo, an old photo, or a photo taken by someone else -- it does not matter) as a primary scene in a submission.
Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.
Each of these types of submissions are judged on a case-by-case basis by Site Council in an attempt to be as fair as possible. If you have questions about a submission ahead of time, please remember that uploading an original while submitting does not automatically mean the shot is reviewed before voting begins. Please use our ticket system to contact us well in advance if you are concerned whether you may be crossing the line on this or any other rule. |
honestly i don't see how this thread lasted 14 pages, these guidelines are not very difficult to grasp and their motivation is clearly beneficial to the site |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:21:14 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Well, we may be talking apples and oranges here, but see, what I'm saying is that the TECHNIQUE is the same for all these images. Is the technique legal or is it not? If it is sometimes and not other times, we should write the rules to show the difference.
Remember, we don't DQ DNMC images. |
From what I have heard. If it is obvious...then it isn't a DQ. If it isn't then it could possibly be DQ'd. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:22:11 AM · #349 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
It isn't an outlandish suggestion to leave a note on an extremely popular image pointing out that it uses techniques that are no longer legal. In the spirit of helping people avoid frustration. If that's a concern.
Info published via the forums basically has a lifespan of a week or two for all intents and purposes. After that it disappears into the unsearchable ether. |
Add a note to the rules saying "Do not assume techniques of challenge entries before date xx/xx/xxxx are a precedent of validity for the current advanced/basic editing rule set."
The date xx/xx/xxxx is whenever the rule set first started being used.
It does not solve the current debacle, but it will close this argument "What about this entry from three years ago that was ok?! This photo I just entered uses the same technique, even though there have been three changes in rulesets, how should I know its not legal?" Added to the rules page, which everyone is supposed to have read before entering a challenge and check a box saying so, might at least stop some people from making this mistake.
just a thought.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:39:35 AM · #350 |
Originally posted by egamble:
From what I have heard. If it is obvious...then it isn't a DQ. If it isn't then it could possibly be DQ'd. |
this reminds me of the part where Mr Incredible shouts to his son Dash who is competing in a 100m dash race, "no no, not too fast! no, not too slow! yea yeah a close 2nd is good, yeah close 2nd! that's my boy!"
|
|
