| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2009 10:49:24 PM · #1076 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Hmmmm...you need to work on your cloning skills!
I can still see that UFO...>;-) |
So much for posting this at the end of the week in the hope you wouldn't see it. :P |
Nope...you can't clone me out either...;-P |
|
|
|
06/05/2009 11:31:58 PM · #1077 |
Rejected.
I hadn't submitted there in a while, and it seems like the rules are always in flux. Anyway, the e-mail I got this time suggested that both the screeners and the members reviewed it. My past several rejects, I'm sure, never made it as far as member screening. |
|
|
|
06/06/2009 09:10:37 PM · #1078 |
Appreciated the great feedback received on this shot so why not give 1X a try?
.....glad to now be a part of this DPC forum! ;-(
Message edited by author 2009-06-07 04:24:36. |
|
|
|
06/07/2009 11:41:17 AM · #1079 |
OK, this one has me confused.
Of those who voted against your image, one indicated that there is a problem with disturbing objects.
Is there actually any way to appeal something? The "contact us" page seems to be malfunctioning or taken down.
Message edited by author 2009-06-07 11:43:48. |
|
|
|
06/07/2009 03:19:57 PM · #1080 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, this one has me confused.
Of those who voted against your image, one indicated that there is a problem with disturbing objects.
Is there actually any way to appeal something? The "contact us" page seems to be malfunctioning or taken down. |
Appeal? Why bother? They have people over there so smart that they can't even figure out what the Red, White and Blue title means on a photo almost dripping with the American flag.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2009 03:33:39 PM · #1081 |
| Yes, the whole process really leaves something to be desired over there. I'm just seeing if it was a) a mistake b) someone thought the dragonfly was dead (and thus disturbing) or c) it didn't mean anything other than an immediate rejection. |
|
|
|
06/07/2009 03:37:38 PM · #1082 |
Was it submitted as a creative edit?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2009 04:29:30 PM · #1083 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Was it submitted as a creative edit? |
Yup. Although I'd think there was a better rejection note than "disturbing object" if that was the reason for rejection. |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 12:13:22 AM · #1084 |
Eh! I like it, so that's that. |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 12:16:10 AM · #1085 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Eh! I like it, so that's that. |
Hey, your wolf shot was great. :) Looks like you are having fun down there.
If you have a sec between shooting wolves and bison and trees, can you ask one of your screener buddies about my shot? I don't mind if it was rejected, but the "disturbing objects" seems so bizarre and that it was rejected on one vote. Just curious! I'm not getting anything back from anybody there. |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 10:06:17 AM · #1086 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you have a sec between shooting wolves and bison and trees, can you ask one of your screener buddies about my shot? I don't mind if it was rejected, but the "disturbing objects" seems so bizarre and that it was rejected on one vote. Just curious! I'm not getting anything back from anybody there. |
Hey Jason, yes I'm having tons of fun (and lots of work) in Yellowstone. But, about asking my "buddies" about your shot, I can't. I haven't had anything to do with the screening at 1X for the last, what, 4 months or so? I talk to a few as friends, but not anything about screening. Plus my internet connection (and time on the net) is really limited right now.
Have you contacted some of the screeners (crew screeners) personally? If I were you I would simply shrug it off. Look, your note said one of the screeners said there was a "disturbing object", that means, one person of the many that voted on it marked "disturbing objects" for whatever reason, so why worry about it. The note gets generated automatically, it simply lists the reasons that someone might have marked during the voting stage. It doesn't mean at all that crew rejected the photo for that reason - they probably didn't even pay any attention to it. One person marking one reason isn't anything to worry about. So let it be. If you start asking for explanations, even arguing, it just makes you look petty (sorry, I can't think of a milder word right now).
In other words, it's not worth the effort. I've had pictures rejected that I think, these guys are just off their rocker! But, it's just one gallery, one place that picks the photos they like to show on their pages. The number of people looking at the images can't be beat, that's why I continue to try and get images published there. But if they aren't shown there, so be it. So don't get upset, Jason :) |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 11:05:46 AM · #1087 |
| I don't mind the rejection Ursula, but my brain never likes it when it doesn't make sense. "Disturbing objects" to me is dead babies or mutilated cats. Not macros of dragoflies. I'm guessing it was just error and they meant whichever was above or below. I tried to PM Mal about it, but I haven't heard back. Oh well. |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 09:17:47 PM · #1088 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't mind the rejection Ursula, but my brain never likes it when it doesn't make sense. "Disturbing objects" to me is dead babies or mutilated cats. Not macros of dragoflies. I'm guessing it was just error and they meant whichever was above or below. I tried to PM Mal about it, but I haven't heard back. Oh well. |
Mal's a great guy! I think it is just some voter that marked a dumb reason. Nothing more. Sometimes you got to get your mind to stop thinking, Jason :) |
|
|
|
06/08/2009 10:00:31 PM · #1089 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't mind the rejection Ursula, but my brain never likes it when it doesn't make sense. "Disturbing objects" to me is dead babies or mutilated cats. Not macros of dragoflies. I'm guessing it was just error and they meant whichever was above or below. I tried to PM Mal about it, but I haven't heard back. Oh well. |
Bear in mind that English is a second language for a lot of the people over there. "Disturbing objects" may have meant something else to whoever checked it. Also, some people really don't like bug shots... 8)
|
|
|
|
06/09/2009 12:23:56 AM · #1090 |
Originally posted by Germaine:
Also, some people really don't like bug shots... 8) |
That's exactly what I was going to say. |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 12:18:56 PM · #1091 |
Rejected in record time, don't even think it made it to general screening. Kinda fits with how poorly my FS entry from this event did.
Art of the Bloodless Bullfight |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 06:49:29 PM · #1092 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, this one has me confused.
Of those who voted against your image, one indicated that there is a problem with disturbing objects.
Is there actually any way to appeal something? The "contact us" page seems to be malfunctioning or taken down. |
Why don't you submit it in the critique forum at 1x? The feedback may offer some clarification or (more likely) stir up more trouble about your beautiful photo...just my two cents...;-) |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 07:33:29 PM · #1093 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, this one has me confused.
Of those who voted against your image, one indicated that there is a problem with disturbing objects.
Is there actually any way to appeal something? The "contact us" page seems to be malfunctioning or taken down. |
Why don't you submit it in the critique forum at 1x? The feedback may offer some clarification or (more likely) stir up more trouble about your beautiful photo...just my two cents...;-) |
Ya, I should, although that takes up my one weekly slot. On the other hand, I'm entering way less than once a week anyway so it's probably a good idea. |
|
|
|
06/09/2009 09:32:54 PM · #1094 |
1x is sooo selective... I've determined (for my own sanity) that they really are looking for extremely "artsy" photos from a European perspective. That is not something that is commonly understood or appreciated in the USA. My acceptance ratio is not high at all, but I have learned that there are certain types of photos that are more likely to be accepted than others. (If you go with a night street scene that is blurry and in B/W or a ballerina mid-dance again in B/W, chances are it'll be accepted... j/k - kinda...)
For the "masters" (at least in my humble opinion) of photography - even they have some difficulties with acceptance on occasion. There are certainly some especially skilled photogs (e.g.  ursula) that seem unusually predisposed to acceptance; but when it comes down to it, I can't argue with acceptance of a single image of that master level!
No doubt, it's a tough crowd. BUT, I've found that I shoot for it differently than I do for DPC and I think that is a good thing. It forces me to expand my horizons and see more (and less) in the shots I take. I'm glad that I have been fortunate enough to have some shots published in both locations. They are very different audiences - and the more audiences to which we appeal, the more skilled we become. At least that's my opinion...
However, it still sucks big time to get rejected time after time after time, when you have a shot that has been so readily received and promoted on other sites! rofl
Message edited by author 2009-06-09 21:34:39. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 12:06:19 AM · #1095 |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 01:12:56 AM · #1096 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
1x is sooo selective... I've determined (for my own sanity) that they really are looking for extremely "artsy" photos from a European perspective. That is not something that is commonly understood or appreciated in the USA. My acceptance ratio is not high at all, but I have learned that there are certain types of photos that are more likely to be accepted than others. (If you go with a night street scene that is blurry and in B/W or a ballerina mid-dance again in B/W, chances are it'll be accepted... j/k - kinda...)
For the "masters" (at least in my humble opinion) of photography - even they have some difficulties with acceptance on occasion. There are certainly some especially skilled photogs (e.g. ursula) that seem unusually predisposed to acceptance; but when it comes down to it, I can't argue with acceptance of a single image of that master level!
No doubt, it's a tough crowd. BUT, I've found that I shoot for it differently than I do for DPC and I think that is a good thing. It forces me to expand my horizons and see more (and less) in the shots I take. I'm glad that I have been fortunate enough to have some shots published in both locations. They are very different audiences - and the more audiences to which we appeal, the more skilled we become. At least that's my opinion...
However, it still sucks big time to get rejected time after time after time, when you have a shot that has been so readily received and promoted on other sites! rofl |
It's been said many times before, but it is true. It is much better to shoot for yourself, not for a specific site. I mean, you always want others to appreciate and like what you do, but it has to be what you yourself love and see, or it won't work. Shooting for yourself at times seems to be interpreted as shooting to please yourself, and that's true, in a way - but I think it's a lot more than that. It's shooting from your own heart. Loving your subject/s, trying to show them in a picture the way that you would like the world to see them. Something like that. When you shoot for a specific site, your work becomes technical and spiritless, I think. Oh well.
BTW, I don't get preferential treatment at 1X. At least I don't think I do. If I found out that I did, I would be very, very sad.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2009 01:16:49 AM · #1097 |
I didn't realize that was Karen's! It's beautiful. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 02:47:27 AM · #1098 |
Originally posted by ursula:
BTW, I don't get preferential treatment at 1X. At least I don't think I do. If I found out that I did, I would be very, very sad. |
I don't think you get preferential treatment per se but you probably do get some benefit of the doubt on a subconscious level because your work is so familar. People respond to the familiar. It's comforting. It breeds trust. Knowing that this work is an Ursula means it's a good image or at least that's the predisposition going in. I'd wager most of your rejections have come when your work was less familar. Personally, I would love to see an ugly image from you or is there only beauty in that heart of yours? :)
|
|
|
|
06/10/2009 06:51:30 AM · #1099 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I didn't realize that was Karen's! It's beautiful. |
Thank you! |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 10:08:05 AM · #1100 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by ursula:
BTW, I don't get preferential treatment at 1X. At least I don't think I do. If I found out that I did, I would be very, very sad. |
I don't think you get preferential treatment per se but you probably do get some benefit of the doubt on a subconscious level because your work is so familar. People respond to the familiar. It's comforting. It breeds trust. Knowing that this work is an Ursula means it's a good image or at least that's the predisposition going in. I'd wager most of your rejections have come when your work was less familar. Personally, I would love to see an ugly image from you or is there only beauty in that heart of yours? :) |
Not quite. It sometimes works that way, but it also works the other way. The other side is that the "too familiar", the "it's another ursula (or codrin, or robert, or .....", gets voted down, and rejected with the thought, "We've seen similar before, you can do better!" (yeah, right). But I'm not going to attempt to change my "style", 'cause I don't think I could.
Why would you want to see anyone's ugly images? That's boring! :)
|
|
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: 07/21/2025 12:33:50 AM EDT.
