| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2009 04:00:04 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
the camera was owned by him |
Not according to his notes..
"The pic was taken by my girlfriend with her camera phone..." |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:04:02 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by skewsme:
the camera was owned by him |
Not according to his notes..
"The pic was taken by my girlfriend with her camera phone..." |
"
Hi,
I was notified that my shot:
"Just when you thought that hernia couldn\'t get any worse... (self portrait)"
was disqualified. Given that it was DQ'd for largely circumstantial reasons, I do wish you had contacted me with questions regarding it first. You DQ'd it for the following reason:
"Your submission must be taken and post-processed by you. Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings"
I clearly setup the shot, I relayed through body language and finally scribbling on a note pad that I wanted the shot taken, I post processed the shot, I own the camera phone, and the camera has but one setting, full automatic, so there were no settings to set. So please let me know what the violation was and what I could have done to make this shot legal. Thanks.
John
"
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:05:47 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Everyone talks about "The Spirit of the Rules", but only as a one way street.
:-( |
Oh noes! We've made Slippy sad... :-(
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:06:33 PM · #79 |
It boils down to this:
He wasn't even sure it was legal and thought it would be DQ'd. The photo came in 75th place. Whether or not you agree with the SC, it's a bit of an overreaction when you had an idea that it might happen. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:07:59 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Everyone talks about "The Spirit of the Rules", but only as a one way street.
:-( |
Oh noes! We've made Slippy sad... :-( |
Nothing a sensual massage wouldn't cure... ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:13:29 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And seriously, if the big hang up is the camera was not pointed by him and not in a fixed state, that REALLY needs to be in the rules! That is a specific thing that is easy to put into law, and I bet it's been broken a lot. "Set up" has a very broad definition, but clearly a narrow interpretation here. |
No, the problem is the camera wasn't owned by him, the setup wasn't by him, the composition wasn't by him, he didn't press the button. His only input was literally to scribble the word `photo`.
I really cant see why this is so hard for some people to understand, its almost like you are being intentionally obtuse. Which is usually the role I play around these here parts. |
He did own the camera (I'm guessing it's her phone but he pays the bill?). Exposure was auto, so no set up. He asked for the photo so he picked the subject. He could have given thumbs down and had he re-take it if she did not compose it as he wanted. He post processed it, and thus he could have cropped it. He added his words to it and selected a border width and color when he post processed it... And being a simple snap shot the "composition" is in no way a major element in this photo. This photo is all about the subject and the post processing. I can't see why you are being so obtuse and not understand that who actually held the camera and pushed the button does not matter :) |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:15:40 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Everyone talks about "The Spirit of the Rules", but only as a one way street.
:-( |
Oh noes! We've made Slippy sad... :-( |
Nothing a sensual massage wouldn't cure... ;-) |
We'll send a Sumo wrestler in your direction to massage you. And while you are pinned down and unable to move, be sure to yell out "photo" to your wife/girlfriend, and then you'll be all set for an entry this week. :-) |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:17:16 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
... I'm guessing ... |
A lot of that going on in this thread. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:22:50 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
... it's a bit of an overreaction when you had an idea that it might happen. |
Funny how that works. Like when people enter a photo that they say "will probably get a lot of DNMCs" and then they attack the voters when they get a lot of DNMCs. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:24:29 PM · #85 |
So hypothetical, we know he can do thumbs up and thumbs down as proven by the photo. What if after he asked her to take the photo, she showed the photo to him and he gave thumbs down because it was not what he wanted? What if this process was repeated until it was exactly what he wanted. Is it not his photo? Is that any different then setting the camera on a tripod himself (which in his condition was not possible)?
What if the camera phone had a little screen pointed back at him that allowed him to see himself while she pointed it at him. My camera phone has this. What if the thumbs up is him saying, that is what I want!
Can anyone say with authority that this did not happen. If I were an attorney I̢۪d call that reasonable doubt.
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt!
NICE!
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:31:46 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So hypothetical, we know he can do thumbs up and thumbs down as proven by the photo. What if after he asked her to take the photo, she showed the photo to him and he gave thumbs down because it was not what he wanted? What if this process was repeated until it was exactly what he wanted. Is it not his photo? Is that any different then setting the camera on a tripod himself (which in his condition was not possible)?
What if the camera phone had a little screen pointed back at him that allowed him to see himself while she pointed it at him. My camera phone has this. What if the thumbs up is him saying, that is what I want!
Can anyone say with authority that this did not happen. If I were an attorney I̢۪d call that reasonable doubt.
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt!
NICE! |
Well said.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:33:27 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So hypothetical, we know he can do thumbs up and thumbs down as proven by the photo. What if after he asked her to take the photo, she showed the photo to him and he gave thumbs down because it was not what he wanted? What if this process was repeated until it was exactly what he wanted. Is it not his photo? Is that any different then setting the camera on a tripod himself (which in his condition was not possible)?
What if the camera phone had a little screen pointed back at him that allowed him to see himself while she pointed it at him. My camera phone has this. What if the thumbs up is him saying, that is what I want!
Can anyone say with authority that this did not happen. If I were an attorney I̢۪d call that reasonable doubt.
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt!
NICE! |
Well said. |
Agree. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:33:39 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So hypothetical, we know he can do thumbs up and thumbs down as proven by the photo. What if after he asked her to take the photo, she showed the photo to him and he gave thumbs down because it was not what he wanted? What if this process was repeated until it was exactly what he wanted. Is it not his photo? Is that any different then setting the camera on a tripod himself (which in his condition was not possible)?
What if the camera phone had a little screen pointed back at him that allowed him to see himself while she pointed it at him. My camera phone has this. What if the thumbs up is him saying, that is what I want!
Can anyone say with authority that this did not happen. If I were an attorney I̢۪d call that reasonable doubt.
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt!
NICE! |
My wife says "Honey, take a picture of me in front of this building" and I do. She looks at the LCD and says "I like it [thumbs up]"--you can't seriously be suggesting that she would legitimately get photographer credit for the photo.....
If I post WITH MY ENTRY that the photograph was not taken by me (or that I cloned in some pretty clouds in a basic challenge, etc.) and even wonder in the notes with my entry if it is DQ'able, well, how can I then claim offense and surprise when they DQ me without contacting me. People who put text in their images are DQd without prior contact--it is an obvious DQ.
This thread should be moved to Rant, I think, since it is mostly people who just want to argue for argument's sake. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:36:25 PM · #89 |
what if what if.....
at the end of the day "Common Sense©" tells us that he really hasn't got a leg to stand on in this argument. I'll leave you guys to discuss this amongst yourselves knowing that I am right and you are wrong..
bye. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:37:07 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt! |
we did talk to him. repeatedly and privately.
he was discouraged from leaving and was not penalized, yet he chose to take his ball and go home.
who's REALLY being petty here? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:37:12 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I think, since it is mostly people who just want to argue for argument's sake. |
No its not..
;P |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:38:49 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So hypothetical, we know he can do thumbs up and thumbs down as proven by the photo. What if after he asked her to take the photo, she showed the photo to him and he gave thumbs down because it was not what he wanted? What if this process was repeated until it was exactly what he wanted. Is it not his photo? Is that any different then setting the camera on a tripod himself (which in his condition was not possible)?
What if the camera phone had a little screen pointed back at him that allowed him to see himself while she pointed it at him. My camera phone has this. What if the thumbs up is him saying, that is what I want!
Can anyone say with authority that this did not happen. If I were an attorney I̢۪d call that reasonable doubt.
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt!
NICE! |
My wife says "Honey, take a picture of me in front of this building" and I do. She looks at the LCD and says "I like it [thumbs up]"--you can't seriously be suggesting that she would legitimately get photographer credit for the photo.....
If I post WITH MY ENTRY that the photograph was not taken by me (or that I cloned in some pretty clouds in a basic challenge, etc.) and even wonder in the notes with my entry if it is DQ'able, well, how can I then claim offense and surprise when they DQ me without contacting me. People who put text in their images are DQd without prior contact--it is an obvious DQ.
This thread should be moved to Rant, I think, since it is mostly people who just want to argue for argument's sake. |
We've had a bit of a rant dry spell. I think people are jumping on this because they need that release. Too many "I'm so sad" threads. There's a lot of pent up emotion here :D |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:38:51 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
...who's REALLY being petty here? |
I'm going to look down from my high horse and call both parties petty.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:42:49 PM · #94 |
Frankly, I think the rule should be changed to allow some one to "press the shutter" for you only in special circumstances like self portraits.
Anytime you allow someone else to take the photo you are removing or replacing any element of timing and "capturing the moment". All technical and compositional issues aside, that is the key element to many types of photography, IMHO.
I think Ansel Adams refered to it as the "peak moment". |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:43:12 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And seriously, if the big hang up is the camera was not pointed by him and not in a fixed state, that REALLY needs to be in the rules! That is a specific thing that is easy to put into law, and I bet it's been broken a lot. "Set up" has a very broad definition, but clearly a narrow interpretation here. |
No, the problem is the camera wasn't owned by him, the setup wasn't by him, the composition wasn't by him, he didn't press the button. His only input was literally to scribble the word `photo`.
I really cant see why this is so hard for some people to understand, its almost like you are being intentionally obtuse. Which is usually the role I play around these here parts. |
He did own the camera (I'm guessing it's her phone but he pays the bill?). Exposure was auto, so no set up. He asked for the photo so he picked the subject. He could have given thumbs down and had he re-take it if she did not compose it as he wanted. He post processed it, and thus he could have cropped it. He added his words to it and selected a border width and color when he post processed it... And being a simple snap shot the "composition" is in no way a major element in this photo. This photo is all about the subject and the post processing. I can't see why you are being so obtuse and not understand that who actually held the camera and pushed the button does not matter :) |
yepp, my thoughts too.
and at the base of it all, it was he who thought of this photo. it was not like that his gf took photo and later he decided to enter. according to his notes he wanted his photo taken this way.
so
1. since it was his idea
2. he owns the phone.
3. he post processed it.
4. based on his condition , he was not in position to bring a tripod and set up whole thing and then ask someone to just click. Though he did ask someone to click (but not on a tripod as i think SC could think up setting a shot)
i think it was bad DQ.
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 16:44:07. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:44:09 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I think, since it is mostly people who just want to argue for argument's sake. |
No its not..
;P |
Yes, it is!
:-D |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:44:52 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
He did own the camera (I'm guessing it's her phone but he pays the bill?). Exposure was auto, so no set up. He asked for the photo so he picked the subject.... |
So to borrow Mark's example, if I owned a restaurant and scribbled 'dinner,' then whatever you cook makes me the chef? Sorry, not on this planet. Even if the photo was a request, she was the photographer, and whether he owned the camera or 'seasoned' her photo to taste in Photoshop afterwards is irrelevant. What we have here is equivalent to someone in a full body cast claiming he took a photo by asking someone else to. I don't buy it.
Michael Gross once bought me some Winsor & Newton brushes and asked me to paint something (really). I guess that makes him the painter now. Ooooh... maybe I could buy a slot machine and ask friends to play it. It belongs to me, and the machine is fully automatic, so I'm sure they'd have no problem with me claiming the winnings. Hey, maybe I could ask someone to ski for me in the Olympics? As long as I own the skis, scribble 'slalom' on a piece of paper and make some gestures, the medal is mine! Oh, the possibilities are practically endless once you leave the reservation... :-/ |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:48:51 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hey, maybe I could ask someone to ski for me in the Olympics? As long as I own the skis, scribble 'slalom' on a piece of paper and make some gestures, the medal is mine! |
Possibly the funniest one yet.. "left, right, left, hard right, watch that gate!!!"
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 16:49:17. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:49:11 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Now the photo was DQ̢۪d without SC talking to him or asking any questions per his comments in the photo. Thus, guilty until proven innocent and never even given an opportunity to prove innocence, and there is reasonable doubt! |
we did talk to him. repeatedly and privately.
he was discouraged from leaving and was not penalized, yet he chose to take his ball and go home.
who's REALLY being petty here? |
So he is lying?
From the image:
"So this got DQ'd based solely on the comments that I put in here, SC did not contact me for any additional questions." |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 04:54:18 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
He did own the camera (I'm guessing it's her phone but he pays the bill?). Exposure was auto, so no set up. He asked for the photo so he picked the subject.... |
So to borrow Mark's example, if I owned a restaurant and scribbled 'dinner,' then whatever you cook makes me the chef? Sorry, not on this planet. Even if the photo was a request, she was the photographer, and whether he owned the camera or 'seasoned' her photo to taste in Photoshop afterwards is irrelevant. What we have here is equivalent to someone in a full body cast claiming he took a photo by asking someone else to. I don't buy it.
Michael Gross once bought me some Winsor & Newton brushes and asked me to paint something (really). I guess that makes him the painter now. Ooooh... maybe I could buy a slot machine and ask friends to play it. It belongs to me, and the machine is fully automatic, so I'm sure they'd have no problem with me claiming the winnings. Hey, maybe I could ask someone to ski for me in the Olympics? As long as I own the skis, scribble 'slalom' on a piece of paper and make some gestures, the medal is mine! Oh, the possibilities are practically endless once you leave the reservation... :-/ |
well technically then whosoever clicks the photo, it is his photo then.
Just because you asked someone to click does not make it yours than. is this what you are saying.
please modify the rules.
|
|
