| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2009 07:32:16 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry, I'm not supposed to be arguing with you (yet) ... :-( |
You initiated this conversation in public over a rule that you clearly don't understand and don't support. |
ohhooohooooo, Slam, and SC cat fight!!!
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 07:35:07 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry, I'm not supposed to be arguing with you (yet) ... :-( |
You initiated this conversation in public over a rule that you clearly don't understand and don't support. . |
Wait are you telling me that someone on SC doesn't understand the rules that they are suppose to be making sure that other people follow? How in the world can that be right? That would be like having an umpire give his own interpretation of a rule he doesn't understand wouldn't it?
Matt |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 07:48:34 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Wait are you telling me that someone on SC doesn't understand the rules that they are suppose to be making sure that other people follow? How in the world can that be right? That would be like having an umpire give his own interpretation of a rule he doesn't understand wouldn't it?
Matt |
A whole LOT of us don't "understand" the rule. It's not well-written at all, and it's arguably not well-conceived either. Why should it be any different on SC? We've already had proven to us in the past that there is no unanimity within SC on how to interpret this particular rule, and it's not the only one where that's true. To a certain extent this is unavoidable, because we're not working with an easily measurable set of infractions, but this particular rule seems to be more confusing than most...
R. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 07:52:03 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry, I'm not supposed to be arguing with you (yet) ... :-( |
You initiated this conversation in public over a rule that you clearly don't understand and don't support. I know you're frustrated over the DQ, but I'm not going to sit idly by and not contribute to a thread about a rule that I have fought vigorously to implement. And despite the need to clarify the wording of the rule, I will continue to support and defend it as long as I'm part of the site. |
You both have valid points. Now, think about directing that very fine energy you both have into making the rule unambiguous.
Easy to understand would work too.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 07:53:46 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
Wait are you telling me that someone on SC doesn't understand the rules that they are suppose to be making sure that other people follow? How in the world can that be right? That would be like having an umpire give his own interpretation of a rule he doesn't understand wouldn't it?
Matt |
A whole LOT of us don't "understand" the rule. It's not well-written at all, and it's arguably not well-conceived either. Why should it be any different on SC? We've already had proven to us in the past that there is no unanimity within SC on how to interpret this particular rule, and it's not the only one where that's true. To a certain extent this is unavoidable, because we're not working with an easily measurable set of infractions, but this particular rule seems to be more confusing than most...
R. |
Thanks for catching the point, the rule isn't written well enough for SC to understand it(the people who rule on whether it was followed or not) how are we as mere mortals suppose to understand it? But a couple of the SC members truly believe it is.
Matt |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 07:54:15 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by MattO:
That would be like having an umpire give his own interpretation of a rule he doesn't understand wouldn't it?
Matt |
Unfortunately, that's the case as well. :P
ETA: Forgot the link.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:26:57.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:02:43 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A whole LOT of us don't "understand" the rule. It's not well-written at all, and it's arguably not well-conceived either. |
Originally posted by sfalice:
You both have valid points. Now, think about directing that very fine energy you both have into making the rule unambiguous.
Easy to understand would work too. |
And your specific solutions would be............?
(Oh, and don't forget, your solution must please everybody :)
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:06:38. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:06:18 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A whole LOT of us don't "understand" the rule. It's not well-written at all, and it's arguably not well-conceived either. |
Originally posted by sfalice:
You both have valid points. Now, think about directing that very fine energy you both have into making the rule unambiguous.
Easy to understand would work too. |
And your specific solutions would be............? |
Well, Alan - I posted them once today, but here they are again:
The Artwork Rule continues to confuse. This thread, Notes on the Artwork rule discusses the DQ of LydiaToo's thanksgiving photo. It's some 250 posts long and even after passionate discussion, SC apparently decided not to change the rule as it confusingly stands.  LydiaToo wrote a good revision on 12/12/08:
I've finally seen what SC is saying!
It's the second 'OR' that divides the sentence into two parts... not the 'AS LONG AS'. Eureka!
...
How about this:
Current: 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.
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
Alan - I'll amend this to say that if the above does not meet the standards you wish to apply to this rule, may I suggest that you write down exactly what does meet the standards you wish to defend?
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:08:13.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:07:44 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture. |
And as I mentioned previously, I am in favor of clarifying the wording. I don't have the ability to unilaterally snap my fingers to make it so, though... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:11:17 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture. |
And as I mentioned previously, I am in favor of clarifying the wording. I don't have the ability to unilaterally snap my fingers to make it so, though... |
Alan, you are part of the governing body of DPC. You also have demonstrated the qualities of a leader; as has Paul (whom I have met). You can initiate and guide a discussion within the Site Council to come to a consensus that would be agreed upon by a majority. Or else, you (the Site Council) can call upon some of the "elders" in this community to assist in this effort. There are many good "English Majors" who would jump at the chance to help.
PS Not me!
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:11:58.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:13:59 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Wait are you telling me that someone on SC doesn't understand the rules that they are suppose to be making sure that other people follow? How in the world can that be right? That would be like having an umpire give his own interpretation of a rule he doesn't understand wouldn't it?
Matt |
I recuse myself from voting on such subjective decisions (especially on my owwn pictures!), because I believe in consistency in application of the rules, and I'm clearly in the minority (though not always alone) in my view as to how this rule should be applied. Votes on this type of decision are not always unanimous, even without my participation.
I believe that the current interpretation penalizes creative and well-executed still-lifes which include a photo as one of the props. If I'd done a sloppier job cutting our hunks of SPAM and arranged them somewhat haphazardly, it would have been legal -- how does that make sense? I thought it was plenty obvious that I'd cut up pieces of SPAM, and arranged them on a picture to give the arrangement context.
As it is I hear people claiming that they thought I'd really seen these dancers in the park with two-foot hunks of canned meat on long skewers, and pulled it out and re-photographed it. Sorry, but that's just not realistic to me, especially not if you look at the photo for more than the obligatory 1.4 seconds ... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:17:46 PM · #112 |
Or how about:
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/2D artwork.
Forget trying to include intention there. No part of judging motives should be included, because we can't see them. If there's just a flat rule with this, I doubt there could be so much drama over it. Goodness. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:19:45 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Using your reasoning, people should basically be able to scan a vacation picture from 1977 and submit it into a current challenge. |
Not at all. Simply time-shifting is not OK.
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Nor is taking a picture of an old picture, sticking a little something new into it, and calling it a new submission. Sorry. |
My construction was not "a little something" stuck in it -- it was a carefully (too-carefully, apparently) crafted prop -- made out of the material specified by the challenge topic -- and arranged on a specific image to give it context.
Why is that substantively different than choosing which of your grandma's vases best suits the flower arrangement you're photographing this week?
=====
Cross-posted from our internal thread:
I think it can be stripped-down to this:
You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules.
Get that stupid "appear to" phrase out of there, and you eliminate the subjective component -- either it's a direct copy of another photo or it's not.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:22:51. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:27:06 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think it can be stripped-down to this:
You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules.
Get that stupid "appear to" phrase out of there, and you eliminate the subjective component -- either it's a direct copy of another photo or it's not. |
Yes! +1 +1 +1 +1
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:28:09 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think it can be stripped-down to this:
You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules.
Get that stupid "appear to" phrase out of there, and you eliminate the subjective component -- either it's a direct copy of another photo or it's not. |
Okay, even I can understand this one.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:36:10 PM · #116 |
The problem isn't with the wording, it's what people think should be allowed.
It sounds like some people think we should be able to take the mona lisa, and attach a human hair mustache to it and have it be legal. Some people don't. You have to agree on what is acceptable before you can phrase it properly.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:36:20. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:45:00 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
The problem isn't with the wording, it's what people think should be allowed.
It sounds like some people think we should be able to take the mona lisa, and attach a human hair mustache to it and have it be legal. |
That's legal now, because everyone knows I didn't paint the Mona Lisa. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:49:07 PM · #118 |
okay how about
You can only have 1/4 of your shot allowed with existing artwork
lol |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:57:55 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
okay how about
You can only have 1/4 of your shot allowed with existing artwork
lol |
Are you volunteering to count pixels in disputed entries? ;-) |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:59:02 PM · #120 |
| Nope, but only 1/4 on either the left, right, top or bottom is allowed! and it must be square! |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:59:31 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
okay how about
You can only have 1/4 of your shot allowed with existing artwork
lol |
actually, it's not that bad of an idea... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 09:02:27 PM · #122 |
I wish those who support the current interpretation of this rule could please explain exactly what horribly detrimental outcome they are trying to prevent with all this?
Why shouldn't all of the voters (not just SC members minus myself) have had the chance to express their opinion on my entry?
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 21:03:45. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 09:15:52 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wish those who support the current interpretation of this rule could please explain exactly what horribly detrimental outcome they are trying to prevent with all this?
Why shouldn't all of the voters (not just SC members minus myself) have had the chance to express their opinion on my entry? |
You know,  GeneralE, I have noted recently a sort of tiny ground-swell from SC that seems to indicate that DQs should not be discussed in the Forums.
Surely they are not a private matter. They are what the rest of us learn from.
1. What to do.
2. What not to do.
We read them with fascination, not only for the individual whose work is open to public debate, but for the insight it gives us to the thinking of the Site Council. Some have proposed a library of them for reference.
Yes, all interested members should have the opportunity to to express their opinions on these images. This has nothing to do with your entry in particular, it has to do with all DQed entries in the 'gray zone.'
We all need to interpret the rules as they will be interpreted by the SC.
For the record, I find the rules so opaque, I almost always use the most basic of basic rule sets in any of my submissions. I'd love to see them written out so anyone could understand them.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 21:34:18.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 09:19:40 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wish those who support the current interpretation of this rule could please explain exactly what horribly detrimental outcome they are trying to prevent with all this? |
If I didn't know better I would have thought this was posted in one of the civil rights threads. The responses will of course be the same so might as well just copy and paste. At least the conservatives over in those other threads cling to something (i.e. the bible) when ignoring logic and reason.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 21:20:23.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 09:29:03 PM · #125 |
| Honestly until I read what the pic was about I really thought it was just a straight up photo of a painting... Either way I think it's a no-brainer DQ whatever the rule wording may be because it is just substantially about the painting. That word 'substantially' is tough to define, sure, but ya know it when you see it. |
|
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: 08/12/2025 07:05:07 AM EDT.
