| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2009 10:18:10 AM · #1 |
So, I'm looking at 5th place in "47 Steps", which as soon as I saw it in voting I said to myself "No way!", and the shooter himself acknowledges this with the following in his comments: "So this is nowhere near where I live but if you didn't know that until you read this then it doesn't really matter does it?"...
Now, I haven't checked to see how many, if any, other entries are equally flagrant, but this attitude sort of ticks me off big-time. A whole lot of us entered into the spirit of the challenge and attempted to glorify the mundane.
How about you?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 10:18:51. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:22:13 AM · #2 |
Wasn't there a non-self-portrait ribbon winner in a self-portrait challenge once? Well, we've all learned to live by the DPC rules that "DNMC" is not a reason for "DQ." However, I agree with you that it violates the spirit of the challenge. I suppose it's something that he 'fessed up.
As for my own entry, I didn't glorify the mundane, I mundaned the mundane. But yeah, it was definitely taken 47 steps from my own front door. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:26:56 AM · #3 |
| We all know that the challenge descriptions are guidelines and not following them won't get your entry DQ'ed. I see nothing wrong with this entry at all. To me it's no different than someone entering a picture of a tree in a self portrait challenge or a dog in a cat challenge, etc. In the challenge "Your Corner of the World" I think someone from Canada entered a shot from NYC.....no big deal to me, same as this. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:27:18 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So, I'm looking at 5th place in "47 Steps", which as soon as I saw it in voting I said to myself "No way!", and the shooter himself acknowledges this with the following in his comments: "So this is nowhere near where I live but if you didn't know that until you read this then it doesn't really matter does it?"...
Now, I haven't checked to see how many, if any, other entries are equally flagrant, but this attitude sort of ticks me off big-time. A whole lot of us entered into the spirit of the challenge and attempted to glorify the mundane.
How about you?
R. |
I have to admit that I pretty much said the same thing when I saw the shot. The whole problem with this challenge was that we had to assume people would be honest because there was no way you could really give a DNMC vote to any of the images and you can't DQ the image for any violation of the rules. Too bad there wasn't an additional rule that required you to photograph your door from your final location.
I have to agree that the attitude kinda stinks too. You can't DQ me. You can't prove this isn't out my backdoor. And now that you know there's nothing you can do about it. Bah.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 10:28:16. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:42:49 AM · #5 |
I hear ya Bear...and it's just kinda sad someone entered a shot knowing it wasn't in the spirit of the challenge. And this is not one of those "out of the box" sort of shots...to me it's a "I want a ribbon" sort of shot. It's just not a terribly creative way of thinking and going about things IMO.
I completely embraced the spirit of the challenge. I live at the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I could have gone for a short drive, snapped a fabulous shot of the mountains and no one would have been the wiser...but I didn't. And Bear, you live in a absolutely gorgeous part of our country too and chose to go the honest route.
This was a "right up my alley" sort of challenge for me. Again, I'm just disappointed that so many others just couldn't groove with the idea behind it.
edit:typo...doh.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 10:47:35. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:55:18 AM · #6 |
I agree with Karen. Perception is reality and we are selling the perception to the viewer; not the actual situation. But I have to admit that it still is a little rotten! ;)
I recently submitted the image below to a local photo contest with topic "yellow". The car was actually red and I changed it to yellow in Photoshop. To me this is comparable to the beach shot. And I slept like a baby (sleeping a little, waking up crying; sleeping a little more; waking up crying.... etc ) after submitting it - :)
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:01:40 AM · #7 |
| I had the same thought when I saw that shot. But you know some people just don't play well with others. He knows his shot is DNMC and he doesn't care. He won't care that you don't like it, either. You just kind of have to drop your feelings & move on. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:01:57 AM · #8 |
I highly believe that on special challenges of THIS nature, where the expectation is spelled out very succinctly, that cases like this SHOULD be DQ'd.
Of course, it would be impossible to tell if someone was being honest or not if they didn't say anything, but if they did happen to say something, or blatantly rubbed it in like this one, then BANG, no warning, bye bye betty.
However, that's a wet dream I suppose, so we just have to deal with the fact that this is a large site with a lot of personalities, and some of those personalities are going to be ones that have no problem with cheating and pushing the limits and stepping over the line.
I just personally avoid challenges like this because I just know that people are going to say screw it and just put whatever they want in them. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:03:46 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
I agree with Karen. Perception is reality and we are selling the perception to the viewer; not the actual situation. But I have to admit that it still is a little rotten! ;) |
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you and Karen, not in this (and similar) cases. It's one thing to photograph a drop of water on a thorn and call it a self-portrait, or to shoot a cat in a dog challenge, because the voters themselves can decide whether they want to reward these images in the context of the challenge. Visibly out-of-the-box in other words.
But when a challenge gives specific, physical guidelines for creating your entry (2-second exposure, say, or 47 steps) and you just ignore that and submit some shot you like because it "has a chance of ribboning" (and why ELSE would you ignore the guidelines and submit something directly in contravention of them?), then that's just cheap, in my opinion.
R. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:15:04 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
I agree with Karen. Perception is reality and we are selling the perception to the viewer; not the actual situation. But I have to admit that it still is a little rotten! ;) |
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you and Karen, not in this (and similar) cases. It's one thing to photograph a drop of water on a thorn and call it a self-portrait, or to shoot a cat in a dog challenge, because the voters themselves can decide whether they want to reward these images in the context of the challenge. Visibly out-of-the-box in other words.
But when a challenge gives specific, physical guidelines for creating your entry (2-second exposure, say, or 47 steps) and you just ignore that and submit some shot you like because it "has a chance of ribboning" (and why ELSE would you ignore the guidelines and submit something directly in contravention of them?), then that's just cheap, in my opinion. |
I digress and will have to agree with you in this particular case Robert. The details were very specific and was meant to limit the options. It is then of course not fair to go out and shoot whatever you like and nonchalantly submit it. In fact rotten as I said in my previous shot. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:16:11 AM · #11 |
I agree with  Bear_Music on this. It's bad enough that he completely disregarded the challenge directions, but the massive attitude is just begging for punishment.
I think that in cases like this, which demonstrate flagrant disregard for clear, technical directions, a DQ is in order. And perhaps a "friendly" note from the SC reminding the user in question to play nicely.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:27:41 AM · #12 |
With such blatant disregard for the spirit and rules of the challenge, I think a DQ should certainly be handed down. Of course it won't and the Photographer in question won't care this thread is even started. Such a shame someone knowingly sticks their tongue out at the site members.
Matt |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:28:08 AM · #13 |
| Not really surprised this happened, goes back to images where the exposure time was spelled out but not followed. In a specific challenge like this unless they make a DQ rule specific to not following the rules (which would be extremely hard to enforce)it will happen every time on this type challenge. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:30:25 AM · #14 |
I just don't get why someone would do this ... What did they get out of it? It's not like they got a great score that counts for anything - the voters were deceived, and so their great finish is empty of meaning.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 11:52:20. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:34:03 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Not really surprised this happened, goes back to images where the exposure time was spelled out but not followed. In a specific challenge like this unless they make a DQ rule specific to not following the rules (which would be extremely hard to enforce)it will happen every time on this type challenge. |
The other thing about making it DQ'able from the start is that these sorts of users/participants would just go that extra distance to make sure they didn't say anything, and hide it better.
There's just no way to not have cheaters, unfortunately, but I do think that the hammer should be dropped hard when the occasional person does go out of their way to admit to it. (Which will then cause people to hide it better subsequently, but whatever). Catch 22.
Stupid people. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:36:55 AM · #16 |
Oh this is good. Look at this comment left in the STEP up and leave your scores here (all 47!!).
Originally posted by photographer_1:
It is frustrating when people make assumptions about your photo and give it a 1 |
Time stamp on the comment shows that it was left within minutes after the following comment was left on the challenge entry during the voting period:
Originally posted by commenter_1:
you cannot make me believe this is 47 steps away from your house |
I'm disappointed.
edit - removed actual names in quotes...you can seek it out if desired.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 11:38:21. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:40:06 AM · #17 |
| I'd be curious to see what the 5 other people who were there with him shooting the same thing that day voted, knowing that it was one of the 6 people there, and in addition, knowing that it was not 47 steps from his home. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:49:52 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I'd be curious to see what the 5 other people who were there with him shooting the same thing that day voted, knowing that it was one of the 6 people there, and in addition, knowing that it was not 47 steps from his home. |
Before accusations start flying -- they didn't vote on it.
I, personally, don't care too much for it either (the not even trying to be 47 steps from home) -- I feel it was blatant disregard for the spirit of the rules, BUT some of the language in this thread is very, very strong. I do not think Nuzzer is a CHEATER, as he didn't break any rules.
We do not dq for not meeting the challenge -- which is, in effect, what this is. The rub is that the voters did not know it didn't meet the challenge, and the voters don't like to be fooled, generally. That is probably a lesson Nuzzer may or may not learn, or even care about. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:53:28 AM · #19 |
| Oh word, ok, saw one commented, but forgot you can comment without voting. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:55:04 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I'd be curious to see what the 5 other people who were there with him shooting the same thing that day voted, knowing that it was one of the 6 people there, and in addition, knowing that it was not 47 steps from his home. |
Before accusations start flying -- they didn't vote on it.
I, personally, don't care too much for it either (the not even trying to be 47 steps from home) -- I feel it was blatant disregard for the spirit of the rules, BUT some of the language in this thread is very, very strong. I do not think Nuzzer is a CHEATER, as he didn't break any rules.
We do not dq for not meeting the challenge -- which is, in effect, what this is. The rub is that the voters did not know it didn't meet the challenge, and the voters don't like to be fooled, generally. That is probably a lesson Nuzzer may or may not learn, or even care about. |
The term 'cheater' doesn't necessarily hold to that one specific meaning. In this instance, he's a cheater not because he broke any rules on a strictly technical level (although philosophically he kind of did. The challenge in this case had a very specific outline, and going against that, in my book, IS breaking a 'rule'), but because he cheated both himself, and the rest of the participants of this challenge that worked hard to stay within the spirit of the challenge.
I neither participated in this challenge, nor voted on it, so I certainly wasn't fooled at the time, nor have any particular emotion invested in such. It simply comes down to respect. This person obviously has none, and, in my book IS a cheater. So I'll use that term in situations like this every time.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 11:55:36. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:57:22 AM · #21 |
| I think there would be a much louder outcry if it had been in the top 3, but yeah, I've always taken the challenge description to essentially be the content rules for the challenge (with additional editing rules) |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:57:50 AM · #22 |
| Obviously not 47 steps from any but a troll's house. I had much more fun with my picture, a genuine brown contender, than a troll could possibly have. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 12:01:24 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It simply comes down to respect. This person obviously has none, and, in my book IS a cheater. So I'll use that term in situations like this every time. |
you go Guy! (mmmmmm... Chinese food... drool) . Anyway... I agree. He cheated. Plain and simple! But Karmat is right in that it is not a DQ but rather a DNMC that voters had no way of knowing beforehand. But hey - if you play you got to pay. That someone is 'bluffing' is always a risk in contests. For me this is no big deal at all and I'll likely have forgotten all about it by the time I've eaten my dinner (which is in 5 minutes incidentally).
Life goes on... :) |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 12:02:40 PM · #24 |
I took 35 steps from my front door, which led to a paved road with not much interesting in either direction. So I turned and took 6 largeish steps onto a chunk of my lawn, then angled off again and after another 6, found a decent shot. :-)
I love the way Magnumphotography did his, lighting up cutouts of his feet and showing almost all 47 steps (Ok well most of them the first 6 or so are washed out by the main door light.) And as I usually park pretty much where he shot from, rest assured it's from his front door! |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 12:04:56 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It simply comes down to respect. This person obviously has none, and, in my book IS a cheater. So I'll use that term in situations like this every time. |
you go Guy! (mmmmmm... Chinese food... drool) . Anyway... I agree. He cheated. Plain and simple! But Karmat is right in that it is not a DQ but rather a DNMC that voters had no way of knowing beforehand. But hey - if you play you got to pay. That someone is 'bluffing' is always a risk in contests. For me this is no big deal at all and I'll likely have forgotten all about it by the time I've eaten my dinner (which is in 5 minutes incidentally).
Life goes on... :) |
The bolded part: I already said as much, so I agree. This will always happen and there's no real way of stopping it. It's just sad, and while I won't be as likely to forget about it as fast as you, I will forget about it. I just feel a strong need to make sure that my outrage is well documented :D |
|
