| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2009 11:25:40 AM · #151 |
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
a shot that knowingly is a deception. |
in some ways, most photography is a deception.
i took a picture saturday of a kid playing basketball. he looked like a superstar because of that one frozen moment. in reality, he can barely walk and dribble at the same time. the picture is a deception.
i've seen the originals of almost all the top 5 in challenges for the past years. find another argument than "deception" because there are many, many, many winning shots that would not have scored out of the 4 except for some very creative and manipulative post processing. in that sense, they are deceptive.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:32:47 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
a shot that knowingly is a deception. |
in some ways, most photography is a deception.
i took a picture saturday of a kid playing basketball. he looked like a superstar because of that one frozen moment. in reality, he can barely walk and dribble at the same time. the picture is a deception.
i've seen the originals of almost all the top 5 in challenges for the past years. find another argument than "deception" because there are many, many, many winning shots that would not have scored out of the 4 except for some very creative and manipulative post processing. in that sense, they are deceptive. |
ok, let me elaborate on "deception" in the context of my statement instead of just isolating that one portion.
...entering your shot in a challenge that has a specific theme when you know you did not follow the theme in any way whatsoever.
that, is knowingly entering something with the intention to decieve...hence. a shot that is knowingly a deception |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:37:15 AM · #153 |
The only downside I see is the one I said earlier: its definitely a disservice to the site, as it may dissuade someone from entering knowing that "cheating" is an accepted and, at times, an encouraged practice. But thats a "maybe" so who knows.
Oh well. You know what will come from this thread/uprising? Not a thing. So no reason for people to still get huffy and puffy over it. Dude claims he had a reason for doing what he did. A good reason? Not really, but its his reason. So no point in arguing it, because nothings changing.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:40:26 AM · #154 |
amazed how long this thread has carried on. must have exposed some deep seated feelings in a lot of folks.
i'd like to think the powers that be would accept it in that context, not defend nor accuse but rather use it as enlightenment.
when you boil it down to the core, this is a "challenge" site...and not meeting the challenge defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it? then maybe change the site to "dp.com" (although that site may be taken...he says with tongue firmly in cheek, perhaps digitalphotography.com?) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:44:10 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
You know what really scares me at this point is the large amount of people that seem to think Nuzzer's actions were ok and are mad at people for accusing him of essentially cheating. It really makes me question the integrity of the site in general. Are perhaps many more people bending other rules each challenge(editing, time period, etc.) than we think?
|
That's got me worried too. |
same here, where's the integrity if you can't even trust that others are trying to shoot in the same parameters as you are. it's one thing to submit something that is your interpretation of a theme, but to enter something that you know will decieve voters in hopes to ribbon is really in poor taste.
and it surprises me that some actually support the idea of entering a challenge with a shot that knowingly is a deception. |
ditto ditto ditto! |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:50:26 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Can't remember calling names btw, and never sent angry PM's. Which is totally uneccesary for a digital ribbon contest. |
You never did, I was referring to some other people =)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:56:41 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
a shot that knowingly is a deception. |
in some ways, most photography is a deception.
i took a picture saturday of a kid playing basketball. he looked like a superstar because of that one frozen moment. in reality, he can barely walk and dribble at the same time. the picture is a deception.
i've seen the originals of almost all the top 5 in challenges for the past years. find another argument than "deception" because there are many, many, many winning shots that would not have scored out of the 4 except for some very creative and manipulative post processing. in that sense, they are deceptive. |
i agree that photography is a subjective artform. we creatively crop, color, add/remove noise and otherwise edit our images with in camera and pp techniques all the time. we ensure that our images offer the viewer only what we intend to show them.
however, in this case, nuzzer not only set out to "lie" to us in the usual sense of showing us only what he wanted to show us, he "lied" in a much more traditional sense. it's the same as if he took a picture of a much better looking man and passed it off as a self portrait. it was kind of dirty.
i'm not angry he submitted that image. (in fact, i'm not angry about the situation anymore at all.) what irked me at the time was that he "got one over on me" and i didn't like being made a fool of.
my own image could very well come under fire as there is absolutely no proof that i didn't just sit down wherever and shoot a picture of my feet. that's not the case, because i wanted to work with the limitations of the challenge. i wanted to work for it, even though the best thing that came out of my attempt was a shot of my shoes. :)
if nuzzer didn't want to take the challenge seriously, then fine. i did but then, if you read my comments, i also didn't expect to ribbon, or even get a very high vote. i can stand by my image, as i'm sure many others can, and say that i entered one that fit the guidelines of a challenge and i retain my own self respect. as he voiced his own opinion on the situation earlier in the thread, i imagine that nuzzer's self respect is just fine as well.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:16:43 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
...entering your shot in a challenge that has a specific theme when you know you did not follow the theme in any way whatsoever.
that, is knowingly entering something with the intention to decieve...hence. a shot that is knowingly a deception |
Subject to interpretation, of course. Ivo apparently had a problem with me entering a zoo shot in Wildlife. To some people, zoo animals aren't wildlife, while for others they certainly are. If you look back at Wildlife I (the exact same challenge description), the blue and red ribbons were both zoo animals, and it wasn't a problem.
We're photographers, and we of all people should know that image is everything. Ideally, any technical challenges should be enforceable via EXIF data. If that's not possible, then we must understand that an image that appears to meet the challenge will be voted as such. Fooling the viewer is not new on DPC or in the field of photography, and not necessarily cheating. What IS new is the outrage, and not necessarily unwarranted. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:23:55 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What IS new is the outrage, and not necessarily unwarranted. |
Not even that new: at least as much outrage was generated by ElSapo's 1/2 second ribbon shot in the 2-second challenge. And the outrage will keep cropping up as long as people keep doing this. Y'all may be right that there's nothing we can *do* about it, but the outrage is understandable, even justified IMO, and venting it may dissuade others from perpetrating stuff like this in the future.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:25:28 PM · #160 |
| A sort of behaviour modification by way of torches and pitchforks? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:28:58 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Y'all may be right that there's nothing we can *do* about it, but the outrage is understandable, even justified IMO, and venting it may dissuade others from perpetrating stuff like this in the future. |
I suspect there's at least an equal chance that it will simply dissuade people from leaving photographer's comments. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:30:36 PM · #162 |
| I think the "outrage" (minus the name calling) is a form of communal self policing. Personally i'd expect to catch a load of crap if I did the same thing as nuzzer, especially if I thumbed my nose at the voters in the details section of the photo. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:33:25 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think the "outrage" (minus the name calling) is a form of communal self policing. Personally i'd expect to catch a load of crap if I did the same thing as nuzzer, especially if I thumbed my nose at the voters in the details section of the photo. |
Whats surprising is, that at least not in a transparent fashion, that the amount of "self policing" has not spurred the "site police" to take any sort of action. But then again, it looks like they have mixed feelings within SC anyway.
I mean I realize there is nothing you can do outside of making DNMC a DQ'able offense, but man what a shitstorm that would cause, on top of the amount of work it would cause SC answering 5000000 DNMC validations per challenge. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:35:43 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
.... especially if I thumbed my nose at the voters in the details section of the photo. |
Read Gerry's reply again.
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
My comments in the image were not intended to rub peopleĆ¢s noses in anything, simply a tounge-in-cheek acknowledgement that following the challenge description to the letter is not a requirement. I apologise if the tone of the comment caused offence. |
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:37:56 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What IS new is the outrage, and not necessarily unwarranted. |
I think the outrage is not in the slightest bit new, but am glad to hear you think it is warranted. The question now is do we do nothing and just add 47 Steps to the "DNMC Lore" or do we change the rules to make this illegal as I stated earlier. I'd rather have an imperfect and hard to enforce rule than allow someone to thumb their noses at the challenge description, totally decieve us, and claim that it was perfectly legal.
************
Actually have the Challenge Descriptions be part of the rules
- Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:46:17 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Louis:
A sort of behaviour modification by way of torches and pitchforks? |
Ok Louis, you've given us your opinion but never did you give us your reasons for it. How would you have handled this? How would you have handled your red ribbon finish in Male Portrait to my blue ribbon portrait of my beautiful darling of a daughter with her great smile? You wouldn't have started a thread about it? I would have included a comment that I didn't know any males so I used my daughter instead. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:46:36 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by rinac:
Originally posted by mpeters:
.... especially if I thumbed my nose at the voters in the details section of the photo. |
Read Gerry's reply again.
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
My comments in the image were not intended to rub peopleĆ¢s noses in anything, simply a tounge-in-cheek acknowledgement that following the challenge description to the letter is not a requirement. I apologise if the tone of the comment caused offence. |
|
Fair enough--his later post makes his intentions clear. I'll take him at his word. But, surely you can understand why the original comments on his picture were interpreted as they were???? Personally, I'm not offended by Gerry's entry but I also don't see why he should get a free pass if people feel they were duped, especially if they entered the challenge within the spirit of the rules.
For the record--i don't think any sort of DNMC/DQ rules should be changed. I really don't mind a zoo(wildlife) shot or a girl on flying blanket. ;) It would be a nightmare for the SC to enforce and I suspect they resign rather quickly. What AJ said.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 12:48:52. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:51:28 PM · #168 |
A lot of people have suggested making the description part of the official rules. What's that gonna solve? It'll stop people from shoving it in your face the way Nuzzer did, but it won't stop people actually cheating... we just won't know about it. And taking a shot of your house from where you're standing? I could take a shot of any house and say it's mine. Another problem with that is the mailroom photo - how could you prove it wasn't someone else's building? No way to take a shot of ANYONE's house from that location. What do you expect, an .mpeg file tracing the steps?
And to add my 2c regarding the original topic...
1) Nuzzer didn't follow the description (cheating)
2) The title implies that it is somewhere close to home (persuasion)
3) Nuzzer posted in the scores thread something like "I hate when people assume you can't possibly live there," a comment that I think was written to persuade voters to not consider the possibility that an image DNMC (persuasion)
4) The Photographer's Comments section states he didn't take it (rubbing it in your face)
I think any of those is pretty bad... but when you add all 4, you get this thread. So the existence of this thread is (1) more than warranted, (2) very appropriate, and (3) absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:53:11 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
I'd rather have an imperfect and hard to enforce rule than allow someone to thumb their noses at the challenge description, totally decieve us, and claim that it was perfectly legal.
- Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ. |
I actually took this photo in color. Bwahahahaha! Suckers!
(j/k) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:53:45 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
But, surely you can understand why the original comments on his picture were interpreted as they were???? |
Actually, no, I can't. But then I have the benefit of knowing Gerry, and being able to *hear* the tone of his notes. Still, I'm confused as to why folk seem determined to interpret the worst. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:55:37 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
...I'd rather have an imperfect and hard to enforce rule than allow someone to thumb their noses at the challenge description, totally decieve us, and claim that it was perfectly legal. |
I'm not sure about that -- I'd rather have the photographer tell us "how he did it" (even if it stretches the rules and/or violates the spirit of the challenge), than have increased policing of entries. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:19:09 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by rinac:
Originally posted by mpeters:
But, surely you can understand why the original comments on his picture were interpreted as they were???? |
Actually, no, I can't. But then I have the benefit of knowing Gerry, and being able to *hear* the tone of his notes. Still, I'm confused as to why folk seem determined to interpret the worst. |
You do have that advantage. Most of the rest of us don't and can only interpret what he wrote within our frame of reference. It sounded like he was thumbing his nose, IMO. I think the best word for it is unsporting. Leave all the name calling, etc. out of it. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:20:57 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
I'd rather have an imperfect and hard to enforce rule than allow someone to thumb their noses at the challenge description, totally decieve us, and claim that it was perfectly legal.
- Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ. |
I actually took this photo in color. Bwahahahaha! Suckers!
(j/k) |
had you placed the tiger on a flying carpet, you would have finished top 10. :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:30:01 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
a shot that knowingly is a deception. |
in some ways, most photography is a deception.
i took a picture saturday of a kid playing basketball. he looked like a superstar because of that one frozen moment. in reality, he can barely walk and dribble at the same time. the picture is a deception.
i've seen the originals of almost all the top 5 in challenges for the past years. find another argument than "deception" because there are many, many, many winning shots that would not have scored out of the 4 except for some very creative and manipulative post processing. in that sense, they are deceptive. |
Yup I lose sleep, well not really but I do worry about the post processing
 for a start made him look like he was in despair, but in reality .... well he was just sweaty. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:42:16 PM · #175 |
This is all fun and edifying, in the spirit of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (which was a serious topic of theological debate at one time, believe it or not), but it misses the point:
It is very seldom that we have a challenge with such explicit instructions, and it's not too much to ask, IMO, that when we DO have such challenges that folks should be, at the very least, strongly encouraged to actually follow the damned instructions. Admittedly, in this particular case the instructions were utterly unenforcable, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, Nuzzer was playing a game with us, and it pissed some of us off.
Does that make us bad guys, because HE played us for suckers? Regardless of his after-the-fact rationalization of it... Now, he apologized, and some of us, at least, have accepted the apology, but it doesn't invalidate our feelings at having been duped.
R. |
|
