DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> 'Chalk' Challenge Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 112, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/26/2010 06:44:17 PM · #76
Change the rule or change the phrasing. Do we really want to have to wade through a library of precedents before we have the confidence to be creative?
Give Enzo his ribbon back. The failing is in the ambiguous rule, as proven by three pages of argument which can't bring about a clearly agreed upon interpretation.
 10/26/2010 06:47:29 PM · #77
Originally posted by jomari:
Change the rule or change the phrasing. Do we really want to have to wade through a library of precedents before we have the confidence to be creative?
Give Enzo his ribbon back. The failing is in the ambiguous rule, as proven by three pages of argument which can't bring about a clearly agreed upon interpretation.


Thank you Marion
 10/26/2010 06:58:28 PM · #78
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
People keep talking about the rule relating to desaturatation when actually the rule Enzo (and others including me) fell foul of was this one:

(You may not) use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).

Specifically, the new image area part.

I think the way it is interpreted now (with no flexibility) is easier and fairer than trying to make a pot-hoc judgement about the intention of the photographer.


and again then, why was this not DQ'd?

10/26/2010 07:02:03 PM · #79
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
People keep talking about the rule relating to desaturatation when actually the rule Enzo (and others including me) fell foul of was this one:

(You may not) use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).

Specifically, the new image area part.

I think the way it is interpreted now (with no flexibility) is easier and fairer than trying to make a pot-hoc judgement about the intention of the photographer.


and again then, why was this not DQ'd?



Because it was a different SC with their own (wrong, in my opinion) interpretation of the rules.
 10/26/2010 07:03:45 PM · #80
Originally posted by senor_kasper:

Because it was a different SC with their own (wrong, in my opinion) interpretation of the rules.


and there lies the debate.
 10/26/2010 07:13:26 PM · #81
...and there will always be a debate until they get rid of most of the rules and simplify what is left. There probably only needs to be two or three categories each with an additional rule or two. Let the voters decide if the entry meets the requirement and debate the issues, with no change in results, after the results are in.
 10/26/2010 07:22:48 PM · #82
Originally posted by David Ey:
...and there will always be a debate until they get rid of most of the rules and simplify what is left. There probably only needs to be two or three categories each with an additional rule or two. Let the voters decide if the entry meets the requirement and debate the issues, with no change in results, after the results are in.


Whether you call them 'challenges' or any other name, they are competitions, as such, you must have rules to avoid chaos. Rules are impossible to write with 100% accuracy or with complete lack of ambiguity, even for those that make a living writing rules such as the several hundred characters we have living in Washington at our expense. Therefore, you will always need judges to interpret them and rule. In our micro-cosmos, the SC is the Supreme Court.
 10/26/2010 07:28:55 PM · #83
Would make sense. The problem is in this case, there really wasn't anything to clarify....until the DQ took place.

If you look at it from the viewpoint of a new user, one who has never read the forums, they could follow the rules to the best of their knowledge and [unfairly] get DQed for this particular example.

Originally posted by vawendy:
If Langdon doesn't want to pull the info together, why not at least create a DQ spot in the forums. Challenge results, current challenge, challenge outtakes, DQ discussions. At least if a new user (or one who's been around for awhile) wants to look up discussions to help clarify things, there'd be one place to look. Yes, I realize that we can do searches, but the search capabilities are not that great, and it takes forever to weed out the chaff. This way there'd be one place to look for discussions like these.
10/26/2010 07:32:43 PM · #84
ESPECIALLY when a comment like this is made about the rule set:

"The rules may be the same, but the arbiters are not"

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If a new person comes across the paint roller shot from the 2007 Selective Desat challenge they would be completely screwed. How would they ever know that the interpretation of the rule, whos wording has not changed would be different? They would not know without scouring the forums for threads like this.

This is one of those examples where the ruleset is broken. Not because we can't understand what the ruling is after the fact, but that you need a lot of experience with the site to understand what the ruling would be before the fact.
10/26/2010 07:35:04 PM · #85
They don't need to simplify the rules. Just make them clearer through example:
See comment

Originally posted by David Ey:
...and there will always be a debate until they get rid of most of the rules and simplify what is left. There probably only needs to be two or three categories each with an additional rule or two. Let the voters decide if the entry meets the requirement and debate the issues, with no change in results, after the results are in.
10/26/2010 08:09:35 PM · #86
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by mike_311:
and again then, why was this not DQ'd?



Because it was a different SC with their own (wrong, in my opinion) interpretation of the rules.

No, it wasn't. Actually, we nearly all agreed that new shapes were created by the desaturated brush strokes AND that it was against the rules as written. We have been very consistent with this sort of DQ with the exception of a single challenge. Where we disagreed is that some SC felt we should be lenient because the topic was selective desaturation and therefore "invited" the technique (there were a couple of others in the same challenge that weren't DQ'd). To my knowledge, we have not given a "secret pass" on any rule before or since due to a challenge topic, although we have waived the DQ penalty on a couple where the challenge description itself seemed to conflict with a rule. There was also a little confusion from a few SC who thought we had validated a couple of entries before with this technique, however one of them was entered before we had any sort of major elements rule and the other one was a portfolio image.

When the situation came up again with the lip photo in 2009, several of those same SC expressed regret over the painter decision since it created a confusing inconsistency. We discussed adding a note to that image that it was an "act of kindness" for the challenge that should not be taken as precedent and that the image would not be DQ'd retroactively since the error was ours. We also discussed adding "so long as doing so does not add new shapes or text that did not exist in the original," to the saturation/desaturation rule (although the rules already state that you can't create new shapes). Unfortunately, we never did anything about it. Maybe the new ruckus will inspire action, but that's the backstory.

PS- differences in challenge rules through the years and unusual situations like this are the reason there isn't a public DQ gallery for comparison (it already exists for SC reference).

Message edited by author 2010-10-26 20:12:22.
 10/26/2010 08:24:40 PM · #87
Well, that helps make sense of it all. I guess the way to go forward is to continue to apply the rules consistently (which does seem to be going on post this shot). I just wish there was a way to mark this photo to warn people not to try it.
 10/26/2010 08:37:15 PM · #88
I really can't see where I added a new shape...I painted an exisiting one.
 10/26/2010 08:48:38 PM · #89
Originally posted by scalvert:

When the situation came up again with the lip photo in 2009, several of those same SC expressed regret over the painter decision since it created a confusing inconsistency. We discussed adding a note to that image that it was an "act of kindness" for the challenge that should not be taken as precedent and that the image would not be DQ'd retroactively since the error was ours.


Rather than a retroactive DQ to maintain consistency, why not just allow that type of edit? Especially considering that the painter photo was not DQ'd. Perhaps the DQ of the lip photo is what generated any inconsistency and confusion.

10/26/2010 09:32:17 PM · #90
What's funny is this type editing is so advanced I can do it on my iphone.
 10/26/2010 09:34:20 PM · #91
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by scalvert:

When the situation came up again with the lip photo in 2009, several of those same SC expressed regret over the painter decision since it created a confusing inconsistency. We discussed adding a note to that image that it was an "act of kindness" for the challenge that should not be taken as precedent and that the image would not be DQ'd retroactively since the error was ours.


Rather than a retroactive DQ to maintain consistency, why not just allow that type of edit? Especially considering that the painter photo was not DQ'd. Perhaps the DQ of the lip photo is what generated any inconsistency and confusion.


I would support a rule amendment that allows for selective desaturation in MASTER channel (all colors=b&w result) of ANY area of the photo (whether confined by natural outlines or not) but limits any other change of color ONLY to areas that are naturally outlined as objects or parts of an object. This would validate the paint roller decision and should retroactively return a ribbon to the lip, the pencil on a picture, Enzo's and any other one that falls within those rules. It would also disallow things such as making a rainbow where there is none, etc.
 10/26/2010 09:54:19 PM · #92
Originally posted by VitaminB:
...considering that the painter photo was not DQ'd. Perhaps the DQ of the lip photo is what generated any inconsistency and confusion.

The painter photo (and a couple of others in that challenge) was an exception to an otherwise fairly consistent rule.
 10/26/2010 10:50:34 PM · #93
Originally posted by PapaBob:
What's funny is this type editing is so advanced I can do it on my iphone.


Yeah it doesn't make much sense. Advance editing allows you to apply painterly filters and other tools that warp the shapes and boundaries of objects, but if you paint outside of the lines of one and it can be seen with an electron microscope, you're DQed. Had hotpasta created a plugin for this rather than do it himself manually he probably would have been validated.

Message edited by author 2010-10-26 22:51:43.
 10/26/2010 11:04:41 PM · #94
Originally posted by yanko:
Had hotpasta created a plugin for this rather than do it himself manually he probably would have been validated.


Ouch. Very much true for many images under the basic rule set.
 10/27/2010 01:56:51 AM · #95
crrazy man, should not have been dq'd.
10/27/2010 07:01:04 AM · #96
every single time a well known member gets a DQ, there's an uproar about whatever rule was broken

every ... single ... time

So let's go ahead and rewrite the rules every week ... and in the year 2050, they'll be perfect and the SC can be reduced to one person.

(no offense intended to Enzo whatsoever, but the second I saw the image pop up on the screen I said out loud, "that's not legal")



... bracing for the blast of disagreement ...
 10/27/2010 07:34:41 AM · #97
Perhaps, but read through this posting carefully.

I have been one of the more vocal ones here and I actually had to look back to see who the photo was by.

The majority of the replies here have not been that the rule was unfair or it should be rewritten, but there needs to be a clarification of the expectation of the rule.

There is a fundamental problem with the challenges when a rule like this requires prior knowledge to understand it, outside of the "You May" and "You May Nots".

How would that rule be interpreted by a new member to the site and what impression would a DQ leave on a new member?

Honestly, its good to have uproar when a rule is not clear, its the only way to make the site better. Now, its up to the SC to make it better now that the members have expressed their viewpoint.

ETA: If a well known member gets a DQ then people tend to look closely at it, because someone with experience here should know what is legal and what is not. So, when they do get a DQ, there must be something really wrong or problematic by the SC decision.

Originally posted by hopper:
every single time a well known member gets a DQ, there's an uproar about whatever rule was broken

every ... single ... time

So let's go ahead and rewrite the rules every week ... and in the year 2050, they'll be perfect and the SC can be reduced to one person.

(no offense intended to Enzo whatsoever, but the second I saw the image pop up on the screen I said out loud, "that's not legal")



... bracing for the blast of disagreement ...


Message edited by author 2010-10-27 07:36:39.
 10/27/2010 01:11:08 PM · #98
Originally posted by PGerst:
ETA: If a well known member gets a DQ then people tend to look closely at it, because someone with experience here should know what is legal and what is not. So, when they do get a DQ, there must be something really wrong or problematic by the SC decision.


That's absolutely correct. The uproar is not happening because people want Enzo to have special treatment; it's happening because when a rule is so ambiguous that someone as experienced as he is is not aware he's broken it, then perhaps it needs to be reworded for clarity.

I'm one who thinks he definitely DID break the rule, and I also think the rule, conceptually, is fine as it is, but I do agree it ought to be rewritten to make it clearer.

R.
 10/27/2010 01:17:27 PM · #99
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PGerst:
ETA: If a well known member gets a DQ then people tend to look closely at it, because someone with experience here should know what is legal and what is not. So, when they do get a DQ, there must be something really wrong or problematic by the SC decision.


That's absolutely correct. The uproar is not happening because people want Enzo to have special treatment; it's happening because when a rule is so ambiguous that someone as experienced as he is is not aware he's broken it, then perhaps it needs to be reworded for clarity.

I'm one who thinks he definitely DID break the rule, and I also think the rule, conceptually, is fine as it is, but I do agree it ought to be rewritten to make it clearer.

R.


ditto
 10/27/2010 02:21:55 PM · #100
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PGerst:
ETA: If a well known member gets a DQ then people tend to look closely at it, because someone with experience here should know what is legal and what is not. So, when they do get a DQ, there must be something really wrong or problematic by the SC decision.


That's absolutely correct. The uproar is not happening because people want Enzo to have special treatment; it's happening because when a rule is so ambiguous that someone as experienced as he is is not aware he's broken it, then perhaps it needs to be reworded for clarity.

I'm one who thinks he definitely DID break the rule, and I also think the rule, conceptually, is fine as it is, but I do agree it ought to be rewritten to make it clearer.

R.


ditto


Ditto squared - well spoken umm typed, o wise one.

Message edited by author 2010-10-27 14:23:13.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:30:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/03/2025 04:30:49 PM EDT.