| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2004 01:55:18 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My real issue is that I don't support what is going on and I don't support the site council's slow approach to attacking this issue. I think they actually support it as is. I know several who did and probalby still do. I don't expect them to change it and I'm not asking them to. |
I hear you, and I agree. But asking them to remove past contributions doesn't really solve anything. in fact, at best it does nothing, and at worst it contributes to the problem. I guess i ask the question, because you obviously were a big supporter of the site when it functioned in a way that you liked it...wouldn't it make more sense to try to restore that?
you know I still love you in any event :) |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 01:56:57 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by movieman:
What percent of the photos are you guys talking about. First place and second place in the last challenge. Any more? That makes all this fuss over 1% or even less of all the photos.
Come one, seriously. It's not even about winning. Most people are learning photography or doing it for fun. And if everyone is so against it, I don't understand why they keep winning.
Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. If you don't like what they photographer is doing, than give it a one. If it wins, then it wins. I honestly just don't see a big deal. |
Get a clue. First it was a top twenty shot. That slipped by. Then it was a third place finish. No one did anything about it. Then it was the first and second places. Hey it's still no big deal. When do we make a stand... |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 01:57:48 AM · #78 |
i can give my id away in the title if i want to. i think if we don't want to blow our cover we can manage to keep our id a secret in the detail field as well.
i could also easily come to the forums and give away my entry. i just choose not to. i don't think we really have to worry about id breaching if the detail field is viewable during the vote...
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 01:58:38 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by darcy:
let the detail field show during the voting!!
from what i've seen, everyone who used photoshop to enhance their photos beyond what the evangelical photographers deem to be acceptable have been openly descriptive about it in their detail field.
if the details of such photoshoping were clear during, and not just after, the voting, then people could vote accordingly and when such post-work starts affecting people's scores negatively, it will subside.
simple. |
People would just not state they used PS to digitally create elements.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 01:59:00 AM · #80 |
[quote=darcy] let the detail field show during the voting!!
Good idea, Darcy. Probably would require a lot of website rework, but members could make a more informed decision about the validity of an entry.
I am appalled that the two top scoring entries are both virtual fakes. Perhaps I am just naive, but I accepted both photos as genuine camera captures, and scored them on that basis.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 01:59:18 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Pedro:
If you find anything inaccurate about what I've said, I'll send you your $12.50. at $37.50 per year, it's still the best deal going. and I've learned a ton from the photoshop people too. whether i think it belongs in the challenges or not is irrelevant (I don't, by the way).
P |
I guess that we have more in common than I originally assumed. I am all for PS'ing an image to make it all it can be in most forums. For the challenges I've said as long as I've been here that it is NOT needed and that the basic editing rules (as their known now) were the great equalizer. All that said, I still feel kind of cheated by the way things have gone lately... |
Agreed. My only objection was your comment that this place was only worth the $25 pro-rated for the time you've been here. just being allowed in the door was worth that to me. Sorry if I came off as negative - i meant it more in my zeal for the site. I have some wonderful friends and skills that I'd never have found elsewhere.
P |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 01:59:32 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by movieman:
What percent of the photos are you guys talking about. First place and second place in the last challenge. Any more? That makes all this fuss over 1% or even less of all the photos.
Come one, seriously. It's not even about winning. Most people are learning photography or doing it for fun. And if everyone is so against it, I don't understand why they keep winning.
Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. If you don't like what they photographer is doing, than give it a one. If it wins, then it wins. I honestly just don't see a big deal. |
It's a ribbon in almost all last few member challenges, and it's mostly labuda that went mad in photoshop lately :) but if it doesn't stop soon, I'm sure the number will increase dramaticaly. But it's not just that, while some of us are here to learn there are some professionals here like John Stzler and others from who we learn, and I imagine how frustrating must be to them to always see didgital art beat them in all recent challenges. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:00:00 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
I hear you, and I agree. But asking them to remove past contributions doesn't really solve anything. in fact, at best it does nothing, and at worst it contributes to the problem. I guess i ask the question, because you obviously were a big supporter of the site when it functioned in a way that you liked it...wouldn't it make more sense to try to restore that?
you know I still love you in any event :) |
At some point in time, I would have said yes. I think restoring it would be the best thing to do. That was before I came to my own conclusion that the site council is not particularly interested in addressing this issue. The amount of public question to this issue warrants public responses in a faster manner from the site council. Just my opinion tho. Having been on the site council, I know how hard it is for them to get 12 people to even respond to issues.
I want my stuff pulled regardless. I know that this may not even be possible because of the terms of use. The site admins do not have to honor this request. If they have any respect for me at all, which they may not, they will honor it. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:04:02 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
At some point in time, I would have said yes. I think restoring it would be the best thing to do. That was before I came to my own conclusion that the site council is not particularly interested in addressing this issue. The amount of public question to this issue warrants public responses in a faster manner from the site council. Just my opinion tho. Having been on the site council, I know how hard it is for them to get 12 people to even respond to issues.
I want my stuff pulled regardless. I know that this may not even be possible because of the terms of use. The site admins do not have to honor this request. If they have any respect for me at all, which they may not, they will honor it. |
...and achieve what? it's not like you can't still use it on your own site if it remains here...
P
ps not like I'm worried about losing the content. if i need to know something you know I'll just ask you anyway ;) |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:04:11 AM · #85 |
]
People would just not state they used PS to digitally create elements. [/quote]
text
Severe penalties could be imposed for those caught cheating, like suspensions from competition.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:04:15 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Pedro:
I hear you, and I agree. But asking them to remove past contributions doesn't really solve anything. in fact, at best it does nothing, and at worst it contributes to the problem. I guess i ask the question, because you obviously were a big supporter of the site when it functioned in a way that you liked it...wouldn't it make more sense to try to restore that?
you know I still love you in any event :) |
At some point in time, I would have said yes. I think restoring it would be the best thing to do. That was before I came to my own conclusion that the site council is not particularly interested in addressing this issue. The amount of public question to this issue warrants public responses in a faster manner from the site council. Just my opinion tho. Having been on the site council, I know how hard it is for them to get 12 people to even respond to issues.
I want my stuff pulled regardless. I know that this may not even be possible because of the terms of use. The site admins do not have to honor this request. If they have any respect for me at all, which they may not, they will honor it. |
Man, sorry to know you feel that way, but I can't stop you and I respect your decision, I don't neccassarily entirely agree, but I still respect it any how.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:05:20 AM · #87 |
did somebody just say "get a clue"???
yeah, the writing is clearly on the wall. photography is dead: of its pity for man hath photography died.
i think some chilling out is seriously in order for some people. this isn't an epidemic. people are really jumping the gun here. give it some time, see where it goes.
continue to be vocal on your feelings about photography by all means, but try and keep the melodrama under control.
if "digital art" continues to top the charts over the next few challenges, then you'll have a case. but so far, there is no real evidence to support that this site has gone down the digital toilet.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:06:27 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by darcy:
did somebody just say "get a clue"???
yeah, the writing is clearly on the wall. photography is dead: of its pity for man hath photography died.
i think some chilling out is seriously in order for some people. this isn't an epidemic. people are really jumping the gun here. give it some time, see where it goes.
continue to be vocal on your feelings about photography by all means, but try and keep the melodrama under control.
if "digital art" continues to top the charts over the next few challenges, then you'll have a case. but so far, there is no real evidence to support that this site has gone down the digital toilet. |
Thank you.
That's pretty much all I was saying, and I was told to get a clue. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:07:49 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by darcy:
did somebody just say "get a clue"???
yeah, the writing is clearly on the wall. photography is dead: of its pity for man hath photography died.
i think some chilling out is seriously in order for some people. this isn't an epidemic. people are really jumping the gun here. give it some time, see where it goes.
continue to be vocal on your feelings about photography by all means, but try and keep the melodrama under control.
if "digital art" continues to top the charts over the next few challenges, then you'll have a case. but so far, there is no real evidence to support that this site has gone down the digital toilet. |
Well said, and with that, I am going to bed.
I am apoet and I didn't even know it! LOL! :D
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:08:26 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
...and achieve what? it's not like you can't still use it on your own site if it remains here...
P
ps not like I'm worried about losing the content. if i need to know something you know I'll just ask you anyway ;) |
I will achieve removing my name and association from the site as a 'tutor/mentor'.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:12:43 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Pedro:
...and achieve what? it's not like you can't still use it on your own site if it remains here...
P
ps not like I'm worried about losing the content. if i need to know something you know I'll just ask you anyway ;) |
I will achieve removing my name and association from the site as a 'tutor/mentor'. |
hey, everyone thinks your name is Jim anyway...who'd know the difference? :)
either way, Jim it's your bat and ball. if you wanna take 'em home, you're entitled. it just means we may have to let that goofy new kid from down the block play.
P |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:13:15 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by darcy:
did somebody just say "get a clue"???
yeah, the writing is clearly on the wall. photography is dead: of its pity for man hath photography died.
i think some chilling out is seriously in order for some people. this isn't an epidemic. people are really jumping the gun here. give it some time, see where it goes.
continue to be vocal on your feelings about photography by all means, but try and keep the melodrama under control.
if "digital art" continues to top the charts over the next few challenges, then you'll have a case. but so far, there is no real evidence to support that this site has gone down the digital toilet. |
There was a top 5 finish (I think) that had digitally created elements. The following week the third place winner partly involved digitally created elements. The following week more people digitally created elements in their photographs and received 1st and 2nd place. Following this trend/pattern it would be safe to assume that next week there will be even more people digitally creating elements in their images.
In the past if someone couldnt have gotten an effect they wanted then they either did without or tried an alternative. The current trend makes it so that you no longer have to worry about those problems. No hot babe to pose for your photographs? No problem, download one off the net! It also becomes an open challenge when you can shoot any photograph and just alter it to meet the challenge, like adding in painted light or a window frame etc.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:15:14 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by darcy:
did somebody just say "get a clue"???
yeah, the writing is clearly on the wall. photography is dead: of its pity for man hath photography died.
i think some chilling out is seriously in order for some people. this isn't an epidemic. people are really jumping the gun here. give it some time, see where it goes.
continue to be vocal on your feelings about photography by all means, but try and keep the melodrama under control.
if "digital art" continues to top the charts over the next few challenges, then you'll have a case. but so far, there is no real evidence to support that this site has gone down the digital toilet. |
What constitutes an epidemic in your minds then? Apparently the first and second place finishes don't? I stand by my statement... get a clue!
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 02:16:12. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:23:05 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
That was before I came to my own conclusion that the site council is not particularly interested in addressing this issue.
|
Maybe they are not addressing it because the majority of the members voted for more leeway with regard to editting. I am in the camp who thinks the basic editting rules hamstring us from producing good quality photo images. I think "no spot editting" is a joke and having to use selective desaturation is a silly way to accomplish what can be done easier with selections. Do I want to create digital art? Sometimes, but not on this site. But if someone else is creating a photo image that is mostly created with the camera, and is good enough to fool me into voting it highly, then more power to them. It was still created with a camera. If I can spot bad editting work, I'll vote it down, just like I'll vote down bad composition, lighting, focus, etc. But I'll reward good digital photography (pre and post processing) with my votes.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I want my stuff pulled regardless. I know that this may not even be possible because of the terms of use. The site admins do not have to honor this request. If they have any respect for me at all, which they may not, they will honor it. |
Why should they pull your tutorials? The articles are content that was contributed to the site. Should we pull your winning shots too, since they might get tainted by being in the company with those horrible Photoshop abominations? When you contribute to this site, with forum posts, images and tutorials, you are contributing to the community. You can't just say "I want to take my ball and go home" if something isn't to your liking. You can stay (which we all want you to) or you can go, but you wrote the articles for this site. If you are concerned about your intellectual property, then don't post articles here. If you want to take a stand, then, please do so, and I would suggest you are being successful by the amount of traffic in this thread.
I suspect there will be a new vote soon, given the recent hue and cry, and the members will voice their opinion. The Site Council and site admins will weigh in as appropriately and changes will be made as things evolve.
Dave
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:30:54 AM · #95 |
do i have to start throwing the word "lame" around again?
toocool, your name says it all.
moodville, its comments like the one you just made that give me grief, because its all based on some short-term trend and a fear that leads to assumption.
you don't have to make assumptions. next week will be here soon enough and we'll all see for ourselves then. so until then, lets just take solice in the fact that sky hasn't fallen yet and we don't all have to make a mad dash for the hills in order to insure our survival, like some people have decided to do.
and mood, your last paragraph almost defies recourse. no one is downloading hot babes off the internet or building window frames in 3D. yes, a knife was created in a paint program - but that kind of painstaking labor will never become the norm here because no amount of piwel-based ribbons could ever be worth the amount of work you'd have to put into creating such things from digital scratch every week - let alone stuff that looks good enough to win.
try and keep a handle on the paranoia, gang. producing such irrational suspicions can't be good for your health.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:31:37 AM · #96 |
I've been here within a month of the site's creation, and have seen many changes. This period will be a blurb on the history of the site when it's done.
There are a lot of people on this site that don't like the direction things are headed. Why would you alienate most of your members? You wouldn't, and that's why it's going to be resolved.
Hopefully advanced challenges can remain advanced and photographs at the same time. I'd hate to go back to no spot editing or burning/dodging. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:37:09 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by darcy:
and mood, your last paragraph almost defies recourse. no one is downloading hot babes off the internet or building window frames in 3D. |
uh...actually, yes they are. :) |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:37:20 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by darcy:
...no one is downloading hot babes off the internet or building window frames in 3D... |
Yes they are. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:38:05 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by darcy:
do i have to start throwing the word "lame" around again? |
No you don't, but it's apparently obvious that you can't help it. So, go ahead, call names and don't bother making a good argument. I'm used to it and I'm going to bed. Like several times before, I'll hope this is resolved before I get up again, and resigned to the fact that it won't be... |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 02:39:26 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by darcy:
and mood, your last paragraph almost defies recourse. no one is downloading hot babes off the internet or building window frames in 3D. |
uh...actually, yes they are. :) |
Damn, beaten by 13 seconds and a faster wit. |
|
