| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2013 12:26:07 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ubique:
Coincidentally (though not ironically) I am happen to be re-reading Nineteen Eighty-Four just now. Winston Smith would immediately recognise the DPC precinct of the Thought Police.
"Pull over  posthumous, looks like you've had a little too much to think!"
Just be glad, Don, that you're in New Jersey and not in New Mexico. Though there are similarities: no probable cause, no legal basis for actions ... anal probing can't be too far away now. Better adopt an 'unclenched' look in your future posts, just to be on the safe side. |
Clearly this is ad hominem. Paul is getting deep into my negative space. |
Well I hope for his sake he wrapped it up first, and for you that he used lube....
|
|
|
|
11/12/2013 12:28:33 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by tnun:
what?? we can't post a hominem? |
That's because in the dative case, as a direct object, he'd be a homini: hominem is accusative case. And when we are using him as the subject, he's a homo... Just sayin'...
Message edited by author 2013-11-12 00:29:39. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 01:16:47 AM · #28 |
Does that now also mean that identifiable faces of members or members children, members pets are also going to be DQ'd and written into the rules as being disallowed? Whether we vote for or against such entries or whether we think we can police ourselves to vote fairly on the photographic merit on such entries is immaterial. I've tried but TBH I have never voted exceptionally high (beyond 7's if memory serves) as I feel this would be unfair. Simply by recognising the ownership of the entry creates either an advantage or a disadvantage and has exactly the same effect as discussing the challenge and hinting or implying which entry is ones own. I've been here long enough to recognise many of our members, their spouses, their children and their pets by looks alone, (hell some by their editing style or repetitive choice of subject - what does one do about that?).
If you are going to ban inferred or subtle references to ones image then blatant identification by self portraits or repeat use of children should be an outright ban oops drat that will never happen, outright ban, too harsh a sentence, let's just wrist slap for a week. (Oh dear what about SP challenges? What does one do about that? Tough luck. No more SP challenges...)
Point being? "The more laws, the less justice." - Cicero.
Just sayin' :)
Message edited by author 2013-11-12 01:18:21. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 02:25:25 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
From my understanding there is now a new unwritten forum rule which prevents anyone talking about interpreting challenge descriptions.
I believe that this new unwritten rule has only come about recently and is implemented under the guise that talking about challenge description is a means of influencing the voting? |
We have had this discussion before. Talking about what the challenge means before the voting starts is always good. Doing so after seeing the submissions are closed doesn't help submissions, and can be seen as an attempt to sway votes towards or away from an interpretation of the challenge. In the past these discussions have become heated as people have attacked and defended their view of the challenge, and their images under voting.
So the rule makes sense to me. As was pointed out, those threads that exist before the challenge closes linger and people argue, but when they are started in reaction to submissions, it can get personal. I am sure that was not Don's intent. Frankly a bit more discussion of photography's basic concepts would be a very good thing, and negative space is a harder concept to grasp than a Droste effect, and a touch more important.
Message edited by author 2013-11-12 02:31:22. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 02:39:03 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Frankly a bit more discussion of photography's basic concepts would be a very good thing, and negative space is a harder concept to grasp than a Droste effect, and a touch more important. |
What?? Droste is infinitely (and recursively) more important than negative space. Negative space should be banned and filled with stuff within stuff within stuff. Discuss. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 03:42:33 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by insteps:
A forum describing what and how to shoot could be very harmful. Let your creativity and vision guide you. For me that's the fun of a challenge. You can find plenty of information on virtually any topic online. I don't want to be told how to vote either. |
Yessss... Of course! If world history teaches us anything, it's that nothing but trouble comes of talking with others and gauging their opinions and expectations.
Silliness - I think it's a fantastic idea to do this, no-one is telling anyone how to shoot, what to enter, or how to vote. They sometimes are kind enough to share what they will vote like however, and I think there's real value in that. (really, every discussion like this really only reveals the intentions of the commenter, how they intend to vote, their expectations, etc....) |
I'm glad you've come around to my side so quickly. Perhaps you could unreport my thread and get it unpoliced. |
FWIW, I didn't report it.
And you darn well know that I mean BEFORE the challenge goes into voting. :D
Message edited by author 2013-11-12 03:43:23. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 03:44:34 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ubique:
Coincidentally (though not ironically) I am happen to be re-reading Nineteen Eighty-Four just now. Winston Smith would immediately recognise the DPC precinct of the Thought Police.
"Pull over posthumous, looks like you've had a little too much to think!"
Just be glad, Don, that you're in New Jersey and not in New Mexico. Though there are similarities: no probable cause, no legal basis for actions ... anal probing can't be too far away now. Better adopt an 'unclenched' look in your future posts, just to be on the safe side. |
Clearly this is ad hominem. Paul is getting deep into my negative space. |
Is it possible to ad hominem a dead man? |
Yes but in some states it will get you 5 to 10 years. |
ROFL.. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 11:10:57 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Stagolee:
From my understanding there is now a new unwritten forum rule which prevents anyone talking about interpreting challenge descriptions.
I believe that this new unwritten rule has only come about recently and is implemented under the guise that talking about challenge description is a means of influencing the voting? |
We have had this discussion before. Talking about what the challenge means before the voting starts is always good. Doing so after seeing the submissions are closed doesn't help submissions, and can be seen as an attempt to sway votes towards or away from an interpretation of the challenge. In the past these discussions have become heated as people have attacked and defended their view of the challenge, and their images under voting.
So the rule makes sense to me. As was pointed out, those threads that exist before the challenge closes linger and people argue, but when they are started in reaction to submissions, it can get personal. I am sure that was not Don's intent. Frankly a bit more discussion of photography's basic concepts would be a very good thing, and negative space is a harder concept to grasp than a Droste effect, and a touch more important. |
Brennan, you're so damned reasonable. No, it was not my intent. The timing was not intentional, and I would have preferred to have done it earlier. I am amused, however, that people seem worried about educating voters. I think certain political parties have the same worries (I won't name any parties and then this post doesn't have to be censored, right?).
To sum up my deleted thread, "look up what a topic actually means before you vote on it." I hope that is acceptable. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 12:00:47 PM · #34 |
| Discussing interpretation of a challenge before, during, or after is not and should not be a DPC "crime" provided it does not directly target a specific image. While it could sway some voters (not everyone reads these threads anyway) to see things differently, what is the harm in that? The voter's perspective might change as they are educated on a technique, theme, or concept. They still have to accept the premise being taught to them. A shot they might have scored higher, could get a more fair score if the voter accepts the interpretation offered to them. Likewise a score that might have been low could get a boost from the dicussion. This is a good thing to be sure. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 01:13:37 PM · #35 |
| There was a thread on the low number of votes in the Lou Reed challenge where people expressed uncertainty on how to vote. Some advised folks to just go vote on the pictures they liked best, others linked to play lists of Reed songs to listen to while voting. In view of this discussion, what I saw as education may have been lobbying. And it worked. Muahhhaaa. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 01:16:18 PM · #36 |
One place I am still allowed to freely discuss my interpretation of a challenge is in the picture comments while I'm voting, which I am doing for negative space.
Cory, I challenge you to do the same. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 01:19:38 PM · #37 |
One thing I've long found interesting is how rarely there's a thread where we discuss these important topics after the voting has concluded, when we can actually go ahead and talk about the individual pictures and how/why they "worked" or didn't ... everybody's already arguing over the next challenge ...
Cory leaves plenty of comments describing how (my) photos (don't) meet the challenge description ... :-)
Message edited by author 2013-11-12 13:21:48. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 01:24:27 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One thing I've long found interesting is how rarely there's a thread where we discuss these important topics after the voting has concluded, when we can actually go ahead and talk about the individual pictures and how/why they "worked" or didn't ... |
Agreed. There should be more of that. Every now and then we'll see a thread on "why did my image score so low", but I don't think often enough. Just like an "Outtakes" thread after each challenge, perhaps there should be a "Please help explain my score" thread for those who wish to use it. Heck, I've even had photos score way higher than I expected and never have figured out why. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 09:47:17 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One thing I've long found interesting is how rarely there's a thread where we discuss these important topics after the voting has concluded, when we can actually go ahead and talk about the individual pictures and how/why they "worked" or didn't ... everybody's already arguing over the next challenge ... |
Before, during and after there is always an attempt to thwart discussion. After a challenge is over, one is accused of sour grapes and told how the people have spoken. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 09:50:43 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Before, during and after there is always an attempt to thwart discussion. After a challenge is over, one is accused of sour grapes and told how the people have spoken. |
That is unfortunately about the most relevant thing posted yet in this thread: It makes a lot of sense to just remove all restrictions on challenge discussion except the singling-out of specific images while voting is underway, and let the chips fall where they may. |
|
|
|
11/12/2013 11:32:31 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Before, during and after there is always an attempt to thwart discussion. After a challenge is over, one is accused of sour grapes and told how the people have spoken. |
That is unfortunately about the most relevant thing posted yet in this thread: It makes a lot of sense to just remove all restrictions on challenge discussion except the singling-out of specific images while voting is underway, and let the chips fall where they may. |
Then THIS is the second most relevant thing posted in this thread.
I've been away 6 months or so... was a new rule put in place prohibiting discussion of themes and interpretations during voting? |
|
|
|
11/13/2013 01:04:48 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What?? Droste is infinitely (and recursively) more important than negative space. Negative space should be banned and filled with stuff within stuff within stuff. Discuss. |
Is that anything like Double Stuff Oreos? I mean how else do they get double the stuff in the same space?
Message edited by author 2013-11-13 13:05:40. |
|
|
|
11/13/2013 03:07:10 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What?? Droste is infinitely (and recursively) more important than negative space. Negative space should be banned and filled with stuff within stuff within stuff. Discuss. |
Is that anything like Double Stuff Oreos? I mean how else do they get double the stuff in the same space? |
They don't -- laboratory analysis showed that there was definitely less than double the stuff in Double-Stuff Oreos ...
You can also put (eight times the) stuff "into" a hypercube, but it usually doesn't look/work the same if and when you're able to get it out again ... |
|
|
|
11/23/2013 11:29:15 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One thing I've long found interesting is how rarely there's a thread where we discuss these important topics after the voting has concluded, when we can actually go ahead and talk about the individual pictures and how/why they "worked" or didn't ... everybody's already arguing over the next challenge ...
|
... and we now have the rare exception. How's it working out? |
|
|
|
11/23/2013 11:32:06 AM · #45 |
I kind of hoped that we'd be talking about interpreting important things -- like techniques or terms (negative space, golden rule, contre-jour), not what is considered foliage. :)
Message edited by author 2013-11-23 11:33:25. |
|
|
|
11/23/2013 11:49:43 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One thing I've long found interesting is how rarely there's a thread where we discuss these important topics after the voting has concluded, when we can actually go ahead and talk about the individual pictures and how/why they "worked" or didn't ... everybody's already arguing over the next challenge ...
|
... and we now have the rare exception. How's it working out? |
Seems like it was going pretty well for a while, until people started to get personal and talk about each other instead of the picture(s).
ETA: My interpretation of Don's comment was less a criticism of the photo for being out of the box, but rather "befuddlement" that the voters would be willing to laud such a photo rather than dropping the usual DNMC bombs ...
Congratulations -- it's a beautiful image.
Message edited by author 2013-11-23 11:54:15. |
|
|
|
11/23/2013 01:04:17 PM · #47 |
Well, what we ended up with is one member expressing amazement that a particular image didn't get ANY low votes, after the challenge was over. And we have the maker of that image going to excessive lengths to defend it when it doesn't even NEED defending (check out the score if you don't believe me).
Which more or less answers the question of why we don't get more of these sorts of threads after the challenges :-( It COULD have been an interesting discussion, but it never had a chance.
Message edited by author 2013-11-23 13:14:04. |
|
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: 07/29/2025 07:52:53 AM EDT.
