| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2014 03:39:20 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Radical idea: Vote very harshly on 'fantasy' images. |
Meanwhile in France, a photographer just broke out in a cold sweat. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:18:04 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Radical idea:
Vote very harshly on 'fantasy' images. |
So you'd propose what, exactly? Should someone from SC compose a message and post it on a sticky thread something like this:
"Attention, all DPC voters: site administration (egged on by a small subset of DPC voters) has come to the conclusion that "extreme-fantasy expert images" like the ones produced by  Gyaban and  Samantha_T are not within the spirit of the ruleset and you are hereby instructed not to hand out high scores to these images no matter how impressed by them you are. It is our sincere hope that, working together, we can make these images go away at last, hopefully never to return."
You do realize how ridiculous this sounds, right? Of course you do. If we, collectively, were to decide this is something that needs correcting, we'd do it by changing the RULE, not by trying to influence the way people vote. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:34:55 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Radical idea:
Vote very harshly on 'fantasy' images. |
So you'd propose what, exactly? Should someone from SC compose a message and post it on a sticky thread something like this:
"Attention, all DPC voters: site administration (egged on by a small subset of DPC voters) has come to the conclusion that "extreme-fantasy expert images" like the ones produced by Gyaban and Samantha_T are not within the spirit of the ruleset and you are hereby instructed not to hand out high scores to these images no matter how impressed by them you are. It is our sincere hope that, working together, we can make these images go away at last, hopefully never to return."
You do realize how ridiculous this sounds, right? Of course you do. If we, collectively, were to decide this is something that needs correcting, we'd do it by changing the RULE, not by trying to influence the way people vote. |
Ya know brother Bear, it may not be popular, but all I'm suggesting is that people actually follow the damned rules.
It's specifically stated there, and as such, I'm proposing nothing more than that people actually don't feel guilty for doing what is suggested in the rules.
Surely you have no problem with that? I don't think any rule change is needed at all, and that's my entire point here. Voter education might be useful however - but as that would fall to the SC, I suppose I'll leave the implementation details up to you guys. ;)
ETA: Re-reading your comment Robert, it would seem that you interpret this rule quite differently than I do. How do you interpret the following rule?:
"You should:
keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly."
To my brain, that says "Voters should vote low on images which fall into a 'fantasy' type category"... Also note that I never mentioned any names. Both of those individuals have proven very adept at pleasing the voters, and I'm sure they would have no problems winning even if the voters did actually start following the suggestions made within the ruleset.(as interpreted by me... I'll be waiting to hear your interpretation)
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 16:43:26. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:35:51 PM · #29 |
| I just don't think the rule needs to be changed. I think we can go on having the regular expert editing challenges with fantasy and non fantasy type photos intermixed. But every once and awhile flag one as a non fantasy expert editing challenge. I love both types of images and see a place for both, but I can see how mike would want something kind of in between where you could swap out a head or clone out something larger, without having to go up against the fantasy like images. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:39:24 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
I just don't think the rule needs to be changed. I think we can go on having the regular expert editing challenges with fantasy and non fantasy type photos intermixed. But every once and awhile flag one as a non fantasy expert editing challenge. I love both types of images and see a place for both, but I can see how mike would want something kind of in between where you could swap out a head or clone out something larger, without having to go up against the fantasy like images. |
You are actually proposing a ruleset change (because 'fantasy' images are, in fact, already strongly discouraged in the current Expert Editing ruleset)..
This is exactly the problem I have right now - people are not well informed when it comes to this matter. In the end, I expect no changes, but I do find the matter disturbing. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:42:18 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Radical idea:
Vote very harshly on 'fantasy' images. |
So you'd propose what, exactly? Should someone from SC compose a message and post it on a sticky thread something like this:
"Attention, all DPC voters: site administration (egged on by a small subset of DPC voters) has come to the conclusion that "extreme-fantasy expert images" like the ones produced by Gyaban and Samantha_T are not within the spirit of the ruleset and you are hereby instructed not to hand out high scores to these images no matter how impressed by them you are. It is our sincere hope that, working together, we can make these images go away at last, hopefully never to return."
You do realize how ridiculous this sounds, right? Of course you do. If we, collectively, were to decide this is something that needs correcting, we'd do it by changing the RULE, not by trying to influence the way people vote. |
Ya know brother Bear, it may not be popular, but all I'm suggesting is that people actually follow the damned rules.
It's specifically stated there, and as such, I'm proposing nothing more than that people actually don't feel guilty for doing what is suggested in the rules.
Surely you have no problem with that? I don't think any rule change is needed at all, and that's my entire point here. Voter education might be useful however - but as that would fall to the SC, I suppose I'll leave the implementation details up to you guys. ;) |
I assume you're referring to this:
Originally posted by expert rules:
Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly. |
As demonstrated earlier, images by these artists ARE "photographic in nature" by at least one very rational definition: they are almost always composed entirely of superimposed and manipulated photographic images. And it's not just those images that are edgy, anyway, in the "in nature" sweepstakes: what about those of us who have entered heavily-manipulated, flip-n-blend images that have absolutely ZERO reality-contact beyond the fact that they started as individual images? It's a big, big wormhill we're dealing with here :-) |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:48:04 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I assume you're referring to this:
Originally posted by expert rules:
Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly. |
As demonstrated earlier, images by these artists ARE "photographic in nature" by at least one very rational definition: they are almost always composed entirely of superimposed and manipulated photographic images. And it's not just those images that are edgy, anyway, in the "in nature" sweepstakes: what about those of us who have entered heavily-manipulated, flip-n-blend images that have absolutely ZERO reality-contact beyond the fact that they started as individual images? It's a big, big wormhill we're dealing with here :-) |
With all due respect, I don't think you believe what you're saying.
Perhaps the real resolution needed here is a joint decision from the SC as to where the line is drawn on 'photographic in nature'.
A rock, once melted, and refined into an aircraft through artisanship and craft, is hardly 'rocklike' in nature, despite being built from manipulated portions of rock. The same goes for these images we are discussing. Just because they're created from photos does not in any way ensure that the final product is 'photographic in nature'..
--
So, while I still encourage the voters to vote harshly if they read the rule on this as I do - what I'd really like to see is a consensus from SC as to what the hell that ambiguous phrase actually means.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 16:50:36. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:54:02 PM · #33 |
As a rational point of observation, perhaps a good solution that would please everyone is to have "Fantasy" added as a ruleset where all restrictions are essentially lifted. I'm sure Samantha and Christophe would appreciate the ability to carry their craft to a higher level of awesome - and I would like it if the ruleset didn't seem to be being ignored by voters. (which does admittedly upset me)
ETA: Either that, or just remove that stupid stipulation from expert and be done with it - if it's fantasy editing, let's make that clear. I don't really care, beyond that fact that inconsistencies like this drive me bat-shit crazy.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 16:57:19. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:59:13 PM · #34 |
I can understand and appreciate the hole that the OP is trying to fill with a proposed new rule set. While I occasionally like to try my hand at diving deep into what is allowed within the Expert rule set, there are plenty of times I would love to process an image a bit beyond what Advanced allows. I may support a change in theory, nit in practice it would be a very gray area to try to police.
I think Corey has touched on the root of the "problem". On average, DPC voters tend to reward excellent and creative images that are heavily manipulated in processing more than a really good image that is more "photographic in nature". So, when an Expert challenge is announced there is plenty of incentive to go "all in" when it comes to processing if you are focused on trying to get a high score. I am not sure this can be changed with a new rule set that can practically be enforced.
One way to get voters to..
Originally posted by Cory:
Vote very harshly on 'fantasy' images. |
might be to have an Expert challenge with a particular theme in which the description adds something to the effect of "without becoming a fantasy image". Then, the DNMC police could help level the voting field. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 04:59:26 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Cory:
As a rational point of observation, perhaps a good solution that would please everyone is to have "Fantasy" added as a ruleset where all restrictions are essentially lifted. I'm sure Samantha and Christophe would appreciate the ability to carry their craft to a higher level of awesome - and I would like it if the ruleset didn't seem to be being ignored by voters. (which does admittedly upset me)
ETA: Either that, or just remove that stupid stipulation from expert and be done with it - if it's fantasy editing, let's make that clear. I don't really care, beyond that fact that inconsistencies like this drive me bat-shit crazy. |
As I was thinking about this this is exactly what I thought of. Just change that part of the rule, then there is no question. Then when we flag one as a non fantasy expert editing everyone will be clear about what it is. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:04:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by Cory:
As a rational point of observation, perhaps a good solution that would please everyone is to have "Fantasy" added as a ruleset where all restrictions are essentially lifted. I'm sure Samantha and Christophe would appreciate the ability to carry their craft to a higher level of awesome - and I would like it if the ruleset didn't seem to be being ignored by voters. (which does admittedly upset me)
ETA: Either that, or just remove that stupid stipulation from expert and be done with it - if it's fantasy editing, let's make that clear. I don't really care, beyond that fact that inconsistencies like this drive me bat-shit crazy. |
As I was thinking about this this is exactly what I thought of. Just change that part of the rule, then there is no question. Then when we flag one as a non fantasy expert editing everyone will be clear about what it is. |
I do think the inverse makes more sense. We're still a photography site, so it would be less neurotic to have 'non-fantasy' as the default, and 'fantasy' as the exception.
Whichever though, like I said, either would be preferable to what we have currently. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:15:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I assume you're referring to this:
Originally posted by expert rules:
Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly. |
As demonstrated earlier, images by these artists ARE "photographic in nature" by at least one very rational definition: they are almost always composed entirely of superimposed and manipulated photographic images. And it's not just those images that are edgy, anyway, in the "in nature" sweepstakes: what about those of us who have entered heavily-manipulated, flip-n-blend images that have absolutely ZERO reality-contact beyond the fact that they started as individual images? It's a big, big wormhill we're dealing with here :-) |
With all due respect, I don't think you believe what you're saying.
Perhaps the real resolution needed here is a joint decision from the SC as to where the line is drawn on 'photographic in nature'.
A rock, once melted, and refined into an aircraft through artisanship and craft, is hardly 'rocklike' in nature, despite being built from manipulated portions of rock. The same goes for these images we are discussing. Just because they're created from photos does not in any way ensure that the final product is 'photographic in nature'..
|
+1000, especially the bolded part. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:15:44 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Cory:
So, while I still encourage the voters to vote harshly if they read the rule on this as I do - what I'd really like to see is a consensus from SC as to what the hell that ambiguous phrase actually means. |
You're missing my point: SC has absolutely nothing to do with this, with the rule as written: photographers and voters alike are "encouraged" to observe this "photographic in nature" business. It doesn't matter HOW SC defines the phrase, it's open season for EVERYONE to define it as they see fit. There's no onus, there's no penalty, nada. Shooters can push it as far as they wish, voters can rein them in as they choose. And whether or not you, personally, accept that "photographic in nature" can plausibly include collages composed of multiple images is neither here nor there except insofar as your own voting goes.
For the record, that's what I do: I don't reward the "fantasy images" with especially high scores except in fantasy-type challenges, and that's my obvious right as a voter. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:23:38 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
So, while I still encourage the voters to vote harshly if they read the rule on this as I do - what I'd really like to see is a consensus from SC as to what the hell that ambiguous phrase actually means. |
You're missing my point: SC has absolutely nothing to do with this, with the rule as written: photographers and voters alike are "encouraged" to observe this "photographic in nature" business. It doesn't matter HOW SC defines the phrase[....] |
Perhaps I've misunderstood a crucial point.
I've been under the impression that SC actually wrote those rulesets and agreed upon them. If that's not the case, then my apologies. If, however, that is the case, then I do think that the onus is upon the SC to clarify the interpretation of this ambiguous rule.
If it was not SC, then whoever wrote that clause into the ruleset should make their original intent clear. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:37:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I've been under the impression that SC actually wrote those rulesets and agreed upon them. If that's not the case, then my apologies. If, however, that is the case, then I do think that the onus is upon the SC to clarify the interpretation of this ambiguous rule. |
Right. I was focusing on the situation here and now: we have no voice in how the shooters and voters interpret the rule-as-written, that particular part of it is advisory in nature and not enforceable. I assume it was written that way primarily because it's hard to come up with an enforceable definition of the concept "photographic in nature".
If/when the ruleset is revised, it will be SC doing the heavy lifting, correct :-) |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:46:12 PM · #41 |
| how about for composites all the source files be no different than approx 10% of the image area as judged by SC. we can have a special rule to allow full composites based on the challenge suggester. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 05:52:07 PM · #42 |
| Can't believe I'm saying this but I actually agree with Cory AND Mike! ;) |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:02:42 PM · #43 |
| I was going to jump in with an opinion, but I'll refrain for the moment because what I would like to see are examples. Post examples of your theories please. Because I'd love to see how / where you would draw this theoretical line. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:06:02 PM · #44 |
@Cory
I would be very interested in your definition of 'photographic in nature' is. In words. Without explaining what it isn't. Just define what 'photographic in nature' means to you. I really want to know. I've given it a lot of thought & come to the conclusion that everything on this website is NOT photographic in nature. I know I'm looking at a digital image. A digital image is not a photograph, it is not photographic in nature. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:06:03 PM · #45 |
sry double post
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 18:06:38. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:20:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
@Cory
I would be very interested in your definition of 'photographic in nature' is. In words. Without explaining what it isn't. Just define what 'photographic in nature' means to you. I really want to know. I've given it a lot of thought & come to the conclusion that everything on this website is NOT photographic in nature. I know I'm looking at a digital image. A digital image is not a photograph, it is not photographic in nature. |
I find your position extreme. You should go visit with Schlake about all of us failtographers and votards.
..
In the end, I think the difference is fairly obvious. It should look like a digital photograph, something that looks realistic, as though it might really have been seen that way. (without the use of LSD or methamphetamine)..
Here's a couple of examples for Pamb. You'll note that not all fantastic creations fall under fantasy (all from our favorite example when this subject comes up...)
Photographic in nature:
  <-- I do slightly object to the lack of a strong light source for the light coming through the windows.
Fantasy images:
  
Blurry borderline:
 I'd rate this as fantasy, but I wouldn't abuse someone for arguing that it's realistic. There's just something a bit too 'plasticky' about it.
 I'd rate this as realistic, but just barely - there is something about the figure which doesn't quite work, and the rock peaks are not quite right, as geologically that would never occur, however, the overall effect is more realistic than much of Christophe's work.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 18:26:20. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:41:16 PM · #47 |
| So, Cory, you're in favor of being allowed to create fantasy ruins from 3 separate churches, but not a fantasy snail-human created by blending several pictures of his own legs in a spiral fashion? On the grounds that the ruin could conceivably exist, but the snail-human couldn't? Can you IMAGINE what a quagmire that'd be for we poor SC to wade through on the path to validation or DQ? |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:54:17 PM · #48 |
It is truly amazing how many threads there are saying that the way other people vote is wrong ... :-(
If you don't like "fantasy" images, vote them down. Without mentioning specific images during challenge voting, you can encourage others to do the same.
SC will not be counting pixel percentages to determine validity. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:54:52 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So, Cory, you're in favor of being allowed to create fantasy ruins from 3 separate churches, but not a fantasy snail-human created by blending several pictures of his own legs in a spiral fashion? On the grounds that the ruin could conceivably exist, but the snail-human couldn't? Can you IMAGINE what a quagmire that'd be for we poor SC to wade through on the path to validation or DQ? |
I don't think it should be enforced via DQ, but otherwise you seem to have understood the basic concept I was trying to convey. I think the voters should be held to task for their failure to recognize the fact that the requirement is already written into the rules.
Admittedly this is subjective, but we've gone so far off the track that people are submitting fricken winged horses in trees and scoring top-tens with it, and even more egregiously there have been TT images which were clearly pure digital art, without any realistic nature whatsoever, to the point that the winged horse in the tree starts to look pretty darn respectable.
..
Personally, I don't think anything should change, other than clarification of intent around that rule, and possibly a voter education campaign. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:56:00 PM · #50 |
Ok I am totally and completely lost. I can see where Mike's going, but doesn't the Advanced ruleset - in relation to the (and I paraphrase here): 'up to 10 images of the same scene with changes in exposure so long as framing doesn't change' rule?
Isn't that ALREADY allow for swapping out of elements of several images to compile the best wave with the best sky, best rocks, best sunset glow and eh wala, an Icelandic sunset that wins a FS ad nauseum?
As for the Expert thing and voting...yeah, I personally DO *hamper* the Golden Couple. In the past I've given them both multiple 8s, 9s and 10s. But now, with their images are so easily recognizable, and they always get kudos lavished on them no matter what they enter, that I do not feel guilty giving them ONLY a 7.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 19:00:26. |
|
