| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2014 06:56:30 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Without mentioning specific images during challenge voting, you can encourage others to do the same.
|
Bullshit! :D
I have absolutely been called out for doing exactly this in the past. And perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I think at least one or two SC members were of the opinion that this treads dangerously close to 'vote manipulation'. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 07:01:19 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
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...yeah, I personally DO *hamper* the Golden Couple. Their images are so easily recognizable, and are so obviously going to get their share of high scores from everyone else anyway, that I do not feel guilty giving them ONLY a 7. |
First, I think that you'll find that swapping elements like that will eventually get you a DQ. (see the white swan on the dark lake image, which I'm sure someone can provide)
ETA: Thanks Venser!
Secondly, giving out 7's to images that you feel aren't in the spirit of the challenge is pretty darn counter productive - a 7 is still a very high vote by DPC standards.
--
I think people are too attached to their voting averages. I think it would be beneficial to remove that field from our profiles - god knows Venser and the other more critical voters have caught loads of flack over this issue.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 22:43:51. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 07:13:54 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by mrchhas:
Wouldn't it be easy enough to flag an expert challenge every once in a while with "must be composed of a single image"??
Really that's what it seems is the problem...
ETA: single image as defined by our current advanced ruleset... |
How would this be different from advanced editing? |
this is extremely different from current advanced, as one could easily change the entire scene if one wanted! you can reposition a person, eliminate anything you want, photoshop the crap out of something, as long as it's one image as the foundation (or the advanced ruleset's definition of image.)
example:
this was created from one image (i know it sucks) but used photoshop to "create" more space above and on the sides that were based on the background of the image..... not possible in advanced but perfect example of utilized a "minimal expert" sort of ruleset. also any self portrait of  sempermarine is legit, as he uses a single image as the base and then photoshops in the details.
IMHO this eliminates all complaints that I've read. if you want to change out the arm or expression or don't like the sky, too bad, you have to shoot it right in camera just like advanced, and then change it. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 07:59:20 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by mrchhas:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by mrchhas:
Wouldn't it be easy enough to flag an expert challenge every once in a while with "must be composed of a single image"??
Really that's what it seems is the problem...
ETA: single image as defined by our current advanced ruleset... |
How would this be different from advanced editing? |
this is extremely different from current advanced, as one could easily change the entire scene if one wanted! you can reposition a person, eliminate anything you want, photoshop the crap out of something, as long as it's one image as the foundation (or the advanced ruleset's definition of image.) |
A long time ago we dealt with this concept -- a photographer laid out all of the desired elements on a table, took one photo of the whole layout, then cut and pasted the various elements into position.
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Without mentioning specific images during challenge voting, you can encourage others to do the same.
|
Bullshit! :D
I have absolutely been called out for doing exactly this in the past. And perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I think at least one or two SC members were of the opinion that this treads dangerously close to 'vote manipulation'. |
Sorry, I phrased that poorly ... I really meant don't discuss during voting, but you could certainly encourage your voting criteria during the pre-submission challenge discussion. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:28:51 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry, I phrased that poorly ... I really meant don't discuss during voting, but you could certainly encourage your voting criteria during the pre-submission challenge discussion. |
Fair enough. :)
Still, this is fine and good, but an actual clarification of intent on that rule would be most helpful and comforting.
Really - what were you guys intending it to mean when you wrote it? Surely that can't be so hard to give a clear cut answer on. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:31:07 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by snaffles:
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...yeah, I personally DO *hamper* the Golden Couple. Their images are so easily recognizable, and are so obviously going to get their share of high scores from everyone else anyway, that I do not feel guilty giving them ONLY a 7. |
First, I think that you'll find that swapping elements like that will eventually get you a DQ. (see the white swan on the dark lake image, which I'm sure someone can provide)
Secondly, giving out 7's to images that you feel aren't in the spirit of the challenge is pretty darn counter productive - a 7 is still a very high vote by DPC standards.
--
I think people are too attached to their voting averages. I think it would be beneficial to remove that field from our profiles - god knows Venser and the other more critical voters have caught loads of flack over this issue. |
Look, can someone PLEASE explain this freakin rule to me, cause is it not exactly what I was talking about?! Taken straight from the Advanced Ruleset under what you may do: You may create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.
Now come on, is that not inviting essentially a full swapout of an entire imperfect scene, by compiling a *perfect* one of several images? How the hell can this be legal as people have clearly photomashed multiple images together, all the best elements, and doubtlessly ribboned with them?
I remember the good ol' days when Advanced was little more than a slightly larger version of Basic, with spot editing and some cloning allowed. The whole *1-10 images* thing is such a loaded dice IMNSHFO, that it's why I remain a single-capture person.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 20:33:05. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:34:49 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Personally, I don't think anything should change, other than clarification of intent around that rule, and possibly a voter education campaign. |
It seems obvious that the fantasy type images are popular despite what the rules actually say. Expert editing has unearthed a whole new group of talented photographers and it would be a shame to lose them! I enjoy looking at what they can produce.
Personally I would prefer we left the expert rule-set for that type of fantasy images....we could simply remove 'photographic in nature' phrase in the rules! |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:37:08 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Really - what were you guys intending it to mean when you wrote it? Surely that can't be so hard to give a clear cut answer on. |
As Bear noted, there are at least three main ways to interpret the phrase. But I assure you, after much discussion, we decided there wasn't any more specific way to define it, and that ultimately it is up to the voters to decide ... it's not that much different than how we don't try to define what is "good" on our voting scale.
We could as well have said "your finished image should be a photograph." Surely everyone can agree on what that means, right?
As I noted before, I myself prefer an image which looks as if it could have been a real scene, even if that scene couldn't really exist. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 08:43:20 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Look, can someone PLEASE explain this freakin rule to me, cause is it not exactly what I was talking about?! Taken straight from the Advanced Ruleset under what you may do: You may create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.
Now come on, is that not inviting essentially a full swapout of an entire imperfect scene, by compiling a *perfect* one of several images? How the hell can this be legal as people have clearly photomashed multiple images together, all the best elements, and doubtlessly ribboned with them? |
You can combine different exposures for the purpose of enhancing the dynamic range (HDR processing), or extending the DOF (Focus-Stacking). You cannot cut and paste elements together, and there must be no change in the relative positions of all elements within the frame, other than slight incidental movements such as cloud drift or leaves rustling. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 09:03:18 PM · #60 |
I'm just going to recycle a previous point. Photographic in nature does not include everything made from photographs.
"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'.."
Frankly, it sounds like the SC isn't even sure what they meant by "photographic in nature" - this is definitely a case where stronger leadership and more clear cut explanation would ease the whole process - but apparently ya'll are committed to being neurotic about this. There's nothing that prevents you from attempting to clarify this, but equally, there's nothing that really demands that you do so. (other than the common sense logic that it would stop this stupid argument and give people a real idea of what was intended to be conveyed by that ambiguous phrase)
--
However, I'll do as you suggest, upon the next announcement of an Expert challenge, I'll start a vigorous campaign to convince others that MY interpretation is the correct one, in lieu of ya'll providing an official interpretation. Obviously, I will suggest that the voters should take action as is suggested by the ruleset, and vote all non-compliant images with a very low vote.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 21:05:49. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 09:07:27 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We could as well have said "your finished image should be a photograph." Surely everyone can agree on what that means, right? |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I've given it a lot of thought & come to the conclusion that everything on this website is NOT photographic in nature. |
|
|
|
|
02/14/2014 10:44:16 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I'll do as you suggest, upon the next announcement of an Expert challenge, I'll start a vigorous campaign to convince others that MY interpretation is the correct one, in lieu of ya'll providing an official interpretation. Obviously, I will suggest that the voters should take action as is suggested by the ruleset, and vote all non-compliant images with a very low vote. |
There's no such thing as an "official interpretation", Cory. If there were, it would be a DQable part of the rules.
Frankly, I find it surpassing odd that you, one of the great advocates of LESS government power over our lives, are agitating so hard to REMOVE freedom from the only ruleset in DPC that's arguably NOT overregulated :-) |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:09:06 PM · #63 |
I am not a high scorer of gyaban or Samantha, but they are certainly photographic in nature. If they are not photographic, what are they? Fantasy is a genre, not a medium, so you are creating a false dichotomy.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 23:09:28. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:11:48 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
I'll do as you suggest, upon the next announcement of an Expert challenge, I'll start a vigorous campaign to convince others that MY interpretation is the correct one, in lieu of ya'll providing an official interpretation. Obviously, I will suggest that the voters should take action as is suggested by the ruleset, and vote all non-compliant images with a very low vote. |
There's no such thing as an "official interpretation", Cory. If there were, it would be a DQable part of the rules.
Frankly, I find it surpassing odd that you, one of the great advocates of LESS government power over our lives, are agitating so hard to REMOVE freedom from the only ruleset in DPC that's arguably NOT overregulated :-) |
Hey, if I want freedom, I'm always welcome to shoot what I want - but I've also argued for instant replay calls in baseball for a long time as well. This is a sport, not life, and the rules are what makes it fun - the more consistent those rules, the better IMO. What you view as freedom I view as nothing more than inconsistencies which put unnecessary stress upon the participants and cause avoidable arguments.
It's a big reason I've always disliked Expert challenges and have railed against them for some time. Either clearly state that they are for fantasy images, or clearly state that they should be photographic in nature. The two are distinct enough that most reasonable people can spot the difference.
Now, if you try to come into my private life and tell me that I'm not allowed to shoot in certain ways, or that certain techniques carry fines or jail time, then yes, I'd probably be inclined to do a dance on your face. But we're talking about something completely different - I'm sure you can appreciate that distinction.
What I find interesting is how willfully obstinate you're being about this - I know you are able to discern 'photographic in nature' from 'fantasy scene'. And I suspect you should have been able to foresee the difference between government interference and concise clear rulesets in a game. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:13:50 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am not a high scorer of gyaban or Samantha, but they are certainly photographic in nature. If they are not photographic, what are they? Fantasy is a genre, not a medium, so you are creating a false dichotomy. |
Sigh.
I won't play your stupid word game Don. I have no doubt that you usually see winged horses perched in trees during your daily life, and meet men with giant flaming wings sprouting from their backs at most neighborhood bars. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:18:44 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am not a high scorer of gyaban or Samantha, but they are certainly photographic in nature. If they are not photographic, what are they? Fantasy is a genre, not a medium, so you are creating a false dichotomy. |
Sigh.
I won't play your stupid word game Don. I have no doubt that you usually see winged horses perched in trees during your daily life, and meet men with giant flaming wings sprouting from their backs at most neighborhood bars. |
You are defining photography as 'daily' and 'not fantasy'. you are making up a definition for the word. so it is you who are playing word games and ignoring both the range and the history of the medium of photography... and then calling ignorant anyone who disagrees with you. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:19:11 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am not a high scorer of gyaban or Samantha, but they are certainly photographic in nature. If they are not photographic, what are they? Fantasy is a genre, not a medium, so you are creating a false dichotomy. |
I won't play your stupid word game Don. I have no doubt that you usually see winged horses perched in trees during your daily life, and meet men with giant flaming wings sprouting from their backs at most neighborhood bars. |
You shouldn't be agitating for tightening up on what's "photographic in nature", Cory: as Don points out, that's an empty distinction. If it comes to that, "Photographic" = "Writing with Light", as you well know. No, your beef is with the fact that the images aren't "real" at some level defined by you, as far as I can see. I'm sure you'll twist THAT perception around too, but nevertheless you seem to be the only one in this thread arguing that Gyaban's works, despite that they are created entirely from photographs, are not themselves photographic in nature.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 23:19:51. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:24:52 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am not a high scorer of gyaban or Samantha, but they are certainly photographic in nature. If they are not photographic, what are they? Fantasy is a genre, not a medium, so you are creating a false dichotomy. |
Sigh.
I won't play your stupid word game Don. I have no doubt that you usually see winged horses perched in trees during your daily life, and meet men with giant flaming wings sprouting from their backs at most neighborhood bars. |
You are defining photography as 'daily' and 'not fantasy'. you are making up a definition for the word. so it is you who are playing word games and ignoring both the range and the history of the medium of photography... and then calling ignorant anyone who disagrees with you. |
I'm not defining it as 'daily' although, yes I do admit to using the 'not fantasy' part of it. I do think 'photographic in nature' implies 'realistic' at least to the degree that a winged horse sitting in tree fails the test, as does that most of Christophe's amazing artwork.
But really, if you think those things are 'photographic in nature' then there's no reason for us to debate further, as I most vehemently disagree with your assessment, and accept that you most vehemently disagree with mine.
Worth1000 never claimed to be a photography site, and there's a reason for that. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:54:40 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am not a high scorer of gyaban or Samantha, but they are certainly photographic in nature. If they are not photographic, what are they? Fantasy is a genre, not a medium, so you are creating a false dichotomy. |
I won't play your stupid word game Don. I have no doubt that you usually see winged horses perched in trees during your daily life, and meet men with giant flaming wings sprouting from their backs at most neighborhood bars. |
You shouldn't be agitating for tightening up on what's "photographic in nature", Cory: as Don points out, that's an empty distinction. If it comes to that, "Photographic" = "Writing with Light", as you well know. No, your beef is with the fact that the images aren't "real" at some level defined by you, as far as I can see. I'm sure you'll twist THAT perception around too, but nevertheless you seem to be the only one in this thread arguing that Gyaban's works, despite that they are created entirely from photographs, are not themselves photographic in nature. |
Yeah. It's just me.
That's probably why he gets brought up in these threads every damned time they appear. (and might I point out that it was, in fact, you who brought Samantha and Christophe into this)
In the end I don't really care nearly as much as one reading this thread would think I do, but the 'photographic in nature' clause just needs to go away. I find it insulting to photographs, and the truth is that Expert challenges ARE in fact actively rewarding 'fantasy' images.
Message edited by author 2014-02-14 23:56:24. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:19:52 AM · #70 |
Cory, you make so much noise you can't hear what anyone else says.
Is 'photographic in nature' decided by the content, the subject, the technology, the medium? Does 'photographic in nature' mean it must look like a photograph printed on paper? Is that why borders are so unpopular here?
If you are saying 'photographic in nature' means anything Cory feels like he could see with his own two eyes, then you are assuming anything you think you can see is all there is to see.
I will never agree to that.
You seem to find a relationship between reality and photography, that the instant you press the shutter to capture an image, that image accurately & dependably represents reality as you know it. Or that photographers should aspire to accurately & dependably represent reality as you know it in their work.
I will never agree to that, either.
Reality is not an objective thing, independent of us observing it. By observing it, we change it. By photographing it, we distort it. Photojournalistic documentary photography is a convenient hoax. You can't pin life down like a dead butterfly.
Nothing I see at DPC looks anything like what I see out of my own two eyes. To me that's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2014 12:42:16 AM · #71 |
Cory, I agree with you. I believe I understand what you are trying to say with regards to 'photographic in nature'. The difficulty I personally can see, as you have displayed in the examples you posted earlier, is the blurry borderline area. This is an individual perception, at best. Just because one individual cannot picture a scene as being possible, does not mean a different individual will not only perceive it as being possible, but may actually believe in their own mind that it either exists currently, has existed historically (myths and legends) or will exist in the future (sci-fi; who is to say what will be created?)
I don't believe that you will ever get consensus on what is 'photographic in nature', so perhaps removing the clause would provide the best solution.
eta: It's worth noting that this:
was created under the advanced editing ruleset.
Message edited by author 2014-02-15 00:59:38. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 01:15:49 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I've given it a lot of thought & come to the conclusion that everything on this website is NOT photographic in nature. |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Nothing I see at DPC looks anything like what I see out of my own two eyes. To me that's a good thing. |
Fascinating..... So if nothing here looks like reality, and nothing here looks like a photograph, what exactly do you see? I'm quite curious about this...
(Also, what drugs do you take on a regular basis? I suspect that answer might clear some things up here)
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Cory, you make so much noise you can't hear what anyone else says.
[...]
Reality is not an objective thing, independent of us observing it. By observing it, we change it. [...] |
And you make some very inappropriate assumptions. I've heard you just fine.
As to the nature of reality, your statement 'by observing it, we change it' is nothing more than a demonstration that you don't understand physics worth a darn.
At macro levels (that is, in the reality which you are able to directly observe) this never comes into play - it's only appropriate to use that when referring to the dual nature of light or some other aspect of particle/quantum physics, and is something which is often misunderstood by those who have a poor understanding of science and reality and subsequently used to 'explain' all sorts of things incorrectly.
Reality IS objective, it's simply that you are not.
..
All of this aside, the damned clause was put there for a reason, and I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't so that ANYTHING could be argued to fit.
That's my final word on this time-waste. Carry on with your assumptions and flawed epistemology.
Message edited by author 2014-02-15 02:48:43. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 02:53:45 AM · #73 |
Cory, you have made a lot of this 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.
Please note the use of the word should - rather then must and the word encouraged rather than obliged. So you see, even leaving aside the argument about what is photographic in nature (for which there is no consensus in sight) when voters vote as they see fit, it is all acceptable ... and up to them.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2014 08:05:03 AM · #74 |
ok, here is an example:
here is my entry:
here what i would have loved to have submitted but which violates all sorts of advanced rules.
its expert editing yes, its is nearly impossible to create my final image in one shot, without getting into chaos theory, i can't control the flow of water, and before someone says expert editing is lazy, I took literally a hundred shots and i poured the water on my head myself with a pitcher.
i processed the base files to look like my final so you can see the water drips clearly but other wise the the pixels are original.
i didn't shoot this for a challenge but i entered in free study, i like my edit best, i was able to show what i wanted to see and clean it up as i wanted but i was stuck enterting what i considered less than par here on dpc.
Message edited by author 2014-02-15 08:08:24. |
|
|
|
02/15/2014 09:24:54 AM · #75 |
@Mike. I agree. And I find it a tragedy that you felt you had to enter less than your best. That should never happen.
I would be happy if every challenge was Expert. To ribbon, you would need to know how to get what you want/need from the camera and how to edit it to best advantage. The two go together.
[eta]And to ribbon, of course, you also need to know how to please the voter. The three go together on any competition website.
Message edited by author 2014-02-15 09:29:11. |
|
