| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2004 10:43:13 AM · #26 |
i voted yes - and will add that i think the way betterphoto handles the border issue is decent. that keeps the voters eyes solely on the photograph - which is the intent of this site - i would assume.
for those that don't know that site - the site adds the same border to every entry - making things consistent.
if the poll was to disallow borders altogether - i would also have voted yes/
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:44:27 AM · #27 |
Well, dpborderchallenge.com is up for grabs.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:44:28 AM · #28 |
I most definitely voted "NO" on this poll. I feel strongly that we should not limit creativity where the voters can make the decision. Where at all possible, the power should be in the pointing devices of the voters, not with the SC.
The voters have clearly demonstrated that borders that do not enhance the image are consistently voted low, and those that enhance the presentation of the image, including the image that generated this discussion, are voted higher.
I find it interesting that currently the poll results indicate that the voters wish to give away the right to judge this, since there has been so much recent debate on the SC's application of rules.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:47:50 AM · #29 |
Is this one of those "Yes means No" ballot questions?....
Hell the vote on this is about as close as the Bush/Kerry thing...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:48:18 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by colda:
naturally that would be the obvious approach, but in the case of a 'Basic Editing' rules challenge where spot editing is not allowed? |
Yes. That's the point. Fix the problem, not subsequent symptoms. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:51:27 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by colda:
...what's stopping me using a triptych or similar effect to cover errors that I would not normally be able to cover due to restrictions in spot editing? |
Oooh... gotta write that one down. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:03:51 AM · #32 |
I voted yes. Although I don't care what color the border is...I do think it should go along the OUTSIDE of the photo, not THROUGH it. I've felt this way for a long time.
I was aroung when we had NO borders, and then when we had very restricted borders, and then today when we have rediculous borders. I don't want to see anything very restricted again. Play with the border, do what you want with it, but put it on the outside of your photo. That's my opinion. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:10:11 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by colda:
...what's stopping me using a triptych or similar effect to cover errors that I would not normally be able to cover due to restrictions in spot editing? |
Oooh... gotta write that one down. ;-) |
The point is simply that I would rather see dpc keep to the idea of being a photography rather than a photoshop contest. I think in general most people consider the inclusion of a border to mean a simple border as the vote will allow, the concern is that we will start to see an influx of creative borders in the contests. My feeling is that I'd rather be voting on photographs than photoshop effects.
The example mentioned is a misuse that can be applied, I totally understand that there is a need for an amount of post processing but in my mind I joined a photography site, if I wanted to push my photoshop skills then I would have joined a site more suitably focused.
I voted 'yes' because I feel the ammendment puts photography first. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:10:32 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Inset or translucent borders, like this (which is both inset and translucent):
would not. If you know of other examples of borders that would be "restricted" because of this rule, please feel free to post them. |
I don't know about the whole border issue, but that is one damn fine photo! ;p |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:10:56 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
I will point out that the current way the SC interprets any DQ requests for "border violations" is that "anything goes in the border" as long as it doesn't contain clip-art.
Example:
This photo was presented to the SC for a ruling on legality, and it was deemed to be legal.
Like coolhar, the advantage I see to this propopsed ruling is that it shifts (even if slightly) the focus of submissions more towards photography and not how "fancy" you can get with "presentation". |
that is interesting.. i was thinking of adding a border on one of my images as a little more sky.. cause i wanted more room on the image... but didn't cause i thought it would be illegal.. but according to this image.. it seems like it would have been ok.
 challenge entry
 Add 'sky border'
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:13:29 AM · #36 |
However you word it, "sky border" or whatever, that's not a border, or at least it wouldn't be in the eyes of the SC.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 11:13:44.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:18:06 AM · #37 |
I was kidding, Colda. It would be a miracle to have a defect located in a central area of a photo that could be covered well with a border.
I have no problem better defining the use of borders, but I think the poll question (as worded) goes too far. I'd rather see a legal border defined as, "adding a contiguous, simple frame around the perimeter (edge) of the photo."
That's what this is really about isn't it? A phrase like this would rule out triptychs and overly ornate borders (allowing some leeway for creativity), but still allow translucent frames. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:19:06 AM · #38 |
Well, seeing as I'm the one that set the foundation for this administrative burden on the Site Council, here's my take on it:
When done properly, a border can accent an image. Seldom are pictures put on a wall without a frame. When a border takes away from an image by being too wide, clashing colors, too artsy, etc, the voters have seldom ever given leeway and blew it out of the water.
In this case, a No vote would allow leeway for the artist to get creative, and when overdone,will get the feedback on it, typically right between the eyes. A yes vote says we can, but only around the outside edge and in a solid color, assuming a thin, solid pinstripe is allowed here too, as well as say a solid black border with a thin white pinstripe, or a white border with pinstripe line(s) on it to add dimension if wanted.
Artsy borders with flowers, or torn edges, burn effect edges, push pins, paper corners, woodgrain, etc. are beyond basics and shouldn't be allowed in either scenario in my opinion.
Diptych / Triptych should be at the discretion of the photographer. My submission obviously looked well-balanced and not overdone as per the voters majority. I would have the same response had it been someone else's submisssion.
I vote for NO. Let the members make the call, and the voters will have the final say.
The first time I read the poll (quickly), I thought a YES vote meant NO and vice-versa. Maybe a little clarification needs be placed there, as it is a bit mis-leading, even to a trouble-maker like me.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:22:19 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Konador:
However you word it, "sky border" or whatever, that's not a border, or at least it wouldn't be in the eyes of the SC. |
But how come if this manipulated border is acceptable
//arni.mis.is/?t=new_mynd&id=25516&aid=689
This one wouldn't be
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 11:22:53.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:29:28 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I was kidding, Colda. It would be a miracle to have a defect located in a central area of a photo that could be covered well with a border.
I have no problem better defining the use of borders, but I think the poll question (as worded) goes too far. I'd rather see a legal border defined as, "adding a contiguous, simple frame around the perimeter (edge) of the photo."
That's what this is really about isn't it? A phrase like this would rule out triptychs and overly ornate borders (allowing some leeway for creativity), but still allow translucent frames. |
I took it as such (I saw the winky)
Ideally for me I'd like to see another level of editing included, such that we have basic (no spot editing, no borders, only cropping and resizing permitted), moderate (as current basic with the frames kept to the outsides) and advanced (no change to current restrictions). In addition these levels should be applied to both member and open challenges, so from time to time member challenges are restricted to basic or moderate editing and likewise, open challenges get to have a taste of moderate and advanced editing (which may in turn tempt more people to purchase full membership). |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:33:50 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Konador:
However you word it, "sky border" or whatever, that's not a border, or at least it wouldn't be in the eyes of the SC. |
But how come if this manipulated border is acceptable
//arni.mis.is/?t=new_mynd&id=25516&aid=689
This one wouldn't be
|
Because that's a border, and yours is adding extra content to the photo. Yours isn't a border so it doesn't come under any arguments that are anything to do with borders.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:38:19 AM · #42 |
I don't see what is so wrong with providing a little "border guidance" (in the form of the proposed rule), especially to the newbies.
The vast majority of "artistic" borders (torn edges, burn effect edges, woodgrain, gradient, varying trasnsparency) get beat up, and receive lots of comments about the border.
Most borders on this site would be legal under the proposed wording.
So... what is wrong with providing this "guidance" for people so they don't have to suffer the low votes and negative comments? To me, this is the kind of thing new members need to help them avoid submitting "awful" borders. It almost seems like some people are voting "no" so that they will still have a "reason" to rate bordered pictures lowers when voting.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 11:39:21. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:45:55 AM · #43 |
Well said, Eddy. As I stated earlier, I don't mind either way ... but I voted "yes".
Originally posted by EddyG:
I don't see what is so wrong with providing a little "border guidance" (in the form of the proposed rule), especially to the newbies.
The vast majority of "artistic" borders (torn edges, burn effect edges, woodgrain, gradient, varying trasnsparency) get beat up, and receive lots of comments about the border.
Most borders on this site would be legal under the proposed wording.
So... what is wrong with providing this "guidance" for people so they don't have to suffer the low votes and negative comments? To me, this is the kind of thing new members need to help them avoid submitting "awful" borders. It almost seems like some people are voting "no" so that they will still have a "reason" to rate bordered pictures lowers when voting. |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:48:24 AM · #44 |
How about putting this in the "borders" section of the rules instead of changing the rules completely:
Borders: It is suggested that if you decide to use a border, you should only use one or two solid colours around the outside of your photo. However, alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
That provides guidance for newbies but also keeps it open for people who think their shot would benefit from a more 'extreme' example and want to risk the public vote.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:49:56 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by BradP:
...a No vote would allow leeway for the artist to get creative, and when overdone,will get the feedback on it, typically right between the eyes.... |
I agree. I voted 'No' also, because I prefer an exchange of views on aesthetic matters to 'legal sanctions'.
I'd rather see any additional SC efforts put into stemming the kind of 'jihads' and overt prejudices we've had to suffer here lately which, IMHO, contribute nothing to the kindred, democratic spirit of creative people wrestling with life and photography.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:50:37 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Konador:
How about putting this in the "borders" section of the rules instead of changing the rules completely:
Borders: It is suggested that if you decide to use a border, you should only use one or two solid colours around the outside of your photo. However, alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
That provides guidance for newbies but also keeps it open for people who think their shot would benefit from a more 'extreme' example and want to risk the public vote. |
Makes sense to me...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:51:03 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
I don't see what is so wrong with providing a little "border guidance" (in the form of the proposed rule), especially to the newbies.
The vast majority of "artistic" borders (torn edges, burn effect edges, woodgrain, gradient, varying trasnsparency) get beat up, and receive lots of comments about the border.
Most borders on this site would be legal under the proposed wording.
So... what is wrong with providing this "guidance" for people so they don't have to suffer the low votes and negative comments? To me, this is the kind of thing new members need to help them avoid submitting "awful" borders. It almost seems like some people are voting "no" so that they will still have a "reason" to rate bordered pictures lowers when voting. |
I think you are mixing two things up in to one discussion.
I'd be all for a tutorial that tried to guide people towards good design, interesting entries and demonstrated how to add a simple, two colour border.
Great - write a tutorial. (Edit: or use Ben's suggestion)
It doesn't require a rule for something that is obviously already regulated by voters. The vast majority of users on the site seem to think that triptych borders, such as Brad's entry are perfectly reasonable (unless you had a huge number of DQ requests, around 200 or so given the number of votes). They already voted on it.
There are subtle, creative uses of borders that aren't adding elements but enable for example 'cut through' borders, such as the leaf on
 (I realise this is a multi shot - I'm just talking about the leaf spilling out of the frame, in to the border.
I don't see much of a good reason to disallow these sorts of things for example. I have enough faith in the voters to score low on things they feel don't work. Another rule just gives the SC another thing to argue about.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 11:55:58. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:58:55 AM · #48 |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:00:00 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most, but not all. It looks like these would be outlawed, or at least questionable, and that would be a shame.
|
It isn't even questionable with the proposed wording. They wouldn't be allowed.
While we are writing rules to dictate taste for newbies, can we add a couple of lines banning abuse of the saturation slider and unsubtle application of neat image and USM ? Those seem far more common and egregious around here. It would be a huge service to the newbies and voting to make those DQ'able.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 12:01:39. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:06:18 PM · #50 |
Since the real issue behind this discussion is the triptych, why not discuss eliminating that rather than defining what types of borders will be allowed. I voted no on the poll. I would have been more likely to vote YES if the wording of the rule proposal was as follows:
You may use borders on your photographs as long as they do not divide the photo into segments that make a single photograph look like a multi-image composition.
|
|
