| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2005 01:26:10 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...the moon has been altered in the computer (to make it into the shape of a bulb) in a manner that is not allowed under basic editing rules. |
Editing rules apply to the images that come out of your camera, not the props and backgrounds you create beforehand. Without the bulb base, the distorted moon looks a lot more like a pear than a lightbulb. Would something like this be any different if I changed the words that are projected?
Funny that this probably wouldn't be up for discussion if my comments simply said "N/A." ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 13:27:38. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:31:54 PM · #27 |
One tiny comment I'd like to make, and this is not in reference to any particular challenge. "1" votes aren't necessarily by trolls, and everyone has the "right" to call it as they see it at that point in their evolution here. When I was new here, I think I gave many scores in the lower half because I was using the full range 1 - 10 more. And I am also one of many who feel their tastes don't always line up with the majority. I have probably given tens to images that many would be horrified to give more than a 5 to, and so on. Many ribbon winners have left me cold, and many I love. WHile I personally don't give anything lower than a four lately, I would still defend anyone's right to give a "1" to an image they thought deserved it if they were being honest to their own heart. OK - not so tiny of a comment! lol
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:35:04 PM · #28 |
"This girl's a witch?"
"Yes sir, she turned me into a newt!"
"You don't look like a newt..??"
"Well..I got better".
Monty Python RULES! |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:37:35 PM · #29 |
Good point Kylie, although a "1" is very severe, some entries unfortunatly fall in this category sometimes. If i score low, i always give a good comment on why i did so, so that the person who submitted it can understand my thoughts.
Also, i have a feeling some people vote "1" on entries they mark as disqualify... feeling that it doesn't deserve any points since its 'fake'. In the case of the 'Moon bulb', perharps this is what happened?!
I personally voted 10 because for me, the shot was totally amazing, but did submit it for disqualification as i felt there was fplay involved, and also because i somehow wanted to make sure it was real, and know how it was done *shame*.
My take on the subject... |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:53:12 PM · #30 |
How about blue ribbon votes to losing entries? Even on my worst entry, I received overwhelmingly nice comments, five 10s, 3 favorites, and one favorite photographer. That entry finished 3rd from last.
There appear to be anti trolls among us. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:10:27 PM · #31 |
With previously done artwork, the illusion can be so well done, that I end up voting highly on what I believe to be a shot not containing previously developed art work, when I would not have so voted if I knew how the shot was done.
In the surrealism contest, I found many images, that depended almost completely on previously done art work, yet it was impossible to tell whether the submitter was the creator of that art work or not. I finally chose to vote as if the submitter was just submitting someone else's work as his or her own.
The rule on previously done art work is obviously not policeable, and should probably be abandoned. The bad scan of an AA foto is just one example of the direction in which we are headed.
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking" |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:34:11 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by whagerbaumer:
There appear to be anti trolls among us. |
Well put...trolls are mythical creatures.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:35:34 PM · #33 |
And I like the effect of the finished work on the blue ribbon...it looks good.
99% of the time that a fake background is used, it's obvious and looks completely unappealing.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:11:53 PM · #34 |
Response to Bear:
I'm aware of the many precedents for using backdrop images in a variety of ways, and I don't even blink an eye at that.
The part that I find interesting is that the "backdrop" on your image is actually pretty much the "subject", in that the moon "is" the bulb, and the image of the moon has been altered in the computer (to make it into the shape of a bulb) in a manner that is not allowed under basic editing rules. This is a huge gray area in my eyes.
Understand, I think the image is fantastic and I think the ribbon is well-deserved; but I'm wowrried about a pandora's box of photoshop special effects being opened by this example, where the backdrop image can be manipulated in any way that pleases the photographer as long as it is then "reshot" and the "actual" submitted image is legally edited...
Robt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see no gray area about Scalverts' image. Let us suppose he chooses to draw or paint the background. The image in itself is not quite as comprehensible until you insert the base of the bulb and then the hand and base use the background to create the illusion. So even though the art work is used it is not used solely by itself. There is no ambiguity here and no breaking of any rules or the spirit for that matter.
The issue about shaping the pear look to fit the purpose has no significance because it is not being done in post processing.
The rules are pretty straight forward and I repectfully disagree that this image falls in the gray or grey area. It does not. It is strictly within the rules.
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 15:17:36. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:14:50 PM · #35 |
| I also changed my voting method recently. I used to only give 10's to the ones that stood out and were the best in that particular challenge. But now, If I like the photo personally I wont hesitate to give a 10. I vote from the 3-10 scale...never giving 1's or 2's. I was attacked by the vicious trolls of this site, costing me a blue ribbon. Beware of the trolls! If you see some ones selfportrait and they have big noses and long cone shaped colored hair...chances are ...you found a troll ! |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:18:17 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:21:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
I also changed my voting method recently. I used to only give 10's to the ones that stood out and were the best in that particular challenge. But now, If I like the photo personally I wont hesitate to give a 10. I vote from the 3-10 scale...never giving 1's or 2's. I was attacked by the vicious trolls of this site, costing me a blue ribbon. Beware of the trolls! If you see some ones selfportrait and they have big noses and long cone shaped colored hair...chances are ...you found a troll ! |
It's the anti-trolls I'm worried about...I only vote 1-7.
Look for a barcode on the forehead and glossy eyes with a big grin...chances are you've found the anti-troll.
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 15:22:41.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:29:53 PM · #38 |
| 1-7 voting scale? I guess its the same as 3-10...just a little more harsh I think..I rather give someone a 3 than a 1. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:36:08 PM · #39 |
| Lol. I beat everybody here. I vote from 5 to 10. Whenever you see a bump on my comment your are guaranteed a 6. Two bumps indicate a 7. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:38:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
1-7 voting scale? I guess its the same as 3-10...just a little more harsh I think..I rather give someone a 3 than a 1. |
I'd rather give someone a 7 than a 10...I'd hate to be pegged as an anti-troll.
Anyway, my posts are tongue-in-cheek. I think it's silly to talk about these supposed "trolls" and yet, as whagerbaumer beautifully pointed out, ignore the "anti-trolls". If a 1 wasn't a valid vote, it wouldn't be on the scale...likewise a 10.
If I get a 3 from you, Rulerzz, should I be more offended than if I get a 2 from somebody else? After all, you gave me the worst possible score...
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 15:39:14.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:43:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Lol. I beat everybody here. I vote from 5 to 10. Whenever you see a bump on my comment your are guaranteed a 6. Two bumps indicate a 7. |
I thought that two bumbs was a Bactrian, and one bumb a Dromedary.. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:46:51 PM · #42 |
| 5-10 funk ? not everyone here is as good as you ! lol...what would you give to the below average photo? oh and Cloud, a 3 means almost average. A 1 means this photo is hideous, don't quit your dayjob |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:48:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
5-10 funk ? not everyone here is as good as you ! lol...what would you give to the below average photo? oh and Cloud, a 3 means almost average. A 1 means this photo is hideous, don't quit your dayjob |
So what do you do when you see a photo that is 'hideous, don't quit your dayjob'?
Do you not vote? Or do you classify it with those that are 'almost average'?
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:49:10 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by whagerbaumer:
...In the surrealism contest, I found many images, that depended almost completely on previously done art work, yet it was impossible to tell whether the submitter was the creator of that art work or not. I finally chose to vote as if the submitter was just submitting someone else's work as his or her own.
The rule on previously done art work is obviously not policeable, and should probably be abandoned. The bad scan of an AA foto is just one example of the direction in which we are headed. ... |
The rules make no differentiation between photographed artwork being the photographer's own or someone else's--only that it is not to be a literal representation. Therefore, it should have no bearing on how it is rated.
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 15:50:09.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:49:28 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Lol. I beat everybody here. I vote from 5 to 10. |
If this is your range, do you vote on all the entries, or only the ones you feel deserve 5 +.. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:49:32 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...the moon has been altered in the computer (to make it into the shape of a bulb) in a manner that is not allowed under basic editing rules. |
Editing rules apply to the images that come out of your camera, not the props and backgrounds you create beforehand. Without the bulb base, the distorted moon looks a lot more like a pear than a lightbulb. Would something like this be any different if I changed the words that are projected?
Funny that this probably wouldn't be up for discussion if my comments simply said "N/A." ;-) |
Yes, I understand. And I'm not singling out your image for "citicisim", as I think it's beautifully done and it's been ruled legal. I just find it interesting that, apparently, you took a moon shot and post-processed it in a manner that would not be legal in the given challenge, then used an image of that shot as post processed as the backdrop for the challenge entry. Speaking entirely hypothetically, it seems to me this opens all manner of doors to strange incorporation of extreme post-processing into DPC images, if you understand what I'm saying?
Please, let me reiterate: I think it's a wonderful, creative image and I think it richly deserves the ribbon. I'm using it, however, as a springboard for exploring where (if anywhere) the limits of this sort of thing lie.
Respectfully,
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:58:17 PM · #47 |
The images that have nothing to offer remain at 5. While this may seem unfair to have the 6 images so close to the bad images, it is okay because to me a 5 is a non descript vote. yet the 6 shows above average while a 7 has a high admiration factor. 8 is awesome and 9 takes the cake. So the ten rules supreme.
Now consider, if you give somebody a 5, you place that image below par which is about 5.3 or 5.5. Therefore, you do no harm because the five will not give any image a boost to brag about. It is below par.
So say you hate an image and you give it a 5. With the 5 you took care of it. You can go as low as you wish but note that the critical numbers to win any top placement, ribbons, top 5, top 10, top 20 require at least a 6 and above vote. So is not the 5 the losing vote? Of course it is, it all depends how low you want to go and then for what purpose.
This is more a philosophy and many different people will have different ideas and systems. I have come upon my style in the last month and I like it because it suits my outlook.
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 16:04:46. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 04:00:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Therefore, you do no harm because the five will not give any image a boost to brag about. It is below par. |
Anybody who wishes to give my lines entry a five please feel free, it would be most welcome : )
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 04:14:39 PM · #49 |
Dahved: are you supporting with a reference to the rules my own conclusion? For example, in your surreal submittal, I would only rate how your self portrait was done, and how well you incorporated it with previously done artwork, that I assume not to be of your doing and not to be rated on its own merit. Do I consider in my voting the appropriateness of the art work you chose to incorporate? Yes. But, I only consider the effort and taste you exhibit in finding the artwork.
I think Bear_Music used reasonable effort and high taste in finding the Ansel Adams picture. I would therefore give that entry a 7.
"Anything goes!"
Originally posted by whagerbaumer:
...In the surrealism contest, I found many images, that depended almost completely on previously done art work, yet it was impossible to tell whether the submitter was the creator of that art work or not. I finally chose to vote as if the submitter was just submitting someone else's work as his or her own.
To which Dahved replied:
The rules make no differentiation between photographed artwork being the photographer's own or someone else's--only that it is not to be a literal representation. Therefore, it should have no bearing on how it is rated.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 04:30:28 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by whagerbaumer:
Dahved: are you supporting with a reference to the rules my own conclusion? For example, in your surreal submittal, I would only rate how your self portrait was done, and how well you incorporated it with previously done artwork, that I assume not to be of your doing and not to be rated on its own merit. Do I consider in my voting the appropriateness of the art work you chose to incorporate? Yes. But, I only consider the effort and taste you exhibit in finding the artwork.
I think Bear_Music used reasonable effort and high taste in finding the Ansel Adams picture. I would therefore give that entry a 7.
"Anything goes!"
Originally posted by whagerbaumer:
...In the surrealism contest, I found many images, that depended almost completely on previously done art work, yet it was impossible to tell whether the submitter was the creator of that art work or not. I finally chose to vote as if the submitter was just submitting someone else's work as his or her own.
To which Dahved replied:
The rules make no differentiation between photographed artwork being the photographer's own or someone else's--only that it is not to be a literal representation. Therefore, it should have no bearing on how it is rated. |
Mmmmmm, I don't think I'm supporting your conclusion, but maybe you can help me understand...
I believe your post spoke of not being able to tell whether included art belonged to the submitter, and I took that to mean you might base part of your vote on that if you knew...of course, it's true that you are free to base your vote on whatever you like, as that's a personal decision that no amount of DPC rules can change.
But including others' art in a new photograph is a valid technique here at DPC, according to the rules and forum discussions I've read. (In fact, personally, I might say that any photo contains another's creative artwork, as I believe God created the world...but that's getting more philosphical.)
|
|
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: 09/21/2025 06:27:10 PM EDT.
