To all members and the S/C - DPChallenge Forums

12/30/2005 08:11:04 PM · #76

Originally posted by di53:

You arent answerign my question, Dan... the question was
why are you still on this site if you are unhappy here?

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by di53:
My question goes out to everyone....

If you're so unhappy with things, why are you here?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

If you join a shoe club and members suggest a better way to make the shoes, does this indicate that they are unhappy or perhaps that pooling all the knowledge you can to produce a better shoe. Is this bad? And then if i were so unhappy whu would i want to commeny on so many images?

Di,

I don't see anything that suggests that Dan or anyone else is unhappy here.

This folder is called "Website Suggestions," and anyone who has a suggestion to improve the web site is welcome to post here. The fact that someone has a suggestion they feel will improve the site does not imply that they're unhappy here, but rather that they feel the site could be even better.

I've been known to post ideas to the Website Suggestions folder myself. Surely you don't think I'm unhappy here?

~Terry

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/30/2005 08:12:45 PM · #77

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Man what a thread... I can't believe I read the whole thing. ;)

I guess my thoughts on the matter don't amount to a hill of beans, but I'll provide them anyway. I don't understand exactly *what* about the current rules is unclear. I understand them. I'm not a genius and I'm rather new to photography, all things considered, and I get the general gist. If I, a simple redneck from Texas, can understand them, why is it so hard for others, with much more knowledge and experience than me, to understand them? Maybe I just don't know enough about processing techniques to be dangerous yet. ;)

As far as having a single person becoming the SC "chairman" or whatever, that's a little much. With great power comes great responsibility, and I doubt anyone (except dpaull) really wants that headache. As it is, responsibilities are handled by delegation and communication, not through a dictatorship. You get someone in there that's a little power-hungry and that's what you'll wind up with eventually.

As it stands, I think the more folks try to "clarify" the more insanely muddied things become.

Well, it is easy to understand the rules. Or at least you would think so. LOL...That is why in a recent photo I dodged and burned to my hearts content, because another DPC'er said so. THEN came the "wait a minutes" and the "you can only dodge and burn if's". Then it becomes a battle of the if's.

Not only that, but some on DPC ARE dangerous when it comes to knowing what all can and can't be done. In the meantime, as we mere mortals who are trying to understand what the hell glazing is and different masks and filters are stand by and receive no ribbons for our ignorance.

I personally would like to win a ribbon. I am not trying to "change" my photo to the point of non distinction, and hardly even use advanced editing allowances. But when I do have an entry that really needs touching up cause the major elements are there and need enhancing, then I want to know what in the hell exactly it is I can do. What happens when I ask? Some say yes, you can. Some say no, you can't. So what is a person to do but be confused?

Rose

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

12/30/2005 08:13:32 PM · #78

Graphicfunk:

In no way did I set out to put down an agenda and make everyone think that's the only way things were, or how I'd want them. However, when someone puts out suggestions or ideas in the manner that you did, I feel a role to play the opposite viewpoint. Point, counterpoint. It is a fun game, and both sides should be able to at least listen to one another instead of turning it into some kind of personal thing.

I have presented a side here, and you have presented a side.. and somewhere in the middle of both of our sides is the eventual reality. Certainly changes can, and most likely will, be made in the future. *Nobody* is saying the things that you have come to unwarranted conclusions on.. there are merely differening viewpoints. Viewpoints that come up *every* time similar concerns are raised.

So it's good that things are being questioned and suggested and whatnot, but in the end, it'll be the debate that opens up the doors to stronger suggestions and ideas, not one man's stance.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

12/30/2005 08:22:36 PM · #79

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

To say that each s/c member team works in the mysterious realm of their personal judgment means that one team may pass something while another rejects it.

to me, this seems to be exactly how the US supreme court works. over time as new members are added or replaced, opinions and regulations will change.

i don't think fluid opinion is a bad thing. revisiting past decisions is a valid means of setting future goals.

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/30/2005 08:24:30 PM · #80

I say this:

FORGET the arguing about the editing rules, in a sense. Let's say they stay as they are and the majority are quite happy to do so.

I still say to implement a pre-validation process. Give it so many days or something where photos can be sent in for validation prior to a contest or during the same period as a contest. Set certain rules, if you must, on how a prevalidation request can be made and done, to weed out those just doing it to be stupid and not for real concerns. THEN, IF there is time to get to the photos in que for prevalidation, fine. You give your validation or denial. BUT, if they don't get to council on time, then the submitter has a choice. They can either take their chances and enter it anyway, reshoot, or just use other editing rules they know would be fine.

Not having prevalidations in place is a huge problem for me because most sites (and it isn't just here) discuss photoshop, and not PSP8. I find the two a bit confusing. Some things are similar, but not all. Not only that, but I don't even know how to use all of what I have if I do "need" to use it. I know I have masks, but haven't mastered it, etc.

So having prevalidation is my only request. Changing the edit rules is still going to cause questions. Those with more knowledge, or lets just say the 18 on the council, let them decide but decide BEFORE and not after its too late, and only IF they can get to your photo in time to do so.

I spent 2 days just trying to figure out if certain things I did to my photo were legal. In that time I could have probably had my mind eased with a prevalidation request. Now I am thinking of completely redoing my shoot because of all the confusion. UGHHHH.

Rose

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/30/2005 08:25:53 PM · #81

Originally posted by muckpond:

to me, this seems to be exactly how the US supreme court works. over time as new members are added or replaced, opinions and regulations will change.

Except when the law changes, it can't be held against people who've already committed that crime.

This is a great point - and one I think SC should think about - if Congress decides "oh, you know, abortion was legal, but we're gonna make it illegal" and the girl in front of them had an abortion while it was legal, it becomes illegal, BUT she is now arrested, the USSC will decide "yes it CAN be illegal, but it wasn't - so you're ok, but no more from here on out."

Wouldn't that sorta make sense for DPC?

"Oh, that border SHOULD be illegal - we're going to make it so. But since those weren't the rules a week ago, we're going to enforce it prospectively not retroactively.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/30/2005 08:31:16 PM · #82

Originally posted by Rose8699:

I say this:

etc etc

You can use the Help>Contact menu if you have any questions about an entry.

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/30/2005 08:33:02 PM · #83

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Rose8699:
I say this:

etc etc

You can use the Help>Contact menu if you have any questions about an entry.

No, no. We've been all over this before on another thread. If you do that, you can only get "opinions" with no guarantees by a "few" council members. The entry would still have to go before all with a validation request to be dq'ed or allowed. That is not the same as a "pre-validation" request. It is more likened to a personal discussion on a photo.

A prevalidation request assures your photo will pass or fail. I don't just want comments or opinions with a no guarantee it will pass or fail. This is why I ask for a "prevalidation request" to be implemented.

If not, then I will be forever starting threads that have questions in hopes of getting an answer that isn't contridicting.

Rose

Message edited by author 2005-12-30 20:35:41.

Terramar

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 11-18mm Aspherical Di II LD IF f/4.5-5.6 for Canon Digital

12/30/2005 08:34:08 PM · #84

Whoa.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/30/2005 08:38:22 PM · #85

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Rose8699:
I say this:

etc etc

You can use the Help>Contact menu if you have any questions about an entry.

No, no. We've been all over this before on another thread. If you do that, you can only get "opinions" with no guarantees by a "few" council members. The entry would still have to go before all with a validation request to be dq'ed or allowed. That is not the same as a "pre-validation" request. It is more likened to a personal discussion on a photo.

Rose

Sometimes there will be no question and the answer you will get will be a definate one. If this is the case you will be told. If we are stating our personal opinion, you will also be told. If, after that, you ask for a definate answer, we can create a thread in the SC forum and come up with an agreed consensus and keep you informed on the situation. It can take some time, since we all have real lives too, but we would hope to give you a definate answer as quickly as possible. If it is a very contraversial issue we would advise you to enter a different edit/shot, but we would however continue the discussion, so that if the issue came up again in the future, we could give definate answers.

12/30/2005 08:45:22 PM · #86

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
To say that each s/c member team works in the mysterious realm of their personal judgment means that one team may pass something while another rejects it.

to me, this seems to be exactly how the US supreme court works. over time as new members are added or replaced, opinions and regulations will change.

i don't think fluid opinion is a bad thing. revisiting past decisions is a valid means of setting future goals.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now we are comparing the S/C to the Supreme Court? Hey wait a moment, perhaps you are right. Not in the jurisprudence aspect but in the belief that at some times there are constructionist that govern with their majority making it a conservative body. At other times different members, more liberal replace others make the constitution a living and breathing thing ready to change the rules as they roll.

Well, I do not think the analogy really fits althought we can say that a strict constructionist S/C member will ban many images that have passed validation while the more liberals display more flair in their interpretation and are more lenient. For the record, let it be known that I am a strict constructionist when it comes to images and I would have no qualms in telling a member who requested a dq, that we will check for date but that the effect they question is rather an old technique and very easily attained. No problems in voting for dq in images where a super exciting colorful sky is replacing a bland overexposed flat sky.

It seems to me that Muckpod is also a constructionist from your posts. However, you still question the EddyG's RGB Smoke, while I do not. Well, we all have the right to disagree but then we must give a reason. I have already defended the image in the "advance editing question" thread. Readers have access to our different opinions.

For those who wonder what sparked this thread please read, 'advance editing question"

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

12/30/2005 08:46:37 PM · #87

While I respect all people who are participating in this thread, I do wish to say that Artyste has stated my thoughts almost exactly. I add this only because i want to let people know that more than one person agrees with that particular point of view.

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/30/2005 08:57:50 PM · #88

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Rose8699:
I say this:

etc etc

You can use the Help>Contact menu if you have any questions about an entry.

No, no. We've been all over this before on another thread. If you do that, you can only get "opinions" with no guarantees by a "few" council members. The entry would still have to go before all with a validation request to be dq'ed or allowed. That is not the same as a "pre-validation" request. It is more likened to a personal discussion on a photo.

Rose

Sometimes there will be no question and the answer you will get will be a definate one. If this is the case you will be told. If we are stating our personal opinion, you will also be told. If, after that, you ask for a definate answer, we can create a thread in the SC forum and come up with an agreed consensus and keep you informed on the situation. It can take some time, since we all have real lives too, but we would hope to give you a definate answer as quickly as possible. If it is a very contraversial issue we would advise you to enter a different edit/shot, but we would however continue the discussion, so that if the issue came up again in the future, we could give definate answers.

I understand what you are saying. But in the meantime I am giving up my anonymity and my inspired photo for the contest to 18 other people who may also enter the same contest, all for a "possible" personal opinion. I mean, I'm not trying to say you wouldn't be impartial, but I mean, council is council, but council is human too. LOL...

Nahh, I won't do it this time around. I probably won't ever do it and just reshoot. I just don't like the idea. If council didn't enter contests, that would be one thing, but I really don't want to give up my anonymity in that manner. If council ever doesn't enter contests, then it wouldn't be a problem. OR if they had prevalidation (definates), then I would do that. But I won't be doing it for possible dq after the fact, especially when a suspension is at hand.

It is too late for this entry anyway. I am just reshooting tomorrow, and then I will choose between the two and go from there.

Rose

12/30/2005 09:03:01 PM · #89

Originally posted by Artyste:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No hard feelings here. I read this line you posted:

"Discussions are happening all the time about clarifying certain areas of the rules.. I have no problem with it. This isn't about *that* though.. it seems there are some people that won't be happy unless they're simply allowed to do whatever they want."

Since this is very far from my intentions it did not strike me as you put it, to offer an opposing view. In other threads I have argued against the selection and clone and how they are abused. To understand me better remember, I joined DPC to unlearn all the digital manipulations and work exclusively with only in camera effects. How true am I. Well, I have not done another digital manipulated image since I joined. However, I see rules that can lead to trouble for the unwary and a good clean up is certain to help many members. Believe me, it can done in several paragraphs. But again, peace!

Message edited by author 2005-12-30 21:08:10.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

12/30/2005 09:07:21 PM · #90

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by Rose8699:
I say this:

etc etc

You can use the Help>Contact menu if you have any questions about an entry.

No, no. We've been all over this before on another thread. If you do that, you can only get "opinions" with no guarantees by a "few" council members. The entry would still have to go before all with a validation request to be dq'ed or allowed. That is not the same as a "pre-validation" request. It is more likened to a personal discussion on a photo.

Rose

Sometimes there will be no question and the answer you will get will be a definate one. If this is the case you will be told. If we are stating our personal opinion, you will also be told. If, after that, you ask for a definate answer, we can create a thread in the SC forum and come up with an agreed consensus and keep you informed on the situation. It can take some time, since we all have real lives too, but we would hope to give you a definate answer as quickly as possible. If it is a very contraversial issue we would advise you to enter a different edit/shot, but we would however continue the discussion, so that if the issue came up again in the future, we could give definate answers.

I understand what you are saying. But in the meantime I am giving up my anonymity and my inspired photo for the contest to 18 other people who may also enter the same contest, all for a "possible" personal opinion. I mean, I'm not trying to say you wouldn't be impartial, but I mean, council is council, but council is human too. LOL...

Nahh, I won't do it this time around. I probably won't ever do it and just reshoot. I just don't like the idea. If council didn't enter contests, that would be one thing, but I really don't want to give up my anonymity in that manner. If council ever doesn't enter contests, then it wouldn't be a problem. OR if they had prevalidation (definates), then I would do that. But I won't be doing it for possible dq after the fact, especially when a suspension is at hand.

It is too late for this entry anyway. I am just reshooting tomorrow, and then I will choose between the two and go from there.

Rose

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rose, I can add here with full confidence that you can trust all of the s/c. Their integrity has never come into question since I have joined. I have read many of threads preceeding my membership and all is clear. This is more true because it is a matter of reputation and each has proven so. They are good and exceptional people in this respect. believe me, you can trust them with your images and ideas.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

12/30/2005 09:09:46 PM · #91

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by Artyste:
Graphicfunk:

In no way did I set out to put down an agenda and make everyone think that's the only way things were, or how I'd want them. However, when someone puts out suggestions or ideas in the manner that you did, I feel a role to play the opposite viewpoint. Point, counterpoint. It is a fun game, and both sides should be able to at least listen to one another instead of turning it into some kind of personal thing.

I have presented a side here, and you have presented a side.. and somewhere in the middle of both of our sides is the eventual reality. Certainly changes can, and most likely will, be made in the future. *Nobody* is saying the things that you have come to unwarranted conclusions on.. there are merely differening viewpoints. Viewpoints that come up *every* time similar concerns are raised.

So it's good that things are being questioned and suggested and whatnot, but in the end, it'll be the debate that opens up the doors to stronger suggestions and ideas, not one man's stance.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No hard feelings here. I read this line you posted:

"Discussions are happening all the time about clarifying certain areas of the rules.. I have no problem with it. This isn't about *that* though.. it seems there are some people that won't be happy unless they're simply allowed to do whatever they want."

Since this is very far from my intentions it did not strike me as you put it, to offer an opposing view. In other threads I have argued against the selection and clone and how they are abused. To understand me better remember, I joined DPC to unlearn all the digital manipulations and work exclusively with only in camera effects. How true am I. Well, I have not done another digital manipulated image since I joined. However, I see rules that can lead to trouble for the unwary and a good clean up is certain to help many members. Believe me, it can done in several paragraphs. But again, peace!

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding. I was including many people from the thread you linked to in that statement, among others that have been very .. say.. militantly "full-bore editing" in the past.

My apologies.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/30/2005 09:13:31 PM · #92

About having one person be the "head" of the SC, I think there is more than one way of looking at an organization. The "strongman model" ( president, chairman of the board, chief of the SC) is one way to look at it. But it is not the only one, and it is not necessarily the best model in many instances. It is possible to have a group without a strongman in control.

I like not having one person on the SC be the head. I like the equal voices we have in the SC. I think it works that way, I think it plays to people's strengths to share responsibility.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

12/30/2005 09:16:07 PM · #93

Originally posted by Rose8699:

... Obviously if you think there would be too many to do if that option was open, then that means there are a hell of a lot of people out there entering photos that have no idea if it is legal and are taking chances which lead to "dq" punishments. ...

I don't think there are that many people that are so insecure in their post-processing that there will be a rush of people trying to pre-validate based on concerns if their work is legal or not. What I do foresee is many people thinking maybe they should pre-validate "just in case" and overwhelm any potential good from this idea. Similar to checking the "Critique Request" checkbox when submitting entries...how many people do that "just because" and the volunteers trying to do the critiques are swamped and cannot address them all.

DjFenzl

12/30/2005 09:19:53 PM · #94

If you have to ask for pre-validation then you know you are borderline.

I say live and learn. If you get DQ'd then you know for next time - and what have you really lost? There's always another contest next week....

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/30/2005 09:21:33 PM · #95

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Rose8699:
... Obviously if you think there would be too many to do if that option was open, then that means there are a hell of a lot of people out there entering photos that have no idea if it is legal and are taking chances which lead to "dq" punishments. ...

I don't think there are that many people that are so insecure in their post-processing that there will be a rush of people trying to pre-validate based on concerns if their work is legal or not. What I do foresee is many people thinking maybe they should pre-validate "just in case" and overwhelm any potential good from this idea. Similar to checking the "Critique Request" checkbox when submitting entries...how many people do that "just because" and the volunteers trying to do the critiques are swamped and cannot address them all.

I agree. That is why I also stated in that same paragraph about weaning out the stupid. LOL....There will always be those who will do it just because they can. I would implement that some kind of explination or some kind of questionaire be filled out before a prevalidation request can be submitted. Then one just waits. If you hear on time, fine. If you dont, you take your own risks. Enter, reshoot, or redo using basic editing.

Rose

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/30/2005 09:26:32 PM · #96

Originally posted by Megatherian:

WRONG. It doesn't mean you are borderline. It simply means there are questions on the rules and how they are stated. AS YOU can read from this very thread and others, there are MANY who are confused by them.

AND what do you mean "what have you really lost"??? In my case, I spend money on props. I spend a lot of my precious time shooting and researching ideas, not to mention the cost of being a member. Let's also bring up the fact that there are punishments in place for so many dq's in such and such a time period. So you can lose plenty, in my case anyway.

Hey, you know, I am a competition buff. I love it and want to do it right and be legal about it in every way. I only ask that when I have questions, they can and will be "validated" and not "opinionated" by council. I just discussed this with my husband too, and he agrees. If council gives you a definate, then do it. If they don't, then don't lose your anonymity for the entry. He says this because he sees how much time and effort I put into my entries, not to mention the joy it gives me to compete and research good ideas. He doesn't want to see that fade away, or the $$$.

Rose

Rose

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/30/2005 09:29:40 PM · #97

What we offer now is what we feel we can reasonably accomplish. Opening up guaranteed pre-validation essentially doubles the work load - we have to evalute photos that are currently in three challenges and would have to add on photos for the three upcoming challenges. So you get an opinion. We're generally good enough to do the asking for you to collect the opinions but because our time needs to be focused on the current challenge entries, we can't guarantee validation. However, I'm not personally aware of a time that an opinion was issued that didn't hold true, although it certainly may have happened. That you choose not to trust us is certainly your prerogative but one you'll unfortunately have to suffer the consequences of. It's up to you. :)

Message edited by author 2005-12-30 21:31:03.