To all members and the S/C - DPChallenge Forums

12/30/2005 09:45:43 PM · #101

Originally posted by mk:

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. :)

I can. It was a case where we made a decision based on the photographer's description of the editing, and what they did what different from what we pictures. In that instance we allowed the entry to remain, but advised the photographer that in the future, similar edits would be considered illegal. This is not something we would typically do but it was a VERY borderline case.

In another case, a photographer contacted us for a validation and we did not get back to them with a ruling in time. We had to disqualify the entry, but did not count it toward suspensions for repeat DQ's. Remember that the rules allow us to waive suspension penalties under special circumstances. The suspension penalties are in place to deal with those who don't bother to read the rules or repeatedly disregard them, not to punish those who clearly made a good-faith effort to comply. We do keep that in mind when assessing (or deciding NOT to assess) those suspensions.

~Terry

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

12/30/2005 09:54:48 PM · #102

Originally posted by mk:

That you choose not to trust us is certainly your prerogative but one you'll have to suffer the consequences of.

Well, mk. I don't like your last sentence. I don't have to suffer a thing...LOL. I just don't have to send it in, and won't. I will just do what I feel is right, and know is ok, and as I learn more I will do more.

Look humans are humans. I have seen it in my 22 years of management, and council here is really no different from management in that same regard. There will be some "employees", for instance, that will always trust the bosses and never had a problem with them, and there will be those that don't - and vica versa. I know you about as well as you know me. So far I am very pleased with council who have written me and who have answered any questions I have, but I am not going to give up anonymity when council also enters contests too. LOL....

I was management of a company once that was having a contest to make their branch the most recognized branch in the region by way of advertising. NO ONE shared their ideas with the other company members for purposes of anonymity to their particular advertising so as to not "give it away" as to what they were doing - even for "opinions". (By the way, I won that competition).

It's the same here in this instance. I am not going to give away my anonymity here simply because we are "all competing". If it were that certain ones were not competing on council in any given contest, and it was known, it would be them I would send the entry to and trust they would not show it about. But to know that all can and do enter on council, it is just not prudent to send it in for possible opinions. To me, it is just pure logic, and not a trust issue. Obviously council enters for the same purposes most do here and that is in hopes of a good score, good comments, and hopefully a ribbon.

I will just do my best with what I know I can do, and leave it at that. If I have questions in the future, I will ask them in forum, but if they are not answered without contridictions, then again I will revert back to a reshoot or whatever other options at my disposal.

Actually, this may be a blessing in disquise. I think I came up with even a better idea, and am off to try and see if it is tomorrow with a new shoot. So we shall see. I will save my other one for outtakes.

Rose

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

12/30/2005 09:58:01 PM · #103

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by mk:
That you choose not to trust us is certainly your prerogative but one you'll have to suffer the consequences of.

Well, mk. I don't like your last sentence. I don't have to suffer a thing...LOL. I just don't have to send it in, and won't.

That's all I meant. You choose not to send it in, which is perfectly fine. In return, you don't get a sense of whether or not it's going to be validated. That's all! :)

Curious

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

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

12/30/2005 10:06:34 PM · #104

What an amazing thread. Very informative and thought provoking.
I would just like to add two simple points to the discussion rather than adding another ideolgy to the debate.

1. There are an aweful lot more registered users and members who don't seem to have any problems with the current rules and conventions than there are those who do. The number of people adding to these threads expressing concerns and frustrations is a tiny percentage of the overall user base. I believe most people using the site are having fun.

2. I for one love the fact that DPC is imperfect. I'm happy to take my chances with all the idiosyncrasies and anomolies that occur when a group of people get together in a context like this site. I just don't take it too seriously.

Finally (Probably really a third point) It seems that things tend to have worked themselves out pretty well for the most part in the past. There have been the occasional "surprise" results but I think this just adds to the fun. Again I just don't take it to seriously.

Now finally, finally :) I'd like to add that I always enjoy watching the debates involving Bear Music, Graphicfunk, Artyste and others (The list is too long) who are prepared to share their passion in the forums. Just one more thing I love about DPC.

Oh also. Gratitude to the SC. Great work.

Cheers.

Kieran.

12/30/2005 10:10:37 PM · #105

Originally posted by ursula:

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.

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

You present an interesting argument for a "headless" organization. You see, to me the head does not represent the "strongman" he is usually my superior in knowledge on whatever field we are talking about. I like for him to come and share his code of ethics and to present the image he wants the team to portray. Being a smart individual he will listen to all of the s/c ideas and begin to formulate a code.

He then gathers information and begins to distill the knowledge into a format that brings uniformity.We are not talking bosses or strongman, merely people whose vision extends past that of the collective group. That is a leader and one any one would be happy to work with.

To go on "headless" means much arbitration and whimsical decisions.

However, do not fear that I want to spoil a good thing.

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

12/30/2005 10:17:17 PM · #106

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
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....

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

RIGHT! If you want pre-validation there is something you have done in the photo that you aren't sure if it fits within the rules or not, hence borderline.

If you don't understand a rule why do you have to show your entry, couldn't you just ask a question about the rule? All of the images in this and the advanced editing post have been examples and have nothing to do with current entries.

How much money you spend on props, gear, models etc had NOTHING to do with whether or not your photo has too much editing in it or not. Why would you have to scrap your entire project becasue you can't edit it as much as you want? If your photo can't stand on it's own without so much editing you may be in violation of the rules maybe you should re-think your priorities, this is a photography contest after all.

Just to clear up any confusion, I'm only talking about the idea of pre-validation for photos, I'm not discussing whether or not the rules are clear enough or whether they need to be changed.

You are still wrong. LOL....Look, not to be nasty, but I think you are speaking about something you didn't read elsewhere. I DID ask questions. I had one person say "yes, go for it" and another that said "no, I wouldn't, not if.....". This is where the confusion arose.

Secondly, my question specifically was on hair. Lightening the hair with dodge. Can it be done? One person says yes, if the hair is already light, you can dodge it to enhance it. My problem is that the hair IS light, but it isn't light in the original because it came out too dark and you can't see the lightness of the hair until you do a gamma lightening on the photo, which IS allowed. Therefore, council would have to do the gamma on the photo FIRST before they could see the hair was light to begin with. AND will they do that? Or will they just see the original, see no light hair, and then dq it for light hair added.

So it isn't all cut and dry and borderline as to "Too much editing". It was a legitimate question, which then led to gradients in the sky, dodging and burning waterlines and forest trees. BUT, if you can enhance what IS already there, but can't be seen without first lightening the original in gamma, can it be considered legal, OR does that lightness have to be seen in the original at first glance. AND we are not talking about adding a major element here either, but a simple small sweep of a hair line. It makes a big difference in the shot for the shot I have intended, so I needed to know. ALL answers were conflicting, and I am NOT going to let something as simple as a small part of the hairlline dq me. I would rather reshoot. BUT it is NOT borderline to rules or me wanting to over process a photo. It is asking for a distinction of the rules in this particular instance and one I rarely even use. Forgive ME for wanting to be creative, as many seem to be with colored smoke and turning black backgrounds to green and it being ok. LOL...ALL I want to do is sweep a peice of hair and don't want some yahoo asking it to be validated so I can lose the time and effort over that one little peice IF it is not allowed.

AND my reference to money spent on props and gear and whathaveyou had to do with your reference to "what would you lose by a dq anyway" and it did NOT have to do with the editing process.

I also dont have to scrap my whole project. I actually still have it in. Just not the same editing done. I just would prefer to have put in the original edited version. However, I thought of another idea now and found a model to work with, so I am going for that instead and see what happens. From there I will decide on the two.

Rose

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

12/30/2005 10:24:42 PM · #107

here: Rose is right. If I was faced with the same identical problem I simply lightem the hair. Case close. As long as I do not end up with an albino I am confident I am within the rules. lol

In her cae, she is new and the steps paused her to question. This does not mean that she is borderline on the rules. What logic dictates that? not all mysteries have the same ending. In this case, she suffered what many new members and even old members experience.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

12/30/2005 10:25:15 PM · #108

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by ursula:
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.

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

You present an interesting argument for a "headless" organization. You see, to me the head does not represent the "strongman" he is usually my superior in knowledge on whatever field we are talking about. I like for him to come and share his code of ethics and to present the image he wants the team to portray. Being a smart individual he will listen to all of the s/c ideas and begin to formulate a code.

He then gathers information and begins to distill the knowledge into a format that brings uniformity.We are not talking bosses or strongman, merely people whose vision extends past that of the collective group. That is a leader and one any one would be happy to work with.

To go on "headless" means much arbitration and whimsical decisions.

However, do not fear that I want to spoil a good thing.

---------------------

The model you present reminds me of the way a church might be run (at least the church with which I am acquainted). It's a good model, I feel comfortable with it, much more so than with a strongman model.

I think, and this is just a first thought, that such a model works best when there is personal contact in a group. Site Council does not have that luxury. I am not sure why that would make a difference, but it seems to me it does.

Yet, in some ways, even though there is not ONE recognized or appointed head, SC functions on a variation of your model. In various situations we trust the opinion of those with the knowledge and respect their assessment of a situation and stick with him/her. I think that this trust combined with the variety of abilities, backgrounds, ways of looking at life, is what makes SC strong. Does that makes sense to you?

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

12/30/2005 10:27:57 PM · #109

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Originally posted by mk:
That you choose not to trust us is certainly your prerogative but one you'll have to suffer the consequences of.

Well, mk. I don't like your last sentence. I don't have to suffer a thing...LOL. I just don't have to send it in, and won't.

That's all I meant. You choose not to send it in, which is perfectly fine. In return, you don't get a sense of whether or not it's going to be validated. That's all! :)

Not really, and forgive me for hopping on this, but you dont seem to understand. You say in return I won't get a sense of if it's going to be validated. Untrue. The version I do send in will be validated if asked. I won't have to wonder or worry about it, because I won't be using any editing that would be against the rules. The original editing is now defunked. LOL...I reverted only to what I know will pass the muster.

You know, this is really the only time when I really needed clarification on a certain aspect of advanced editing. I rarely use it and usually do mine in camera, or to stay safe, I use basic editing and little else in advanced, or what I know from what I have seen here pass the test, so to speak. LOL....For instance, when I read how the winning photo was done for the pumpkin carving, I was intriqued. I used that same technique on my candlelight entry. Low and behold it was asked to be validated, even though it came in like 112th place...LOL..and it was validated. But I knew that ahead of time by just watching and studying. I will continue to do the same.

If I can't get answers that aren't contridicting, and I have a bit of trouble understanding a rule or two, then I will just revert to research and study. Better yet, I just realized that I do have someone I can send the photo to who is very knowledgable on advanced editing rules but who doesn't frequent here or enter presently. I can send it to them when I have questions in the future.

Rose

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

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

12/30/2005 10:29:46 PM · #110

Originally posted by Rose8699:

..........

I just realized that I do have someone I can send the photo to who is very knowledgable on advanced editing rules but who doesn't frequent here or enter presently. I can send it to them when I have questions in the future.

Rose

Sounds like a good plan.

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

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

12/30/2005 10:30:01 PM · #111

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

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

12/30/2005 10:31:35 PM · #112

Originally posted by Rose8699:

Secondly, my question specifically was on hair. Lightening the hair with dodge. Can it be done? One person says yes, if the hair is already light, you can dodge it to enhance it. My problem is that the hair IS light, but it isn't light in the original because it came out too dark and you can't see the lightness of the hair until you do a gamma lightening on the photo, which IS allowed. Therefore, council would have to do the gamma on the photo FIRST before they could see the hair was light to begin with. AND will they do that? Or will they just see the original, see no light hair, and then dq it for light hair added.

So it isn't all cut and dry and borderline as to "Too much editing". I
Rose

When you send in a request, regardless of if it's to the site council or some kind of "official" validation process, (which would be run *no* different than simply sending it to site council, btw... they're not suddenly going to get more time or members to do "official" validations), you are supposed to send in *all* editing steps up to the point of your question as well. It's only logical.

Also, this thread was started with *entirely* different reasons in mind, and I think it'd be helpful for everyone if you started a new thread if you still need further discussion on what is becoming something you need personal help with.. as it's a *little* bit of a hijack IMO

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

12/30/2005 10:33:11 PM · #113

Originally posted by Marjo:

SO TRUE

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

12/30/2005 10:35:16 PM · #114

Originally posted by Rose8699:

stuff

Rose,

While I understand your concern about conflicting answers, the fact remains that we cannot make a definitive decision without seeing the actual original and entry in question. In almost all cases, once we see the actual potential entry, the legality of the entry becomes very clear. Without that, you cannot expect (and will not receive) a definitive ruling on whether a particular edit is legal under the Advanced Rules.

That you choose not to submit a potential entry for validation is your decision, but you cannot expect us to offer consistent rulings sight-unseen, any more than you can expect voters to rate your entries based on a description rather than the actual photograph.

In any case, I think we've gone far-enough off-topic on this thread. If you'd like to discuss the validation issue further, please start a new thread for the purpose.

Thanks,
Terry

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

12/30/2005 10:41:33 PM · #115

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Thank you. I wanted to add that another thing I did was to explicitly give the software I used and the exact steps in the order processed in the comments area. Even right down to numbers that were shown in the gamma, specific brightness/contrast number amounts, and even down to brush sizes used. I have them also saved in a file in case a validation request is asked. IF council follows the exact steps and in the order I gave them and with my software used, they will see that nothing was done out of rule allowance. I find this is better than just saying "gamma, brightness/contrast, dodge, burn, smudge, etc". This will specifically give them a road to follow so they will know exactly how and in what order steps were taken to edit.

I also found in rearranging the way I did the processing, it allowed me a more legal stance. In other words, instead of doing brightness and contrast first, I did gamma first to lighten. By doing this, I was then able to dodge hair while light, THEN go to brighten/contrast. If I did brighten/contrast first, the hair lightening was lost even to gamma, and I had to then use the dodge to "place" it back in. If council followed those steps, it might have been dq'ed. By doing gamma first and then dodge, it works legally - IF they follow the same steps to recreate.

Rose

Rose

12/30/2005 10:43:24 PM · #116

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by ursula:
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.

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

You present an interesting argument for a "headless" organization. You see, to me the head does not represent the "strongman" he is usually my superior in knowledge on whatever field we are talking about. I like for him to come and share his code of ethics and to present the image he wants the team to portray. Being a smart individual he will listen to all of the s/c ideas and begin to formulate a code.

He then gathers information and begins to distill the knowledge into a format that brings uniformity.We are not talking bosses or strongman, merely people whose vision extends past that of the collective group. That is a leader and one any one would be happy to work with.

To go on "headless" means much arbitration and whimsical decisions.

However, do not fear that I want to spoil a good thing.

---------------------

The model you present reminds me of the way a church might be run (at least the church with which I am acquainted). It's a good model, I feel comfortable with it, much more so than with a strongman model.

I think, and this is just a first thought, that such a model works best when there is personal contact in a group. Site Council does not have that luxury. I am not sure why that would make a difference, but it seems to me it does.

Yet, in some ways, even though there is not ONE recognized or appointed head, SC functions on a variation of your model. In various situations we trust the opinion of those with the knowledge and respect their assessment of a situation and stick with him/her. I think that this trust combined with the variety of abilities, backgrounds, ways of looking at life, is what makes SC strong. Does that makes sense to you?

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

Of course it makes sense but now we are talking about how things makes us feel. You indicate a phobia of a "strongman" Such heads must be 100% or the company folds because the strongman falls hard. All leaders are not strongman that seek to dominate rather they are persuasive and very receptive because at the end two heads, three heads are always better than one, but one head must lead otherwise there will be great distractions in the journey which will have one head taking back what the other said. It is just a system that has proven itself. Nothing I am making up. lol

Message edited by author 2005-12-30 22:47:26.

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

12/30/2005 10:45:07 PM · #117

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Rose8699:
stuff

Rose,

While I understand your concern about conflicting answers, the fact remains that we cannot make a definitive decision without seeing the actual original and entry in question. In almost all cases, once we see the actual potential entry, the legality of the entry becomes very clear. Without that, you cannot expect (and will not receive) a definitive ruling on whether a particular edit is legal under the Advanced Rules.

That you choose not to submit a potential entry for validation is your decision, but you cannot expect us to offer consistent rulings sight-unseen, any more than you can expect voters to rate your entries based on a description rather than the actual photograph.

In any case, I think we've gone far-enough off-topic on this thread. If you'd like to discuss the validation issue further, please start a new thread for the purpose.

Thanks,
Terry

One more, then I will just end the subject.

I have no trouble showing my original and the edited version. If that is what it will take to get a PRE validation, I can do that. If I still cannot get a pre validation by doing that, then I won't bother. I would do the same pre-deadline as I would if asked to be validated during or after. That was never in question by me.

Thanks for all the posts though. Some were helpful, and I loved the little kitty! LOL...Cute.

Rose

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

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

12/30/2005 10:50:28 PM · #118

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Of course it makes sense but now we are talking about how things makes us feel. You indicate a phobia of a "strongman" Such heads must be 100% or the company folds because the strongman falls hard. All leaders are not strongman that seek to dominate rather they are persuasive and very receptive because at the end two heads, three heads are always better than one, but one head must lead otherwise there will be great distractions in the journey which will have one head taking back what the other said. It is just a system that has proven itself. Nothing I am making up. lol

Okidoqui. I am quitting for tonight though - too tired. I trust the rest of you will stay on topic and continue the discussion ....

Good night!

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

12/30/2005 10:51:13 PM · #119

It would be difficult not to agree to some extent with graphicfunk's percieved assessment of discontent in his several forum postings on several issues. There are numerous inconsistencies which pop up on this site,they can be frustrating and annoying, but are mostly resolved fairly and usually quickly with the current librate system.

I would take issue that the proposal of a dpc photo czar or a hired pro would necessarily actually help. The jobs would be crushing and these individual's decisions would be prone to unrelenting criticism, from every available angle. The intended possibility that current s/c committee structure be devalued as would individual members is not an option for an open competition. We might just as well call the site photo czar bear's site, or whoever it is.

For many, myself included, the issue of "advanced editing questions" always has been a sore point on this site. Like graphicfunk
I resent restrictions concerning tonality, gradation, emphasis etc. Photographic integrity certianly should be defined adequately, but the process of the competitions provides us with many examples to
discuss that issue and continue to tweak our defination.
We are not required nor do we want someone to dictate his/her personal defination.

More often than not, rules are made, which seem to be tied to dumbed down capabilities of software/hardware and/or the abilities with software of an imaginary majority; or the abilities with software of the most vocal, rather than providing for favorable circumstance for imaginative innovation by individuals. I prefer less rules and guidance - Of any suggestion made, I would prefer a real committee be instituted to consider, plan, select and implement some meaningful,
appropriate, and topical challenges.

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

12/30/2005 10:51:32 PM · #120

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by ursula:
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.

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

You present an interesting argument for a "headless" organization. You see, to me the head does not represent the "strongman" he is usually my superior in knowledge on whatever field we are talking about. I like for him to come and share his code of ethics and to present the image he wants the team to portray. Being a smart individual he will listen to all of the s/c ideas and begin to formulate a code.

He then gathers information and begins to distill the knowledge into a format that brings uniformity.We are not talking bosses or strongman, merely people whose vision extends past that of the collective group. That is a leader and one any one would be happy to work with.

To go on "headless" means much arbitration and whimsical decisions.

However, do not fear that I want to spoil a good thing.

---------------------

The model you present reminds me of the way a church might be run (at least the church with which I am acquainted). It's a good model, I feel comfortable with it, much more so than with a strongman model.

I think, and this is just a first thought, that such a model works best when there is personal contact in a group. Site Council does not have that luxury. I am not sure why that would make a difference, but it seems to me it does.

Yet, in some ways, even though there is not ONE recognized or appointed head, SC functions on a variation of your model. In various situations we trust the opinion of those with the knowledge and respect their assessment of a situation and stick with him/her. I think that this trust combined with the variety of abilities, backgrounds, ways of looking at life, is what makes SC strong. Does that makes sense to you?

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

Of course it makes sense but now we are talking about how things makes us feel. You indicate a phobia of a "strongman" Such heads must be 100% or the company folds because the strongman falls hard. All leaders are not strongman that seek to dominate rather they are persuasive and very receptive because at the end two haeds, three heads are always better than one, but one head must lead otherwise there will be great distractions in the journey which will have one head taking back what the other said. It is just a system that has proven itself. Nothing I am making up. lol

I agree with that! It's just hard to have one head, as one must be very dedicated, especially with the amount of issues that can arise with so many members. I do find the old addage of "too many Indians and no Chief" to take issue here at times. BUT that Cheif needs to be totally dedicated, totally impartial, and totally knowledgable, and able to make snap and good decisions - and for little to no pay. LOL....It was a job I once had, and in the early 90's, one I got paid big bucks for. Not one I would take on again for nothing...LOL..but then again, passion prevails over pay sometimes. I did a management job of sorts for no pay for a year because I was passionate about the job. I am, of course, too green in photography to even think about that route. LOL..and wouldn't even know enough to vote here on who is the best choice, but I like the idea of a chief and then the tribe. Not just the tribe.

Rose

Message edited by author 2005-12-30 22:54:12.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/30/2005 11:02:00 PM · #121

Originally posted by Rose8699:

If that is what it will take to get a PRE validation, I can do that.

Pre-validations aren't possible for several reasons... for one thing, there is no validation queue until the voting starts. For another, it would be possible for the photographer to swap in another photo AFTER validation.

That said, there's no reason NOT to ask for an opinion if you're not clear on something. In this case, an "opinion" is quite a bit more than that. If the answer is obvious, then one SC member will tell you it is or isn't legal and you can rest assured. If it's borderline, then the SC member will always ask the opinions of other SC members and you'll still get a solid answer. Despite what you may think, major conflicts of opinions within the SC and tie votes are extremely rare.

In either case, anonymity shouldn't keep you from asking. We'll know your identity if someone requests validation anyway, and we're not going to do anything differently because of that knowledge. Think of it as attorney-client privelege. The worst thing you can do is limit the potential of your entry by scaling back the editing or forge ahead without answering your questions and risk a DQ.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

12/30/2005 11:05:45 PM · #122

Originally posted by Rose8699:

but I am not going to give up anonymity when council also enters contests too. LOL....

Rose

Rose. I rarely (only 8 in the last 2 years) enter challenges, and never vote. I also happen to be Site Council. If you have a question regarding legality of an image, and would not like to disclose your image to the voting/participating public, but would like a very educated opinion on weather or not it complies with the appropriate rules set, please feel free to send it my way and I can evaluate it for you. I hope this helps. ~Heather~

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

12/30/2005 11:07:37 PM · #123

Originally posted by HBunch:

I've only had 5 in the past two years. I win! Or suck more. Or something.

12/30/2005 11:08:40 PM · #124

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Of course it makes sense but now we are talking about how things makes us feel. You indicate a phobia of a "strongman" Such heads must be 100% or the company folds because the strongman falls hard. All leaders are not strongman that seek to dominate rather they are persuasive and very receptive because at the end two heads, three heads are always better than one, but one head must lead otherwise there will be great distractions in the journey which will have one head taking back what the other said. It is just a system that has proven itself. Nothing I am making up. lol

Okidoqui. I am quitting for tonight though - too tired. I trust the rest of you will stay on topic and continue the discussion ....

Good night!

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

Goodnight and Happy New Year.