| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2006 07:04:53 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The other problem is image validation. You only need two members to validate a b.e. image. If the rules are well laid out there is no need to involve many of them.
Now, if the rules are carefully crafted then even two members should be able to valiate even an a.e. if the image remains within the written rules. |
i don't understand this. if the SC is, as so many claim, a group of people who have their own ideas and speak with their own voices, why would only two of those voices suddenly become sufficient to make a dq decision?
EVERY ruleset (in dpc and in life) has room for interpretation. the reason the SC votes on disqualifications as a whole is to try to find a balance in the "grey areas" of the dpc rulesets. no matter what we write or you all write, there will ALWAYS be grey areas that need to be debated.
perhaps a better question is this: if it's possible to simplify the rulesets to a point where only two people need to vote on them (which i don't understand, as therein lies the possibility of a tie vote), why would participants break the rules? wouldn't they be easy enough for everyone to understand?
i understand if you think that the basic editing rules are too restrictive. if you want to be able to remove dust spots and artifacts in basic editing, that's a valid website suggestion. i would recommend two things, however:
1) look back through the forum archives and see how many times this has been discussed in the past. many of the arguments for and against it remain as valid as they are today.
(you should also note that the spark of the ENTIRE advanced ruleset came from a demand from the public to be able to spot edit. the "major elements" clause of the advanced ruleset was inserted to keep people from overusing that spot editing power.)
2) if you have a suggestion as simple as the above (allowing spot edits in basic editing), state it simply without cloaking it in such heavy, melodramatic language. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am sorry for the melodramatic language. My intent is not to cloak. It is just that I like to spill all the beans at once. We are dealing with several topics.
You see, my contention is simple: if all the rules are adhered to in basic editing then there are no gray areas. If there is need to rewrite them to avoid any ambiguities then rewrite them. Now, presented with such an entry for validation: what other judgement is required if the rules were observed and there is no evidence of tampering with spot editing.
Now, the rules in a.e. contain many loopholes which I wish were eliminated. Ir appears that it is the degree of what is allowed that may cause a dq. My solution is simple: eliminate all degrees. In short, your image must bear a strong resemblance to the original. Cloning used only for artifacts and not for distracting elements which are open to interpretation. Treat color strictly as an attribute. Now, with such simplicity it is removes the judgemental factor. If the image parallels the original and these rules have been observed then one s/c member can validate an image. I say validate, not disqualify. Disqualification should always enjoy more votes.
Then you make a digital editing rules wherein more freedom is allowed such as cloning out distractions, extending canvas, use of filters etc.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 19:09:54. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:11:53 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It is now apparant that better photographers than me have already attempted this such as Gordon, Setzler and who knows how many others. They have all left the s/c because their vision failed to convince the majority. |
I believe you seriously mis-characterize the reasons various people have resigned their positions on the SC, unless you are privy to communications with these individuals to which I am not ... however, I suspect it is far more likely to be the opposite situation which prevails in this case. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:19:03 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... must bear a strong resemblance to ... |
... doesn't leave any room for a degree of subjectivity? Simple, right ...
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:22:05 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It is now apparant that better photographers than me have already attempted this such as Gordon, Setzler and who knows how many others. They have all left the s/c because their vision failed to convince the majority. |
I believe you seriously mis-characterize the reasons various people have resigned their positions on the SC, unless you are privy to communications with these individuals to which I am not ... however, I suspect it is far more likely to be the opposite situation which prevails in this case. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not a loose talker but I hate quoting people just like I hate quoting facts that are elementary. I will make an exception in your case since you are questioning history.
here is a quote from the horses mouth: posted by Gordon above:
But as no progress ever was made and fundamental, basic tools were left out of the basic rules (like spot removal) or industry standard techniques like multi-image bracketing are still banned from the advanced rules, I left.
I don't spend my time here. I don't contribute much value any more in the forums (though you could argue if I ever did). I didn't renew my membership. I don't enter the contests any more.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:37:51 PM · #155 |
Gordon left the site because it didn't serve his current interests. I see that as distict from why he left the SC ... however, I think his later post is more germane.
For that matter, you probably hit the main point -- the owners don't want to make the changes you want at this time. If they did, they'd probably sign into one of these threads and say "thanks for the great idea -- we'll code that up this weekend!"
Since this thread has appeared some dozens of times over the months with a conspicuous lack of any such action on their part, I suggest that you take such lack of action as an indicator of the effectiveness of the constant re-expression of the "need" for the site to change.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 19:46:21. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:40:22 PM · #156 |
I want some of Graphicfunk's Nyquil, that must be some powerful stuff...
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:42:55 PM · #157 |
| how many threads like this is going to pop up??? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:58:26 PM · #158 |
| Please lock it. And let the good times roll. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 11:17:15 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by notonline:
how many threads like this is going to pop up??? |
Perhaps you could direct me to those other threads you allude to, I must have missed them.
While it can be argued that there have been threads which question certain aspects of the operations on DPC, this one is significantly different from some others, if we consider the approach taken and the manner in which the subject is presented.
I have absolutely no problem with the manner with which Graphicfunk has expressed himself and can honestly say that I find value in some of the suggestions he makes.
I do hope you are NOT having a problem with the fact that he is expressing his views, because from my perspective, progress is brought about only through constant re-examination of the manner in which we conduct our business, regardless of what is is we have embarked upon.
There is nothing wrong with the proposals made, and they do indeed warrant consideration.
Ray |
|
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: 08/02/2025 03:26:06 PM EDT.
