| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2006 07:14:06 PM · #176 |
| Lately even the popcorn in this place tastes bitter. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:32:06 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Lately even the popcorn in this place tastes bitter. |
real bitter
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:36:49 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Lately even the popcorn in this place tastes bitter. |
real bitter |
Yeah, sorry guys, we ran out of butter and have been using dogs milk ;)
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:39:02 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Lately even the popcorn in this place tastes bitter. |
real bitter |
Sorry if I stink it up for you all here. If it's any consolation I changed my signature. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:41:49 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Lately even the popcorn in this place tastes bitter. |
real bitter |
Sorry if I stink it up for you all here. If it's any consolation I changed my signature. |
I have signatures turned off.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:42:34 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Sorry if I stink it up for you all here. If it's any consolation I changed my signature. |
As a friend, I'm glad you are calming down. I know the DQ leaves a bad taste in your mouth (I know I have one). But in the end, it's nothing serious, you know? Just take a breath, sit back and think how much more efforts you are going to put into your next submission.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:47:18 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
sit back and think how much more efforts you are going to put into your next submission. |
F#@king none! I'm working on having the two submissions I have entered that are still in the voting stage DQ'd as I type this. This was a personal attack and I take it that way. It seems retribution for the Rant and Baghead threads I started the other day. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:47:31 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by james_so:
Yeah, sorry guys, we ran out of butter and have been using dogs milk ;) |
That would explain it.
If my opinion counted, I would say that I am on nsbca7's side of this particular argument. Consistent application of the rules should be paramount. If it can't be done, the rules should be changed to remove the gray area (i.e. NO Filters). I realize the SC would then have way too much free time on their hands, but to that I can only recommend taking on a part time job as a Superbowl Referee.
On a related note, what is the statute of limitations on DQ'ing an image? If I recall, the SC has gone way back and DQ'd images from as much as 2 years prior (could me mistaken) - if there is no SoL, then another solution would be to go back and DQ Falc and Joey's entries, maybe Goodman's also - I'm sure there are more if we look hard enough.
FWIW, I do appreciate and respect all members of the SC - the problem is in the system - it inherently allows for too much subjectivity and leaves the resolution in the hands of too few who cannot avoid their biases any more that the rest of us.
Like I said - if my opininon mattered, that's what I would say. Probably a good thing it doesn't. Bottom line for me is that I would like to see MUCH LESS fighting and bickering and much more constructive debate or at least just more smiling and laughing. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:48:24 PM · #184 |
After reading through this thread in its entirety, I have seen the comment repeated over and over that the major elements clause isn't being applied fairly and consistently.
The fact is, however, that these are borderline DQ decisions. Shannon has made that point clear in other threads regarding these same issues. The reason for nsbca's photo being DQ'ed and not Joey's is probably due to the fact that different SC members voted on each. Each SC member's vote is determined by their individual interpretation of the rules. Different SC members vote on different photos, depending on who is online, etc. These apparent "inconsistencies" are due to that fact, IMO.
As for defining a major element in the rules more clearly, I think it's widely understood how hard this would be to do in specifics. A major element can't simply be defined as a certain size, subject matter, whether or not the object is in focus, etc. It's certainly a combination of these and more variables. That's why it takes a panel of judges to vote on the validity of an image.
Personally I think it's silly to drag this thread out. Just because you see a few isolated photos that, in your opinion, should have been or should not have been DQ'ed does not mean that you should throw away all faith in the SC entirely and blame it on "favoritism."
The fact of the matter is, SC can't win either way. There will always be complaints regardless of whether or not the rules are modified. Give them a break for once. SC is doing a fine job IMO.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:50:57 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
sit back and think how much more efforts you are going to put into your next submission. |
F#@king none! I'm working on having the two submissions I have entered that are still in the voting stage DQ'd as I type this. This was a personal attack and I take it that way. It seems retribution for the Rant and Baghead threads I started the other day. |
It was not a personal attack, and your behaviour right now is just plain childish.
Speaking as a DPC-member, not SC, GROW UP!
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:56:22 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by ursula:
[quote=nsbca7]
It was not a personal attack, and your behaviour right now is just plain childish.
Speaking as a DPC-member, not SC, GROW UP! |
Then as a SC member (and not as merely a DPC member) explain the DQ in light of other images on this site that have used similar technique. That is all I have asked since the beginning of this thread. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:56:54 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Speaking as a DPC-member |
Er, I'm pretty sure that's not allowed ;)
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:59:20 PM · #188 |
"On a related note, what is the statute of limitations on DQ'ing an image? If I recall, the SC has gone way back and DQ'd images from as much as 2 years prior (could me mistaken) - if there is no SoL, then another solution would be to go back and DQ Falc and Joey's entries, maybe Goodman's also - I'm sure there are more if we look hard enough"
I think that would be the fairest thing to do ! Just my 2cents worth!
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:00:29 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by ursula:
[quote=nsbca7]
It was not a personal attack, and your behaviour right now is just plain childish.
Speaking as a DPC-member, not SC, GROW UP! |
Then as a SC member (and not as merely a DPC member) explain the DQ in light of other images on this site that have used similar technique. That is all I have asked since the beginning of this thread. |
As far as I am concerned, neither I nor anyone else on the SC needs to explain anything further here. I also have no interest in saying which way I voted on your image. You have the official explanation. Live with it.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:02:45 PM · #190 |
i don't think this was meant as a "witch hunt". let's keep the topic as the OP. i think nsbca7 should just accept the majority decision of SC and move on. chalk it up to experience (DPC experience). DQs are never pleasant. i know. i've had two already. however, it is what it is my friend. questions will be raised, of course but i personally believe that SC will be having a meeting of the minds if you will and decide whether filters like these should or shouldn't be allowed.
just my two cents for what it's worth.
rikki |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:03:09 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by RANDOD300:
"On a related note, what is the statute of limitations on DQ'ing an image? If I recall, the SC has gone way back and DQ'd images from as much as 2 years prior (could me mistaken) - if there is no SoL, then another solution would be to go back and DQ Falc and Joey's entries, maybe Goodman's also - I'm sure there are more if we look hard enough"
I think that would be the fairest thing to do ! Just my 2cents worth! |
I don't want to see that happen. And I could care less about my image. I would sure like to see the the rules enforced across the board in the future though. And I would also like an proper explanation from someone in SC who has some authority in the matter. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:06:42 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by muckpond:
ok, here's a question.
you can capture motion in-camera. sure, it's harder, but shouldn't you be rewarded more for it? |
Here's my question to you muckpond. How, as SC, do you reward something more? It seems to me you can either reward something (allow it) or penalize something (DQ it). |
i apologize for not clarifying. my thinking was: do you think you deserve the same or possibly a higher score for doing a photo "the hard way."
i'm not talking about the DQ discussion. this is probably the wrong thread. |
I think your biases are showing, given that you assume doing it in camera is 'harder' when often it is actually a whole lot easier and quicker to do it in camera than in photoshop, if you want it to look good.
Harder to control perhaps, in camera.
Harder to undo and play with, certainly, in camera.
Much easier to have it look realistic and to do it well, in camera. |
I agree. Why would you assume that achieving a desired result is "harder" to do in camera, when often it's harder to do something well in PS?
Why should someone be rewarded for doing something the hard way or the easy way? No one deserves a reward for working hard, they deserve to be rewarded for results. I don't get paid at work for working hard, I do get paid for the results I produce, regardless of effort.
DPC is not work, but trying to do things within the confines of the ambiguous DPC rules is becoming more and more of a chore and less and less fun. Especially when those responsible for interpreting compliance produce inconsistent results.
I think I understand why Gordon did not renew his membership and why I doubt I will when mine expires. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:06:49 PM · #193 |
It's obvious you're not going to get what you're after nsbca. I personally think this DQ is ridiculous, along with the last one there was a long thread on, and I think DrJOnes's DQ where he removed half of a light stand was stupid as well...
Anyway...like I said, you aren't going to get what you're after...maybe it's time to move on...and that means either just accept it, or maybe even find another site to frequent. I know that unless there are some serious changes and some consistency, I will not be renewing my membership...I don't even think it's worth it to enter another challenge, personally.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:07:26 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I don't want to see that happen. And I could care less about my image. I would sure like to see the the rules enforced across the board in the future though. And I would also like an proper explanation from someone in SC who has some authority in the matter. |
Of course. You clearly created a test case and want it tried. But it's not a good example for the "courts"...you've muddied the case by trying to imply more than the rule being tested by adding the second element of "personal attack" Had you left it at "why this image and not others" we'd still actually be having a productive conversation. Clearly you didn't get what you wanted from the original post, decided you no longer cared, and heaped coal on the fire. You lost before you left the starting gate. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:09:03 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I don't want to see that happen. And I could care less about my image. I would sure like to see the the rules enforced across the board in the future though. And I would also like an proper explanation from someone in SC who has some authority in the matter. |
Of course. You clearly created a test case and want it tried. But it's not a good example for the "courts"...you've muddied the case by trying to imply more than the rule being tested by adding the second element of "personal attack" Had you left it at "why this image and not others" we'd still actually be having a productive conversation. Clearly you didn't get what you wanted from the original post, decided you no longer cared, and heaped coal on the fire. You lost before you left the starting gate. |
It probably WAS a personal thing. Like 2 months ago, I said it first, and everyone got on my case...of course I can't come up with the evidence that supports my theory (except one side of it) because all the photos that are recommended for DQ and aren't DQ'd are kept private.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:10:33 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
On a related note, what is the statute of limitations on DQ'ing an image? If I recall, the SC has gone way back and DQ'd images from as much as 2 years prior (could me mistaken) - if there is no SoL, then another solution would be to go back and DQ Falc and Joey's entries, maybe Goodman's also - I'm sure there are more if we look hard enough |
I don't want to see that happen. And I could care less about my image. I would sure like to see the the rules enforced across the board in the future though. And I would also like an proper explanation from someone in SC who has some authority in the matter. |
That part was rhetorical, sarcastic, facetious, absurd, etc. Actually I think that SC voting on DQ's should require a super-majority (66%), or even must be unanimous - like a jury/benefit of the doubt sort of thing. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:14:07 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by deapee:
...I will not be renewing my membership...I don't even think it's worth it to enter another challenge, personally. |
I doubt I will even be able to. If you could see the moon shots i sent Sc when they asked for validation of the images I have in two of the current challenges you would have an idea why.
And KaDi, I don't care. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:21:26 PM · #198 |
My input, and mind you, I'm a n00b.
"Waaahhhhhh"
It's a community of people that spend their time for free looking at photographs that you don't win anything but pride with. SCs are doing a damn good job for what they're getting paid, and there may be irregularities with the way rules are enforced here, but remember: they're getting paid nothing. They're doing it for the love. SC members don't deserve to get crap tossed at them whenever they do something someone thinks is wrong.
I got a picture DQd because the clock was set wrong on my camera. I could prove that it was set wrong, but you know what? It doesn't matter. There's no way it's going to be turned back. There's no way anything I do is going to matter. So I suck it up. Because it means nothing.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:24:57 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by LedZeppelin588:
... I'm a n00b.
I got a picture DQd because the clock was set wrong on my camera. |
Everybody gets DQ'd for that one. It's a no-brainer. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:34:24 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by LedZeppelin588:
My input, and mind you, I'm a n00b.
"Waaahhhhhh"
It's a community of people that spend their time for free looking at photographs that you don't win anything but pride with. SCs are doing a damn good job for what they're getting paid, and there may be irregularities with the way rules are enforced here, but remember: they're getting paid nothing. They're doing it for the love. SC members don't deserve to get crap tossed at them whenever they do something someone thinks is wrong.
I got a picture DQd because the clock was set wrong on my camera. I could prove that it was set wrong, but you know what? It doesn't matter. There's no way it's going to be turned back. There's no way anything I do is going to matter. So I suck it up. Because it means nothing. |
You haven't put in enough time for your opinion to matter to me. Better luck next time.
And he's not crying, he has a valid point...move on!
|
|
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: 06/17/2025 09:44:12 PM EDT.
