| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2006 12:45:18 AM · #426 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So my question is, "Is tone mapping on a single exposure legal in basic editing?" |
As long as it's a single original and you don't use any selections or illegal layers/modes, I suppose so. |
Actually, I just DID test it, in the lighting challenge :-) I had forgotten I'd done that. Anyone want to challenge the image? jejeje�
R. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:18:55 PM · #427 |
Seems like this thread needs to be brought up as a reminder we (DPC community) do/did have opportunities to help rewrite the rules. Not an easy task.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
... Most importantly, we'd like to solicit your suggestions. If there is anything you would like to see in the new rules, now is the time to voice it!
To help keep things moving, I ask only the following:
- Bear in mind that anything posted here is a suggestion. We will carefully consider any suggestions posted, but we do reserve the right to reject any suggestion for any reason. Most often this would be because of enforceability issues or because they don't fit with where we see the site progressing.
- Suggestions should be solutions, not problems. For the most part, we all know where the problem areas are in the rules. A statement that such-and-such section needs to be fixed does little to keep the discussion moving forward. What really helps is to suggest a specific improvement.
Thanks!
Site Council |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:20:45 PM · #428 |
This was done back in 2006, That was close to 3 years ago, before many of the active members in this site existed. Perhaps, this should be done more often? Three years without dicussion of the rules we live by is a long time in the internet world.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 15:21:27.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:25:19 PM · #429 |
"if you are Hitler, you may only shoot jpeg for any challenge submission"
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=851386
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:35:14 PM · #430 |
| I think that the "Free Beer" rule should be added. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:42:45 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think that the "Free Beer" rule should be added. |
Then maybe we should integrate with the Free Beer organisation? :)
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:06:59 PM · #432 |
| I think SC should not participate in challenges, i.e., no submissions, no voting. I'm not certain that there is much logic in their participation as they also voice an opinion when it comes to the DQ process, etc. I would also like to see some transparency in what information they can access during the voting process. This type of information should be in the site FAQ particularly since SC members are actively participating, and not just randomly posted in the forums as has been in the past. I'm not calling anyone out, just stating what seems like common sense. It would help to validate the voting and DQ process. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:45:35 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I think SC should not participate in challenges, i.e., no submissions, no voting. I'm not certain that there is much logic in their participation as they also voice an opinion when it comes to the DQ process, etc. I would also like to see some transparency in what information they can access during the voting process. This type of information should be in the site FAQ particularly since SC members are actively participating, and not just randomly posted in the forums as has been in the past. I'm not calling anyone out, just stating what seems like common sense. It would help to validate the voting and DQ process. |
I hope you are kidding here. Or maybe you don't realize that the Site Council donates their time, and energy to keep this place running fairly smoothly. They get nothing besides an icon and immeasurable grief for their work, and now you want them to not enter photos, which is why we all joined up here to begin with. The logic with their participation is simple, they joined and paid like a lot of us. Then they put their hand up to take on an absolutely thankless task in helping the site owners and us in insuring we are competing within the framework of the rules. If your suggestion was taken up, I doubt very much that their would be anyone volunteering to be on it.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:47:34 PM · #434 |
| I was reading through this, and wondering why people were begging to be allowed to clone out sensor dust in basic, since it is allowed. Then I noticed the dates and the multiple pages of responses. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:52:34 PM · #435 |
I would volunteer if I was no longer interested in participating via voting and entries for a defined period of time. Commenting and side challenges would be another avenue of participation. Just a suggestion, overall SC does a fine job.
Originally posted by Ironworker:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I think SC should not participate in challenges, i.e., no submissions, no voting. I'm not certain that there is much logic in their participation as they also voice an opinion when it comes to the DQ process, etc. I would also like to see some transparency in what information they can access during the voting process. This type of information should be in the site FAQ particularly since SC members are actively participating, and not just randomly posted in the forums as has been in the past. I'm not calling anyone out, just stating what seems like common sense. It would help to validate the voting and DQ process. |
I hope you are kidding here. Or maybe you don't realize that the Site Council donates their time, and energy to keep this place running fairly smoothly. They get nothing besides an icon and immeasurable grief for their work, and now you want them to not enter photos, which is why we all joined up here to begin with. The logic with their participation is simple, they joined and paid like a lot of us. Then they put their hand up to take on an absolutely thankless task in helping the site owners and us in insuring we are competing within the framework of the rules. If your suggestion was taken up, I doubt very much that their would be anyone volunteering to be on it. |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:23:52 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I think SC should not participate in challenges, i.e., no submissions, no voting. |
Oh, goody. So we can volunteer to be banned from participation in exchange for the privilege of being vilified by disgruntled members? How could anyone resist such joy? :-/ |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:26:28 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I think SC should not participate in challenges, i.e., no submissions, no voting. I'm not certain that there is much logic in their participation as they also voice an opinion when it comes to the DQ process, etc. I would also like to see some transparency in what information they can access during the voting process. This type of information should be in the site FAQ particularly since SC members are actively participating, and not just randomly posted in the forums as has been in the past. I'm not calling anyone out, just stating what seems like common sense. It would help to validate the voting and DQ process. |
well, why dont you start paying them? then maybe they can start treating it like a job..instead of a fun activity. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:28:12 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by egamble:
then maybe they can start treating it like a job...instead of a fun activity. |
ROFL! |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:38:27 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I think SC should not participate in challenges, i.e., no submissions, no voting. |
Oh, goody. So we can volunteer to be banned from participation in exchange for the privilege of being vilified by disgruntled members? How could anyone resist such joy? :-/ |
Nah, not vilified, just validated! :) To be clear, I'm not disgruntled at all, I just think these issues should be clear and transparent. If SC was rotating like  MattO suggested, this would not be much of a problem. If it's that bad, why do you do it? I'm sure at some level you enjoy taking part in the process despite the "disgruntle members", and I respect that. I do feel that a site self-described as a "digital photography contest" should seperate the admins from the participants with regards to entering and voting in the "contest". Fairly standard stuff in my opinion. A contest should be seen as fair and free from collusion. Do you agree?
A poll may help sort out the general feeling of the membership, not the few willing to post in the forums. I would wager that the average person would agree that those directing a contest, should not actively participate in that contest. Again, fairly standard stuff. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:54:31 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
... I would wager that the average person would agree that those directing a contest, should not actively participate in that contest. Again, fairly standard stuff. |
I trust the members of the SC 110% in their handling of priviliged items and have confidence in their integrity to make a decision based on merit/rules and not personal agendas.
The ribbons that some SC members have earned have been earned fair and square, in head-to-head competition with the rest of us. There have been DQ's administered to SC members as well.
The DPC community is directing any "contest" on this website by anonymous voting. SC has nothing to do with individual votes and the final outcomes.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised hearing this coming from you Ben - you have my respect and admiration as a photographer and member of DPChallenge. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:09:34 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
... I would wager that the average person would agree that those directing a contest, should not actively participate in that contest. Again, fairly standard stuff. |
I trust the members of the SC 110% in their handling of priviliged items and have confidence in their integrity to make a decision based on merit/rules and not personal agendas.
The ribbons that some SC members have earned have been earned fair and square, in head-to-head competition with the rest of us. There have been DQ's administered to SC members as well.
The DPC community is directing any "contest" on this website by anonymous voting. SC has nothing to do with individual votes and the final outcomes.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised hearing this coming from you Ben - you have my respect and admiration as a photographer and member of DPChallenge. |
Thanks for that! Keep in mind I'm not accussing anyone of anything, truly. It's just a suggestion that has been on my mind since I first found the site. I've always found it odd that SC participated in the voting and submission of entries, and then participated in the DQ process, etc. Maybe I'm mentioning it now because some of you will "know" me, and I feel a bit more comfortable. I love this site, and will continue to participate even without my suggestion. I tend to nit pick facts, it's part of my job, and is now a habit. So this little tid bit of fact has always tingled in the back of my mind. So I'm throwing it out there. Thanks for the gentle response and not slamming me! I'm still expecting to get slammed, but I'll take it for the open discussion. :)
ETA: I'm sure your points are correct...just questioning the design.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 21:11:58. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:10:58 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I've always found it odd that SC participated in the voting and submission of entries, and then participated in the DQ process, etc. |
Why? We don't participate in discussions of our own entries when validation is requested. We have no idea who entered what when voting (if we vote at all) unless the entry appears in the validation queue or we have a specific reason to find out. Even then we're usually more concerned with the image itself than who shot it, and I know Alanfreed (DPC's most prolific voter) doesn't even touch validations until after he's voted. Our voting queue looks just like yours, and it would be sheer lunacy to risk respect or reputation to influence the outcome of a competitor's photo for a virtual ribbon. Someone who participates in a large GTG and then submits and votes on the entries has probably seen more than we have.
Bear in mind that since individual opinions and interpretations vary, changes in SC can affect consistency and precedent, too. That said, I personally think we're overdue for adding some people. Validations that are supposed to be finished in a few days are regularly taking a week or longer to get enough votes. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 10:47:23 PM · #443 |
SC members are not judging and determining the winners--the votes of the membership here, including members voting on challenges in which they have an entry, determine the winners. The SC members each get their single vote, same as us.
I cannot imagine anyone enjoying the site admin stuff so much that participating was not of primary interest--and would we want someone running the site who doesn't use it, too? Next step would be non-photographers running the site.... yikes! ;-) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:54:46 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I've always found it odd that SC participated in the voting and submission of entries, and then participated in the DQ process, etc. |
Why? We don't participate in discussions of our own entries when validation is requested. We have no idea who entered what when voting (if we vote at all) unless the entry appears in the validation queue or we have a specific reason to find out. Even then we're usually more concerned with the image itself than who shot it, and I know Alanfreed (DPC's most prolific voter) doesn't even touch validations until after he's voted. Our voting queue looks just like yours, and it would be sheer lunacy to risk respect or reputation to influence the outcome of a competitor's photo for a virtual ribbon. Someone who participates in a large GTG and then submits and votes on the entries has probably seen more than we have.
Bear in mind that since individual opinions and interpretations vary, changes in SC can affect consistency and precedent, too. That said, I personally think we're overdue for adding some people. Validations that are supposed to be finished in a few days are regularly taking a week or longer to get enough votes. |
Shannon, I like your points, and you have made the same points in past threads. To eliminate bias, which is human nature, you should never know the photographer until the image has been validated. It's difficult validate an image, without bias, if you know the photog. I respect and trust the people, it's the policy that I find odd. Can SC find out who entered a shot if a validation request was not made for a particular image? How about this, let's eliminate the people from the equation (I have)...can you agree that, ideally, a contest should be free from bias? If so, then the judges should be remain blinded during validation, and should have no means to discover the owner of a submission. Again, I want to discuss policy, not the people. Hopefully you accept that I'm questioning the setup and not the SC per se. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:57:30 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
SC members are not judging and determining the winners--the votes of the membership here, including members voting on challenges in which they have an entry, determine the winners. The SC members each get their single vote, same as us.
I cannot imagine anyone enjoying the site admin stuff so much that participating was not of primary interest--and would we want someone running the site who doesn't use it, too? Next step would be non-photographers running the site.... yikes! ;-) |
Yes, I agree! Although you open up other interesting points. I typically, not always, avoid voting in a challenge in which I'm entered. I think others do the same. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:02:50 AM · #446 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Can SC find out who entered a shot if a validation request was not made for a particular image? |
We can, but it takes a little digging. I'll sometimes peek (after voting if I'm doing that) to confirm a hunch that I know who shot it. I'm usually right. ;-)
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
How about this, let's eliminate the people from the equation (I have)...can you agree that, ideally, a contest should be free from bias? |
Of course, and wherever possible, we already do that. For example if we see an entry that look suspicious, we can click a button that shows just the "photographer's comments" section (without the name), and those details can be enough of an explanation that there's no need to request an original. The nature of the validation process precludes true anonymity though since tickets and PM responses typically include the photographer's name. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:54:01 AM · #447 |
OK. So then I'll amend my suggestion (which is still good, but probably not practical) as follows...make the voting and validation process anonymous for the SC until after the voting/rollover. Close the voting loophole that you mentioned. I'm sure it's possible to improve upon the validation process. I know that you may need info from the photographer, so the challenge is creating a blind pathway to get that information. Seems like a reasonable project!
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 00:55:04. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:14:04 AM · #448 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
the challenge is creating a blind pathway to get that information. |
Again, we already try to do that. I don't think anyone actually peeks before voting, and we don't say, "Oh, it's this guy's shot so let's DQ it or let it slide." The number of entries in the validation queue is very small for any challenge (maybe 6-12), not all SC submit to challenges or vote on a regular basis, and we often need to communicate via regular email to help someone upload a file or verify an account. We go out of our way to be fair even without forced restrictions, and we all know that D&L are fully capable of checking out our activity. There just isn't much potential for abuse. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:38:53 AM · #449 |
Shannon, just to be clear, I trust that SC does not cheat. I accept your points as valid and true. I'm good with this discussion ending if you are, I think we both made our points. I'll stick with my ammended suggestion. ;) Cheers.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:10:03 AM · #450 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I typically, not always, avoid voting in a challenge in which I'm entered. I think others do the same. |
I totally agree. I seldom vote on a challenge I am entered in.
I apologize for not reading all multiple pages of this thread, since I just read the 10 pages on the dq thread....whew. I would like to suggest that SC NOT be allowed to be part of the validation process/discussion on any challenge they are entered in.
So in effect if they are entered in open challenge "a" they would be available to participate in discussions on validations for open challenge "b". Have them sign up for the members challenges and free studies in such a way that they take turns and there are always enough SC left to make decisions on validations without involving someone that has entered that challenge.
I would like to say that it is not because I actually believe the SC would ever cheat, I am not accusing anyone of anything. I just think that as well as the process actually being fair and impartial, it must always appear to be impartial and above reproach, so that it can never be questioned. :) |
|
