| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2006 06:54:51 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Alain_cdn:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
I can't stand the suicide/violence/blood photos. I may be in the minority there, yet no one is yelling to stop THOSE types of photos!
I have to deal with them, and have to keep my daughter away from them.
Seeing a "sexy" photo, she just rolls her eyes and moves on.
Seeing the violent ones, she gets upset.
I know which I find worse.
Where is the gore filter? |
Agree 100%, I hate to see suicide, violence and blood pictures. They really offend me, I never give these pictures more than 5, even if they are well executed. As for nudes, nothing on this site did offend me up to date. |
If you are unable to put aside your personal feelings or bias towards these photos, maybe you shouldn't vote on them at all. If the photo is technically perfect and a good photo, but you can't get past your own emotions and look at something subjectively, why not just pass rather than trying to punish them for having a different opinion or viewpoint than you? Saying you won't give more than a five is simply ridiculous. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:58:00 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
Originally posted by Alain_cdn:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
I can't stand the suicide/violence/blood photos. I may be in the minority there, yet no one is yelling to stop THOSE types of photos!
I have to deal with them, and have to keep my daughter away from them.
Seeing a "sexy" photo, she just rolls her eyes and moves on.
Seeing the violent ones, she gets upset.
I know which I find worse.
Where is the gore filter? |
Agree 100%, I hate to see suicide, violence and blood pictures. They really offend me, I never give these pictures more than 5, even if they are well executed. As for nudes, nothing on this site did offend me up to date. |
If you are unable to put aside your personal feelings or bias towards these photos, maybe you shouldn't vote on them at all. If the photo is technically perfect and a good photo, but you can't get past your own emotions and look at something subjectively, why not just pass rather than trying to punish them for having a different opinion or viewpoint than you? Saying you won't give more than a five is simply ridiculous. |
I never did think about it, you have a very good point. From now on, I will just pass them and not vote on them. At least my post was constructive for me. But it does not change my opinion that these pictures are a lot worse for children compare to some nudity.
Edited to simply add that I hate violence of any kind... anything wrong with that?
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 19:01:57. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:06:18 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Alain_cdn:
Originally posted by rscorp:
Originally posted by Alain_cdn:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
I can't stand the suicide/violence/blood photos. I may be in the minority there, yet no one is yelling to stop THOSE types of photos!
I have to deal with them, and have to keep my daughter away from them.
Seeing a "sexy" photo, she just rolls her eyes and moves on.
Seeing the violent ones, she gets upset.
I know which I find worse.
Where is the gore filter? |
Agree 100%, I hate to see suicide, violence and blood pictures. They really offend me, I never give these pictures more than 5, even if they are well executed. As for nudes, nothing on this site did offend me up to date. |
If you are unable to put aside your personal feelings or bias towards these photos, maybe you shouldn't vote on them at all. If the photo is technically perfect and a good photo, but you can't get past your own emotions and look at something subjectively, why not just pass rather than trying to punish them for having a different opinion or viewpoint than you? Saying you won't give more than a five is simply ridiculous. |
I never did think about it, you have a very good point. From now on, I will just pass them and not vote on them. At least my post was constructive for me. But it does not change my opinion that these pictures are a lot worse for children compare to some nudity.
Edited to simply add that I hate violence of any kind... anything wrong with that? |
Wasn't anything wrong with what you said before. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Personally I think violence is much worse for children than nudity. Let me re-phrase that, I don't think nudity harms children in any way at all. Violence to me is much worse for them. All I meant was, anything that is basically accpeted as a "legal" picture here should have the opportunity to be voted on without bias, or not voged on at all. Just more fair to the photographer that way. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:14:38 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
.. anything that is basically accpeted as a "legal" picture here should have the opportunity to be voted on without bias, or not voged on at all. Just more fair to the photographer that way. |
Wow, now that is a tall order! Whilst I usually try to be fair, there IS a limit to what I'll tolerate.
Part of a successful submission is evoking emotion in the viewer, so doesn't it stand to reason for that go both ways, positive AND negative?
If I enter a flower/baby/woody/puppy/cat shot, I risk the wrath of the flower/baby/woody/puppy/cat haters.
If I enter a shot that I know is going to be controversial, I must be prepared for the consequences (just like Leroy and Linda were).
Why should that be any different for the violent photos?
Even if we DO try to put aside personal feelings for the sake of judging technicalities, we will still be influenced by the whole package.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:15:32 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
Wasn't anything wrong with what you said before. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Personally I think violence is much worse for children than nudity. Let me re-phrase that, I don't think nudity harms children in any way at all. Violence to me is much worse for them. All I meant was, anything that is basically accpeted as a "legal" picture here should have the opportunity to be voted on without bias, or not voged on at all. Just more fair to the photographer that way. |
Robert,
Like I said, you have a very good point. And seriously I will pass these picture from now on. I agree that people can have different point of view and I should not vote them down because of this. Not voting on them will be fair for everybody.
Alain |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:17:36 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by rscorp:
.. anything that is basically accpeted as a "legal" picture here should have the opportunity to be voted on without bias, or not voged on at all. Just more fair to the photographer that way. |
Wow, now that is a tall order! Whilst I usually try to be fair, there IS a limit to what I'll tolerate.
Part of a successful submission is evoking emotion in the viewer, so doesn't it stand to reason for that go both ways, positive AND negative?
If I enter a flower/baby/woody/puppy/cat shot, I risk the wrath of the flower/baby/woody/puppy/cat haters.
If I enter a shot that I know is going to be controversial, I must be prepared for the consequences (just like Leroy and Linda were).
Why should that be any different for the violent photos?
Even if we DO try to put aside personal feelings for the sake of judging technicalities, we will still be influenced by the whole package. |
Well this is also a very good point.... |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:24:20 PM · #107 |
Alain, I don't think you should skip them at all.
This was my entry in the Fantasy challenge:
I had a clear version and a blurred one. I thought the blurred would draw attention to the money, and make the printer look more of a fantasy. I thought it was the right thing to do.
I was wrong, obviously most voters were on a different wavelength to mine. They had a different view - does that mean they should NOT have voted?
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 19:25:08. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:41:02 PM · #108 |
Ok let me start by saying this...Im not a prude. Take a look at my profile and youll see I have flagged the good DocJone as a fave. The man does impressive work that isn't all about the model...but she does help :) That aside I also have no problems with nudity in art, it has been there for centuries, many artist use nudes to learn the human form so they can capture it better when clothed, wether it be sketches statutes, oils, or photography. Just like designing a building sometimes you have to start with the frame and work your way out. That said this is not an adult oriented site. If I had to verify I was 18years old to use this site then pics of sex acts...no prob, but in this case I do have a problem. First and foremost If i pulled up a pic of a nude at work on a photography website and it has many other typs of subjects 99% of people would be ok with it because it is "Art" but when thens start to get to explicit It could wind up getting me fired. Or as a kid I would have been grounded (trust me I was).
I agree sometimes the rules sometimes are applied in a way that seems inconsistant but that is life and it is not always fair, so people complaind about these and the councel agreed and on others they didn't I think we should thank them all for doing their job and tring to apply it fairly to the best of their abilities.
For these shots I think they are funny. and tasteless (which is what makes them funny to me) but have no place here because they do cross that line. As for vilience I think the SC would remove pics of an actual murder being commited while I think it is fine to use special effects as those to are a skill and an art.
One last topic to to hit on in this thread. Sex, Love and violence. My son is 10 months old, he gets to watch shows like the Wiggles and Dora, but also gets to watch CSI, M*A*S*H and movies like the Last Samuri. I would not let him watch sex acts but breif nudes ect sure what ever. its the human body. Violence...It is a human tendancy young kids learn to hit and bite not only from parents and tv but each other or just reasoning it out. My son will have a firm understanding of honor and when violence is ok and when it is not (ie he wont be a bully but he wont be a passive victim as well). And while I see sex as the an act of love it is not the ultimate act of it and sex in its self is not love and is a private act to be between ADULTS, hence why I think these shots are rightfully DQed. So would you rather have your shild dishing out shiners or changing diapers because both Sex and Violence in movies/tv/pictures desentisize. I personaly think it will be easier to teach my kid about sec when he is older to understand more of the complexties of relationships, while violence is a bit more of a basic thing to teach about. And lastly some time a bit of desentization is a good thing, you see a person being attacked. Would you freze up and do nothing, ignore it and do nothing, or try and help? I personally would call the cops and then try to do what I could to help until they got there, any thing elese would make some of the wrongs happening my fault. So being desenstized enough to be able to respond and help is a good thing so desentized to just movealong and ignore it...bad. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:57:29 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Alain, I don't think you should skip them at all.
This was my entry in the Fantasy challenge:
I had a clear version and a blurred one. I thought the blurred would draw attention to the money, and make the printer look more of a fantasy. I thought it was the right thing to do.
I was wrong, obviously most voters were on a different wavelength to mine. They had a different view - does that mean they should NOT have voted? |
First I did think that Robert did bring up something interresting, but your post immediately changed my mind. I will continue to vote down pictures with real violence. They just turn me down. And like you said, other people do not hesitate to vote picture down just because they are flowers, babies or pets, even if the picture is really great and meets the challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 08:33:55 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Alain_cdn:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Alain, I don't think you should skip them at all.
This was my entry in the Fantasy challenge:
I had a clear version and a blurred one. I thought the blurred would draw attention to the money, and make the printer look more of a fantasy. I thought it was the right thing to do.
I was wrong, obviously most voters were on a different wavelength to mine. They had a different view - does that mean they should NOT have voted? |
First I did think that Robert did bring up something interresting, but your post immediately changed my mind. I will continue to vote down pictures with real violence. They just turn me down. And like you said, other people do not hesitate to vote picture down just because they are flowers, babies or pets, even if the picture is really great and meets the challenge. |
Two different things. A picture that has a partial blur, is out of focus, is composed badly, etc. is different than having a personal, emotional view about something.
Voting a photo a 5 or less because you find technical flaws in a photo or feel it is lacking in quality is one thing. But to look at a photo that is technically very good and may be considered a great photo by most, but is something you aren't interested in or have a personal view against is a bit wrong, in my judgement.
People that vote a flower or baby picture low because they are sick of those pictures or just hate flowers or whatever, aren't being fair. Photos should be judged or viewed without bias.
For example, I'm not a big, huge fan of country music. Just not my thing. But does that mean I should say that all country musicians suck if asked to give my opinion on which country singers have talent? Do they suck just because I don't like country music? I'd hope I could at least give a fair opinion. If I couldn't, I'd just keep my mouth shut rather than saying "Clint Black sucks because I don't like country music"
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:19:41 PM · #111 |
FWIW, only one of these ("Who needs a man?") had a disqualification request during voting and no action was taken as a result of a unanimous vote.
Please know that we're taking the proper steps to ensure consistency on future disqualifications.
       |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 11:14:51 PM · #112 |
I'm truly disappointed that no one has posted this video clip yet in either thread...
The Internet is for Porn
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 23:18:08.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 11:24:39 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'm truly disappointed that no one has posted this video clip yet in either thread...
The Internet is for Porn |
sssshhh - now you're letting them know how we came about this idea of ours. lol |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:06:38 AM · #114 |
IMHO This whole conversation is rediculous. I can't believe for one that either of these shots would be considered lude. In bad taste, perhaps. A poor excuse for humour, maybe. Sexually explicit, seen MTV lately?
I don't see any connection with past shots. I don't see any reason to bash S/C for being inconsistant (they can't rule on DQ if no one asks for it). I don't see any problem with collaborative efforts (two ribbon winners in a past challenge...) No cheese was harmed in the filming of either of these shots. I don't understand why they were DQ'ed but they were. Even if they were reinstated now it would simply sqew the statistics of the site. It's a privately run site. The shots were DQ'ed. Right or wrong it's the right of the site to do so. It's not like there are fabulous prizes at stake. It's just a silly waste of electrons to continue this conversation... Put them in your ports. If they aren't allowed here, put them on another site and post links. It's over and done with. I'm going to bed... |
|
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: 08/28/2025 05:55:11 PM EDT.
