Author | Thread |
|
01/31/2007 02:35:12 PM · #151 |
OK, time for me to at least express my opinion.
For all those who felt that zoo shots were DNMC, how do you propose anybody verify this fact? I agree it goes against the spirit of the description (the "natural environment" clause was obviously put in there to avoid a host of zoo shots just as "insects" were left out of the animal description to prevent a host of insect shots), but ultimately it is going to be left up to the phtographer to follow that or not. There is no possible way to verify a shot was taken or not taken in the zoo. (OTOH, for those who are trying to argue their way into saying zoo shots are "natural", get real. If you asked 100 people on the street if a zoo represented a natural environment, at least 95 would say "no". You know this. I know this. It is obvious.)
However, other challenges which have caused a great deal of controversy (4-5AM and 2 second exposure) were easy to verify. I could understand making these DQable offenses (by putting the little extra rule flag on them). Elsapo's waterfall shot was great, but it did obviously fly in the face of the challenge where the goal was to take a 2-second picture (and learn from doing so). The voter assumed the photographer was acting in good faith and voted accordingly. They were very disappointed when they found their trust had been violated.
I would have been highly disappointed if a zoo shot had beaten me out for a ribbon (especially with a 7.5), but am happy to see none did. I agree with the principle that you can push the boundaries of the challenge description if you are willing to risk the consequences. However, I do rely on the ethics of individuals when the challenge description includes wordage which can not be verfied by the voter. |
|
|
01/31/2007 02:49:04 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: OK, time for me to at least express my opinion.
For all those who felt that zoo shots were DNMC, how do you propose anybody verify this fact? I agree it goes against the spirit of the description (the "natural environment" clause was obviously put in there to avoid a host of zoo shots just as "insects" were left out of the animal description to prevent a host of insect shots), but ultimately it is going to be left up to the phtographer to follow that or not. There is no possible way to verify a shot was taken or not taken in the zoo. (OTOH, for those who are trying to argue their way into saying zoo shots are "natural", get real. If you asked 100 people on the street if a zoo represented a natural environment, at least 95 would say "no". You know this. I know this. It is obvious.)
However, other challenges which have caused a great deal of controversy (4-5AM and 2 second exposure) were easy to verify. I could understand making these DQable offenses (by putting the little extra rule flag on them). Elsapo's waterfall shot was great, but it did obviously fly in the face of the challenge where the goal was to take a 2-second picture (and learn from doing so). The voter assumed the photographer was acting in good faith and voted accordingly. They were very disappointed when they found their trust had been violated.
I would have been highly disappointed if a zoo shot had beaten me out for a ribbon (especially with a 7.5), but am happy to see none did. I agree with the principle that you can push the boundaries of the challenge description if you are willing to risk the consequences. However, I do rely on the ethics of individuals when the challenge description includes wordage which can not be verfied by the voter. |
Jason your shot was simply breathtaking and I agree that there is no way to verify. There is also no need to hook people into polygraphs HOWEVER, I'm miffed at those who did it and then brazenly admitted it. I figure if you know that most people will take the description as a literal "guideline" and you choose to stray knowing fully that most others will not, be prepared to have tomatoes thrown at you. And when the tomatoes come flying, don't say that you didn't expect it. |
|
|
01/31/2007 03:02:49 PM · #153 |
The zoo shots could be of animals in 'their' natural environment. How do we know whether the animal was captured in the wild and placed in a zoo or was born and raised in the zoo? |
|
|
01/31/2007 03:05:15 PM · #154 |
In my mind, natural means not man made. While an animal may be born at a zoo and thus that is it's "natural" environment because it does not know any other, the environment was still assembled by man so does not count. |
|
|
01/31/2007 03:08:25 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti: The zoo shots could be of animals in 'their' natural environment. How do we know whether the animal was captured in the wild and placed in a zoo or was born and raised in the zoo? |
Blah blah blah. I just don't buy it. DPC is the only place other than the bizarro world where this would be considered true. I'm not going to argue about it. I'm just going to say the arguments are hollow and you know as well as I do they don't really hold water. |
|
|
01/31/2007 03:11:11 PM · #156 |
For my two cents:
If we want to get "real" how many skies are as blue as we present here? How many lawns are as green as what we shoot? Where did that telephone pole go?
What I am getting at is that in the end, a lot of what we do is smoke and mirrors. Its an illusion of reality. In reality there are undomesticated animals caged up for display to people. They are no longer wild but certainly not tame either. It doesn't matter to me personally if a picture was taken in a wilderness park, a wildlife preserve, a zoo or by someone who happens to have an elephant in their back yard. So long as I believe it's taken in the wild then thats all that matters to me.
And there's a couple of more things for me to point out: we have a lot of people who live in large urban centers with little or no access to real wild life. Should we exclude such a large portion of our membership because they live in the big city?
The other thing is kinda funny. I would be more scared to go into a corral with an elk from a farm than one that is supposedly wild. The National Parks in Banff and Jasper have elk and deer that are technically wild, but have been fed so much that they are nearly domesticated. In fact they are probably MORE domesticated than their zoo kin yet technically they are wild
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 15:12:32.
|
|
|
01/31/2007 03:12:27 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: If you asked 100 people on the street if a zoo represented a natural environment, at least 95 would say "no". You know this. I know this. It is obvious.) |
If you showed 100 people on the street a well-composed image of an animal in a zoo and asked them if it was a photo of wildlife in it's natural environment, many would say "yes". You know this. I know this. It is obvious. Whattya' know... that's exactly what the challenge asked us to produce.
If the challenge was dairy and I took a shot of glue, is that unethical because I avoided the challenge of shooting milk-based products? Heck, this challenge instructed photographers to shoot a superstition or urban legend. The details were specific and made no allowance for photographing something that merely looks like you did. So... did you venture out and locate a real Yeti or just something that appeared to meet the challenge? How would you feel if you actually spent a week camped out on the shores of Loch Ness while others took this approach? Watch your footing Doc, the slope is slippery here. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 15:22:39. |
|
|
01/31/2007 03:54:56 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by DrAchoo: If you asked 100 people on the street if a zoo represented a natural environment, at least 95 would say "no". You know this. I know this. It is obvious.) |
If you showed 100 people on the street a well-composed image of an animal in a zoo and asked them if it was a photo of wildlife in it's natural environment, many would say "yes". You know this. I know this. It is obvious. Whattya' know... that's exactly what the challenge asked us to produce.
If the challenge was dairy and I took a shot of glue, is that unethical because I avoided the challenge of shooting milk-based products? Heck, this challenge instructed photographers to shoot a superstition or urban legend. The details were specific and made no allowance for photographing something that merely looks like you did. So... did you venture out and locate a real Yeti or just something that appeared to meet the challenge? How would you feel if you actually spent a week camped out on the shores of Loch Ness while others took this approach? Watch your footing Doc, the slope is slippery here. ;-) |
So you see no difference in the types of challenges that are presented at DPC? People complained about the 4-5am and 2-second exposure challenges. Why do you think that was? Could it be that people saw those challenges as different more specific much like this one? Mind you I totally get where you're coming from but even you must admit not all challenges are created equal in the expectations of the voter.
|
|
|
01/31/2007 03:57:21 PM · #159 |
Sigh... It´s threads like this that are slowly making me weary of DPC and for the sole reason of it slowly being less and less fun to hang out here...
That´s the key word for me here, "Fun" and when I stop having it and start mulling over challenge results and debating what other people should or should not do, I´ll take my leave of absence :) |
|
|
01/31/2007 03:59:19 PM · #160 |
Let me add if this contest was conducted by a wildlife photography magazine would you have still submitted your entry?
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:04:18 PM · #161 |
8-)
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 18:16:56. |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:04:40 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by yanko: So you see no difference in the types of challenges that are presented at DPC? |
Sure, some have special rules that require you to take certain steps while others don't. If you thought that, "Take a photo of a superstition or urban legend" meant that you had to shoot a real Bigfoot or find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.... and you actually DID– hey, fabulous! You deserve a gold star and maybe a Pulitzer, but don't go complaining that others scored well with photos that only appeared to do that. |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:09:09 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by DrAchoo: If you asked 100 people on the street if a zoo represented a natural environment, at least 95 would say "no". You know this. I know this. It is obvious.) |
If you showed 100 people on the street a well-composed image of an animal in a zoo and asked them if it was a photo of wildlife in it's natural environment, many would say "yes". You know this. I know this. It is obvious. Whattya' know... that's exactly what the challenge asked us to produce.
If the challenge was dairy and I took a shot of glue, is that unethical because I avoided the challenge of shooting milk-based products? Heck, this challenge instructed photographers to shoot a superstition or urban legend. The details were specific and made no allowance for photographing something that merely looks like you did. So... did you venture out and locate a real Yeti or just something that appeared to meet the challenge? How would you feel if you actually spent a week camped out on the shores of Loch Ness while others took this approach? Watch your footing Doc, the slope is slippery here. ;-) |
If we were talking about the elusive 7 toed antarctic salamander or the zeteons of planet glab, you're argument would be applicable. Shannon, you opened your comment on the photo description clearly stating;
"Yes, it's a zoo shot. So sue me. I really enjoy wildlife photography, but the only animals I could find in the coldest week of the year were some rather ordinary birds, and even they were wearing heating bills. ;-)"
It appears clear that you knew what you were doing otherwise there would not be a call to "sue" you. At this point you've expended a great deal of energy justifying something that you, yourself, have identified as a point of contention. It was you who put it out there and "crap disturbers" like me who read your comment and followed through with your request.
So yes it is a slippery slope, yes it is something that will be disputed and yes it is something we will never agree on.
Please do not try to imply that those of us who read your own words are stupid and closed minded. Try to understand that it was you who shared your thoughts in your commentary.
Sometimes it is easier to ask for foregiveness than it is to ask for permission.
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:17:55 PM · #164 |
I know you like to argue Shannon, I'm not really going to get into it with you, but you need to read my post more carefully.
A) I pointed out that people asking for DQs on such things were off base because there was going to be no way to validate such a thing.
B) I pointed out that verifiable descriptions can and should be flagged as DQ'able. Elsapo's blue in 2-second exposure is the beginning and end of that argument.
C) Your argument is hollow because you admitted in the very first words of your description that you knew you were on thin ice. I am perfectly able to hold the opinion doing such things is "unethical" or "against the spirit" of the challenge. You hold the same opinion (as evidenced by your mea culpa), but made the decision to enter it anyway. I refer you back to A in that I don't think your shot should be DQ'd, but I would have been disappointed if it had finished higher than mine. |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:20:32 PM · #165 |
Man, has this spiraled out of control. Sigh...typical of DPC I guess.
If you (read anyone) really thought that no one would enter a 'wildlife' shot taken at a zoo (or other controlled environment), or thought a photo taken at a zoo wouldn't score well here at DPC - well, it's time to get that rock off your head. Seriously.
Challenges take place here week in/week out where naysayers could find something that didn't quite fit, or think the photographer made it look too easy to get that high score.
Shannon ( scalvert), I compliment you on keeping a level head and staying the course in this sometimes lively debate.
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:21:28 PM · #166 |
'Sometimes it is easier to ask for foregiveness than it is to ask for permission.'
Forgiveness... HARDLY! I'm going to have to agree with Larus here and say that this is wearing pretty thin.
Without looking at any images that are being talked about, I can honestly say... who gives a s***. There's something really wrong here when the same point is being stated over and over and over again as if no one saw the point the first time and understood the position.
I'm going to say it since no one else has.
EVERYONE is right.
Take your pic and then... take your chances. In the end you'll know how you did by the number in front at the end of the challenge.
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:21:48 PM · #167 |
The key to the challenge was not 'wildlife'. The key was the descriptor 'non-domesticated', taken in the widely-understood sense. |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:23:34 PM · #168 |
One more thing I'd like to say (then I'll tuck tail and leave this debate). If/when we have another zoo or wildlife challenge, we could put them together as exclusive challenges. That way we know one way or the other which is which. Some people will still enter the wrong challenge but I think its a good start that may help alleviate some of this contention. (I personally agree with Shannon though).
Anyways... |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:28:46 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... C) Your argument is hollow because you admitted in the very first words of your description that you knew you were on thin ice. ... |
I guess a lesson learned here is to not get carried away in what you post in the comments section of your challenge entry?
BTW - I wonder how many people really thought this was a seed floating in the air? Great shot and execution, but it shows that many of us will go to various lengths to enter a high scoring shot, and that fooling the voters isn't such a rarity.
I just happened to use your example Doc, I'm sure there are many more out there. :D |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:29:03 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by yanko: ...if this contest was conducted by a wildlife photography magazine would you have still submitted your entry? |
Probably not, but it kinda depends on the rules of THAT contest, doesn't it? Photographers Direct had a request for pictures of wild animals for stock use and zoo shots were perfectly acceptable for that. That's a moot point here, though. Assuming it wasn't makeup (it may have been), would you have submitted this entry to a photo contest for a cosmetics trade magazine?
 |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:31:52 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by yanko: ...if this contest was conducted by a wildlife photography magazine would you have still submitted your entry? |
Probably not, but it kinda depends on the rules of THAT contest, doesn't it? Photographers Direct had a request for pictures of wild animals for stock use and zoo shots were perfectly acceptable for that. That's a moot point here, though. Assuming it wasn't makeup (it may have been), would you have submitted this entry to a photo contest for a cosmetics trade magazine?
|
That was actual face paint I used but no I would never submit it because it sucks! :P
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:37:02 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Qart: 'Sometimes it is easier to ask for foregiveness than it is to ask for permission.'
Forgiveness... HARDLY! I'm going to have to agree with Larus here and say that this is wearing pretty thin.
Without looking at any images that are being talked about, I can honestly say... who gives a s***. There's something really wrong here when the same point is being stated over and over and over again as if no one saw the point the first time and understood the position.
I'm going to say it since no one else has.
EVERYONE is right.
Take your pic and then... take your chances. In the end you'll know how you did by the number in front at the end of the challenge. |
This would be a wonderful study topic in an ethics class as there clearly does not seem to be middle ground.....or is there? It is certainly worthy of discussion and understanding of different views. Regarding the statement, Forgiveness ....yada yada yada, curious why then is there a need to broadcast humiliation for a DQ nobody even knew happened and yet no need admit something so transparent? Really, think about it? Red herring? Seeking alliances? Though you may feel this is wearing very thin, and it may be wearing thin for you, it is a philisophical debate that has merit. If it angers you, it may be time to change the channel. |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:42:13 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... C) Your argument is hollow because you admitted in the very first words of your description that you knew you were on thin ice. ... |
I guess a lesson learned here is to not get carried away in what you post in the comments section of your challenge entry?
BTW - I wonder how many people really thought this was a seed floating in the air? Great shot and execution, but it shows that many of us will go to various lengths to enter a high scoring shot, and that fooling the voters isn't such a rarity.
I just happened to use your example Doc, I'm sure there are many more out there. :D |
Since the challenge was seed, I don't think there was anything wrong with a set up shot. Had the challenge been to find a seed on its way to a new home or take a natural shot of nature, then there might have been a problem. |
|
|
01/31/2007 04:43:40 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
BTW - I wonder how many people really thought this was a seed floating in the air? Great shot and execution, but it shows that many of us will go to various lengths to enter a high scoring shot, and that fooling the voters isn't such a rarity.
I just happened to use your example Doc, I'm sure there are many more out there. :D |
The difference here is that it just asked for a seed. How he portrayed the seed was left up to him. If the challenge had asked for a seed floating in air then this would have been unethical, IMO.
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:47:14 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... C) Your argument is hollow because you admitted in the very first words of your description that you knew you were on thin ice. ... |
I guess a lesson learned here is to not get carried away in what you post in the comments section of your challenge entry? |
BTW - I wonder how many people really thought this was a seed floating in the air? Great shot and execution, but it shows that many of us will go to various lengths to enter a high scoring shot, and that fooling the voters isn't such a rarity.
Haha. Nice attempt at the touche, but really there is no comparison. I like the "trick" shot and Shannon is awesome at them. All his other examples are fully within the realm of what I personally find acceptable. I'm mostly talking about cases where the description wants to include or exclude something in particular. I find it against the spirit to try to trick people into thinking you were complicit when you weren't. I'm not even saying you can't enter such a shot, I just don't have to be happy about it and I don't have to respect you for it. Shannon is a great guy, and even though we argue a lot, I still really enjoy him as a person and what he has to offer, but frankly I'm disappointed in him in this challenge. I mean he basically thumbed his nose at us in the comments. "So sue me?" I don't respect that. Purely my opinion though.
|
|
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: 08/01/2025 12:00:02 PM EDT.