| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2004 08:17:39 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I see the thread Setzler started where he said he was removing his tutorials is now locked. Does this disqualification mean that the tutorials are coming back? I presume this photo is what he was making a point over? |
This is not the image he was making a point over. The images he was making a point over has been disqualified. My understanding (and this is not an official statement) is that Mr. Setzler's tutorials will not be returning.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:18:34 PM · #27 |
Ed are you sure you didn`t take this through a small piece of glass that was on the end of your camera or a filter, lol we could call that a window and they would have to reinstate your picture!
;-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:19:21 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A little addendum to the rules could address this isuue: "The final determination of what does or what does not 'violate the spirit of the rules' is made by the site council." |
Language similar to this is in the draft of the new ruleset, and I expect it will make the final cut.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:20:53 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by e301:
No-one spotted it Buzz. Or no-one that said so.
peecee, I know why it was disqualified; it's just that the rules do not allow for that to be grounds for disqualification. I'm not asking to be re-instated, just for the rules to be re-worded.
E |
Again, a rules revision has been in the works since 12 April, and if you count an unrelated revision (on the Artwork Rule) also being added, since 28 March.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:23:38 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by JackCruise:
Do you have the photo before you did anything to it in photoshop, I, and I'm sure others, would like to see it and make our own judgement on it and see if the DQ was necessary or not. That doesn't mean they are going to put it back up, I would just like to be curious and see the original before all the darkening, bluring, and so forth. |
 cropped, but otherwise virgin |
Wow ,what a difference !
Even you are DQed,I must aknowledge the talent of using the software to come up with the final result! Great job ! |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:23:43 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by e301:
Terry: Thankyou. I'm sure that pertains from everyone.
One small point: nothing was drawn in in my image.
E |
Perhaps rendered is a better word? In any case, I assure you that either is addressed under the new ruleset. Based on your comments and what I know of you from the site, I suspect your entry for this challenge was at least partially to make a point, and at least in my case, that point has been well-received.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:25:47 PM · #32 |
I have been reading through the rules very carefully since this is mostly a discussion regarding the 'letter' of the rules as apposed to the 'spirit' of the rules.
Ed, you have said that, "At present, the wording in effect specifically excludes the opinions of the council as grounds for DQ". However, this is not true. In the 'Request for Proof' section it states, "The top-placing entries will always have proof requested so the photos can be validated by the Administrators and Site Council." Your photo clearly falls into this category as a top finisher. When trying to validate your photo we determined that it was against the rules, both the letter of the rules and, of course, spirit of the rules.
I hope you will learn what this site is really about and that you continue to participate. As for making the rules even clearer. That is beeing adressed and new changes will be in affect very soon.
T
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 10:32:47 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Your entry must come from a single photo, taken during the week of the challenge. No multi-image compositions, no layering of multiple exposures, no copying-and-pasting elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), etc.
The examples of what you may not do in this paragraph are only that -- examples. The list is not comprehensive; if it were it would not have been ended with 'etc.' Darkining to zero and then drawing in something new in the newly blackened space is a violation of this rule; what appears in that space does not come from the "single photo" being entered... it comes from your drawing tools. |
Hmmm...That sounds familiar. I was arguing that extensively in at least two other threads. I also believe that you yourself said (and I'm quoting from one of the other threads)
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Personally, I have a hard time using the word "etc." as a reason for disqualification, especially so far after the challenge has ended. This is, as I mentioned, under Site Council discussion. When we reach a consensus we will post as Site Council at that time.
-Terry |
I'm not trying to make things hard on you Terry, but when did you come to your senses on this point?
Edited to add: Don't get me wrong, I totally support the DQ decision!!!
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 22:34:56. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 10:40:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Your entry must come from a single photo, taken during the week of the challenge. No multi-image compositions, no layering of multiple exposures, no copying-and-pasting elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), etc.
The examples of what you may not do in this paragraph are only that -- examples. The list is not comprehensive; if it were it would not have been ended with 'etc.' Darkining to zero and then drawing in something new in the newly blackened space is a violation of this rule; what appears in that space does not come from the "single photo" being entered... it comes from your drawing tools. |
Hmmm...That sounds familiar. I was arguing that extensively in at least two other threads. I also believe that you yourself said (and I'm quoting from one of the other threads)
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Personally, I have a hard time using the word "etc." as a reason for disqualification, especially so far after the challenge has ended. This is, as I mentioned, under Site Council discussion. When we reach a consensus we will post as Site Council at that time.
-Terry |
I'm not trying to make things hard on you Terry, but when did you come to your senses on this point?
Edited to add: Don't get me wrong, I totally support the DQ decision!!! |
I did, but as I said it was that in conjunction with another rule.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 11:14:44 PM · #35 |
Just my two cents... the whole thing seems bogus.
I don't think the photo should have been DQ'd. By all means change the rules but leave the photo where it was because now the judgment seems retroactive and unfair. After all the first item in the advanced editing rules is...
"The only thing you may not do to your photograph during post-shot editing is add text (including copyright statements.)
As far as "spirit" goes, based on the rules there is more than enough wiggle room for a person not to know what "spirit" the SC wants. In such a case I would vote for individual interpretation. Especially since, in this case, it wasn't painted or rendered in but burnt, blurred, and color shifted. Tools specifically allowed. I don't believe either that the "integrity" of the photo was damaged by the frame as this is a work of art and not a documentary or journalistic photo. If it means anything, I say reinstate the photo in its proper place.
After that is done you can change the rules all you want and hold people to them strictly. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 11:24:31 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Just my two cents... the whole thing seems bogus.
I don't think the photo should have been DQ'd. By all means change the rules but leave the photo where it was because now the judgment seems retroactive and unfair. After all the first item in the advanced editing rules is...
"The only thing you may not do to your photograph during post-shot editing is add text (including copyright statements.)
As far as "spirit" goes, based on the rules there is more than enough wiggle room for a person not to know what "spirit" the SC wants. In such a case I would vote for individual interpretation. Especially since, in this case, it wasn't painted or rendered in but burnt, blurred, and color shifted. Tools specifically allowed. I don't believe either that the "integrity" of the photo was damaged by the frame as this is a work of art and not a documentary or journalistic photo. If it means anything, I say reinstate the photo in its proper place.
After that is done you can change the rules all you want and hold people to them strictly. |
It was not retroactive and there is more to the rules than the first line. That line says what you can't do and the 'rest' of the rules explain, in part, how you are to use the other editing tools.
T
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 11:32:15 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Just my two cents... the whole thing seems bogus.
I don't think the photo should have been DQ'd. By all means change the rules but leave the photo where it was because now the judgment seems retroactive and unfair. After all the first item in the advanced editing rules is...
"The only thing you may not do to your photograph during post-shot editing is add text (including copyright statements.)
As far as "spirit" goes, based on the rules there is more than enough wiggle room for a person not to know what "spirit" the SC wants. In such a case I would vote for individual interpretation. Especially since, in this case, it wasn't painted or rendered in but burnt, blurred, and color shifted. Tools specifically allowed. I don't believe either that the "integrity" of the photo was damaged by the frame as this is a work of art and not a documentary or journalistic photo. If it means anything, I say reinstate the photo in its proper place.
After that is done you can change the rules all you want and hold people to them strictly. |
Drawing a window frame on the photo is ok with you?
Camera didn't do it!
Wasn't on the front of the camera lens!
It is made by PC,so where is photographic integrity here? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 11:53:17 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Just my two cents... the whole thing seems bogus.
I don't think the photo should have been DQ'd. By all means change the rules but leave the photo where it was because now the judgment seems retroactive and unfair. After all the first item in the advanced editing rules is...
"The only thing you may not do to your photograph during post-shot editing is add text (including copyright statements.)
As far as "spirit" goes, based on the rules there is more than enough wiggle room for a person not to know what "spirit" the SC wants. In such a case I would vote for individual interpretation. Especially since, in this case, it wasn't painted or rendered in but burnt, blurred, and color shifted. Tools specifically allowed. I don't believe either that the "integrity" of the photo was damaged by the frame as this is a work of art and not a documentary or journalistic photo. If it means anything, I say reinstate the photo in its proper place.
After that is done you can change the rules all you want and hold people to them strictly. |
Without hopefully starting this into a 300 message thread, I just want to say that it's not important WHAT tool you use. What's important is what you do with it. Whether you apply paint with a brush, a clone brush, or a burning tool, you are still drawing. I could draw on canvas with dirt, spit or blood, it's still a painting (ok, I might not sell many).
That's why I personally think it's key to focus on defining photographic integrity, and what's meant by it, and not get into what tools you use. Otherwise, there will always be someone who figures out how to use a "legal tool" to do something that was against the "spirit" of the rules. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:12:17 AM · #39 |
First I completely support the SC in the decision they have made. Not because I agree with the decision, but for the simple fact they willingly volunteer their time to serve our interests.
That being said, I don't think it is possible at this time to judge their decision as being fair/unfair, correct/incorrect. Future challenges will foretell their wisdom.
The most unfair of all, would be to witness in a future challenge a similar photograph being accepted for any one of the reasons of which recent photographs were DQ'd.
I am curious about the use of "spirit of the rules", and the manner of which it was used. I think it leaves open the door for enormous pressure upon the SC for DQ'g photographs deemed "not meeting the challenge." Had this occured a few weeks ago I would have been tempted to quickly asked for a DQ on this
photograph on the grounds of clearly not meeting the challenge, thus violating the "spirit of the rules." I do realize I would be wrong had I made the request.
I wish the SC and Admins the best as they proceed to develop a new set of rules and guidelines. I think it is in our best interest to remain patient and allow them the time to make the best decision of which they are capable. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:13:18 AM · #40 |
I'd have to agree with TechnoShroom on this one. While the "spirit" of the site might not have been spelled out clearly, the grounds for disqualification are very specific. I know the frame was "created," but only as a result of using legal methods on one source file- not brought in from another photo. Is that really any different from these ribbon winners?
 
The brush strokes and horns weren't part of the original photos. Sure, the window frame forms the basis for meeting the Challenge in this case, but photos supposedly aren't disqualified for not meeting a Challenge. I'm totally in favor of photographic integrity, and the disqualification seems to be the will of the masses as much as the SC, but I can certainly understand e301's point about the the justification for his disqualification. I'm not arguing against photographic integrity, but I would have let that image stand as legal under the existing rules. The new rules under discussion will help prevent this issue in the future.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 00:18:03. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:18:44 AM · #41 |
Shannon I think you have a valid point. Hopefully the SC will review those two submissions.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 00:19:28. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:28:40 AM · #42 |
| I wasn't trying to call attention to those two past entries (I can hear Beagleboy and Pedro plotting my untimely demise already). I was only suggesting that the Window image appeared to be legel given the current rules and past precendent. I think the site is recommitting itself to photographic integrity (a good thing), but I wouldn't punish retroactively as a result. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:32:02 AM · #43 |
| After some thought I agree, retroactively would not be fair. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:50:42 AM · #44 |
I'm glad the SC is on top of these DQ's as they have been. Adding a picture frame in digitally in a challenge where the entire topic is centered around "Window Frame" is pretty bad.
I mean why even enter the challenge if you are going to digitally create the window frame (basically cheating). This is WAY out of hand. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:51:16 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by timj351:
It was not retroactive and there is more to the rules than the first line. That line says what you can't do and the 'rest' of the rules explain, in part, how you are to use the other editing tools.
T |
By retroactive I mean the photo is being held to a standard that wasn't clearly there to begin with. Only after the challenge was over was it brought up that burning for artistic effect is not allowed. As for the 'rest' of the rules explaining how you can use the tools, what was done can easily fall under "etc.". No where, again, in my opinion, is what was done specifically outlawed and the first part of the rules where it states what you can't do seems to be pretty specific about allowing what was done. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:52:31 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
In all fairness, in the Halloween challenge all photo editing rules were thrown out, it was wide open editing and this photo was created well within the rules for that specific challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:52:54 AM · #47 |
I think "spirit of the rules" means using the tools/rules within the guidlines we all know were intended when we changed the rules to allow more editing capability.
It is never possible to completely describe every possible workaround someone may devise ...
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
--H.D. Thoreau
Personally, I wasn't completely sure whether or not I could find some technical grounds within the "letter" of the rules to DQ the photo, but it really didn't matter. By my reading of the photographer's comments, it was immediately apparent that the photographer had violated both the rule regarding "photographic integrity" (I think the photographer needs to have it), and the site TOS against activities blatantly designed "to manipulate the vote."
There was much agonized discussion about the influx of "digital art" in the days immediately preceeding the submission of this photo. To pretend it was submitted as anything other than a deliberate attempt to challenge the limits of the rules and basically jerk people around seems disingenuous.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 00:53:16. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:02:57 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Personally, I wasn't completely sure whether or not I could find some technical grounds within the "letter" of the rules to DQ the photo, but it really didn't matter. By my reading of the photographer's comments, it was immediately apparent that the photographer had violated both the rule regarding "photographic integrity" (I think the photographer needs to have it), and the site TOS against activities blatantly designed "to manipulate the vote."
|
My POV is based on an assumption there was an honest attempt to enter the challenge and follow the rules as stated. I didn't read the photographer comments so if they somehow implied that he thought he was doing something wrong and did it anyway please ignore everything I've previously written on the subject. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:13:14 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think "spirit of the rules" means using the tools/rules within the guidlines we all know were intended when we changed the rules to allow more editing capability. |
Very well stated, I like that definition. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:16:27 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
My POV is based on an assumption there was an honest attempt to enter the challenge and follow the rules as stated. I didn't read the photographer comments so if they somehow implied that he thought he was doing something wrong and did it anyway please ignore everything I've previously written on the subject. |
Sent you a PM with some additional info ... |
|
