| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 08:00:41 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by hotpasta:
WOW! This has turned into a HUGE debate in just a few hours. |
Yeah, unfortunately, that's what happens when ambiguity comes into play.
When the rule is interpreted in a subjective manner, debate happens.
Now, not to drag Lydia into it again, but before she removed them from her explanation for her Feast Photographer's Comments, she posted these two validated (or at least not DQed) images which used the same technique.
So, we can stop using light bulbs and fireworks, and (forgive me Lydia) look at these as well - remember, they passed muster!
 ...
finally, while I can truly understand some SC members wish to defend their reasoning on this , it wouldn't hurt to at least say "we understand where you're coming from. There is room for new understanding here."
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:21:08 PM · #277 |
First, I don't have an opinion on the DQ. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things, in my life, one way or another. (i also didn't ask for a DQ or an inquiry..I just made a simply note on her picture)
However, the two images you just submitted had something that was obviously 'odd' about them. I wouldn't look at the family of dolls or the superman frog and say WOW, what a beautiful shot of real life!
However, the challenge was FEAST. The only part of the shot that actually contained a feast was the other image. That is where my original beef came in. If I had submitted a photo of a wine glass on a solid color blackground...what would have been the most commonly used word on my comments? SHOEHORN (ironicaly, go back and read my comments...people did't think a baby chef serving up some vino fit in with a feast....but I had no problem with that...this is only what i do for FUN)
I think people are reading WAY to far into the SC's decision and should just give them a break.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 20:24:31. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:21:21 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by L2:
What I can support is adding a note to HotPasta's shot explaining that the technique is not legal so new people coming along later don't rely on it for a precedent. |
Can the SC start by setting an example first by adding a comment stating that although this was validated at the time, it is a controversial technique... |
I don't recommend going back and making annotations regarding rule interpretations. The rules are subject to change and often do. Keeping all of the notes current as changes are made would be an onerous task if possible at all.
ETA...
I do agree with a precedent/example book that can be maintained along with the rule set though
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 20:27:05. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:27:11 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by L2:
What I can support is adding a note to HotPasta's shot explaining that the technique is not legal so new people coming along later don't rely on it for a precedent. |
Can the SC start by setting an example first by adding a comment stating that although this was validated at the time, it is a controversial technique... |
I don't recommend going back and making annotations regarding rule interpretations. The rules are subject to change and often do. Keeping all of the notes current as changes are made would be an onerous task if possible at all. |
Agreed. But a change can be volunteered by the SC at least NOW after writing pages of posts...for at least ONE relevant image to set an example.. not all of them. No?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:30:24 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by Prash:
a change can be volunteered by the SC at least NOW after writing pages of posts...for at least ONE relevant image to set an example.. not all of them. No? |
Is it not basic common sense that images entered under different rules shouldn't be considered precedent for a current entry? You agree to have read and understood the current rules when you submit an entry. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:34:08 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Is it not basic common sense that images entered under different rules shouldn't be considered precedent for a current entry? You agree to have read and understood the current rules when you submit an entry. |
Well said, absolutely!
That's why personally I could support the example book but feel you have to let the past be the past. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:34:55 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by egamble:
First, I don't have an opinion on the DQ. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things, in my life, one way or another. (i also didn't ask for a DQ or an inquiry..I just made a simply note on her picture)
However, the two images you just submitted had something that was obviously 'odd' about them. I wouldn't look at the family of dolls or the superman frog and say WOW, what a beautiful shot of real life!
However, the challenge was FEAST. The only part of the shot that actually contained a feast was the other image. That is where my original beef came in. If I had submitted a photo of a wine glass on a solid color blackground...what would have been the most commonly used word on my comments? SHOEHORN (ironicaly, go back and read my comments...people did't think a baby chef serving up some vino fit in with a feast....but I had no problem with that...this is only what i do for FUN)
I think people are reading WAY to far into the SC's decision and should just give them a break. |
Well, we may be talking apples and oranges here, but see, what I'm saying is that the TECHNIQUE is the same for all these images. Is the technique legal or is it not? If it is sometimes and not other times, we should write the rules to show the difference.
Remember, we don't DQ DNMC images.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:41:01 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Prash:
a change can be volunteered by the SC at least NOW after writing pages of posts...for at least ONE relevant image to set an example.. not all of them. No? |
Is it not basic common sense that images entered under different rules shouldn't be considered precedent for a current entry? You agree to have read and understood the current rules when you submit an entry. |
So even though you are part of the Site Council, you are refusing in straight words to learn from the past? You have not once mentioned that the lightbulb entry would be a borderline example of when to use or not use a background image to highlight the main subject?
What kind of example are you setting?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:41:40 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Prash:
a change can be volunteered by the SC at least NOW after writing pages of posts...for at least ONE relevant image to set an example.. not all of them. No? |
Is it not basic common sense that images entered under different rules shouldn't be considered precedent for a current entry? You agree to have read and understood the current rules when you submit an entry. |
How can you expect anyone to understand the rules, when the SC doesnt understand them. If they did there would never have to be discussions on if an entry is valid or not. It would be cut and dry.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:55:07 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doesn't everyone see how lame that is?
R. |
Perhaps not everyone, but someone does. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:24:32 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by L2:
Please remember that the two fireworks shots were uploaded close to 2 years ago. I can't think of a single instance where we went back two whole years and requested an original, mainly because it's not reasonable to think that photographers could even put their hands on an original file 2 years later. Computers die, hard drives fail, CD's and DVD's become corrupted over time, etc. I just don't think it's fair that we require people to retain every original file for every entry they ever submitted until the end of time. Some of you could fill an entire hard drive with original files since 2002.
So, I cannot support requesting an original file from either photographer due to lapse of time.
What I can support is adding a note to HotPasta's shot explaining that the technique is not legal so new people coming along later don't rely on it for a precedent. His technique is clearly explained in the notes, and without such a note there could indeed be confusion about the technique apparently being just fine.
With Konador's shot, I assume it was brought up because it's similar to HotPasta's; however, there is no such description of technique as in HotPasta's. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone relying on that as a precedent. |
The reality is, you don't need an original for this because as you've said, Hotpasta's shot was described by him in his own notes. In not asking Konador how that one was done, you're essentially saying that as long as there's no description written, it's ok to go ahead and do it. If you don't get caught, and don't enter notes, we can't get you for it???? Interesting! |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:26:45 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by Prash:
You have not once mentioned that the lightbulb entry would be a borderline example of when to use or not use a background image to highlight the main subject?
What kind of example are you setting? |
Excuse me?
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO it'd be a borderline case under the current rules, but probably OK since the voters should reasonably know the moon isn't real. |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:27:01 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So if Lydia's background had been say, a reproduction of a painting of "the first Thanksgiving" that would have been OK, since she "obviously couldn't have been there"? Or not OK because people might have thought she had pulled a DeSousa and actually STAGED a period thanksgiving feast for this challenge? |
This is an interesting point, and this is precisely why I have fought tooth and nail in an attempt to implement the artwork rule. Think about this very scenario... DeSousa went out, enlisted the help of a ton of people with costumes, a giant cross, elaborate lighting, smoke and a warehouse for heaven's sake. He put his latest entry together with an almost Hollywood-like cast, crew and set! Personally, I voted it a 10. How would you feel if you later found out that he had simply snapped a picture of a picture he found somewhere, and just stuck part of a stretcher into the shot as his "contribution" to the submission. I'd feel robbed of a 10, frankly.
I want to see people rewarded for creativity and their set-ups. To say the least, I do not appreciate it when I am fooled into giving a high vote to someone who has implied that they have gone through such a set up, when all they have done is photograph a photograph. |
i do not agree with this specific point about rewarding a photo simply for the trouble the photographer went through to create it. i mean, the final product is what matters, not the process. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:28:48 PM · #289 |
Add a note to the rules saying "Do not assume techniques of challenge entries before date xx/xx/xxxx are a precedent of validity for the current advanced/basic editing rule set."
The date xx/xx/xxxx is whenever the rule set first started being used.
It does not solve the current debacle, but it will close this argument "What about this entry from three years ago that was ok?! This photo I just entered uses the same technique, even though there have been three changes in rulesets, how should I know its not legal?" Added to the rules page, which everyone is supposed to have read before entering a challenge and check a box saying so, might at least stop some people from making this mistake.
just a thought.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 21:30:04.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:28:54 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Prash:
You have not once mentioned that the lightbulb entry would be a borderline example of when to use or not use a background image to highlight the main subject?
What kind of example are you setting? |
Excuse me?
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO it'd be a borderline case under the current rules, but probably OK since the voters should reasonably know the moon isn't real. |
|
Great...then I just dont understand why the reluctance to put the same comments on the picture page. That would be a great example. Unless you dont want to take that step. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:32:29 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
The reality is, you don't need an original for this because as you've said, Hotpasta's shot was described by him in his own notes. In not asking Konador how that one was done, you're essentially saying that as long as there's no description written, it's ok to go ahead and do it. If you don't get caught, and don't enter notes, we can't get you for it???? Interesting! |
Did the SC determine a photo was used during validation or did Lydia admit to it in her steps? If she had not said anything, nobody would ever know or care? That does seem to be one of the messages from this thread.
I read the whole thread (because I am a glutton) and I will just throw my support for Lydia in that I don't think it should've been DQ'd and I agree with all of Bear's (very rational and common sense) points. And on one hand, I think this issue needs to be fixed - make the rules consistent and not subjective - but on the other hand, that would cut into my popcorn sales. Carry on. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:35:41 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :) |
You need to get your facts straight. Neither image was even discussed, much less validated. |
Ok, so "validate" them now! If that is the case that they were never validated...they now need to be!
ETA: Or, shall they be one of the ones that "slip by"? |
We do not request after almost two years.
There is absolutely NOTHING at all that would indicate that ben's shot is anything other than what it is. It MAY be, but right now, the only reason that one is being used is because it is similar to enzo's. Please recuse it from the discussion. |
Ok, so Ben's is to be recused from this and gets away with it because there's no description written to "give it away" one way or the other? Enzo, on the other hand, because he DID write it in his description can't be recused. So, the message that's being sent here is that if you are REALLY GOOD at what you do and can get away without it being questioned, don't enter a description to let people know what was really done....it can get by being DQ'd. That's what is really being said here.
The truth is...I don't really want to see EITHER of their's DQ'd!!! That's the truth. What I really want to see is for SOMEONE to admit that there IS a rule that has dubious meanings and is open to interpretation and debate, even inside SC itself, secondly, admit that people have and are getting away with illegal stuff and only a handful are being DQ'd under this rule, thirdly, rescind Lydia's DQ (and, for that matter, MINE as well) AND CHANGE THE RULES to add a more descriptive side to it so that everyone can agree, including SC Members on when and how it should be allowed/WHAT should and shouldn't be allowed in itself! THEN, perhaps, the rest of us will understand where those lines are as well.
NOTE: NO offense Enzo (Hotpasta)...I'm really and truly NOT "gunning" for your shot to be DQ'd! Nor, Ben's. I'm simply using it to make a point. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:36:07 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by MattO:
How can you expect anyone to understand the rules, when the SC doesnt understand them. If they did there would never have to be discussions on if an entry is valid or not. It would be cut and dry. |
Woo... and we'd all run through fields of butterflies and daisies, singing folk songs under clear blue skies. SC is a group of regular members, and we have different opinions and interpretations just like any other group of members. At one point we discussed the artwork for months, we haggled over the wording, we discussed what sort of artwork use should and shouldn't be allowed, we voted on a gallery of sample entries that used artwork, and then we worked on the wording some more to get a consensus. Even then, when we voted on the final wording it was 14-1.... and I think that might have been the previous artwork rule before it changed again. If you think 15 people are always going to agree on any rule in the subjective world of art, you're living in a fairytale. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:40:35 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
The reality is, you don't need an original for this because as you've said, Hotpasta's shot was described by him in his own notes. In not asking Konador how that one was done, you're essentially saying that as long as there's no description written, it's ok to go ahead and do it. If you don't get caught, and don't enter notes, we can't get you for it???? Interesting! |
Did the SC determine a photo was used during validation or did Lydia admit to it in her steps? If she had not said anything, nobody would ever know or care? That does seem to be one of the messages from this thread.
I read the whole thread (because I am a glutton) and I will just throw my support for Lydia in that I don't think it should've been DQ'd and I agree with all of Bear's (very rational and common sense) points. And on one hand, I think this issue needs to be fixed - make the rules consistent and not subjective - but on the other hand, that would cut into my popcorn sales. Carry on. |
Lydia very openly said what she did! She wasn't trying to "fool" anyone nor, did SHE believe it was "wrong" or illegal. I thought the very same thing after seeing Enzo's and Ben's and a few others having done the same thing! That's why I have also been DQ'd just today in the Sunset/Sunrise Challenge. I saw others doing it and not being DQ'd (not just Lydia's) and therefore, felt that it was ok! SC had not DQ'd others for it! Why shouldn't I use it too??? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:40:39 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by Prash:
then I just dont understand why the reluctance to put the same comments on the picture page. |
It's a pointless exercise. The only rules that matter are the ones in effect when you enter, and as I said before the Nightbulb entry might very well be valid under the current rules. The only safe assumption you can make is that NO entry submitted under prior rules should be considered precedent for a current entry. There's no reason to indicate it one old photo when it's true for all of them. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:41:44 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
How can you expect anyone to understand the rules, when the SC doesnt understand them. If they did there would never have to be discussions on if an entry is valid or not. It would be cut and dry. |
Woo... and we'd all run through fields of butterflies and daisies, singing folk songs under clear blue skies. SC is a group of regular members, and we have different opinions and interpretations just like any other group of members. At one point we discussed the artwork for months, we haggled over the wording, we discussed what sort of artwork use should and shouldn't be allowed, we voted on a gallery of sample entries that used artwork, and then we worked on the wording some more to get a consensus. Even then, when we voted on the final wording it was 14-1.... and I think that might have been the previous artwork rule before it changed again. If you think 15 people are always going to agree on any rule in the subjective world of art, you're living in a fairytale. |
You are not getting my point. You stated in your post that the member had clicked the tick saying that they read and understood the rules as they are presented. How can anyone with 100% assurance enter something knowing it wont break the rules when no one can agree on what the rules really are. You are reading way too much into my post, and having an attitude with it.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:42:43 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
The reality is, you don't need an original for this because as you've said, Hotpasta's shot was described by him in his own notes. In not asking Konador how that one was done, you're essentially saying that as long as there's no description written, it's ok to go ahead and do it. If you don't get caught, and don't enter notes, we can't get you for it???? Interesting! |
Did the SC determine a photo was used during validation or did Lydia admit to it in her steps? If she had not said anything, nobody would ever know or care? That does seem to be one of the messages from this thread.
I read the whole thread (because I am a glutton) and I will just throw my support for Lydia in that I don't think it should've been DQ'd and I agree with all of Bear's (very rational and common sense) points. And on one hand, I think this issue needs to be fixed - make the rules consistent and not subjective - but on the other hand, that would cut into my popcorn sales. Carry on. |
First art - thanks for the popcorn... it's all I can afford to eat since you listed that great deal on cf cards at lensenmore - but I did get double the memory so I am feeling really good about that.
Second - pages ago I said the said the sad side bar to all this will be that people won't share how they achieved their results and I for one LOVE that part of this site because I am a novice and like that the challenges push me out of "my box" and then I get to go even further through others' shots.
Third - yippee for this discussion I have hardly hit my update at all today as I am rivetted by this discussion. I see both sides and it is surely a sticky widget.
edited for grammatical errors (imagine that) :-)
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 21:46:09. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:43:32 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
The reality is, you don't need an original for this because as you've said, Hotpasta's shot was described by him in his own notes. In not asking Konador how that one was done, you're essentially saying that as long as there's no description written, it's ok to go ahead and do it. If you don't get caught, and don't enter notes, we can't get you for it???? Interesting! |
What I actually said was that since there are no photographer's notes I didn't think anyone could reasonably point to it and say "Hey! I made my shot look just like Konador's. I have no way of actually knowing how he obtained that result, but I should be able to do whatever I want and avoid disqualification."
Further, not entering photographer notes when a shot is up for review is almost a guarantee to be asked for an original proof file.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:44:41 PM · #299 |
I woke up this morning and wondered why more than a week after the fact my "Feast" entry needed a validation. I sent in my original and thought nothing of it. Perhaps someone questioned something. I just now realized I got my very first honorable mention after 155 entries and over 3 years here at DPC. I'm kinda psyched about that, but kinda sad too because it was due to someone else's DQ...and apparently many who think it was not a good call.
...anyway...hooray me...kinda.
...carry on.
eta: horrible grammar...which still may be horrible.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 21:45:50. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:48:21 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by MattO:
How can anyone with 100% assurance enter something knowing it wont break the rules when no one can agree on what the rules really are. |
Few things in life come with 100% assurance, and if you have any doubts... ask. If you think you can write a set of rules that's 100% objective without being overly restrictive or open to cheating, you'd be a hero to all of us. |
|
