| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 03:41:07 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Prash:
... Isnt there a leader of the council who should consolidate what the whole council thinks and present it here consistently? |
Read the OP. The thoughts of "the whole council" were consolidated in the opening post. |
Yet it kept getting revised throughout the thread? Why? Lack of consistency.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
They (SC) didn't have to start this thread. IMO I don't know why they did given the jabs that many like to throw at them. |
If they get jabs, its because they are not consistent in presentation and discussion here. And its not coming just from me in case you missed the 10's of pages here. ETA: Plus, its their job. Isnt it? We look forward to them for fairness.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 15:42:00. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:48:24 PM · #477 |
I think that I am also bowing out of this conversation as well now. It's clear that there are issues that truly need to be addressed and changed within this rule. Hopefully, SC will fully discuss this and all of the concerns that have been put out here over the hundreds of posts.
If one were to assume that because a few people feel that they understand the rules that it didn't need to changed and addressed then, it's letting down everyone else who feels and understands it differently.
In the meantime, I still feel as I originally did (final time for me to say it). Lydia's shot could have been interpretted by both her and SC from obviously, a debateable and subjective point of view. There were questions left open by a LOT of people and therefore, until this particular rule on artwork has been clarified/changed/altered so that there isn't so much leeway and left open to subjective interpretations, I feel that her ribbon should be re-instated. (My apologies to 4th place who moved up to ribbon category :() I think that given the sheer numbers of members and posts, confusion, different interpretations of this rule and plain outrage over this DQ, the only truly fair thing to do is to rescind the DQ as I started off saying in the very beginning. Then, work to change/clarify/whatever is needed to make this rule less subjective and start enforcing the "new" rule on artwork.
Signing off of this thread. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:55:55 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Prash:
... Isnt there a leader of the council who should consolidate what the whole council thinks and present it here consistently? |
Read the OP. The thoughts of "the whole council" were consolidated in the opening post. |
Yet it kept getting revised throughout the thread? Why? Lack of consistency.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
They (SC) didn't have to start this thread. IMO I don't know why they did given the jabs that many like to throw at them. |
If they get jabs, its because they are not consistent in presentation and discussion here. And its not coming just from me in case you missed the 10's of pages here. ETA: Plus, its their job. Isnt it? We look forward to them for fairness. |
Sigh...nevermind.
BTW - Have you considered running for President in 2012? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:57:13 PM · #479 |
My opinion isn't worth much, but, IMO, the OP's entry met the rule as it is written. Given the fact that she took the background photo, and within the challenge window to boot, I don't even think she bent the spirit of the rules.
I've seen football ref calls that I disagreed with more, though, so I can live with it. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:30:37 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Marc923:
... So really it's out of my hands. I'm just waiting to see what the SC decides. Personally, I don't feel I violated any rules. |
???! You've been asked to submit validation on it? If yes, I wouldn't sweat it, you're free and clear - no problem whatsoever IMO (based on content). |
No, I have not been asked for a validation. I thought I read, earlier in the thread, that someone reported it to the SC.
And as you can see from the other samples shown, you can shoot from different angles and get different lighting. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:46:34 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Shannon, I think Don was talking about the Manatee and you are talking about the Feast shot. :) |
Ah, I didn't catch that. If that's true, then it may very well BE an open and shut case. 3D objects have NEVER been considered artwork and it looks like the manatee vote will be unanimously no-DQ. Though it's a fair point, I'm not even sure it would violate the spirit of the rules since entering a non-living animal in wildlife would only be a DNMC. As noted, I think it's actually been done before, and that's perhaps no more against the spirit of the rules than something like this:
 |
I know this is a different rule set but are you saying this one would be legal? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:37:28 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Prash:
... Isnt there a leader of the council who should consolidate what the whole council thinks and present it here consistently? |
Read the OP. The thoughts of "the whole council" were consolidated in the opening post. |
Yet it kept getting revised throughout the thread? Why? Lack of consistency.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
They (SC) didn't have to start this thread. IMO I don't know why they did given the jabs that many like to throw at them. |
If they get jabs, its because they are not consistent in presentation and discussion here. And its not coming just from me in case you missed the 10's of pages here. ETA: Plus, its their job. Isnt it? We look forward to them for fairness. |
Sigh...nevermind.
|
Barry, popcorn? (( offers one corn from his share :-))
Originally posted by glad2badad:
BTW - Have you considered running for President in 2012? |
I was seriously considering it... But Ms. Palin beat me on the IQ test. Sorry:-(
Ok I am not going to say anything anymore. Let me go enjoy the DQ on my page.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:58:13 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
Timmy farted." |
Why bring Timfy in to this I haven't seen him involved in the thread at all.... Him and LydiaToo are not even related either ;)
Prash from the first ever thread you created to your very last post I am pleased to say my views of you have never changed...
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:05:45 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Why bring Timfy in to this I haven't seen him involved in the thread at all.... Him and LydiaToo are not even related either ;)
|
LOL! *grin*
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 18:06:00.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:23:59 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
And her photograph was one of a wine glass (ie the toast). So where is the difference?
Matt |
I am going to bow out of this conversation as it seems that no matter how many points are made to the contrary that the mindset of those defending it will never see any angle besides the one they want too.
But I would like an answer to my question above.
Her object is 3 dimensional and so are the manatees, you said take the glass away and its a photo of a photo. I say take the manatees away and its a photo of the background which likely is a painting. You say his subject is the Manatee I say her subject is the glass. How is that any different. Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his. I see no difference in any of this.
Matt |
Bump still hoping for an answer
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:32:34 PM · #486 |
Site Council to LydiaToo this evening:
Hi Lydia,
While I can appreciate your perspective. This rule, while somewhat subjective,
has been consistently applied to your image. We're not going to revisit this DQ
even if we do consider some form of clarifying this rule for the community.
Regards,
[Site Council Member]
I greatly appreciate everyone's interest VERY MUCH and I appreciate the fact that everyone feels so strongly about the integrity of DPC rules to take this on as if it had happened to them personally. I am very moved by the support, actually. Thank you bunches!
But now, we have the answer and, like it or not, that's the answer for my image's DQ.
I would like to support the SC's efforts, even though I disagree strongly with their answer, by asking that we not discuss my image's DQ any longer. The horse is now dead. *grin* Let's not beat it any longer.
I'd like to now get on with enjoying the site... wait on an answer to the validation SC requested from me TODAY (*sigh*) and continue to learn what it takes to win a ribbon here at DPC without it being DQ'd. *grin again*
Now... on to the next crisis! *smile*
Where's that popcorn smiley when we need him??
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:41:55 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I would like to support the SC's efforts, even though I disagree strongly with their answer, by asking that we not discuss my image's DQ any longer. The horse is now dead. *grin* Let's not beat it any longer. |
Good idea. Let's get back to Shannon's Moon picture... |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:42:34 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I would like to support the SC's efforts, even though I disagree strongly with their answer, by asking that we not discuss my image's DQ any longer. The horse is now dead. *grin* Let's not beat it any longer. |
Good idea. Let's get back to Shannon's Moon picture... |
Actually I'd still like Shannon to answer my question I posted to him above.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:46:43 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I would like to support the SC's efforts, even though I disagree strongly with their answer, by asking that we not discuss my image's DQ any longer. The horse is now dead. *grin* Let's not beat it any longer. |
Good idea. Let's get back to Shannon's Moon picture... |
I had sworn not to come back and write here, but this is tempting. J/K:-) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:46:54 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Actually I'd still like Shannon to answer my question I posted to him above.
Matt |
Shannon's a GUY??! Well... THAT explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:46:58 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I would like to support the SC's efforts, even though I disagree strongly with their answer, by asking that we not discuss my image's DQ any longer. The horse is now dead. *grin* Let's not beat it any longer. |
Good idea. Let's get back to Shannon's Moon picture... |
Actually I'd still like Shannon to answer my question I posted to him above.
Matt |
I'm guessing he is going to say that voters were voting on the manatees ("real") and voting on the feast ("fake") in the other.
IMO, the manatee shot clearly violates the spirit of the rule if not the rule, much moreso than Lydia's. No offense to Marc. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:47:25 PM · #492 |
 LydiaToo your gracious acceptance of this situation is commendable. You have indeed, taken the high road.
I leave this discussion with a suggestion:
There are many English students, writers, legal types, etc. on this site. Perhaps the Site Council, or even L & D, could call for volunteers among these members to form a standing committee to, when needed, meet with the Site Council and help rewrite rules so that they can be easily followed and understood by all.
Of course this would be done through a private committee forum until any agreed upon version is ready to be sent to the membership for comment and vote if in order.
Bye.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 08:03:19 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Where's that popcorn smiley when we need him?? |
For you Lydia :).
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 08:07:43 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
|
I know this is a different rule set but are you saying this one would be legal? [/quote]
so...just to clarify, is this legal? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 08:26:47 PM · #495 |
Thank you, Alice and Dawn. *grin*
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 20:58:05.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:20:08 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
There are many English students, writers, legal types, etc. on this site. Perhaps the Site Council, or even L & D, could call for volunteers among these members to form a standing committee to, when needed, meet with the Site Council and help rewrite rules so that they can be easily followed and understood by all. |
Actually, English majors are trained to be ambiguous and scintillating, not lucid. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:40:49 AM · #497 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I would like to support the SC's efforts, even though I disagree strongly with their answer, by asking that we not discuss my image's DQ any longer. The horse is now dead. *grin* Let's not beat it any longer.
I'd like to now get on with enjoying the site... wait on an answer to the validation SC requested from me TODAY (*sigh*) and continue to learn what it takes to win a ribbon here at DPC without it being DQ'd. *grin again*
|
Your request has been granted. Though if we beat this horse long enough we'll make some glue and can stick together. :) (Just kidding)
Hey! wait a second I was asked for validation today as well. Do I smell a rat? :) (again, just kidding)
*walks off with big sword* |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:46:06 AM · #498 |
Late to the party as always. I didn't get a chance to vote on the Feast Challenge but when I saw the winners and saw the photo in question my first thought was HOW DID SHE DO THAT? But then I realized it had to be a monitor shot or photo in the background and it was just that to me, a background to the wine glass that even without the title to explain was the main focus of the shot to me. The rest if out of focus for pity's sake, it's obvious it's either a photo or not the main focus of the shot and it certainly doesn't distract from the focus of the shot, it completes it, just like any background should. This was all before I read her explanation and it got DQ'd.
I haven't really entered any challenges in a while and I was away for a bit but I came back after my separation from my husband hoping to reignite my passion in photography again and judging by the lack of entries in the challenges as of late, I'm not the only one becoming quickly disillusioned with the site. This was a great place to hang out and learn, now it seems to be mostly a place to have your illusions shattered. Isn't that what photography is all about, creating an illusion, to bring your viewer in and get them thinking or asking questions? Aren't we supposed to be like Magicians and see if we can trick the viewer into seeing something that might not really be real?
The photo is good, it deserved the ribbon and it should be taken off the DQ list. I know the SC is all voluntary and such but this was not a good decision on their part IMHO. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:46:35 AM · #499 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by sfalice:
There are many English students, writers, legal types, etc. on this site. Perhaps the Site Council, or even L & D, could call for volunteers among these members to form a standing committee to, when needed, meet with the Site Council and help rewrite rules so that they can be easily followed and understood by all. |
Actually, English majors are trained to be ambiguous and scintillating, not lucid. |
LOL, well they'd fit right in then, wouldn't they.
:-))
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:26:07 AM · #500 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
And her photograph was one of a wine glass (ie the toast). So where is the difference?
Matt |
I am going to bow out of this conversation as it seems that no matter how many points are made to the contrary that the mindset of those defending it will never see any angle besides the one they want too.
But I would like an answer to my question above.
Her object is 3 dimensional and so are the manatees, you said take the glass away and its a photo of a photo. I say take the manatees away and its a photo of the background which likely is a painting. You say his subject is the Manatee I say her subject is the glass. How is that any different. Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his. I see no difference in any of this.
Matt |
One more Bump hoping for an answer from Shannon.
Matt
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 10:57:42 AM EDT.
