DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Notes on the Artwork Rule
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 601 - 625 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/11/2008 02:17:41 PM · #601
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them.

Huh?!

FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand.


LOL...so, in arguing this point of re-wording/clarification, you are arguing the point for the rest of us who have less understanding than you?! SIGH....we "simpletons"???? WINK....ROFLMAO!!!!
 12/11/2008 02:29:31 PM · #602
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
A billboard or large poster (as often used in street photography) is not "live". How then, does that not get DQ'd?

If it's obviously a billboard (or a sign, painting, illustration, monitor) then it's exempt from the rule since the voters understand what they're judging.

The manatee image clearly fails your criteria.

...just to keep this going. :)
 12/11/2008 02:31:18 PM · #603
Someone once gave me a great poster with a quotation on it -- I think it was by H.D. Thoreau, but if not it was by Oscar Wilde:

It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
 12/11/2008 02:44:58 PM · #604
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them.

Huh?!

FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand.


LOL...so, in arguing this point of re-wording/clarification, you are arguing the point for the rest of us who have less understanding than you?! SIGH....we "simpletons"???? WINK....ROFLMAO!!!!

Umm...you missed, or failed to read a post, again. :-/
 12/11/2008 03:05:15 PM · #605
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Someone once gave me a great poster with a quotation on it -- I think it was by H.D. Thoreau, but if not it was by Oscar Wilde:

It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.


The truth in this statement is freighting. However I want to point out to you and other members of the SC that you are no longer first and foremost, members of this site, you are now the rulemaking body and by default leaders.

Something that those of you that have responded to this thread seem to sometimes forget is that you are here to serve the greater good of this group(as members of the SC). While this argument seems so very clear for the SC as a group, you(the SC) have a major problem, you have failed to clearly communicate these rules to the people that you serve. The shear volume of discussion and number of exceptions and questions that have been presented should send you a message that no matter how clear you THINK you are being, you are not presenting a clear message that is accepted by the membership.

While the humor of your post above is appreciated I am not sure that calling the rest of us fools because we disagree with your interpretations(and by your I mean the SC) is really the best strategy in seeking to understand the concerns we are raising. Perhaps a more active listening style would generate a more rewarding discussion for all involved rather than dictating to us what you all believe you meant to say and then implying that we are simpletons for not getting it. I realize that this was not your intention, however intention is of little or no bearing the reality is Perception and in that framework your comment is not flattering in its content or perceived intention.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 15:07:20.
 12/11/2008 03:08:35 PM · #606
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Someone once gave me a great poster with a quotation on it -- I think it was by H.D. Thoreau, but if not it was by Oscar Wilde:

It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
While the humor of your post above is appreciated ...

Apparently not -- it was intended as a compliment to the photographing public ... :-(
 12/11/2008 03:17:57 PM · #607
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Someone once gave me a great poster with a quotation on it -- I think it was by H.D. Thoreau, but if not it was by Oscar Wilde:

It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
While the humor of your post above is appreciated ...

Apparently not -- it was intended as a compliment to the photographing public ... :-(


Then thank you for the compliment. I wonder then why none of the posts by SC members seem to acknowledge any of the comments or observations that were made and rather seem focused on telling us all that we are wrong and that the SC is right?

I wasn't trying to make you feel bad only point out that there seems to be a forming perception that the members are all wrong and the SC is right and that it is our(the members) fault that we don't GET what was presented.

Sorry to mistake your intention.
 12/11/2008 03:20:26 PM · #608
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them.

Huh?!

FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand.


LOL...so, in arguing this point of re-wording/clarification, you are arguing the point for the rest of us who have less understanding than you?! SIGH....we "simpletons"???? WINK....ROFLMAO!!!!

Umm...you missed, or failed to read a post, again. :-/


LOL...ok, so with hundreds of posts to follow and trying to keep up while working....I'm confused....can you blame me?! ;-)
 12/11/2008 03:25:32 PM · #609
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
LOL...ok, so with hundreds of posts to follow and trying to keep up while working....I'm confused....can you blame me?! ;-)

Hundreds of posts? No. Just one or two before yours. :)
 12/11/2008 03:55:35 PM · #610
12/11/2008 03:58:26 PM · #611
Originally posted by basssman7:


I could use a Guinness right now.

Or 10.
 12/11/2008 04:14:25 PM · #612
Edit to say I'm a moron.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:54:34.
 12/11/2008 04:23:08 PM · #613
Originally posted by Marc923:
So let me get something straight. I just noticed that your two ribbon winners were taken at a raptor sanctuary. So it's ok to go to a bird sanctuary to get an eagle in a cage and also get them to probably hold up a bird for you to take a snapshot? Interesting double standard you have there.

I would consider an eagle shot to fall foul of the 'fooling the voters' artwork rule unless the shot was of a live wild eagle, flying over a canyon, taken whilst suspended from a hang glider using a 50mm lens (a zoom lens would fool the voters into thinking you were closer than you were), at night time with an external flash and softbox (in case the voters think you weren't in full control of the lighting)

Include shots of your setup for validation.
 12/11/2008 04:25:15 PM · #614
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by basssman7:


I could use a Guinness right now.

Or 10.


At first glance I thought the pacman on the right was salivating over the 580EX in the middle...
 12/11/2008 04:31:16 PM · #615
Originally posted by Marc923:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I am bent out of shape over the the fact that photographers of real wildlife spend many hours or days trying to get a good shot. When they do get that good shot, it deserves MUCH better then to be scored in the same way as a FAKE wildlife photo from someone who captured a snapshot of a set exhibit with a photo-realistic (again pun intended) backdrop. Essentially your fakery is cheapening every great photo ever posted here. When the voters see a great photo now they might actually score it lower thinking that they are being duped because it is "too perfect" to be true. That is exactly why I questioned your ethics.


So let me get something straight. I just noticed that your two ribbon winners were taken at a raptor sanctuary. So it's ok to go to a bird sanctuary to get an eagle in a cage and also get them to probably hold up a bird for you to take a snapshot? Interesting double standard you have there.


I'm glad you brought that up :-) I was too chicken to do it... And notice that this blue ribbon shot was made with a 105mm lens:



Somebody's posing that owl for him, wouldn't ya say?

Not that I think this is in any way immoral, unethical, or illegal. I just think that if he *really* cares about cheating *real* wildlife photographers out of their hard-earned glory, he shouldn't be entering captive shots like this :-)

R.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, I think this is a fantastic shot and well worthy of a ribbon. I gave it a 9 in voting, and I'm *not* disappointed to find out it's in a sanctuary, not in the wild.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:33:15.
 12/11/2008 04:39:44 PM · #616
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I am bent out of shape over the the fact that photographers of real wildlife spend many hours or days trying to get a good shot. When they do get that good shot, it deserves MUCH better then to be scored in the same way as a FAKE wildlife photo from someone who captured a snapshot of a set exhibit with a photo-realistic (again pun intended) backdrop. Essentially your fakery is cheapening every great photo ever posted here. When the voters see a great photo now they might actually score it lower thinking that they are being duped because it is "too perfect" to be true. That is exactly why I questioned your ethics.


So let me get something straight. I just noticed that your two ribbon winners were taken at a raptor sanctuary. So it's ok to go to a bird sanctuary to get an eagle in a cage and also get them to probably hold up a bird for you to take a snapshot? Interesting double standard you have there.


I'm glad you brought that up :-) I was too chicken to do it... And notice that this blue ribbon shot was made with a 105mm lens:



Somebody's posing that owl for him, wouldn't ya say?

Not that I think this is in any way immoral, unethical, or illegal. I just think that if he *really* cares about cheating *real* wildlife photographers out of their hard-earned glory, he shouldn't be entering captive shots like this :-)

R.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, I think this is a fantastic shot and well worthy of a ribbon. I gave it a 9 in voting, and I'm *not* disappointed to find out it's in a sanctuary, not in the wild.


Please note the case of mistaken identity. The commenter in this thread is basssman7 the photographer of the owl is bassbone
 12/11/2008 04:41:31 PM · #617
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have advocated, several times in the past, that the (relatively simply worded) rules as written should also include explanatory text telling us WHY we have the rule and how it was intended to be used.

So have I... regularly and often. I believe every that ruleset should have a guiding philosophy stating the general intent right up front, and I suggested years ago that key rules be annotated with hyperlinks to a deeper explanation and examples. Heck, I even made a [now obsolete] gallery of examples to explain the old artwork rule itself. I'm only one indian in the tribe, though, and even the explanations posted in this thread represent my own personal opinion and interpretation. It's not my site, and there are equally valid arguments for simplicity and short rules.

I think it would also be useful to have galleries for the editing related DQs such that we could view the DQs for any line in a rule set (linked at the end of each line). But I suppose that might be a technical pain in the butt.
 12/11/2008 04:48:04 PM · #618
never mind

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:49:56.
 12/11/2008 04:49:47 PM · #619
Originally posted by davidw:
Please note the case of mistaken identity. The commenter in this thread is basssman7 the photographer of the owl is bassbone


Good catch. My apologies to both. I thought it was the same person. Oops

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:51:14.
 12/11/2008 04:51:18 PM · #620
Originally posted by davidw:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I am bent out of shape over the the fact that photographers of real wildlife spend many hours or days trying to get a good shot. When they do get that good shot, it deserves MUCH better then to be scored in the same way as a FAKE wildlife photo from someone who captured a snapshot of a set exhibit with a photo-realistic (again pun intended) backdrop. Essentially your fakery is cheapening every great photo ever posted here. When the voters see a great photo now they might actually score it lower thinking that they are being duped because it is "too perfect" to be true. That is exactly why I questioned your ethics.


So let me get something straight. I just noticed that your two ribbon winners were taken at a raptor sanctuary. So it's ok to go to a bird sanctuary to get an eagle in a cage and also get them to probably hold up a bird for you to take a snapshot? Interesting double standard you have there.


I'm glad you brought that up :-) I was too chicken to do it... And notice that this blue ribbon shot was made with a 105mm lens:



Somebody's posing that owl for him, wouldn't ya say?

Not that I think this is in any way immoral, unethical, or illegal. I just think that if he *really* cares about cheating *real* wildlife photographers out of their hard-earned glory, he shouldn't be entering captive shots like this :-)

R.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, I think this is a fantastic shot and well worthy of a ribbon. I gave it a 9 in voting, and I'm *not* disappointed to find out it's in a sanctuary, not in the wild.


Please note the case of mistaken identity. The commenter in this thread is basssman7 the photographer of the owl is bassbone


Oh, wow. My bad!

R.
 12/11/2008 04:53:15 PM · #621
I'll just shut up now and get back to work
 12/11/2008 04:54:17 PM · #622
Dang that's embarrassing. I wonder if SC can clean up this mess? Do they do windows?

R.
 12/11/2008 04:55:06 PM · #623
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Dang that's embarrassing. I wonder if SC can clean up this mess? Do they do windows?

R.


No biggie. I can admit I made a mistake.
 12/11/2008 04:55:38 PM · #624
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So have I... regularly and often. I believe every that ruleset should have a guiding philosophy stating the general intent right up front, and I suggested years ago that key rules be annotated with hyperlinks to a deeper explanation and examples. Heck, I even made a [now obsolete] gallery of examples to explain the old artwork rule itself. I'm only one indian in the tribe, though, and even the explanations posted in this thread represent my own personal opinion and interpretation. It's not my site, and there are equally valid arguments for simplicity and short rules.

I think it would also be useful to have galleries for the editing related DQs such that we could view the DQs for any line in a rule set (linked at the end of each line). But I suppose that might be a technical pain in the butt.

Still it's a good idea and perhaps one where, when the technical bits are taken care of, the section might be maintained by one or more volunteer historian-types.
12/11/2008 06:08:27 PM · #625
Secondary to this discussion but is there any mechanism to appeal a decision of the SC?
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:52:58 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 12:52:58 PM EDT.