| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2008 04:59:43 PM · #701 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
What I DO take offense to is his comment above that one, where he "wonders" why I'm here, trying!
I'm sure that you notice, that I started off today, trying hard to find a way to work with everyone to help SC re-write the rule so that it's not as ambigious/open to interpretation as so many others want to see done. |
He was wondering why HE was wasting his time, not you, which makes your next sentence all the more ironic. :-/ |
When you put up a snippet from someone else that states...."I am wondering why I am...." and then, follow with the response....
"I have to wonder the same thing myself" and leave it there, it is easy to assume that he was speaking about me, not himself.
My apologies to (you) General if that was (your) his intent in that message!!
However, you can see where it was coming from and why and in that context, it doesn't make my next sentence necessarily "ironic", does it?
ET remove an extra word.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 17:00:50. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:06:07 PM · #702 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
it doesn't make my next sentence necessarily "ironic", does it? |
Yes it does. It's a simple demonstration that, no matter what you write, somebody is going to completely misinterpret the intent.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 17:09:47. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:09:21 PM · #703 |
Not related to the artwork rule - just posted to illustrate how this thread has spiraled out of control. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:12:38 PM · #704 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
What I DO take offense to is his comment above that one, where he "wonders" why I'm here, trying! |
No, I wonder why I (myself) bother ... |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:14:42 PM · #705 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
The SC interpretation of the rule appears to differ from its original wording .... |
How? |
Ok... perhaps you really haven't read all gazillion pages. *grin* I think to summarize, it all comes down to this:
Here is the rule as it currently stands: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
I read the rule and understood that using a photograph as a background FOR ANY REASON was legal as long as the image did not consist entirely of a photograph, according to the first part of the sentence. But then, the second part of the sentence says that if it does take up the entire photograph, then it should not be done to try to get around any other rules, like dates (not taken during the challenge), or copyright laws (not your photo).
SC reads the same sentence to say that no artwork (photographs, 3D art, etc) can be used as a background if the background is too realistic to be determined by the viewer that it is only a background.
These are two totally different understandings gotten from reading the same words. That is why some say the rule needs to be reworded to more clearly reflect what SC intends it to mean.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 17:49:29.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:15:00 PM · #706 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Not related to the artwork rule - just posted to illustrate how this thread has spiraled out of control. |
 |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:17:06 PM · #707 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
it doesn't make my next sentence necessarily "ironic", does it? |
Yes it does. It's a simple demonstrate that no matter what you write, somebody is going to completely misinterpret the intent. |
You know what? You're absolutely right in that statement. I totally agree. I run an interactive group myself (non-photography) and I have to often "guess" what is meant and make decisions and give benefits of the doubt as well. Oftentimes, it's not easy and it relies upon personal judgement, along with others that I've assigned the same duty along with me.
The idea is not to remove all possible misinterpretation but, rather to clarify as much as is possible in order to minimize it as much as is possible. THAT is what so many members are trying to say in this thread and what people want to see happen, including myself. That is why I also started off today, trying to get the ball rolling in getting everyone to put in their opinions. Someone has to start somewhere even if it's only a step and totally overhauled. I open my doors in my own site to everyone's input and take it all into consideration or, let the general consensus rule. That's not always possible, understood. However, to state that it's an impossible task to at least attempt to re-do anything and feel that it's un-important when so many others feel that it is, just goes against anything productive or, bettering anything.
As of now, I'm bowing graciously out of this entire thread and going back to other things too. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 05:17:54 PM · #708 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
What I DO take offense to is his comment above that one, where he "wonders" why I'm here, trying! |
No, I wonder why I (myself) bother ... |
I sincerely apologize, General!!! I took it to mean that you were questioning ME being here! :) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 07:41:31 PM · #709 |
| maybe it is time to LOCK this Mutha! :-) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 08:49:14 PM · #710 |
Eureka!
I've finally seen what SC is saying!
It's the second 'OR' that divides the sentence into two parts... not the 'AS LONG AS'. Eureka!
No WONDER I thought Shannon was COMPLETELY NUTS! (He might be... but that's beside the point here. *grin* )
How about this:
Current: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
What do you think??
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 20:49:43.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 08:54:02 PM · #711 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
maybe it is time to LOCK this Mutha! :-) |
Or NOT.....
:-))))))) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 10:42:24 PM · #712 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Eureka!
I've finally seen what SC is saying!
It's the second 'OR' that divides the sentence into two parts... not the 'AS LONG AS'. Eureka!
No WONDER I thought Shannon was COMPLETELY NUTS! (He might be... but that's beside the point here. *grin* )
How about this:
Current: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
What do you think?? |
Lydia, you do know that the way the 'Proposed' rule is written, the entry you had that was just DQ'd would still be DQ'd as it's now written (based on item 2).
You may already know that, and I'm not trying to be mean...just pointing it out. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 10:54:27 PM · #713 |
Hey everyone, come on now, there is always room for Jell-O, especially when made from the ground bones of ones enemy.
I don't think the thread needs to be locked but it looks like everyone can use some cooling off time, have some fruit juice or some hot chocolate, relax your necks and bodies.
The universe is not going to collapse because of the result or lack of a result of this thread, stop trying so hard. It is merely an issue that will continue to come up from time to time and fester in the background just like ones in-laws.
Both sides are passionate about this subject, to a fault I think. It isn't bringing out the best in anyone and that just hurts the argument regardless of which side who is on.
I think it is obvious, something needs to be tweaked with the current system to make either the rules more clear, or to push the more subjective judgments onto the members via voting rather than confining the argument to the SC alone.
Either the photography here is science or it is art. When it is science the SC has no problem quickly addressing and taking care of the problem, when things fall more into art and the lines between rules blur, is maybe when more people need to get involved.
I've seen there is speculation about how this would be handled without the name of the photographer in question becoming known to all and therefore biasing judgment, or whether or not to have the DQ vote during the challenge or after.
These are things that can be worked out I honestly believe, if people want them to be. If it happens during voting then the suspected DQs would need to be discovered right away or the results of the vote would be delayed, if members were given a week to decide on DQs.
However thankfully there are usually few DQs and even fewer subjective DQs than entries, I don't think the member base would need an entire week to address the DQs for any specific challenge.
It could be done after the challenge too, any potential DQ entries would be hidden from the results, assumed DQed unless the members said otherwise. This could work if the entry wasn't a top ten, since it is a little unfair to give someone a top ten, or top three position and then remove it because someone else wasn't DQed at the last minute.
Anyway I need to run, I'm sure you will either listen to what I said or will mock me behind my back in anyway cheers!
|
|
|
|
12/13/2008 12:04:05 AM · #714 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Lydia, you do know that the way the 'Proposed' rule is written, the entry you had that was just DQ'd would still be DQ'd as it's now written (based on item 2).
You may already know that, and I'm not trying to be mean...just pointing it out. |
Thank you... It's very kind of you to be compassionate toward my plight. *grin* I did realize that... but I just never could figure out why they were saying something completely foreign to how the rule read. *smile*
I just never knew why... I thought they were crazy interpreting the rule the way they did when it clearly said something totally different. *grin*
At least now I know that they were just unable to see what others were reading in the rule the way it was written... because I saw it so clearly the other way, I couldn't see it the way they saw it. And, I'm sure they couldn't see the way I was seeing it because they knew what they meant it to say.
Anyway, I'm just trying to make the rule clearly say what SC intended for it to say along. My mom and dad were both English teachers so I was reading it as it was written, (sorry, could not find a way to say that any other way) instead of the way they were reading it in their heads.
Punctuation is everything. *grin*
All of that said, what does SC and the 'general public' say about my wording?? Any closer to an agreement??
|
|
|
|
12/13/2008 01:42:47 AM · #715 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
My mom and dad were both English teachers so I was reading it as it was written, (sorry, could not find a way to say that any other way) instead of the way they were reading it in their heads.
Punctuation is everything. *grin* |
I'm an editor myself, and I couldn't see it their way until you had your Eureka moment. And all it needed was one lousy little comma, LOL... Though the 1,2 approach is a little clearer for sure.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2008 07:23:26 AM · #716 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Eureka!
I've finally seen what SC is saying!
It's the second 'OR' that divides the sentence into two parts... not the 'AS LONG AS'. Eureka!
No WONDER I thought Shannon was COMPLETELY NUTS! (He might be... but that's beside the point here. *grin* )
How about this:
Current: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
What do you think?? |
Well done on shedding light Lydia, punctuation is indeed everything. :)
Now that we're on a track to understanding:
I am strongly in favor of eliminating everything after "or 2)" - what a stifling clause. |
|
|
|
12/13/2008 07:42:23 AM · #717 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
What do you think?? |
Well done on shedding light Lydia, punctuation is indeed everything. :)
Now that we're on a track to understanding:
I am strongly in favor of eliminating everything after "or 2)" - what a stifling clause. |
I'm reading the rule differently now since Lydia's post. And it is indeed the 'fool the voters' clause that seems to be causing the problem. However, if that clause was eliminated what's stopping someone from cutting out parts of other photos and creating a realistic 2D photo montage?
Message edited by author 2008-12-13 07:43:11. |
|
|
|
12/13/2008 10:04:29 AM · #718 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
What do you think?? |
Well done on shedding light Lydia, punctuation is indeed everything. :)
Now that we're on a track to understanding:
I am strongly in favor of eliminating everything after "or 2)" - what a stifling clause. |
I'm reading the rule differently now since Lydia's post. And it is indeed the 'fool the voters' clause that seems to be causing the problem. However, if that clause was eliminated what's stopping someone from cutting out parts of other photos and creating a realistic 2D photo montage? |
That would circumvent editing rules and possibly date rules, and it would certainly be a "preexisting artwork".
R.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2008 10:19:10 AM · #719 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Not related to the artwork rule - just posted to illustrate how this thread has spiraled out of control. |
 |
|
|
|
12/13/2008 11:07:26 AM · #720 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.
What do you think?? |
Well done on shedding light Lydia, punctuation is indeed everything. :)
Now that we're on a track to understanding:
I am strongly in favor of eliminating everything after "or 2)" - what a stifling clause. |
I'm reading the rule differently now since Lydia's post. And it is indeed the 'fool the voters' clause that seems to be causing the problem. However, if that clause was eliminated what's stopping someone from cutting out parts of other photos and creating a realistic 2D photo montage? |
That would circumvent editing rules and possibly date rules, and it would certainly be a "preexisting artwork".
R. |
If someone went to all the effort and created an amazing photo/piece of art from the effort, is that really a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
12/13/2008 11:13:30 AM · #721 |
|
|
|
12/13/2008 11:49:23 AM · #722 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
If someone went to all the effort and created an amazing photo/piece of art from the effort, is that really a bad thing? |
Not from my perspective, no. I don't think the rules should regulate the "fool the viewer" stuff at all, either. I was just pointing out, with regards to the question I responded to, that the *proposed* wording would in fact prohibit that stuff anyway.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2008 11:54:39 AM · #723 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
If someone went to all the effort and created an amazing photo/piece of art from the effort, is that really a bad thing? |
Not from my perspective, no. I don't think the rules should regulate the "fool the viewer" stuff at all, either. I was just pointing out, with regards to the question I responded to, that the *proposed* wording would in fact prohibit that stuff anyway.
R. |
I wonder how much support there is for the 'fool the voter' clause?
If the artwork rule was left at; "You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules" - And forget the second part. At least then it can be enforced objectively.
The 'fool the voter' clause will be subjective no matter which way you word it. |
|
|
|
12/13/2008 01:26:07 PM · #724 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
If someone went to all the effort and created an amazing photo/piece of art from the effort, is that really a bad thing? |
Not from my perspective, no. I don't think the rules should regulate the "fool the viewer" stuff at all, either. I was just pointing out, with regards to the question I responded to, that the *proposed* wording would in fact prohibit that stuff anyway.
R. |
I wonder how much support there is for the 'fool the voter' clause?
If the artwork rule was left at; "You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules" - And forget the second part. At least then it can be enforced objectively.
The 'fool the voter' clause will be subjective no matter which way you word it. |
I'm not sure I understand how the 'fool the voter' clause is more subjective than many other parts of the rules. Exactly how much are you allowed to clone out? At what point has an editing tool changed "a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph"? Subjectivity is part of the rules in any but the very simplest art based rule set.
And btw, as long as we're talking about the letter of the law, is it possible to know objectively if someone was using the "pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules"? This wording seems to allow an argument from ignorance and it requires a little mind-reading talent on the part of SC to know what the photographer's motives. Still, I know what they meant to say. ;)
I do agree with Lydia that the current grammatical mechanics create unnecessary ambiguity, but I'd also say that's part of the risk of living on the bleeding edge of the rules (understanding also that pre-verification was not possible given the circumstances). |
|
|
|
12/13/2008 03:58:47 PM · #725 |
|
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: 08/04/2025 02:44:32 PM EDT.
