| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 07:33:50 AM · #1 |
I did touch on this subject in the thread discussing alex's dq from the masters free study challenge, but not wanting to hijack that tread, I have started a new one here.
I suggest scrapping the basic editing and advanced editing rule sets, and have all challenges either expert or minimal.
Either anything goes or nothing goes. This should keep the purists, and the photoshop gurus happy.
There could be 2 free studys each month, one for each rule set, but possibly make them exclusive!
It seems to me that trying to make rules for a middle ground is not working!
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:38:47 AM · #2 |
| Ack, I would hate this scenario. I am not advanced enough for expert, but minimal is way too basic. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:46:52 AM · #3 |
I personally think expert goes too far, for my tastes, by a long way.
Minimal ignores a lot of the realities of camera design, too.
So neither of those two rulesets seem to promote improvement in photography, really - without either throwing in a whole load of stuff that I wouldn't consider photography, or being so restrictive as to be an interesting academic exercise, but mostly missing the point.
I know plenty of people disagree with this on both ends, which is why the current rulesets make some sense (if they were actually used in a reasonable rotation) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:50:42 AM · #4 |
Personally I like the rules how they are.
The three issues that are most often debated seen to be using existing photographs, the cloning out of items and combining multiple shots (though to a lesser degree).
With the first two by definition are never black and white and open to interpretation. The best way, imho, to make it more black and white would be examples of borderline validated entries against DQ's ... I did create a thread but got no response ....
Your idea of two exclusive free studies with different rule sets is very interesting though, one advanced and one expert. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:14:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Ack, I would hate this scenario. I am not advanced enough for expert, but minimal is way too basic. |
I totally agree with you there ... I'd just quit entering challenges if that happened ... |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:20:09 AM · #6 |
I don't like this idea.
If anything, instead of writing general rules to avoid certain scenarios, why not just come out and say upfront those activities which are illegal. A detailed list of what is legal/illegal would make the rules a little more stable.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:16:01 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jeger:
I don't like this idea.
If anything, instead of writing general rules to avoid certain scenarios, why not just come out and say upfront those activities which are illegal. A detailed list of what is legal/illegal would make the rules a little more stable. |
the trouble with that idea is that photography is art, not science.
the other huge dq debate this week is about the inclusion of existing images (which i am not saying my idea in this thread will fix btw) is a prime example of this.
the rule states that existing art work can not be the main part of the image, but two people can look at the same image and have a very different idea about what is the main part of that image!
My point in this thread is that instead of having massive grey areas of what you can or can't do, just have it black and white. Anything goes or nothing goes!
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:26:56 PM · #8 |
Nothing about any of the rule sets is different regarding subjective aspects such as the inclusion of pre-existing artwork. There is no "black and white" objective way of writing this rule which would be practical, at least if your goal is to disallow the creation of "illusions which fool the voters" or other ways of getting around the rules.
Not including "art" would would pretty much preclude all urban photography, and possibly anything with a man-made object in it (many mundane objects have been interpreted as "art") -- and there's that darned "subjectivity" element getting in the way again.
A rule has to be practical and enforceable, and an occasional borderline interpretation which gets a DQ doesn't "invalidate" the hundreds/thousands of entries successfully submitted within the rules. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:31:02 PM · #9 |
| Great idea, suggested many times. Works just fine at many other sites. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:37:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dainmcgowan:
My point in this thread is that instead of having massive grey areas of what you can or can't do, just have it black and white. Anything goes or nothing goes! |
I also would hate to see this happen, for the reasons already mentioned earlier in this thread. I do not think that gray areas are "massive". The vast majority of photos submitted to the site, including great ribbon-winning images are completely and unquestionably DPC-legal, and they do not even have a whiff of probability to be DQ-ed. But if a photographer steps in a "gray area" or beyond, he must be prepared to a chance to be DQ-ed. I personally think that in case of Alex's wonderful swan image, he actually stepped pretty far beyond the gray area by combing photos which either have or not the main compositional element (swan). For me it would be a pretty obvious case of violating the rules, but if he decided to "test the system", and got DQ-ed, then... too bad. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:43:35 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Great idea, suggested many times. Works just fine at many other sites. |
That's why I, and maybe others, are here and not there. :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:57:27 PM · #12 |
general - i did say that this idea wouldn't fix the art rule!
levT - i would say that there are massive grey areas, or there wouldn't have been hundreds of post just this week about a couple of dq's. And this is not the first week this has happened.
i just think that if you have just minimal and expert, the only way there would be a dq is if someone deliberatly cheated.
there wouldn't be the 'i thought that was allowed' etc etc anymore!!!
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:12:35 PM · #13 |
I don't think this would be a good idea just because this is a site for people to learn. If the rules where straight black and white how would people learn to edit photos? Now I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with the way the rules are written, everyone that knows me knows what I think about the rules are written but I also don't have the right way to correct them nor do I have the time to sit down and try to reword everything so everyone could understand it.
However I do think that if ANYONE reads a rule and can not completely understand it that it SC should rewrite it. With them being "SC" I think it should be up to them to correct the rules. The funny thing about this site is that they are trying to get every thing into about 5 sentences and I just don't see that happening. So what if you need spend 20 minutes reading 20+ lines of rules, it's not like you will be reading them every time you enter a challenge. Spend the time up front to read and understand the rules completely and everything from then on out will be gravy.
I don't know if the DQ was right or wrong only because I stopped reading it but I do like having advanced and basic rule sets. It keeps things even.
Here's what I do have a problem with... When SC decides to change the rules it's like they do it at a time when you least expect them too. Yeah they post that the rules will change but not everyone has time to sit and look for rule changes in the threads. IMO if a new rule is in affect it should be posted on the left under your entry so when you log in you can see it. Do they do that already, I'm not sure but it would seem like a good place to put it.
I do think we need more SC members just to give some new insight to the old ones. But if we add more SC members won't that add to the time it takes to agree on a photo if it's in questions? Sure but would it be worth it? Who the hell knows.
I personally have a problem with some people on the site but I won't mention names, I don't bother them and they don't bother me, well until I post something like this but I have learned to deal with them. There are so many different types of people on this site I don't think the site will ever be perfect. If you come up with a positive someone will think of a negative and vise versa.
If it were up to me I would replace most of the SC members, Up the image KB size to about 300kb, remove the 640x640 rule and replace it with the 720x720. I would have the rules broken down to the point my 7 year old could read and understand them. And do something other things that I can't think of right now. But it's not my site and I'm only a squirrel trying to...
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:20:37.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:22:06 PM · #14 |
| When we change the rules we make a prominent announcement, usually beforehand. The link to the rules on every challenge submission page will go to the rule set in effect for that challenge -- which you certify you've read by checking the box required to submit your entry. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:27:40 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
When we change the rules we make a prominent announcement, usually beforehand. The link to the rules on every challenge submission page will go to the rule set in effect for that challenge -- which you certify you've read by checking the box required to submit your entry. |
Yeah like I really read that crap... I just check the boxes and go...
I know what it says or what it said a long time ago when I actually read it. I bet you could change the wording all around and the only people that would notice it would be the newbies that are entering their first couple of challenges. I could put every penny I own on the fact that people that have entered more than 10 challenges just check that box because they already know what it says with out reading it. Like I said change it and those people won't even know...
As per the rule notification I'm not saying you don't tell people I'm just saying that it needs to stand out more.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:29:42.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:31:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
When we change the rules we make a prominent announcement, usually beforehand. The link to the rules on every challenge submission page will go to the rule set in effect for that challenge -- which you certify you've read by checking the box required to submit your entry. |
While that gives a legal buffer in case anyone ever wants to sue DPC for pain and suffering caused by a DQ, I think the majority of us know that we don't read the rules every time we click that box.
I understand your point, but it wasn't necessary to add that last part in any realistic way. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:35:22 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
When we change the rules we make a prominent announcement, usually beforehand. The link to the rules on every challenge submission page will go to the rule set in effect for that challenge -- which you certify you've read by checking the box required to submit your entry. |
While that gives a legal buffer in case anyone ever wants to sue DPC for pain and suffering caused by a DQ, I think the majority of us know that we don't read the rules every time we click that box.
I understand your point, but it wasn't necessary to add that last part in any realistic way. |
HAHAHAHAHAA See I told ya..
No one really reads that stuff until a newbie can't understand it and we have to explain it to them. It's like the rules were plain and simple and the site tried to combined them but it made things worse. The rules should be written out so there is no confusion.
ETA: this is when Scalvert jumps in and says "well why don't you write them" hahaha
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:35:57.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:51:10 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Ack, I would hate this scenario. I am not advanced enough for expert, but minimal is way too basic. |
Definitely agree here.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:00:16 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dainmcgowan:
general - i did say that this idea wouldn't fix the art rule!
levT - i would say that there are massive grey areas, or there wouldn't have been hundreds of post just this week about a couple of dq's. And this is not the first week this has happened.
i just think that if you have just minimal and expert, the only way there would be a dq is if someone deliberatly cheated.
there wouldn't be the 'i thought that was allowed' etc etc anymore!!! |
Sure, there's been heated discussion this week, which shows there are some grey areas that need clarifying, but considering that it's only a couple out of hundreds of entries, I wouldn't call that massive.
So we work on getting what's wrong fixed, there's no need to scrap the whole thing. If your car blows a headlight, do you buy a new car? :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:10:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
No one really reads that stuff until a newbie can't understand it and we have to explain it to them. It's like the rules were plain and simple and the site tried to combined them but it made things worse. The rules should be written out so there is no confusion.
ETA: this is when Scalvert jumps in and says "well why don't you write them" hahaha |
It isn't that unreasonable a thing to ask. Saying 'these need to be written more clearly' is easy enough to say, but much harder to do in practice. I know we've been trying to clarify and simplify them for 6 years now. Nobody seems to have managed, without having big holes that images fall through.
The flip side is true too, the more finely they get defined, the more carefully people try to bend/ break them.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 18:10:38. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:16:42 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I personally think expert goes too far, for my tastes, by a long way.
Minimal ignores a lot of the realities of camera design, too.
So neither of those two rulesets seem to promote improvement in photography, really - without either throwing in a whole load of stuff that I wouldn't consider photography, or being so restrictive as to be an interesting academic exercise, but mostly missing the point.
I know plenty of people disagree with this on both ends, which is why the current rulesets make some sense (if they were actually used in a reasonable rotation) |
i concur wholeheartedly |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:22:12 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by dainmcgowan:
levT - i would say that there are massive grey areas, or there wouldn't have been hundreds of post just this week about a couple of dq's. And this is not the first week this has happened.
|
all these hundreds of posts were about only two issues which come up over and over again. One is regarding stacking different images together. If it was up to me, I would just ban that thing altogether in advanced ruleset as it had been earlier, to avoid confusion, because as soon as you allow stacking, the questions arise how big the differences between different shots are. Another is about using other artwork (specifically, another photo) in your photo. There were some good suggestions made on how to deal with that, too. The one I like best is that a reasonable person should be able to tell that this is a photo within a photo, not the "real life". Simple enough, I think.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:26:13 PM · #23 |
Which rule promotes 'improvement in photography' exactly. Who walks around pointing out how they improved by restricting their creative options.
"I'd be half the photographer I am today if I allowed myself to indulge in compositing" - Henry Cartier Breson
Right.
Based on the 'against' posts in this thread, the only benefits of creative restrictions appear to be that some people think it gives them a better chance to compete. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:36:42 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Who walks around pointing out how they improved by restricting their creative options. |
It is a fairly common theme in most discussions of art and art history.
Majority of what might be considered classic pieces of art were painted under very strict constraints. The notion of artistic freedom is a pretty recent one. Most books on developing creativity focus quite heavily on the notion of the use of constraints. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:42:39 PM · #25 |
I like the two different sets of rules at the level they are at. Throw in a minimal Challenge every now and then or an expert (i will get my membership soon) for something different as an additional challenge available (once a month or so say, mid month so it doesn't class with Free Study) and there is something for everyone.
Going to Minimal or Expert souly would not be a good idea. I like the ability to change small things in the photo as we are, but not have people cloning in an alien......
As for the rules and Dq's, recently discussed to death in other forums. its happened, that area of the rules is Grey, SC are currently re-writing the rules as we speak anyway which will hopefully clear up any confusion and at least reduce the current grey areas. I think we should now wait on the new rules, knowing the interpretation (sortof) in the meantime and discuss the new rules when they are out.
As for when new rules come out, I know sites that attach a notice as the top item on the recent threads (ie no matter when the last time it was posted, it stays there until the settings are again changed) Sit it there for a while, send out notification on the weekly summary (at the top in big flashing colours) and everyone should then know... |
|
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 05:11:35 AM EDT.
