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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Anyone notice the Free Study winner......
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 220 of 220, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/15/2010 11:49:19 AM · #201
DPC rules have become as complex as IRS tax code...

There is also a whole layer of implied rulings that the new person has no idea about. The word "feature" now has at least a paragraph to describe what is meant, but none of that shows up in the official rules. Not only that, but if you ask different SC members the paragraph describing "feature" will be different.

Honestly I don't know how I've made it nearly 300 challenges without a DQ.
07/15/2010 12:34:50 PM · #202
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DPC rules have become as complex as IRS tax code...

There is also a whole layer of implied rulings that the new person has no idea about. The word "feature" now has at least a paragraph to describe what is meant, but none of that shows up in the official rules. Not only that, but if you ask different SC members the paragraph describing "feature" will be different.

Honestly I don't know how I've made it nearly 300 challenges without a DQ.

You just jinxed yourself! LOL!!!

Hey, if you don't dance on the edge of the cliff, you don't have to worry about falling off.
07/15/2010 01:48:31 PM · #203
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DPC rules have become as complex as IRS tax code...

There is also a whole layer of implied rulings that the new person has no idea about. The word "feature" now has at least a paragraph to describe what is meant, but none of that shows up in the official rules. Not only that, but if you ask different SC members the paragraph describing "feature" will be different.

Honestly I don't know how I've made it nearly 300 challenges without a DQ.


I keep wondering when I'll get one... :)
07/15/2010 02:23:58 PM · #204
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DPC rules have become as complex as IRS tax code...

There is also a whole layer of implied rulings that the new person has no idea about. The word "feature" now has at least a paragraph to describe what is meant, but none of that shows up in the official rules. Not only that, but if you ask different SC members the paragraph describing "feature" will be different.

Honestly I don't know how I've made it nearly 300 challenges without a DQ.


I think that service is included as part of your Ribbon-Booster Monthly SC Payment Package.
07/15/2010 04:29:53 PM · #205
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DPC rules have become as complex as IRS tax code...

There is also a whole layer of implied rulings that the new person has no idea about. The word "feature" now has at least a paragraph to describe what is meant, but none of that shows up in the official rules. Not only that, but if you ask different SC members the paragraph describing "feature" will be different.

Honestly I don't know how I've made it nearly 300 challenges without a DQ.


I think that service is included as part of your Ribbon-Booster Monthly SC Payment Package.


I hear those payments are steep. Good thing he's a doctor.
07/15/2010 04:59:30 PM · #206
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DPC rules have become as complex as IRS tax code...

There is also a whole layer of implied rulings that the new person has no idea about. The word "feature" now has at least a paragraph to describe what is meant, but none of that shows up in the official rules. Not only that, but if you ask different SC members the paragraph describing "feature" will be different.

Honestly I don't know how I've made it nearly 300 challenges without a DQ.


I think that service is included as part of your Ribbon-Booster Monthly SC Payment Package.


I hear those payments are steep. Good thing he's a doctor.


I'm planning on God winning me four lotteries...
07/16/2010 01:19:08 PM · #207
can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.
07/17/2010 09:01:00 PM · #208
Originally posted by MattO:

can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.


clicky
07/18/2010 12:20:32 AM · #209
Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by MattO:

can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.

clicky

Did you happen to notice the first response in that thread? ;-)
07/18/2010 12:31:50 AM · #210
Originally posted by MattO:

can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.


I haven't been validated yet.
07/18/2010 12:33:01 AM · #211
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by MattO:

can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.


I haven't been validated yet.

I have determined that you are valid, Judi. Carry on.
07/18/2010 12:34:38 AM · #212
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by MattO:

can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.


I haven't been validated yet.

I have determined that you are valid, Judi. Carry on.


Thankyou Art....at least someone does.
07/18/2010 02:28:25 AM · #213
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by MattO:

can anyone verify if the winners were all validated? I see the FS has rolled off the front page.


I haven't been validated yet.

I have determined that you are valid, Judi. Carry on.


Thankyou Art....at least someone does.


I wish I was, unfortunately my wife recently returned me for NSF
07/18/2010 08:24:32 AM · #214
Hey Louis - Did anyone write you an apology for being correct in your assessment of the image and politely pointing it out? Public discourse is cool or else the image would probably have fallen off the face of the site when nobody gave a shit any longer and nothing would have been learned. I assume a few people were stunned to find what it was they were looking at and what made the image feel so dreamy and appealing. Far more powerful an image with that overlay, imo....as with many images. Overlays add a lot of serious weight...subconsciously, that viewers don't register, I believe. Just an opinion but you should be commended for pointing it out regardless of who took the shot, where it placed, who they're affiliated with or how new they are to the site. It's a very nice image and I'm sure no bad intent on the part of the photographer but also a lot to be gained by the discussion of the image.

Good eye bro.

Makes me think how much people could learn by deconstructing images. You can take a lot from a long hard look. Study the light angles by looking at the shadows, try to figure out the type of light that was used (hard lights, softbox, umbrellas) what type of reflectors were used, where they were placed...figure out what color filters were applied in pp...if people popped a plug-in (Gothic Glow, Luko Sharpening Techique...or what people credit to Manny these days, Draganized)...try to figure out what lens was used and at what aperture. It would be a good exercise to post an image an let people figure out what went on both pre and post production...share lighting charts etc.

Try it. Seems like it would be fun and certainly educational.

Message edited by author 2010-07-18 09:03:09.
07/18/2010 10:27:55 AM · #215
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Hey Louis - Did anyone write you an apology for being correct in your assessment of the image and politely pointing it out? Public discourse is cool or else the image would probably have fallen off the face of the site when nobody gave a shit any longer and nothing would have been learned. I assume a few people were stunned to find what it was they were looking at and what made the image feel so dreamy and appealing. Far more powerful an image with that overlay, imo....as with many images. Overlays add a lot of serious weight...subconsciously, that viewers don't register, I believe. Just an opinion but you should be commended for pointing it out regardless of who took the shot, where it placed, who they're affiliated with or how new they are to the site. It's a very nice image and I'm sure no bad intent on the part of the photographer but also a lot to be gained by the discussion of the image.

Good eye bro.

Makes me think how much people could learn by deconstructing images. You can take a lot from a long hard look. Study the light angles by looking at the shadows, try to figure out the type of light that was used (hard lights, softbox, umbrellas) what type of reflectors were used, where they were placed...figure out what color filters were applied in pp...if people popped a plug-in (Gothic Glow, Luko Sharpening Techique...or what people credit to Manny these days, Draganized)...try to figure out what lens was used and at what aperture. It would be a good exercise to post an image an let people figure out what went on both pre and post production...share lighting charts etc.

Try it. Seems like it would be fun and certainly educational.


Indeed no, I've been attempting to not get involved in every controversy this week... In any case, I did write him privately, where he suggested I might as well post publicly, so wth, I'll post.

Yeah, effectively, - nice catch Louis, good eye.. NikonJeb, I think it's awesome you pointed out the image in the first place, and I do think the author deserves serious commendation for such a great image.. I also think that lovely image violated certain rules, and due to that, I feel the DQ is 100% appropriate. And Jeb, you know I like and respect you, but really, I think that Louis was 100% correct in noticing and noting the overlay.

I personally like rules, especially equitable ones... DPC is usually quite fair, no matter what the level of whining.... Or at least I think so...
07/18/2010 11:19:04 AM · #216
Originally posted by coryboehne:

... but really, I think that Louis was 100% correct in noticing and noting the overlay.

But perhaps not 100% correct in pointing it out here rather than submitting the information directly to the SC. The Forum Rules are (for a change) quite clear and explicit on this matter.
Originally posted by Louis:

I don't think this photograph will be approved. There is a very obvious texture added as an overlay, which is not legal in Advanced. I anticipate a DQ.

If it was so "obvious" why didn't you (or someone) request validation during the voting period, so that this could maybe have been taken care of even before rollover?

Message edited by author 2010-07-18 11:27:33.
07/18/2010 12:08:42 PM · #217
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


I would be greatly surprised if after this, the gentleman would want to have anything to do with DP Challenge.

It would appear that he has entered another shot for an upcoming challenge...
07/18/2010 12:47:40 PM · #218
Originally posted by GeneralE:

If it was so "obvious" why didn't you (or someone) request validation during the voting period, so that this could maybe have been taken care of even before rollover?


The obvious answer being that the photographers who've been here long enough to recognize it weren't voting. And, as has been said before, it makes no sense to submit a ticket after the image appears on the front page ... it gets reviewed at that point anyway.

If someone had called out an image in the forums while the voting was still taking place, I would agree with you 100%. But in this case, the challenge was over ... the image was under review anyway ... and an observation was made. Threads discussing past challenges are started all the time in order to discuss post processing and legality. How is this any different?

I don't think it's going to be helpful to belabor things ... and I understand and respect both sides of this particular situation, so I won't post anything else. I just don't see how Louis did anything wrong (and I think a few people over reacted a little bit from both sides).
07/18/2010 12:49:27 PM · #219
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

... but really, I think that Louis was 100% correct in noticing and noting the overlay.

But perhaps not 100% correct in pointing it out here rather than submitting the information directly to the SC. The Forum Rules are (for a change) quite clear and explicit on this matter.
Originally posted by Louis:

I don't think this photograph will be approved. There is a very obvious texture added as an overlay, which is not legal in Advanced. I anticipate a DQ.

If it was so "obvious" why didn't you (or someone) request validation during the voting period, so that this could maybe have been taken care of even before rollover?


One thing, it's not relevant when somebody does something and in some cases I'd assume plenty of people who do spot these things, don't want to bother since it might only be a single image in a sea of images. So, in that respect a single image might not carry much weight or even be scrutinized for more than a few seconds BUT if it wins then it's in a different class in respect to scrutiny. I take plenty of things way too seriously but I wouldn't cross the line into the "snitch-zone" (just my personal feeling on reporting images) cus then I'd know I was going over the top. Leave it to someone else, just not to get too wrapped up in this stuff but again, when something hits the Top 10 or a Ribbon then the juices kick in a little more.

Originally posted by giantmike:

Originally posted by Louis:

I don't think this photograph will be approved. There is a very obvious texture added as an overlay, which is not legal in Advanced. I anticipate a DQ.


I'm still trying to learn how to see stuff like this in an image (so I can know how to use these techniques on photos). Louis, can you please elaborate on what keys you into seeing a texture? Thanks!


To your first point: I think that quote holds a good deal of value in terms of why many people come here, to learn how to see things exactly that way...develop an eye and understanding of what they are looking at and without a discussion public or whatever, a really valuable topic would have slipped unnoticed right off the screen with hardly a mention or blurb. I know, order and using proper channels to maintain civility are important but the discussion in a 7 page thread probably helped a lot of people see a little or a lot better and how to use an overlay. Just a guess.

Message edited by author 2010-07-18 13:00:26.
07/18/2010 01:02:36 PM · #220
Originally posted by GeneralE:


Originally posted by Louis:

I don't think this photograph will be approved. There is a very obvious texture added as an overlay, which is not legal in Advanced. I anticipate a DQ.

If it was so "obvious" why didn't you (or someone) request validation during the voting period, so that this could maybe have been taken care of even before rollover?

I didn't vote in this challenge.

I'll repeat that if the rule is to be interpreted such that even entries that have won and are in the process of being validated aren't fair game for this kind of discussion, the rule should be changed. If a ticket would have helped after the image won, as you seem to be suggesting, make a call to the members for volunteers to help only with validation, thus easing your workload and helping to avoid this situation.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/23/2021 12:46:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/23/2021 12:46:03 AM EST.