| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2014 06:43:50 PM · #76 |
what i don't get is why? why now? why no dq's in "landscape without clouds" if someone entered clouds? why no dq's in "lucky 13" if someone only entered 12?
what the point of the special rule?
we've had challenge like "reflections without mirrors" or "self portrait without people" with no special rule...
what the point of the special rule now that who ever flagged the challenge feels it's needed? is it because what i joked way back that  Alexkc won with a fake?
and most disturbingly why is Cory not siding with the "Damn the Man"'ers???
Message edited by author 2014-05-01 18:45:43. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 06:58:03 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Mike:
what the point of the special rule now that who ever flagged the challenge feels it's needed? |
A parameter of this challenge is that reflections will be DQ'd. The last special rule required a potato and a toothbrush to avoid a DQ. That's just part of the challenge, and no reason is necessary for either. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:16:56 PM · #78 |
| This wouldn't have happened under Romney. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:34:02 PM · #79 |
I'm beginning to be confused. It looks as if the once pedestrian, very much optional, DNMC judgement, made at the whim of the voters, has all of a sudden turned into a fiat of management via the dreaded DQ. And truly I had thought that the DQ's in the April Fool's, was actually an April Fool's joke.
Not that I really care, EXCEPT for the confusion and the sinister march of righteousness into the realm of aesthetic taste, not to mention a serious loss of humour.
Message edited by author 2014-05-01 19:34:48. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:36:12 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm actually in a state of befuddled astonishment now... The goal, the PURPOSE, of the challenge, the CHALLENGE of the challenge if you will, is to capture symmetry without resorting to reflections. And now, apparently, at least SOME of us are leaning towards trying to FOOL the voters and/or SC by incorporating indistinguishable reflections just because a flag was put in place making the "no reflection" criterion mandatory rather than advisory? Am I the only one who thinks this is silly? |
I think it's silly. And I think it's precisely why we don't need the Extra Rule. Let the voters decide. It's a model that didn't need fixing. |
I think that would be silly too, and if you thought that's what I meant I might try to do, then I didn't express myself clearly. I do not TRY to circumvent the rules on purpose. Ever. But my point was that someone will.. they always do. And my take on that is, generally,.... DAMN... why couldn't I be that clever:)
In so far as singling me out for being a poor sport, so be it, call it what you like. For the record, I have no problem with being DQd for a good reason... but my problem/complaint is with the rule, not the DQ. And now it's happening again - twice in a month.
The voters do a terrific job of policing without it. My opinion... everybody has one.
Message edited by author 2014-05-01 19:42:11. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:38:42 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Mike:
and most disturbingly why is Cory not siding with the "Damn the Man"'ers??? |
I'm just incredibly hard to pigeon hole like that.. I never fall clearly into any demographic, that's the real danger in being a free thinker. ;) |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:40:05 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I'm beginning to be confused. It looks as if the once pedestrian, very much optional, DNMC judgement, made at the whim of the voters, has all of a sudden turned into a fiat of management via the dreaded DQ. And truly I had thought that the DQ's in the April Fool's, was actually an April Fool's joke.
Not that I really care, EXCEPT for the confusion and the sinister march of righteousness into the realm of aesthetic taste, not to mention a serious loss of humour. |
Since when has a very clear rule fallen under aesthetic taste? |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:42:02 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
The voters do a terrific job of policing without it. |
Do they?
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember seeing a good number of DNMC images win ribbons over the years here Penny. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:44:10 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
The voters do a terrific job of policing without it. |
Do they?
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember seeing a good number of DNMC images win ribbons over the years here Penny. |
And maybe they were just good photographs?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:49:08 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
what the point of the special rule now that who ever flagged the challenge feels it's needed? |
A parameter of this challenge is that reflections will be DQ'd. The last special rule required a potato and a toothbrush to avoid a DQ. That's just part of the challenge, and no reason is necessary for either. |
it just seems out of the ordinary. should we expect this to be the new norm? |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 07:53:32 PM · #86 |
Here's what we could be missing by proceeding with DNMC DQ.
Creativity should be encouraged.
Could we at least not DQ the DNMC images until voting has finished? This would allow us to see how the members scored and commented on these dangerous images. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 08:16:05 PM · #87 |
| I'm just going to say that I like the new rules. Thanks. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 08:26:10 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
what the point of the special rule now that who ever flagged the challenge feels it's needed? |
A parameter of this challenge is that reflections will be DQ'd. The last special rule required a potato and a toothbrush to avoid a DQ. That's just part of the challenge, and no reason is necessary for either. |
it just seems out of the ordinary. should we expect this to be the new norm? |
I would not expect so.
And the rule doesn't even prohibit the use of mirrors/reflecting surfaces as a compositional element, just that you can't use the reflective surface to "attain symmetry" in the photo -- if you want to "thumb your nose" at the challenge description I suggest shooting a "disco ball" ... ;-)
FWIW I've *always* tried to keep the challenge topic in the forefront of my thinking, almost from the site's inception ...
Reflections Without Mirrors (Challenge #35): 
Neon (Challenge #246)  |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 08:34:54 PM · #89 |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 08:45:42 PM · #90 |
nobody is questioning the virtues of following the challenge description.
Cory, please learn to READ. what I was saying was that this kind of new rigour in the dq department is a form of censorship, and that once you tighten up this kind of thing it is very hard to prevent further tightening.
I wonder if we shouldn't mount a guerilla offensive against this and all submit reflected symmetries and all be dq'd.
like I really want to further stir this tempest in a teapot. the thing is this dq threat serves no real purpose; surely it would have sufficed to word the description properly, which I thought it was.
Message edited by author 2014-05-01 20:46:27. |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 08:52:00 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Mike:
it just seems out of the ordinary. should we expect this to be the new norm? |
Of COURSE it's not the "new norm". As long as I've been around, every now and then there's been a flagged challenge that made "failure to adhere to the challenge description" a DQable offense. Langdon just happens to have pulled a couple of them out of the hopper in close proximity to each other. Can everyone just RELAX or something?
The sky's NOT falling. I promise! |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 09:10:56 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by tnun:
nobody is questioning the virtues of following the challenge description.
Cory, please learn to READ. what I was saying was that this kind of new rigour in the dq department is a form of censorship, and that once you tighten up this kind of thing it is very hard to prevent further tightening.
I wonder if we shouldn't mount a guerilla offensive against this and all submit reflected symmetries and all be dq'd.
like I really want to further stir this tempest in a teapot. the thing is this dq threat serves no real purpose; surely it would have sufficed to word the description properly, which I thought it was. |
Firstly, I can indeed READ. Thank you, no further education needed on that.
Secondly, what you said did not read as you intended it to.
Third, this is not a new 'rigour' in the dq department, there are multiple precedents and for you to claim otherwise is either disingenuous or an indicator that you're simply spouting off about something you've paid no real attention to previously.
I do welcome you to further stir the shit pot, but do be ready to lick the spoon.... ;) |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 09:11:34 PM · #93 |
| oh. I was worried that this was somehow the will of the people... |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 09:25:28 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The sky's NOT falling. I promise! |
Tell this guy ... :-) |
|
|
|
05/01/2014 11:17:55 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Cory:
... I never fall clearly into any demographic, that's the real danger in being a free thinker. ;) |
DNMC. |
|
|
|
05/02/2014 01:05:08 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by tnun:
...tempest in a teapot... |
Sure is. What a steaming heap of paranoia. |
|
|
|
05/02/2014 02:12:03 AM · #97 |
Cory, you wrote, "Since when has a very clear rule fallen under aesthetic taste?"
What does that mean exactly?
Maybe if you paid better attention you would have noticed that the title of this thread specifies a NEW KIND of dq, to wit, one based on composition as opposed to technique. Composition is decidedly an aesthetic matter.
I love to spout off, tilt at windmills. |
|
|
|
05/02/2014 02:29:28 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The sky's NOT falling. I promise! |
Tell this guy ... :-) |
WOW !
|
|
|
|
05/02/2014 05:18:47 AM · #99 |
My guess is that Langdon only put the special rule on this one so he could pop some popcorn and enjoy the inevitable whining thread because there is nothing on TV.
Cheers, Langdon!  |
|
|
|
05/02/2014 06:45:05 AM · #100 |
This description sure did confuse me with me being a newbie and learning things. Usually, most of the descriptions have been self explainable, except this one.... however, its a challenge within a challenge to up the ante sort of speak and time to get out of a comfort zone for photography at least for me which I am excited about.
Awesome artical by the way too, that was cool! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 06:11:35 AM EDT.
