| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:59:42 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by LKMote:
I do think it would be interesting to have a (MOLE) photo as stated earlier. It would be neat to see how many people might recognize. But I would want to be made aware if such a photo was hidden in a challenge. |
Already been done. Ansel Adams challenge, by Bear Music. |
Actually, the image was submitted udner a dummy name by D&L. I had suggested in a thread early on that it might be fun to have an actual AA in the challenge. D&L agreed, and asked for my help in picking one.
The difference, of course, is that the challenge was to enulate Ansel, so it made a lot of sense to have one of his images entered, or so I thought at the time anyway. If the challenge had been "Avedon", then one of his might have been slipped in? I donno. There were mixed reactions.
Main thing is, I didn't submit that image. I suggested in a forum thread it might be a fun thing to do, is all.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:15:16 AM · #77 |
I feel that the SC should seriously consider removing code to post images from out side the DPC to show up here. Or instate rules that any image posted here is the work of the poster. Many users here have absolutely no respect for copyright and artist's intellectual property. Even some that post images in the name of education are doing so improperly and if not breaking the letter of the law they definitely are ignoring the spirit of it.
Linking an image is one thing, but people are grabbing images & posting here. An Ansel Adams image seems to show up in the forums on an almost weekly basis, and I really doubt the Estate of Ansel Adams gave permission for its use.
As photographers, even when it is technically legal, should err on the side of protecting artist’s intellectual property.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:23:02 AM · #78 |
I say ban him for a little while...but what do i know....or care...i take my own photographs, I dont have steal them and then act like I was tricking everyone. The trick is on you Ron....some people just dont get it, eh?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:25:45 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I feel that the SC should seriously consider removing code to post images from out side the DPC to show up here. Or instate rules that any image posted here is the work of the poster. Many users here have absolutely no respect for copyright and artist's intellectual property. Even some that post images in the name of education are doing so improperly and if not breaking the letter of the law they definitely are ignoring the spirit of it.
Linking an image is one thing, but people are grabbing images & posting here. |
But then how could we have threads like this?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:31:38 AM · #80 |
Why stop at banning him? Why not just lynch him from the nearest branch? You'd think he murdered someone.
I think Ron's mistake was misjudging how people here would react. I don't really care one way or another about what he did. But I for one will not judge his motives, only he knows his motivation.
Why are so people so hostile on here all of a sudden?
Message edited by author 2005-09-12 02:32:48. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:34:25 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by amber:
Why are so people so hostile on here all of a sudden? |
Not just here. Katrina if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:37:13 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by amber:
Why are so people so hostile on here all of a sudden? |
Not just here. Katrina if you ask me. |
I think it's worldwide at the moment - my husband's boss, for eg, has just gone from a nice charming man to a complete satanist over night... |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:40:45 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by amber:
Why stop at banning him? Why not just lynch him from the nearest branch? You'd think he murdered someone.
I think Ron's mistake was misjudging how people here would react. I don't really care one way or another about what he did. But I for one will not judge his motives, only he knows his motivation.
Why are so people so hostile on here all of a sudden? |
Quite similar to my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:09:59 AM · #84 |
Well, Ron quite obviously touched a sore point here. I mean, who'd like to have the validity of hios opinion questioned? But by doing this, he has shown that behind all the important and professional looks, more often than not, people don't know what the hell they are giving comments about. Lack of background and big picture. Quite often it's just the satisfaction out of seeing one's one comments. Makes one feel more ... shall we say professional?
I once did the same kind of experiment. I didn't submit the photo under my name, just brought it to a forum anonymously. Didn't say whose photo or when taken. Asked for constructive opinions. It was a photo of Man Ray and it was torn to shreds. How can you rely on such comments, then?
It is indeed true that the artists have the biggest egos on the planet. :-)
And as for the retaliation that is so vocally demanded here ...
Why? Because Ron showed us our own shortcomings?
Do we still kill the messengers? |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:53:12 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Well, Ron quite obviously touched a sore point here. I mean, who'd like to have the validity of hios opinion questioned? But by doing this, he has shown that behind all the important and professional looks, more often than not, people don't know what the hell they are giving comments about. Lack of background and big picture. Quite often it's just the satisfaction out of seeing one's one comments. Makes one feel more ... shall we say professional?
I once did the same kind of experiment. I didn't submit the photo under my name, just brought it to a forum anonymously. Didn't say whose photo or when taken. Asked for constructive opinions. It was a photo of Man Ray and it was torn to shreds. How can you rely on such comments, then?
It is indeed true that the artists have the biggest egos on the planet. :-)
And as for the retaliation that is so vocally demanded here ...
Why? Because Ron showed us our own shortcomings?
Do we still kill the messengers? |
Submitting a poorly scanned copy of an Adams print, then deriding the negative comments because they don't all recognise the greatness of the artist behind it is ludicrous.
I thought we were trying to encourage people to comment, regardless of thier skill level.
I do believe, however, that boiling his assets in oil is a bit much.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 04:43:37 AM · #86 |
Wow. I've not had time to read all this thread yet, as i have to run... but one thing touched a nerve with me.
The way everyone talks as if an ansel photo automatically deserves a score of 10 and anything less is a failure of the system. Not all of us respect ansel that much, and many of those that do respect him as a pioneer - simply an image in his style, even with his execution, would not necessarily merit that high a score in today's more varied photographic culture.
Basically, i don't think the score was all that unfair, nor the comments.
As for the "dirty trick", well it could have been done with a touch more class (or originality). The entire idea's been suggested before, and bear_music has done something of the sort in the past (but as i say, with a little more class).
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 04:53:00 AM · #87 |
I'd agree with Riot 100% there; just because it's an Ansel doesn't automatically make it a winner, especially in our themed challenges. The man made a LOT of images and I know I'm not alone in thinking a majority of them are fairly pedestrian, especially by HIS standards. Isn't that true of all of us?
Ansel himself said that a year in which he produced 12 images that might endure (I'm paraphrasing here) was a very good year.
Add to that the fact that this particular "copy" of the image was very poorly presented (bad scanning, probably) and the less-than-stellar scores are perfectly understandable. But I guarantee that most of us, if we could stand in front of one of his original prints of this image (I have done so) would be blown away by the tonal range and beauty of it. It's a very fine image when you see it in the flesh.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 05:05:32 AM · #88 |
Photographs must also sometimes be considered in the context of a body of work and era to be appreciated. I don't think that RonB's test demonstrated much, but it was pretty harmless.
Some of the attitudes here are quite self-righteous, and RonB's original post and some of the responses take themselves pretty self-importantly.
I object to the attitude that DPC is arranged around some inherent or fundamental principles, which must be obeyed religiously, and non-conformists must be cast out. It is an online photography competition and educational site. It is well constructed, and incorporates some well written (but arbitrary) rules. It is inhabited by some interesting people. But it is not more than that. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 05:47:25 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by amber:
Why stop at banning him? Why not just lynch him from the nearest branch? You'd think he murdered someone.
I think Ron's mistake was misjudging how people here would react. I don't really care one way or another about what he did. But I for one will not judge his motives, only he knows his motivation.
Why are so people so hostile on here all of a sudden? |
I think you're confusing hostility with folks expecting people in this community to be responsible for their actions. If you speed, you get a ticket; if you rob a bank, you got to jail; etc. What message is being sent to DPCer's if a person robs another persons photo and uses it to deceive the whole DPC community and nothing is done about it. People should be responsible for their actions and face the consequences! |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 05:54:32 AM · #90 |
Just because it's Ansel Adams Photo doesn't really make it a great shot and deserves a 10. I have studied his work and found many wonderful photos, and yes, this one of the branch is my favorite. However, there are few that I DON"T like as well and wondered, "What was he thinking? So, if one wants to comment on the photo and say what they do or don't like about it or perhaps, "I Would have done this," or ..."done that" with this shot. Is fine in my book. However, we are talking about a real photo of AA's, not some crap scan. This image that was uploaded was a cheep copy and looked like crap. So, in fairness, it wasn't the original and all comments are invalid.
Now, This is a just and interesting point that the author is rising. He has a right to discuss a professional done photo with others perhps judgeing theroies. But, NOT in a CHALLENGE. Take it to a forum or somewhere. I think that was un-called for.
Once I saw that AA photo in there with the "Branch" Challenge, I laughed and instantly request of DQ...Then trying very hard to hold back to share my findings with others. Now it's open, hey!
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 07:14:44 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by rayg544:
Originally posted by amber:
Why stop at banning him? Why not just lynch him from the nearest branch? You'd think he murdered someone.
I think Ron's mistake was misjudging how people here would react. I don't really care one way or another about what he did. But I for one will not judge his motives, only he knows his motivation.
Why are so people so hostile on here all of a sudden? |
I think you're confusing hostility with folks expecting people in this community to be responsible for their actions. If you speed, you get a ticket; if you rob a bank, you got to jail; etc. What message is being sent to DPCer's if a person robs another persons photo and uses it to deceive the whole DPC community and nothing is done about it. People should be responsible for their actions and face the consequences! |
He hasn't committed a criminal offence. He explained himself. I don't personally feel deceived or wronged. Decepetion is a very strong term and I don't personally believe his intent was malicious. It's not as if he was trying to win a million pound prize, for goodness sake! What happens about it is up to SC alone. Baying for blood is uncalled for and totally out of proportion. Would your life really be any better if he was hung drawn and quarterted in a virtual public execution?
Message edited by author 2005-09-12 07:28:25. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 07:34:39 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by amber:
He hasn't committed a criminal offence. He explained himself. I don't personally feel deceived or wronged. Decepetion is a very strong term and I don't personally believe his intent was malicious. It's not as if he was trying to win a million pound prize, for goodness sake! What happens about it is up to SC alone. Baying for blood is uncalled for and totally out of proportion. Would your life really be any better if he was hung drawn and quarterted in a virtual public execution? |
I agree. I don't think there was anything in Ron's post in this thread that warranted such a hostile response. He stated numerous ways, that his actions was not to induce ill-will in those who rated the photo poorly or even made comments on how to better, and that he accepted whatever punishment the SC deemed appropriate. This thread has taken on a life of it's own and in such attributed so many malicious characteristics to Ron that it has run very close to having a mob mentality.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 07:37:01 AM · #93 |
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
nobody is asking for his head on a silver platter. however, there are not many rules on DPC, and when they are broken, a message needs to be sent that this is unacceptable. 1 month of not being able to submit to challenges sounds like a reasonable punishment. hopefully, it will dissuade others from trying any other foolhardy ideas in the future.
in actuality, he HAS committed a criminal offence. its called copyright violation. Think for one second, what if that was YOUR image that he lifted. Would you care about his motivations? There is no moral ground that Ron can hide behind, its a moot point. What he did was careless. Did he intend to do this? Personally, I don't care. Do I want others to feel that this is an acceptable behaviour here at DPC? hell no! if this goes without some form of punishment, you'll be sure to see these moral zealots springing from the side-lines, and DPC will quickly become a circus gallery of 1-pixel images, stolen works, and other contributions that do the site a dis-service. We've created a community that is intended to foster growth for all of us, a noble intent, but it is up to us to protect its integrity. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 08:07:22 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by davmct:
Think for one second, what if that was YOUR image that he lifted. Would you care about his motivations? |
Speaking for myself only - if I were dead, as Adams unfortunately is, I wouldn't really care. Otherwise I would have a good laugh and perhaps feel a bit flattered.
Why be so jealous about the images? Is it not more important to have the images bring pleasure to people? I'm not saying that it doesn't matter at all, only that there's no need to go for the jugulars every instant. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 08:19:14 AM · #95 |
I'd be more concerend with the fact that when we submit an entry we check a box warranting that it is our original work, and that wasn't the case here. The "copyright violation" seems to me to be a non-issue, since "fair use" would allow posting of others' images for edeucational purposes, and it happens all the time in here.
I don't think it's worth suspending someone over, though.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 08:21:08 AM · #96 |
I think he shold've talk to the SC about it BEFORE he did it. It seems he could have got busted then all of the sudden come up with this plan. Who knows for sure. I don't think we should ban him for life...he has some nice photos..IF they are actually his..and can contribute to the site. I just say ban him from challenges for a month.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 08:25:58 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Sherri1209:
Originally posted by amber:
He hasn't committed a criminal offence. He explained himself. I don't personally feel deceived or wronged. Decepetion is a very strong term and I don't personally believe his intent was malicious. It's not as if he was trying to win a million pound prize, for goodness sake! What happens about it is up to SC alone. Baying for blood is uncalled for and totally out of proportion. Would your life really be any better if he was hung drawn and quarterted in a virtual public execution? |
I agree. I don't think there was anything in Ron's post in this thread that warranted such a hostile response. He stated numerous ways, that his actions was not to induce ill-will in those who rated the photo poorly or even made comments on how to better, and that he accepted whatever punishment the SC deemed appropriate. This thread has taken on a life of it's own and in such attributed so many malicious characteristics to Ron that it has run very close to having a mob mentality. |
See, i don't know. The ones who are crying out for punishment are mainly ones who are bothered about it breaking the rules. I'm not all that concerned about what he did, more the way he did it. It was a pretty ugly way to carry out an unofficial public "study" of voting patterns, whether he claims that was his intention or not.
Actually what really irks me about it is this, and the way people seem to be ignoring it: Originally posted by RonBeam:
Nor was my intention to embarass any commentor or degrade their opinion. I felt this ruse a way of enlightening those who feel discouraged by negative comments as to the validity (actually non-validity) of some comments received during scoring of a challenge. |
What he's saying is plain as day - "i don't want to degrade anyone's opinion" in one breath and in the next "i want to show how many opinions are invalid". I find this EXTREMELY offensive, even though i did not comment on the entry in the challenge (or notice it in fact).
He's basically using an arbitrary standard of supposed perfection (ansel adams) by which to judge those that would judge it! And moreover suggesting anyone who thinks badly of this image has an a "non-valid" opinion... how can any honest voter say this is not deceptive and malicious?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 08:28:59 AM · #98 |
Come on guys I don't think anybody is screaming for a lynching. I personally just think it is of upmost important to maintain the integrity of the site. This guy took a risk, he mentions that plain and simple. Now a debt has to be paid. Now if you could just make that check out to.....umm......j.miller, I think a thousand should cover it. LOL. Come on punitive damages! LOL.
No seriously though, this forum thread staying alive is probably hurting him worse than anything the panel can and/or will do. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 08:50:21 AM · #99 |
I had this whole thing written... forget it everyone's already made the various points.
Message edited by author 2005-09-12 08:53:49. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 09:17:11 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by riot:
What he's saying is plain as day - "i don't want to degrade anyone's opinion" in one breath and in the next "i want to show how many opinions are invalid". I find this EXTREMELY offensive, even though i did not comment on the entry in the challenge (or notice it in fact).
He's basically using an arbitrary standard of supposed perfection (ansel adams) by which to judge those that would judge it! And moreover suggesting anyone who thinks badly of this image has an a "non-valid" opinion... how can any honest voter say this is not deceptive and malicious? |
There are many things in life that it is worth being offended by. This isn't. |
|
