Author | Thread |
|
09/12/2005 09:39:55 AM · #101 |
|
|
09/12/2005 09:57:50 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug: This is nothing but game playing. Do we really want people playing games here? I joined this site becasue I felt I could grow and learn from the many respectable photogs here. I lose respect when this kind of crap happens.
Perhaps the image should not be all that is DQ'd - but the game player from the site also. Harsh? Yep - tough crap.
- Linda |
Sorry but I GET the point that was being made. Whether or not it was right or wrong really is beside the point, but to DQ the person - harsh is hardly the word for it, especially from a newbie. Why not just say it's wrong but "That's OK"? |
|
|
09/12/2005 09:58:42 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by micknewton: nazi |
Bit early in the day to be invoking Godwin's Law isn't it?
|
|
|
09/12/2005 10:04:10 AM · #104 |
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 agree with you.
He stated his reasons and made his apologies.
Actually it is done in some writing contests - to prove a point or to weed out the scam contests. |
|
|
09/12/2005 10:30:02 AM · #105 |
I don't understand this "lynch" talk. The point is, a person who has been a member of DPC for almost 2 years intentionally broke the rules. I guess some people here feel you can break the rules all you want, as long as you say you're sorry. I for one believe people should be held responsible for their actions. It's up to the SC to do what they feel is appropriate. |
|
|
09/12/2005 10:58:29 AM · #106 |
Sorry, I can't really be bothered to read all of the comments on here. I think I am going to side with Ron on this one myself. I believe it was never his intent to post the artwork for his gain. He was merely running an experiment. It should be duly noted that DPC did the same thing in the Ansel Adams challenge, submitting an actual Adams peice and allowing voting.
I don't really have a problem with someone doing this as an experiment to see what standards were amongst voters here.
I personally voted that picture down a bit because I didn't like the composition with the top of the branches cut off and I didn't like the shadows. I also felt the horizon had a weird slant. I have seen very few of Ansel Adams pictures, but I have a good friend who is always telling me about his work from a behind camera standpoint.
The thing I think to understand about Ansel Adams is that he was using a different medium. His artwork is amazing. Period. Further, his skills were far beyond what most photographers have today because he did EVERYthing manually, including calculations on light and Apterture and DOF etc. His work was done in specific ways to acheive specific results. Because every single aspect of his photography involved a great deal of preparation and work, one can assume that nothing was left to chance or accident. On the other hand, he may have made some choices to establish a feeling or style that was his to his own tastes. In this case, the image most assuredly would be perfect to these criteria - but not necessarily to everyone elses. That is what characterizes someone who is really deep in an art. They move beyond the basics.
Let's face it though. DPC is about the basics. There is a picture in being advertising Vivienne Westwood's artistic works here in Taipei. While many would feel that she is a genius, I feel her work is discordant and while technically spot on, lacks depth and meaning. I feel that she is taking a bunch of pictures in ways that will rub people a certain way and create a certain reaction in them. Many others would say that she is creating art.
I can't see that many of her pictures would score very well on DPC either. They ignore many basic principles because they are her art.
This kind of experiment isn't something that needs to be done a lot, but it might be an interesting subject for a brief tutorial.
Compare the results of submitting what I can only assume was a great rendition of an Adams picture in the Ansel Adams challenge with this one. That might do something to instruct voters and submitters and prevent this sort of thing happening again. |
|
|
09/12/2005 11:08:17 AM · #107 |
I've already made my opinions about the validity of this experiment earlier in the thread, but I would just like to say that if you're going to introduce another artists work into a challenge, it's going to be essentially pointless without the artist themselves being involved in the choice of image in relation to it's suiotability to that particular challenges brief.
I saw a programme recently where the team involved in a Guinness ad campaign were followed, and documented the processes involved in the journey to their final product. One point which was made, and which I think rings true here came when someone suggested trying something similar to a Julian Opie style, and one astute designer dismissed it immediately pointing out that if you want something Julian Opie then you should just go to Julian Opie.
An obscure analogy maybe, but if the desire exists to use professional photographers work in challenges entirely out of context it will imo only serve to cheapen the atmosphere of challenges and the site. Why not get some of the more experienced and more established site members to exploit their connections and invite professionals to make a submission of their own to the challenges? |
|
|
09/12/2005 12:21:15 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by eschelar: Sorry, I can't really be bothered to read all of the comments on here. |
then why should we take the time to read yours? |
|
|
09/12/2005 12:29:23 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by muckpond: Originally posted by eschelar: Sorry, I can't really be bothered to read all of the comments on here. |
then why should we take the time to read yours? |
Very good point. |
|
|
09/12/2005 12:43:47 PM · #110 |
I'm going to throw another lame vote on that entry. Very lame. |
|
|
09/12/2005 12:58:09 PM · #111 |
There's a larf for you. Hostility indeed muckpond. One would think Site council would have a little more tact.
I was only stating that I was sorry because the thread was very long and I didn't have time to read all the posts. Hence if I repeated what someone else had said or said something woefully out of place, I was sorry for the discontinuity. The fact that I couldn't be bothered reading all the posts is a result of reading through the first page and a half and finding people who were basically complaining and bitching about something that the guy never intended to reap personal benefit from in the end. The OP seems to have only been interested to see the numbers such a submission would have pulled rather than trying to place high in a contest. My additional point was that DPC had done a similar thing as well and I don't remember reading such a whine-fest about it.
Beginning by stating that I couldn't be bothered reading all the comments was intended to convey my feeling about reading all of that, but was NOT my primary intent. Believe me, if it was, I wouldn't have posted, I would have moved on, as many people probably did a long time ago.
I assume that others who likewise don't have time or interest in this thread won't read my post and I don't really see any point in worrying about who is going to be reading my posts. That is entirely up to those reading and how interested they are. I'm not forcing anyone to read my post, but as this is a forum for people who prefer to spend their time in such discussions, it seems like it is the appropriate place to contribute an opinion. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:00:38 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by troberge: Originally posted by SDW65: I think we should have a Mole photograph in every challenge. But not done like this. It should be done like the AA challenge we had. It is interesting to see how a well know photographers picture fairs in a challenge along with some of the comments it receives.
|
I agree, this would be an interesting exercise. Certainly not done like this one has been though. |
see the hidden egg in challenges
|
|
|
09/12/2005 01:07:45 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by eschelar: There's a larf for you. Hostility indeed muckpond. One would think Site council would have a little more tact. |
my point is simply this: starting your post by saying that you "can't be bothered" to read everyone else's notes is flat-out rude and probably causes more people to skip your post than read it.
if you had enough time to write such a lengthy post, why didn't you have the time to read others? you could have simply said "i agree with so-and-so, and here's why" and probably spent the same amount of time doing things that way. you would have actively participated in the conversation AND made your feelings known AND not insulted everyone else in the thread by implying that your comments are more worthwhile than theirs.
so, was my reply tactful? no. but at least i took the time to read your post before i replied to it. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:11:28 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by micknewton: nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over!
|
|
|
09/12/2005 01:13:28 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by muckpond: Originally posted by eschelar: Sorry, I can't really be bothered to read all of the comments on here. |
then why should we take the time to read yours? |
LOL....I quit reading his post after that line as well!
|
|
|
09/12/2005 01:15:43 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by colyla: Originally posted by micknewton: nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
We don't allow thread hijacking, which is what this is (an attempt at). I can only guess about other SC members, but I myself am in no mood to appreciate "humorous" attempts by users to administer the site. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:19:52 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by colyla: Originally posted by micknewton: nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
We don't allow thread hijacking, which is what this is (an attempt at). I can only guess about other SC members, but I myself am in no mood to appreciate "humorous" attempts by users to administer the site. |
I believe that micknewton's post was meant in a humorous vein and in no way was an attempt at threadjacking. IMO of course.
|
|
|
09/12/2005 01:22:58 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by colyla: Originally posted by micknewton: nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
Pssht, that's not even how it works. He has to actually call someone a nazi, the SC has to step in, hide some posts and remind everyone to refrain from personal attacks. At least three people need to start new threads about censorship and lack of freedom of speech, two of which will be locked by SC, after which, at least two more threads will be started about the secret SC society and how biased we are. Then 6 people will post about beating a dead horse and by that time, everyone will have forgotten about this thread so it will be over. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:24:06 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by colyla: Originally posted by micknewton: nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
We don't allow thread hijacking, which is what this is (an attempt at). I can only guess about other SC members, but I myself am in no mood to appreciate "humorous" attempts by users to administer the site. |
Sounds like you need a hug :)
|
|
|
09/12/2005 01:27:22 PM · #120 |
muckpond. I wasn't trying to be rude to the OP.
DPC set the precedent for doing *exactly* what this guy did. Moreover, another thread discussed this idea quite favorably in general as well. See the in-thread link to the Hidden Egg thread. After reading a page and a half of people whining about it, I decided I couldn't be bothered reading any more.
My reason for commenting was to add what I hoped was some small amount of thoughtful support for someone who I feel has been jumped on with great hostility needlessly.
People who agreed with Ron read his comments and not much further. People who disagreed with him are obviously enjoying heaping up the fires. The message was for them. Both the beginning line and the post below it. They lose nothing by the actions of this guy, except maybe a little pride if they were caught in a post hacking the master. This is childish in my opinion. Considering the level of hostility that has been displaying itself in this thread, I would have hoped the SC would step in and try to bring some balance to an overblown issue.
Colyla. I am totally fine that you didn't read any more of my post for the reasons above. I hope that if you are a balanced person, you would only be skimming messages at 5 pages into this sillyness anyhow.
Edit: small cut and paste for a sentence that got oddly disconnected.
Message edited by author 2005-09-12 13:31:13. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:30:26 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by colyla: Sounds like you need a hug :) |
A perceptive diagnosis ... : ) |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:36:34 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by eschelar: Considering the level of hostility that has been displaying itself in this thread, I would have hoped the SC would step in and try to bring some balance to an overblown issue.
|
I'm not clear on what sort of balance should be brought? That we should be accepting of this practice because it was deemed an experiment? RonBeam decided to play a little trick on the voters. That they do not like it and are expressing such sentiment does not seem unreasonable to me. That they'd like reinforcement that the site does not support such cheating (which submitting a photo that is not your own is, however you choose to label it) through the form of a suspension likewise does not strike me as unreasonable. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:47:57 PM · #123 |
I think what Ron did was a good idea..what are we afraid of? Learning something? |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:58:18 PM · #124 |
I just joined today and while I would not want this to happen as a rule, it proves a point as to whether technical or artistic opinions have any validity when judging another's art. |
|
|
09/12/2005 01:59:58 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by dragonlady: I think what Ron did was a good idea..what are we afraid of? Learning something? |
What ron did was a violation. Had Ron wanted the site to learn something, she should have contacted SC and Admins with this plan as has been done in the past. We were investigating the 'stollen image' days before he 'came clean', so he didn't 'come clean' he got caught.
We have done this exact same experiment in the past. It was organized, SC knew about it, and at no time did the submitter ever try to pass it off as their own photo. Ron did.
For those who think that submitting a photo to a challenge that is not your own...be careful. That warrants a suspension. |
|
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: 04/17/2024 04:26:00 AM EDT.