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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Reconsidering a DQ
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 146, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/09/2006 05:44:39 PM · #76
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:


Sounds to me that was also Konador's OPINION.

It WAS Konador's OPINION. I never said it wasn't. What conversation are you following? I stated that it didn't add to the topic at hand, which it doesn't (and that is rather un-professional for a site council member to be doing, no matter his or her immaturity level)...and that is fact my friend.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 17:45:48.
01/09/2006 05:45:25 PM · #77
Originally posted by dpaull:

I think it should not have been DQ'd either.Full Stop...ridiculous..Full Stop..it's like a popularity contest.Full Stop. If certain people entered it, it would have been voted upon, and held up...it's all a conspiracy to keep the Nikons out of ribbon-territory I think.


I think being accused of corrupt DQ voting is enough for me to be allowed to voice my opinion back however I like.
01/09/2006 05:47:03 PM · #78
David, nice to see you in your usual antagonistic form. Post a completely inflammatory statement, here insinuating that the SC is biased (and yes, you clearly stated it as fact) and then castrate whomever takes issue with it. Nice. :-P
Also totally transparent. Really, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a prick here, but I have a very low tolerance for this behavior.
01/09/2006 05:47:32 PM · #79
Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by dpaull:

I think it should not have been DQ'd either.Full Stop...ridiculous..Full Stop..it's like a popularity contest.Full Stop. If certain people entered it, it would have been voted upon, and held up...it's all a conspiracy to keep the Nikons out of ribbon-territory I think.


I think being accused of corrupt DQ voting is enough for me to be allowed to voice my opinion back however I like.


Great...and I'm allowed to voice mine back...like I said...you didn't add anything helpful, and you still haven't.

--

I've seen MUCH bigger MAJOR elements get not DQ'd upon submitting the original. Perhaps you can explain to us all then once and for all why his was DQ'd and that one where the strings holding up the elements were taken out -- those seem much more MAJOR than a light to me) -- no, not the one with the rules added to allow it either...
01/09/2006 05:48:50 PM · #80
Originally posted by kirbic:

David, nice to see you in your usual antagonistic form. Post a completely inflammatory statement, here insinuating that the SC is biased (and yes, you clearly stated it as fact) and then castrate whomever takes issue with it.


How can I insinuate something while stating it as fact?

Then use your right to not comment and not read what I write. If you don't agree with my opinion, then either state yours or show how mine is wrong...don't just bash ME as a person and call my statements idiotic or calling me names.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 17:50:24.
01/09/2006 05:51:42 PM · #81
I don't wanna argue with the people here nor the administrators of the site. I just think the light should have been left alone. Seriously, does it look that odd. It just adds a little something to the image. I like it.
01/09/2006 05:53:59 PM · #82
Originally posted by dpaull:

Perhaps you can explain to us all then once and for all why his was DQ'd and that one where the strings holding up the elements were taken out


Which one with the strings?

P.S., if you had worded your original query like this, you'd get a much more civilized response than suggesting fraud without offering any evidence.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 17:58:02.
01/09/2006 05:56:24 PM · #83

I remember seeing a behind the scenes where there were lines everywhere -- it seems to be missing now...wonder why.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 17:57:54.
01/09/2006 05:57:37 PM · #84
Originally posted by dpaull:

...don't just bash ME as a person and call my statements idiotic or calling me names.


Isn't THAT a bit like the pot calling the kettle... O nevermind.

Really, I don't need to rise to the defense of the SC or Admins. IMO, our actions speak for themselves. So sorry you feel we're biased, apparently the vast majority of the DPC community does not agree. BTW, since you want to pick apart my wording, here's one for you: no one ever called you anything, someone merely called one of your (typical, infflammatory) posts "stupid." The adjective, "stupid", refers to the subject "comment." Just to be clear.
01/09/2006 06:00:13 PM · #85
Erm, Kirbic, you did call him antagonistic... ;)

(like me..now..erm, sorry)
01/09/2006 06:00:27 PM · #86
Originally posted by kirbic:

BTW, since you want to pick apart my wording, here's one for you: no one ever called you anything, someone merely called one of your (typical, infflammatory) posts "stupid." The adjective, "stupid", refers to the subject "comment." Just to be clear.


I wasn't talking about that...as I clearly stated...

"don't just bash ME as a person and call my statements idiotic or calling me names."

I said he called my statements idiotic but you are right, you didn't call me a name...my 'form' was called antagonistic...not me, you're right.

"David, nice to see you in your usual antagonistic form. "


01/09/2006 06:06:43 PM · #87
Originally posted by dpaull:

I remember seeing a behind the scenes where there were lines everywhere -- it seems to be missing now...wonder why.


Uh, because the photographer found a better use for his portfolio space? The thin threads used to support the fruit were certainly closer to the realm of "power lines, errant twigs, etc." than a monster softbox. I already stated that if only the edge of the softbox or part of the lightstand were showing, it would probably be OK, so how do you infer any sort of favoritism from that? Note also that Coley had a DQ last year for cloning out a more substantial support structure. Obviously, popularity had no bearing on the matter.
01/09/2006 06:08:46 PM · #88
Originally posted by scalvert:

Obviously, popularity had no bearing on the matter.


In your opinion, you are correct.
01/09/2006 06:09:28 PM · #89
cmon guys.

group hug.
01/09/2006 06:16:22 PM · #90
Leave the poor softbox alone guys... I like it there... ;-)
01/09/2006 06:17:36 PM · #91
The problem here is, most of the guys don't even see the lights in the original so of course they don't notice them gone in the submitted version. I'll admit, I had to look at the image a loooong time before I saw what you are arguing about.
01/09/2006 06:24:11 PM · #92
Originally posted by dpaull:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Obviously, popularity had no bearing on the matter.


In your opinion, you are correct.


The same guy got DQ'd by majority vote when major elements were removed, and validated when only minor distractions were removed. How does that show favoritism? 5 of the 6 most-favorited photographers on this site have been DQ'd at some point- at least one of them a former SC member. If that's an opinion, at least it's well-supported.
01/09/2006 06:25:20 PM · #93
OK, then in your well-supported opinion, you are correct.
01/09/2006 06:26:43 PM · #94
;-)
01/09/2006 07:16:12 PM · #95
These excursions can go a far distance to clear the air, however, civility must always be observed. I have been here since June of 2003 and while I have differences with S/C one thing is certainly clear in my head. The council has always behaved with great integrity. A few minor flare ups here and there, but nothing that displays bias. They judge fairly across the board.

If we keep our heads together we can leave here with some important information. It would be so nice to have a little addendum to prevent a dq.
01/09/2006 07:20:18 PM · #96
Originally posted by nshapiro:

If we adjust a shot, say .6 degrees, to level the horizon, and now, in order to include as much of the original shot as possible, we clone a little bit of blue sky to fill the gap in the upper edge, is that illegal? If not, how much blue sky does it take to become illegal? And what if there's the edge of a cloud that must be fixed/extended?

I've never done that, I've always cropped it on the basis that doing anything else would be illegal

Brett
01/09/2006 07:55:35 PM · #97
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The way it was explained to me in my infancy on this site, the "goal of the site" is to promote photographic skills, and the use of post-processing is to enhance the photograph, not manipulate it. As far as I'm concerned, any time you leave "junk" in an image knowing you will later remove it with skillful post-processing, you've moved away from that goal. Dr. Jones himself comments that he had other shots without the light in them, and that he had been advised by at least one person NOT to enter this altered shot, but he did it anyway.

I don't see how it's possible to look at the original and have the opinion that a "major element" was NOT removed. To allow that shot to stand would be to make a mockery of the major element rule and open a gigantic can of worms, IMO.

R.


In a studio setup, a light rig may be less of an element than an equivalent item in a non-posed set up. But you are right that a goal oriented or purposive approach may be required to take these kinds of issues into account.

I got as far somewhere as drafting some suggested rules (a while back) that would encompass a purposive approach to the DPC rules. Very much along the lines of EU law/civil code drafting, rather than the approach taken in common law states such as the UK and US. This could work, though the wording of these things is pretty tough to prepare well, and we would probably just end up with different battles.
01/09/2006 08:33:53 PM · #98
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by w24x192:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

An "element" is considered to be an "object"; what you are describing is the attributes of objects. Changing the color of anything is changing an attribute of it, and that's always been fair game.

R.


But in the digital world, pixels and their color are what make up said objects, so that is subjective in my eyes. If I slid the levels to all black or all white, that would be removing everything...illegal?


I don't agree with this: "elements" are the components, the things we took a picture OF.


FWIW, this is YOUR interpretation of the ruleset, bear. personally, i believe that elements are just that -- elements of the photo. to me added blurs and significant color shifts that are major enough to become descriptive elements of the photo are major elements.

that being said, i will also say that i'm pretty sure i'm in the minority on this point on the SC. i don't want to drag our dirty laundry into the forums, but i've argued this point plenty of times. and i use my tiny little vote to express that opinion when warranted.

so, in addition to arguing about what "major" means, there's a good argument about what "element" means as well.
01/09/2006 08:37:33 PM · #99
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The way it was explained to me in my infancy on this site, the "goal of the site" is to promote photographic skills, and the use of post-processing is to enhance the photograph, not manipulate it.


this kind of proves my point.

hypothetical question:
there are two shots of cars entered into a "speed" challenge. both images are crystal clear shots of a car zipping along with a motion blurred background.

photo #1 was created using a traditional panning technique, so the car appears still while the background was moving.

photo #2 was created by shooting a car at rest and adding a motion blur to the background of the photo, thus SIMULATING the motion.

if the goal of this site is to promote photographic skills, and the use of post-processing is to enhance rather than manipulate, why is photo #2 deemed to be as valid as photo #1?

i'm just askin'
01/09/2006 08:53:37 PM · #100
Originally posted by dpaull:

I think it should not have been DQ'd either...ridiculous...it's like a popularity contest. If certain people entered it, it would have been voted upon, and held up...it's all a conspiracy to keep the Nikons out of ribbon-territory I think.


Stupidist comment I've heard in a long time...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:50:05 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:50:05 AM EDT.