| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2006 10:53:11 AM · #351 |
I don't think anyone is picking on Goodman. Her art speaks for itself.
They are just using the piece of work as an example of the inconsistencies of the current way the rules are being applied.
There are probably many other pieces that could just as easily be used, but that one is most obvious and recent.
Rules can't be applied according to personal tastes about what each SC member likes or dislikes. They have to be applied evenly across the board for them to mean anything at all.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 11:00:31 AM · #352 |
| I don't think anyone is picking on her either..but clearly she is being put in a position where she feels the need to defend herself..in this very forum.. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 11:07:20 AM · #353 |
Unfortunately I think some of the SC decisions have started a witch hunt and it's only just beginning.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 11:43:12 AM · #354 |
Trying to limit intensive post-processing is in my opinion a good idea because it makes the photograph a fake one. That is undirectly the weak side of digital photography partly because it seems to be very easy to be seduced by powerful tools available with computer, it does not make them genuine anymore. It would be nice to have a challenge with a minimum amount of PP + no crop, I will be interested in what we will be able to produce. Let's think.
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 11:44:00.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 11:54:58 AM · #355 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Trying to limit intensive post-processing is in my opinion a good idea because it makes the photograph a fake one. That is undirectly the weak side of digital photography partly because it seems to be very easy to be seduced by powerful tools available with computer, it does not make them genuine anymore. It would be nice to have a challenge with a minimum amount of PP + no crop, I will be interested in what we will be able to produce. Let's think. |
It's called a basic challenge...
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:02:36 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by bucket:
I don't think using goodman's work at this time as your point of reference is fair to her.. |
It's the luck of draw. Fairness has nothing to do with it. What would be your point of view if the picture had been taken by someone who just joined last week or someone who isn't in the "in" crowd or unpopular with voters/posters/site users? Would you pipe up then?
The issue here is not attacking a person or their work. It's a discussion on editing techniques used on submissions to challenges. Site council, along with discussions held in their inner sanctum, peruse these threads to get a broader view of the collective feel.
I see nothing wrong in site users and members bringing attention to certain images as they relate to the terms of use as long as it remains civil and no one gets flamed. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:03:59 PM · #357 |
My defintion of basic is probaby different from what the edit rules are for a basic challenge on DPC. I can see easily a few over-postprocessed pictures in a basic challenge. The No-crop (at all) will be well thought to have since the photographer will need to fit with what he sees (let's at 95% level) in the viewfinder. That will be an intersting constaint.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:17:22 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
After all the responses that disagreed with this DQ, all the logical reasons provided, and even the similar examples which were treated different, the fact that this thread received very few responses from the SC to support or to logically explain the DQ (except from Shannon) means that you guys have not much to say, you could’ve just admitted that you were wrong and move on |
i explained my position and was told, in no uncertain terms, that it was wrong. my votes have been consistent throughout my duration on the SC, and i attempted to explain my logic. i'm sorry that you do not agree, but i do not think it is fair to say that there was no logic in the votes that did not agree with yours.
i also see no need to admit fault. i've explained my position as clearly as i can. obviously others feel the same way. my argument has never been about the background of your image, sam. it's that the radial blur that was added constituted an element of the image that was not there before.
whether or not you agree is your perogative. however, please note that i HAVE tried to participate here and explain my reasoning.
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 12:19:43. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:25:16 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by bucket:
I don't understand why anyone would want to use a current ribbon winner as an example in this way... ... I don't think using goodman's work at this time as your point of reference is fair to her.. |
You're right bucket. But the saving point is that goodman's image was already under review because all images finishing in the top five automatically get reviewed.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:26:40 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i explained my position and was told, in no uncertain terms, that it was wrong. my votes have been consistent throughout my duration on the SC, and i attempted to explain my logic. i'm sorry that you do not agree, but i do not think it is fair to say that there was no logic in the votes that did not agree with yours. |
well, I know you can't speak for everyone, but where is the source of the sudden inconsistency? and is there no appeal process? this thread could probably serve as a petition...
Sure, it won't make the photo a winner, but a standard needs to be stated, and a statment needs to be made, preferrably on the side of re-instating this photograph with the score that it had at the time of DQ. Considering the historical evidence, and the amount of respectable site members who have already disagreed with this ruling, I think this is in order.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:27:05 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by bucket:
I don't think using goodman's work at this time as your point of reference is fair to her.. |
It's the luck of draw. Fairness has nothing to do with it. What would be your point of view if the picture had been taken by someone who just joined last week or someone who isn't in the "in" crowd or unpopular with voters/posters/site users? Would you pipe up then?
The issue here is not attacking a person or their work. It's a discussion on editing techniques used on submissions to challenges. Site council, along with discussions held in their inner sanctum, peruse these threads to get a broader view of the collective feel.
I see nothing wrong in site users and members bringing attention to certain images as they relate to the terms of use as long as it remains civil and no one gets flamed. |
it is a good question whether I would "pipe up then"..and I understand you see nothing wrong with doing this..I don't feel the same way...since this is a recent ribbon winner and is still under review it could be seen as inciting the SC to react to her shot..why not use a shot that has already been approved? this is what I mean..
and as far as your other comments such as "in" crowd..well I don't really even know what you mean if you are referring to me personally, as the only "in" crowd I know of is the photographers who have given me feedback and I have done the same for them..so of course I am more aware of these people.. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:30:31 PM · #362 |
I'm not getting into an arguement/discussion of what is fair/should stay.....finding it hard to find the dpc I know and love at the moment. For me the only important question is....were the rules regarding filters in place and clearly set out prior to the challenge being posted? Has there been a change in what is allowable, what is not?
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:36:48 PM · #363 |
I wish this would get moved to rant...
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 12:46:32 PM · #364 |
I think the DQ was proper because Sam went to far in his use of the radial blur filter, changing the nature of the image.
A decision by SC concerning the rules should not be dependent upon public acceptance, but rather based entirely upon their interpretation of the rules. There will always be an ongoing evolution in the way these subjective interpretations are made. And there will, from time to time, be changes in the make-up of the SC that will affect how the rules are applied. DQ decisions will never be perfectly consistent as long as humans are involved.
I would much rather see an occasional incorrect decision (IMHO, that's not the case here) stand than see any DQ reversed due to public opinion.
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 12:48:29.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 01:46:47 PM · #365 |
I agree 100% with what Harvey has expressed.
Brent,
What makes this rant material? If you don't want to see it on your front page you do have the option of putting it on ignore. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:03:34 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I agree 100% with what Harvey has expressed.
Brent,
What makes this rant material? If you don't want to see it on your front page you do have the option of putting it on ignore. |
I don't seem to have that option available or I would.
If the radial blur adds an element by blurring the background then burning the background black removing all detail, removes an element.
Very simple. Both principles are the same. Either way, your messing with detail in the background. To say one is accpeted and not another is silly.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:12:03 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I don't seem to have that option available or I would.
|
When you open a thread there's a dropdown at the top left. Ignore is one of the options. Once set, when you go back to the home page it will no longer show up. The thread options are available to all paying members. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:14:09 PM · #368 |
Yeah.........what she said... cause she types a lot faster than me.
Should solve your problem right quick. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:15:17 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I don't seem to have that option available or I would.
|
When you open a thread there's a dropdown at the top left. Ignore is one of the options. Once set, when you go back to the home page it will no longer show up. The thread options are available to all paying members. |
That's where that thing is...thank you!
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:53:34 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... If the radial blur adds an element by blurring the background then burning the background black removing all detail, removes an element.
Very simple. Both principles are the same. Either way, your messing with detail in the background. To say one is accpeted and not another is silly. |
Burning a background black may not be the equivilent of removing a major element if there were not much detail, no identifiable objects, in the background to begin with. Pretty hard to make those kind of judgements across different images. Each entry is a new case.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 03:36:41 PM · #371 |
Rob, I did not mean any criticism to your person in specific, or to any individual member of the SC, my disappointment is from the SC as an entity, as a whole cause you guys failed to provide a unanimous reason for the disqualification.
When I argued that using filter is clearly permitted in the rules, I get an answer that it's not the type of tool that matters but it's the use of the tool, and then it was the written rules vs. the spirit of the rules, but then when someone pointed to an example where color saturation was used to the extreme and totally changed the look of the photo as it came out of the camera, someone else from the SC respond that this tool was always allowed!!! Then it became removing a major element by obscuring the background, well then what about that ribbon winner where the background is totally removed?? Now you're saying it's the radial blur, but what about the other two shots with similar radial blur?
I mean, it appears that even the ones in the SC who voted for the DQ are not even able to come up with the same reason for it.
For the record, I am not for DQ'ing that african kid photo, it would be silly to do so, but it will also be silly to not DQ it given that mine was DQ'ed for less ..
This mess can easily be resolved by reinstating my image and then clarifying the rules. At a minimum, everyone seems to agree that the rules needs clarification, so why don't I get the benefit of the doubt until you guys fix the rules??? Seems nothing but fair to me and to almost everyone else in here
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by samanwar:
After all the responses that disagreed with this DQ, all the logical reasons provided, and even the similar examples which were treated different, the fact that this thread received very few responses from the SC to support or to logically explain the DQ (except from Shannon) means that you guys have not much to say, you could’ve just admitted that you were wrong and move on |
i explained my position and was told, in no uncertain terms, that it was wrong. my votes have been consistent throughout my duration on the SC, and i attempted to explain my logic. i'm sorry that you do not agree, but i do not think it is fair to say that there was no logic in the votes that did not agree with yours.
i also see no need to admit fault. i've explained my position as clearly as i can. obviously others feel the same way. my argument has never been about the background of your image, sam. it's that the radial blur that was added constituted an element of the image that was not there before.
whether or not you agree is your perogative. however, please note that i HAVE tried to participate here and explain my reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 01:20:37 PM · #372 |
Regardless of what happens to the DQ status of either image, I do think it is important that we all remember that once the rules ARE changed and have been modified, we will not be able to drag up old pictures and state that our images are OK or not OK based on previous actions.
However, I do believe that this is also the reason that the SC should not be changing their view of DQ'ing images without having changed the rules.
If the rules as stated have not yet been changed, decisions should be passed on images according to the way the rules currently read.
If the SC has some sort of "direction", it should only happen AFTER the rules have been changed. This is the entire point upon which this thread rests and the argument that Samanwar has made.
SC appears to have made a decision on his image based on rules or thinking which is not currently represented by the ruleset. Not everyone reads the forums and is totally up to date on these issues, so it is very important that this is kept in mind for those who are out there taking pictures based on what they believe is correct.
I too agree that the SC should not change their decisions based on public opinion, but on the rules as they stand. In this case, I feel more that their original decisions were not made in support of the rules as I have seen and read them, but more so in the direction of current opinion.
The previous post is spot on.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:11:15 PM · #373 |
I hope the new rules DQ all radial blur addition that wasnt already present. Reason: it hurts photographers that achieve movement in-camera. Voters think it might be PS.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:25:23 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
I hope the new rules DQ all radial blur addition that wasnt already present. Reason: it hurts photographers that achieve movement in-camera. Voters think it might be PS. |
Actually, those of us who do blur in camera are hurt either way. Either people assume it's illegal until it's marked validated (and people **do** vote down when they think it's illegal), or they will think we used a filter and mark it down anyway.
I had problems with both of these shots with early low votes until they were validated; and the process takes long enough that "perhaps" they suffered overall. (Of course, I have not conducted a scientific study, it's my impressions from what votes I was getting before and after my requested validations. Note also that these were basic editing challenges so they are to some extent an example of votes when "no filters are allowed".
Look at all the 1's, 2's and 3's on the latter shot.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone accused me of using a filter in the comments. But low scores tend not to come with comments.
So I'm just pointing out that "removing the use of radial blur" is not particularly going to help us when we do it in camera.
On the other hand, I support removing it from what's allowed. It's very hard to do this and keep something in focus in the center (as above and here):
Yet in the dreams challenge there were a number of entries where this effect was carried out with a clearer focal point, but done with a filter rather than the in camera way I did. Of course, they scored better than I did, so I do like the fact that removing the PS way will equal the playing field on this effect a bit :)
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 13:25:48.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:30:59 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
I hope the new rules DQ all radial blur addition that wasnt already present. Reason: it hurts photographers that achieve movement in-camera. Voters think it might be PS. |
Actually I think it would help if radial blur in PS WAS allowed. That way you vote on the image not the processing. In camera blur would be just as legal as PS blur.
|
|
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: 04/19/2024 04:21:22 PM EDT.
