| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2007 01:50:16 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Falc:
You see thats where our fundemental views differ. I don't see that as being against the spirit of an challenge. If we don't track the technology changes then we would be calling this site 'film-challenge' or some other such name.
If the technology does it and we can detect where the functions are being mis-used, that is loading old images, then we should allow it. If detection can't make the distinction then OK, but re-evaluate the ban when and if detection is possible. |
I don't understand this thinking. The rules specifically forbid the use of multiple images in a single submission. They also specifically allow anything that can be done in-camera, largely because there's no way of telling whether it was done or not, since the end result is a verifiable set of EXIF data. Then along comes a camera that allows multiple exposures in-camera, and more than that allows the importing of an out-of-date image and incorporating it into a verifiable file.
Now where are we at? One obvious solution would be to change the rules to ALLOW combining of multiple exposures; then it wouldn't matter whether it was in-camera or in-photoshop. But that's a new game we're playing. The other solution is to ban in-camera multiple exposures, keeping the game the same. And it seems to be the clear consensus of the site that we want to be "more traditional", "more photographic", and less experimental and avante-garde, so to speak. The expert rules were created to allow those of the latter persuasion a playground to strut their stuff from time to time, and that's good. But DPC wouldn't be DPC anymore if this multiple-image compositing began to take hold at all levels. It would be a different game.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:50:25 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by ursula:
towing or toeing? |
nice edit by the way
*claps*
btw, my remark about the party line was an observation, albeit cynical ... calling generale a dick was an insult.
perhaps that's too subtle a difference?
and my original point hasn't been answered satisfactorily.
why is it that SC bans multiple edits and then admits that they're being secretive about why.
this is a DIGITAL photography website after all ... i ignorantly thought that the job of SC was to ensure that the site evolved so that technology could be incorporated.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:53:01 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
btw, my remark about the party line was an observation, albeit cynical ... calling generale a .... was an insult.
perhaps that's too subtle a difference? |
No, not subtle at all. You should apologize to Paul :) |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:53:42 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even if done well, such images will likely be voted down on the assumption that an illegal technique was used.
Yes, I'm well aware of the "Vote like it was legal" clause in the rules, but I doubt many follow it.
Effectively, this rule will kill those shots too. Well, any chance of success they might have otherwise had. |
I don't see why. Daniel (graphicfunk) had great success at this long before in-camera compositing via the D-200/D-80 became possible, at a time when ALL multiple-source-image pictures were illegal. And there have been others; I remember one with a "face split in half" that won a ribbon, can't think whose it was offhand.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:53:50 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Effectively, this rule will kill those shots too. Well, any chance of success they might have otherwise had. |
I don't agree. I, for one, will now trust (unless proven guilty) that the very clever photo I am looking at was actually done in a clever way, not just by some camera trick. |
You for one, but many others will not.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:55:10 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by super-dave:
btw, my remark about the party line was an observation, albeit cynical ... calling generale a .... was an insult.
perhaps that's too subtle a difference? |
No, not subtle at all. You should apologize to Paul :) |
perhaps site council should stop being secretive about why, when there's no need for it.
perhaps you should stop deleting my posts because of ONE WORD and let paul defend himself.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:55:58 PM · #107 |
 labuda has done a few successful ones as well. maybe it was his?
where is graphicfunk anyhow?...
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't see why. Daniel (graphicfunk) had great success at this long before in-camera compositing via the D-200/D-80 became possible, at a time when ALL multiple-source-image pictures were illegal. And there have been others; I remember one with a "face split in half" that won a ribbon, can't think whose it was offhand. |
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 13:56:17.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:59:30 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even if done well, such images will likely be voted down on the assumption that an illegal technique was used.
Yes, I'm well aware of the "Vote like it was legal" clause in the rules, but I doubt many follow it.
Effectively, this rule will kill those shots too. Well, any chance of success they might have otherwise had. |
I don't see why. Daniel (graphicfunk) had great success at this long before in-camera compositing via the D-200/D-80 became possible, at a time when ALL multiple-source-image pictures were illegal. And there have been others; I remember one with a "face split in half" that won a ribbon, can't think whose it was offhand.
R. |
I know he did, and as you said, this was long before digital cameras had the capability to do such things in-camera, so the natural assumption on the part of the viewer/voter was that it had to be a "single in camera image", a legal technique. Now, the assumption will likely be that such images were done using the now illegal in-camera combination of two images and voters will "punish" the scofflaw with a bevy of one votes, when in fact, nothing illegal was done.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:01:33 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
why is it that SC bans multiple edits and then admits that they're being secretive about why. |
Not secretive at all. The rules (other than Expert) have always forbidden combining multiple files yet allowed all in-camera features. When cameras appeared that could combine multiple files in-camera, then one of those rules had to give.
Originally posted by super-dave:
... i ignorantly thought that the job of SC was to ensure that the site evolved so that technology could be incorporated. |
Our job is to ensure fair play. The site has and will continue to evolve, but it needn't do so for the sake of technology alone. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:02:09 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And there have been others.... |
Not trying to put myself into graphicfunk's league, but this one was done the legal way, too:
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:02:24 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
perhaps site council should stop being secretive about why, when there's no need for it. |
We will not discuss anything that might compromise the validation system. Period.
Originally posted by super-dave:
perhaps you should stop deleting my posts because of ONE WORD and let paul defend himself. |
If the one word is an attack, on any user or group, we *will* remove it, same as we would do for anyone. Please read and adhere to the forum posting rules. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:02:38 PM · #112 |
NM
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:03:40.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:03:28 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Now, the assumption will likely be that such images were done using the now illegal in-camera combination of two images and voters will "punish" the scofflaw with a bevy of one votes, when in fact, nothing illegal was done. |
A few might do that, but many more are likely to assume that the shot was done the "hard" way (because otherwise it would be DQ'd) and vote higher for the effort. It balances out. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:03:58 PM · #114 |
So you are saying that we should allow any submission because the final result was done in the camera? In other words, you think images that are Photoshopped with advanced rules techniques inside the camera should be allowed in basic challenges simply because the camera is digital?
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Uhhh. I think they can and I think they just did. To be honest, I never understood why it was allowed to begin with.
A quick point for all. There is a camera available now that has Photoshop built in. Does this mean that dodging, burning, healing, cloning, removing of major elements, or any spot editing done inside this camera should be allowed for a basic (or even minimal) challenge simply for the fact that it is a feature in the camera? |
hmmm ... how do i best respond???
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CHALLENGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what part of that isn't understood?
since this site is based on DITIGAL photography, then the site has to adapt and incorporate new technologies.
I AGREE that the exploitation of technology is a concern. but banning in camera editing that is designed to mimic traditional camera features is not the right approach.
edit: fixed quotes, again! :( |
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:04:37 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Now, the assumption will likely be that such images were done using the now illegal in-camera combination of two images and voters will "punish" the scofflaw with a bevy of one votes, when in fact, nothing illegal was done. |
A few might do that, but many more are likely to assume that the shot was done the "hard" way (because otherwise it would be DQ'd) and vote higher for the effort. It balances out. |
So hopes the optimist.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:07:04 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So hopes the optimist. |
I've been surprised before, but I do have a pretty good track record for predicting voter response. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:08:13 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Now, the assumption will likely be that such images were done using the now illegal in-camera combination of two images... |
Sorry to disagree again. Whilst it was legal, we had no idea which way it was done. So rather than rewarding someone for being really clever, I often just assumed it was done the simple "camera trick" way - something I find much less exciting.
Now I will know (to a pretty high degree of certainty) that it isn't just a camera function.
Edit to say: boy was I slow with that one, or what? I swear I didn't just copy Scalvert :-)
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:09:56. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:09:00 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Wrong. Without discussing the nitty-gritty details, which I cannot do, believe me when I say that there are problems that are not surmountable at this writing. |
scalvert ... sorry ... but kirbic has already said that there are reasons that site council aren't discussing it ... so that IS secretive.
if it involves the validation system, then that should have been stated from the outset.
i don't consider myself to be adversarial but this is an unreasonable ruling ... i don't see why it's being made. the assumptions that the rule is based on are assumptions that apply to 1% of this community but punish everyone else.
finally, i don't like people who are condescending. the grammar nazi attempts to be intelligent by pointing out a grammar mistake, then i'm told by another person that i should apologise?? i don't think so.
btw, where is the grammar nazi? i used some big words, i need him to check and make sure i spelled them good! :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:10:25 PM · #119 |
I don't agree with this much myself.. although I understand it, as others said. Abusers always take liberties away from those that wouldn't abuse.
However, don't fret.. there are ways to do multiple-exposures legally. Or, at least one way.
Long-Exposure with lens shutters. You can easily craft some, and all you do is set your camera to a longer exposure.. cover part of the lens, then cover the other part, and put your subject in the area where the lens isn't covered. *bing!*
Other similar methods as well.. and it actually works better than multi-exposures because you don't get any ghosting.
A little more work, sure, but it's totally legal.
So for those of you that really do care about doing multiple exposures, have fun experimenting!
*EDIT* Oops.. sorry dwterry.. missed your post.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:12:13. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:14:57 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
scalvert ... sorry ... but kirbic has already said that there are reasons that site council aren't discussing it ... so that IS secretive. |
There's more than one reason. One "big picture" reason is that combining multiple FILES conflicts with long-standing contest rules.
Oh, and regarding a few posts suggesting that "cheaters" or "abuse" ruined the situation for others, note that all in-camera features had been considered legal up to this point, so using such features was NOT cheating!
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:17:38. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:15:03 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
So you are saying that we should allow any submission because the final result was done in the camera? In other words, you think images that are Photoshopped with advanced rules techniques inside the camera should be allowed in basic challenges simply because the camera is digital? |
a biased and gross oversimplification of my point.
my point is that as technology changes, SC needs to consider the implications of it. i know that they do so already, but banning technology isn't the answer.
it's a DIGITAL photography site ... so every year there are going to be technologies included into cameras that challenge the way this site is run.
that's SC's most difficult job, but one i hoped they were up to; finding ways to incorporate the technologies and let the site evolve as the technology evolves.
i'm not seeing that in the banning of the ability to use in camera editing from some cameras, especially when the rules have always allowed in camera editing as one of their basic assumptions.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:16:12 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
perhaps you should stop deleting my posts because of ONE WORD and let paul defend himself. |
OK, in keeping with the third-grade level of this discussion, I guess all I can say is it takes one to know one.
To say someone has "Toed the party line" is to accuse them of moral cowardice; of failing to maintain their convictions and principles in the face of intimidation from their peers or superiors. IMO, that constitutes an insult.
I only correct spelling errors in posts when the error introduces a significant ambguity or change in meaning, or when it's too funny to pass up. I have sufficient other outlets for my pedantic tendencies that I don't need to compulsively change every typo I see.
I think you'll find that most insults comprised solely of comparisons between the insultee and slang terms for various parts of human anatomy violate the site TOS and Forum Rules, and will lead to your post being hidden; persistent violations will probably lead to a restiction on posting, suspension, or banishment.
The Defense rests.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:18:07 PM · #123 |
@super-dave:
If you read about the first dozen or so posts in this thread, it is pretty obvious *why* the ruling was made; if it did not impact validation system, we would not be even considering making it illegal.
Your participation in the thread has not been positive, on the whole. It's been more on the order of angry lashing-out, including personal attacks on other users. That's unnecessary. If you disagree, that's fine. Please do it in a civil manner. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:23:39 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
...as technology changes, SC needs to consider the implications of it. |
Exhibit A: this thread.
Originally posted by super-dave:
...the rules have always allowed in camera editing as one of their basic assumptions. |
In-camera features have been allowed, but in-camera editing is fairly new. Most of the rules address what you can and can't do with editing, and as such functions are incorporated into the cameras, we'll have to take that into consideration as we've done in this case.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:23:55. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:24:41 PM · #125 |
Hardly biased.
I'm just trying to get a reasonable reply to my question and am having a tough time doing so. Sure, technology changes but in your opinion where should the line be drawn? Obviously not multiple exposures but where? How about my original post - should in camera advanced Photoshop techniques be allowed in all challenges since the final result is straight from camera? If so, why? If not, why not?
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by dudephil:
So you are saying that we should allow any submission because the final result was done in the camera? In other words, you think images that are Photoshopped with advanced rules techniques inside the camera should be allowed in basic challenges simply because the camera is digital? |
a biased and gross oversimplification of my point.
my point is that as technology changes, SC needs to consider the implications of it. i know that they do so already, but banning technology isn't the answer.
it's a DIGITAL photography site ... so every year there are going to be technologies included into cameras that challenge the way this site is run.
that's SC's most difficult job, but one i hoped they were up to; finding ways to incorporate the technologies and let the site evolve as the technology evolves.
i'm not seeing that in the banning of the ability to use in camera editing from some cameras, especially when the rules have always allowed in camera editing as one of their basic assumptions. |
|
|
