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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Remove My Tutorials
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/19/2004 01:09:09 AM · #26
i should say i'm sorry for my initial reaction. it was all gut.

i just think that this is a bad approach. you don't like the way things are going here, despite the fact that it is on a minority level, and so rather than stick it out and try to promote your values by offering lessons on how to take a better photograph, you decide to remove what lessons you have already offered, thereby lessening the chance that things here will improve in the way you feel they need to, and in a way, throwing your weight around in a last ditch effort to command attention.

i shouldn't say that's what you're entirely doing, but that is what it looks like to me.

i personally think there are more productive ways of doing things.

this is obviously a great site with a great foundation. why try and crumble that because a few things haven't been going the way you'd like them lately?

*edited for spelling - though i'm sure there's still mistakes!

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 01:11:49.
04/19/2004 01:09:49 AM · #27
I think too many of us are naive enough to give the photographers here the benefit of the doubt. I would like to be able to trust that people's shots are true to the spirit of the site, without examining every pixel on their shot looking for inconsistencies. It's too bad that we can't trust each other anymore. Thanks for ruining it, guys.

Edit - spelling.

Message edited by author 2004-04-19 01:10:38.
04/19/2004 01:10:02 AM · #28
I have to take Setz's side on this one. He has standards as a photographer. If he feels (as I and I'm sure others) that the site has migrated away from a photography site, he has no other choice but to follow his core values. I also feel this way. I'm very close to asking for my hard earned dollars back (prorated of course since I have benefited) that I paid to become a member here. This is very close to NOT being the site that I signed up for... [heart felt sigh :-( ]
04/19/2004 01:10:46 AM · #29
Originally posted by t_online:

hmmm ... it seems to me that most of the photoshop-manipulated shots are pretty obvious, e.g. the 2nd window view, last weeks broken bottle, even 1st window view one can se that the perspective of the frame is not right ... so one should just vote accordingly


it's not obvious to everyone tho.
04/19/2004 01:11:00 AM · #30
Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting.

Your entry must come from a single photo, taken during the week of the challenge. No multi-image compositions, no layering of multiple exposures, no copying-and-pasting elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), etc

Labuda...at least you were honest:)

04/19/2004 01:12:07 AM · #31
Originally posted by darcy:

i should say i'm sorry for my initial reaction. it was all gut.

i just think that this is a bad approach. you don't like the way things are going here, despite the fact that it is on a minority level, and so rather that stick it out and try to promote your values by offering lessons on how to take a better photograph, you decide to remove what lessons you have already offered, thereby lessening the chance that things here will improve in the way you feel they need to, and in a way, throwing your weight around in a last ditch effort to command attention.

i shouldn't say that's what you're entirely doing, but that is what it looks like to me.

i personally think there are more productive ways of doing things.

this is obviously a great site with a great foundation. way try and crumble that because a few things haven't been going the way you'd like them lately?


Productivity... yup.. just like the site council. They have been dealing with this issue for two weeks behind a pretty thick veil of secrecy. I don't care anymore and this does deserve attention.

I'm not supportive of helping people on this site by spending many many many hours writing as I have done in the past. There are a few bad apples here that are going to drive the site in another direction, which is fine with me. I'm not going to support a lost cause of trying to assist people with their photographic technique when it doesn't matter.
04/19/2004 01:14:18 AM · #32
Originally posted by t_online:

hmmm ... it seems to me that most of the photoshop-manipulated shots are pretty obvious, e.g. the 2nd window view, last weeks broken bottle, even 1st window view one can se that the perspective of the frame is not right ... so one should just vote accordingly


The problem is that the rules of the site (which I for one try to follow) say that in that situation we are supposed to vote as if the photo is legal and request a DQ. I requested DQs on both of those images very early in the week and gave them both 10s. I assumed they would either be deleted or that low and behold they are actually amazing photographs. Of course, this plan of mine didn't work out, but it's the thought that counts, right?
04/19/2004 01:15:08 AM · #33
Originally posted by TooCool:

I have to take Setz's side on this one. He has standards as a photographer. If he feels (as I and I'm sure others) that the site has migrated away from a photography site, he has no other choice but to follow his core values. I also feel this way. I'm very close to asking for my hard earned dollars back (prorated of course since I have benefited) that I paid to become a member here. This is very close to NOT being the site that I signed up for... [heart felt sigh :-( ]


Now wait a minute. I strongly disagree here. I think that if he thinks the site has migrated away from a photography site, then the best thing to do is to keep plugging through and submitting great photography. I have, honestly, been inspired by Johns work, losing him would do more loss for the site than anything, it would be letting THEM win.

As for the "money not well spent" thing, all I have to say is that I think it was one of the best $25 I have spent, too bad you don't think so, because I have learned a LOT, and it is because of people like Setz. But if you feel that way, I can't stop ya.
04/19/2004 01:19:38 AM · #34
Originally posted by t_online:

hmmm ... it seems to me that most of the photoshop-manipulated shots are pretty obvious, e.g. the 2nd window view, last weeks broken bottle, even 1st window view one can se that the perspective of the frame is not right ... so one should just vote accordingly


WOW! I obviously haven't been keeping up on my reading enough this weekend. So 1st AND 2nd place were rigged? Although after readig 1's description it seems to slide through by the skin of it's teeth. I contortioned for 30 minutes on a tiny spiral staircase to get every possible angle & lighting, hanging on to the middle pole to let people pass me, when all I had to do was take a pic of my favorite view & DRAW a damn window!!

I completely understand John's aggrivation. If someone of his record doesn't stand up....who will? It's called having principles. There seems to be some of that lacking lately.
04/19/2004 01:20:22 AM · #35
Originally posted by goinskiing:

Now wait a minute. I strongly disagree here. I think that if he thinks the site has migrated away from a photography site, then the best thing to do is to keep plugging through and submitting great photography. I have, honestly, been inspired by Johns work, losing him would do more loss for the site than anything, it would be letting THEM win.

As for the "money not well spent" thing, all I have to say is that I think it was one of the best $25 I have spent, too bad you don't think so, because I have learned a LOT, and it is because of people like Setz. But if you feel that way, I can't stop ya.


Keep contributing great photography so that the digital art people can keep winning? What does that accomplish accept to let them win? By taking a STAND and saying he won't accept it is what may actually make a difference. I for one am standing with him. And as for it being money well spent, it WAS money well spent, but I still got 6 months left that I may not want any more. I guess it's the SC and ADMINS call at this point...
04/19/2004 01:21:31 AM · #36
Originally posted by LtHousLady:

I completely understand John's aggrivation. If someone of his record doesn't stand up....who will? It's called having principles. There seems to be some of that lacking lately.


Touche!
04/19/2004 01:21:54 AM · #37
I stated in another thread that at this point I am not planning to continue my paid membership that expires next month. Luckily, the past year has been great and I would love to show my support by continuing in many years to come, assuming that it is something I actually enjoy.
04/19/2004 01:21:58 AM · #38
Originally posted by TooCool:

As for the "money not well spent" thing, all I have to say is that I think it was one of the best $25 I have spent, too bad you don't think so, because I have learned a LOT, and it is because of people like Setz. But if you feel that way, I can't stop ya.


Keep contributing great photography so that the digital art people can keep winning? What does that accomplish accept to let them win? By taking a STAND and saying he won't accept it is what may actually make a difference. I for one am standing with him. And as for it being money well spent, it WAS money well spent, but I still got 6 months left that I may not want any more. I guess it's the SC and ADMINS call at this point... [/quote]

It is money well spent. There is nothing wrong with being able to learn how to use photoshop to achieve your idea.
04/19/2004 01:22:51 AM · #39
this kind of thing is exactly why site council should be anonymous. my belief in the whole conflict of whether or not labuda's artwork recently has violated the spirit of the site is that it comes down to people not wanting to take responsiibilty for their actions.

if you were to poll people here about whether or not they would like to allow the types of things labuda has been submitting, it seems that based on the reaction so far that people are overwhelmingly against this type of work on this site.

so why is the site council still splitting hairs over a technicality in the rules? the only real reason is no one wants to own up to the reality seen by the vast majority of the dpc community. artwork of that nature is not widely accepted here, period. someone needs to man up and take the initiative to do what should have been done two weeks ago and start cleaning this mess up.

also, the site council has absolutely no responsibility in this case to try and give an exact answer as to why digital artwork isn't made for dpc. we all seem to have the feeling that dpc is not the place for that realm of photography. that's all the proof i need. where's the leadership here?
04/19/2004 01:25:02 AM · #40
Originally posted by achiral:


also, the site council has absolutely no responsibility in this case to try and give an exact answer as to why digital artwork isn't made for dpc. we all seem to have the feeling that dpc is not the place for that realm of photography. that's all the proof i need. where's the leadership here?


Very well put. The site council will NOT make a decision based on their values. The site council has members who are supportive of what is happening here because it does fall within the wording of the rules.
04/19/2004 01:26:01 AM · #41
Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by goinskiing:

Now wait a minute. I strongly disagree here. I think that if he thinks the site has migrated away from a photography site, then the best thing to do is to keep plugging through and submitting great photography. I have, honestly, been inspired by Johns work, losing him would do more loss for the site than anything, it would be letting THEM win.

As for the "money not well spent" thing, all I have to say is that I think it was one of the best $25 I have spent, too bad you don't think so, because I have learned a LOT, and it is because of people like Setz. But if you feel that way, I can't stop ya.


Keep contributing great photography so that the digital art people can keep winning? What does that accomplish accept to let them win? By taking a STAND and saying he won't accept it is what may actually make a difference. I for one am standing with him. And as for it being money well spent, it WAS money well spent, but I still got 6 months left that I may not want any more. I guess it's the SC and ADMINS call at this point...


I agree with taking a stand wholeheartedly, and I support whatever decision Setzler make. All I am saying is that I know it would start a domino effect that would be really hard to reverse. This hasn't (in my opinion) gotten to a point to where it is irreversible yet. I just think (in my opinion) that it would be best to be a little patient and see what happens. I trust there is something in the works that will resolve the issue.

PS TC, I really like your work by the way.
04/19/2004 01:27:47 AM · #42
What bothers me most about all these recent photoshop manipulated images is that I make a living from designing stuff in photoshop. So far I didn't use my photoshop skills for anything than to improove the quality of my shots, and not to add new things or to digitaly design stuff that were not there. I thought long and hard about weather I should do it or not. My personal decision whas no. And thats because the purpouse of my presence here is not to win ribbons (I probably would if I'd use it) I do that in my work and I make preety good money with it, I am here to leran photography, wich is I agree something completely different. And for that people like John were verry enspiring to me. I'm sad about how things are starting to look regading this issue, and I said it before and I say it again we should not be alowed to add anything that does not belong to the original photo in advanced editing. That should be used only to improove photos, but not to add new stuff that didn't came from the camera. I understand what John is feeling all the way and if he whants to remove his stuff I can't argue with that. They could be probably be replaced by some new photoshop manipulation tutorials. But John make sure they apear on your site.
04/19/2004 01:30:00 AM · #43
the exodus has been happening for long time already. we lost a lot of great photographers the first time the advanced editing rules were shot down i believe. john is one example but i could name 20 others who for one reason or another stopped submitting regularly.
04/19/2004 01:30:27 AM · #44
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

But John make sure they apear on your site.


It will... I will put that stuff online sometime this week... My future 'blurbs' will show up there as well. Thansk for showing an interest in photography :)
04/19/2004 01:32:08 AM · #45
good luck getting your $12.50 back. what a ridiculous comment.

@ Setz - what's your real issue here? I don't disagree that some of the digital creations do not maintain photographic integrity. Clearly we're just going through some growing pains as the site evolves - kind of like the border mess last year. What i can't figure is what pulling the tutorials does. It's kind of like taking your bat and ball and going home. If you don't want to contribute anymore that's fine; I understand, and don't even disagree with your motives. but to pull the old ones? that's a little bit pointless i think.

I understand your statement, and as I said - I don't disagree with it. But step back a little and look and where we've been, and remember how far we've come. this isn't the answer to what i see as a pretty minor problem (minor in that I don't see too much opposition to changing the rules to prohibit these sorts of images).

@ach - anonymity doesn't necessarily solve that - standing up for your own actions does. but i agree with the rest.

Pedro

04/19/2004 01:32:15 AM · #46
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

But John make sure they apear on your site.


It will... I will put that stuff online sometime this week... My future 'blurbs' will show up there as well. Thansk for showing an interest in photography :)


Can't argue that.
04/19/2004 01:33:52 AM · #47
Originally posted by Pedro:

good luck getting your $12.50 back. what a ridiculous comment.

@ Setz - what's your real issue here? I don't disagree that some of the digital creations do not maintain photographic integrity. Clearly we're just going through some growing pains as the site evolves - kind of like the border mess last year. What i can't figure is what pulling the tutorials does. It's kind of like taking your bat and ball and going home. If you don't want to contribute anymore that's fine; I understand, and don't even disagree with your motives. but to pull the old ones? that's a little bit pointless i think.

I understand your statement, and as I said - I don't disagree with it. But step back a little and look and where we've been, and remember how far we've come. this isn't the answer to what i see as a pretty minor problem (minor in that I don't see too much opposition to changing the rules to prohibit these sorts of images).

@ach - anonymity doesn't necessarily solve that - standing up for your own actions does. but i agree with the rest.

Pedro


Very nicely stated there Pedro. Thank you for stating what I have been trying to say in a more intelligent manner than myself.
04/19/2004 01:33:56 AM · #48
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by achiral:


also, the site council has absolutely no responsibility in this case to try and give an exact answer as to why digital artwork isn't made for dpc. we all seem to have the feeling that dpc is not the place for that realm of photography. that's all the proof i need. where's the leadership here?


Very well put. The site council will NOT make a decision based on their values. The site council has members who are supportive of what is happening here because it does fall within the wording of the rules.

You folks almost have it right. What you are not allowing for is that DPC is not structured as a representative democracy, but more as a constitutional oligarchy, with Drew and Langdon having disproprotionate authority over any final decisions; they have been extremely busy of late, and so things are moving at an even more deliberate pace than usual. We are trying to address this situation more more time, not over and over again over the next several weeks.
04/19/2004 01:35:06 AM · #49
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Thansk for showing an interest in photography :)


Thank YOU for giving a damn...
04/19/2004 01:35:35 AM · #50
Originally posted by Pedro:


@ach - anonymity doesn't necessarily solve that - standing up for your own actions does. but i agree with the rest.

Pedro


i totally agree, i just think it would help things to have a little more authoritarian response sometimes. that's a heck of a lot easier when it's anonymous
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/02/2021 06:42:19 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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/02/2021 06:42:19 AM EDT.