| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2004 09:58:03 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by mk:
The demise of the site and the failure of the SC to act in a prompt enough manner have clearly stripped John of his gender. :( |
roflmao. good one.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:00:32 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by geewhy:
However, this doesn`t stop me receiving a fair number of comments during challenges complimenting my postprocessing prowess with Photoshop ??? and a few DQ requests into the bargain...
I guess the point I`m trying to make is that it is making me start to think of the type of work I`m submitting..if it is a little unusual at all..it`s coming under suspicion.
Gordon |
This probably happens because of the lie involved in the digital manipulated ones, like I seen some people saying if they knew it's not a real photo they would of gave it a 1 instead of 10. So after some probably burned themselves and felt like they whas fooled a few times, they vote/comment down any effect that looks like might have been achieved in photoshop. I think it is dangerous to submit any optical ilusion or effects that might look like that, atleast until digital manipulated photos are stopped. |
Sadly Cristi, I think you are right, and it reinforces my point about stifling creativity.
My one and only ribbon winner could have been entered for a basic editing challenge without a problem..can you imagine the DQ requests ???
Gordon |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:01:30 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by peecee:
I for one, hope John does not remove his tutorials,... |
they are gone already :( so is his gender :) |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:05:38 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by peecee:
I for one, hope John does not remove his tutorials,... |
they are gone already :( so is his gender :) |
Sad. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:07:48 AM · #180 |
i think it's more fun to say that his "gender integrity" has been violated.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:09:38 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by peecee:
I for one, hope John does not remove his tutorials,... |
they are gone already :( so is his gender :) |
Sad. |
I for one really hope he changes his mind too, from all the best photographers here, he spent alot of time showing us new commers a thing or two. Then again I already bookmarked his site, and he promissed he will put them there and some new ones. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:21:29 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity. |
I've always had respect for your photography and I've always found your tutorials helpfull... But from one man to another... Grow The F*CK up. This post is pathetic and deserves the kind of response I've just given! |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:33:43 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by Natator:
I like the new rules, or more specifically like having 2 challenges each week, one with each set of rules.
|
Then go to that other site that allows you to manipulate photos like these folks did. This is supposed to be a photography place for folks to come and learn about how to take the best picure they can, not how to get the best photo with Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:35:32 AM · #184 |
I don't have time to read this whole thread but I've read enough to respond:
1) The trickier the issue, the slower the pace at which the Site Council will resolve it. Some of us have very full, pressing lives in addition to performing this service. If you can't handle the pace at which things are done around here, then "sayonara". There are plenty more people out there, and no ONE member is so special that they deserve to make everyone else bend over backward. I.E. I just bought a house. Should I cancel my move date and stop packing just because someone wants to get a digital art rule addressed faster? Puh-leez.
2) Pulling tutorials. It really doesn't make a difference either way. All of that information is free to find on the net, whether it's right on this site or not. People acting like it's a blow to the site: it's no blow. That info in those tutorials was more than likely constituted from the tons of freely available info ONLINE.
3) "Site going to digital art hell" -- whatever, O chicken littles of the world. this site is going to continue to evolve and grow. people will come and go, but mostly come. you wanna be on the boat with us as we go forward, fine. if you don't, see ya. In the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter.
4) My mom taught the best way to deal with a problem is stand firm. 38 Special taught me to 'hold on loosely but don't let go'. Neither of those options involve giving up just because something isn't going my way at the pace I want it to.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 10:37:13 AM · #185 |
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. |
doesn't mean we like it. stay tuned.
Sorry John that you feel that way, btw. I usually don't let the few bad apples spoil the bunch. I usually get rid of them. But, that's just me. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:08:07 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
I went to Folly Beach on Easter Sunday minutes before sunrise.
I took a window frame with me.
The glass had been removed.
I had a basic idea of the view I wanted, but upon getting to the beach I noticed it was low tide and there was a rock pool.
I sat the window frame down in front of the pool and took several shots.
This one was the clearest.
All I did to the picture was crop it.
|
Well, I do feel a bit cheated. I took great pains to write a constructive comment on the composition in your photo, and how I could see that you couldn't do much about it without creating other problems. Turns out you could have just moved the window frame.... |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:21:19 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by terje:
Am I the only one who feels 'basic rules' is enough for //www.dpchallenge.com?
Terje |
I think there might be a tendancy to overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
In many cases the advanced editing rules have been used to produce truely great photographs - well beyond what could be achieved with the basic editing. So to your question, I'd still say 'no'
Some modification is potentially required, but modification doesn't mean turning the clock back and ignoring anything we may have learned in the process.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:25:30 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Sorry to say but once I found out Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his photos I was very disappointed, yes they are good images, but I feel cheated and ripped off now knowing something I though was a very wonderful photo was faked.
...
Im NOT against selecting one area in a photo and adjusting the brightness or contrast and colors, |
I guess I don't follow - what did you think Adams did, other than adjusting localised brightness ?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:28:32 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I don't have time to read this whole thread but I've read enough to respond:
1) The trickier the issue, the slower the pace at which the Site Council will resolve it. Some of us have very full, pressing lives in addition to performing this service. If you can't handle the pace at which things are done around here, then "sayonara". There are plenty more people out there, and no ONE member is so special that they deserve to make everyone else bend over backward. I.E. I just bought a house. Should I cancel my move date and stop packing just because someone wants to get a digital art rule addressed faster? Puh-leez.
2) Pulling tutorials. It really doesn't make a difference either way. All of that information is free to find on the net, whether it's right on this site or not. People acting like it's a blow to the site: it's no blow. That info in those tutorials was more than likely constituted from the tons of freely available info ONLINE.
3) "Site going to digital art hell" -- whatever, O chicken littles of the world. this site is going to continue to evolve and grow. people will come and go, but mostly come. you wanna be on the boat with us as we go forward, fine. if you don't, see ya. In the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter.
4) My mom taught the best way to deal with a problem is stand firm. 38 Special taught me to 'hold on loosely but don't let go'. Neither of those options involve giving up just because something isn't going my way at the pace I want it to. |
Taking your issues point by point -
1) I think it is good that the SC wants to take the time to do the right thing and I think we all can appreciate the fact that those of you on the SC are volunteering your time and I am sure that it is a hard and thankless job - however, instead of letting several different threads pile up and 500-1000 posts going about this one specific topic, maybe one of the SC could post something from an "Official DPC" standpoint that lets us know that this is being addressed and keep us up to date, not specifically about the detail but maybe just a topics list of things that are being worked on.
2) I am not sure that I agree with Mr Setzler's decision to have the tutorials pulled or not. But I will say this - he is one of the most talented photographers here and if his convictions are that strong and he feels that he must do this then I applaud him for having those convictions. Now that they have been pulled, if he were to allow them to be re-posted on this site would be hypocritical & hope that he sticks to his convictions.
3) This site has grown by leaps and bounds since i joined last year & I think that the SC would/should get a handle on some rule fixes that will eliminate the digital art problem - BUT KEEP US UPDATED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS
4) Always stand up for what you believe in
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 11:29:07.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:42:53 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by rickhd13:
1) ...instead of letting several different threads pile up and 500-1000 posts going about this one specific topic, maybe one of the SC could post something from an "Official DPC" standpoint that lets us know that this is being addressed and keep us up to date, not specifically about the detail but maybe just a topics list of things that are being worked on. |
I agree that this would be a good idea. Certainly it might stem the sheer volume of similar threads that tend to swamp other topics in the forums completely.
Originally posted by rickhd13:
2) I am not sure that I agree with Mr Setzler's decision to have the tutorials pulled or not. But I will say this - he is one of the most talented photographers here and if his convictions are that strong and he feels that he must do this then I applaud him for having those convictions. |
I agree that it's good to have the courage of one's convictions.
But I just don't buy JMS' reasons for making a public post about his decision - seems to have been posted much more as sulky "I'll show you" and an attention seeking melodrama than a genuine invitation to debate.
If it were a genuine invitation to debate and JMS was truly looking to instigate change then why make the decision to pull the tutorials before waiting to see whether change came about?
If JMS didn't believe this thread could lead to any change then why post at all?
JMS said he was expecting some of the responses he received. Yet he still hasn't bothered to respond to the points raised within them. I get the impression that his post claiming to have foreseen the reactions listed was intended more to negate the idea that this thread was just a knee-jerk reaction to being pissed off and to try and imply that it was actually a deliberate and considered action.
Truly, a psychologist would have a field day on this one!
:o)
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 11:44:06.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:46:14 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by terje:
Am I the only one who feels 'basic rules' is enough for //www.dpchallenge.com?
Terje |
I think there might be a tendancy to overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
In many cases the advanced editing rules have been used to produce truely great photographs - well beyond what could be achieved with the basic editing. So to your question, I'd still say 'no'
Some modification is potentially required, but modification doesn't mean turning the clock back and ignoring anything we may have learned in the process. |
I agree.
To have expected a major shift such as the introduction of advanced editing rules to have been implemented 100% successfully without any teething problems is unrealistic.
But some tweaks should allow it to become what it was always intended to be.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 11:52:37 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
To have expected a major shift such as the introduction of advanced editing rules to have been implemented 100% successfully without any teething problems is unrealistic.
But some tweaks should allow it to become what it was always intended to be. |
Exactly. And I personally feel that those who found the "loopholes" should not be penalized by having their entries removed (although apparently I am in the minority). If anything, they should be thanked by pushing the rules far enough to cause a "stir" and make the SC/admins consider tightening the rules to bring the focus back to photography.
P.S. Bringing this back on-topic: thanks to Google's cache, John's withdrawn tutorials are still available for the time being. Just click the [Cached] link instead of the link that takes you directly to DPC.
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 11:57:07. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:01:06 PM · #193 |
Gordon, Im looking for the photo in question, but cant seem to find it now.
Maybe it was altered after the fact by someone other than Adams and was saying Adams did the steps in the dark room. The net is full of misleading info...
It was an image from Yosimite...i know I know he had lots of images from there.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jab119:
Sorry to say but once I found out Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his photos I was very disappointed, yes they are good images, but I feel cheated and ripped off now knowing something I though was a very wonderful photo was faked.
...
Im NOT against selecting one area in a photo and adjusting the brightness or contrast and colors, |
I guess I don't follow - what did you think Adams did, other than adjusting localised brightness ? |
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:05:05 PM · #194 |
| Just a note, they are not there now. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:07:12 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Gordon, Im looking for the photo in question, but cant seem to find it now.
Maybe it was altered after the fact by someone other than Adams and was saying Adams did the steps in the dark room. The net is full of misleading info...
It was an image from Yosimite...i know I know he had lots of images from there.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jab119:
Sorry to say but once I found out Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his photos I was very disappointed, yes they are good images, but I feel cheated and ripped off now knowing something I though was a very wonderful photo was faked.
...
Im NOT against selecting one area in a photo and adjusting the brightness or contrast and colors, |
I guess I don't follow - what did you think Adams did, other than adjusting localised brightness ? |
|
I have to say firstly that I do not know if this is fact as I probably read it somewhere or was told, but.... I have heard that Ansel Adams also physically removed trees from landscapes because they did not fit in with his 'vision'. I'd rather he clone them out in the darkroom/PS before destroying the environment.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:11:16 PM · #196 |
Back to you:
1) I'm pretty sure that has occurred a number of times that decision making is 'in-process'.
2) They will not be re-posted.
3) I think if you have been following this issue, you would know that not only do we keep the membership updated, but we solicit opinions, input and even WORDING from the membership.
4) I agree. But it also depends on how you define stand up ... :)
Originally posted by rickhd13:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I don't have time to read this whole thread but I've read enough to respond:
1) The trickier the issue, the slower the pace at which the Site Council will resolve it. Some of us have very full, pressing lives in addition to performing this service. If you can't handle the pace at which things are done around here, then "sayonara". There are plenty more people out there, and no ONE member is so special that they deserve to make everyone else bend over backward. I.E. I just bought a house. Should I cancel my move date and stop packing just because someone wants to get a digital art rule addressed faster? Puh-leez.
2) Pulling tutorials. It really doesn't make a difference either way. All of that information is free to find on the net, whether it's right on this site or not. People acting like it's a blow to the site: it's no blow. That info in those tutorials was more than likely constituted from the tons of freely available info ONLINE.
3) "Site going to digital art hell" -- whatever, O chicken littles of the world. this site is going to continue to evolve and grow. people will come and go, but mostly come. you wanna be on the boat with us as we go forward, fine. if you don't, see ya. In the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter.
4) My mom taught the best way to deal with a problem is stand firm. 38 Special taught me to 'hold on loosely but don't let go'. Neither of those options involve giving up just because something isn't going my way at the pace I want it to. |
Taking your issues point by point -
1) I think it is good that the SC wants to take the time to do the right thing and I think we all can appreciate the fact that those of you on the SC are volunteering your time and I am sure that it is a hard and thankless job - however, instead of letting several different threads pile up and 500-1000 posts going about this one specific topic, maybe one of the SC could post something from an "Official DPC" standpoint that lets us know that this is being addressed and keep us up to date, not specifically about the detail but maybe just a topics list of things that are being worked on.
2) I am not sure that I agree with Mr Setzler's decision to have the tutorials pulled or not. But I will say this - he is one of the most talented photographers here and if his convictions are that strong and he feels that he must do this then I applaud him for having those convictions. Now that they have been pulled, if he were to allow them to be re-posted on this site would be hypocritical & hope that he sticks to his convictions.
3) This site has grown by leaps and bounds since i joined last year & I think that the SC would/should get a handle on some rule fixes that will eliminate the digital art problem - BUT KEEP US UPDATED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS
4) Always stand up for what you believe in |
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:14:58 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by moodville:
I have to say firstly that I do not know if this is fact as I probably read it somewhere or was told, but.... I have heard that Ansel Adams also physically removed trees from landscapes because they did not fit in with his 'vision'. I'd rather he clone them out in the darkroom/PS before destroying the environment. |
I think it might have grown in the re-telling, but I believe he pulled off a few branches that encroached into a frame. Quite a bit different to physically removing trees, but in the same spirit I guess.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:48:23 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by labuda:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My tutorials are not helpful here and I don't want them to be a part of a community that doesn't uphold photographic integrity. |
How can you say that! My first ribbon winner was based on the technique described in your tutorial. And it DID hold all photographic integrity. |
Thank you for pushing my interests and values elsewhere. |
Do you not find it interesting that just about anything labuda (and others -- sorry for singling you out) did CAN be done with the correct photographic equipment?
Is your comment to be taken as: --
1) I can't do that in PS so why should others be allowed to?
2) You were deceived and didn't realize and are bitter!
3) Poorer people can't afford every piece of photographic gear they desire and so need to be penialized!
4) Richer people have to buy everything they need for a photo else should not enter!
5) Not everyone is allowed to pander to the voters by aweing them or appealing to their sense of national identity.
6) etc. [can't be bothered writing more] |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:57:34 PM · #199 |
Just want to throw my two cents in this discussion, because I think this is a highly relevant and important thing happening here.
I'm not a paying member, but if I were, I'd vote with my dollars. If you don't like the member editing rules, then don't be a paying member. It's really that simple ... contribute to the open challenges instead where the basic editing rules are still alive!
When DPChallenge is no longer receiving the membership dollars they once were, then they'll recognize a change in the demand and hopefully do something about it. Seriously, rather than whine, vote with your cash. In a way, that's exactly what I've done ... I haven't paid to be a member because I never agreed with the editing rules from day one. |
|
|
|
04/19/2004 12:58:17 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Do you not find it interesting that just about anything labuda (and others -- sorry for singling you out) did CAN be done with the correct photographic equipment? |
So, what you're saying sn4psh07, is that it doesn't matter that neither of the top two ribbon winners in the Window View challenge were actually taken through a window?
Note: this was posted before the DQ of the 2nd place image.
Message edited by author 2004-04-19 17:14:31. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 06:49:22 AM EDT.
