| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2009 11:43:50 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Simms:
You didnt answer the question. |
Sorry, I would not be pissed because I'm not stupid enough to think he cooks every meal at each place he owns or is listed as executive chef. |
OK, and now point number 2....
come on, just a little bit more... who cooked the meal? Gordon Ramsey or the chef who actually put the ingredients together....
Answer that and I will let you out of that corner you are backed into. |
Who cooked the meal or who created the meal?
Gordon created the meal. The chef in the kitchen that day followed directions and cooked it. A photographer creates art, not follows others direction to re-create others art.
And no I was not in a corner, I just have a life and have other things to do sometimes. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 11:46:19 PM · #227 |
| The bedridden one is no more the photographer than the client who walks into a photography studio and asks for his/her photograph to be taken. Even if the client owns the camera he/she is asking the photograph to be taken with. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 11:50:03 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
The bedridden one is no more the photographer than the client who walks into a photography studio and asks for his/her photograph to be taken. Even if the client owns the camera he/she is asking the photograph to be taken with. |
Period. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:10:12 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
She chose where to stand (side to side, closer vs. farther) and moved the camera up and down to compose the image in the frame--she chose a shot slightly from his left, that included his restrained arms, but not his feet. She could have stood further back, got more of the bed, or all of it, moved to include more of the ICU equipment he was tethered to, or leaned in/extended her arm for more of a head and shoulders shot. You send 5 different people in there, one at at a time, with the same cellphone camera and the command "take a picture", you'll get 5 different shots. |
Or he saw her standing there said picture and she took the snapshot on cue as expected. I can make up the details too you know. :) Everything about that photo screams quick snapshot and not the type of decision making you're suggesting. The fact that she's his wife might suggest he has some idea as to what she'll do with the camera, no?
Besides, what you describe almost any photographer would be guilty of when someone else is allowed to click the shutter. Even if you setup the camera on a tripod and had someone else click the shutter you still can't control timing. The button pusher is going to time the shot in their own way even if given advise on when to shoot. The only time where that wouldn't be the case is when you can clearly see the subject saying "click now" in the photo. Short of that and the button pusher has provided some level of setup on their part, which is why I already suggested that we shouldn't have this rule to begin with but if we are going to have it, it makes little sense to me to be splitting hairs over the amount of setup that was done prior to the shot being taken. I've seen photos entered here where the lighting was arranged by someone else, the model provided all of the wow factor, uninspired comp and the concept was ripped from somewhere else but it's ok because they at least pushed the shutter button.
Message edited by author 2009-06-12 00:21:49. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:15:27 AM · #230 |
It all boils down to the definition of "set up", I'd really love to hear SC's definition.
I think posing and asking someone to take the picture is setting up the shot. Enough setting up? Maybe, depends on the shot. Others disagree... He simply used his girlfriend as a tool to get the image he visioned when he could not. There is no composition talent at work here. It's a straight snap shop of a guy in a hospital bed. It doesn't take a pro to catch that. If this was a grand canyon sunset and he said shoot that, I'd agree, not his shot.
Plus, I think this challenge and photo is a little different. At least 75% of this challenge was the idea and the slogan. A great photo with a crappy slogan and idea would not score well, while an average shot with a snappy slogan would. Who really cares if someone else pushed the button. Petty, very petty.
Even if you argue that he did not set up the shot, what crime was commited? Even if his girlfriend is a superior cell phone snap shot taker, is the shot she came up with any better then what he could have set up with a tripod had he been able? What advantage was gained? Did it score higher because of her brilliant composition, assuming it was hers? I'm all for enforcing rules, but quite simply, the only reason this was DQ'd was because he was honest. had he left the comment field blank all would be good in the world.
And I think it really sucks that SC never even asked him any questions before throwing it out. That sucks.
Oh well, off to bed, so please don't make a snappy comeback and claim I'm hiding in a corner. And darnit, stop the "well if I email uncle louie to take a photo of his cat is it mine" questions because that is clearly not even close to what happened here and it's been asked several times now. It's not clever anymore.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:18:22 AM · #231 |
| i can't believe this thread is up to ten pages, people come and people go blah,blah,blah. He seems like a likable, talented enough guy but to me this amounts to no more than a hissy fit. I don't think the rule in question warrants this much hair splitting. He could of stuck around and took it as a lesson learned, instead he chose to voice his displeasure by leaving. Good for him.... that's his choice to make. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:26:45 AM · #232 |
I can't stand it anymore -- i've been in the pits and my arthritis keeps me away from DPC GTGs and I've had not one but two egregiously lame and unfair DQ's -- if I throw a snit fit can I be a Great Photographer too?
Seriously, I didn't vote on this DQ, but this is one of the few objective rules we have for challenges, and some of you want us to make an exception to the letter of the rules because we feel sorry for the guy? I certainly do empathize -- I fear I might be facing a hospitalization myself in the not-too-distant future and this looks pretty scary -- but to up and leave a community over something like this? Sorry, but it's the member's reaction which seems most "petty" in this case.
IMO the *purpose* of the rule about having someone push the shutter is basically to allow an assistant to function as a remote shutter-release for those of us who don't have one (or a camera which supports one). Anything the second person does other than pressing the shutter (such as aiming the camera) violates the rule, regardless of any degree of "direction" given. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:30:11 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And I think it really sucks that SC never even asked him any questions before throwing it out. That sucks. |
Emhasis added ...
Originally posted by karmat:
And while we didn't have all the details, subsequent correspondence with him (that you seem to want to ignore) didn't reveal anything new to us that would have altered the decision before we knew it. |
|
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:38:32 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
IMO the *purpose* of the rule about having someone push the shutter is basically to allow an assistant to function as a remote shutter-release for those of us who don't have one (or a camera which supports one). Anything the second person does other than pressing the shutter (such as aiming the camera) violates the rule, regardless of any degree of "direction" given. |
How remarkably sensible :-)
R. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:44:34 AM · #235 |
| It was his GIRLFRIEND not his wife. Not that it is a huge deal, but little details like that bother me. . . |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:44:43 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
The bedridden one is no more the photographer than the client who walks into a photography studio and asks for his/her photograph to be taken. Even if the client owns the camera he/she is asking the photograph to be taken with. |
I have been watching this thread from day 1 and this makes the most sense...
but... in the sake of a good argument... The way the current rules are set up, I would say, "What if a man with no arms, put his camera on automatic, and told a person to 'take my picture'..." He is physically not capable of triggering the shutter or taking the picture. He told the person that he wanted them to trigger the shutter, and gave them the camera. What else needs to be said?
I say this because J's hands were tied, literally, as if he had no arms. Then he writes photo... which is an instruction, that his wife receives from where she is standing. She then takes a camera, which is on automatic, and shoots the photo.
Although I'm leaning towards the DQ, I must say, this seems to me to be a grey area in the rules that probably needs to be clarified. I am also incredibly intoxicated and pissed off that the Magic lost tonight, so... be that as it may... I'm going to catch some zzz's and ponder my next challenge entry, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves... |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:48:25 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It was his GIRLFRIEND not his wife. Not that it is a huge deal, but little details like that bother me. . . |
Well that changes everything.....:P |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 12:56:46 AM · #238 |
Can a director claim a movie is his? He surly can; can he claim he is the Cinematographer? He surly can’t. There is this little final thing that is added to the frame to make it what it's that only the eye of the photographer sees and decides on.
Message edited by author 2009-06-12 00:57:32. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:03:10 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well he said he instructed his wife on the shot. Why was it DQed then? |
He instructed his wife to TAKE a shot by scribbling a barely-legible "picture" on a piece of paper. His arms were restrained, and that was apparently the extent of the communication. |
What didn't he communicate in capturing this shot? It was a simple idea. Just point the camera and shoot. It didn't required an elaborate setup or timing. Did he forget to say point the camera at me first then shoot? What didn't he do besides not click the shutter? |
back to a question I asked earlier-- If the command was given to IreneM, do you think she'd have the same results as my 10 year old son? All they have to do is point and shoot. |
If I gave Irene my cell phone camera with no settings to adjust and said here take my picture I'd expect to get the same photo from her as I would had I given the camera to someone else standing in her spot. |
Hoooo, boy, is this ever inaccurate. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:04:45 AM · #240 |
This thread has been hilarious, we have facts and fiction all rolled into one.
What if someone had no arms and could not speak but had a camera and aliens came by and through telepathy the person had them take the shot........ |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:20:16 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
This thread has been hilarious, we have facts and fiction all rolled into one.
What if someone had no arms and could not speak but had a camera and aliens came by and through telepathy the person had them take the shot........ |
Okay, that one's definitely worthy of the popcorn :)
 |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:42:00 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Maybe, when he was all tied up on the bed there, he wanted a photo so so bad that his will-power formed a flying monkey inside his body--it flew out of his butt and snatched the cell phone from his astonished girlfriend and, controlled directly by the power of his will, the flying monkey found the ideal spot to position the camera and pressed the button! We'll never know for sure, because the SC DQ'd it without asking about this possibility first. A pox upon the SC!!
Clearly, we all need to boycott the site until a clear rule is written that specifically addresses whether "a flying monkey flew out of my butt and pressed the shutter release" is a rule violation or an acceptable form of remote control, and if one must produce a flying monkey from one's butt upon receipt of a validation request from the SC. Things could get messy in that case.....
I'm waiting........
 |
still waiting....... |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:44:55 AM · #243 |
| I think you have to post a photo of the flying butt-monkey first. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:48:58 AM · #244 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I think you have to post a photo of the flying butt-monkey first. |
Maybe Yanko and LoudDog could aim their cell cameras at my butt, I'll tell em when to click the shutter, and take credit for the shots.
They clearly wouldn't mind..... :-D |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:51:18 AM · #245 |
| They may not mind your taking credit but they'd probably strongly object to being anywhere near your butt, flying monkeys or not :) |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 02:08:16 AM · #246 |
They could use this
And stay a safe distance from the emerging winged primate...
Disclaimer:
No Camera-Operating-But-In-NO-WAY-Contributing-To-The-ART-Photographers Were Harmed
Message edited by author 2009-06-12 02:17:45. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 02:33:44 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It was his GIRLFRIEND not his wife. Not that it is a huge deal, but little details like that bother me. . . |
That detail IS a huge deal. Otherwise, by default she would own HALF the photo and therefore HE would only receive half a DQ. Whew...then what would the SC do?!!!
::promptly faints:: |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 02:43:12 AM · #248 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by karmat:
It was his GIRLFRIEND not his wife. Not that it is a huge deal, but little details like that bother me. . . |
That detail IS a huge deal. Otherwise, by default she would own HALF the photo and therefore HE would only receive half a DQ. Whew...then what would the SC do?!!!
::promptly faints:: |
this might give us the explanation for his account cancellation.
It seems after reading his comments, his wife not only said that no more photography for you, but might have given him extension in hospital too.
Note to self: never ask girlfriend to take photo and submit it to dpc. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 02:46:07 AM · #249 |
My Daughter asked me to take a photo...
"Are you going to that park tomorrow morning Daddy?"
"Yes Babe, why?"
"Can you Take a picture of a deer for me please? One of the deer with the big horns."
"Of course babe!"
"Thanks! You're the best Daddy in the world!"
And this is her photo, man my daughter is an AWESOME photographer..
Message edited by author 2009-06-12 02:49:00. |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 02:50:15 AM · #250 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Note to self: never ask girlfriend to take photo and submit it to dpc. |
Quite rightly, as this would break the rules and would result in a DQ (if it was submitted under your account) |
|
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: 04/25/2024 02:00:49 PM EDT.
