| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2009 07:12:00 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
All I can say is OMFG, this thread is still going on... and no one has posted the inevitable popcorn or dead horse animations?
This thread is one reason I an *so* glad that I am no longer on SC, and my sincerest sympathy goes out to my compatriots who still are. |
Really? This thread kind of makes me want to BE on SC. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:12:35 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
All I can say is OMFG, this thread is still going on... and no one has posted the inevitable popcorn or dead horse animations?
This thread is one reason I an *so* glad that I am no longer on SC, and my sincerest sympathy goes out to my compatriots who still are. |
Not much longer - LoudDog bottled it a few posts back when he got backed into a corner. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:15:03 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Talk about spliting hairs. In both instances the wives did little more than press the shutter. Why don't you just come out and say you believe jlanoue is lying and that he didn't instruct his wife in anyway. If he did instruct his wife prior to her taking the photo than it's no different than what you did. |
So what John did is no different from me setting up the shot on a tripod with a polarizer at a particular height and angle, arranging lights, taking test exposures with my wife as a stand-in for composition, and calling out timing for each burst. Gee, I could have saved so much time by simply walking into the room and saying, "Picture." Thanks for the tip! |
You're welcome! You know you could be honest and just say that the real reason he was DQed was you guys thought he was lying. That's what this is really about. The rules do not state you have to use a tripod or that your setup has to be elaborate. He said he instructed his wife that should have been enough. Perhaps a little common sense is in order here. This photo didn't win any composition awards, there were no unique or artistic angles the wife chose and as the photographer said there were no settings to be set on the phone camera. She just pointed and shot as instructed.
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 19:16:45. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:15:16 PM · #179 |
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........
 |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:17:11 PM · #180 |
lol I hadn't noticed that. Originally posted by kirbic:
All I can say is OMFG, this thread is still going on... and no one has posted the inevitable popcorn or dead horse animations?
|
PS get ready for Breakfast sometime 1st two weeks of July. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:20:57 PM · #181 |
| I just got a call from my husband in Minnesota (I'm still 1200 miles away). The picture that "I" took in Minnesota turned out spectacularly!! I can't wait to see it! |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:36:54 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Yup I would, because technically I did..
OK, how about this one taking your point from the previous post (with the setup etc)..
A New restaurant opens in town, on the sign it proclaims "come and enjoy a meal made by Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey".
Wow, Gordon Ramsey, I`m there - so you go along and book your table, you have an exquisite meal - its costs in excess of $200 but what the heck, this is a dinner by Gordon Ramsey. However you ask to see the chef to congratulate him on this culinery masterpiece, you are shocked when you are invited into the kitchen to meet the chef, then you see its not Gordon Ramsey but its a teenager called Bill.. But I thought the meal was cooked by Gordon Ramsey, then you spy a book open called "My Best Meals - By Gordon Ramsey".. Bill says "Well Loud-Dog, technically it is a dinner by Gordon Ramsey, he told me via his book, what ingredients to use, in what quantities, and how long to cook them, so yes, this meal was by Gordon Ramsey - that will be $200 please.."
Did Gordon cook this meal, or was it Bill?? Would you feel ripped off? I would. |
heheh. Now THAT's a bad analogy! As an example - Emeril Lagasse owns several restaurants, and is listed as the executive chef. But go into any one on a given night, and you bet your sweet bottom it's not Emeril in the kitchen, it's some guy following his recipes. Unless he's mastered a technique to be in 2 places in Las Vegas, a couple in NYC, and down home in N'Awlins all at the same time... (and those are just his restaurants that i can think of on the spur of the moment)
Now, back to your regularly scheduled argument... |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:41:30 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Originally posted by Simms:
Yup I would, because technically I did..
OK, how about this one taking your point from the previous post (with the setup etc)..
A New restaurant opens in town, on the sign it proclaims "come and enjoy a meal made by Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey".
Wow, Gordon Ramsey, I`m there - so you go along and book your table, you have an exquisite meal - its costs in excess of $200 but what the heck, this is a dinner by Gordon Ramsey. However you ask to see the chef to congratulate him on this culinery masterpiece, you are shocked when you are invited into the kitchen to meet the chef, then you see its not Gordon Ramsey but its a teenager called Bill.. But I thought the meal was cooked by Gordon Ramsey, then you spy a book open called "My Best Meals - By Gordon Ramsey".. Bill says "Well Loud-Dog, technically it is a dinner by Gordon Ramsey, he told me via his book, what ingredients to use, in what quantities, and how long to cook them, so yes, this meal was by Gordon Ramsey - that will be $200 please.."
Did Gordon cook this meal, or was it Bill?? Would you feel ripped off? I would. |
heheh. Now THAT's a bad analogy! As an example - Emeril Lagasse owns several restaurants, and is listed as the executive chef. But go into any one on a given night, and you bet your sweet bottom it's not Emeril in the kitchen, it's some guy following his recipes. Unless he's mastered a technique to be in 2 places in Las Vegas, a couple in NYC, and down home in N'Awlins all at the same time... (and those are just his restaurants that i can think of on the spur of the moment)
Now, back to your regularly scheduled argument... |
Ah no, you see my point is, who would you class as the actual chef that evening. Gordon, who designed the dish, or the chef who actually followed the instructions and cooked the dish that night.. I would say the actual chef was the person in the restaurant at the time, regardless of the fact they were following instructions left to them by the master or exectutive chef, they made the meal.. now the guy laying in the bed was (if LoudDog is to be believed) telling his partner how to take the photo, but ultimately she took and created the photo, not him..
Me comprende? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:52:33 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Dear John,
If you are lurking about and reading this thread, then I hope you will read this note too. You know I'm one of your biggest fans and just love your phenomenal work! If you pulled your profile to pout about your DQ, then I understand. Truly, I do! However, please know that you punish not the SC for what you may feel is a questionable and perhaps unreasonable decision, but rather all of your fans instead. We don't always agree with the SC, but sometimes we have to learn to get happy in the same shoes in which we are unhappy and still enjoy the DPC experience and the friends we've made.
Perhaps, after some time has passed and your thoughts have cooled, you will miss us as much as we miss your beautiful photos. After all, who else will help me convince the irascible  Yanko about the true meaning of Art?!
I hope you recovered well from your surgery.
-M |
Hey I'm defending his UFOless art photography. :P
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 19:52:51. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:53:25 PM · #185 |
IMO ... setting up a camera THEN putting it on a tripod and asking someone to hit the shutter (if la ... la ... la ... and your remote cord is too short and you can't afford an infrared or other cordless remote) is a BOATload different than saying, "Take a picture of me on your camera on full auto and kind of aim it in my general direction." ... BLEH.
If I called such a photo MY photo ... I would not be able to sleep at night.
me
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 19:54:36.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:56:10 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by yanko:
You know you could be honest and just say that the real reason he was DQed was you guys thought he was lying. |
Quite the opposite. I applaud his honesty for declaring that the photo was taken by someone else while he was on life support and basically unable to communicate aside from a one-word request. But then it's not his photo to enter... |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:57:11 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
You know you could be honest and just say that the real reason he was DQed was you guys thought he was lying. |
Quite the opposite. I applaud his honesty for declaring that the photo was taken by someone else while he was on life support and basically unable to communicate aside from a one-word request. But then it's not his photo to enter... |
Well he said he instructed his wife on the shot. Why was it DQed then? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:59:15 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
IMO ... setting up a camera THEN putting it on a tripod and asking someone to hit the shutter (if la ... la ... la ... and your remote cord is too short and you can't afford an infrared or other cordless remote) is a BOATload different than saying, "Take a picture of me on your camera on full auto and kind of aim it in my general direction." ... BLEH.
If I called such a photo MY photo ... I would not be able to sleep at night.
me |
actually it all depends on the context and situation. if you are too sick and tied to bed, i do not see how you could set up all that tripod and all. But you still wanted a shot. There is no other way but to tell someone to point at you and shoot. (i mean photo). I am sure in this situation you could sleep well knowing that you have the shot you needed despite troubling situation you were in. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:02:57 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well he said he instructed his wife on the shot. Why was it DQed then? |
he actually did not say that--he said he scribbled the word "picture" barely legibly to indicate to her that he wanted a picture taken.... he provided no other indication that he directed her in any way beyond that. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:03:18 PM · #190 |
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. His only role in the shot itself was as model, not photographer. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:04:24 PM · #191 |
If I seek help from a friend on dpc, and he tells me where and how to take a photo for a challenge... and I follow his instruction. Then I seek his advice on how to edit the photo and he tells me exactly what to do step by step. Who's photo is it?
It's mine.. therefore he can't take credit for the photo, he can only take credit for the direction given to produce the photo. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:07:29 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
if you are too sick and tied to bed, i do not see how you could set up all that tripod and all. But you still wanted a shot. There is no other way but to tell someone to point at you and shoot. (i mean photo). I am sure in this situation you could sleep well knowing that you have the shot you needed despite troubling situation you were in. |
That's great material for a portfolio or family scrapbook, but having someone else take a photo doesn't cut it if you're claiming to be the photographer. If I go on safari and get injured, I still can't just ask someone else to take pictures with a point and shoot and submit them as my own. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:18:26 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by zxaar:
if you are too sick and tied to bed, i do not see how you could set up all that tripod and all. But you still wanted a shot. There is no other way but to tell someone to point at you and shoot. (i mean photo). I am sure in this situation you could sleep well knowing that you have the shot you needed despite troubling situation you were in. |
That's great material for a portfolio or family scrapbook, but having someone else take a photo doesn't cut it if you're claiming to be the photographer. If I go on safari and get injured, I still can't just ask someone else to take pictures with a point and shoot and submit them as my own. |
according to dpc rules i think i can as long as i gave the instructions for it. Because rules say that i may allow other to press shutter for me. Only condition is that i am the one who is directing this photograph. (in other words if photo is taken as i instructed i could submit it on dpc). I may not able be able to tell others that its my photo because i did not press button, but on dpc i can submit it as mine . This is what rules say. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:36:33 PM · #194 |
sarcasm { //sarcasm goes in here
look at this awesome picture i took!!!
i handed the camera to my buddy and told him that no matter what he did, as long as he sorta pointed it towards me and clicked the button it was going to be good. good going, freezing tripod person, i'm an awesome photographer!
} //end sarcasm
sorry, i was writing a lot of code today. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:43:05 PM · #195 |
"If you set up the shot and the camera settings". I assume this means you set up the shot--set up the equipment---put everything in place.
It does NOT say "directing the shot"
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:43:12 PM · #196 |
so....let me get this straight...he wrote a letter asking his wife to let his girlfriend take his pictures...with his phone?
You guys are confusing me!
:)
The outcome is shitty....but the SC was right. The complainers sound like John Madden during the SuperBowl..saying that some kid should have scored...'because 'he wanted it so bad.'
If he didnt 'score'...it was because he didnt follow the rules. No more now less.
Lets go get a drink. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:44:47 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
My remote isn't long enough, I don't have a wireless remote (too expensive on the advanced Canon DSLRs), and the self-timer won't shoot a burst (the hanging objects rotated at the slightest touch or breeze). |
TC-80 N3 $136.95 at B&H or I have one for sale at $125 used once. It will per the manual fire off the number of programmed exposures therefore allowing you to take your own photos.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:44:49 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
rules say that i may allow other to press shutter for me. Only condition is that i am the one who is directing this photograph. (in other words if photo is taken as i instructed i could submit it on dpc). |
No, in other words it has to be your work. Somebody else may press the shutter button out of convenience or necessity in the same way that someone else may place your cake in an oven to bake, but if that person did all the work, too, then it's not your cake. It's theirs. Entering someone else's work as your own is a violation of the rules, the Terms or Service, basic ethics, and potentially federal copyright laws (though not likely to be a problem in this case).
I'm sure John thought the situation would make a good challenge entry, and figured it was more about the overall concept, with no photographic decisions to make on a P&S camera. However, merely asking someone to take a photo does not make it yours, and it MUST be yours to be a valid entry. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:45:54 PM · #199 |
| I have read all of this thread, some of it more than once to make sure I understood. The thing that keeps coming up in my mind, and it may be way off base but we each think differently otherwise there would never be an argument or disagreement or even a fair discussion, is this: By the logic some people are applying to negate the DQ, if I apply that logic in its most simplest form, then by that same logic I could then take any photo I find on the web, re-process it to make it look how I would want it to look, then claim it as my own simply because I applied my vision of the scene to it. So by that then, I could take any photo...ok, ribbon winning photo on this site, download it to my computer, process it how I would like the scene to be and call that shot MINE. How many here would agree that my processing result then constitutes the original photo as mine? Not many I suppose and I would be among them. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 08:49:08 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
TC-80 N3 $136.95 at B&H or I have one for sale at $125 used once. It will per the manual fire off the number of programmed exposures therefore allowing you to take your own photos. |
Cool, but the Mrs. is $0 with free shipping, and allowed as long as I do all the photo work. ;-) |
|
