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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> New Advanced Editing Rules
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/25/2004 07:59:27 PM · #1
The Updated Advanced Editing Rules

After some careful and somewhat lengthy discussion, the updated Advanced Editing rules are ready for use! In fact, they'll be used for tonight's new Member's challenge. We've kept up the old advanced editing rules, both for the challenges that are still running with them, and for you to compare with the old rule set. Once those challenges have completed, we'll remove the old Advanced Editing Rules to avoid confusion.

The key points of the new rules are:

a) An opening paragraph has been added discussing the character of the rules and violations of those rules.

b) The Image Modification rules have been adjusted to more carefully define the definition of multiple image sources as well the use of tools to duplicate, create, or move elements.

c) The "Other Artwork" clause has been adjusted to define the criteria by which we'll determine its violation.

Thanks to everyone for your patience, and thanks for continuing to grow with us! :)

Drew

Message edited by author 2004-04-25 20:40:16.
 04/25/2004 10:31:29 PM · #2
bump
 04/25/2004 10:41:38 PM · #3
Originally posted by mk:
bump


Thanks for bumping otherwise I would've missed it :)
 04/25/2004 10:43:59 PM · #4
Thank you so much! I am very pleased to see the new rules and I believe they are worded very and phrased extremely well. Thanks again Drew and Langdon and SC!! You guys rock!
 04/25/2004 11:08:30 PM · #5
First let me say that the clarification should enable more control over submissions that depart from what most consider "photography". This is a good step; the limits were being pushed a bit too far.
That said, it is more than a bit disappointing that no input from the community was formally asked for, i.e. no poll(s). I think the membership here could be engaged alot more in charting the direction of the site. When folks are asked to contribute their opinions, they feel more invested/involved in the site and more likely to hang around.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but a good example of this is the multiple exposure question, which I brought up in December, and was asked to defer until a later time. I brought it up again, taking it upon myself to suggest wording for a revised ruleset. This represented not a small investment in my time. Yet I might have just as well not gone to that effort. Not even a single word from SC on the ideas presented. Lesson learned.
 04/25/2004 11:12:58 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:
First let me say that the clarification should enable more control over submissions that depart from what most consider "photography". This is a good step; the limits were being pushed a bit too far.
That said, it is more than a bit disappointing that no input from the community was formally asked for, i.e. no poll(s). I think the membership here could be engaged alot more in charting the direction of the site. When folks are asked to contribute their opinions, they feel more invested/involved in the site and more likely to hang around.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but a good example of this is the multiple exposure question, which I brought up in December, and was asked to defer until a later time. I brought it up again, taking it upon myself to suggest wording for a revised ruleset. This represented not a small investment in my time. Yet I might have just as well not gone to that effort. Not even a single word from SC on the ideas presented. Lesson learned.


We didn't really change the rules, just reworded them because some people have to have it spelled out for them apparently. As for the "multiple exposure" question. What question is there? In camera multiple exposures are allowed.
 04/25/2004 11:14:52 PM · #7
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by kirbic:
First let me say that the clarification should enable more control over submissions that depart from what most consider "photography". This is a good step; the limits were being pushed a bit too far.
That said, it is more than a bit disappointing that no input from the community was formally asked for, i.e. no poll(s). I think the membership here could be engaged alot more in charting the direction of the site. When folks are asked to contribute their opinions, they feel more invested/involved in the site and more likely to hang around.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but a good example of this is the multiple exposure question, which I brought up in December, and was asked to defer until a later time. I brought it up again, taking it upon myself to suggest wording for a revised ruleset. This represented not a small investment in my time. Yet I might have just as well not gone to that effort. Not even a single word from SC on the ideas presented. Lesson learned.


We didn't really change the rules, just reworded them because some people have to have it spelled out for them apparently. As for the "multiple exposure" question. What question is there? In camera multiple exposures are allowed.


In-camera multiple exposures are absolutely useless for the several applications I specifically detailed in my previous post, which I will not bore anyone with again.
Further, only a tiny minority of cameras are actually capable of in-camera multiple exposure.

Message edited by author 2004-04-25 23:15:42.
 04/25/2004 11:21:15 PM · #8
kirbic,
your effort did not go unnoticed. As heather pointed out, this wasn't a "rewrite" of the rules. There are no "new" rules, per se, only deeper clarification of the existing rule set as to prevent future problems, and to make the expectations a bit clearer.

Your multiple image "allowances" would be a totally new rule, and I will simply "defer you to later" as you put it. We weren't looking to make new rules, just clear up the existing ones. As far as hearing the masses, there were a lot of opinions posted both from the member/usership and the moderators. Just because we didn't do it, doesn't mean we didn't hear it.
 04/25/2004 11:48:50 PM · #9
I almost missed the 'new rules' and this thread, I am on here a fair bit, I wonder how many others missed it too?
I thought I would put this up before the challenge give a few others a chance to see it.
 04/26/2004 12:07:40 AM · #10
Originally posted by ellamay:
I almost missed the 'new rules' and this thread, I am on here a fair bit, I wonder how many others missed it too?
I thought I would put this up before the challenge give a few others a chance to see it.


The ruleset for the new challenge is listed as "Rules: Advanced Editing (Updated 4/25!)." Hopefully everyone will catch it from that.

-Terry
 04/26/2004 12:08:15 AM · #11
Again, thank you so much guys!
 04/26/2004 12:14:07 AM · #12
They look good! Thanks!
 04/26/2004 04:44:00 AM · #13
New set of rules is really great, I hope there will be less DQs on the page now that some chapters are more clear. I just suggest what about highlighting the new chapters with red just in order to be able to find them easier? I just ask because Ihave read through the rules but first I didn't see the difference until I saw this thread and compared it with the old rules.
 04/26/2004 05:21:29 AM · #14
Nice work there Drew and the SC.

Doubtless there will still be those that look for loopholes, but I think the rewording is good and does point more strongly towards the spirit of what DPC is about - i.e. the main thrust being the actual
photography.

:)


04/26/2004 08:33:38 AM · #15
I see no real change in the rules, as stated. What I do see is that the majority of the SC will determine if I have abused the 'spirit' even if within the rules. I see this subject is not going away anytime soon.
 04/26/2004 09:58:18 AM · #16
With the recent bunch of DQs in Chaos and Window View, etc. the SC has shown that they are willing and able to enforce the spirit & intent as well as the letter of the law. Now they have given themselves better tools to do that job. Seems to me things are getting better already.
 04/26/2004 11:39:56 AM · #17
bump
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/22/2024 02:19:45 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - 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: 11/22/2024 02:19:45 AM EST.