| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2007 02:47:09 PM · #2601 |
| not in my time - sounds like an excellent, excellent idea. love it. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 03:34:38 PM · #2602 |
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What kind of a scale do I have for the validity of the comment if there's no participation? |
surely just the commenters presence here is participation? |
I absolutely agree with this. It can take longer sitting through a set of voting and giving out comments than it can to take a whole load of shots. Being an active commenter is really important to DPC I think. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 04:33:20 PM · #2603 |
Originally posted by xianart:
o, and i half blinded myselt this morning shooting for contre jour. i don't think i've ever looked into the sun quite that many times in a morning. i'm still seeing little orange blobs... |
LOL! Me too! I just submitted my shot and I still can't see. :-) |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 04:36:56 PM · #2604 |
We had clouds today. And I had that work thing. Then weed pulling until it started to drizzle. Then laundry and furniture building. Gotta hand it to Ikea - no words, just pictures, and pretty idiot-proof with the way things go together.
Maybe sun tomorrow? But I'm shooting from the hip with my eyes closed so I don't go blind. You silly people! |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 04:38:00 PM · #2605 |
Fitness is starting to sound better. I actually have a really dumb idea for it but fun.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 16:39:01. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:02:26 PM · #2606 |
Just submitted an Anachronism it has a couple minor issues but it was fun to shoot. Now Contre-Jour...Hmmmm, still thinking...I had considered having someone hold a light bulb or flash light against their head and submit that...I mean hey! against the light, right?? I'm sure DNMC police would shoot me out of the sky in like the first 10 votes so I guess I'll skip that one, LOL, no sense of humor at all!!
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:02:54 PM · #2607 |
I don't think that you're meant to stare at the sun to take your sun shots.
Maybe they should have stuck a health warning on the challenge ;) |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:06:48 PM · #2608 |
Originally posted by jackal9:
Just submitted an Anachronism it has a couple minor issues but it was fun to shoot. Now Contre-Jour...Hmmmm, still thinking...I had considered having someone hold a light bulb or flash light against their head and submit that...I mean hey! against the light, right?? I'm sure DNMC police would shoot me out of the sky in like the first 10 votes so I guess I'll skip that one, LOL, no sense of humor at all!! |
Literally, contre-jour means 'against (the) day'. Used as a photographic term though, any back-lit shot is contre-jour.
Sez I
A shot of someone playing Russian roulette with a flash gun, such that the light from the flash effectively silhouetted the head would (or should) be enough to hoist the petty dnmcs on their own petards. Then again, it would be hard to do well.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 17:10:12. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:11:45 PM · #2609 |
Originally posted by xianart:
o, and it looks like i'm about to be DQed in spin. for everyone out there - vignette in RAW is not legal in basic. bugger. |
Really????
It's a global change, not just specific portions.
Or is it that you did it in the RAW mode instead of PS?
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:16:39 PM · #2610 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by xianart:
o, and it looks like i'm about to be DQed in spin. for everyone out there - vignette in RAW is not legal in basic. bugger. |
Really????
It's a global change, not just specific portions.
Or is it that you did it in the RAW mode instead of PS? |
Either way you would hit against this MAY rule -
Originally posted by TheRules:
use RAW conversion software as long as the changes are made globally to a single file on one layer and do not create new features or effects in the process |
Or this YOU MAY NOT -
Originally posted by TheRules:
use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn̢۪t already exist in your original capture. |
Vignetting is a "feature" I would say.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 17:17:07. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:33:22 PM · #2611 |
Originally posted by xianart:
surely just the commenters presence here is participation? |
Okay....I definitely wish I hadn't said anything at this point, and I certainly am not trying to split hairs, but I still don't see anonymous low comments as participation in, and I abuse this phrase in the same way it was abused at me in the B&W Portrait challenge, "the spirit opf participation".
Why doesn't this guy want anyone to know anything about who he is and what he's about?
I'm also unsure why all of you are so convinced that this guy's motives are such that he's being given more than the benefit of the doubt, you're all ASSUMING that he's someone who is NOT a troll, when we know they're here.
Now he's not a baghead, but he doesn't have to be since you cannot ascertain anything by his profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know what, I am so tired of this, I just don't care.
The comment is what it is.....I was curious and sort of offended that someone who doesn't participate in the PHOTOGRAPHY and with people, and really hasn't since he joined A MONTH BEFORE I DID, would be critiquing others' work, who have been working at it.
I have worked my tail off to get where I am in my photography, and made improvements, and have gotten my share of slapping around, and that goes with the territory.
I'm really not even quite sure why it bugged me as much as it did.
But I am done with this aspect of the whole deal.
I will keep any further thoughts to myself.
I should have just said something to him and left it at that.
Like I said before, I got a comment from someone that I know that said the shot needed more contrast.
You know what?
I do decent stuff, I have gotten to a place in my photography where I don't really want feedback on some levels, so maybe I shouldn't do this any more.
I have a whole new outlook with what I've learned and I like myself as the photographer that I am and the growth I make with every shot.
That gives me a whole lot to work with every day.
Bye.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 05:40:50 PM · #2612 |
Nah I'm sorry NikonJeb I see what you are saying but I do not agree with it.
As you say, I cannot see why this particular comment has gotten you so seemingly worked up, even to the point that you are suggesting not bothering to enter shots any more.
What does it matter who this person is? Why does his lack of shots mean that he is not allowed to add his opinion? I've only entered one shot this year or thereabouts, does that mean that my opinion is worth less now then when I was entering more regularly last year?
I guess we will agree to differ here. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 06:07:01 PM · #2613 |
Hi guys,
I've just edited a bunch of forum posts that called out a commenter in a hostile way, violating Forum Rule #11. Some of you were defending the commenter, and that was good, but those posts were also edited to remove any reference to the comment in question.
Please remember that while this thread is actively posted to by a few members, it is still accessible to everyone, should be considered "public," and should not include posts that call commenters out in a hostile way or contain enough information for a reasonable person to discover who the commenter is.
If you see that this rule is violated, the correct thing to do is use the "Report Post" feature rather than responding. You may also make use of the Private Message feature of the site to discuss specific comments amongst yourselves behind the scenes.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 06:10:49 PM · #2614 |
Sometimes dictatorships - preferably benign and enlightened ones - are better than democracies. When logging of vast areas of the Yellow River Valley to fuel China's new industrial era resulted in the ecological catastrophe of uncovered soil washing into the river with the rain, silting up and choking the waters, the big honcho said: "Stop logging". So they did. Millions of people were instantly unemployed, but dictatorships don't lose a lot of sleep over things like that.
Unconfirmed rumours have come to my attention that these unemployed Chinese, having virtually no literary English skills, may have been used to test the theory that several billion monkeys with a typewriter each should eventually clack out stuff to compete with Shakespeare.
It is possible that the almost anonymous critiques that occasionally pop up on dpc are from a similar source.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 18:12:50. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 06:22:53 PM · #2615 |
| Dang, I can't remember calling anyone out other than Raish, and now it turns out he may be generated by a monkey trained by Chinese loggers who are temporarily unemployed. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 06:24:01 PM · #2616 |
| Does that explain the poor spelling in the forums? |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 06:40:14 PM · #2617 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
Does anyone remember if there has been a dpchallenge like "places that should have people but don't"? |
call it The Rapture Challenge |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 06:44:13 PM · #2618 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
Does that explain the poor spelling in the forums? |
have you been here?
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:28:29 PM · #2619 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But I'm shooting from the hip with my eyes closed so I don't go blind. You silly people! |
Now why didn't I think of that?! ;-) |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 08:58:33 PM · #2620 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Sorry about the potential DQ, Christian. :-( I tell you guys, stick to the Deb rules of editing. Levels, maybe curves, sharpen, resize, submit. Crop if necessary.
And your note about blinding yourself cracked me up.
And now for a completely unrelated aside: Dire Straits "Love Over Gold". If you've got it, fire it up. Never ceases to amaze me how good this album is. |
I love Dire Straits! I saw them back in the ummm...70's or 80's. Mark Knopfler is my FAVORITE guitar player. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 09:41:48 PM · #2621 |
Originally posted by L2:
Hi guys,
I've just edited a bunch of forum posts that called out a commenter in a hostile way, violating Forum Rule #11. Some of you were defending the commenter, and that was good, but those posts were also edited to remove any reference to the comment in question.
Please remember that while this thread is actively posted to by a few members, it is still accessible to everyone, should be considered "public," and should not include posts that call commenters out in a hostile way or contain enough information for a reasonable person to discover who the commenter is.
If you see that this rule is violated, the correct thing to do is use the "Report Post" feature rather than responding. You may also make use of the Private Message feature of the site to discuss specific comments amongst yourselves behind the scenes.
Thanks! |
In the first place, in *NO* way did I call out the commenter in a hostile way.
I was whining and carping, it was an item of discussion, and since nobody gets to see the comments 'til it's over, and if you would have read this whole thread THOROUGHLY.....you could hardly construe it as hostile, or be able to figure out who the commenter is.
As far as reporting the faux pas, if nobody saw it as a violation, how would this be reported.
This is absurd!
I toss out my opinion for general discussion, get basically told by a half a dozen people that I'm all wet, I try on numerous levels to at least have someone understand my point of view, NOT to necessarily cosign it, and this conversation that is proceeding in a civil manner is deemed hostile and a violation?
Wow......that's really something.
Have a good time people.......after all the crap I've seen heaped on people at different points, this is a disgrace.
You know what?
I'll alleviate the problem.....I'm done here.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 09:57:20 PM · #2622 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by L2:
Hi guys,
I've just edited a bunch of forum posts that called out a commenter in a hostile way, violating Forum Rule #11. Some of you were defending the commenter, and that was good, but those posts were also edited to remove any reference to the comment in question.
Please remember that while this thread is actively posted to by a few members, it is still accessible to everyone, should be considered "public," and should not include posts that call commenters out in a hostile way or contain enough information for a reasonable person to discover who the commenter is.
If you see that this rule is violated, the correct thing to do is use the "Report Post" feature rather than responding. You may also make use of the Private Message feature of the site to discuss specific comments amongst yourselves behind the scenes.
Thanks! |
In the first place, in *NO* way did I call out the commenter in a hostile way.
I was whining and carping, it was an item of discussion, and since nobody gets to see the comments 'til it's over, and if you would have read this whole thread THOROUGHLY.....you could hardly construe it as hostile, or be able to figure out who the commenter is.
As far as reporting the faux pas, if nobody saw it as a violation, how would this be reported.
This is absurd!
I toss out my opinion for general discussion, get basically told by a half a dozen people that I'm all wet, I try on numerous levels to at least have someone understand my point of view, NOT to necessarily cosign it, and this conversation that is proceeding in a civil manner is deemed hostile and a violation?
Wow......that's really something.
Have a good time people.......after all the crap I've seen heaped on people at different points, this is a disgrace.
You know what?
I'll alleviate the problem.....I'm done here. |
I have to agree 100% with you on this one, there was no hostile remark or calling out just a discussion. As for seeing your point in the aforementioned matter I do see your point I guess I just didn't see why you were as upset about it as you "seemed" to be maybe you weren't as upset with the situation as it appeared to me.
I for one hope you will reconsider your decision to quit, I'd hate to see you go.
Jack
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 10:05:59 PM · #2623 |
| We really should respect SC's decisions though.... |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 10:19:03 PM · #2624 |
Let's change the subject to something tossed out many posts ago: posting negative comments on ribbon winners.
Our little group likes to talk about, or rather complain about, people who "pee on their cheerios." Well, ya know what? A ribbon is a rather large cheerio, and posting a negative comment after it's won is a whole lotta pee.
Why not let that person enjoy the moment? If you didn't like the shot, you could've commented during the challenge and voted. Or you could start a forum thread to discuss how DPC is all mindless drivel (just push over the other threads that say the same thing). Not posting something negative isn't the same as saying you love the shot, but posting has the very real chance of ruining someone's very happy moment.
As someone else has said here, I believe, not every opinion deserves to see the light of day, and I've decided I'm going to restrict post challenge comments on high scorers to congratulations.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 10:27:55 PM · #2625 |
Originally posted by klstover:
We really should respect SC's decisions though.... |
I agree we should respect their decision, and I don't want to reopen a can of worms here but we don't have to agree with them in every case. I feel in this case their reaction was overkill, Jeb simply asked if anyone else felt that the commentor had the right to make the comment he/she did based on their interaction on the site. I didn't preceive that as being hostile, or calling out, just my opinian.
|
|
