| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 02:09:26 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by limerick:
Can I answer? The rules - they are written like a letter some one might write to Congress. Not easy to understand. Why can't they just be more written for anyone to understand BUT add in examples. Like have it say what is says now but then under where it says "You may not..." you can put in examples using thumbnails like we are in here to make it really hit home? You could do the same for "You may.." to. Im not saying you need to make it a picture book but just one example here or there to give good live examples of what you really mean by what is written. |
In the past I've argued for a "book" of decisions on the site, where DQ'd images of various sorts are posted with detailed discussion by SC of why they were DQ'd. These would be precedents others could refer to when wondering just what a certain rule actually means.
They do this in Golf, they do it in Sailing.
The idea did not meet with any acceptance from the powers-that-be at the time.
R. |
I agree that examples or a book would be useful for deciphering the rules.. but I don't think that helps answer the question at hand.
The biggest debate here seems to be that the "feast" was happening in the background, and wasn't part of the actual shot. If the wine glass were instead something feast-related.. say, a turkey, and the background was a photo of a wall/background, would it be a valid entry? Since the subject of the photo related to the challenge topic? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:17:52 PM · #152 |
How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
 |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:18:53 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Louisa:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by limerick:
Can I answer? The rules - they are written like a letter some one might write to Congress. Not easy to understand. Why can't they just be more written for anyone to understand BUT add in examples. Like have it say what is says now but then under where it says "You may not..." you can put in examples using thumbnails like we are in here to make it really hit home? You could do the same for "You may.." to. Im not saying you need to make it a picture book but just one example here or there to give good live examples of what you really mean by what is written. |
In the past I've argued for a "book" of decisions on the site, where DQ'd images of various sorts are posted with detailed discussion by SC of why they were DQ'd. These would be precedents others could refer to when wondering just what a certain rule actually means.
They do this in Golf, they do it in Sailing.
The idea did not meet with any acceptance from the powers-that-be at the time.
R. |
I agree that examples or a book would be useful for deciphering the rules.. but I don't think that helps answer the question at hand.
The biggest debate here seems to be that the "feast" was happening in the background, and wasn't part of the actual shot. If the wine glass were instead something feast-related.. say, a turkey, and the background was a photo of a wall/background, would it be a valid entry? Since the subject of the photo related to the challenge topic? |
Her title depicts her intention. She was toasting family and friends. You need a glass to toast. The family can be alive or photographed. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:21:24 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Louisa:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by limerick:
Can I answer? The rules - they are written like a letter some one might write to Congress. Not easy to understand. Why can't they just be more written for anyone to understand BUT add in examples. Like have it say what is says now but then under where it says "You may not..." you can put in examples using thumbnails like we are in here to make it really hit home? You could do the same for "You may.." to. Im not saying you need to make it a picture book but just one example here or there to give good live examples of what you really mean by what is written. |
In the past I've argued for a "book" of decisions on the site, where DQ'd images of various sorts are posted with detailed discussion by SC of why they were DQ'd. These would be precedents others could refer to when wondering just what a certain rule actually means.
They do this in Golf, they do it in Sailing.
The idea did not meet with any acceptance from the powers-that-be at the time.
R. |
I agree that examples or a book would be useful for deciphering the rules.. but I don't think that helps answer the question at hand.
The biggest debate here seems to be that the "feast" was happening in the background, and wasn't part of the actual shot. If the wine glass were instead something feast-related.. say, a turkey, and the background was a photo of a wall/background, would it be a valid entry? Since the subject of the photo related to the challenge topic? |
Karmat suggested we come up with suggestions about if you dont like the way it is to come up with a better idea (or something like that). So I think that the rules as they are written are "ok" but I do have to agree with Lydia. As they are written right now that would mean her photo was ok and should not have been disqualified. It seems to me the issue is about what is written verses what it really means and that is why I think a few thumbnail examples (or a link to the "Learn" page for examples) is what would be needed for others to understand what is really meant by what is written.
omg-I dont even know if what I just wrote would be understood. Hahhaha.
JUST write the rules using thumbnail examples to get across the real meaning of them is I guess what I am trying to say. At least in Advanced or Expert editing. You can do this (show example). You cant do that (show example). Wouldnt that be easier then arguing over how something is written rather than what it really means? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:21:59 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Her title depicts her intention. She was toasting family and friends. You need a glass to toast. The family can be alive or photographed. |
So titles should be taken into account when DQing images? Shouldn't the challenge topic have more weight than a title? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:26:16 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by Louisa:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by limerick:
Can I answer? The rules - they are written like a letter some one might write to Congress. Not easy to understand. Why can't they just be more written for anyone to understand BUT add in examples. Like have it say what is says now but then under where it says "You may not..." you can put in examples using thumbnails like we are in here to make it really hit home? You could do the same for "You may.." to. Im not saying you need to make it a picture book but just one example here or there to give good live examples of what you really mean by what is written. |
In the past I've argued for a "book" of decisions on the site, where DQ'd images of various sorts are posted with detailed discussion by SC of why they were DQ'd. These would be precedents others could refer to when wondering just what a certain rule actually means.
They do this in Golf, they do it in Sailing.
The idea did not meet with any acceptance from the powers-that-be at the time.
R. |
I agree that examples or a book would be useful for deciphering the rules.. but I don't think that helps answer the question at hand.
The biggest debate here seems to be that the "feast" was happening in the background, and wasn't part of the actual shot. If the wine glass were instead something feast-related.. say, a turkey, and the background was a photo of a wall/background, would it be a valid entry? Since the subject of the photo related to the challenge topic? |
Her title depicts her intention. She was toasting family and friends. You need a glass to toast. The family can be alive or photographed. |
Makes an interesting point!
Last time this debate happened it was very apparent this rule is so subjective this was going to happen again. A rule with no line makes for tough decisions and the appearance of unfair rulings, My memory of the last time this happened led me to believe this would be a DQ but so many times there are images that get through it makes it hard to know where the line is. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:28:58 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
|
I dont know if you are asking every body but I will say it looks like a photo. But does that make it ok because I wasnt fooled (if I am right)?
I think it would be pretty bad to make all pictures like this go away or be disqualified on the "fool you" rule. It looks like there are a lot of them on this site. If Lydias photo isnt good to stay then this example shouldnt be either I dont think. I dont know. Maybe I should just shut up. I am new here and you people have been here a lot longer then me. Whatever you decide I will live with. ;=) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:32:11 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Louisa:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Her title depicts her intention. She was toasting family and friends. You need a glass to toast. The family can be alive or photographed. |
So titles should be taken into account when DQing images? Shouldn't the challenge topic have more weight than a title? |
No they should not be taken into account for DQ's. My point is about perception. You perceived her shot one way and I another. My perception was based on her title. I do think titles have meaning, otherwise why have a title.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 14:32:24. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:36:30 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the past I've argued for a "book" of decisions on the site, where DQ'd images of various sorts are posted with detailed discussion by SC of why they were DQ'd. These would be precedents others could refer to when wondering just what a certain rule actually means.
They do this in Golf, they do it in Sailing.
The idea did not meet with any acceptance from the powers-that-be at the time.
R. |
This idea I really like. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:40:26 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the past I've argued for a "book" of decisions on the site, where DQ'd images of various sorts are posted with detailed discussion by SC of why they were DQ'd. These would be precedents others could refer to when wondering just what a certain rule actually means.
They do this in Golf, they do it in Sailing.
The idea did not meet with any acceptance from the powers-that-be at the time.
R. |
This idea I really like. |
I second that too. Good idea!
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:42:00 PM · #161 |
This Feast entry was more like the tiny binoculars and large, realistic background.
Now if that background had been iluminated blue, it would've passed as a fake owl.
The carpet ride was very obvious to all, no question, and the subject (girl-n-carpet) did occupy about 50-percent of the image.
1) Yes, I was fooled into thinking it was normal DOF.
2) I was surprised to see her admit outright that it was a computer image.
3) I thanked her for showing a technique that can be used in a real-life situation.
4) I was shocked that it was not disqualified??!!!
Since the glass is transparent, only about 10-percent is an actual subject.
But the mindset/interpretation-of-rules, of is mainly an objection to #1, above.
Using props is great, being fooled/misled is not. Thanks SC!
[ADDED:]
Sorry but along the same line, the cat behind the glass should've been disqualified.
The only tning that saved it, that if the user did some thinking, they couild come to the conclusion that it was a fake cat. Because it was a "Negative Image" challenge and the hand-only was negative, the rest had to bne a negative of a positive-image (a photo/artwork). I think, therefore I am.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 14:51:43. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:42:49 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
What disturbs me are the photo examples that they think would NOT get DQ'd (hypothetically). Most of them are dq-able in the current ruleset, imho. |
I tend to agree. I can see how people got fooled by LydiaToo's photo and even more so by De Sousa's fish. If the SC are going to argue that the viewer needs to know what they are looking at (i.e. real or artwork) in order to judge it fairly than both Lydiatoo's and De Sousa's photos should be obvious, slam dunk DQs (assuming of course had Jorge's photo been entered under the current ruleset).
I think a lot of these problems could be avoided if we changed the way the DQ process take place. The way I understand it is all it takes is on more yes vote than no to DQ a photo. Change that so ALL of the voting members of the SC must be in agreement before a photo can be DQed or at the very least require a supermajority from all of the voting SC members.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 14:44:27.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:46:11 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
|
This one brings up a great point and the only issue I have with this rule. If you create an image that will be DQed under this rule by fooling the voters, then it is extremely likely that the voters also believe that no rules have been broken, and they will not request validation. Lydia's shot ribboned, so it must be validated (and thus DQed). What if she had finished 6th and hadn't mentioned how she achieved the shot in her notes? My guess is no validation request and the shot stands. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:50:39 PM · #164 |
How about this one?
The moon in the background 'is' the focus of the picture... yet it was a distorted picture of moon on the author's monitor not taken by the author too... not an actual moon in the scene.
Is this a violation?
ETA: Beautiful picture. And until I read the author's comments, I really thought it was an actual light bulb hollowed out in front of the actual moon.. and the distortions are coming from the way the moon is visible through the twisted glass. Sure I am naive, but was I fooled into thinking it was the actual moon.. a real object.. and not its picture?
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 14:57:42. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:54:02 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
|
it's neither, it's a drawing (is it really that hard to see) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:58:01 PM · #166 |
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent  
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:59:14 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Prash:
How about this one?
The moon in the background 'is' the focus of the picture... yet it was a distorted picture of moon on the author's monitor not taken by the author too... not an actual moon in the scene.
Is this a violation?
ETA: Beautiful picture. And until I read the author's comments, I really thought it was an actual light bulb hollowed out in front of the actual moon.. and the distortions are coming from the way the moon is visible through the twisted glass. Sure I am naive, but was I fooled into thinking it was the actual moon.. a real object.. and not its picture? |
Anyone on this one here???? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:00:01 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt |
I was going to shut up but now this is freaking me out. Hahah. They both have glasses and both have tv or monitor backgrounds? Was it because they were not winners and didnt need to send in originals or maybe someone didnt ask for validations? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:00:33 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt |
I believe the position of the glasses and the slight angle made them legal...... runs and hides....:P |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:01:15 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by limerick:
Originally posted by MattO:
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt |
I was going to shut up but now this is freaking me out. Hahah. They both have glasses and both have tv or monitor backgrounds? Was it because they were not winners and didnt need to send in originals or maybe someone didnt ask for validations? |
But the one I shared WAS a winner... the bulb one. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:01:21 PM · #171 |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:02:00 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by MattO:
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt |
I believe the position of the glasses and the slight angle made them legal...... runs and hides....:P |
And the champagne was real, not just water :-) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:03:03 PM · #173 |
Prash I think the lightbulb and the hand take up a lot of the shot, but really? I dont know. I was pretty good a few minutes ago but now I am freaked by all of this as a new member here. Hahahaha. Im afraid to enter anything with a background! hahaha.
or let me say a not so real background anyways. ;?
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 15:04:18. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:03:22 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by limerick:
Originally posted by MattO:
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt |
I was going to shut up but now this is freaking me out. Hahah. They both have glasses and both have tv or monitor backgrounds? Was it because they were not winners and didnt need to send in originals or maybe someone didnt ask for validations? |
But the one I shared WAS a winner... the bulb one. |
It was also done before the ruleset was changed. The two I posted are under the same ruleset as the current one under discussion. If I remember right Shannon's shot was one that was always brought up before the ruleset was changed when a DQ occured.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:03:44 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Originally posted by MattO:
Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent
Why would these not be DQed?
Matt |
This appears to be a perfect example of my last post. I would bet they weren't DQed because no one requested validation.  limerick agrees, I see. :) |
I find it interesting one of the shots was taken by a council member who must have felt it was legal. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/21/2025 10:05:25 PM EDT.
