| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2010 04:30:48 PM · #76 |
I don't want to know how you got all that hair on your hands! ;-) |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:55:16 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It sounds like a possible solution to your complaint (if I'm reading correctly) would be to limit any artwork to the same editing rules as the challenge, although that might be very difficult to enforce. I've been pushing for a similar limitation on borders for years. |
Yah, that's pretty much where it *ought* to be, conceptually, at least IMO. I don't see the magazine cover as a problem because... well... because it IS a magazine cover, editing is irrelevant. No, what we're worrying about (or I am, anyway) is the CREATION of non-compliant photographs and then calling them "artwork" to circumvent the editing rules. It just rubs me the wrong way. I don't see it as being a problem if the artwork in question is, say, one of Dali's melting landscapes...
But I may be overreacting. I mean, would I complain if a skilled artist-member painted a surreal image and used it as part of a photographed entry? Nope... So why should I get all wound up about a skilled photoshopper doing the same? I guess, because we're not allowed to do that on our actual images and yet we can backdoor 'em in...
It's just confusing and ambiguous, and that's my story and I'm, by gosh, sticking to it :-) I'm sorry if I've seemed strident, i got my dander up there. Peace.
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:56:38 PM · #78 |
Call me blonde, (please do) but I seem to remember the Art Work rule was basically re-written through members on here.
Wasn't there a thread where it asked members on how it should write the rule. Didn't the members then re-write the rules and the wording was adjusted to how the members of this community saw it.
or did I make it all up in my head (trust me that is possible) |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 05:01:58 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It sounds like a possible solution to your complaint (if I'm reading correctly) would be to limit any artwork to the same editing rules as the challenge, although that might be very difficult to enforce. I've been pushing for a similar limitation on borders for years. |
Yah, that's pretty much where it *ought* to be, conceptually, at least IMO. I don't see the magazine cover as a problem because... well... because it IS a magazine cover, editing is irrelevant. No, what we're worrying about (or I am, anyway) is the CREATION of non-compliant photographs and then calling them "artwork" to circumvent the editing rules. It just rubs me the wrong way. I don't see it as being a problem if the artwork in question is, say, one of Dali's melting landscapes...
But I may be overreacting. I mean, would I complain if a skilled artist-member painted a surreal image and used it as part of a photographed entry? Nope... So why should I get all wound up about a skilled photoshopper doing the same? I guess, because we're not allowed to do that on our actual images and yet we can backdoor 'em in...
It's just confusing and ambiguous, and that's my story and I'm, by gosh, sticking to it :-) I'm sorry if I've seemed strident, i got my dander up there. Peace.
R. |
I think that is a very a valid point for a future rule change.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 17:02:16. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:17:22 PM · #80 |
i agree with Bear_Music.
so you are free to call me an idiot too...
as the rule stands the now - and also what has been mentioned in this thread - part of burden falls on the voters to 'decide' ( and that's been mentioned a number of times in this thread ) via a vote - whether they feel the photo was legitimate or not. and... - ironically - as a voter we are asked not to vote down an image we feel "might" be illegal - whether in editing, date taken, art inclusion, etc. and base the vote on the merits of that image being legal. then when a questionable image reaches high marks, and someone points it out. we are told that it was up to us as voters to deem that image illegal by our own personal standards via our vote... go figure.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 19:19:09.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:22:43 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by soup:
we are told that it was up to us as voters to deem that image illegal by our own personal standards via our vote... |
We already covered this ground. Illegal images are DQ'd. Images using artwork that should be readily apparent to the viewer are NOT illegal (read the first sentence of the artwork rule), but voters may decide to reward or punish the use of artwork with their votes. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:36:17 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by soup:
and... - ironically - as a voter we are asked not to vote down an image we feel "might" be illegal - whether in editing, date taken, art inclusion, etc. and base the vote on the merits of that image being legal. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
but voters may decide to reward or punish the use of artwork with their votes. |
add a loophole to the rules as written, and i hope you can understand why some might be frustrated...
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 19:37:27.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:41:20 PM · #83 |
FWIW graphicfunk would likely have pulled that off ( the image in question ) legally, and without needing the "artwork" border present to circumvent the rules. the use of the term - circumvent - is of course only used in my idiotic opinion.
also labuda pulled something simlar off with his budhistava ( sp? ) shot
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 19:43:18.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:43:14 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It sounds like a possible solution to your complaint (if I'm reading correctly) would be to limit any artwork to the same editing rules as the challenge, although that might be very difficult to enforce. I've been pushing for a similar limitation on borders for years. |
Yah, that's pretty much where it *ought* to be, conceptually, at least IMO. I don't see the magazine cover as a problem because... well... because it IS a magazine cover, editing is irrelevant. No, what we're worrying about (or I am, anyway) is the CREATION of non-compliant photographs and then calling them "artwork" to circumvent the editing rules. It just rubs me the wrong way. I don't see it as being a problem if the artwork in question is, say, one of Dali's melting landscapes...
But I may be overreacting. I mean, would I complain if a skilled artist-member painted a surreal image and used it as part of a photographed entry? Nope... So why should I get all wound up about a skilled photoshopper doing the same? I guess, because we're not allowed to do that on our actual images and yet we can backdoor 'em in...
It's just confusing and ambiguous, and that's my story and I'm, by gosh, sticking to it :-) I'm sorry if I've seemed strident, i got my dander up there. Peace.
R. |
I hear what you are saying, but the danger in the bolded part is that if that standard is applied, I can use anything as long as I'm not the photographer. One loophole closed, another squeaking open. :( |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:43:28 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by soup:
Originally posted by soup:
and... - ironically - as a voter we are asked not to vote down an image we feel "might" be illegal - whether in editing, date taken, art inclusion, etc. and base the vote on the merits of that image being legal. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
but voters may decide to reward or punish the use of artwork with their votes. |
add a loophole to the rules as written, and i hope you can understand why some might be frustrated... |
The rules as written say you may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Therefore if you feel that doing so might be illegal, then that's your error, not the photographer's. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 07:51:57 PM · #86 |
hehe
and we as ( potential ) voters are left to decide - with an oxymoron - in black and white - to guide us.
and then when someone makes a fuss about it ( with due cause in this case IMO ) we are told to read the rules...
so - when i vote next. i will be sure to vote 1's for all photos i feel have:
1) circumvented the rules by using existing artwork
2) used existing artwork as a means to trick the voter
3) cloned out something i cant know for sure was there - but i think it probably was
...
i say that in jest. but. #1 is key. having the option to add 98% of the impact of the the entry by using artwork ( whether you made it or not ) to bypass the editing rules of the site is BS.
that's a funny border. i wonder if that border is legal??? i best vote it high. cuz it's a cool image, and i trust the fact my vote won't leave me with a pain in my arse after the fact...
or i submit it as a ticket to be validated, and still leave my high vote...
or i vote it low despite what the voting rules specify ( ask of us ) - because i " think " it is a DQ...
//
ah. F' it/ it's way oversharpened. 1 from me.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 20:12:37.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 08:15:38 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by soup:
...i vote it low despite what the voting rules specify ( ask of us ) - because i " think " it is a DQ... |
That's against the voting rules. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 08:20:52 PM · #88 |
LOL...
ban me then... you should read all of what i wrote, and then post based on full comprehension of the statements.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 09:16:27 PM · #89 |
Touche!
(How do you put those little things above the letters?)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 09:22:33 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
Touche!
(How do you put those little things above the letters?) |
You mean like "Touché", if you're using a US keyboard and can't type it normally, you hold down right Alt and type 130 on the number pad. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 09:56:18 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It sounds like a possible solution to your complaint (if I'm reading correctly) would be to limit any artwork to the same editing rules as the challenge, although that might be very difficult to enforce. I've been pushing for a similar limitation on borders for years. |
Yah, that's pretty much where it *ought* to be, conceptually, at least IMO. I don't see the magazine cover as a problem because... well... because it IS a magazine cover, editing is irrelevant. No, what we're worrying about (or I am, anyway) is the CREATION of non-compliant photographs and then calling them "artwork" to circumvent the editing rules. It just rubs me the wrong way. I don't see it as being a problem if the artwork in question is, say, one of Dali's melting landscapes...
But I may be overreacting. I mean, would I complain if a skilled artist-member painted a surreal image and used it as part of a photographed entry? Nope... So why should I get all wound up about a skilled photoshopper doing the same? I guess, because we're not allowed to do that on our actual images and yet we can backdoor 'em in...
It's just confusing and ambiguous, and that's my story and I'm, by gosh, sticking to it :-) I'm sorry if I've seemed strident, i got my dander up there. Peace.
R. |
I hear what you are saying, but the danger in the bolded part is that if that standard is applied, I can use anything as long as I'm not the photographer. One loophole closed, another squeaking open. :( |
It was mentioned earlier using an Ansel Adam's photo in a similar manner (for the B&W Landscape challenge) as the photo we're discussing from the OP...and it was pointed out (by one of the SC members...sorry, didn't go back to see who) that there would be copyright problems that would go against DPChallenge TOS. ??? So maybe that squeaky door isn't getting very far? |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:00:31 PM · #92 |
| Wow, I commented here and was instantly censored by scalvert. Unbelievable. He can dish it out but not take it. Free speech at it's worst. DpChallenge. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:08:05 PM · #93 |
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:11:11 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays. |
As a warning to everyone, calling someone hypocritical is a personal attack and calling a name. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:13:05 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by karmat:
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays. |
As a warning to everyone, calling someone hypocritical is a personal attack and calling a name. |
Sir, I am reading the post that was hidden. I know, and you know, that there was more than just calling scalvert a hypocrite. If you have a problem with the hidden post, I suggest you submit your complaint to langdon in a ticket.
Otherwise, stay on topic.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:16:33 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by karmat:
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays. |
As a warning to everyone, calling someone hypocritical is a personal attack and calling a name. |
Sir, I am reading the post that was hidden. I know, and you know, that there was more than just calling scalvert a hypocrite. If you have a problem with the hidden post, I suggest you submit your complaint to langdon in a ticket.
Otherwise, stay on topic. |
Karmat to be fair some of the things Scalvert has said in this thread also border or go beyond personal attacks. I think he crossed the line a couple of times, and yet those posts aren't hidden.
Matt |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:17:34 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by karmat:
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays. |
As a warning to everyone, calling someone hypocritical is a personal attack and calling a name. |
Sir, I am reading the post that was hidden. I know, and you know, that there was more than just calling scalvert a hypocrite. If you have a problem with the hidden post, I suggest you submit your complaint to langdon in a ticket.
Otherwise, stay on topic. |
Then show it and let all judge. The heavy handiness of the site council does nothing for this site. I'll take my time and membership fee elsewhere, as if you care. It's no wonder the membership here is dropping. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:18:48 PM · #98 |
Karmat to be fair some of the things Scalvert has said in this thread also border or go beyond personal attacks. I think he crossed the line a couple of times, and yet those posts aren't hidden.
Matt [/quote]
It's OK for them, huh? |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:20:06 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by karmat:
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays. |
As a warning to everyone, calling someone hypocritical is a personal attack and calling a name. |
Sir, I am reading the post that was hidden. I know, and you know, that there was more than just calling scalvert a hypocrite. If you have a problem with the hidden post, I suggest you submit your complaint to langdon in a ticket.
Otherwise, stay on topic. |
Karmat to be fair some of the things Scalvert has said in this thread also border or go beyond personal attacks. I think he crossed the line a couple of times, and yet those posts aren't hidden.
Matt |
There was nothing borderline about delin's post and he knows it.
Delin, as I said. Make your case leaving out the name calling and personal attacks and we can discuss your points. Otherwise this is nothing but a diversion from the topic at hand. Please stay on topic. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 11:21:47 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by karmat:
Your post was hidden because it included personal attacks and name calling. Try it without that, maybe.
But, in reference to the two images you posted, as has been stated several times in the past, they were under different rulesets. Even scalvert has conceded that they may not pass nowadays. |
As a warning to everyone, calling someone hypocritical is a personal attack and calling a name. |
Sir, I am reading the post that was hidden. I know, and you know, that there was more than just calling scalvert a hypocrite. If you have a problem with the hidden post, I suggest you submit your complaint to langdon in a ticket.
Otherwise, stay on topic. |
Karmat to be fair some of the things Scalvert has said in this thread also border or go beyond personal attacks. I think he crossed the line a couple of times, and yet those posts aren't hidden.
Matt |
There was nothing borderline about delin's post and he knows it.
Delin, as I said. Make your case leaving out the name calling and personal attacks and we can discuss your points. Otherwise this is nothing but a diversion from the topic at hand. Please stay on topic. |
I read his post before hidden and I agree, but that doesn't dismiss the point I was making about Scalvert's actions.
Matt |
|
