| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2012 11:33:31 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by KfirLevAri:
Will it be OK if I submit his picture to the "Garbage III" challenge?
He really pissed me off! |
Calm down petal - no one died. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:34:53 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Yes, even with a very big lens you could not take this photo of London Bridge from London Eye (I used to live in London but that was in pre London Eye days) |
LOL @ London Bridge... We`ve caught you guys out again... |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:36:58 AM · #28 |
| Guys, you're getting really close to flaming, here. Yeah, a huge bungle but DPC standards, but he is also new. There have been far worse transgressions by others in the past, which were intentional. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, know that SC will DQ it, and move on. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:37:16 AM · #29 |
I say we let him pick his punishment  and we move on. I'm sure he learned a valuable lesson. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:39:34 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Guys, you're getting really close to flaming, here. Yeah, a huge bungle but DPC standards, but he is also new. There have been far worse transgressions by others in the past, which were intentional. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, know that SC will DQ it, and move on. |
I disagree, DPC hasn`t had a good witch hunt for months.. Let the heretic burn.. BURN I SAY!!! |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:40:17 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Guys, you're getting really close to flaming, here. Yeah, a huge bungle but DPC standards, but he is also new. There have been far worse transgressions by others in the past, which were intentional. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, know that SC will DQ it, and move on. |
I agree. I actually suspect that he did it on purpose, but that's more performance art than criminality, and a brilliant statement on the DPC voter (and besides, it's unprovable that this was anything more than a misunderstanding).
It will definitely be DQ'd soon, nothing to get knickerbunched about. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:45:48 AM · #32 |
this guy has really pissed me off also... bang out of order.. lots of people have used prints etc as backdrops or parts of their image etc,,, but this has nothng of his in the setup at all.. what a chancer he is eh.. this better get DQ'd lol
I remember being disqualified for taking a photo of a stained glass window for "Glass II (with a twist)" challenge.. it was my own fault, i took the image with the window frame intact but decided in editing to crop the frame out for some reason, forgetting that it was then just essentially a photo of someone elses artwork... that was a silly oversite on my part (was more angry at myself lol), not a platent attempt at cheating like this bridge pic... lol |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:50:59 AM · #33 |
Hang on a minute.. Are you *sure* it's a DQ? - I mean... did he intend to fool the viewer?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:52:39 AM · #34 |
I agree that it's close to, if not over the line on flaming. It's simply a violation of the artwork rule, and that's why the rule is there. Hopefully the DQ process will be swift; there's no need for an original, since the product can clearly be shown to be a replication of the work of another (took me less than a minute to prove it to myself).
|
|
|
|
01/04/2012 11:58:26 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It will definitely be DQ'd soon, nothing to get knickerbunched about. |
But I really like having bunched knickers |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:06:01 PM · #36 |
So he made a mistake and he, and others, can learn from it. Think some of the comments are boarding on hysteria and turning into a witch hunt with people baying for blood.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:12:39 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Sevlow:
So he made a mistake and he, and others, can learn from it. Think some of the comments are boarding on hysteria and turning into a witch hunt with people baying for blood. |
Look, it's just too late. The ICBMs are already on their way. ;) |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:18:34 PM · #38 |
I think he didn't understand the rules to start off with. If he did, then why in the world would he have put in his notes that it was a photo of a poster to start off with. He has only been here a short time and not sure that any thread has been started in the time he has been here about the art work rule.
Half the time if you are all honest, who reads all the rules or instructions on everything
A think a little bit more dignity is needed the whole way around here.
But that is just my thoughts
Edited to change anything to everything
Message edited by author 2012-01-04 12:19:15. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:33:07 PM · #39 |
Amen... We send another Member to the gallows.
I know Marc very well and the 2 'pissed off' members can kiss my ass.
Simmo got it right again... BURN HIM. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:36:23 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:48:22 PM · #41 |
.
Message edited by author 2012-01-04 13:53:20. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:48:30 PM · #42 |
| I think I'll add 'Wall of Shame' as a site suggestion. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 12:59:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by KfirLevAri:
Originally posted by MAK:
Amen... We send another Member to the gallows.
I know Marc very well and the 2 'pissed off' members can kiss my ass.
Simmo got it right again... BURN HIM. |
Well, it just felt like someone lying to me. This is why I wrote it. ("pissed off" means angry, doesn't it?)
Isn't this site about "digital photography challenge"? and not "digital remaster challenge"?
Anyway, of course you don't mind about us "pissed off" dudes. I'm sure that Marc also don't mind.
And that is the exact reason why he felt OK to publish it. |
If it were down to you he would already be dead. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:04:30 PM · #44 |
.
Message edited by author 2012-01-04 13:53:34. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:07:44 PM · #45 |
| Thank goodness I never got lynched like this on my first DQ. I probably would never have returned to the site again. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:11:41 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by KfirLevAri:
Not at all! if he just said that it was a mistake, I wasn't even bother to comment because people do mistakes, even very un-realistic "mistakes".
But he quoted the rules in order to justify "his" picture! |
It's very obvious from Marc's comment that he misinterpreted the rule. He assumed, incorrectly, that his modifications of the original would avoid conflict with the rule. He was wrong. This is somehow not a mistake?
It's very clear to me that it was a simple misinterpretation of the rule. Why on Earth would he put the "incriminating" details right on the photo if his intent was to pull a fast one? Give the man a break. He made a mistake, one I'm sure he won't make again.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:13:07 PM · #47 |
i think the point most are offended by is he didnt even use his camera? i mean going off my copy the lighting is exact so i think he just cropped it like i did and thats more than a mistake, i sincerly hope hed prove me wrong and have a raw file and id love to know how he photographed the "poster" in such high quality without any light changes to it etc
think people have their backs up because its not in the spirit of things. |
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:23:31 PM · #48 |
I have nothing against people using images in their shots, for example I agree that LydiaToo was unfairly DQd that time, especially since she took the background photo herself and it wasn't the sole focus of the shot; I myself used an image of the labyrinth printed out as the background to my old Goblin King entry  which wasn't DQd because the background picture wasn't the main feature of the shot, it was just there to add to it, same as Lydia's shot of the family dinner table.
However, the image in discussion here is a blatant disregard of site policies, whether he knew it or not; he hasn't added anything of his own to the image, he has just blurred an existing shot that belonged to someone else. I also don't believe that he photographed a poster, there are too many similarities, which makes me believe he knew what he was doing, in that his comments said he photographed a poster which (wrongly) could be interpreted as being within the rules but which is clearly a fib, he has obviously edited the file he found online. The image does indeed warrant a DQ.
That said, we all know that, so going on about it now is a bit pointless. There's no way it won't be disqualified, he has probably been embarassed by all the uproar, he will hopefully know better next time; best leave it to the admin to sort it now.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:24:13 PM · #49 |
The people running this site are the ones to blame if they allow going against the rules and still win. Whether the photographer did it inadvertently or not. A copyright infringement is unlawful in most countries.
1) So if someone misinterprets the rules, it's okay to still win a first place virtual ribbon?!!!
2) Seriously, what are "rules" for?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2012 01:24:13 PM · #50 |
The people running this site are the ones to blame if they allow going against the rules and still win. Whether the photographer did it inadvertently or not. A copyright infringement is unlawful in most countries.
1) So if someone misinterprets the rules, it's okay to still win a first place virtual ribbon?!!!
2) Seriously, what are "rules" for?
|
|
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: 04/02/2025 09:17:44 AM EDT.
