| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2007 05:26:38 PM · #76 |
Rules are rules designed to keep everyone (and their PP in check), these challenges wouldn't exist without rules. When I talk to people who dont do DPC I tell them that one of the things I love about it is how strict the rules for challenges are. It makes you achieve an image within given guidelines and keep photogs on the straight and narrow. Granted sometimes it seems like 'whats the difference if I do it like this instead of like that', the difference is that one follows the rules and one doesn't, simple. To be fair, I haven't experienced being DQ'd which probably makes this easier for me to say.
I also love the different rule levels. If you dont like expert editing, just dont submit to those challenges. Some dont like minimal either but it certainly makes you think about your photo which is what it's designed to do. Expert gives those among us the opportunity to show their creative/artistic side which they dont have the chance to do very often and I'm sure most of us enjoy the end result.
I think DPC is doing great and it certainly in the best site for photographers to hone their photographic skills as well as their PP skills.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:28:13 PM · #77 |
you're right....I think it is just more art than photography.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:44:24 PM · #78 |
The issue seems to be drawing not digital art so why not make drawing illegal? That is if you use the paintbrush or pencil tool to make a shape it's going to get DQed. Period.
As for digital art, anybody looking to ban it should take a hard look at their own work. We get "fake" images entered all the time in basic and advance that would fit many people's descriptions of digital art and I'm not just talking about tone mapping. Got news for people but removing things, hyper sharpening, hyper contrasting, hyper saturating photos makes your photos just as fake as ones depicting a unicorn. It's amazing how many closet digital artists there are on this site.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 17:49:24.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:55:13 PM · #79 |
Okay, so what's the big difference between making a brush with a vector graphic that you drew, and using a photo to make a vector graphic to make a brush here? I mean, really... Using a brush to burn in an element is not okay, but using an image to make a brush to burn in an element is okay. Normal brushes are suddenly taboo, while the more advanced method here of creating one isn't.
So, if I took a picture of a black ball on a white surface, made it a brush, then I could draw anything the hell I wanted? Do you see my problem with this? Blur the image first and then make it a brush, and suddenly it's a soft brush. Get determined enough, and I could have 100 different softness levels, and 10 different shapes of brushes, and all "LEGAL" because I made them from a photograph.
It just needs to be defined is all, if that's the way ya'll want to go, cool. Tell us. But until a more detailed ruleset comes out, I'm not going to enter expert, and that's why I haven't bother so far. Now, with the rule apparently up to interpretation without notice, I think you've effectively killed the ruleset.
Which I'm sure would make some happy, but really just irks so many more people than it pleases. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:57:50 PM · #80 |
| Oh, and last time I checked, painting on a negative was also a valid darkroom technique. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 06:22:52 PM · #81 |
Seems the crux of the biscuit is still some weird term trying to be defined that makes no sense “Photographic in nature”. To me the term means nothing.
If you can tell me if this image is real or fake then maybe I will let you define “Photographic in nature”.
Making illegal techniques that have essentially been used since the beginning of photography because they were done in a computer is not smart.
Seems the only thing to do is what was suggested earlier. Make drawing legal in expert or dump expert as being to hard to define and create the “Open/everything goes” challenge.
I mean really some little dots made to look like starts and it gets DQ’ed :-/
I must say I agree with Steve.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 18:23:41. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 06:31:31 PM · #82 |
I don't really care one way or the other but it seems that there is confusion as to what can and can't be drawn. Just seems more simple to either allow all forms of drawing or ban it entirely. Adding an object via the brush tool would also be included as that would be the same thing as importing the clip art or drawing it freehand. I've always thought that was banned unless it was used as a texture.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 18:40:38.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 06:37:56 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Seems the crux of the biscuit is still some weird term trying to be defined that makes no sense “Photographic in nature”. To me the term means nothing.
If you can tell me if this image is real or fake then maybe I will let you define “Photographic in nature”.
Making illegal techniques that have essentially been used since the beginning of photography because they were done in a computer is not smart.
Seems the only thing to do is what was suggested earlier. Make drawing legal in expert or dump expert as being to hard to define and create the “Open/everything goes” challenge.
I mean really some little dots made to look like starts and it gets DQ’ed :-/
I must say I agree with Steve. |
Or just ban drawing. Period. How easy would it be to simply add this to the expert rule set:
"You may not:
- add anything to your entry that wasn't captured with a camera during the submission period or don't own the copyright for."
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 06:41:40 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Or just ban drawing. Period. How easy would it be to simply add this to the expert rule set:
"You may not:
- add anything to your entry that wasn't captured with a camera during the submission period or don't own the copyright for." |
So would that include a drawing I made on paper, shot it and brought it into PS. Or is that now clipart too? |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 06:49:12 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Or just ban drawing. Period. How easy would it be to simply add this to the expert rule set:
"You may not:
- add anything to your entry that wasn't captured with a camera during the submission period or don't own the copyright for." |
So would that include a drawing I made on paper, shot it and brought it into PS. Or is that now clipart too? |
Taking a picture of a drawing? That's legal under basic and advance so yes it would be legal under expert.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 18:49:47.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:01:30 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by yanko:
[Taking a picture of a drawing? That's legal under basic and advance so yes it would be legal under expert. |
Right. So then I can find a piece of clipart/draw something, print it, take a picture of it (I.E. Scan it:-P) bring it into PS cut and paste it into my "collage" (image) and be well within the rules.
But if I paint a dot in my "collage" (image) I will be DQ'd in the most liberal rule set based on workflow.
I guess I can see where this would open "Pandora’s box". :-P
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 19:03:15. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:07:49 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. SC will do themselves a huge favor if they tweak the rules to be as B&W as possible.
There are two perceived ways people get upset with SC and the rules:
1) The rules are "against the nature of DPC". Old members complain about this. "It isn't like the DPC I knew and loved." New members, however, come on board and don't know any better so they either agree with it or search elsewhere. They don't, however, complain. There is no axiom that says what DPC is. The problem, I believe, is the 12 SC members have at least 2 (and perhaps 12) views of what DPC should be and bend the interpretation of the rules to support this. This leads to inconsistent application and confusion which leads to number two...
2) The rules are applied unevenly. Here lies the real issue people gripe about. Both old and new members want to feel that their picture will be treated just like anybody else's (superstar or not). The more subjective a ruleset is, the more "interoperator error" will exist. The term is used in medical studies and represents how different the results are if you have a different person carrying out the task. An example is 10 radiologists reading one x-ray. If all 10 agree it's a broken leg there is very low "interoperator error", if 3 think it's a broken leg, 3 think it's a tumor, and 4 think it's an infection then there is high "interoperator error". Right now, as the ruleset goes (and especially the expert ruleset) there is very high interoperator error. I am personally aware of an expert entry that has literally a thousand hand drawn stars on it. It didn't seem to raise a fuss then (although I'm not sure it ever got validated). The bottom line is this: The more black and white the ruleset, regardless of what it does to the "feel" of the site, the happier the general populace will be.
This, I believe. |
A lot easier said than done. Respectfully, Jason, saying stuff like this in the threads, almost implying that SC/admins haven't had the good will to be clear with the rules and uniform in their application, is just not very perceptive.
I'd challenge you to come up with such a ruleset (for expert, or for advanced or basic). Try it. Post it. Let's see if it can be done. Seriously, try it.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:09:48 PM · #88 |
From the Expert Rules:
You May:
- include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Now how to interpret this? We *could* interpret the last part "or fool the voters..." as applying to printed, rephotographed clip art. It would thus be illegal to bring in hand-drawn or computer generated artworks, no matter the method. Since Expert, like Advanced, is more of a results-based ruleset than methods-based, I'd argue that in fact this is how it should be interpreted. Bottom line, it's still very subjective, and will be difficult to bring to a level of objectivity that can be easily interpreted.
Stay tuned, we are definitely trying to hash out a workable plan. No promises, since we may run into snags, but we may have something in the next few weeks. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:11:40 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
From the Expert Rules:
You May:
- include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Now how to interpret this? We *could* interpret the last part "or fool the voters..." as applying to printed, rephotographed clip art. It would thus be illegal to bring in hand-drawn or computer generated artworks, no matter the method. Since Expert, like Advanced, is more of a results-based ruleset than methods-based, I'd argue that in fact this is how it should be interpreted. Bottom line, it's still very subjective, and will be difficult to bring to a level of objectivity that can be easily interpreted.
Stay tuned, we are definitely trying to hash out a workable plan. No promises, since we may run into snags, but we may have something in the next few weeks. |
Roger that. Over. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:13:07 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
[Taking a picture of a drawing? That's legal under basic and advance so yes it would be legal under expert. |
Right. So then I can find a piece of clipart/draw something, print it, take a picture of it (I.E. Scan it:-P) bring it into PS cut and paste it into my "collage" (image) and be well within the rules.
But if I paint a dot in my "collage" (image) I will be DQ'd in the most liberal rule set based on workflow.
I guess I can see where this would open "Pandora’s box". :-P |
Much like basic and advance editing but without the ability to reposition it afterwards.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 19:16:36.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:20:25 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
[Taking a picture of a drawing? That's legal under basic and advance so yes it would be legal under expert. |
Right. So then I can find a piece of clipart/draw something, print it, take a picture of it (I.E. Scan it:-P) bring it into PS cut and paste it into my "collage" (image) and be well within the rules.
But if I paint a dot in my "collage" (image) I will be DQ'd in the most liberal rule set based on workflow.
I guess I can see where this would open "Pandora’s box". :-P |
Much like basic and advance editing but without the ability to reposition it afterwards. |
lol :-p |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:31:42 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
[Taking a picture of a drawing? That's legal under basic and advance so yes it would be legal under expert. |
Right. So then I can find a piece of clipart/draw something, print it, take a picture of it (I.E. Scan it:-P) bring it into PS cut and paste it into my "collage" (image) and be well within the rules.
But if I paint a dot in my "collage" (image) I will be DQ'd in the most liberal rule set based on workflow.
I guess I can see where this would open "Pandora’s box". :-P |
Much like basic and advance editing but without the ability to reposition it afterwards. |
lol :-p |
Hey, I'm just trying to keep the logic consistent. Many entries have used a monitor or plotter to incorporate photos and or graphics not created during the submission period or even own themselves and used it in basic and advance challenges. Just saying the Pandora's box has been wide open since the get go!
Ok, how's this? You can only use a drawing if you photograph it within the submission period and it meets all the other requirements for photographing artwork under basic and advance rule sets. In other words, you can't just photograph a 2D piece of artwork you must place a fig leaf or some other three dimensional object on it first! :P
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 19:32:18.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:36:49 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. SC will do themselves a huge favor if they tweak the rules to be as B&W as possible.
There are two perceived ways people get upset with SC and the rules:
1) The rules are "against the nature of DPC". Old members complain about this. "It isn't like the DPC I knew and loved." New members, however, come on board and don't know any better so they either agree with it or search elsewhere. They don't, however, complain. There is no axiom that says what DPC is. The problem, I believe, is the 12 SC members have at least 2 (and perhaps 12) views of what DPC should be and bend the interpretation of the rules to support this. This leads to inconsistent application and confusion which leads to number two...
2) The rules are applied unevenly. Here lies the real issue people gripe about. Both old and new members want to feel that their picture will be treated just like anybody else's (superstar or not). The more subjective a ruleset is, the more "interoperator error" will exist. The term is used in medical studies and represents how different the results are if you have a different person carrying out the task. An example is 10 radiologists reading one x-ray. If all 10 agree it's a broken leg there is very low "interoperator error", if 3 think it's a broken leg, 3 think it's a tumor, and 4 think it's an infection then there is high "interoperator error". Right now, as the ruleset goes (and especially the expert ruleset) there is very high interoperator error. I am personally aware of an expert entry that has literally a thousand hand drawn stars on it. It didn't seem to raise a fuss then (although I'm not sure it ever got validated). The bottom line is this: The more black and white the ruleset, regardless of what it does to the "feel" of the site, the happier the general populace will be.
This, I believe. |
I would still advocate the opposite: diminish the pretence that the rules are "black & white" or objective. Instead, set out more clearly the purpose by which the SC is interpreting the rules when exercising its subjective discretion.
Given that it is impractical to use a strict precedent system, this would be the next best way to achieve consistency and predictability (in legal terms, it reflects codified civil law systems rather than the precedent based common law systems that are more familiar in the UK and US).
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 19:38:27.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:52:11 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by ursula:
A lot easier said than done. Respectfully, Jason, saying stuff like this in the threads, almost implying that SC/admins haven't had the good will to be clear with the rules and uniform in their application, is just not very perceptive.
I'd challenge you to come up with such a ruleset (for expert, or for advanced or basic). Try it. Post it. Let's see if it can be done. Seriously, try it. |
I know Ursula, it's a really tough job and getting a B&W ruleset will be hard. I'm not faulting you guys for not trying. You guys do great. However, I know the rules get applied unevenly (not on purpose, but despite your best efforts). In basic when we were taking recs for tweaking the rules I suggested they go purely tools based. Whatever you can do with the tools allowed is legal. If you use a tool that isn't legal...DQ. That's straightforward and B&W. Yes, it does give a new "feel" to basic since there will be creative ways to apply the existing tools (my basic tools vignette would be an example), but it does eliminate much griping about uneven application. All 12 SC should easily be able to agree whether a tool was used or not.
If a certain tool opens up too many possibilities, then it can be banned.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it fulfills what you were looking for. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 07:56:13 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by ursula:
A lot easier said than done. Respectfully, Jason, saying stuff like this in the threads, almost implying that SC/admins haven't had the good will to be clear with the rules and uniform in their application, is just not very perceptive.
I'd challenge you to come up with such a ruleset (for expert, or for advanced or basic). Try it. Post it. Let's see if it can be done. Seriously, try it. |
I know Ursula, it's a really tough job and getting a B&W ruleset will be hard. I'm not faulting you guys for not trying. You guys do great. However, I know the rules get applied unevenly (not on purpose, but despite your best efforts). In basic when we were taking recs for tweaking the rules I suggested they go purely tools based. Whatever you can do with the tools allowed is legal. If you use a tool that isn't legal...DQ. That's straightforward and B&W. Yes, it does give a new "feel" to basic since there will be creative ways to apply the existing tools (my basic tools vignette would be an example), but it does eliminate much griping about uneven application. All 12 SC should easily be able to agree whether a tool was used or not.
If a certain tool opens up too many possibilities, then it can be banned.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it fulfills what you were looking for. |
I would add, and outlaw borders in basic, or at least make it required that the border be the last thing added before submission, so that any tools used do not use the added border area to create an effect that couldn't be created otherwise. ;P
It's not that easy. Even with purely tools based, which basic is for the most part, people will look for workarounds, and if these workarounds are looked at one way, it's legal, but if looked at in a different way, they're not.
Plus, tools allowed, based on Photoshop tools? What about PSP? Which software? How about equivalents? How would you deal with that? For example, what about "clarify" in PSP? Is it legal or not? There is no equivalent in PS. Try making a list of those tools that are allowed in PS and find their equivalents in all other software used here. It's just not nearly so easy to do as it is to say, just do it.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 20:02:10. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 08:01:54 PM · #96 |
Jason, for the most part, the Basic Rules are already technique (tools) based, rather than results-based. For a restrictive ruleset like Basic, this works pretty well. It is, however, a little bit of a double-edged sword. It means that we have to rule on a lot of new editing tools, more each year. Keeping track of what's legal and what's not isn't easy, for us or the general population. We've tried to keep it pretty plain & simple, but we've run into things like Shadow/Highlight and tonemapping that have defied classification. They've been declared legal, but the more we see of them, the less clear it becomes as to whether we made the right decision. If we had made the opposite decision on them, I'm sure we'd still be wondering if we did the right thing.
The lesson from all this: no one strategy will result in a completely objective system, and both tools-based and results-based systems have their place.
ETA:
Damn, ursula types (and thinks) faster than I do, LOL!
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 20:02:43. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 08:14:42 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Jason, for the most part, the Basic Rules are already technique (tools) based, rather than results-based. For a restrictive ruleset like Basic, this works pretty well. It is, however, a little bit of a double-edged sword. It means that we have to rule on a lot of new editing tools, more each year. Keeping track of what's legal and what's not isn't easy, for us or the general population. We've tried to keep it pretty plain & simple, but we've run into things like Shadow/Highlight and tonemapping that have defied classification. They've been declared legal, but the more we see of them, the less clear it becomes as to whether we made the right decision. If we had made the opposite decision on them, I'm sure we'd still be wondering if we did the right thing.
The lesson from all this: no one strategy will result in a completely objective system, and both tools-based and results-based systems have their place.
ETA:
Damn, ursula types (and thinks) faster than I do, LOL! |
I agree the basic rules are closest to purely tool based. I believe not coincidentally there is the least argument, bitching, and complaining about basic submissions. (Actually minimal editing even less.) I have just heard too many people concerned that the site is being "ruined" by all the whining, bitching, and moaning. I'm pointing out that nobody likes uneven application of rules and the perception leads to a lot of complaining. I'm trying to come up with a solution and don't have any sacred cows. If it means a bit different results in basic editing, then so be it. I'd rather see some creative application than these semi-regular threads of "why did this get the DQ and this didn't?" I'm just trying to help y'all out. :)
The basic rules can be easy. Right now few enough tools are allowed that there are obvious versions of each in different software applications. I fully believe tone-mapping was rammed down your guys throats (not your fault) and you flinched and let it slide at the wrong moment (that was your fault). It probably would have been better to go the other way completely and ban Shadow/Highlight instead of allowing Photomatix (and that's coming from someone who uses either of those in nearly every picture).
It would be difficult to keep up, but not impossible. People with esoteric programs would have to adjust or go somewhere else. Fortunately esoteric programs are, by definition, not used very often.
I know I'm only one voice in the wilderness and please don't think I'm trying to "get into it" with you guys. (sometimes I'm guilty of that, but not this time. :)) I'm trying to find a firm foundation for the site that will last in an everchanging world of technology. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 08:17:04 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would still advocate the opposite: diminish the pretence that the rules are "black & white" or objective. Instead, set out more clearly the purpose by which the SC is interpreting the rules when exercising its subjective discretion.
Given that it is impractical to use a strict precedent system, this would be the next best way to achieve consistency and predictability (in legal terms, it reflects codified civil law systems rather than the precedent based common law systems that are more familiar in the UK and US). |
This is not a democracy. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 08:23:30 PM · #99 |
Jason, I think you're surely correct that there is the least uncertainty about the Basic Rules. The tools-based reasoning has, for the most part, worked well. I think you give us too much credit on the Shadow/Highlight and Photomatix questions. We had a choice, and we made the choice. If it was the wrong one, it's our bad. FWIW, I supported both choices at the time, but I'm not at all sure I'd do so again, knowing what I now know.
All that said, a tools-based approach doesn't work at all for the more advanced rulesets. The number of potentially legal tools explodes exponentially (nightmare to even beging to make a list), and there are results that can be obtained that no one wants to see become legal. For Advanced and beyond, the rules must be results-based. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 08:34:27 PM · #100 |
Well, you could take care of expert by letting anything go. Unwanted applications would then be controlled by the infrequency of expert challenges and the voters expressing their taste. It would be easy to do this. You may have some very basic ground rules, but they should be clear and B&W.
Advanced remains the sticking point and the one where most of these threads come up. I think in general things are handled fairly well, although I could list at least a half dozen pictures where I scratched my head and wondered what y'all were smoking. Still, you'd have gone a long way in making minimal, basic, and editing pretty straightforward.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 20:34:56. |
|
