DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Followed the rules and still disqualified !!
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 375, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/02/2006 01:51:49 PM · #101
This is very disturbing to me. One could see a bit of favoritism towards certain photographers by the SC for not following previous decisions and disqualifying this photo. This decision can also make one think twice about 'pushing the envelope' with their creativity since the SC can disqualify the photo for rules they'll clarify or rewrite in the future.
02/02/2006 01:51:57 PM · #102
I am not a photo editing boffin and although I have a vague idea of what motion blur is I must say that in my humble Amateurish mind - reading the rules as you posted it, I also cannot see why the photo was DQ's.
I live at the seaside and we have millions of seagulls and I think I already have a couple of photos of each of these gulls - none come even close to your photo. It is a new way of looking at these somewaht stupid and irritating birds. Beautiful photo - YOU HAVE FULL RIGHT TO BE UNHAPPY.
Definately gonna add this photo to my fav. Wanna show the wife.
02/02/2006 01:52:56 PM · #103
Originally posted by hopper:

there's lots of ways to say things ... why insult the "photographic experience" of a group of people you know nothing about?

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

This shot being DQ'd is ridiculous. I'm tired of all the arguing that takes place about these very poor SC decisions.

If it's allowed once, it should be allowed until a rules change in writing. So if his shot gets DQ'd, so should every shot that is simliar.

I think only certain members of the SC should be allowed to judge photos. Just because your great at coding doesn't make you great at judging photography. Also, get some people like Bear on the SC that actually have photographic experience...


I call it as I see it. I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.

Prove me wrong.
02/02/2006 01:56:16 PM · #104
I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that your delivery of a sentence could be the difference between someone respecting you for your experience and intelligence ... or just thinking your a jerk.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by hopper:

there's lots of ways to say things ... why insult the "photographic experience" of a group of people you know nothing about?

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

This shot being DQ'd is ridiculous. I'm tired of all the arguing that takes place about these very poor SC decisions.

If it's allowed once, it should be allowed until a rules change in writing. So if his shot gets DQ'd, so should every shot that is simliar.

I think only certain members of the SC should be allowed to judge photos. Just because your great at coding doesn't make you great at judging photography. Also, get some people like Bear on the SC that actually have photographic experience...


I call it as I see it. I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.

Prove me wrong.
02/02/2006 01:58:48 PM · #105
Originally posted by hopper:

I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that your delivery of a sentence could be the difference between someone respecting you for your experience and intelligence ... or just thinking your a jerk.



I'm much less jerky in person. I'm too lazy to type a round about response to appear less jerky. So I just get right to it. ;o)
02/02/2006 01:58:56 PM · #106
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Really not necessary, and certainly not true, in my opinion.
02/02/2006 02:00:53 PM · #107
Originally posted by Bebe:

[quote=Brent_Ward] I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Just wow............... >:-(

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 14:01:30.
02/02/2006 02:02:18 PM · #108
Originally posted by Bebe:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Really not necessary, and certainly not true, in my opinion.


My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product.

I'm sure your defintion is totally different. :D

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 14:03:31.
02/02/2006 02:03:51 PM · #109
fair enough

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I'm much less jerky in person. I'm too lazy to type a round about response to appear less jerky. So I just get right to it. ;o)
02/02/2006 02:04:46 PM · #110
If this what the members (or certain members) think about the SC - why not - they have a right to their opinion. It is up to the SC to proove them wrong or to clear their own name. I quickly paged through everything and I couldn't see one reply from the SC (whatever the SC is - take it they are the judges - Judge Judy and friends ;-)

Originally posted by Bebe:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Really not necessary, and certainly not true, in my opinion.

02/02/2006 02:05:27 PM · #111
Originally posted by digitalpins:

Originally posted by Bebe:

[quote=Brent_Ward] I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Just wow............... >:-(


Is that not a true statement? Is there a person on the SC that does photography as their main source of income?

Funny to see a New Yorker so touchy...
02/02/2006 02:07:08 PM · #112
Originally posted by marcellieb:

If this what the members (or certain members) think about the SC - why not - they have a right to their opinion. It is up to the SC to proove them wrong or to clear their own name. I quickly paged through everything and I couldn't see one reply from the SC (whatever the SC is - take it they are the judges - Judge Judy and friends ;-)


They are the guys with the funny little avatars
02/02/2006 02:09:46 PM · #113
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I call it as I see it. I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Wow that is a pretty hard! Totally uncalled for in my opinion. There are many site councilers I respect as photographers. I find your remark a tad insulting!
02/02/2006 02:09:57 PM · #114
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product.


Count me in, then. I shoot product photos for major international hardware clients just about every day, and have for years. I usually shoot at the office studio, but sometimes on location with monolights, etc. I don't consider myself a professional photographer since that's just one part of my job. I don't see how being a professional photographer has much bearing on enforcing the rules, though. I don't have to play poker professionally to know if you broke the rules.
02/02/2006 02:11:08 PM · #115
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by digitalpins:

Originally posted by Bebe:

[quote=Brent_Ward] I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Just wow............... >:-(


Is that not a true statement? Is there a person on the SC that does photography as their main source of income?

Funny to see a New Yorker so touchy...


I always thought ursula was a "photographer"...
02/02/2006 02:13:08 PM · #116
Originally posted by Megatherian:

I always thought ursula was a "photographer"...


All the site councilers are photographers......
02/02/2006 02:16:25 PM · #117
Fine enough - one of the people with the funny hats replies - The question is - why did he break the rules and the other two photos he originally posted did not. I also take photos every day (photos of my kid etc - Don't get paid for it though) and I can read and reading the rules as he posted it-I can't see anything wrong.
If a good photographer like this cannot understand the rules, how will I be able to do it.
Comments welcome.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product.


Count me in, then. I shoot product photos for major international hardware clients just about every day, and have for years. I usually shoot at the office studio, but sometimes on location with monolights, etc. I don't consider myself a professional photographer since that's just one part of my job. I don't see how being a professional photographer has much bearing on enforcing the rules, though. I don't have to play poker professionally to know if you broke the rules.
text
02/02/2006 02:18:45 PM · #118
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Is that not a true statement? Is there a person on the SC that does photography as their main source of income?


i see no need to defend myself or my opinions from your caustic statement. suffice it to say i derive a significant amount of my income from photography.

in either case, i don't understand at all what one has to do with the other.
02/02/2006 02:19:31 PM · #119
Originally posted by marcellieb:

Fine enough - one of the people with the funny hats replies - The question is - why did he break the rules and the other two photos he originally posted did not. I also take photos every day (photos of my kid etc - Don't get paid for it though) and I can read and reading the rules as he posted it-I can't see anything wrong.
If a good photographer like this cannot understand the rules, how will I be able to do it.
Comments welcome.


That really is the crux of this entire debate
02/02/2006 02:19:38 PM · #120
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product.


Count me in, then. I shoot product photos for major international hardware clients just about every day, and have for years. I usually shoot at the office studio, but sometimes on location with monolights, etc. I don't consider myself a professional photographer since that's just one part of my job. I don't see how being a professional photographer has much bearing on enforcing the rules, though. I don't have to play poker professionally to know if you broke the rules.


But in this case he didn't break the rules, the SC decided he did. That's different. And if you really coinsidered photography your main source of income, then you wouldn't have graphic designer first in your bio.
02/02/2006 02:21:32 PM · #121
Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I call it as I see it. I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Wow that is a pretty hard! Totally uncalled for in my opinion. There are many site councilers I respect as photographers. I find your remark a tad insulting!


Originally posted by Brent_Ward:


My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product.

I'm sure your defintion is totally different. :D


People are taking it way too personally.
02/02/2006 02:24:01 PM · #122
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by digitalpins:

Originally posted by Bebe:

[quote=Brent_Ward] I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Just wow............... >:-(


Is that not a true statement? Is there a person on the SC that does photography as their main source of income?

Funny to see a New Yorker so touchy...


I fail to see why it would be at all important for a professional photographer to be on the SC.


02/02/2006 02:24:04 PM · #123
I would have taken it personally too.
Your comment was way out of line.
02/02/2006 02:25:54 PM · #124
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

But in this case he didn't break the rules, the SC decided he did. That's different. And if you really coinsidered photography your main source of income, then you wouldn't have graphic designer first in your bio.


I didn't think he broke the rules either, but a majority did. I changed my bio, too. Am I qualified now?
02/02/2006 02:26:30 PM · #125
I would also take it personally if I had a simply stunning photo like that and it was DQ for no reason at all (except for the way unclear rules are viewed) and other photos were not DQ...
Struggleon dude - South Africans love struggles and fighting for what you believe in.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I call it as I see it. I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer.


Wow that is a pretty hard! Totally uncalled for in my opinion. There are many site councilers I respect as photographers. I find your remark a tad insulting!


Originally posted by Brent_Ward:


My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product.

I'm sure your defintion is totally different. :D


People are taking it way too personally.

Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 05/30/2020 12:12:14 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/30/2020 12:12:14 PM EDT.