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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Notes on the Artwork Rule
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/09/2008 05:59:04 PM · #251
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

if people were to write to SC with their ideas, one or two SC members might ok it, based on their idea/interpretation. The entry gets put in. Someone questions it (voter or another SC member)and when SC looks at it as a "whole", the rest of the members see a problem with it and it gets DQ'd at that point. "Too late" as that person has said.

That's very rare. It's like saying we can't all ask an IRS agent for tax opinions before the filing deadline because the overall IRS might not agree. :-/
12/09/2008 05:59:47 PM · #252
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

My case in point was the fact that LydiaToo's shot was not only seemingly validated but, also a RIBBON WINNER. I therefore, THOUGHT that mine would be ok as well since I was using the same criteria, set-up and basic idea. Turns out that even SC during the validation process, missed that it was to be considered "illegal". Now, her entry has been DQ'd and so has mine because it was missed first time around! So, if you have a great idea of the rules, it seems that SC didn't in this case! ;-)


Just in case you run into this same situation in the future, you could always PM the ribbon winner and make sure that it has actually been validated. It's actually kinda scary waiting for that email even when you just know that it's legal. Also, remember that this rule is subjective and Lydia's DQ was based on the "fool the voter" part. Perhaps some on SC were fooled and some were not? Perhaps some couldn't make up their minds? We really don't know what went down, and I think it's inaccurate to say that SC didn't have a great idea of the rules in this case.


If you go back and read her notes on that one....and her response to someone...she said that her intention was NOT to "fool" anyone and the reason that she kept it out of focus. My intention in my shot that was just DQ'd over the same reasoning was NOT to "FOOL" anyone with it! I figured that the way it was set up, everyone would know that it was what it was! I just figured it was legal since I'd seen LydiaToo AND Hotpasta AND Konador (an SC member) do it and all be considered "validated".
12/09/2008 06:03:48 PM · #253
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

if people were to write to SC with their ideas, one or two SC members might ok it, based on their idea/interpretation. The entry gets put in. Someone questions it (voter or another SC member)and when SC looks at it as a "whole", the rest of the members see a problem with it and it gets DQ'd at that point. "Too late" as that person has said.

That's very rare. It's like saying we can't all ask an IRS agent for tax opinions before the filing deadline because the overall IRS might not agree. :-/


Ok, let me ask here...WHEN was LydiaToo's DQ'd? Was it validated first and then, on a second look, DQ'd? Or, was it DQ'd right upon request for validation of ribbon winning? Be honest.
12/09/2008 06:04:22 PM · #254
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

lol, after 241 posts here I'm thinking this thread is not actually solving anything!


LOL...so, what is the answer? Drop the issue completely and hope that no one else stumbles into this position? ;-)


No, not at all Jamie, however, I think this thread is going around in circles (lots of them). And, to be honest I can see both sides of the coin here (and have been subject to an 11 day SC validation). On the one hand there are rules and on the other the submitted image (following the photographers individual interpretation of the rules). 'Art' by its very nature cannot be governed by a black and white line. Each and every shot is individual and should be voted/validated on its individual merit.

This type of thread appears often and may sometimes shape the way dpc rules are perceived (sometimes even changing them). If the rules, and for that matter challenge titles are nailed down too tightly then we will all be submitting the same image, thus stiffling creativity.

*edited due to an excess of a'bunadh*

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 18:08:31.
12/09/2008 06:06:18 PM · #255
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Ok, so then let's go back to the idea of the billboards! If the entire shot is of a billboard as the examples shown on this thread, and a person is added in front of the billboard, doesn't that fit with what you've just said is considered "legal" then?????

Have you been paying ANY attention? The artwork can be either obvious (the billboard with a real person in front) OR play a supporting role. If there had been a large bird flying in front of the billboard instead of a person, then it wouldn't be obviously a sign, and the primary subject would be the model IN the billboard (not the juxtaposition). The voters would assume the model was real and judge the lighting, pose, expression and outfit... and the entry would be DQ'd.
12/09/2008 06:07:18 PM · #256
I see where you're coming from, Jamie, but I think you are making too many assumptions. First, intention has no bearing on the legality of the entry. This is where a second opinion helps tremendously. You may not intend to fool the voters, but they may be fooled anyway. Also, to be considered validated and to actually be validated are two different things. If you are going to make assumptions, I recommend assuming all entries have not been validated unless you explicitly know otherwise.
12/09/2008 06:09:26 PM · #257
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I just figured it was legal since I'd seen LydiaToo AND Hotpasta AND Konador (an SC member) do it and all be considered "validated".

Hogwash. Not one of those images was validated when you entered, and you made a false assumption. Lydia's was discussed all week. It was a split decision, but after rollover we DQ'd it on majority rather than let it drag on forever, to give to new 3rd place entry some front page time.
12/09/2008 06:10:13 PM · #258
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

I see where you're coming from, Jamie, but I think you are making too many assumptions. First, intention has no bearing on the legality of the entry. This is where a second opinion helps tremendously. You may not intend to fool the voters, but they may be fooled anyway. Also, to be considered validated and to actually be validated are two different things. If you are going to make assumptions, I recommend assuming all entries have not been validated unless you explicitly know otherwise.


Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :)
12/09/2008 06:11:46 PM · #259
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I just figured it was legal since I'd seen LydiaToo AND Hotpasta AND Konador (an SC member) do it and all be considered "validated".

Hogwash. Not one of those images was validated when you entered, and you made a false assumption. Lydia's was discussed all week. It was a split decision, but after rollover we DQ'd it on majority rather than let it drag on forever, to give to new 3rd place entry some front page time.


So, you're telling me that the others weren't validated at the time that I entered? Hotpasta's and Konador's were not validated? Where is the "hogwash" in that statement?
12/09/2008 06:12:29 PM · #260
Not true. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Karmat even confirmed that validation was never requested on those 2 entries.
12/09/2008 06:12:40 PM · #261
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :)

You need to get your facts straight. Neither image was even discussed, much less validated.
12/09/2008 06:14:06 PM · #262
I think you are confusing "not DQed" with "validated". Those are two very different things.
12/09/2008 06:14:27 PM · #263
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :)

You need to get your facts straight. Neither image was even discussed, much less validated.


Ok, so "validate" them now! If that is the case that they were never validated...they now need to be!

ETA: Or, shall they be one of the ones that "slip by"?

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 18:16:32.
12/09/2008 06:15:50 PM · #264
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

I think you are confusing "not DQed" with "validated". Those are two very different things.


I just answered to that point in my post below.
12/09/2008 06:16:55 PM · #265
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :)

You need to get your facts straight. Neither image was even discussed, much less validated.


Ok, so "validate" them now! If that is the case that they were never validated...they now need to be!


Oops... 7 days past a challenge, and you cannot request a re-validation. Its a rule. Right ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', '/') + 1) . ' scalvert?

So you only need to pass the test once.. or be forgotton forever. Once a winner, always a winner. :-)

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 18:17:39.
12/09/2008 06:18:37 PM · #266
Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :)

You need to get your facts straight. Neither image was even discussed, much less validated.


Ok, so "validate" them now! If that is the case that they were never validated...they now need to be!


Oops... 7 days past a challenge, and you cannot request a re-validation. Its a rule. Right ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', '/') + 1) . ' scalvert?

So you only need to pass the test once.. or be forgotton forever. Once a winner, always a winner. :-)


AMEN Prash! :)
12/09/2008 06:22:39 PM · #267
I have to say I am surprised by the backlash of this DQ, personally I think the SC were totally correct in their decision, no disrespect Lydia, but no matter who shot, or the date of the original image, the fact is that the challenge entry was merely a shot of a glass! The challenge was feast and without the image behind the glass there was no substance in the shot and I dare not think how many DNMC comments would have come Lydias way if she had entered such an image.

Had she taken the shot with the glass in the actual scene when they were eating, the image would have looked very different I think and in this case who knows how it would have scored.

Not trying to ruffle any feathers but this is just my 0.2c
12/09/2008 06:33:45 PM · #268
Please remember that the two fireworks shots were uploaded close to 2 years ago. I can't think of a single instance where we went back two whole years and requested an original, mainly because it's not reasonable to think that photographers could even put their hands on an original file 2 years later. Computers die, hard drives fail, CD's and DVD's become corrupted over time, etc. I just don't think it's fair that we require people to retain every original file for every entry they ever submitted until the end of time. Some of you could fill an entire hard drive with original files since 2002.

So, I cannot support requesting an original file from either photographer due to lapse of time.

What I can support is adding a note to HotPasta's shot explaining that the technique is not legal so new people coming along later don't rely on it for a precedent. His technique is clearly explained in the notes, and without such a note there could indeed be confusion about the technique apparently being just fine.

With Konador's shot, I assume it was brought up because it's similar to HotPasta's; however, there is no such description of technique as in HotPasta's. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone relying on that as a precedent.
12/09/2008 07:00:45 PM · #269
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/533/120/375809.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/533/120/375809.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' [/quote]
This is not a good example for this discussion, cause it isn t a photo but a real fish.
12/09/2008 07:03:47 PM · #270
Originally posted by L2:

Please remember that the two fireworks shots were uploaded close to 2 years ago. I can't think of a single instance where we went back two whole years and requested an original, mainly because it's not reasonable to think that photographers could even put their hands on an original file 2 years later. Computers die, hard drives fail, CD's and DVD's become corrupted over time, etc. I just don't think it's fair that we require people to retain every original file for every entry they ever submitted until the end of time. Some of you could fill an entire hard drive with original files since 2002.

So, I cannot support requesting an original file from either photographer due to lapse of time.

What I can support is adding a note to HotPasta's shot explaining that the technique is not legal so new people coming along later don't rely on it for a precedent. His technique is clearly explained in the notes, and without such a note there could indeed be confusion about the technique apparently being just fine.

With Konador's shot, I assume it was brought up because it's similar to HotPasta's; however, there is no such description of technique as in HotPasta's. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone relying on that as a precedent.


My fireworks were not a static picture on a screen, but LIVE fireworks happening on the TV at the time if that makes sense.

WOW! This has turned into a HUGE debate in just a few hours.

12/09/2008 07:04:50 PM · #271
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Hotpastas and Konador's entries and several others were LONG since validated! :) That's not an assumption, that's a fact. That's WHY I considered it "legal"! :)

You need to get your facts straight. Neither image was even discussed, much less validated.


Ok, so "validate" them now! If that is the case that they were never validated...they now need to be!

ETA: Or, shall they be one of the ones that "slip by"?


We do not request after almost two years.

There is absolutely NOTHING at all that would indicate that ben's shot is anything other than what it is. It MAY be, but right now, the only reason that one is being used is because it is similar to enzo's. Please recuse it from the discussion.
12/09/2008 07:22:56 PM · #272
Originally posted by L2:

Please remember that the two fireworks shots were uploaded close to 2 years ago. I can't think of a single instance where we went back two whole years and requested an original, mainly because it's not reasonable to think that photographers could even put their hands on an original file 2 years later. Computers die, hard drives fail, CD's and DVD's become corrupted over time, etc. I just don't think it's fair that we require people to retain every original file for every entry they ever submitted until the end of time. Some of you could fill an entire hard drive with original files since 2002.

So, I cannot support requesting an original file from either photographer due to lapse of time.

What I can support is adding a note to HotPasta's shot explaining that the technique is not legal so new people coming along later don't rely on it for a precedent. His technique is clearly explained in the notes, and without such a note there could indeed be confusion about the technique apparently being just fine.

With Konador's shot, I assume it was brought up because it's similar to HotPasta's; however, there is no such description of technique as in HotPasta's. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone relying on that as a precedent.


Can the SC start by setting an example first by adding a comment to ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' too stating that although this was validated at the time, it is a controversial technique to use a static image suggesting the main subject (moon) in the image?

It just becomes a little easy for the rest to follow if there is transparency in the system.

At least start making precedents to be used later as examples as Rob suggested too rather than defending each and every action of the council!!!

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 19:24:58.
12/09/2008 07:34:54 PM · #273
Originally posted by sempermarine:

I KNOW YOUR NOT CALLING ME INSANE, but really what is the difference? She took a picture of a glass that happen to be reflecting a picture of a family? Really where is the problem in this shot?


If I knew the subject of the image was simply a glass, then I would have voted lower as it does not seem to meet the "Feast" challenge. I would take it as a shoehorn attempt.
12/09/2008 07:37:28 PM · #274
Originally posted by ambaker:

Originally posted by sempermarine:

I KNOW YOUR NOT CALLING ME INSANE, but really what is the difference? She took a picture of a glass that happen to be reflecting a picture of a family? Really where is the problem in this shot?


If I knew the subject of the image was simply a glass, then I would have voted lower as it does not seem to meet the "Feast" challenge. I would take it as a shoehorn attempt.


If I had known that Marc923's shot wasn't real manatees I would have voted it lower.

If I had known that a photographer suspended something by fishing line I would have voted it lower.

If I had known that the blues in that sky were enhanced by photoshop I would have voted it lower.

If I had ...

It's a weak, weak, weak argument.
12/09/2008 07:45:43 PM · #275
I don't see anyone arguing ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' IreneM's Superpower DQ using the same technique. Is that because the photo used was other than her own?
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 11/30/2020 11:04:44 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: 11/30/2020 11:04:44 PM EST.