The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
santamonica812
Contributing MemberPosts: 810Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to merops, 7 months ago

merops wrote:

tasad wrote:

What game are you playing here ?

You have cheated on the date taken rule in this challenge :

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=590637

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2633223631/galleries

In the challenge , entries should be taken after 19th February , 20

Priceless.  Just priceless.  The best counter-punch response I've ever seen in an online forum.

Great work, Tasad!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to merops, 7 months ago

You have proven my point. Had I not submitted my image 'Stilton' (which came 3rd out of 50 entries) that work would not have been seen/shared - at least not at this time.

I truly don't care if my 'Stilton' entry is DQ/deleted for breaking the date rule. As I have made clear, I am no advocate of the rule and have made no attempt to hide the EXIF data which is in plain view for all to see - even for a Sherlock Holmes wannabe - like yourself!

How entries are policed on DPR is probably best left to people like yourself who seem to glean pleasure from believing that opinionated types like myself have been mortally wounded by your 'quick-witted' remarks (now that, is truly hilarious).

'Stilton' - despite being captured 7yrs ago proves that images taken outside of date-rules are just as relevant and appreciable as any photo taken in date.

Despite attempts to besmirch my points with rumours that I've deleted my gallery, have an old account knocking about on DP (big deal) - and have similar images loaded on my dormant Flickr account none of you, so far, have been able to present a convincing argument that promotes the merits, usefulness and benefits of denying submissions based on capture date.

keep snapping!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 113Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

Doubtful that you even took that photo. Probably someone else's work. There's no reason to believe anything you have to say.

 Jack Cat's gear list:Jack Cat's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to santamonica812, 7 months ago

A rubbish counter-argument if I've ever read one.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to Jack Cat, 7 months ago

Throw as much mud as you like. Some may stick - but my ability to take an above average image will never be diminished by smears from ye of little greymatter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LeeBic
New MemberPosts: 4
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

Despite attempts to besmirch my points with rumours that I've deleted my gallery, have an old account knocking about on DP (big deal) - and have similar images loaded on my dormant Flickr account none of you, so far, have been able to present a convincing argument that promotes the merits, usefulness and benefits of denying submissions based on capture date.

keep snapping!

The idea is to see if you can do it now, obviously you can't.

If you are trying to show your Witt, that is not what we see.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 113Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

I don't have to throw any mud. You're already bathing in it, ye of nonexistent scruples.

 Jack Cat's gear list:Jack Cat's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to Jack Cat, 7 months ago

Ouch, that really hurt.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bruxi
Regular MemberPosts: 250Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to tasad, 7 months ago

That is outstanding.

 bruxi's gear list:bruxi's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 60D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,827
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to tasad, 7 months ago

What game are you playing here ?

You have cheated on the date taken rule in this challenge :

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=590637

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2633223631/galleries

In the challenge , entries should be taken after 19th February , 2012 . Your entry was "taken " on 25th February , 2012 :

...

... but your Flickr account shows , that it was taken on 10th June , 2011 :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/notts_photos/5817446473/in/photostream/

...

Recently you have opened another account :

http://www.dpreview.com/members/5847064165/overview

... and entered the image in to the challenge with the rule : "  No pictures entered in previous challenges "

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=815180

...

LOL, and he obviously came here and started this thread to rub our noses in it. Well, here is one to show to Simon.
--
- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to billythek, 7 months ago

RE: 'He's rubbing our noses in it'

Oh do get real, if it weren't for Sherlock tasad digging for fools gold my 'Stilton' image wouldn't have seen the light of day on this thread. Look back through and you'll see that I haven't cited any of my own images before tasad saw fit to plaster 'Stilton' in the middle of this 'debate'.

I find it intriguing that so far, no one, has stepped up to my challenge of posting a compelling counter-argument to highlight the wider benefits of denying exposure to those images taken outside of capture date rules.

The only 'argument' I've heard so far, is that a 'time-restraints' help to sharpen/concentrate/focus the photographer into producing the goods within a finite period of time - under pressure so to speak.

Well, I think, one should be in possession of concentration, focus & sharp-mindedness at all times when partaking in the art of photography. Time (more appropriately a lack of time) a speed-challenge for example does nothing at all to alter the capability of the photographer.

If anything, placing oneself under pressure to complete a task quicker, will increase the odds of an oversight occurring, a better idea being missed and so on.

I'd far prefer, to see a photographers best effort than a hurried-hash that inspires few to do better.

In my opinion, modern living offers all the pressure we need to complete tasks in a given time. Art isn't about rushing - it is about seeing, and you can see much If your running about like a headless chicken clutching the latest Fuji X100 whatever in the hope of capturing a thought-provoking prize winner or a compositional masterpiece - can you?

Oh well, until someone convinces me otherwise, I'll wrap myself in proverbial bubble wrap and prepare for a fresh wave of ad-hominem style attacks from the advocates of 'time-restraints make for better pictures!'.

Until then, keep snapping guys!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,827
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

You take great pride in being a cheating low life scum. I give you credit for that.
--
- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to billythek, 7 months ago

billythek wrote:

You take great pride in being a cheating low life scum. I give you credit for that.
--
- Bill

Refusing photographic entries on the basis of 'date-capture' cheats the wider photographic community - and has a faint whiff of cloaked-censorship about it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RuthC
Regular MemberPosts: 391
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000, also xml5000, also Stewart McFadyen....,

Sometimes in DPR challenges, there are pertinent reasons why occasional challenges have capture dates.

Some challenge hosts want us, the entrants, to think outside our comfortable little squares, and try new ways of viewing the world we live in. That's okay by me, since it gives my elderly grey cells a workout. We're given two weeks, or fourteen (14) days to take that fabulous shot.

The Capture Date challenges are few and far between, and the great majority of challenges have no capture dates at all. This suits most people who delve into their archives for the right photo for each challenge.

I'm currently hosting 'My Best Photo of the Week' challenge, each and every week.

Guess why it's called 'My Best Photo of the Week'??? And guess why it has a capture date??? And if it didn't have a capture date, then it wouldn't be 'My Best Photo of the Week', but 'My Best Photo That I Could Find in my Archives'.

If you're really not happy to play with us, you should just take your ball, and go home.

Ruth

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
barb_s
Contributing MemberPosts: 636Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

At first, I thought of telling you the host has very few tools provided by DPR to set up challenges, but they do have a capture date rule check and an entry limit cap. That's about it. DPR came up with it, and if they figure out a way to really check, I'd use it more frequently, just for the fun of having a limit for people to work with.

The capture date rule lowers the bar on quality. It's a handicap on everyone and you were not handicapped in that still life challenge. Of course a well done entry pulled from your library of best shots will rise to the top. You had no competition.

You can't really expect anyone here to give you a thumbs up on cheating, can you?

And again, at first I thought this thread would be an honest discussion on the merit of that rule but your motive to validate your illegitimate 3rd place trophy negates it all.

-- hide signature --

Barb

 barb_s's gear list:barb_s's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 RX100 III Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to barb_s, 7 months ago

As previously pointed out, the clique that dominates this thread in favour of date-restrictions were totally instrumental in bringing about any attention to my 3rd place entry. Check the threads and you'll see, that prior to that point, I did not mention my work on DPR - let alone make an attempt to promote it.

keep snapping.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shortchord
Junior MemberPosts: 49Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

billythek wrote:

You take great pride in being a cheating low life scum. I give you credit for that.
--
- Bill

Refusing photographic entries on the basis of 'date-capture' cheats the wider photographic community - and has a faint whiff of cloaked-censorship about it.

Oh, please. This could be true only if there were no way to display a photograph here other than a date-restricted challenge. That is clearly not the case, as there are various other ways to display photographs here which have no date restrictions, including the large majority of other challenges.

 shortchord's gear list:shortchord's gear list
Sony SLT-A57 Sony a77 II Sony DT 50mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 SAM Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jrtrent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,344
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

Statistically-speaking, capture-date stipulations reduce the talent-gene-pool of submission entries. . .

In my eyes, talent is talent - and in these liberal times is it really right to deny someone's entry based on the date it was captured?

I think it depends on the host's purpose for the challenge. Are they presenting an opportunity for people to exhibit their best work on a particular theme, or are they offering a challenge for people to compete with one another in coming up with a new image, a contest where skill and luck enter into getting a presentable image within a limited timeframe.

The word challenge itself is typically defined as "a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc." If seen in this light, a picture should be taken in response to the challenge; simply looking through one's files for an image that might fit doesn't seem like "engaging" in a contest. Without a capture date rule, you are no longer responding to a challenge but simply exhibiting your past work. It would be like entering a bowling tournament and saying, "Gee, I can't get over to the bowling alley this weekend, but here's a print-out of some good games I shot last spring."

Another benefit to capture date rules is that it puts new photographers on a more even footing with those who are more seasoned. Someone new to the hobby has the same window of opportunity to capture an image that exemplifies the theme as everyone else; they're not competing against other people's years or decades of archived photos.

In past threads on this topic, some hosts have commented that they abandoned the idea of a time-limited challenge simply because enforcement of the capture date rule was too problematic--it's not a fair challenge when you can't ensure that everyone is following the rules, and as Tasad and others have pointed out over the years, there seem to be a lot of rule-breakers entering the challenges.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to shortchord, 7 months ago

shortchord wrote:

xml6000 wrote:

billythek wrote:

You take great pride in being a cheating low life scum. I give you credit for that.
--
- Bill

Refusing photographic entries on the basis of 'date-capture' cheats the wider photographic community - and has a faint whiff of cloaked-censorship about it.

Oh, please. This could be true only if there were no way to display a photograph here other than a date-restricted challenge. That is clearly not the case, as there are various other ways to display photographs here which have no date restrictions, including the large majority of other challenges.

Yes, - but that's 'a given' that there are plenty of other challenge slots - which isn't the debate - so what is your point?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to jrtrent, 7 months ago

Hmm, a logical response - how refreshing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads