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

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
Joe Pineapples
Senior MemberPosts: 2,079Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

I find a lot of rather odd rules set in different challenges that aren't to my liking, so personally I tend to avoid entering those challenges on the basis that, like a number 88 bus, another one will be along soon enough if I am patient; but some people love to be governed by arbitrary rules, while others try to break such rules as a matter of principle. I say: live and let live. It hardly amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world (to borrow a phrase).

Joe

-- hide signature --

"Well, it's too late to die young now..."

 Joe Pineapples's gear list:Joe Pineapples's gear list
Ricoh GR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 118Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

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.

So, no one would be aware of your cheating if no one discovered it? Can't dispute that. The only argument you have made, and it is compelling, is that your photos can't compete unless you disregard the rules of the challenge. Why don't you channel all that hubris and arrogance and compete on the same playing field as everyone else? The only logical conclusion why you won't is that you know you can't.

 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 Joe Pineapples, 7 months ago

That's a sensible-enough attitude.

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

What you call 'cheating' I refer to as a 'spotlight' on cloaked-censorship!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 118Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

The photo in question was taken by at least 2 different cameras on at least 3 different dates. Everything about you that can be verified has been shown to be a lie. Your credibility is zero. There's no reason for anyone to believe you actually took any of "your" photos. There's every reason to believe you have cheated repeatedly and will continue to do so at every opportunity. But, if that's what you need to feel good about yourself...

 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

Falsely 'discrediting' me by suggesting I manipulate EXIF data is 'the sign' I was looking for to confirm that you have been thoroughly defeated by my argument and all you have left is to spit vitriol at me like the cornered snake that you are.

Oh my, how tragic - yet not entirely unpredictable.

Wonderful.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shortchord
Forum MemberPosts: 51Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

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?

If there are ample opportunities to display a particular photograph -- and you acknowledge that there are -- then the community is not being "cheated" of the opportunity to view that photograph.

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

Bravo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 118Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

The proof is in the screen shots you feckless fool. You really must have an empty existence if you feel the need to cheat and lie just to get some attention on a photo sharing forum. You can't even keep track of your own lies. You discredit yourself every time you touch your keyboard.

 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

What a pathetic reply.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tasad
Regular MemberPosts: 349
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

Falsely 'discrediting' me by suggesting I manipulate EXIF data  (...)

In this challenge entries should be taken after 19th February , 2012 :

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=590619

Your entry was "taken" on 28th February , 2012 :

...

Exif data viewer shows , that it was taken on 15th August, 2010 :

...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/notts_photos/5936478773/in/photostream/

In this challenge entries should be taken after 28th February , 2012 :

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=593137

Your entry was "taken" on 28th February , 2012 :

...

Exif data viewer shows , that the image was taken on 5th June , 2011 :

...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/notts_photos/5800962178/in/photostream/

In this challenge entries should be taken  after 24th February , 2012 :

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=590662

Your entry was "taken" on 1th March , 2012 :

...

Exif data has been removed from the entry , but the information under the image on your Flickr account shows , that it was taken  on 10th June , 2011 :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/notts_photos/5818020852/in/photostream/

...

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

You need to get out far more. What's your point here?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tasad
Regular MemberPosts: 349
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

You need to get out far more. What's your point here?

The "dissonance" between what you've wrote and what you've done ...

P.S. Using two accounts at the same time is not allowed on Dpreview .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 118Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

The point is you're a liar and a cheat. Thanks to tasad everyone is now aware of it. You remind me of the lowlifes we used to "bring in for questioning". They thought they were smart so we just let them keep talking. They couldn't remember their own lies and they couldn't shut up. They would double down after the inconsistencies were noted and just dug a deeper hole. Eventually they told us everything we needed to know. You should just walk away now. You've already made a fool out of yourself.

 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
babalu
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000,

you are absolutely free to host a challenge of your own, without any restrictions whatsoever, "catch as catch can", and with such a high number of possible entries (maybe 10,000 ?) as to make sure that the one genius photograph, if existant, would be included. Good luck with that. And if you wish to publish such one-in-a-million photograph yourself, you can always update a thread in this forum with just such a photo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
babalu
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to babalu, 7 months ago

...I just saw that you were caught at cheating. CHEATING on entries in DPREVIEW is not appreciated . Certainly not for anyone like you who shows no respect to fair rules of competition. If you like a dirty game, go elsewhere.

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

You're deluded - every last one of you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Regular MemberPosts: 118Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

You're deluded - every last one of you.

Yup, you're fine, there's something wrong with EVERYONE ELSE. Liking your own posts to make it look like someone agrees with you is really, really, really sad. No sign of mental illness here...

 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
anisah
Regular MemberPosts: 218Gear list
Like?
Very saddened by this thread
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

I feel very saddened by this thread. Parts of it have become very personal and there appears to be a lot of anger in some of the responses. Is this really necessary?

I will try to make some reasonable points, about which, I hope, we might agree:
1. Hosts of challenges can make whatever reasonable rules they see fit.
2. Very few Challenges actually stipulate a capture date, so we are talking of very few incidents here.
3. Entrants should stick to the rules set by the hosts, if they cannot meet the rules they should not enter - to do so is show disrespect to those members who make the effort to make and stick to the rules.
4. While hosts may make the rules, we, as entrants, may reinterpret them in ways that the hosts have not considered - but we must be able to justify with reasoned argument why this is done, and it should not include ignoring rules that are very clearly defined, likes capture-dates or re-entering images.
5. There are no rewards for winning, so why take it all so seriously? This is supposed to be relaxation and fun, isn't it? The reward is in having your image judged fairly (using consistent, reliable and valid criteria) by other members who represent a wide variety of opinion.
6. Cheating of any sort (eg in falsifying an image, or some form of vote rigging) is unacceptable. Would any of us like it if someone else cheated so that they gained an unfair advantage over us? The so-called "Golden Rule" applies here just as it does in the rest of life.
7. In this I am not sure, but I would assume that most of us are not professional photographers, by which I mean that we do not use photography as our main source of income. This being the case is it really helpful to ourselves and other members to get so "worked up" about our hobby? Take it seriously, yes, but winning at any cost, upsetting others, upsetting myself, having to resort to underhand tactics - none of this is worthwhile.
8. If 6 is in any way correct, we are mainly "amateurs" who are described as people who cultivate a particular study for the love of it. I love photography, but I don't want it to upset me or other people as seems to be happening at times.

We all may have the love of the art, but seem to be developing destructive traits like selfishness, and, maybe, envy, jealousy, etc towards other members. I find this very sad. Can we please get back to the serious business of cultivating our love of the art in a fair and reasonable way?

-- hide signature --

"The only thing certain about life is uncertainty." (Rabbi Berel Wein)

 anisah's gear list:anisah's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skylane
Contributing MemberPosts: 628
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 7 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

You're deluded - every last one of you.

We know you do not care but do you have any idea what a psychologist would think of that statement?

-- hide signature --

Charlie

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads