Challenge 62 Protest

rallymaniac

i think that whoever was selecting these images did'n do a good job since i can see 2 pictures that already don't qualify according to the challenge rules stated in the initial thread and another 2 images are questionable.
There were at least 2 way better images that didn't make to this voting thread. :huh

Andy

rallymaniac wrote:

i think that whoever was selecting these images did'n do a good job since i can see 2 pictures that already don't qualify according to the challenge rules stated in the initial thread and another 2 images are questionable.
There were at least 2 way better images that didn't make to this voting thread.

Uh - would you like to be more specific please (only on the first part).


On the second part, let me put this bluntly: we don't care. YOU are not the judge, the challenge host and the previous winner are the judges. UNTIL you walk a mile in their shoes, keep such comments to yourself, otherwise you are only dissing the finalists that got chosen.

rallymaniac

Andy wrote:

Uh - would you like to be more specific please (only on the first part).


On the second part, let me put this bluntly: we don't care. YOU are not the judge, the challenge host and the previous winner are the judges. UNTIL you walk a mile in their shoes, keep such comments to yourself, otherwise you are only dissing the finalists that got chosen.

Umm, okay
I'm not the judge, you're right, but someone (previous challenge winner) who was choosing them should've been presented with choice of the pictures that meet the initial criteria. Based on this i think that:
"Flesh to Stone to Dust" has definitely no "pores"
"Brewing Tea" - the tea bag may have pores, but they're not visible, so subject is not clearly visible = does not qualify.
Based on this you figure out which two are "on the border"
I don't mean to diss anyone's work but some rules need to be enforced in order to be fair to anyone else who did or might've participated.
And please, don't talk about "walking in someone's shoes", you don't know me.

Andy

rallymaniac wrote:

Umm, okay
I'm not the judge, you're right, but someone (previous challenge winner) who was choosing them should've been presented with choice of the pictures that meet the initial criteria. Based on this i think that:
"Flesh to Stone to Dust" has definitely no "pores"
"Brewing Tea" - the tea bag may have pores, but they're not visible, so subject is not clearly visible = does not qualify.
Based on this you figure out which two are "on the border"
I don't mean to diss anyone's work but some rules need to be enforced in order to be fair to anyone else who did or might've participated.
And please, don't talk about "walking in someone's shoes", you don't know me.

Hi rallymaniac,

You are right. I don't know you. But I do know the challenges, having run and judged them myself for nearly 2 full years. It's never easy, the culling, and we do our best. There's always someone who thinks they can do better. Well, you will get your chance, all you have to do is win

Now, as to the two entries you point out: they are MOST DEFINITELY qualified:

challenge rules thread wrote:

Porous
1. Full of or having pores.
2. Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices.
3. Easily crossed or penetrated.

There's no arguing about it, because YOU weren't the judge. Period, full stop. So, what's the point? Any more, and you'll only be soiling the fun and creative element of these challenges.

I hope this helps.

bwg

rm..i've had the same feelings from time to time about the challenge finalists, but it was always hard to find a real valid point because the voting process is so fair.

yeah, we dont get to choose the finalists...but unless you have a better idea the mod and previous winner idea seems as fair as it can be without making this whole process overly complex and a pain for everyone involved.

bottom line is there will be some you like and some you dont...have a beer and move on.

DoctorIt

rallymaniac wrote:

Umm, okay
I'm not the judge, you're right, but someone (previous challenge winner) who was choosing them should've been presented with choice of the pictures that meet the initial criteria. Based on this i think that:
"Flesh to Stone to Dust" has definitely no "pores"
"Brewing Tea" - the tea bag may have pores, but they're not visible, so subject is not clearly visible = does not qualify.
Based on this you figure out which two are "on the border"
I don't mean to diss anyone's work but some rules need to be enforced in order to be fair to anyone else who did or might've participated.
And please, don't talk about "walking in someone's shoes", you don't know me.

Are you:

(a) serious?
(b) high?
(c) an insanely poor sport?

No, really, when I first saw your post I was thinking "oh, someone misposted some exif with a bad date". But now that I see your real reasons for calling them ineligible, I'm shocked! I don't think we've ever disqualified an entry based on content. The challenges are based on "themes" and "suggestions" that are supposed to inspire your shot.

rallymaniac

DoctorIt wrote:

Are you:

(a) serious?
(b) high?
(c) an insanely poor sport?

No, really, when I first saw your post I was thinking "oh, someone misposted some exif with a bad date". But now that I see your real reasons for calling them ineligible, I'm shocked! I don't think we've ever disqualified an entry based on content. The challenges are based on "themes" and "suggestions" that are supposed to inspire your shot.

ok, so based on what you said, what is the criteria to be qualified for the challenge if the exif info is correct? After your reply i certainly don't think that it's the subject of the pictre.
According to you, can i just take a picture of "anything" that may or may not have anything to do with the challenge subject, post it and qualify?? That's how i see if after all of your posts.
What's the purpose of the subject then, if you can enter anything because it's "theme" is ok.
I'm starting to think that this whole challenge is just a situation where winner of the previous one choses pictures that he likes wheather they qualify or not since "he or she can". And then let everyone vote on what they like from that bunch.
Again, i'm not being picky, and i don't think i can do it better but there has to be some "sticking to the rules", not just a free interpretation of any picture.

Andy

DoctorIt wrote:

Are you:

(a) serious?
(b) high?
(c) an insanely poor sport?

No, really, when I first saw your post I was thinking "oh, someone misposted some exif with a bad date". But now that I see your real reasons for calling them ineligible, I'm shocked! I don't think we've ever disqualified an entry based on content. The challenges are based on "themes" and "suggestions" that are supposed to inspire your shot.

Judges *should* not pick entries that are off-theme. However, the two photos that the poster has singled out, are CLEARLY QUALIFIED.

Andy

rallymaniac wrote:

i'm not being picky,

You Are.

So state your reasons why the Tea Bag is not Porous. Or, the cement in the grave statue. We'd all like to hear how these are not porous subjects.

challenge rules thread wrote:

Porous
1. Full of or having pores.
2. Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices.
3. Easily crossed or penetrated.

DoctorIt

rallymaniac wrote:

According to you, can i just take a picture of "anything" that may or may not have anything to do with the challenge subject, post it and qualify?? That's how i see if after all of your posts.
What's the purpose of the subject then, if you can enter anything because it's "theme" is ok.

I'll ignore your rant, and only answer to this.

Again, it's photography, there can be no rules on content! But, the idea is that if the content isn't really on target with the theme, it will not get selected as a finalist. This has worked very well in the past.

to put it more simply: if you take a picture of your cat and say its because you were inspired by thinking about pores, you probably wouldn't win a pore challenge. But sure, it'd be "eligible".

get it?

And I'm with Andy, you've already admitted a tea bag has pores, and concrete is one of the most porous materials in existence. Do tell?

Mike Lane

See what kind of trouble you got us into Angelo???


Just kidding. Here is a snippet of the email that I got from Angelo:

Angelo via email wrote:

OK Mike, I can't believe it took me a day and a half to settle on 10 finalists. This is much tougher than I imagined. I have a new found respect and appreciation for all the judges in whose shoes I follow

***SNIP***

My reasons for selecting each of these are the same: the shooters displayed a combination of a) respect for the theme b) creative presentation / interpretation of the theme c) good photo basics such as composition, lighting, exposure.

So at least in this case I can tell you (based off the several emails that Angelo sent me prior to the one I quoted) that Angelo most certainly did not just pick some pics willy nilly just because he could. He struggled with his decision for a day-and-a-half.

So you don't happen to agree with him. I say so what? There is absolutely no reason to think that his selections were poor or were done carelessly or without thought.

I for one think you owe him an apology.

rallymaniac

Andy wrote:

You Are.

So state your reasons why the Tea Bag is not Porous. Or, the cement in the grave statue. We'd all like to hear how these are not porous subjects.

it's your call to qualify/disqualify, right.
For me as an person who's supposed to vote on these pictures:
1. Pores are invisible in both pictures,
2. Nothing passes "through" the pores in picture 2 (Rule#2 in initial thread "Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices" It, can enter the pores and say there, but it's not passing through. Concrete is porous the same way the basketball is porous

DavidTO

rallymaniac wrote:

it's your call to qualify/disqualify, right.
For me as an person who's supposed to vote on these pictures:
1. Pores are invisible in both pictures,
2. Nothing passes "through" the pores in picture 2 (Rule#2 in initial thread "Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices" It, can enter the pores and say there, but it's not passing through. Concrete is porous the same way the basketball is porous

The challenge was "porous" not "pores".

ChrisJ

rallymaniac wrote:

2. Nothing passes "through" the pores in picture 2 (Rule#2 in initial thread "Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices" It, can enter the pores and say there, but it's not passing through. Concrete is porous the same way the basketball is porous

Also, these were not "rules," just definitions and/or creativity aids.

rallymaniac

Mike Lane wrote:

See what kind of trouble you got us into Angelo???


Just kidding. Here is a snippet of the email that I got from Angelo:



So at least in this case I can tell you (based off the several emails that Angelo sent me prior to the one I quoted) that Angelo most certainly did not just pick some pics willy nilly just because he could. He struggled with his decision for a day-and-a-half.

So you don't happen to agree with him. I say so what? There is absolutely no reason to think that his selections were poor or were done carelessly or without thought.

I for one think you owe him an apology.

I don't think i owe anyone anything. You think it qualifies, i don't.
When i look at the pictures to put my vote in, i look for clear notion of the challenge name. Ask yourself if you were presented above 2 pictures in question without knowing the challenge name, by which time would you guess the subject of the challenge?
Obviously your word stans up since you have controll over the challenge.
I believe i'm not the only one who thinks that way. It's just there is hardly any critique on this site when it comes to pictures and if there is someting wrong majority chooses to pass it with the silence instead of speaking up. But i don't know what's the reason behind this. I guess the forum likes to be "politically correct" and not call things with it's real names. Well i just can't do that. If something is black or white, there is no way for me that it's gray.

Andy

rallymaniac wrote:

I believe i'm not the only one who thinks that way. It's just there is hardly any critique on this site when it comes to pictures

Wow. OK where are all these other people? And to your second point, allow me to introduce you to The Whipping Post Oh Wait, looks like you've been there once..
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=31036

rallymaniac wrote:

it's your call to qualify/disqualify, right.
For me as an person who's supposed to vote on these pictures:
1. Pores are invisible in both pictures,
2. Nothing passes "through" the pores in picture 2 (Rule#2 in initial thread "Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices" It,
can enter the pores and say there, but it's not passing through. Concrete is porous the same way the basketball is porous

I can sense that you are a "by the book sort of guy" and that no amount of reasoning will work with you.

We'll leave it at the judges decision is final, case CLOSED.

rallymaniac

fine,
At least people will be able to see this thread. Maybe it'll change something.

MarkSB

Rally, I think you have a strong opinion, based on what you think is a "more accurate" way of judging. Can you suggest which, if any photos say "porous" to you?

Harryb

rallymaniac wrote:

Umm, okay
I'm not the judge, you're right, but someone (previous challenge winner) who was choosing them should've been presented with choice of the pictures that meet the initial criteria. Based on this i think that:
"Flesh to Stone to Dust" has definitely no "pores"
"Brewing Tea" - the tea bag may have pores, but they're not visible, so subject is not clearly visible = does not qualify.
Based on this you figure out which two are "on the border"
I don't mean to diss anyone's work but some rules need to be enforced in order to be fair to anyone else who did or might've participated.
And please, don't talk about "walking in someone's shoes", you don't know me.

You raise some valid points but lets get real here. This is a photography site, its about the process of taking pictures. We hold this challenge thing on a regular basis and every two weeks somebody "wins". In the end it don't mean shit.

I have yet to meet anybody who won one of these things whose life has been changed by "winning". The whole thing is a big set-up. Its designed to get folks out there and taking pics and doing stuff they wouldn't ordinarily do.

Then they post their pics and two persons using completely subjective criteria choose ,at their whimsy, 10 finalists. Then the 10 finalists are voted on by other dgrinners who use their own completely subjective criteria to choose a "winner". I usually don't agree with the final choice (and nobody cares either). :lol

What is interesting is that most of the entries and all of the finalists are usually outstanding photographs. That's where the challenges are very successful. They result in good photography.

I'm off to take some pictures. bye

cmason

This isnt about the physical properties of an object. I can't argue that anything can pass thru concrete so you do have a (much belabored) point. However, you can not suggest that the statue does not LOOK porous...is certaily does.

This is the point of the theme, and I think they both support the theme, even though I don't think one of the objects physical properties does.

MarkSB

Rallymaniac, I have waited half an hour for your reply...where are you!

rallymaniac

MarkSB wrote:

Rallymaniac, I have waited half an hour for your reply...where are you!

no one says, i have to have discussion with you. You know my point by now, try and choose the pix taht i'd like

MarkSB

rallymaniac wrote:

no one says, i have to have discussion with you. You know my point by now, try and choose the pix taht i'd like

Oh, there you are.
You asked here for more critique.
I am not being critical, I wonder what you consider of the photos might be considered porous, because you said "at least two others" are.
Which two?

rallymaniac

MarkSB wrote:

Oh, there you are.
You asked here for more critique.
I am not being critical, I wonder what you consider of the photos might be considered porous, because you said "at least two others" are.
Which two?

sure, here you go. But again, i'm not the judge




Everything is clearly visible here, you don't have to figure out if it rally is porous or not, simple, nice and well done.

MarkSB

Great, thanks for that post! I see what you mean.
"Frozen" was one I thought would make it, too.
The way I thought the selections would run is that the photo must fit the definition within broad interpretation.
After that, it becomes subjective:
"Holes" are considered pores, here. Not my idea of pores, but it fits.
Second, I thought that the photo would be best if it showed action:
"Under the Bridge" seems to have done that best.

Again thanks for your reply.

PS: The theme did not say to show pores, it was just "porous", so it could imply the idea without actually having to show pores.

bwg

DoctorIt wrote:

And I'm with Andy, you've already admitted a tea bag has pores...

i would like to protest as well.

i believe the teabag is more permeable than it is porous. However i am no expert so i will have to defer to Devbobo as he is the teabagging specialist.

DoctorIt

OK rallymaniac, let's play technical! Because aside from your horrible opinion, you're DEAD wrong on your science too.

1) Neither, I repeat NEITHER of the two photos you just posted are porous. They have holes. Hole does not equal pore. Both those example are 1-dimensional structures. Porous is defined by a 3-dimensional structure having a network of pores. Holes=1d (circle, depth unimportant), pores=3d (spherical or other solid shape).

2) Pores also do not need to be interconnected. The concrete example you keep using is a great one! Concrete is one of the most porous building materials in existence! And as a result accounts for its brittleness. Most of the pores, however, are networked in such a way that the interstitial voids don't necessarily connect, so no, water won't (always) go (all the way) through. Porous does imply permeability, but does not require it.

behr655

Almost everything is porous to some extent. It's easier to list things that are not. Glass, crystal, metal, plastic.....can't think of anything else off hand.

Bear

Andy

behr655 wrote:

....can't think of anything else off hand.

Bear

Some people....

rallymaniac

DoctorIt wrote:

OK rallymaniac, let's play technical! Because aside from your horrible opinion, you're DEAD wrong on your science too.

1) Neither, I repeat NEITHER of the two photos you just posted are porous. They have holes. Hole does not equal pore. Both those example are 1-dimensional structures. Porous is defined by a 3-dimensional structure having a network of pores. Holes=1d (circle, depth unimportant), pores=3d (spherical or other solid shape).

2) Pores also do not need to be interconnected. The concrete example you keep using is a great one! Concrete is one of the most porous building materials in existence! And as a result accounts for its brittleness. Most of the pores, however, are networked in such a way that the interstitial voids don't necessarily connect, so no, water won't (always) go (all the way) through. Porous does imply permeability, but does not require it.

everyone is entiteled to his opinion. Just as the person who was judging it is entiteled to his/her. So based on your example of the scientific definition of the porous, only the concrete picture qualifies for the contest. That's funny, we just came to the conclusion that the picutre that initially didn't qualify now became the only one that qualifies

DoctorIt

rallymaniac wrote:

That's funny, we just came to the conclusion that the picutre that initially didn't qualify now became the only one that qualifies

I came to another conclusion myself... and it is funny.