Monthly assignment rules

[Applespider]

but regardless there are times when you are reading and you just want to remove a post yourself because it's pointless/useless/harmful and you know it will take forever for someone on moderation to find it.

Isn't that when you hit the 'report' button so the mods can act on it quicker?

As far as being able to comment/critique the hardware, what possible good can come from this?

To be honest, I mentioned it more to limit some of the possible comments/critiques. If I tell you that my image came from a P&S, then there's no point in someone telling me that I should consider certain settings/lenses which might not be available to me. Equally though if you get a great effect with a camera, you should be allow to mention the brand in case people are searching MR for comments on that model.

 

[efoto]

Also, nobody reads long lists of rules, even if the thread is a sticky.

At least if they are published somewhere, especially as a sticky, we can link them with a big "we told you so" to the sticky and there would be no question if they were in the right or the wrong.

 

[efoto]

Isn't that when you hit the 'report' button so the mods can act on it quicker?

Valid, I suppose I should do that more often if I truly feel that something is that offensive.

To be honest, I mentioned it more to limit some of the possible comments/critiques. If I tell you that my image came from a P&S, then there's no point in someone telling me that I should consider certain settings/lenses which might not be available to me. Equally though if you get a great effect with a camera, you should be allow to mention the brand in case people are searching MR for comments on that model.

It makes sense to post what you used in the shot, be it DSLR/P&S/iSight w/laptop , but it doesn't make sense to comment on it in my mind. My point was that no good can come from comments related to hardware. I can see that posting hardware setups will make some comments pointless (like suggesting a different lens for a P&S camera) but for others it doesn't make sense. If you said you used a P&S to shoot a canyon somewhere and the only comments were to the sound of "you should get a dslr with a nice telephoto to get in closer" that doesn't do anyone a lick of good.

 

[yellow]

How about this then:

All comments must be limited to those that don't encourage the poster to spend more $$$, unless the poster SPECIFICALLY inquires about it?

That will take care of all the hardware issues, software issues, etc. And if the poster WANTS to know what could be done better that will cost $$$, said poster can ask for it (and deal with the consequences).

Make sense?

 

[whocares]

To be honest, I mentioned it more to limit some of the possible comments/critiques. If I tell you that my image came from a P&S, then there's no point in someone telling me that I should consider certain settings/lenses which might not be available to me. Equally though if you get a great effect with a camera, you should be allow to mention the brand in case people are searching MR for comments on that model.

I hadn't understood that from your previous post. It now make great sense

The only problem I see with the rules is that we have no way to enforce them

Quite true. But at least there is some debate! With what I've read so far (admitted only few members have participated) we all seem to vision this assignment idea more or less the same so it should (will!) go ok. We just need to prepare for unforeseen problems.

 

[efoto]

How about this then:

All comments must be limited to those that don't encourage the poster to spend more $$$, unless the poster SPECIFICALLY inquires about it?

That will take care of all the hardware issues, software issues, etc. And if the poster WANTS to know what could be done better that will cost $$$, said poster can ask for it (and deal with the consequences).

Make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. It's really quite sad we have to go to such extremes in defining rules for an online forum. What's even worse, is that we have to, otherwise things just get out of control

Sounds good to me yellow, I hope you get presidential powers and can chop away all of those who break said law.

 

[Applespider]

If you said you used a P&S to shoot a canyon somewhere and the only comments were to the sound of "you should get a dslr with a nice telephoto to get in closer" that doesn't do anyone a lick of good.

Very true... although that would also fail the 'constructive criticism' rule. You'd have to settle for a comment along the lines of 'Was there any chance of you getting closer to the edge to get a better shot?' in case it was taken from the seat of a tour bus because they couldn't be bothered getting off.

Equally though, it wouldn't do any harm to say that it's really hard to get shots that show the entire scope of the Grand Canyon without a wide-angle lens and a custom-ride in a helicopter! Give the photographer credit for doing the best they can with the tool they had and reminds the next person, who does have a wide angle lens and a helicopter, to take it with them.

 

[Josh]

On some other forums I go to, they require EXIF info to be posted along with the photos when doing competitions.

Maybe the same could go here, to insure the photos are only from the designated period?

Just a thought.

 

[efoto]

Very true... although that would also fail the 'constructive criticism' rule. You'd have to settle for a comment along the lines of 'Was there any chance of you getting closer to the edge to get a better shot?' in case it was taken from the seat of a tour bus because they couldn't be bothered getting off.

Equally though, it wouldn't do any harm to say that it's really hard to get shots that show the entire scope of the Grand Canyon without a wide-angle lens and a custom-ride in a helicopter! Give the photographer credit for doing the best they can with the tool they had and reminds the next person, who does have a wide angle lens and a helicopter, to take it with them.

I'm just hoping people can act mature and post comments that are constructive and help people. It should be a no-brainer that if they say they used a P&S to not recommend a new lens or something....I just hope people act their age (or round up to at least 20 if they are younger )

 

[-hh]

my $0.02

Comments as of revision Wednesday 11-23-05, 18:30 Zulu:

Submission rules:
...
7. The artwork - including shooting of photo(s), must be created during the assignment period.
...
11. Artwork may be created by any kind of digital camera and any post-processing ("Photoshopping") the member sees fit. Post-processing must meet Photoshopping rules detailed below.

12. Scans of film may or may not be permitted.

Comments/critique/discssion:

2. Only members who submitted artwork to current assignment may enter the discussion.

Photoshopping rules:

1. All Photoshopping must be accompanied with its detailed description so all may benefit from it.

My comments:

Submission-7: I understand the intent, but this will cause a hardship for some of us who would like to contribute, but whose schedules don't permit.

My suggestion is to revise #7 so that the assignement also calls out the "act of photo" period, with the default being the same. Doing this then allows the flexibility to decouple the assignment date from the "act of photo" date, which would then allow some assignments to specifically be given "no" time period restrictions and thus be opened up to allow old works.

Submission-11+12: the intent appears to be to keep this to a "purist" digital imaging from the start, but (a) is this really necessary? and (b) is it really important to do this?

Given the rapid growth in popularity of digital and the relative nuisance it can be to scan film, I don't personally think we're going to see many digitized film submissions anyway...probably well under 10%. As such, I'd opine that its not a big enough problem to worry about.

Similarly, I would say that exclusion of digitized scans of film might be a way to reduce the potential for someone to cheat on Assignement dates, but someone who wants to cheat will figure out how to falsify EXIF data anyway: it would probably be more effective to have a "no cheating on dates" rule than to try to enforce it through an indirect means.

My suggested reworks here are:

11. Artwork may be created by any kind of still camera and any post-processing ("Photoshopping") the member sees fit. Post-processing must meet Photoshopping rules detailed below.

12. Scans of film are permitted, but require documentation of the date of the original as well as the date of the scan be known.

Comments-2: If only a member who submitted artwork can enter a discussion, two things can happen:

a) some people will submit garbage just to be able to then discuss

b) a valued regular who for some reason wasn't able to submit this month will be administratively not allowed to participate in the month he missed.

Recommend changing this to say that in order to participate, discussants must have submitted at least "X times within the past Y assignments", where X=1 and Y=3 are IMO reasonable values to work within. My rationale gets back to the question of what is the real underlying purpose here: is it primarily to show images, or to use the images as a starting point for discussions?

Photoshopping rules-1: how much detail will be required for common tasks, such as Auto-levels and cropping? Is it sufficient to merely say "Auto-Level & Composition Crop"?

My suggestion here would be to say that a general description of very minor stuff is fine, but when the changes become involved (noteworthy), then the submission should include both a "before" and "after" image to be submitted.


-hh

 

[whocares]

-hh

Those are some valid points you make there. I'll take them into to account when I have time (later tonight?).

_______


As is seems these rules may not be deemed as necessary by the powers that be (shows that they actually trust us ), I suggest we turn them into guidelines and refer to them as necessary.

 

[-hh]

-hh

Those are some valid points you make there. I'll take them into to account when I have time (later tonight?).

Glad to have helped.

BTW, I also saw some comments about panoramics and QTVR's as potential contributions - - I think that they'll fit as they're technically both "Stills" (the word change I made in #11) if that's mutually agreeable; note that the word "Still" also precludes videos, which has been inferred but not otherwise explicitly stated as something not of interest herein.

-hh

 

[efoto]

Submission-7: I understand the intent, but this will cause a hardship for some of us who would like to contribute, but whose schedules don't permit.

My suggestion is to revise #7 so that the assignement also calls out the "act of photo" period, with the default being the same. Doing this then allows the flexibility to decouple the assignment date from the "act of photo" date, which would then allow some assignments to specifically be given "no" time period restrictions and thus be opened up to allow old works.

I don't see this as a major issue. If you can't make the assignment deadline, then you just miss out on that month's assignment. It isn't the end of the world, and since each assignment is open to ALL members, you can just take on the assignments you have time for. There are plenty of threads I would like to get involved in, but often one post doesn't seem relevant if I don't stay involved, so I just refrain from posting at all knowing I have my hand in enough other stuff at the moment.

Submission-11+12: the intent appears to be to keep this to a "purist" digital imaging from the start, but (a) is this really necessary? and (b) is it really important to do this?

Given the rapid growth in popularity of digital and the relative nuisance it can be to scan film, I don't personally think we're going to see many digitized film submissions anyway...probably well under 10%. As such, I'd opine that its not a big enough problem to worry about.

Similarly, I would say that exclusion of digitized scans of film might be a way to reduce the potential for someone to cheat on Assignement dates, but someone who wants to cheat will figure out how to falsify EXIF data anyway: it would probably be more effective to have a "no cheating on dates" rule than to try to enforce it through an indirect means.

I'm hoping that cheating on the dates won't be too big of an issue, after all this is just a learning 'game' of sorts, no real reason to cheat. If we were handing out cash prizes to the winner each month, for current works, this would be more important, but since we are not, I see no problem with scans. For digital, if it's easy to do (I'm not sure I know how ) we can tack on the exif data to the post, no biggy.

My suggested reworks here are:

Comments-2: If only a member who submitted artwork can enter a discussion, two things can happen:

a) some people will submit garbage just to be able to then discuss

b) a valued regular who for some reason wasn't able to submit this month will be administratively not allowed to participate in the month he missed.

Recommend changing this to say that in order to participate, discussants must have submitted at least "X times within the past Y assignments", where X=1 and Y=3 are IMO reasonable values to work within. My rationale gets back to the question of what is the real underlying purpose here: is it primarily to show images, or to use the images as a starting point for discussions?

That would work I suppose. I suggested that simply to increase the participation in the assignments. There are a lot of people who may want to be involved (discuss) but would never post work. It seems more 'equal', especially for those of us who are new to this, to have other picture-posters critique our work than just random 'know-hows'. I realize this may be cutting out some great talents, but overall I still hold that it is a good idea.

Photoshopping rules-1: how much detail will be required for common tasks, such as Auto-levels and cropping? Is it sufficient to merely say "Auto-Level & Composition Crop"?

My suggestion here would be to say that a general description of very minor stuff is fine, but when the changes become involved (noteworthy), then the submission should include both a "before" and "after" image to be submitted.

I think the description of what is done is as much about learning as it is a simple descriptor of ABC steps. For automatic functions (I let PS do....) it is pretty simple, but if you are doing some 'custom' work it would be helpful to say "when I was adjusting curves I tried to get the curve to look like...." or "keep the R, G, and B values equal to 100 because...." to further learning. I know a few things about PS, but not nearly as many as I would like. Whenever I talk to photog friends they are always talking about layers/filters/techniques I've never heard of, so it's nice to have a little explanation.

 

[Josh]

I posted this in another thread, but it was the wrong one (it was from 04...yikes!)

This seems more like the correct place, rather than creating a new thread. So here it is:

Can we get a set of rules for the photography forum (and all threads within it)?

One thing I absolutely HATE seeing on other sites, and unfortunately it's already appearing here, is the obnoxious behavior of people re-editting other people's photos, and then posting them up with a "There..better" type of comment.

Fixing someone elses photos, regardless of how well it worked or did not work, without being asked by the person who posted it, is incredibly rude.

Nothing bothers me more on photography forums. Just because one person thinks they can improve a photo does not mean they should attempt to do so. It's very immature, very obnoxious, very impolite, and it's far too common on other sites. I'd like to put a stop to it here before it gets out of control - anyone agree?

 

[efoto]

I posted this in another thread, but it was the wrong one (it was from 04...yikes!)

This seems more like the correct place, rather than creating a new thread. So here it is:

Can we get a set of rules for the photography forum (and all threads within it)?

One thing I absolutely HATE seeing on other sites, and unfortunately it's already appearing here, is the obnoxious behavior of people re-editting other people's photos, and then posting them up with a "There..better" type of comment.

Fixing someone elses photos, regardless of how well it worked or did not work, without being asked by the person who posted it, is incredibly rude.

Nothing bothers me more on photography forums. Just because one person thinks they can improve a photo does not mean they should attempt to do so. It's very immature, very obnoxious, very impolite, and it's far too common on other sites. I'd like to put a stop to it here before it gets out of control - anyone agree?

Photoshopping Rules - Point #2

It's in there, and has been commented on a few times so assuming these rules stick in a 'self-patroling' environment, it's in there.