A quick question for Fred and opinions welcome from others:
I've anticipated that the topic for WA 220 is going to be "Old Things" and prematurely took some shots. Do you think that it would be fair to bend the rules and allow me to submit one of the images, considering that they were taken in the spirit of the WA and not dug up from my archives?
personally, i would greatly appreciate the allowance of premature shots. themes are chosen a day in advance and i think we should take adavntage *advantage is the wrong word but nothing else comes to mind* of that time between the begining of the week and the time the theme was chosen.
If your subject isn't chosen this week, but turns up next week and wins, would you still consider using it?
Or, the subject pops up again two or three weeks down the road?
How far can we go with that concept?
Why not just shoot any shot you want, any day of the year, and turn it in when an appropriate subject pops up?
IMO, rules are rules. I may THINK about a subject, but I don't shoot anyting for the assignment until it's announced, because that's what the rules state.
Only pictures taken during the weekly assignment may be submitted. All other submissions will be disqualified and moved to the appropriate board.
The point is, I shot the photos with the topic in mind (just as I would have once the topic was "officially" announced). What you describe is more along the lines of digging through one's archives in search of something that matches the assignment, which is obviously contrary to the spirit of the WAs.
As you say, though, the rules are the rules and if they are bent, then how far will they get bent, etc.
I think it's better for all if everyone simply sticks to the timelines. I know I have passed up at least one photo op because I was one day early -- e.g., a situation at a sporting event that would have fit the topic but the topic was not yet in play. It would be frustrating to have the great shot opportunity and not take it out of respect for the rules, only to see someone else post and get accepted.
I've seen a bit of bending (and sometimes breaking) in the past couple of months - and unfortunately Fred has not the time to police it all. It's kind of an honor system thing that I think most people here respect -- as you obviously do, or you wouldn't have posted the question. :-)
cogitech wrote:
The point is, I shot the photos with the topic in mind (just as I would have once the topic was "officially" announced). What you describe is more along the lines of digging through one's archives in search of something that matches the assignment, which is obviously contrary to the spirit of the WAs.
No, I said, "If your subject isn't chosen this week, but turns up next week and wins, would you still consider using it?"
You're still shooting it with the topic in mind...but it ends up missing by a vote or two, only to show up again the next week. So, now your picture is over a week old, rather than a day or two. That isn't digging through archives of pictures from months/years ago, before the subject was even considered...which is CLEARLY against the rules...but at what point do we draw the line...a day, two days, when the vote for the subject BEGINS (rather than ENDS)?
RULES are RULES...and lately I often don't enter because I didn't find the time to go shoot something DURING the assignment (which begins when the subject is announced and ends when the voting goes up). Doesn't matter what I shot during the voting, or in weeks prior...if I didn't shoot it the week of the assignment, I don't enter it.
BENDING the rules is different than not KNOWING the rules...I've seen many a first-time poster not realize there was a timeline for the assignments. Often those are pointed out (to the OP or the moderator) and the images are removed, replaced or disqualified. You clearly KNOW the rules, but it sounds like you're asking permission to IGNORE them.
There's another rule stating that images must be 640 pixels. If yours is 641, should we bend that rule? What if it's only 639? A little more black & white than the timeline...but you get my point?
Hey, if Fred wants to grant it...let the chaos begin. Can't wait to see what people start entering.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a LOT of pictures w/o EXIF entered moving forward. No?
I'm sure I'll get all kind of flames for this...quickly putting on my nomex suit...OK, bring it on.
Paul, please take no offense, but I have to agree with Forrest. The appropriateness of the rules here come up repeatedly, every few months. Basically, each controversy ends up being resolved by some form of "Let's keep it simple." Allowing any "bending" leads to the proverbial 'ol can-of-worms, and away from simplicity. We may not always like the rules the way they are, but I think we are better off if we just live with 'em as-is, and keep the emphasis on "learning", not on "winning." The occasional "oops" that slips through, and the number of posts w/o EXIF, will just make your eventual first place taste all the sweeter.
Forrest Egan wrote:
No, I said, "If your subject isn't chosen this week, but turns up next week and wins, would you still consider using it?"
You're still shooting it with the topic in mind...but it ends up missing by a vote or two, only to show up again the next week. So, now your picture is over a week old, rather than a day or two. That isn't digging through archives of pictures from months/years ago, before the subject was even considered...which is CLEARLY against the rules...but at what point do we draw the line...a day, two days, when the vote for the subject BEGINS (rather than ENDS)?
RULES are RULES...and lately I often don't enter because I didn't find the time to go shoot something DURING the assignment (which begins when the subject is announced and ends when the voting goes up). Doesn't matter what I shot during the voting, or in weeks prior...if I didn't shoot it the week of the assignment, I don't enter it.
BENDING the rules is different than not KNOWING the rules...I've seen many a first-time poster not realize there was a timeline for the assignments. Often those are pointed out (to the OP or the moderator) and the images are removed, replaced or disqualified. You clearly KNOW the rules, but it sounds like you're asking permission to IGNORE them.
There's another rule stating that images must be 640 pixels. If yours is 641, should we bend that rule? What if it's only 639? A little more black & white than the timeline...but you get my point?
Hey, if Fred wants to grant it...let the chaos begin. Can't wait to see what people start entering.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a LOT of pictures w/o EXIF entered moving forward. No?
I'm sure I'll get all kind of flames for this...quickly putting on my nomex suit...OK, bring it on. ...Show more →
No flames, but I'm not sure your tone needs to be quite as aggressive. I simply posed the question, and I agree with you for the most part.
CalW wrote:
Paul, please take no offense, but I have to agree with Forrest. The appropriateness of the rules here come up repeatedly, every few months. Basically, each controversy ends up being resolved by some form of "Let's keep it simple." Allowing any "bending" leads to the proverbial 'ol can-of-worms, and away from simplicity. We may not always like the rules the way they are, but I think we are better off if we just live with 'em as-is, and keep the emphasis on "learning", not on "winning." The occasional "oops" that slips through, and the number of posts w/o EXIF, will just make your eventual first place taste all the sweeter....Show more →
I'm not offended by your or Forrest's opinions. I agree with it in principle, and I'll gladly stick to the rules. I simply posed the question because I wanted those opinions.
The intent wasn't to open that same old can of worms, as I have read those posts as well.
The intent was to present a specific situation where one anticipates the theme and shoots a bit prematurely (get your minds out of the gutter ). I love participating in the WAs but my schedule doesn't always allow me to. I might not have a chance to re-shoot the shot.
But, like Forrest said (and I agree), the rules are the rules and bending them would lead to chaos.
I suppose people with busy schedules will simply have to sit some of the WAs out or maybe aim for the MAs...
Regards to all and thanks for your opinions.
BTW, Cal, I already tasted victory in the WAs once and, yes, it was quite sweet. (The theme was "Motion" and the shot was a spinning coin entitled "Finite Time Singularity"). I passed my image upload subscription to one of the runners up because I have my own web server.
Edited by cogitech on Sep 07, 2006 at 09:19 PM GMT
ESC in KC wrote:
I think it's better for all if everyone simply sticks to the timelines. I know I have passed up at least one photo op because I was one day early -- e.g., a situation at a sporting event that would have fit the topic but the topic was not yet in play. It would be frustrating to have the great shot opportunity and not take it out of respect for the rules, only to see someone else post and get accepted.
I've seen a bit of bending (and sometimes breaking) in the past couple of months - and unfortunately Fred has not the time to police it all. It's kind of an honor system thing that I think most people here respect -- as you obviously do, or you wouldn't have posted the question. :-)
Yes, it is strange to me that there are often obvious displays of people's photoshop abilities rather than their photographic skills in the WAs, and often enough they make the finals. You all know what I'm talking about. So if *that* rule is bent, then an exception is OK, but not all the other rules. Hmm....
cogitech wrote:
Yes, it is strange to me that there are often obvious displays of people's photoshop abilities rather than their photographic skills in the WAs, and often enough they make the finals. You all know what I'm talking about. So if *that* rule is bent, then an exception is OK, but not all the other rules. Hmm....
Sorry if I sounded agressive...but the rules for the WA/MA are a touchy subject for me.
Don't even get me started on the Photoshop issue...as I often don't agree with some of the images selected for the finals. This is a Photography forum, not a Photoshop forum! Yet, week after week we see finalists that have LOTS of Photoshop work done to them.
Forrest Egan wrote:
Sorry if I sounded agressive...but the rules for the WA/MA are a touchy subject for me.
Don't even get me started on the Photoshop issue...as I often don't agree with some of the images selected for the finals. This is a Photography forum, not a Photoshop forum! Yet, week after week we see finalists that have LOTS of Photoshop work done to them.
No problem. I'm sorry to have brought the subject up and inadvertently open this can of worms....
Maybe my instant karma will result in me being sucked up by a vacuum cleaner. It really can happen, you know?
Just another note about Cal's remark regarding the WAs being about learning rather than winning. I agree completely. The fact that there is a theme presents a challenge and gets the wheels moving. But, if the wheels move to fast the the shot is there for the taking, then why stunt the learning process by *not* taking the shot? I guess the answer is "shoot it and learn, but don't bother submitting it". I guess that's right.
But, if the point of the WAs is to learn, and the rules are intended to bring about that learning process, then why is the "timing" rule enforced so strictly and the "Photoshop" rule not? The Photoshop rule, IMO, is even more important to enforce if the point of the WAs is to learn photography.
cogitech wrote:
But, if the point of the WAs is to learn, and the rules are intended to bring about that learning process, then why is the "timing" rule enforced so strictly and the "Photoshop" rule not? The Photoshop rule, IMO, is even more important to enforce if the point of the WAs is to learn photography.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!
Learn to get it right in-camera...not spend hours on the computer!
Learn to get it right in-camera...not spend hours on the computer!
OK - I'll chime in one more time on this one -- I whole heartedly agree that the PS rule should be tightened up (a lot!). When a PS filter creates the very effect that the WA is calling for, I think it should not be considered for the finals, but I have seen this happen more than once. Applying the right filter versus learning how to capture the photograph are two very different skills, and each have their place.
I agree completely with Cal's ideas regarding the rules. Let's keep it simple. I've also passed up a few shots because the assignment wasn't final yet, and I don't mind that at all due to the slippery slope we'll find ourselves on.
About the photoshop question...............there really isn't a rule preventing some modification of the image. The actual rule states:
" Montage techniques are allowed but should be functional and kept to a minimum. Your entries for the weekly assignment should highlight your photographic skills, not your software knowledge."
Well......it seems to me that this is a guideline and not a rule. While I prefer to not 'montage' at all, I do play with the saturation/contrast/brightness (etc) type controls as i think almost all of us do. I feel fine with the nice variety of images we all create.
So......in humble conclusion......if it's a rule, stick to it. If it's a guideline....make a nice image. Let's hope that Fred keeps his guidelines in mind!
respectfully posted......no flames intended...and thanks for the initial question posted
Peter
I agree with your "guideline" assessment, but there are often entries that clearly go well beyond the guideline, as Forrest, Ed and myself have noted. We aren't speaking of colour and contrast tweaking here.
Edited by cogitech on Sep 08, 2006 at 12:42 PM GMT
). I love participating in the WAs but my schedule doesn't always allow me to. I might not have a chance to re-shoot the shot.
