| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Petition to Reinstate Deleted Contest Entries (Part I)
Chip Litherland, Photographer
 |
Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 4:29 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Sportsshooter,
I've decided that even though I received a personal explanantion from Grover (thank you, again!) as to why there was no warning of the no border policy, I feel it is only fair to make an organized effort to get everyone's photos included in the judging process. This is the only way I could think of...
By replying to this thread with your name, you are calling for a reversal of the Sportsshooter administration's decision to remove entries with borders on them for the month of January. Secondly, this petition also calls for the judging process to be restarted for the month, so that all entries are given an equal opportunity to be seen by their peers - which is the reason for their removal in the first place. All signers agree to adhere to Sportsshooter's newly enforced policy of NOT adding any borders to their images in any form for entry into future monthly clip contests.
Thank you,
Chip Litherland |
|
Zack Podell, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Marina Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 5:00 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Hey Chip..... Maybe you shoulda done this on the 16th.....
and I think it's in the FAQs.....
I'm not part of the admin..... but I think it's a little bit late for this one.
Just my $.02 |
|
Chip Litherland, Photographer
|
Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 5:04 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Sportsshooter,
Alright, I get it. Bad idea. Please don't send me any more hate email personally or mark my messages with inappropiates. I knew there was a reason I stayed out of message boards. I already asked Grover to delete this petition. I was just trying to go out on a limb and help some of the many, many members who have emailed me about this.
And Zach, I never would have had the chance to do this on the 16th, seeing that it didn't happen until the 17th. That's the point.
Back to not rocking the boat and making pictures...
Cheers, and I'll buy the first round next time I meet anyone I've upset.
Chip |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
New England | | USA | Posted: 5:52 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Chip
Yea! Fight the man! The man is only keeping us down. Fight the power!!!
....while I personally agree with you Grover hosts my web site...I now need to watch for black helicopters and wait for my site to disapear (ack!) |
|
Jacob Hannah, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 6:04 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Rules are rules, even if we don't completely agree with them. I would love to see all the images that got removed put back into the contest, but I know it's too late for that. Instead of trying to change what has already been done, It would be cool for future contests to allow a border of a set size, maybe just one or two pixels wide. I have heard reasons for not wanting a border, and its really not a big deal to me either way, but I just thought I would state my opinion regarding the issue.
By allowing only a border of a designated size, I don't see how that will put anyone at a disadvantage. There are just some images that need a border, not because they are bad images withought it, but because they might have a lot of white space around the edges, and a thin black border can help to hold the image together against a white background. A border is no more of an advantage than the color of the background that the photo is presented on, which we have no control over. All the border does is separate the image from the background. Therefore I do not see a border as creating a disadvantage, but rather as evening out the playing field.
Just as an example of what i'm talking about.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/contest/clip/winning_image.html?id=182
or imagine this image against an all black background, you wouldn't be able to tell where the image ended and the background started.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/contest/clip/winning_image.html?id=301
That's just my opinion. |
|
Zack Podell, Photographer, Assistant
|
Marina Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 7:09 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Chip,
You've been a member here almost 2 years now.... and it never occurred to you to check the rules about the monthly clip contest????
Look, I feel for you, I really do.... you have some great shots, and I'm sure the ones you entered were of a high quality, possibly even winning quality. That doesn't change the fact that it was your error, or oversight that lead to this.
I've been in similar situations in the past.... and that's the way the cookie crumbles. If it's my mistake, then it's my loss.... If you really want to do something about it... help fix what you think is broken....
Oh, one more thing... it usually helps to spell properly... (ie people's names, especially when you're addressing them) kind of a pet peave for me....
And Jacob, I like your ideas in theory..... I just wonder how hard it will be for the site admins to apply things like that... and then police the images, and the borders, (like the border patrol doesn't have a hard enough time to begin with, and they just do the borders)...
Jason, or grover..... How much time (or how difficult)will it take to write an html code for background color for the images, when you submit them?? Maybe that's the answer? Just an idea.
Sorry if this ruffles any feathers...... and if it does, maybe you should write about it. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
 |
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 7:45 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> "Oh, one more thing... it usually helps to spell properly... (ie people's names, especially when you're addressing them) kind of a pet peave for me...."
peeve
tr.v. peeved, peevˇing, peeves
To cause to be annoyed or resentful.
n.
1. A vexation; a grievance.
2. A resentful mood: in a peeve about the delays.
--
Anyway, why don't we let this go, eh folks? Let's give Chip a pass on this one, get out there and make some great images; hug the wife and kids; help an old lady across the street; pet a cat; avoid sharks and clowns; feed the poor; etc.
Just let it go.
Respectfully,
- gerry - |
|
Douglas Tesner, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Traverse City | MI | USA | Posted: 7:48 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> I sympathize with the people who had entries deleted from the contest. But rules are rules. I have to agree with the rule of no borders. We are judging the content of the pictures not the borders or background color.
Chip, you have some outstanding, very outstanding pictures. They stand on there own and do not need any boarders in the respect to the SS clip contest.
Doug |
|
Christopher Koutsis, Photographer
 |
huntington | ny | USA | Posted: 8:38 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Chip, too little too late... but I don't hate you for trying with this thread! And I'm still going to tell you I've been a big fan of your work ever since the day I saw that wedding picture in your portfolio nearly 6 months ago.
Oh man oh man oh man... I hope no one finds this inappropriate, please, no, please, don't make it inappropriate! Will someone on this website just once read what inappropriate is supposed to be used for... ya know, those four letter words like "photo" and things like that ;) |
|
Lucas Jackson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 10:21 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Rules are rules :/
You should have done what I did and break a completely different rule to get eliminated! Pretty sweet, especially knowing that I submitted a decent entry :(
Anyhow, next month I will be crossing my Ts and dotting my Is.
Oh, and cropping my borders, i'm glad that is not a normal part of my workflow or I would probably have been doubly eliminated! |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
 |
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 10:42 PM on 02.20.05 |
| ->> This thread isn't really gonna have a part II, is it? |
|
Bob Croslin, Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 11:03 PM on 02.20.05 |
->> Dear Chip,
INAPPROPRIATE!!!
Love CROS
(slinking back into the shadows to scan my Type 55 film WITH the borders) |
|
Wally Nell, Photographer
 |
SAN DIEGO (La Mesa) | CA | USA | Posted: 1:54 AM on 02.21.05 |
->> Well I will be otherwise. I think the powers that be could have done this with a little more thought. Yes those are the rules, yes we are to stick to them, yes we have no excuse. But to suddenly enforce the rule without early enough notification, is just not fair. I am nowhere in the running, but others are, like Chip. I think they were dead wrong in what they did.
Crucify me, I don't mind. |
|
Bruce Twitchell, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Lewiston | ID | USA | Posted: 2:25 AM on 02.21.05 |
->> "But to suddenly enforce the rule without early enough notification, is just not fair."
I guess having the rule posted from day one isn't early enough notification.
All of these threads remind me of the 8th grade class that I am doing my student teaching in. The kids have known the rules from day one, the rules are posted right on the wall, and when I give them detention for breaking the rules, they complain that I didn't give them a warning, or enough warnings. It's silly.
And while I am posting, just wondering this......
If adding a frame does nothing to enhance the image, why add a frame to it at all? |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
 |
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 7:32 AM on 02.21.05 |
| ->> Bruce, I'd be willing to bet that your student of the year for 2003 didn't consistently break your rules all year. SS's photographer of the year had borders on all his winning photos. |
|
Robert McClory, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 02.21.05 |
->> As the venerable Mr. Hanashiro suggested recently, "Now everyone can go back to beating up on WireImage, Getty, The Ap, the NBA and publications and entities that grab rights, under-pay photographers or use their work without their knowledge!"
Hey, if someone finds a way to copyright putting a black border around photos, we could roll all this into one thread.
Of course then someone would have to petition to get the number of posts per thread raised...
RM |
|
Armando Solares, Photographer
 |
Venice | FL | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 02.21.05 |
->> All,
I'm with Chip on this one. I wish and hope that the deleted images along with the others can be reinstated and perhaps judged concurrently with next month's entries.
Yes, the rule has been there since day one. But, to my knowledge no one ever enforced it. There have been many a winning photograph with a border. Those were not deleted nor disqualified. So to me, to suddenly begin enforcing a rule that has always existed but has never been enforced is unfair.
My issue is not with the rule itself or the rules, it is with the execution of the enforcement. A simple heads up about the rules at the beginning of the year would have sufficed. The rule was not enforced until the day after the deadline. It gave no one a chance to reread the rules or change their entries.
respectfully yours,
Armando Solares |
|
Ray Black III, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Raleigh | NC | US | Posted: 11:21 AM on 02.21.05 |
->> Yeah, outside of general disappointment, I think the only reason anyone's upset is the lack of consistancy. Winning clip contest images for December include two bordered photos, then suddenly 15 days later we have a flood of people whose work is disqualified for borders. Any advance notice at all about enforcement would have been positive. I'm with everyone else, I think it was handled poorly by the fine folks who otherwise do stellar work on SS.com.
Myself, I couldn't care less about the clip contest, but the student Week's Work contest is what really disappoints me. I was looking forward to all the feedback that comes with the contest. Instead, all I got was a nice message from Brad saying essentially, 'sorry, your entry was solid, but them's the rules.' |
|
Tiffany Brown, Photographer
 |
Corvallis | OR | USA | Posted: 6:18 PM on 02.21.05 |
->> I'm late to join in on this one as I don't frequent the message board much but since it effected me I'm going to quickly chime in. I'm in the boat with Chip et al on this one.
I was burned up to learn that my images had been removed from the contest 2 days after the fact when I had entered them two weeks earlier. I can see that the conversation has already been around the bend and back so I won't wax about the lack of any kind of enforcement precedent and no time to comply if the rule was finally going to be put into effect.
I've moved on but I still think SS should find a way to have the images that were removed re-entered in a way that people that have already judged last month's contest would not have to start over.
Best,
Tiffany Brown |
|
Jason Grow, Photographer
|
Gloucester | MA | USA | Posted: 6:46 PM on 02.21.05 |
| ->> I was going to enter some pictures I did on the Mexican border but now I'm not so sure... just how rigid is this rule? |
|
Rick Burnham, Photographer
|
Enfield | CT | USA | Posted: 8:28 PM on 02.21.05 |
| ->> If the shots were to be included in next months contest that would break another rule of the photos being taken in the previous month. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 8:44 PM on 02.21.05 |
->> Chances are that the next time something like this happens, the "powers that be" will remember this discussion, and make any rulings like this for the following month's entries.
Nobody is perfect. Maybe the way this was handled wasn't the best way it could have been done, but that's a fairly small "negative" compared to all the "positive" this site provides.
My own opinion... I should probably stay out of this, but the only "fair" thing to do now, would be to not hold any competition this month, and start things again next month with everyone being aware of what rules are being enforced. It doesn't seem right to disqualify an image in this month's contest, if a previous winner did the same thing. Knowing the rules is important, but if previous winning entries broke those rules, then maybe they weren't really firm rules after all..... If I read the rules, and also looked over previous winners, I might well have broken the same "rule" since it seemed OK based on past history. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|