Forum

alisommer (12/24/2006)

---

So there's this bit from the competition rules :

"Your entry must be based on one or more of these photos, but you are free to do with them whatever you like. You may also use other elements in your design, as long as one of the source images can be recognised as a central part of your design. "

There's a lot of room for misunderstanding there. A lot...

I for one took it perhaps too literally and thought that the starting point for the design was supposed to be atleast one of the source images, not some "other element". The choice of winner in round 4 hasn't caused any feelings of envy in me, I just question my intelligence. I'd like to know that am I right or am I wrong in my original perception of that bit of the rules...?


Reading some comments, I started wondering that what are sore losers really and do we "complainers" fit that classification as non-winners. After a bit of google-research I came up with the following...

The key definition is that sore losers often have unrealistic expectations of themselves or their abilities. They are those that when losing in a fair competition, whine about it and blame everyone around them for their loss except themselves. They perhaps lack the ability to accept defeat and try again. In the extreme cases, an individual or group engages in childish moaning and bitching about how the outcome was not fair and someone cheated and so on.

Has any one of these "sore losers" here, stated that they should've won because their design was way better than the winners? That there's no better photoshopper in the whoooole entire universe? I may be failing in the inteligence department but as far as I've understood what's been written, the answer is no. People here know that "you can't win them all"...that's a basic rule if you wish to survive in any photoshopping/graphic design related field of profession. You don't always have the best idea and client don't always choose the design or logo or pile of pixels that you're the most happy with. You learn to suck it up and try again...while keeping together any shreds of professional pride left.

I really haven't seen any childish moaning or bitching either...except a bit of childish taunting of these "sore losers". Most have excepted defeat and will probably try again if offered the oppoturnity. Are they blaming everyone else but their own inability to produce a winning design? Yet again, no. I've seen well writen arguments with valid points mostly.


Am I a sore loser?
I don't think so. Amongst the other entries, there were those I seriously wouldn't have minded losing to, because the makers are so much better skilled than me and I am in awe of their work. There were also those that had just few pics slapped together with no or little effort...and those that I didn't really think much of because I thought the image contradicted the rules...atleast in a way I had understood the rules. Sure I'm bugged because I didn't choose to do what the winner did. Instead of a simple half hour photo manipulation, I went the few days of "blood sweat & tears"-way with my photoshop+wacom circus. Instead of what's easy to me, I decided to challenge myself with technique I still am not very good at. Silly me.

More than anything, I am thankful. Because I honestly have learned a valuable lesson here. I know which skills I need to improve so that maby someday, I am at the same level of talent as some of the other contestants here.

Oh well...as of now, I will let this go. I have new challenges waiting for me at the photoshop open in the background. Thank you ever so much Crestock for this one. It's been a hoot...:)




You "taunters"...LOL at us non-winners all you want...someone's gotta be funny if you're not.

Well put. It really is just that. No one here has said "my work is better" . . . and no one has anything against the winner as a person. Apparently, it just seems that 99% of entrants were not aware one could use someone else's work in their own. And as far as WB characters being in the "public domain" . . . Government publications are in the public domain here in the States -- meaning they can be reproduced without penalty -- but this is not the case for copyrighted products. The NFL makes it illegal to tape and replay a game for benefit, basically, but people do it. For better or worse, private industry typically does not allow others to use their product as they see fit. That's all. Hey, if it's OK with CS, then so be it. I only feel bad that others lost out when, perhaps, they really shouldn't have. At least they know that many of us think of their work as superior, and having accomplished everything the contest asked while playing by the rules, whether in CS' outline or not. All I know is that I have no plans for including a WB still in any design projects I am doing for a client, whether I profit or not. And I know my clients would not attach their name to any campaign that includes others' work, without their written permission.

Congratulations, to everyone, for outstanding entries, for stating your arguments here professionally (less lumping people together as losers without having read their posts), and to Crestock for continuing in its efforts to improve its standing in the online community. Many of us recognize how hard you are working, and keep this difference of opinion in true perspective. It's a contest, for fun, and a ridiculous prize. Had the prize been nothing, I think most of us would still argue our points accordingly. Sh!t, I've lived long enough to know that a computer isn't going to change anything. Nor is a Porsche going to change my life. Only I can, for saying what I believe is right WHEN it matters, and doing so accordingly. I've said what I had to say, and now I am heading back to the camera to submit more photos for review. Thanks again, and any of you feel free to touch base from my profile. -- Stu

This is my first and last post.

I was sent info about this contest (week 4) and thought I would join. However in looking over week 3 to see the quality of the competition I noticed one of the runner ups image using an exact copy of someone elses work just comping a hammer on top. I alerted the admin and heard back they had some doubts about the person in question. Whatever. I saw the same things in week 4.

Well after seeing the way the contest was being judged. I felt that...

a. those who got there work in earliest would have more votes
b. with the very high percentage of the total score going to user votes and not the hired judges I knew the contest would be basically meaningless and easily rigged
c. too many votes pouring in for bad designs
d. too many of those voters voting negatively for everyone else's works

Anyhow it's crestocks contest and they can run it however they want. In the future I would suggest not counting regular users votes. And be more definitive in the rules. The rules were very lax and open too interpretation. From people soley using photopshop and the images to others comping others works in with little thought.

With regard to the Week 4 winner. It's a good 'comp' job but whats the real meaning or feeling someone is to come away with after viewing it? Runners up 2 and 3 I knew would be tops because they evoke a feeling and have a story to tell.

Thanks.

The fact that CS is continuing to ignore these legitimate concerns about this contest and its outcome only proves the fact that it was a joke to begin with and has remained so up until now.  Get your act together.  It's funny how the overly vague rules and conditions and the poor choices made by the unqualified judges (in my opinion), reflect with uncanny accuracy, the complaints people are expressing about their submitted photography in the other forums: vague conditions, strange choices, and no feedback.  This seems to be the CS way.  I would love it if they would prove me wrong for Christmas, but since it has already passed, I'll give them until next Christmas.  Call it a challenge.  A new contest for CS.  The prize is a little bit of integrity - it's priceless.

Oh, and as for the "sore losers" crowd, leave the debate to the grown-ups.  I'm sure you'll get your first paying design job soon.

"If you don't like it, then don't enter contests!!!!!!!!!!!"  This is my favourite.  Yes, I chose to enter this contest.  I also chose to enter a marathon last week.  It was free to enter and the prize was $10000.  I trained hard for it.  People of all skill levels entered, and having run many marathons before, I knew I had a good shot at winning.  The gun went off and the race started.  As we were running, some onlookers started body checking some of the runners.  "That's not fair", I thought and I complained to one of the officials. 

"Don't worry, we'll take care of it".

"Alright then", I thought.  Then I got slammed to the ground.  THis continued until the end the race.  After I received the results, I found that the officials only accounted for 12 body checks.  "But I got hit 26 times", I thought.  Then I found out that the winner didn't even have the best time - AND that he wore roller blades for part of the race.  "Well, THAT's not allowed.  I'm going to complain.  What a shitty race."

The officials refused to comment.  I was pissed, as were a lot of the other runners.  Then one of the guys, elated at the fact that there was a marathon in the first place (and perhaps a bit delirious from runners high) piped up, "If you don't like it, don't enter marathons!!!!!"

"What an idiot," I thought.  Then I punched him in the face.

THE END

And yes, I know it's "their contest", and that it was "free" (although I value time more than money), but that doesn't mean CS shouldn't follow their own rules.  And that doesn't mean people shouldn't complain when they don't. 

Bla bla bla bla bla...

Congratulations to the winner!

i agree with you here.

dmg*

jonnakonna (12/23/2006)

---

Crestock: can you please clarify how using Looney Tunes characters is not breaking the contest rules.

"Crestock.com assumes all entries are original creations and are the works and property of the entrant, with all rights granted therein. However, Crestock reserves the right to freely publish the winning entries online or in other media. Crestock.com is not liable for any copyright infringement on the part of the entrant.

Modifying, enhancing, or altering someone else's existing artwork does not qualify as an original creation - excluding Crestock stock photos."

How about the source of the main image, does that break any of the contest rules?

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/technology/electronics/televisions_tv/2190028_retro_living_room.php?id=2190028

The livingroom photo is royalty free, so it should be ok by the rules. But i fir one demand an explanation about the use of the Warner Brothers characters.

(I think the winning image is also poor photoshopping, but that is an opinion and thus I can shut up about it)

Sorry to say that anyone can do anything with public domain works. Vintage ToonCast has been posting Bugs and Elmer cartoons for over a year, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about it, iTunes has featured it, and no one from WB has done anything to try and stop it.

Although there is an urban dictionary online that defines "humerous" as "funny" and an online radiology resources that uses "humerous" to mean the long bone of the arm, generally usage is that the first word is spelled "humorous" or in the UK "humourous" and the second, anatomical, word is "humerus." No doubt you meant a combination - that the winning entry tickled your funny bone.

Love to have more such contests but with more lead time for some of us slow workers.

Happy New Year

PS - for the heck of it, I used the Crestock spell check on this message and it picked up this error.

As a general response to some the many opinions expressed about the winning entry and the runners-up we can only say that tastes vary, and there is always a large portion of subjectivity involved in the visual arts. A number of different judges individually voted for the images they judged to be the best responses to the contest brief, so whereas some may disagree with their choices, it can hardly be claimed that they made the 'wrong' choices.

Having said that, after our initial winner announcement before Christmas, it became clear that the winning entry did not fully comply with the section in the contest rules which stipulated that "Modifying, enhancing, or altering someone else's existing artwork does not qualify as an original creation - excluding Crestock stock photos."

As a result of this, the initial winning entry has now, with the full understanding of the contributor, been removed from the contest. We would like to point out that the contestant had obtained the appropriate licences for the images used, so we have no reason to believe that any copyright laws were broken. We are satisfied that the contestant acted in good faith when submitting the image, but had not fully read the Crestock contest rules to ensure that the entry complied with them.

The withdrawal of this image has in turn moved the previous second place image up to the winning position, so our congratulations go to Pekka Veikkolainen, who is now officially the winner of the last round of the contest!
See more of Pekka's impressive work here: http://www.dlvisions.fi/~pveik

Thank you, Crestock, for addressing this one as you did. I, for one, feel that the revised order of finalists better represents a pool of entries that worked well within the parameters of the rules. There truly was nothing against the original winner, and we appreciate his willingness to cooperated, and his understanding. Thanks again for the contest, and for addressing our concerns. -- Stu

my work ended 12 i'm happy (i'm a girl)


My email got hacked mean internetpeople :(

Crestock 4 being great inspirate of me!!...
Up it ur performance n reach out the art world!!!...

cheers,...:)