| | stcymrk (12/23/2006)
holy bunch of sore losers batman. you should be grateful that crestock even offered this contest. i wouldn't be surprised if they don't continue after all the complaints.
I agree somewhat with that, but also disagree to a certain extent. There was a lot of time spent on some of these (on mine probably a good 10 hours). So, although I personally don't resent the decision - it's just one contest :) - I can see why many people would, given that the winning design can be made within minutes. My apologies to the winner, I don't mean to belittle your work. Just making an objective observation. |
| | Oh well people are supposed to post their opinions here... Camera is placed in wrong perspective (imo) and doesn't really fit into the whole image. Anyway congratulations, whole composition was a really good idea.
I like 3rd image the most, fantastic job! |
| | stcymrk (12/23/2006)
holy bunch of sore losers batman...
good thinking Robin! get in the car... |
| | While time or skill alone do not determine whether an image should win, because an image can still suck given both time and skill if it lacks a good concept or composition. I don't think that is really the point here. There is copyrighted material being used in the winning entry that should obviously disqualify it, unless there are some hidden rules about the contest nobody else was made aware of.In this week 4 winner thread, Crestock mentions that this list is subject to verification that no copyrighted material has been used without appropriate licensing or permission. You should not be able to use copyrighted material at all I thought, with or without permission.
"Crestock.com assumes all entries are original creations and are the works and property of the entrant, with all rights granted therein. Modifying, enhancing, or altering someone else's existing artwork does not qualify as an original creation..."
It sounds like there may be some clarification necessary. Modifying the artwork of Looney Tunes somehow equals original creation?
"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." Some of the contest images were allowed to be points of interest, but the central part of this design is the photo of the room as that is what lends placement to everything else. That's only a nitpick, though it may have some merit. For those who think that people complaining or disagreeing with some Crestock decisions/processes are simply disgruntled contestants, I'm sure you will find there are at least a fair share of non-contestants that would agree with some of the common sense arguments and it's only for the best that any concerns be spoken so that any such mistakes could be prevented in the future. It could be especially important if the prizes in any potential future contests are even half as decent as they were in this contest. Just my thoughts. It would be a shame to boast a quality vote cleansing process (which is only required when you have a broken and lame voting system in the first place) to ensure that the right entry wins, but allow the winning entry to break the fundamental contest rules. Don't mean to pick on Crestock, but they almost go out of their way to beg for criticism. Have a nice Christmas!$%& :D -Crache |
| | congratulations! |
| | Art has always be subjective.... However, congrats to the winners, they definite deserve it, I wish I could do a better job though. Great work everyone! :) |
| | Onnittelut, Pekka! -Jori |
vurtx Irvine, United States | Hi all, good competition, congrats on the winners!
con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. An abstract idea or notion.
2. An explanatory principle in a scientific system. Also called conception.
In this competition I learned that main idea behind a work was more important than anything, that includes time spent, creativity, technicality, and visual impact.
I spent so much time focusing on the visual impact, technicality, and creativity, that I forgot about expressing the main idea behind my artwork- in this case the most important thing.
So.. knowing my concept is weak, could someone please provide some feedback and constructive criticism on my piece? thats all I really wanted, and all I got was bad votes (some good)
I have a feeling mine was just too dark.. it was late at night and never saw it on a white background or at night...
any feedback would be especially helpful and highly appreciated as I would like to always improve my skills
Its pretty, but.. does a lack of solid meaning behind the piece completely detract from it? if there was a huge story behind it that could somehow be shown in the image, would it make the piece amazing?
Thanks again, it was fun.
|
| | I thought it was a good pick. I say congrats...enjoy your prize. |
| | 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." |
| | Too bad Crestock can not show this winning image anywhere because of the
c o p y r i g h t e d m a t e r i a l
used in this picture. which everyone knows it is WB's property...
-- and think - would the picture be as funny without the famous couple : wabbit and elmer? I guess not, if I would've put mickey mouse with an ostriches coming out of his ears I guess it wouldv'e been funnier than doing my own character who no one knows thus see nothing humorous in that... This is giving an advance to the winner... which other's didn't risk to take.
I am not taking any sides which picture is good or not but just the fact that the winner piece uses illegal stuff is a negative influence to crestock.
Just my 10 cents.
Hope crestock thinks twice before WB comes knocking on their door - and now that this message forum is full of awareness of this fact, crestock can not say that they didn't know / they were not warned.
..would like to at least hear crestock's opinion about this. I guess they are dealing the issue now with the winner. Maybe you could at least admit you were wrong and disqualify the image. I know it must be sh*t to be taken the prize away from the front of your eyes, specially under the holidays, but maybe you could have some kind of agreement - split the prize with the 2nd one : 1 monitor per artist, eh? :)
Anycares, hope you all have a very nice Xmas! |
| | This is clear as water. The winning entry contains copyrighted material and is thus disqualified. It clearly says so in the rules.
it is a shame that this happened, because it is not too good publicity for crestock, but I hope they sort it out asap!! |
| |
Whoa! Let's relax, some of you! To call the rest us -- the only ones discussing the matter -- a bunch of "sore losers", is a bit much. Did we we lose? Yes. Are we bitter about that fact? No. You could replace "sore" with "concerned" because the majority of us followed the rules, as far as I can tell. As well, there was an early disqualification around pp 15-16 of the contest because someone used a previously rendered work, a far less offense than this, in my opinion. Self-plagarization versus copyright infringement. The issue here is not that WE lost. The issue is that someone who, to be fair, maybe didn't read the rules and follow them, beat out many pieces that are entirely original, follow the rules, and -- in everyone's opinion but the judges -- has enough visual impact to make it into the pages of a magazine. Whether you like #2 or not is not the point. The point is that #2 came out of ether, nothingness beyond the images provided by CS, and #1 borrowed from someone else. I'm not even getting into technical difficulty of these pieces. And I only use #2 as an example. There are many that didn't even show, pieces one can clearly see come from the artist, not Warner Bros. So, losers? I think not. Wanting to see a correction made because none of the rest of us broke the rules? Yes. My entry, top of page 7, maybe would have placed had I dropped in a few X-Wings, or the Death Star, or a NASA photograph as a backdrop . . . ? But it didn't place, perhaps because the judges didn't agree with a 4.2 rating, perhaps because my skills are not enough to place with using someone else's work. I don't know, and I don't care. The point is that I followed the rules and lost. The top 10 favorites followed the rules and lost, as far as I know. The winning entry, friends, did not follow the rules and won. It's a matter of what is right, and that's it. We have nothing against the winner, per se. We have an issue with someone winning who didn't follow the rules. All the best. -- Stu |
| |
Some Bugs Bunny cartoons felt in the public domain... I don't know how much it is legal but
i think this material can be use for non commercial work...
You can check :D:) |
| | HAHAHAHA For real how can poeple be that envious?
Once again DON'T post your images to a contest if you can't lose. Judges made the rules and picked a winner. that's it.
its so fun to read post from these desperate people... hahaha, get a job and buy an "Über Mac" |
| | Highly doubt anyone here is desperate or envious. Anyway, it is possible bugs bunny/etc. is public domain now, but I'm not sure that makes a difference, since it is still not the work of the winning entry creator. Just have to wait for Crestock to say something, they've been very quiet considering they haven't responded to any of the concerns in this thread yet.-Crache |
| | first of all congrats to the winner
i liked your work
i believe some have posted cuz they envy the winner and go desperate for the prize
as others i also worked hard on my own entry but actually believe there were much better
images than mine
so i was not expecting anything
on the other hand i believe the point about the presumably copyrighted image in the winner
should be clarified just for the own health and reputation of the contest. and im not even saying whether the 2nd place shouldve won or not. is not about promoting anybody.
no matter who had won i guess there wouldve been controversy,
but in this case i think is not about subjectivity.
irrelevant i think is the persons nationality, style or time spent on the work.
but it
either complies with the rules or not. is that image used copyrighted or not? and if it is, how was it judged?
if anybody wants to contact me to exchange comments and tips on PS please do so
im a beginner on this stuff. if the case PM me
:)
happy holidays !!!! |
| | simUUUU (12/23/2006)
Some Bugs Bunny cartoons felt in the public domain... I don't know how much it is legal but i think this material can be use for non commercial work...
You can check :D:)
But in a way this is commercial use, because the winner is getting hardware worth the salary of many months (for most of us at least). So I have no option but think there has been a mistake in judging the images. As many have already pointed out, the rules very clearly state the kind of images as #1 are not inside the rules. |
| | It isn't commercial use.
WB doesn't give two s**ts about this contest and are not going to be knocking on anyones door.
I must say, I am enjoying these posts. LOL..Not as good!!...Copywritten material!!...LOL..Less time invested...LOL. Just except that you were not picked as the winner and move on.
Try to remember who's contest this was. They gave it to who they thought deserved it. How can you argue with that...it's their contest!! |
| | 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.
|
