| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2010 12:15:04 AM · #1 |
The first place entry has been disqualified for creating a composite from two different photos. Congratulations to  scarbrd for the new ribbon and to bassbone for reaching the top 10.
EDIT- A recalculation will be made when Langdon is available.
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 00:17:30. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:19:47 AM · #2 |
| Thanks Shannon I guess that does answer the question from the other thread huh. Too bad the others won't get their week on the front page though. :( |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:22:48 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Too bad the others won't get their week on the front page though. :( |
Yes it is...
  |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:29:06 AM · #4 |
Yeah....no lens cap soup.
I still say the new member did not know the rules of the site. It was a good shot even without the overlay. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 01:09:38 AM · #5 |
So that means I got 5th.....cool. BUT....I still love the image that was DQéd.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2010 01:26:24 AM · #6 |
Scalvert (or anybody on SC) can you please recheck your files....you have requested my image for validation...but you already have it, along with my editing details. The red message is still showing on my front page.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2010 01:42:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Yeah....no lens cap soup.
I still say the new member did not know the rules of the site. It was a good shot even without the overlay. |
Totally and completely agree that without the overlay he still would have won. Congrats to him no matter the ruling. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 02:17:56 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Yeah....no lens cap soup.
I still say the new member did not know the rules of the site. It was a good shot even without the overlay. |
I wasn't a huge fan of the shot but I agree with you on the overlay, it would probably have done just as well without it so my guess would be a misunderstanding of the rules.
Oh well, congrats to the new top three, shame scarbrd didn't get the time on the front page, the shot certainly deserved it!
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 02:18:44. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 07:19:16 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Yeah....no lens cap soup.
I still say the new member did not know the rules of the site. It was a good shot even without the overlay. |
I wasn't a huge fan of the shot but I agree with you on the overlay, it would probably have done just as well without it so my guess would be a misunderstanding of the rules.
Oh well, congrats to the new top three, shame scarbrd didn't get the time on the front page, the shot certainly deserved it! |
agreed on everything. Shame about the lenscap soup -- I was looking forward to seeing the pictures!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2010 10:48:42 AM · #10 |
Shame because it is a lovely image. Maybe he thought Free Study meant free to do whatever?
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 10:49:23. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 10:58:56 AM · #11 |
How can the validation process be speeded up? What can be done to ensure the "rightful" winners get the front page?
If there's a bottleneck due to the volume of entries needing validation versus the number of admins who can validate, I would suggest putting a request out to the general membership to assist. It seems to me you don't need to have full powers of site admin in order to help. If there's a known busy season or whatever, you could train a handful of trusted extras to help with validation.
In fact, perhaps a new level of volunteerism could be created that only assists with validation requests.
It seems to me from my armchair over here that the validation of twenty or so photos from any current set of challenges should not take more than a week. If it does, it also seems something is amiss, because we have the potential for what has just happened -- a long standing member getting deprived of showing on the front page because a contested image from a first-time entrant took so long to validate. It's just not good, and frankly, not very nice to the membership. I get that there are issues to contest and maybe hot debate and all that, but when the process takes longer than the actual challenge results are on display, the raison d'etre of the site is seriously undermined, at least as far as the members go.
What can be done? Can you help? |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:02:02 AM · #12 |
Ick. Twice. How distasteful. First, the "overlay" is nothing but a subtle texture. How in hell can this be construed as "combining different scenes?" If he had done it using a filter, it would have been OK?? I thought that Advanced was results-based, not process-based. Sorry SC, this sets a very bad precedent.
Oh yeh, and the second Ick... the time it took. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:06:11 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Louis:
How can the validation process be speeded up? What can be done to ensure the "rightful" winners get the front page?
If there's a bottleneck due to the volume of entries needing validation versus the number of admins who can validate, I would suggest putting a request out to the general membership to assist. It seems to me you don't need to have full powers of site admin in order to help. If there's a known busy season or whatever, you could train a handful of trusted extras to help with validation.
In fact, perhaps a new level of volunteerism could be created that only assists with validation requests.
It seems to me from my armchair over here that the validation of twenty or so photos from any current set of challenges should not take more than a week. If it does, it also seems something is amiss, because we have the potential for what has just happened -- a long standing member getting deprived of showing on the front page because a contested image from a first-time entrant took so long to validate. It's just not good, and frankly, not very nice to the membership. I get that there are issues to contest and maybe hot debate and all that, but when the process takes longer than the actual challenge results are on display, the raison d'etre of the site is seriously undermined, at least as far as the members go.
What can be done? Can you help? |
I'm not sure there's a problem that mightn't have been introduced by the member body itself. You can be damn sure that SC wanted to be unequivocal in their decision on this image since the torch & pitchfork brigade was out in force about the image in an open forum despite even being asked to cease and desist as denoted by the ToS.
It seemed pretty clear that there was going to be a DQ, at least by the experts in the thread, but the hue and cry was pretty out of hand and I'm sure they were predominantly being careful. It's all very well and good to be indignant about the placement, and appropriate viewing time, of the validated Top 5, and the Top 10, but perhaps the blame for the amount of time on this particular image may not rest solely on SC.
Just sayin'
|
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:13:53 AM · #14 |
| Bull. The blame is on the members now? That's utter crap, and just a little more than insulting. The only "pitchfork brigade" and "hue and cry" came from people whose hair got curled over offering an opinion on the potential for disqualification. "Indignant" about placement? scarbrd lost the front page due to the process. The process therefore needs to change in order to avoid a repeat. Standing behind the banner no matter what it says in front serves no one. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:21:10 AM · #15 |
Bummer. I was looking forward to seeing a photo of  Kenskid eating his lens cap. When will that chance ever roll around again? |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:43:44 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
First, the "overlay" is nothing but a subtle texture. How in hell can this be construed as "combining different scenes?" If he had done it using a filter, it would have been OK?? I thought that Advanced was results-based, not process-based. |
We have both of the originals (and one of them was taken in April). Yes, Advanced in results-based, but there are also technical restrictions— like not creating composites of multiple photos and shooting within the submission dates. Surely you of all people are familiar with these primary rules?
You must create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene... All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.
You may not combine captures of different scenes...
You may not add... parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing (except for combining photos as allowed by the multiple capture rules above).
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 11:44:29. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:44:53 AM · #17 |
Dont worry ill open the lens cap derby again on another issue.
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Bummer. I was looking forward to seeing a photo of Kenskid eating hsdis lens cap. When will that chance ever roll around again? |
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 11:57:02. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:49:12 AM · #18 |
im with louis on this. to blame everone but the perp is kind of strange.
Originally posted by Louis:
Bull. The blame is on the members now? That's utter crap, and just a little more than insulting. The only "pitchfork brigade" and "hue and cry" came from people whose hair got curled over offering an opinion on the potential for disqualification. "Indignant" about placement? scarbrd lost the front page due to the process. The process therefore needs to change in order to avoid a repeat. Standing behind the banner no matter what it says in front serves no one. |
|
|
|
|
07/17/2010 11:50:24 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...perhaps the blame for the amount of time on this particular image may not rest solely on SC. |
A thoughtful sentiment, but the validation delay was entirely on us. We're just not voting/discussing as quickly as we should and I agree that it undermines the site. :-( |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:24:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Dont worry ill open the lens cap derby again on another issue.
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Bummer. I was looking forward to seeing a photo of Kenskid eating hsdis lens cap. When will that chance ever roll around again? |
|
I suggest preparing it by melting your lens cap in the microwave, then pouring through a strainer into cold water... :) |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:29:16 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kirbic:
First, the "overlay" is nothing but a subtle texture. How in hell can this be construed as "combining different scenes?" If he had done it using a filter, it would have been OK?? I thought that Advanced was results-based, not process-based. |
We have both of the originals (and one of them was taken in April). Yes, Advanced in results-based, but there are also technical restrictions— like not creating composites of multiple photos and shooting within the submission dates. Surely you of all people are familiar with these primary rules?
You must create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene... All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.
You may not combine captures of different scenes...
You may not add... parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing (except for combining photos as allowed by the multiple capture rules above). |
The Advanced Rules allow for textures, which are *always* external sources of image data (whether or not the user used one of his own images, another person's, or built-in textures in software), and are *not* required to be shot within the submission dates. This you very well know.
The pertinent question is, is this a texture, or did he combine portions of different images? The answer is obvious. The SC conclusion on this is ludicrous. Y'all might just as well change the Advanced Rules to disallow all textures, since that is the precedent you are setting here. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:40:36 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The Advanced Rules allow for textures, which are *always* external sources of image data (whether or not the user used one of his own images, another person's, or built-in textures in software), and are *not* required to be shot within the submission dates. |
As explained during the SC discussion on this image, "Texture filters, like glow filters, are fine. Texture overlays (pasting another photo over your entry), are illegal for the same reason pasting an image of the sun into your entry to create a glow would be illegal. Similarly, vignettes are legal in Advanced, but you can't paste a photo shot through a tunnel on top of your entry to create that effect. The only allowance for combining multiple files is when the framed scene doesn't change."
Some Photoshop filters use external data to work their magic, but not as a straight overlay. A brushstroke or texturizer filter uses such images as a mask to manipulate the single photo you're working on. They do NOT simply paste one over the other like a multiple exposure, and the results are entirely different. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:51:59 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The Advanced Rules allow for textures, which are *always* external sources of image data (whether or not the user used one of his own images, another person's, or built-in textures in software), and are *not* required to be shot within the submission dates. |
As explained during the SC discussion on this image, "Texture filters, like glow filters, are fine. Texture overlays (pasting another photo over your entry), are illegal for the same reason pasting an image of the sun into your entry to create a glow would be illegal. Similarly, vignettes are legal in Advanced, but you can't paste a photo shot through a tunnel on top of your entry to create that effect. The only allowance for combining multiple files is when the framed scene doesn't change."
Some Photoshop filters use external data to work their magic, but not as a straight overlay. A brushstroke or texturizer filter uses such images as a mask to manipulate the single photo you're working on. They do NOT simply paste one over the other like a multiple exposure, and the results are entirely different. |
I'm just going to call this what it is, semantic BS. The end effect was a subtle texture, and regardless of how it was applied, the end result is what counts in Advanced. If that is not the case, then re-work the Advanced Rules entirely to make it *clear* that they are *not* results-based, but process-based. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 12:56:55 PM · #24 |
Not sure why it took so long to DQ, I called it on the day of rollover.
Leave the validation to me, I don't need to see RAW files and steps taken, let me make the call and that should be enough for anyone - theres too much red tape and fannying around. As long as I know who took the image then that will speed things up as well, because some users are far more trustworthy than others.
Like the death penalty, sometimes a few innocent ones will get caught up with the wrong`uns, but overall justice will be served.
Keep it simple!
SC, can I have confirmation this will be OK with you guys? Do I need to submit a ticket?
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 12:58:47. |
|
|
|
07/17/2010 01:05:58 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Not sure why it took so long to DQ, I called it on the day of rollover.
Leave the validation to me, I don't need to see RAW files and steps taken, let me make the call and that should be enough for anyone - theres too much red tape and fannying around. As long as I know who took the image then that will speed things up as well, because some users are far more trustworthy than others.
Like the death penalty, sometimes a few innocent ones will get caught up with the wrong`uns, but overall justice will be served.
Keep it simple!
SC, can I have confirmation this will be OK with you guys? Do I need to submit a ticket? |
I'd bet you run stop signs regularly yeah?
ETA: No real offense intended, but dammit man, rules are rules, follow or not, but there is a price to pay should you be found to have not followed the rules.. *shrug* I know we all want to be forgiving, but - rules are indeed rules.. How is it at all fair to say that a rule can be broken, but only enforced selectively? That's simply ludicrous..
Message edited by author 2010-07-17 13:11:18. |
|
