| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2006 01:11:21 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Reading this thread speaks volumes to where the world has gone. Deception and cheating have become ingrained and acceptable to the masses.
And we wonder why our politics (at least in the US) is the way it is. Go figure. |
Well, some of us are only talking about "cheating" as an answer to the discriminatory effect of these challenge guidelines. Rosa Parks broke the rules too ... |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:13:38 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Just needs a well composed, well lit portrait of two boxing seconds, carrying the spit buckets, towels and stools. |
I was going to look for some duelists ... |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:13:56 PM · #128 |
Where is council? Are there any council members here? If so, please just answer the following question clearly please....
If the top 5 or 10 will have their photos verified, will the 2 second rule be enforced and be a disqualification factor if not shown in exif data?
If the answer is a no, then we know that pretty much this is a free study and anything goes no matter how much is said, or how much argument about it ensues, so the arguments can now just end.
If the answer is a yes, then we all know to just do our "thang" with the 2 seconds and let the chips fall in the voting, as usual. If you make the top placements, you know you have no worries.
That pretty much is that I would imagine.
Rose |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:19:37 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by langdon:
... Every point and shoot I've used within the last few years had a manual mode that had an adjustable shutter.
That said, we've never disqualified anyone for DNMC, so if you can take a long exposure, then you can pariticpate. |
This reply to my question would suggest that the 2-second requirement is part of the challenge "description" and not a "rule" -- so a DQ for an exposure of other than two seconds will not be in order. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:21:57 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by karmat:
not shooting 2 seconds would not be grounds for dq -- it just wouldn't be meeting the challenge.
BUT, where is the fun in "cheating?" |
It was already answered on page 2 of this thread.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:28:32 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by langdon:
... Every point and shoot I've used within the last few years had a manual mode that had an adjustable shutter.
That said, we've never disqualified anyone for DNMC, so if you can take a long exposure, then you can pariticpate. |
This reply to my question would suggest that the 2-second requirement is part of the challenge "description" and not a "rule" -- so a DQ for an exposure of other than two seconds will not be in order. |
...Unless it was explicitly stated in the extra rules.
Rubber Ducky |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:41:05 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Where is council? Are there any council members here? If so, please just answer the following question clearly please....
If the top 5 or 10 will have their photos verified, will the 2 second rule be enforced and be a disqualification factor if not shown in exif data?
If the answer is a no, then we know that pretty much this is a free study and anything goes no matter how much is said, or how much argument about it ensues, so the arguments can now just end.
If the answer is a yes, then we all know to just do our "thang" with the 2 seconds and let the chips fall in the voting, as usual. If you make the top placements, you know you have no worries.
That pretty much is that I would imagine.
Rose |
It's already been answered, but here goes.
When we validate the top finishers, if they have a 1 second exposure or a 30 second exposure, but have broken no rules, it will be deemed a dnmc not a rules violation. To dq a picture because it was not 2 seconds would be like dq'ing a picture because the crop in the square challenge was 640 X 639. It simply did not meet the challenge. It was not a rules violation. We do not dq for not meeting the challenge.
We do not dq for not meeting the challenge. Using something other than a 2 second exposure is not a rules violation. It is not meeting the challenge.
Now, if you are one of those 20-second-exposure-top-finishers, you probably aren't going to be real popular in the forums in a couple of weeks, but you wouldn't be dq'ed for it.
clear 'nuf?
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 13:42:21. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:41:17 PM · #133 |
My idea: if your camera allows for two second exposure, by all means, use this challange to do exactly 2 second exposures... LEARN!
If you don't have access to a camera that can do a 2 second exposure, do some research, find out what can be done with a 2 second exposure and fake it. LEARN!
As for me, I am being REQUIRED by Rikki to show my EXIF data for a personal challenge against ShutterPug. She is too, so you can be guarenteed that our shutters will be open for exactly 2 seconds.
BTW, these Rikki-Idric type challenges are fun. I highly reccomend personal challenges between two members.
ShutterPug vs Fotomann smack talk
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:43:09 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Where is council? Are there any council members here? If so, please just answer the following question clearly please....
If the top 5 or 10 will have their photos verified, will the 2 second rule be enforced and be a disqualification factor if not shown in exif data?
If the answer is a no, then we know that pretty much this is a free study and anything goes no matter how much is said, or how much argument about it ensues, so the arguments can now just end.
If the answer is a yes, then we all know to just do our "thang" with the 2 seconds and let the chips fall in the voting, as usual. If you make the top placements, you know you have no worries.
That pretty much is that I would imagine.
Rose |
Just Remember
The voters will score you on their intrepretation of you meeting the rules
So it's not quite a free study. There must be an image that looks like it has had a long ish exposure.......... |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:44:31 PM · #135 |
I thought I read that it wouldn't be cause for DQ earlier.
So, there you have your answer. This is a free study and it is the hope of the challenge originator that others will stay on their honor and abide by the 2 seconds. If not, then you have only hurt yourself and your integrity (and hopefully don't take away good votes to those the deserve them while you're at it).
:)
Well, like I said, I am in. So anyone up for predicting the amount of entries? I say 400.
Rose |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:47:57 PM · #136 |
How can there even be any dicussion on this? It states exactly 2-seconds. If your equipment can't do 2-seconds, then don't enter. If you feel left out because you can't enter, too bad, enter a different challenge. If your moral standards are low enough to cheat, then cheat. Unless something is moving with-in your photo, a well exposed, properly taken picture will probably not look much different than one shot at 1/4sec or 3sec or something in between. Anyway, who's gonna go through and look at exposure times when voting. The average voter prolly spends less than 5 sec looking at a photo anyway.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:51:50 PM · #137 |
Whooops, there were several replies before mine posted.
Artan, what I mean by free study is you can basically shoot whatever you want. There are no limits to certain items or styles.
Movement, by the way, isn't the only thing that shows a longer exposure. There can also be some types of dreamy effects with 2 seconds and also just ghost effects without movement. Just want to say that, as I have been experimenting and different types of shots can be done with 2, 3 and longer second exposures. But 2 and 3 seconds does have a good range of possibilities. In other words, I wouldn't just shoot a lovely snow capped mountain in Iceland, but I also wouldn't expect over dreamy waterfalls either. Still there are several other things to look for and do.
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 13:52:26. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:01:18 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Reading this thread speaks volumes to where the world has gone. Deception and cheating have become ingrained and acceptable to the masses.
And we wonder why our politics (at least in the US) is the way it is. Go figure. |
Well, some of us are only talking about "cheating" as an answer to the discriminatory effect of these challenge guidelines. Rosa Parks broke the rules too ... |
I may have overstated the significance of “cheating” in a photo contest when comparing to the declining political expectations in the US but so do you General when using Rosa’s defiance of race discrimination to justify “cheating” in a photo contest based on your perceived “discrimination” because your camera does not do two second exposure.
In any case, I still find it sad that we can not have a simple challenge without people looking for ways to circumvent obvious rules. And yes, it is a rule, at least to me, when the description is so clear. I know the Pandora’s Box we open when DNMC can get you disqualified but it seems in these cases the challenge description could be written to clearly state that the “two second” issue is an additional rule and could be grounds for disqualification. Otherwise I’m with those who say why bother even stating “Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds”?
With that said I'm off to figure out a two second shot I can take.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:04:26 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
How can there even be any dicussion on this? It states exactly 2-seconds. If your equipment can't do 2-seconds, then don't enter... |
FWIW, I believe the vast majority of cameras can do 2 seconds. A few cams may not have long exposure capability at all, or may not have manual control of shutter speed, and for those folks that's potentially a problem.
Still, if I had a cam without manual control of shutter speed and wanted to enter, I'd try to find a way of controlling light to achieve the desired shutter speed or an approximation thereof. I'd just get as close as possible.
Meeting the challenge is highly desirable, but not meeting it is not grounds for DQ, and is not "cheating." If someone winds up with 2.5 seconds or 1.8 seconds, does it really matter? it's in the spirit of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:04:27 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Suppose I took a picture that looked like it was a two second exposure but I actually used a 30 second exposure to achieve it - it meets the spirit but perhaps not the letter of the challenge. I don't see that as cheating, just being creative. After all, that's what this contest is supposed to be about - creativity, not leagalese.
|
Legalese is a term used to describe verbage that is so complex and confusing that it takes a lawyer to understand it. This challenge description is the opposite of legalese. It couldn't be stated any simpler or more concisely: "Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds." You don't need to be a legalese-deciphering-lawyer to figure out what the heck that means :)
These challenges are about being creative within the constraints of the challenge description. Doesn't it take more creativity to take a great photo that meets the challenge, than it does to take one that flies in the face of the challenge description? |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:06:03 PM · #141 |
Would be nice if there was a rule appeneded to this challenge that made it DQable. This discussion would end and the voters would "know" the entries were 2-second exposures.
IMO, an entry better look like it was a 2 second exposure or it's not going to go very far.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:19:33 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
IMO, an entry better look like it was a 2 second exposure or it's not going to go very far. |
What does a 2-sec exposure look like? Take a rock and put it on a table, if you play around long enough with light and apatures, I don't think you'd be able to distinguish between 2 sec and 1/4 sec or anything in between.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:22:42 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
IMO, an entry better look like it was a 2 second exposure or it's not going to go very far. |
What does a 2-sec exposure look like? Take a rock and put it on a table, if you play around long enough with light and apatures, I don't think you'd be able to distinguish between 2 sec and 1/4 sec or anything in between. |
Hince the challemge ;-) The highest placing images will definitely take advantage of the longish exposure... HINT... Painting with Light Challenge :-)
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:22:49 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Would be nice if there was a rule appeneded to this challenge that made it DQable. This discussion would end and the voters would "know" the entries were 2-second exposures.
IMO, an entry better look like it was a 2 second exposure or it's not going to go very far. |
I agree with both paragraphs. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:33:43 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hince the challemge ;-) The highest placing images will definitely take advantage of the longish exposure... HINT... Painting with Light Challenge :-) |
Better be a fast "painter"! 2 seconds isn't very long.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:34:48 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
IMO, an entry better look like it was a 2 second exposure or it's not going to go very far. |
What does a 2-sec exposure look like? Take a rock and put it on a table, if you play around long enough with light and apatures, I don't think you'd be able to distinguish between 2 sec and 1/4 sec or anything in between. |
Agreed. Very hard to tell. Just assume everyone is playing by the rules, judge the images for what they are, and voila - everyone's happy. ;^)
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:43:11 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
IMO, an entry better look like it was a 2 second exposure or it's not going to go very far. |
Agreed. Very hard to tell. Just assume everyone is playing by the rules, judge the images for what they are, and voila - everyone's happy. ;^) |
Not saying this is how I will be voting, just my assumption on how the images will place in the challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:47:29 PM · #148 |
How about someone change the challenge info then.
"Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
Seems to be out of place if it's not enforced.
"Take a photograph using a shutter speed of something that resembles exactly 2 seconds, but if you don't, no big deal, because the challenges are being renamed "suggestions". If you feel like shooting it that way then more power to you, if not, no big deal."
I would also suggest a new domain name of "DPsuggestions.com". I'm sure it's available.
The whole point of a 2 seconds challenge should be to creatively use the this one parameter, whether it looks like 2 seconds or not.
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 14:48:24. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:52:31 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Doesn't it take more creativity to take a great photo that meets the challenge, than it does to take one that flies in the face of the challenge description? |
Does it ? Seems like if you have a camera that doesn't have a 2 second shutter control, that it would take more creativity to meet the challenge with that, than a camera that lets you dial in '2' for shutter speed. That isn't exactly a creative challenge to set your camera up properly, now is it ;)
Now taking a good picture, that meets the spirit of the challenge, in either case requires creativity, but don't mistake technical settings for creativity - which seems to be the problem in this thread.
If I take a picture of the hands of a watch moving from one tick, to the next tick to the final second tick, making it look like the motion across a 2 second interval - who cares how long the shutter was actually open for ? It would be an image that showed a 2 second interval of time - it would be entirely to the spirit of the challenge, even if I took it with a 1/30s exposure.
Time flies when you're having fun.
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like bananas. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 02:54:17 PM · #150 |
| Gordon, you keep listing all my workaround techniques : ) |
|
