| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 11:05:16 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Scalvert: If you mean The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot then say it! in the description. Come on. Come on. Be reasonable. |
SC doesn't pick or write (for the most part) the challenges. We just enforce the rules, and meeting the challenge ain't one of them. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:09:52 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Well which is it? |
Take your pick. All of my answers have been to make your image appear to meet the challenge. That's all the voters see, and thus all you will be judged on. No flip flopping involved. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:14:08 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Well which is it? |
Take your pick. All of my answers have been to make your image appear to meet the challenge. That's all the voters see, and thus all you will be judged on. No flip flopping involved. |
Exactly my point. If the challenge states that an image has to be exactly 2 seconds, the voters can't determine that a 1.5 second shot DNMC to score it lower. Only the SC can. So the responsiblity lies with the SC and Admin's to enforce it, not the voters.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:14:30 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Scalvert: If you mean The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot then say it! in the description. Come on. Come on. Be reasonable. |
But, isn't this caveat implied in every challenge? The challenge description gives the instructions ("take a photograph that represents hope") and the voters determine who executed the challenge the best based solely on the visual of the image. So, to me, every challegne has this added qualification. Giving the visual impression of [fill in the blank here] is what photography is all about, no?
I do realize what a touch one this particular challenge is to swallow. I didn't enter this challenge, but I can empathize with all the people who worked hard to get exactly 2 second exposures.
I have seen this Richard Avedon quote before, and I love it...
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
As the Kodak ads say, "Image is everything." If it looks like you met the challenge, then (barring a rules violation) you did. |
So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck - even if the DNA says its a frog ?
The big newsflash is 'the camera lies' - always. If it looks right, it is right.
'All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.'- Richard Avedon |
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 11:16:00. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:16:50 AM · #30 |
The current rule that DNMC is not grounds for DQ should remain in effect. It is the cornerstone for artistic creativity.
If, as in the case of the 2 second exposure challenge, an additonal DQ requirement were desired, then it should be stated under "Extra Rules:".
It is as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:19:46 AM · #31 |
I posted this on the other thread but I think it works here better:
I've done some work in the IEEE standards process and they define normative and informative text in the standard. Normative text means information that is required and informative text is provided for information only and is therefore not required.
How a sentence/clause is worded indicates if it is normative or informative. For example, directive words like "shall", "will", or "exactly" is considered normative and is therefore required. In this challenge, "exactly" would be a required feature of the photo.
If you have "should" or no real direction then the challenge description is informative and there for open for interpretation.
So a suggestion, for the rules changes is to adopt the normative/informative challenge decription definitions. An entry that breaks a normative description would be DQ'd. An entry that doesn't follow an informative description will be left to the mercy of the voters. The admins could either clearly identify a description as normative/informative in the challenge or post a message on the forums (although I would prefer the notice in the challenge).
David |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:20:04 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...the voters can't determine that a 1.5 second shot DNMC to score it lower. |
I agree with you, but I didn't pick or write the topic.
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Only the SC can. So the responsiblity lies with the SC and Admin's to enforce it, not the voters. |
No we can't. EXIF data is not available unless we request proof on every single image in the challenge, and meeting the challenge is not a DQ-able offense anyway. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:23:13 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...the voters can't determine that a 1.5 second shot DNMC to score it lower. |
I agree with you, but I didn't pick or write the topic.
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Only the SC can. So the responsiblity lies with the SC and Admin's to enforce it, not the voters. |
No we can't. EXIF data is not available unless we request proof on every single image in the challenge, and meeting the challenge is not a DQ-able offense anyway. |
IT should be DQ'able when it states "exactly". It's a moot point, but you guys might want to consider not wording the topic so exactly or make it a special rules challenge.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The current rule that DNMC is not grounds for DQ should remain in effect. It is the cornerstone for artistic creativity.
If, as in the case of the 2 second exposure challenge, an additonal DQ requirement were desired, then it should be stated under "Extra Rules:".
It is as simple as that. |
This is such a stretch. Limiting your shutter spead for a specific challenge is hardly limiting your creativity. It's to expand your photographic horizons and knowledge.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 11:24:14.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:33:50 AM · #34 |
So what is the big deal?
Why can't we agree that any challenges with this type of requirement in the future have it listed as an extra rule?
Scanning the challenge history, there are plenty with extra rules in there. The knowledge that winners will need to show proof will be enough to enforce compliance in the vast majority of cases, as it takes away this uncertainty.
Yellow flag all the way in the future.
End of. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:48:02 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The current rule that DNMC is not grounds for DQ should remain in effect. It is the cornerstone for artistic creativity.
If, as in the case of the 2 second exposure challenge, an additonal DQ requirement were desired, then it should be stated under "Extra Rules:".
It is as simple as that. |
This is such a stretch. Limiting your shutter spead for a specific challenge is hardly limiting your creativity. It's to expand your photographic horizons and knowledge. |
The issue in the 2 second challenge is a question of rules and nothing more than that.
We already have a rule mechanism in place to add additional DQ requirements. It was not employed in this challenge. That cannot be changed now.
Perhaps the "Extra Rules:" clause should have been used in this situation but it wasn't and that is my point.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 11:49:04.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:00:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by skiprow:
just please, quit complaining about unfairness.
yes, in the future, it would be good to have flagged special rules. but, if the challenge isn't flagged, then shannon's advice is the best. |
this conversation is for the future ... if we don't have it, nothing will happen |
My biggest problem with this site is even when there is a discussion. Some people are for change, some people against it. Then Nothing Happens! IMO SC/Admin feels that technicalities are more important than integrity. Kodak may say "the image is everything" I believe In life...Integrity is everything! Creative cheating is not a form of creativity its Cheating. Exact means Exact. It's a very clear description.
DPC SC/Admin are Leadership positions in this community. Standing up for what's right is a part of being a good leader. DPC has lost alot of credibilty in my eyes because of the ineffective leadership and lack of integrety in the challenges. I'm staying out of DPchallenges for awhile. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:13:39 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
My biggest problem with this site is even when there is a discussion. Some people are for change, some people against it. Then Nothing Happens! IMO SC/Admin feels that technicalities are more important than integrity. Kodak may say "the image is everything" I believe In life...Integrity is everything! Creative cheating is not a form of creativity its Cheating. Exact means Exact. It's a very clear description.
DPC SC/Admin are Leadership positions in this community. Standing up for what's right is a part of being a good leader. DPC has lost alot of credibilty in my eyes because of the ineffective leadership and lack of integrety in the challenges. I'm staying out of DPchallenges for awhile. |
perhaps this is how D&L get their cheap entertainment? I can almost hear them laughing about this now...."hey lets put the word "exactly" in the details but not flag it, then we can have a good laugh later"
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 12:14:25.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:27:58 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
Creative cheating is not a form of creativity its Cheating. Exact means Exact. It's a very clear description. |
There is no rule that says you must meet the challenge. As such, there is nothing for SC to enforce in that regard, and not meeting the challenge is NOT cheating. Yes, the description was specific, but certainly no more so than 4:00-5:00am or Pink. If your 10 second shoot looks believeable as a 2 second exposure, then you may (and probably will) outscore an actual 2 second exposure that looks like another shutter speed. Unless there are special rules, the task is ALWAYS to make your audience believe you met the challenge (whether or not you actually did). We've had a near-grayscale image ribbon for Orange, a 1/2 second shot ribbon for 2 seconds, and I barely missed a ribbon in Miniature with a setup that was enormous. Photography is a game of appearances. Think of it as a magic show... if your audience oohs and ahhs and believes you made a elephant disappear, then you did. There is no lack of integrity if the elephant really dropped through a false door, and nobody will run out onto the stage and cry foul.
I agree that this can defeat the purpose of some technical challenges (like 2 Second Exposure), but creating an illusion is often more challenging than shooting the real thing.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 12:28:51. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:32:48 PM · #39 |
what irks me - not to argue the DMNC = DQ side of things - is the fact the winning photo could have been accomplished with no argument as to the validity of the entry and using a 2sec exposure. he didn't need a 4 sec exposure he needed 1/4 of a 2sec exposure. so you cover the lens for 1.5 secs and there you go - exact same photo taken within the spirit of the challenge details which asked for exactly two seconds. no if's, and's or buts....
also some have argued that having a special rule would hinder creativty. in fact in this case a bit of creativity would have avoided this barrage of nit-picking and finger pointing while at the same time acheiving an identicle image.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 12:41:46.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:41:10 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
SC doesn't pick or write (for the most part) the challenges. We just enforce the rules, and meeting the challenge ain't one of them. |
No offense intended but that strikes me as something of a cop-out. SC and/or admins have the ability to rewrite the suggested topics before posting them, to refine them to be more or less specific. In the case of the 2-Second Exposure challenge I hope it was just an oversight that it was not made clearer, that 2 seconds was not identified as being a requirement, or merely a suggestion. Maybe they (they meaning SC and/or admins) attempted to do so by the use of the word "exactly"; but if so, they backed away from that in the thread titled 2-second exposure. The other alternative would be to think that the powers that be enjoy the type of controversy that has resulted, this "teeth-gnashing wailing about unfairness" as skip has so cogently labled it.
I hope that the current uproar will not be a death knell for topics like 4:00-5:00 a.m. and 2-Second Exposure. I like them. But I would like them more if the requirement was enforced with a Special Rule.
It would be nice to feel confident that, when I enter a two second shot into a 2-Second Exposure challenge, my competitors will also be entering the same thing. I hope that is not too much to expect from the site.
Is it difficult, or burdensome, to enforce a special rule? I would think not but would like to hear what some members of SC think about it.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:43:40 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by seenosun:
Creative cheating is not a form of creativity its Cheating. Exact means Exact. It's a very clear description. |
There is no rule that says you must meet the challenge. As such, there is nothing for SC to enforce in that regard, and not meeting the challenge is NOT cheating. Yes, the description was specific, but certainly no more so than 4:00-5:00am or Pink. If your 10 second shoot looks believeable as a 2 second exposure, then you may (and probably will) outscore an actual 2 second exposure that looks like another shutter speed. Unless there are special rules, the task is ALWAYS to make your audience believe you met the challenge (whether or not you actually did). We've had a near-grayscale image ribbon for Orange, a 1/2 second shot ribbon for 2 seconds, and I barely missed a ribbon in Miniature with a setup that was enormous. Photography is a game of appearances. Think of it as a magic show... if your audience oohs and ahhs and believes you made a elephant disappear, then you did. There is no lack of integrity if the elephant really dropped through a false door, and nobody will run out onto the stage and cry foul.
I agree that this can defeat the purpose of some technical challenges (like 2 Second Exposure), but creating an illusion is often more challenging than shooting the real thing. |
I like it. Now all ya have to do is change the name of the site. How about DPC-A Deceptive Photo Contest. At least you get to keep the same logos.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:45:50 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by seenosun:
Creative cheating is not a form of creativity its Cheating. Exact means Exact. It's a very clear description. |
Think of it as a magic show... if your audience oohs and ahhs and believes you made a elephant disappear, then you did. There is no lack of integrity if the elephant really dropped through a false door, and nobody will run out onto the stage and cry foul.
I agree that this can defeat the purpose of some technical challenges (like 2 Second Exposure), but creating an illusion is often more challenging than shooting the real thing. |
In the words of two magicians, Penn & Teller - That's just BS! Tell me why it is "more challenging" to make a 1/2 second exposure work instead of a 2 second one in the case of the blue ribbon winner for "two seconds". The voters are under the impression the shot was taken under the technical terms of the challenge when they vote. You make my point for me. Headline: SC takes another stand for the Status Quo. I think it must be required in the SC training manual. Members are outraged by the misdirection. You just don't want to hear it.
I'm boycotting the challenges and hope others choose to do the same. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:58:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
Tell me why it is "more challenging" to make a 1/2 second exposure work instead of a 2 second one in the case of the blue ribbon winner for "two seconds". |
I said OFTEN more challenging, not that it is in every case. It may have been here though. Consider... the photographer wades out into the stream, composes and takes a 2-second shot. Simple, but it may not LOOK like a two second exposure. Yes, you could use a strong ND filter or a different time of day to achieve the right look, but someone vacationing in the Andes doesn't necessarily have that luxury. Time to improvise. Adjusting the camera to yield the appearance of a two-second exposure requires both the knowledge of what a two-second exposure should look like and the technical skill to achieve it. Although I would have preferred everyone using the same shutter speed, I have no problem with the ribbon winner either.
"Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds"
Originally posted by seenosun:
Exact means Exact. It's a very clear description. |
Yep. Very clear. We want to see a a photograph using a 2 second shutter speed. Oh, but then there's this:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered"
OK, so we want to see a a photograph using a 2 second shutter speed, but you will NOT be disqualified for failing to do so. Net result: use 2 seconds or don't, but try to make it look like you did. Should there have been a special rule? Well sure, but there wasn't (whether intentionally or by oversight), so it's a moot point.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 13:14:07. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:12:41 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The current rule that DNMC is not grounds for DQ should remain in effect. It is the cornerstone for artistic creativity.
If, as in the case of the 2 second exposure challenge, an additonal DQ requirement were desired, then it should be stated under "Extra Rules:".
It is as simple as that. |
Yup -- and this time it wasn't.
Please note that SC members do not participate in posting the challenges, though like everyone else, we can offer suggested topics/definitions/rules. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:15:44 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by seenosun:
Tell me why it is "more challenging" to make a 1/2 second exposure work instead of a 2 second one in the case of the blue ribbon winner for "two seconds". |
I said OFTEN more challenging, not that it is in every case. It may have been here though. Consider... the photographer wades out into the stream, composes and takes a 2-second shot. Simple, but it may not LOOK like a two second exposure. Yes, you could use a strong ND filter or a different time of day to achieve the right look, but someone vacationing in the Andes doesn't necessarily have that luxury. Time to improvise. Adjusting the camera to yield the appearance of a two-second exposure requires both the knowledge of what a two-second exposure should look like and the technical skill to achieve it. |
The Challenge said "Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds" not "Adjust the camera to yield the appearence of a two second exposure". It is very clear!
You call it slight of hand, a magic trick.
Many others including myself feel it was deception. High votes were given based on a certain "wow" factor like "wow, how did they do that with a two second exposure?" If they did meet that criteria they deserve every high vote they receive but the criteria established wasn't met. Voters were led to believe the challange had a "two second" requirement. High votes were given based on a deception.
It is wrong to allow it to stand. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:18:30 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
In the words of two magicians, Penn & Teller - That's just BS! Tell me why it is "more challenging" to make a 1/2 second exposure work instead of a 2 second one in the case of the blue ribbon winner for "two seconds". The voters are under the impression the shot was taken under the technical terms of the challenge when they vote. You make my point for me. Headline: SC takes another stand for the Status Quo. I think it must be required in the SC training manual. Members are outraged by the misdirection. You just don't want to hear it.
I'm boycotting the challenges and hope others choose to do the same. |
I find it interesting that you direct all your outrage towards the Site Council and none towards your fellow photographers.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:18:48 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
Voters were led to believe the challange had a "two second" requirement. High votes were given based on a deception. It is wrong to allow it to stand. |
You checked a box agreeing to this when you entered: "Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered. Please do not request disqualification for these reasons, as such requests will not be considered." |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:21:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by seenosun:
In the words of two magicians, Penn & Teller - That's just BS! Tell me why it is "more challenging" to make a 1/2 second exposure work instead of a 2 second one in the case of the blue ribbon winner for "two seconds". The voters are under the impression the shot was taken under the technical terms of the challenge when they vote. You make my point for me. Headline: SC takes another stand for the Status Quo. I think it must be required in the SC training manual. Members are outraged by the misdirection. You just don't want to hear it.
I'm boycotting the challenges and hope others choose to do the same. |
I find it interesting that you direct all your outrage towards the Site Council and none towards your fellow photographers. |
Wow good point. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:22:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by mk:
I find it interesting that you direct all your outrage towards the Site Council and none towards your fellow photographers. |
Just for the record, I have not at any time voiced anything regaridng this and the SC. I do not blame SC at all. I blame D&L for using a phrase that indicates the details will be a requirment and then they are not enforced.
I really don't think SC can do anyhting about this without D&L stepping to the plate and admitting they screwed up.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:29:37 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by seenosun:
Voters were led to believe the challange had a "two second" requirement. High votes were given based on a deception. It is wrong to allow it to stand. |
You checked a box agreeing to this when you entered: "Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered. Please do not request disqualification for these reasons, as such requests will not be considered." |
With every post you make my point for me. In my OP I stated "IMO SC/Admin feels that technicalities are more important than integrity". You are technically correct. It's the integrity of DPChallenge that suffers!
edit: to include correct quote
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 13:31:34. |
|
