| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2006 10:51:28 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
However, it is in the special rules section, so it would no longer be 'straying from the descritpion', it would be violating the rules if you did not 'reshoot one of your own entries'. I would think that if it appeared as though you did not attempt to reshoot one of your own past entries, it would be DQ, and I would vote as such. I predict some after the challenge DQs on this one for this reason. |
Are you guys gonna go through all the entries and double check the original entries? Can it be an entry that was DQed?
And I'm assuming that since advanced editing rules apply, we can't redo any of the entries that had special editing rules...? |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:53:03 AM · #52 |
Legally speaking, in order not to be DQd (the word 'must' in the additional rules), it has to be based on one of your own previously submitted photos, and it must be taken this week. The ribbon-winning or not is mentioned in the challenge description - and that has always been subject to free interpretation (2s exposure, 4-5am etc.)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:54:56 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Originally posted by skiprow:
THIS IS AN OPEN FREE-STUDY!!!
there are NO posted special rules related to how to reshoot your own image. the challenge description should help guide the voters, but straying from the description is NOT a dq'able offense.
;-) |
However, it is in the special rules section, so it would no longer be 'straying from the descritpion', it would be violating the rules if you did not 'reshoot one of your own entries'. I would think that if it appeared as though you did not attempt to reshoot one of your own past entries, it would be DQ, and I would vote as such. I predict some after the challenge DQs on this one for this reason. |
disagree, HB...
"Your entry must be taken this week and be a reshoot of one of your own entries."
it would be hard to dq anything that remotely resembles the original entry.
i would suggest that the shooter include in the photog notes 'how' they came up with the new shot, and that the SC take that into consideration before after-the-fact dq'ing images... |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:55:17 AM · #54 |
| it's gonna be a long week discussing this one :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:03:17 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by hopper:
it's gonna be a long week discussing this one :) |
I think that we've even discussed the rubber ducky challenge (and that description was as clear as a mountain stream).
:-)
Edit to add: And yes, there were DQs then!
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 11:03:58. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:06:32 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
The ribbon-winning or not is mentioned in the challenge description - and that has always been subject to free interpretation (2s exposure, 4-5am etc.) |
You wouldn't be DQ'd for using a ribbon-winning shot, but the voters would likely recognize the entry and clobber you for not meeting the challenge. Either way, it would be foolish to try it IMO. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:08:08 AM · #57 |
| But they shouldn't clobber you since it could have been your entry from the deja vu challenge...or just another ribbon-winner copy that you did. Right? ;) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:09:41 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You wouldn't be DQ'd for using a ribbon-winning shot... |
[un]fortunately, I don't have that problem ;) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:11:22 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by mk:
But they shouldn't clobber you since it could have been your entry from the deja vu challenge...or just another ribbon-winner copy that you did. Right? ;) |
I stand corrected, mk has a point: I've done these two ribbons:
and
Both are mine, and far from ribbons... |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:20:58 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by mk:
But they shouldn't clobber you since it could have been your entry from the deja vu challenge... |
Not everyone votes (or thinks) the same way. If it looks like a past ribbon winner, I'd certainly expect some DNMC votes. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:36:37 AM · #61 |
For those who want to notify voters of your original, you could title the shot anything you want and then put the photo ID in parenthasis.
Example:
Title: "I luv Nikon (334786)"
With only a little difficulty, people could come up with this...
 |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 12:00:10 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Two thoughts:
1. So much for anonymity
2. Limiting the entries to non-ribboning shots will seriously restrict Kiwiness' options. |
And yours as well! :P
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:03:29 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Title: "I luv Nikon (334786)"
With only a little difficulty, people could come up with this...
|
If you decide to reshoot that, may I suggest a spray-on tan and perhaps a belly button ring ;-P
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:24:44 PM · #64 |
oooo I know what to do, had that in mind the whole time..
Love this challenge! :D
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 13:25:10.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:35:24 PM · #65 |
I'm gonna reshoot the exact same thing - it's been a couple of years (have I been here that long?) - i have learned a lot, have better equipment (one of the issues with the original image was an equipment limitation) and the feedback on the image is consistent and accurate.
I am so psyched - I thought about reshooting it for fun anyway, just to see if I have improved as much as I think I have.
This may be my most ribbon worthy entry ever.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:01:29 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Larus:
I for one am NOT going to name the challenge in the title and probably not going to use the same title either, the thing I like about the challenges is the anonymity so I am going to try and recreate one of my least viewed entries :) |
That's exatly my thought too Larus. It should remain anonymous. I think most of us are honest enough that they will follow suit and not enter something that is not an improvement of an old entry. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:21:59 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
disagree, HB...
"Your entry must be taken this week and be a reshoot of one of your own entries."
it would be hard to dq anything that remotely resembles the original entry.
i would suggest that the shooter include in the photog notes 'how' they came up with the new shot, and that the SC take that into consideration before after-the-fact dq'ing images... |
Which is why I specifically stated that " I would think that IF IT APPEARED as though you did not attempt to reshoot one of your own past entries..." emphasis caps added.
For example, if a person has only entered portraits in the challenges, and their 'take two' entry is a landscape, with no people...we have a problem. Obviously it takes common sense.
~H~ |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:23:29 PM · #68 |
I've been talking about how much I want to reshoot a particular photo (is it really an outtake to discuss it if it's going to be such an obvious repeat?) so this is the perfect opportunity to apply all my new tricks!
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:25:41 PM · #69 |
| So can I redo a shot that got disqualified? (taking care, of course, toavoid the actions that got me disqualified the first time.) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:27:30 PM · #70 |
Woo hoo, I got in FIRST... :-) Let's hope it stays that way ... hee hee
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 05:52:01 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Originally posted by Larus:
I for one am NOT going to name the challenge in the title and probably not going to use the same title either, the thing I like about the challenges is the anonymity so I am going to try and recreate one of my least viewed entries :) |
That's exatly my thought too Larus. It should remain anonymous. I think most of us are honest enough that they will follow suit and not enter something that is not an improvement of an old entry. |
I don't think it can remain anonymous. I've only been around a couple of months and there are only 2 or 3 that could even be redone. Some can't - moment gone forever, not in the same place, etc. This challenge is limited to only those shots that can be reproduced - portraits, studio set ups, still lifes, etc. Candids, photojounalism, and others that require capturing a specific moment will be considerably more difficult.
Also, I was considering taking a shot that scored fairly high, and applying a critique (from Larus, BTW) and see if I can improve the score and placement.
Would this not be appropiate for this challenge?
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 17:52:36. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 06:52:47 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by gaurawa:
I am scared of scoring worse than what I did before. A sure proof of I am getting worse :( |
Especially since mine will probably be redone from a bygone era with a substantially different population : ) |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 04:53:29 AM · #73 |
I'm gonna redo this one, this time using more expensive paper...
Blue ribbon here I cometh! :p
 |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 05:17:09 PM · #74 |
Lucky entry #13. I don't think I've entered this early in a while. My choice was fairly obvious to me and I feel that the new shot gives the old one a real run for the money. I'm please to see how much my PP skill has increased over even 6 months. DPC has taught me so much. I look at photos from even 2 years ago and just cringe. I'm excited to see where I'll be in another 2 years.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2006 08:08:20 PM · #75 |
I have a couple of ideas from earlier challenges but have been challenged to redo a shot where there are no comments suggesting improvement. I know I can improve the image but would this be dq'd after the challenge?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 04:08:00 PM EDT.
