DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> 'Silky-Smooth' Challenge Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 100, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/23/2007 05:52:28 PM · #51
I knew it was too good to be true
 05/23/2007 05:55:59 PM · #52
Why. I own the same lens, don't use it much but it has been very good, won a State Fair photo competition using it with a 20D. So what makes it hard to believe; f/22 =shallow DOF which it is, ISO 100 so lower noise and better sharpness which it has, 1/200 sec and from the reflection in the bubble there is a flash or light source and very little shadow means strong lighting. In fact everything points to that lens being more than capable and probable.
.
Again just because someone can't figure out how a picture is taken is no grounds for a DQ so you can learn. DNMC and using a different stated camera, lens or settings are not grounds for a DQ. Look at the comments at the end of the challenge and then discuss with the photog. We can all learn then without a witch hunt. Yes DQ's are valid if rules are broke not when you don't understand how it was taken. Sheeeeesh.

Isn't it more important to know people here at DPC are correctly representing themself. It's impossible to tell if a member is a kid or adult. Far too many have stated ages of being kids when they're adults and younger folk listed as very old. Just goes along with the level of integrity of many here. Stop the witch hunts, it only belittles the accusers.
Originally posted by inshaala:
it was a great shot indeed, however i was wondering (and severely doubting) if it was indeed taken with the 18-55 at f/22 as stated...
05/23/2007 05:57:35 PM · #53
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wish she said what the sphere was made of. Glass? Water? something else?


I didn't vote in that challenge but when I saw the photo on the front page it looked quite obvious to me it was a glass marble despite what the title said. Regardless why would that matter?
05/23/2007 05:58:09 PM · #54
Who cares if they keep the voted score or it's zero. It just doesn't matter! Heck it's become a big deal and it's all speculation. It's up to the SC's and no one else. It just doesn't matter!!!!
 05/23/2007 06:25:06 PM · #55
Originally posted by karmat:
ummm guys, before you string the photog up, consider that maybe she just hasn't added the other lenses to her profile, and maybe the date is set wrong on her camera.

Just because someone was dq'ed doesn't mean they are out to cheat. It was her first entry, that tells me it was probably something she didn't understand about the rules.

Play nice.


I meant it in a "how did you take that shot?" kind of way because she did explain later that she used a syringe and the drop was really small - which made me think about what lens she was using. I havent read anything past that post and dont care to as i will probably find lots of people slagging me off for being curious...
 05/23/2007 06:35:31 PM · #56
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wish she said what the sphere was made of. Glass? Water? something else?


I didn't vote in that challenge but when I saw the photo on the front page it looked quite obvious to me it was a glass marble despite what the title said. Regardless why would that matter?


Cuz I can't duplicate it if I don't know what it was... ;)
 05/23/2007 06:37:37 PM · #57
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wish she said what the sphere was made of. Glass? Water? something else?


I didn't vote in that challenge but when I saw the photo on the front page it looked quite obvious to me it was a glass marble despite what the title said. Regardless why would that matter?


Cuz I can't duplicate it if I don't know what it was... ;)


she said in the comments she used a syringe and the leaf had to be smooth
 05/23/2007 06:38:03 PM · #58
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
So what makes it hard to believe; f/22 =shallow DOF which it is,


Ok just took a look at a few replies....I'm sorry but were we looking at the same photo/know the same about the effect of aperture on DOF? f/22 = massive dof and even more so (apparent) on a lens with the limit at 55mm...

Yup it could be a typo for 2.2 or 2 - but then that lens doesnt do that... do you now see my problem / curiosity?
 05/23/2007 06:41:17 PM · #59
Originally posted by inshaala:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
So what makes it hard to believe; f/22 =shallow DOF which it is,


Ok just took a look at a few replies....I'm sorry but were we looking at the same photo/know the same about the effect of aperture on DOF? f/22 = massive dof and even more so (apparent) on a lens with the limit at 55mm...

Yup it could be a typo for 2.2 or 2 - but then that lens doesnt do that... do you now see my problem / curiosity?


In the end, it doesn't matter at all what people *write* there, it matters what is in the exif. That is all. We aren't privy to that information unless someone wants to make us privy to it. I could write f/420 in there and nobody can do a thing about it. I'd probably get a ton of validation requests, but if my exif is accurate, nothing can be done about it.

Those fields are for information and to help people... but they aren't DQ'able for being wrong.
 05/23/2007 06:51:28 PM · #60
Originally posted by Di:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wish she said what the sphere was made of. Glass? Water? something else?


I didn't vote in that challenge but when I saw the photo on the front page it looked quite obvious to me it was a glass marble despite what the title said. Regardless why would that matter?


Cuz I can't duplicate it if I don't know what it was... ;)


she said in the comments she used a syringe and the leaf had to be smooth


Ah ok. It was in the photo thread and not in her photographer comments. So she didn't make the water have more viscosity assuming it was water?
 05/23/2007 06:54:02 PM · #61
I bet petals of the right type are very hydrophobic which helps the roundness. I simply hadn't seen such roundness at the bottom before and wondered if it was a glass bead instead of a drop of water. Or was it glycerin which has more surface tension (and thus can be rounder)...
 05/23/2007 06:56:48 PM · #62
Originally posted by Artyste:

In the end, it doesn't matter at all what people *write* there, it matters what is in the exif. That is all. We aren't privy to that information unless someone wants to make us privy to it. I could write f/420 in there and nobody can do a thing about it. I'd probably get a ton of validation requests, but if my exif is accurate, nothing can be done about it.

Those fields are for information and to help people... but they aren't DQ'able for being wrong.


I never said they were, did i? and what you said is good reason to have the exif parsed instead of manual entry. If what people are trying to get at in this thread that this site is a learning site - what is the point of having intentionally or unintentionally wrong information included in shot details?
 05/23/2007 07:11:29 PM · #63
Depends on how the photo is saved. If saved for web, much if not all of the EXIF data is lost. Also many other programs such as some versions of Neat Image as well as other strip the photo of much of the EXIF data. Unless DPC requires a standard processor program that does not delete or change the data there will always be some that have to manually input the data. That would be dumb wouldn't it. Heck scan back at a lot of challenge winners and there is no processing steps or information at all. So why did the photog not put anything down? Was he/she cheating and didn't want to tell about the illegal steps. Heck, no witch hunt, who cares. Not required, the whole site needs to stop being police and start being photographers .... oh ya it is a photo site with no prizes isn't it? ;)
Originally posted by inshaala:
Originally posted by Artyste:

In the end, it doesn't matter at all what people *write* there, it matters what is in the exif. That is all. We aren't privy to that information unless someone wants to make us privy to it. I could write f/420 in there and nobody can do a thing about it. I'd probably get a ton of validation requests, but if my exif is accurate, nothing can be done about it.

Those fields are for information and to help people... but they aren't DQ'able for being wrong.


I never said they were, did i? and what you said is good reason to have the exif parsed instead of manual entry. If what people are trying to get at in this thread that this site is a learning site - what is the point of having intentionally or unintentionally wrong information included in shot details?
05/23/2007 07:17:53 PM · #64
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
f/22 =shallow DOF which it is


What?
 05/23/2007 07:24:28 PM · #65
Normally I ignore bitching threads and make it a rule not to post to them but this time I have decided to break my golden rule.
A new member gets disqualified, so based on no evidence what so ever people decide to slur this person’s character. Some then go on to cast aspersions about new members in general, as though new people can’t possibly be good enough to win a precious virtual ribbon without cheating. Some suggest that the information supplied about the camera settings is a lie too even though you cannot tell what the settings were from the image, period – I can prove that statement if you like). So DPCs latest member gets a typical DPC welcome.
I shall now go back to my normal rule and not post to this thread again. I’m going to look at some photographs instead; I may even leave some comments – now there is a novel idea.
05/23/2007 07:49:39 PM · #66
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Unless DPC requires a standard processor program that does not delete or change the data there will always be some that have to manually input the data. That would be dumb wouldn't it.


Yes but that is a different argument.

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Was he/she cheating and didn't want to tell about the illegal steps. Heck, no witch hunt, who cares. Not required, the whole site needs to stop being police and start being photographers ...


And for the last time i was only curious - i'm sure the shot was completely legit minus the date rule. Misinformation isnt grounds for a DQ, so asking about it isnt a "witch hunt".

This is my last post in this thread, if you havent got why i asked in the first place then there is no hope...
 05/23/2007 08:23:22 PM · #67
Originally posted by levyj413:
On my date DQ, I'd forgotten to set my camera's clock back an hour. I took the shot at 11:45 pm the night of rollover and checked the box. It "was taken" on the dates indicated, even though the EXIF said it was taken at 12:45 am the next day.


Wow, that's pretty harsh to be DQ'd for a photo dated *after* the deadline. I know rules are rules, but unless you have a time machine it's not possible to take the photo after the deadline and still enter it!

You could argue that in that case the clock is clearly set wrong and there's no reason to believe it's only 1hr fast (and hence the shot could have been taken at any time in the past) - but then again it would be pretty easy to believably forward date photos if that's what you wanted to do, of course then you'd have to guess the challenge topic or "bracket" a lot of shots...

Either way to me it doesn't seem fair to DQ for photos that are dated after the deadline - the fact that you submitted it in time proves that it was taken before the deadline regardless of what the EXIF says (obviously this doesn't apply to challenges like "Best of 2006" where the submission deadline was actually January 11 2007).

splidge
05/23/2007 10:29:06 PM · #68
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
f/22 =shallow DOF which it is


What?


what he said.....
 05/23/2007 10:37:43 PM · #69
Originally posted by splidge:
Originally posted by levyj413:
On my date DQ, I'd forgotten to set my camera's clock back an hour. I took the shot at 11:45 pm the night of rollover and checked the box. It "was taken" on the dates indicated, even though the EXIF said it was taken at 12:45 am the next day.


Wow, that's pretty harsh to be DQ'd for a photo dated *after* the deadline.

splidge


Thanks, but it was really okay with me.
 05/23/2007 11:02:17 PM · #70
Originally posted by splidge:
Either way to me it doesn't seem fair to DQ for photos that are dated after the deadline - the fact that you submitted it in time proves that it was taken before the deadline regardless of what the EXIF says ...

Unfortunately, it only proves that the EXIF is wrong or falsified -- it does absolutely nothing to verify that it was taken within the challenge dates.

It's a very simple and rigid rule -- the EXIF dates must be within the specified period, period.
 05/23/2007 11:05:41 PM · #71
Originally posted by splidge:
Either way to me it doesn't seem fair to DQ for photos that are dated after the deadline - the fact that you submitted it in time proves that it was taken before the deadline regardless of what the EXIF says ...


so if i set my date to 2010, then all photos i took starting now till 2010 would be within the challenge rules (date wise)? dont sound right to me.
 05/24/2007 02:25:03 AM · #72
Ok, Ok, a type O.... see how worthless the data is when input by submitter. The info is just info that could be helpful for someone to learn with. Yes a 18-55 lens can get a shallow DOF. In any case shows that this whole thread is BS, none of the commends other than sorry and congrats are worth a hill of bean ... including my comments too ;)
Originally posted by JeffDay:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
f/22 =shallow DOF which it is


What?


what he said.....


Message edited by author 2007-05-24 09:18:52.
 05/24/2007 03:48:50 AM · #73


Originally posted by zardoz:
Normally I ignore bitching threads and make it a rule not to post to them but this time I have decided to break my golden rule.
A new member gets disqualified, so based on no evidence what so ever people decide to slur this person’s character. Some then go on to cast aspersions about new members in general, as though new people can’t possibly be good enough to win a precious virtual ribbon without cheating. Some suggest that the information supplied about the camera settings is a lie too even though you cannot tell what the settings were from the image, period – I can prove that statement if you like). So DPCs latest member gets a typical DPC welcome.
I shall now go back to my normal rule and not post to this thread again. I’m going to look at some photographs instead; I may even leave some comments – now there is a novel idea.


I've been around for a few months, but done just a lot of viewing, some voting, never any challenges. I'm giving this "new" member the benefit of the doubt, considering the language barrier and what everybody has admitted is (was) a fantasic entry. I'm gearing for my first challenge, what I've learnt.... read the rules from A to Z, don't score over 5 and obviously avoid at all cost a ribbon. (I'll do my best)
 05/24/2007 04:39:40 AM · #74
That's sad, it's a very beautiful image. I'll look forward to seeing more of her work, and sure we'll see more of her on the front page.
 05/24/2007 05:07:16 AM · #75
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by splidge:
Either way to me it doesn't seem fair to DQ for photos that are dated after the deadline - the fact that you submitted it in time proves that it was taken before the deadline regardless of what the EXIF says ...


so if i set my date to 2010, then all photos i took starting now till 2010 would be within the challenge rules (date wise)? dont sound right to me.


Good point well made. Of course there's a difference between 1hr fast and 2010, but only a matter of degree, and I respect the decision to set the tolerance at 0. It's not a mistake most people will make more than once anyway...

splidge
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 04:05:03 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/18/2025 04:05:03 PM EDT.