| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2003 06:06:39 AM · #1 |
I have been asked to submit 2 images to DPC as someone has requested a DQ on them both.
Many questions and suggestions.
1) Is there an easy way to resize my NEF files? They come in at around 10MB and uploading them bogs down my whole system, and is quite a pain.
2) Why oh why can't we be told why your image is deemed 'illegal'? It's common courtesy. One of them is in the Poster challenge, and considering all editing is pretty much allowed bar using multiple images, I can't see for the life of me any grounds to request or submit a proof.
3) My macro III shot, again a DQ request, but this time I read that all the top 5 now have to submit an original, WHY!!!!! This is a very bad turn on DPC, why not the top 10? Why not the top 20? Why not all of them? With so many people working/going away, this adds a really big cross over the top 5 image takers. What if I were away as i was last week for 5 days? Would I be DQ'ed and ripped from 5th place?
Such a bad move.
4) Both were submitted yesterday and as yet have heard nothing. I will now be going away for 2 days and worried. Surely one of the site council members can email a reason and result.
Perhaps should have moved this to rant.
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 06:08:17. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 06:36:40 AM · #2 |
I think there are some new site council members that are on a power trip!, it seems they are getting carried away with this crap.
Just give it to them it makes them feel important
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 06:39:14. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:17:21 AM · #3 |
OK, let's see if I can clear up a few issues here...
1) I've no idea about resizing NEF files, but an EXIF-containing JPG of the same resolution as the original NEF file would probably be acceptable.
2) There are several rules that are still in place in the december members challenges that can be broken (eg added artwork, taken outside the shooting dates, multiple image composites, copyrighted content, etc), many of which require that the SC request proof from the photographer if warranted. Only the editting rules have been relaxed.
3) The reasons behind the top 5 placers in all challenges now being asked to submit proof were discussed (at length) in this thread. This is not new SC members "on a powertrip" as suggested, merely an increased enforcement of the rules, since there have been enough rule-breaking shots in the past to necessitate this policy change.
4) The SC are currently discussing your submissions, and you will be notified of their response once a decision has been reached.
BTW, I moved this thread to the 'rant' area as you suggested :o)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:30:20 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Hoogie:
I think there are some new site council members that are on a power trip!, it seems they are getting carried away with this crap.
Just give it to them it makes them feel important |
Yes, and all sorts conspiracies as well ... did you know they fix it so that only certain people win, the votes you make are meaningless? Want to know who is going to win the challenge in the start of Feb, it's already been decided. They usually all take their photos and take it in turn to pick a challenge that will suit their photo, then ignore the date it was taken. Yes, it's all a huge conspiracy by people on a power trip. *yawn*
It's very easy to sit back and critisize, and in this case it just comes over as sour grapes (Hoogie, not Jon).
I think the requiring proof of entires is perfectly valid when you see how many photos have recently been DQ's after winning ribbons. Personally I am happy to not win, but I'd rather not win fairly, rather than as someone else cheated.
Doubtless those that do cheat will be rather miffed as gee, it might actually stop them winning *gasp*
How about giving the SC a little credit for doing their best in a job that can not possibly please everyone, rather than putting them down for a job that they are probably doing a lot better at than an awful lot of people would.
As for your very valid questions Jon ...
1) I have no idea, sorry.
2) I agree with you entirely, I think it would be good practive to at least be informed why a DQ has been requested.
3) I am guessing they picked the top 10 as a) it is a small enough number to manage, but b) it will ensure that there is no way they DQ a winner, then get a new ribbon winner, then find out they need to be DQ'd etc etc etc.
4) Yup, would be nice to not be left waiting any longer than needed for your answer there I agree. I have no idea what procedure they go through though, so maybe there is a delay with people being off.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:32:37 AM · #5 |
I have no objection whatsoever against either the rules generally and validation specifically. A very good effort is put into this site, and, IMO, it shows.
What I would like to see is speedier handling of requests for validation with some sort of personal notification, either via cookies and interface or by email, so that discussions like this aren't fueled by an anxiety of those awaiting validation of their entries. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:36:00 AM · #6 |
| I agree, and an explanation as to why the think it's illegal |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:41:22 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I agree, and an explanation as to why the think it's illegal |
I seem to recall a discussion about this in the site council forums a long time ago. I think it was decided that people would be too scared to request DQ if the photographer found out why. It would result in less requests being made, and less rule-breaking photographs being found.
Another thing was the fact that telling the photographer what the problem is gives them more scope to either make up a story surrounding the accusation, or to try and get away with their editing, for example:
Someone thinks they have seen the photo on another site before so proof is requested for date.
The photographer took the photo within the dates but did a minor spot edit. They don't submit proof because they think their spot-edit has been discovered, and the photo is DQd because of lack of proof.
If they were told that it was for a date check only, they might submit the proof, hoping that the site council will only check the exif for date, without running over the image with a fine-tooth comb to see where something may have been cloned out.
They could get away with illegal editing.
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 10:42:09.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:51:22 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by jonpink:
I agree, and an explanation as to why the think it's illegal |
I seem to recall a discussion about this in the site council forums a long time ago. I think it was decided that people would be too scared to request DQ if the photographer found out why. It would result in less requests being made, and less rule-breaking photographs being found.
Another thing was the fact that telling the photographer what the problem is gives them more scope to either make up a story surrounding the accusation, or to try and get away with their editing... |
Or, it may give the photographer the opportunity to address the issue in detail to be sure the SC understands completely what was done.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:54:39 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I agree, and an explanation as to why the think it's illegal |
The most common reason photos get requested for DQ is when the viewer can't figure out how you achieved whatever effect you used. When the DQ request comes in, the Site Council votes on whether or not to request proof. If a majority of the Site Council votes to request proof, then proof is requested.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:58:34 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The most common reason photos get requested for DQ is when the viewer can't figure out how you achieved whatever effect you used. When the DQ request comes in, the Site Council votes on whether or not to request proof. If a majority of the Site Council votes to request proof, then proof is requested. |
And then how long until the photographer gets a response back from the SC on their decision? I, like Jon, submitted my image proof yesterday as soon as I recieved the e-mail and have yet to hear anything. Just curious. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 10:59:10.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 11:23:53 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Or, it may give the photographer the opportunity to address the issue in detail to be sure the SC understands completely what was done. |
When the original is requested, we also request that you submit the steps which you took to arrive at your challenge entry. This provides you the opportunity to discuss anything you want in detail. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 11:28:47 AM · #12 |
As far as I know, the site council will not tell you that you have been approved after you submit your original. You will only be notified if you get disqualified.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 12:24:48 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 12:29:49 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mk:
When the original is requested, we also request that you submit the steps which you took to arrive at your challenge entry. This provides you the opportunity to discuss anything you want in detail. |
And what happens if the photographer doesn't go into in to as much detail on a specific aspect of the photo that the SC was looking for? The SC are the ones requesting proof of validity, wouldn't it make sense to make sure you recieve all pertinent information in the photographer's response?
Also, if what John says is true, I don't think it is right for the photographer to be left dangling. I think it would common courtesy to let the photographer know the SC decision, either way.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 01:51:23 PM · #15 |
I don't understand HOW anyone could be upset about having to submit proof. If you were pulled over on a Friday night by a police officer, and you refuse a breathalizer, you sure as heck look guilty.
As for if you're "going away". We can tell when you log on to DPC. If you see a request for proof on your image while you're online, but not on your original computer or don't have access to that at the time, you can always send one of us a message saying you'll submit it as soon as you get home.
Why do we request proof on the winners?? Since we've been doing this, we've found out interesting things like people are submitting scanned images on a regular basis. And one of them almost won. Does that seem fair to you? Would you like to be bumped by someone who isn't even DIGITAL?
I say, if you got nothing to hide. Who cares? I guess if I were submitting illegal photos, then maybe I'd have a problem with it.
Are you upset because you have had photos DQed in the past? If I remember correctly, they were all outside the submission dates. Would it be more fair to have let you keep those photos in the challenge that had just been laying around in your stock pile for months, when other people were out busting their butt trying to take a legal photo?
No, the new SC members are not on a power trip. We've been trying to get D and L to let us request proof on the Top so many for a long time now.
As for your speedy response to find out if you're photo is legal. You should already know if your photo is legal. If it's legal, you wont be DQed. If it's not. You will be. Simple as that. You should know before you even submit the proof if you'll be DQed or not.
We have to look into these things. What do you think happens? You think you submit the proof and no matter where the SC members are (at work, with their families, in the shower) it pops up in front of our face on an imaginary screen, and we draw a number out of a hat. 1=DQ 2=no DQ and we just will the photo away?
We look into these things. We have to review the EXIF, the original image, and in some circumstances we actually follow the steps you give us to see if it works out just right. Now, you got 11 people on 11 different scheduals, and that could take a few days for everyone to review that.
Give us a dang break.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 01:52:03 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I have been asked to submit 2 images to DPC as someone has requested a DQ on them both.
Many questions and suggestions.
1) Is there an easy way to resize my NEF files? They come in at around 10MB and uploading them bogs down my whole system, and is quite a pain.
|
Hi Jonpink, I have had some trouble in the past trying to get large files sent for verification. I would suggest trying to Zip the file and send it. This has worked fine for me in the past. if you change the file from NEF to Jpg you will have altered the original and lost the data. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 01:57:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
... you submit the proof and no matter where the SC members are (at work, with their families, in the shower) it pops up in front of our face on an imaginary screen, and we draw a number out of a hat. 1=DQ 2=no DQ and we just will the photo away? |
Please don't give Langdon any more ideas ... |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 02:19:31 PM · #18 |
Heather -
Who was your response directed to,since part of it was fairly personal?
I for one am not complaining about having to submit proof. However, just because I feel one of my photos is legal, does not mean the SC won't DQ it for some valid reason.
My concern is, if what Setz said is true, the SC does not let the photographer know what the decision of the SC is, unless it is DQed. Why can't the photographer be notified if their photo validated?
My thought is this, if a photographer is required to respond within 48 hours to a DQ request, then the SC should have a decision on the image within 48 hours after the photographer submits the original, and the photographer is notified of that decision. Why is this such a ridiculous request?
And for the record I am not bashing the SC. :-)
Edit: I did just notice that the "Status" under the entry does update if your photo has been validated. That's all I'm looking for. Thanks!
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 14:25:39.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 08:14:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
As far as I know, the site council will not tell you that you have been approved after you submit your original. You will only be notified if you get disqualified. |
However, with the recent changes, there is a Status notification in the 'My Stats' section of 'My Home'. If you have a DQ request against you, it will show here. Once you've submitted, it shows as such, and advises that the council are looking at it. Once it has been deemed legal, it shows that the picture has been verified. I don't know what is displayed if the shot is DQ'd, as I've never had one.
So, jonpink, you are text, just not by email as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 08:53:24 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
My thought is this, if a photographer is required to respond within 48 hours to a DQ request, then the SC should have a decision on the image within 48 hours after the photographer submits the original, and the photographer is notified of that decision. Why is this such a ridiculous request?
|
I see that you are satisfied now but just to address this for anyone else's interest...when we ask for your original, we are asking one individual to send in something which they should already have readily available. When a DQ request is submitted, that is asking 14 different individuals to consider something brand new to them. Many of the members vote right away but there are times when people are not available and there are times when we discuss the photos, attempts to recreate them, etc. I can understand that it would be frustrating to wait for a decision, but it really is to your benefit that we aren't forced to arrive at a snap decision. |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 12:12:56 AM · #21 |
I got a request for original file and steps regarding my entry in the Vehicles challenge (which finished way down from the top 5-10). I submitted the file, recreating the steps as best I could from memory; was notified by a message in the My Stats box that the file was received; remembered an additional step I had omitted so sent it in by using the form on the Contact page in the menu under Help; got a message in My Stats that my photo was validated. It was over in less than 24 hours, and pretty painless. My entry didn't get the notice in red saying it was validated that I have seen on others, but no biggie there. The request form said I would get an e-mail with the Site Council's decision which I never got, but didn't need because of the My Stats box message, again no biggie. At the time I was a little put out about why was MY IMAGE questioned. But after I calmed down and thought about it I could think of no legitimate reason why I needed to know.
The whole process worked pretty efficiently for me.
Thanks SC, and keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 01:53:54 AM · #22 |
This guy odadeus is very interesting.Entered 3 challenges in a month,one from India,second from London and 4 days after from Santorini ,Greece.
A real world traveler.Also the Greek shot looks like is taken in August rather than December and got Ribbon on the edge on it !
Maybe I'm wrong but It is very interesting!
Message edited by author 2003-12-31 01:54:32. |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 02:20:02 AM · #23 |
Anyone that wins here, should be more then happy to submit an original photo for verfication. If you are not, then do not submit.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2003 02:26:50 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by DJLuba:
Anyone that wins here, should be more then happy to submit an original photo for verfication. If you are not, then do not submit. |
I am a newcomer here and agree completely.I would even agree to spot checks on any photograph being examined by the panel, what have we to hide if we abide by the rules ? |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 02:37:02 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
This guy odadeus is very interesting.Entered 3 challenges in a month,one from India,second from London and 4 days after from Santorini ,Greece.
A real world traveler.Also the Greek shot looks like is taken in August rather than December and got Ribbon on the edge on it !
Maybe I'm wrong but It is very interesting! |
Well it will be interesting to see what the original file says. Only another 135 DQ's to go before I get a ribbon for my completely legal shot. |
|
