|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2012 12:06:59 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So we could, arguably, calculate the percentiles for the last 10 entries for each team member and get a starting handicap that way? |
Yes, we could calculate a starting average that way. I was being obtuse before and didn't read what you wrote. It went over my head.
Setting up these first handicap rankings would be extremely time consuming, but doable. No, you weren't missing anything. Just another thing I'll have to do because out of fairness, it makes sense. The previous ten entries is a good number because they're all visible on the same page.
Originally posted by bohemka:
I do, however, care about how the teams are formed. I'm 100% against random team formation, as being able to choose is the only way I can ensure I wouldn't end up with NiallOTuama again. Yeesh. |
Teams can be formed in any manner now.
Originally posted by bohemka:
That said, I do see a small issue with the scoring. I would put my money on Team Mediocre and Team Newcomer over Team Awesome, as Team Mediocre and other up-and-comers would be much more likely to improve their percentile standing than those already finishing in the >90% range. That in itself, however, might make some of the top shooters/teams reconsider the overall makeup of their team, and in a nice, tidy circle your system suddenly makes sense as it does a bit of self-regulating. |
That's the point of the system. Stacking a team is actually disadvantageous. The whole point was to have balanced teams. Any team which gradually improves over the season should do the best overall. |
Again... I get it... don't totally understand how it works but I know YOU do.... would love to give it a go. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:21:48 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Submitting a photo which finishes dead last is the most detrimental thing you could do for your team. It'd be better not to submit anything at all and simply skip the challenge. That was the beauty with what I proposed. |
Im really all for change as long as it's going to improve the existing system. Thanks for your thinking on this matter and hopefully people can work together in helping identify those areas that need improvement.
hard to keep following all the arguments for and against it but one line you typed caught my eye which if this is what the new methedology is trying to achieve we should maybe try and achieve otherwise.
There is no telling what a shot would score or do in any challenge. When you have a challenge theme you have got to try and spread the styles of photography and interpretation of that theme and come up with some artistic, creative and plain simple dead beat styles in the challenge. I could try enter only shots which would only do well but then Im also limiting my own lurning curve in trying new things and learning from it. Besides not being able to predict my images finish the league should encourage participation and not avoid it if i dont have something to offer or at least percieve not to have to offer
Just a note in trying to help to improve this. Please dont be preturbed by negative comments.
Another note.. If you make the teams to small I can forsee some serious problems with teams not being able to go the full length of the race as i know even though many people are really excited about this, it always happens that teams gets formed and last minute changes takes place as people suddenly pull out and then as the challenge progress, members of the team loose interest or dont have the time and and and. Maybe Im wrong in this assesment but that certainly was the truth of at least two other team members with whom i had contact.
Lastly..def not a random selection for me.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:27:59 AM · #103 |
I don't think any kind of handicap system would work as intended on DPC. The reason has been said several times in many other threads: people do recognize entries authors at a significant rate, and at the same time, vote on them. Which would lead to lots of tactical voting temptation, for example voting up the players you recognize (and that you're not against that week), to artificially raise their handicap over the time.
Also, if Team A knows they'll reach the playoff at some point (because they won enough games, and can't be reached anymore by other teams), then why not skip entirely playing from there, to get zeros, and lower handicap for the playoffs?
Anyway, I personally would prefer to win due to my hard work, rather than relying on some sort of mathematical help. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:35:41 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
I don't think any kind of handicap system would work as intended on DPC. The reason has been said several times in many other threads: people do recognize entries authors at a significant rate, and at the same time, vote on them. Which would lead to lots of tactical voting temptation, for example voting up the players you recognize (and that you're not against that week), to artificially raise their handicap over the time.
Also, if Team A knows they'll reach the playoff at some point (because they won enough games, and can't be reached anymore by other teams), then why not skip entirely playing from there, to get zeros, and lower handicap for the playoffs? |
I'm off to bed, but your second point requires some thought. Never thought of that. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:00:08 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
I don't think any kind of handicap system would work as intended on DPC. The reason has been said several times in many other threads: people do recognize entries authors at a significant rate, and at the same time, vote on them. Which would lead to lots of tactical voting temptation, for example voting up the players you recognize (and that you're not against that week), to artificially raise their handicap over the time.
|
While I think you have a valid point in folks recognizing people's photos, and further that there were often discussions of team voting going on during DPL 2, the fact remains that you were on a team that made it to the finals and have a well known and commonly identified style, in addition to some of your fellow teammates who the same can be said of. The same argument could have been made there, but you made it to the finals, where everybody could clearly have picked out images and voted a 1. Further, all the members of the winning team hailed from Iceland, which has perhaps the most identifiable of landscapes and objects imaginable which could quite easily have been given 1's strategically. The voting overall was simply harder due to the raised bar from all the entries and all the effort put forth. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:09:03 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
While I think you have a valid point in folks recognizing people's photos, and further that there were often discussions of team voting going on during DPL 2, the fact remains that you were on a team that made it to the finals and have a well known and commonly identified style, in addition to some of your fellow teammates who the same can be said of. The same argument could have been made there, but you made it to the finals, where everybody could clearly have picked out images and voted a 1. Further, all the members of the winning team hailed from Iceland, which has perhaps the most identifiable of landscapes and objects imaginable which could quite easily have been given 1's strategically. The voting overall was simply harder due to the raised bar from all the entries and all the effort put forth. |
During WPL, there was no point to vote down people you recognized unless you play against them that week. With handicaps, it's inverted: everyone has a point to vote you up except your opponents, which translates to potentially more tactical voting.
Of course, we can always rely on everyone's fairness, but that's a fact that doesn't affect golf or bowling, since other opponents can't interact with your result.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 02:09:20. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:12:54 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
While I think you have a valid point in folks recognizing people's photos, and further that there were often discussions of team voting going on during DPL 2, the fact remains that you were on a team that made it to the finals and have a well known and commonly identified style, in addition to some of your fellow teammates who the same can be said of. The same argument could have been made there, but you made it to the finals, where everybody could clearly have picked out images and voted a 1. Further, all the members of the winning team hailed from Iceland, which has perhaps the most identifiable of landscapes and objects imaginable which could quite easily have been given 1's strategically. The voting overall was simply harder due to the raised bar from all the entries and all the effort put forth. |
During WPL, there was no point to vote down people you recognized unless you play against them that week. With handicaps, it's inverted: everyone has a point to vote you up except your opponents, which translates to potentially more tactical voting.
Of course, we can always rely on everyone's fairness, but that's a fact that doesn't affect golf or bowling, since other opponents can't interact with your result. |
But then this will be across the board and not limited to any individuals other than those not on your team, if you're really doing it intelligently. It will appease all those folks who complain about  Venser's low votes ;0
ETA: While that would increase your handicap it would also increase your aggregate score each time. It's not like winning percentiles are outright bad.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 02:14:20. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:37:19 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But then this will be across the board and not limited to any individuals other than those not on your team, if you're really doing it intelligently. |
Not really, it would mainly affect those that are easily recognizable (you have to be sure it's not your current opponent to tactical vote, unless you don't care about winning the current match for some reason). |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:45:19 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But then this will be across the board and not limited to any individuals other than those not on your team, if you're really doing it intelligently. |
Not really, it would mainly affect those that are easily recognizable (you have to be sure it's not your current opponent to tactical vote, unless you don't care about winning the current match for some reason). |
Why? If you vote everybody up arbitrarily, it will make them all have a greater handicap long run. That's your argument, no? First round, 10's across the board. Handicap inflated other than your team.
ETA: I think we like to provide explanations for low votes when we can't ourselves ascertain them. As a very detailed oriented photographer, I'm sure that when people give you low votes you are inclined to consider why and what for, what circumstances drove them such, and if you are to lack such explanations it creeps in that it is due to their knowing you and your work, a vote of spite. And this is possible, I am by no means ruling it out. But there are plenty of other explanations. I'll even give you an actual one.
There was some discussion of it in the forums, in fact, as it pertains to low voters. Well, I'm the one who gave it a 1. I know jagar's style, I've called out his photos in the past. This vote had nothing to do with that, especially when one considers that I tend to enjoy his style. I gave him a 1 because his was one of many entries to use some combination of "___line" as a title, and further, to have somebody walking upon traintracks, a well known cliche. To process and make it BW is another attempt to make it something more than it is. Now, in this case, the irony is that this is just his typical style, but the fact that it correlated perfectly with other established cliches was what decided my vote. Add to this that his was one of the very last photos I voted on and yes, the same old cliche had been run home pretty hard by that point. Yet, my vote was written off as a hate vote on him as a person. Curious, no?
Ultimately, I think that votes of this kind generally balance themselves out and it's not entirely reasonable to cite them as a constant source of ire. It isn't as though folks hate you here, Christophe. The most identifiable photographers tend to be identifiable due to the adulation and praise they receive, and less because they are rubbed into the ground (cheeseman might be a notable exception here). Perhaps the strongest evidence here is that if this were such a problem, the results of other challenges ought to have changed too, so your ribbon tally speaks for itself.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 03:04:36. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 04:01:54 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
ETA: I think we like to provide explanations for low votes when we can't ourselves ascertain them. As a very detailed oriented photographer, I'm sure that when people give you low votes you are inclined to consider why and what for, what circumstances drove them such, and if you are to lack such explanations it creeps in that it is due to their knowing you and your work, a vote of spite. And this is possible, I am by no means ruling it out. But there are plenty of other explanations. I'll even give you an actual one.
There was some discussion of it in the forums, in fact, as it pertains to low voters. Well, I'm the one who gave it a 1. I know jagar's style, I've called out his photos in the past. This vote had nothing to do with that, especially when one considers that I tend to enjoy his style. I gave him a 1 because his was one of many entries to use some combination of "___line" as a title, and further, to have somebody walking upon traintracks, a well known cliche. To process and make it BW is another attempt to make it something more than it is. Now, in this case, the irony is that this is just his typical style, but the fact that it correlated perfectly with other established cliches was what decided my vote. Add to this that his was one of the very last photos I voted on and yes, the same old cliche had been run home pretty hard by that point. Yet, my vote was written off as a hate vote on him as a person. Curious, no? |
I find that quite insulting coming from someone who has a dog with a ball in its mouth for his top scoring image ;-) seriously though I know you have no hatred and as long as the giver has a clear conscience, I don't mind a one vote, only the giver really knows his true motivation.
I think we need to applaud Venser in his effort to get something of the ground for this, I'm sure we can all work something out.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 04:18:11 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
it would mainly affect those that are easily recognizable (you have to be sure it's not your current opponent to tactical vote, unless you don't care about winning the current match for some reason). |
I'm with Christophe. Even if this system makes sense, I'm afraid people could use their vote in a worst way than usual. In the previous WPL the 7 votes of the team players could be used only against their opponents (I'm absolutely sure that most of the people voted fairly, but no doubt someone used it to penalize someone else), while now all could be changed even during a week when two teams are not one against the other. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 04:26:43 AM · #112 |
| venser I think there needs to be some sort of penalty for not participating - like a few points taken off the handicap or final score maybe. otherwise it's too easy to have, for example, only the reigning street photography champ participate in the street photography challenge and the same thing the week later in the expert editing challenge. based on the size of the teams you could use an exponential system from a base of 2, giving a max of 64 points taken off the handicap for non participating members. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 04:41:15 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Ultimately, I think that votes of this kind generally balance themselves out and it's not entirely reasonable to cite them as a constant source of ire. It isn't as though folks hate you here, Christophe. |
Maybe am I overthinking all of this. I would really love a new team competition (and indeed, thank you Venser for bringing this up!), but I would hate to see it ruined by complicated rules, that could be exploited in a way or another. It may also be a professional deformation, since I spend my time exploiting systems and rules.
That is why I remain a fan of the good old "the best one wins, the others don't" rule ;-) After all, I'm quite sure no one would like to win a competition with worse entries than the opponents ; at least I hardly see it as a way to encourage commitment and hard work. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 06:58:12 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
since I spend my time exploiting systems and rules. |
This is what I do. I write code which looks for arbitrage opportunities in the market and reacts algorithmically.
Originally posted by gyaban:
That is why I remain a fan of the good old "the best one wins, the others don't" rule ;-) After all, I'm quite sure no one would like to win a competition with worse entries than the opponents ; at least I hardly see it as a way to encourage commitment and hard work. |
Since there was opposition to random team assignments, and most people want to select their teams, what would stop a team like Drive By Shooters from forming again. If I saw that happen, without a handicap system, I'd quit before it even started.
Originally posted by mrchhas:
venser I think there needs to be some sort of penalty for not participating - like a few points taken off the handicap or final score maybe. otherwise it's too easy to have, for example, only the reigning street photography champ participate in the street photography challenge and the same thing the week later in the expert editing challenge. based on the size of the teams you could use an exponential system from a base of 2, giving a max of 64 points taken off the handicap for non participating members. |
I'm pretty sure nothing needs to be done. If they cherry picked their members like that, their opponents handicap would be grossly inflated, week after week, thus making it quite difficult for the cherry picking team to win. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 07:44:27 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Since there was opposition to random team assignments, and most people want to select their teams, what would stop a team like Drive By Shooters from forming again. If I saw that happen, without a handicap system, I'd quit before it even started. |
I do agree, it is a problem in the sense that it makes the competition less interesting (even though the Drive By Shooters didn't win in the end, resulting in even happier LongShots). If the only thing to be avoided is a "too strong" team, then maybe a constraint along the lines of "no more than X members with Y ribbons", or "no more than X members with Y average" would be sufficient? |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 08:21:25 AM · #116 |
I really cannot believe that people would start dishing out 10s to tinker with the handicapping system. That shouldn't be a concern.
I do think that there needs to be a maximum of registered scores for teams, though. For example, teams have eight members and the top four scores averaged into that week's score and next week's handicap. Scores from the fifth through eighth spots each week don't register in the average at all. You'd have no issues from holdouts, dropouts, other outs; less gaming with the handicapping system; no acrimony within teams when teammates get busy with other things; no withdrawing (or even self-DQing) if images weren't expected to do well.
(Not exactly sure what your plans were here, but it seemed at least in one example that three scores were factored from one team and four scores from another.)
ETA: Even though league play obviously rewards higher scores, just as this entire site does, you don't want to penalize teams for having members who don't shoot DPC-friendly stuff, want to experiment, etc.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 08:32:15. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 08:55:17 AM · #117 |
Well, I could accept the handicap system even if I would prefer a regular system. Well, if this WPL is going to start we can have a poll to decide which system users prefer.
About the score and other stuff: the percentage system is better than the average score system, or at least more fair.
The perfect number of players IMO would be 8 with the top 4 scores to be considered.
My two cents ;) |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 09:03:24 AM · #118 |
I'm not a sports person, so bear with me because I've never worked with handicaps.
But my question is this: What's the incentive to do well? If the top scorers have to work even harder to keep it there, but the mediocre/lower ones get a handicap to even things out, why not just be mediocre until the end?
How often does mediocre win with handicaps?
I guess I liked it the old way. Two different levels of competition so that teams are pitted against similar teams.
Put a limit on the averages, ribbons, whatever you'd like to even things out. But the handicapping makes it sound like there's a good chance that the best team doesn't win.
Wildcards! :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 09:38:01 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I do think that there needs to be a maximum of registered scores for teams, though. For example, teams have eight members and the top four scores averaged into that week's score and next week's handicap. Scores from the fifth through eighth spots each week don't register in the average at all. You'd have no issues from holdouts, dropouts, other outs; less gaming with the handicapping system; no acrimony within teams when teammates get busy with other things; no withdrawing (or even self-DQing) if images weren't expected to do well. |
If you were the weakest member on a team, and you knew the bottom X scores were automatically dropped, what would be your incentive to keep participating?
Originally posted by bohemka:
(Not exactly sure what your plans were here, but it seemed at least in one example that three scores were factored from one team and four scores from another.) |
I did that purposely because on paper it shouldn't matter if some people miss a week. The handicap system takes care of that. Assuming the weakest member misses a week, that teams handicap would presumably lower. So the next week they would have a tougher time winning that round. The only problem would be if either the weakest or strongest member of a team skipped every second week. This would lead to an oscillation effect, and theoretically they would finish with a 50/50 season.
Originally posted by bohemka:
ETA: Even though league play obviously rewards higher scores, just as this entire site does, you don't want to penalize teams for having members who don't shoot DPC-friendly stuff, want to experiment, etc. |
Handicap takes care of that.
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Well, if this WPL is going to start we can have a poll to decide which system users prefer. |
Not to sound like an authoritarian ass, but if I'm doing all the work, I'm choosing the method. I cannot do all this work for a system I don't believe in, especially one where I can see the flaws.
Originally posted by Alexkc:
The perfect number of players IMO would be 8 with the top 4 scores to be considered. |
Addressed this above. I don't like the idea of dismissing the bottom X scores. There's no incentive for them to participate. If I were to do something along these lines, I would make a random list of numbers, and those players scores would be eliminated from scoring. I would have to create the list before the season and send it someone else because this is something I could forge for whoever I want to benefit.
Originally posted by vawendy:
But my question is this: What's the incentive to do well? If the top scorers have to work even harder to keep it there, but the mediocre/lower ones get a handicap to even things out, why not just be mediocre until the end? |
The way system works is as long as you're constantly improving, you should win. So if there is a stacked team, it would be difficult for them to constantly improve week over week. Thus they would be destined for failure.
I can find quotes from all the heavy hitters talking about how awesome this site is for learning. What a great opportunity it is for young or novice photographers. I'm setting up a system where the more a photographer improves, the better chances they have of winning. So putting someone like yourself on a team of lesser ability photographers, you'd have the opportunity to watch them grow under your tutelage. If they do, your team would do very well. Sitting on a team with people of equal ability at the top would make winning nigh impossible.
A team composition of nothing but the worst photographers, but who constantly improve slowly over the season, would do best.
Originally posted by vawendy:
But the handicapping makes it sound like there's a good chance that the best team doesn't win. |
Would you want to race me without a handicap? I'll even let you choose the distance. Probably not. It's the same thing here. The handicap is simply there to even things out.
Look at the participation of the last WPL. The bottom two teams in your division were non existent halfway through the season.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 09:39:50. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 09:49:06 AM · #120 |
Not being negative here -- just being realistic. If everyone has to participate each week or there will be a zero in there score, you'll get less participation. Many people came back for DPL and many came back for WPL.
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team.
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week.
3. Some people would be uncomfortable doing the art that they want to do, because it doesn't score as high as the eye candy.
Knowing that the bottom 3 scores are dropped each week takes a lot of pressure off of you. Pressure to do well takes much of the fun out of the game. No one knows who's going to get the lowest score, but there's the possibility that it might be you, and that helps you just have fun and enter, because it won't hurt the team.
If you look at the results of previous DPL/WPL, you'll see that the vast majority of the time, everyone on a team contributed at least one score, even though the lowest scores were dropped.
I know it's your game, but I think it's a really big mistake to keep all the scores. Too much stress really isn't fun.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 09:50:11 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by Venser:
This would lead to an oscillation effect |
Dibs on that name: Team Oscillation Effect.
I do like the self-regulating aspect of the system, and everyone contributing to the result each week is certainly a benefit that previous systems lacked. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 09:54:54 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
I don't think any kind of handicap system would work as intended on DPC. The reason has been said several times in many other threads: people do recognize entries authors at a significant rate, and at the same time, vote on them. Which would lead to lots of tactical voting temptation, for example voting up the players you recognize (and that you're not against that week), to artificially raise their handicap over the time.
Also, if Team A knows they'll reach the playoff at some point (because they won enough games, and can't be reached anymore by other teams), then why not skip entirely playing from there, to get zeros, and lower handicap for the playoffs?
Anyway, I personally would prefer to win due to my hard work, rather than relying on some sort of mathematical help. |
I couldn't agree more... |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 09:56:26 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Not being negative here -- just being realistic. If everyone has to participate each week or there will be a zero in there score, you'll get less participation. Many people came back for DPL and many came back for WPL.
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team.
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week.
3. Some people would be uncomfortable doing the art that they want to do, because it doesn't score as high as the eye candy.
Knowing that the bottom 3 scores are dropped each week takes a lot of pressure off of you. Pressure to do well takes much of the fun out of the game. No one knows who's going to get the lowest score, but there's the possibility that it might be you, and that helps you just have fun and enter, because it won't hurt the team.
If you look at the results of previous DPL/WPL, you'll see that the vast majority of the time, everyone on a team contributed at least one score, even though the lowest scores were dropped.
I know it's your game, but I think it's a really big mistake to keep all the scores. Too much stress really isn't fun. |
and I couldn't agree more with this too! :-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 10:16:56 AM · #124 |
If a handicap system doesn't work because people can recognize others' entries... then the entire voting system doesn't work at all. The folks whose photos are recognizable are still here submitting and still winning. That argument holds no water.
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team.
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week.
3. Some people would be uncomfortable doing the art that they want to do, because it doesn't score as high as the eye candy.
...
If you look at the results of previous DPL/WPL, you'll see that the vast majority of the time, everyone on a team contributed at least one score, even though the lowest scores were dropped.
|
Just to keep it simple (not terse!):
1. You don't have to participate each week
2. Same
3. If someone doesn't go for DPC candy, and never has, there's absolutely no penalty. The handicap system accounts for this. All you can ask is that such teammates beat their average. And since this is a voluntary competition within a voluntary competition site, that isn't too much to ask.
Also, you were on a top team with top talent where anyone could ribbon at any time. Believe me, apathy set in quickly with many participants on other teams due to their scores rarely mattering and also being mathematically eliminated from contention halfway through the season.
Edited for typos.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 10:19:16. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 10:19:28 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team. |
The way the handicapping works takes care of this.
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week. |
Again, the whole point of the handicap. There is no "holding up their end". If you look, it's actually better if they're around improving over the weeks. That should be all the incentive required to participate. If I improve, my team benefits. Hopefully people on my team help me improve.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Knowing that the bottom 3 scores are dropped each week takes a lot of pressure off of you. Pressure to do well takes much of the fun out of the game. |
Or just eliminates them from the game altogether. Which is the more realistic scenario as opposed to the one you described.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 10:22:55. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 01:57:26 PM  |
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: 08/03/2025 01:57:26 PM EDT.
|
