"Free Study 2010-06" Results Recalculated

07/17/2010 09:47:28 PM · #51

Originally posted by mycelium:

Originally posted by karmat:
Whilst I don't entirely disagree with you, I would like to point out that not so long ago, we dq'ed a ribbon winner (within 24 - 48 hours) then had to back up and re-instate because we had acted too hastily.

It seems like putting a link to scarbrd's photo in the "Announcements" section on the left sidebar would be a reasonable compromise.

That is probably the best solution I've heard, thank you. To put in on the front page would probably require re-coding the thing (I guess; admittedly, I don't know that much about that end of things)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/17/2010 09:50:15 PM · #52

Originally posted by karmat:

Whilst I don't entirely disagree with you, I would like to point out that not so long ago, we dq'ed a ribbon winner (within 24 - 48 hours) then had to back up and re-instate because we had acted too hastily.

I understand Karmat, but what part of multiple exposures with different compositions and one out of date would be up for question? Did people not vote quickly because they were worried about the "grayness" of the ruling? I think not. I'm sure it was that you couldn't get seven (or however many you need) SC to log on any quicker than a week. Once they actually arrived it was a no-brainer.

Congrats on the FS ribbon David!

JustCaree

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

07/17/2010 09:54:35 PM · #53

Wow - I think SC deserves a bit of a break here, yes it would of been nice to have it done faster, but sometimes things happen. Unfortunately that is life... and the way the cookie crumbles... Yes it stinks that the front page time didnt happened, but that ribbon will forever be in their profile, it will forever be listed in the challenge archives, and it will forever be a part of DPC history. That is STILL a great honor. I think that SC knows the system isnt perfect. Perhaps some understanding from the members is in order, and perhaps a solution will be worked out in the future.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

07/17/2010 09:56:26 PM · #54

Sorry Caree, some of us have been around long enough to know how it used to work. :(

07/17/2010 10:09:42 PM · #55

technically, we didn't know it was NOT a filter, and *was* an actual second image (taken out of dates) until just before dq because we had to request that info from the photog.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

07/17/2010 10:38:28 PM · #56

Originally posted by karmat:

technically, we didn't know it was NOT a filter, and *was* an actual second image (taken out of dates) until just before dq because we had to request that info from the photog.

I get it. That makes more sense. He submitted the one original and didn't explain the effect until later.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/17/2010 10:53:33 PM · #57

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by karmat:
technically, we didn't know it was NOT a filter, and *was* an actual second image (taken out of dates) until just before dq because we had to request that info from the photog.

I get it. That makes more sense. He submitted the one original and didn't explain the effect until later.

yep.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/17/2010 11:29:38 PM · #58

Originally posted by karmat:

technically, we didn't know it was NOT a filter, and *was* an actual second image (taken out of dates) until just before dq because we had to request that info from the photog.

Well it's good that you sought clarification, but would you have if there wasn't an active thread discussing it? I ask because during the Double Exposure challenge I got DQed immediately and had my entry pulled from voting without a single question asking me about my technique even though I explained it when I submitted the original. I had to chase down

nshapiro (thanks again Neil) during a weekend just so my entry could be put back into voting while my evidence was being considered, which ultimately led to a successful validation. If only I was asked before DQing it would have been an open and shut case. Instead I ended up losing some votes on what appeared (at least to me) a knee jerk reaction.

07/17/2010 11:43:16 PM · #59

honestly? don't know. i didn't know about the thread until we were already discussing it. . . .

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/18/2010 12:18:45 AM · #60

Originally posted by yanko:

Well it's good that you sought clarification, but would you have if there wasn't an active thread discussing it?

The clarification request was for our own discussion to ensure a correct decision. We should have asked first in your case, too, however you could have avoided the situation by explaining the details when you submitted the original.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/18/2010 12:50:12 AM · #61

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
Well it's good that you sought clarification, but would you have if there wasn't an active thread discussing it?

The clarification request was for our own discussion to ensure a correct decision. We should have asked first in your case, too, however you could have avoided the situation by explaining the details when you submitted the original.

Did I not say it was a double exposure? You guys thought it wasn't. How was I suppose to know this beforehand?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/18/2010 12:54:57 AM · #62

Originally posted by yanko:

Did I not say it was a double exposure? You guys thought it wasn't. How was I suppose to know this beforehand?

You did, but the double exposure wasn't in question and you didn't explain the creases until later. How were WE supposed know beforehand that it wasn't primarily artwork (regardless of whether you also used a double exposure)? A: We should have asked, but you also should have explained it up front.

smardaz

07/18/2010 02:14:36 AM · #63

Originally posted by kenskid:

Personally I would FREAK if my first ribbon was not on the front page ! There is no money or other prize given out. The virtual ribbon is it. The virtual ribbon comes with another prize...your photo on the front of a pretty damm popular web page for a week!

Originally posted by SEG:
I personally still think that not having the face time on the front page is not fair either. Maybe something to think about for the future of this site is a small thumbnail along the left side of the homepage showing the image and an explanation of the change and keep that up for a week so that person can also get their front page time. This could be done in cases like this were getting validation has taken an inordinate amount of time or an over site has happen.

If there were a 100 meter dash in the Olympics and a month later it was discovered the winner was using HGH, would they bring everyone back into the stadium for the award ceremony?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/18/2010 02:29:54 AM · #64

nm

Message edited by author 2010-07-18 02:33:00.

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

07/18/2010 04:31:46 AM · #65

Congratulations to SC for making a decision under extreme pressure, Whilst I don't completely agree with the outcome at least the decision process was done with integrity and was exhaustive.

As far as the time period and the fourth place not getting some front page exposure, well this is unfortunate but them's the break.

A lesson for new comers might be don't put your entries and outtakes on other websites as this gives the mob something to hunt you down with.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

07/18/2010 06:55:02 AM · #66

Despite the justification used for the "discussion", I'm sure an indelible impresssion was left upon the entrant. Somehow, I'd be surprised if he felt any inclination to participate after this.

Of course, another opportunity to ensure that SC is on their toes is a good thing, right?

I can't help but wonder why such an apparently obvious and blatant flouting of the rules wasn't picked up on during the first day of voting and reported then.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/18/2010 11:18:14 AM · #67

Because it was not Apparent to the voter. To me it looked like the texture was real and self contained in the scarf.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/18/2010 11:30:29 AM · #68

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I can't help but wonder why such an apparently obvious and blatant flouting of the rules wasn't picked up on during the first day of voting and reported then.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Because it was not Apparent to the voter. To me it looked like the texture was real and self contained in the scarf.

Originally posted by Louis:

I don't think this photograph will be approved. There is a very obvious texture added as an overlay, which is not legal in Advanced. I anticipate a DQ.

smardaz

07/18/2010 02:16:46 PM · #69

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Despite the justification used for the "discussion", I'm sure an indelible impresssion was left upon the entrant. Somehow, I'd be surprised if he felt any inclination to participate after this.

Unless I missed it, I don't think he has posted to any of these threads where everyone else has gotten their panties in such a bunch over the fact that we dare question the validity of a shot. Any of you self appointed defenders ever stop to think that maybe he just doesn't CARE? Maybe, just maybe, he thinks "oops, didn't know about that rule, now I know"
So he his first entry got dq'd and people talked about? Who gives a crap? If he takes offense (which I doubt) and decides to leave....Oh well, he won't be the first or last.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III