| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2006 10:00:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by RKT:
Rob should get the full 48 to submit his original...he can provide it, so he should get the chance to do so...simple as that.
edit to say:
...if we have but ONE chance to submit proof within the 48 hours, this should be stated in the rules... |
Why would we need multiple opportunites? Original is original. |
48 hours is 48 hours |
Yup, you have UP TO 48 hours to provide your file. He provided his well within the 48 hours - to go over would have been auto DQ.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 10:06:27 AM · #27 |
He made a simple mistake, it could happen to any one of us...he is not a "cheater" trying to get away with something here...I just think he should get a chance to resubmit since the 48 isn't up...that's all...'nuff said. : }
Message edited by author 2006-05-15 16:22:19. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 10:11:16 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It looks like you first sent an "original" for validation last week. You have since sent several files, none of which were originals, after being given specific instructions on how to do so. |
RKT, please read what scalvert said. He has had more than one chance. We asked for the original, he did not send it when he had the opportunity to do so. That does not make him a cheater, but it does make him dq'ed.
WHY would someone (not necessarily bucket, but anyone) send a non-original when they fully intend to send the original "later" which is what I am interpreting you proposing to be allowed to do. We start the validation process when the "original" file is received whether it is within one hour or 47.9. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 10:12:17 AM · #29 |
| Unfortunately he more or less blew his chance when he took the issue public before the 48 hours were up... |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 10:14:13 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The rule says you have 48 hours to provide an original. If you're going to have a custom as humiliating as a DQ*, you should show a little care with how you apply it. Especially to paying members.
|
We show much care when doing it, whether you want to believe so or not. We hate dq'ing shots, truly we do. What we won't do is bend, stretch, or change the rules everytime. That makes it unfair to the other paying members who submit their originals when asked. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 10:19:45 AM · #31 |
Um... he DID get a chance to resubmit. Several chances in fact. None of the files were originals. We can't offer "unlimited chances" because we've had a few cases of people trying to figure out how to sneak an edited file past us. That said, why don't you try again since the voting is over? I can't guarantee a reversal on the DQ, but it could happen, and the worst case scenario is that you'll know better next time.
@Posthumous: DQ's are not intended as "badges of dishonor." The only reason they show up in your profile is because MANY people requested the ability to see past DQ's. That's a relatively new feature. Counting DQ's towards suspension is also fairly new, and was imposed to discourage abuse.
Message edited by author 2006-05-15 10:35:04. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 10:39:14 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by idnic:
Just my 2 cents.... but it is the photographer's responsibility to ensure their file is an original, unaltered file -- not SC's responsibility to tell you whether or not your file is unaltered. You can look at the exif info to see if its altered by software or not. SC deal with MANY issues every week, they should not also be expected to hand-hold every member. Also, you had 48 hours to send your original, whether you sent it on hour one or hour 48 is irrelevant, SC begin their deliberation as soon as they recieve your file. There is no rule that says they must deliberate until the 48 hours is over. |
The rule says you have 48 hours to provide an original. If you're going to have a custom as humiliating as a DQ*, you should show a little care with how you apply it. Especially to paying members.
*for those of you who would argue that DQs are not intended to be humiliating, then why are they featured so prominently (and permanently) on our profile pages, and why do they lead to suspensions? |
To be (hopefully) clear:
- We allow 48 hours for a photog to provide an original. Once we receive a file, we have to go on the assumption that this is the photographer's original, and act on that. We can't assume that the photographer will submit a "more original original" in the allowed time.
- If a first submission is found not to be an original, we will re-request. That happened in this case. Along with this request, which I personally sent, was a short explanation on what constitutes an original. I also replied through the ticket system, so that the re-request would be recognized and acted upon.
- The original provided in response to this second request was processed through Photoshop, and thus was not an original. At this point, we had reviewed three files, and none were originals. To be fair, only two of these were submitted by the photog in response to a proof request.
Bottom line, we went through a *very* involved process, and gave multiple chances for submision of a valid original, including giving instructions on what was required. I hope this helps to set the record straight.
To address the question of whether DQs are "humiliating," there must be some negative associated with them, or no one will pay any attention. When DQs were hidden and no penalties existed, some folks would play the system. They would cheat, and when asked for a proof file, simply never respond. The outcome (DQ) meant nothing. The shot was hidden, and no penalty was assessed. Abuse of the system led to the rules we have in place today, which I believe are seen by most as a fair and equitable compromise. These rules also provide more flexibility for the users, in the form of the "self-DQ" system. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 11:20:40 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unfortunately he more or less blew his chance when he took the issue public before the 48 hours were up... |
I am not accusing the SC of being malicious..but what you are saying implies something very wrong. I don't think the SC is going to act differently because something is made public...I believe they act with the integrity of the site in mind. So a discussion like this helps clarify..for me anyway.
Personally I see this differently...but without judgement.
I screwed up..this morning I re-submitted the same file because I thought it was the original and they hadn't received it-I didn't know they had and it wasn't the original.. I was rushing to work and thought time was relevant. And that is that... |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 11:29:52 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by bucket:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unfortunately he more or less blew his chance when he took the issue public before the 48 hours were up... |
I am not accusing the SC of being malicious..but what you are saying implies something very wrong. I don't think the SC is going to act differently because something is made public...I believe they act with the integrity of the site in mind. So a discussion like this helps clarify..for me anyway.
|
I think he was thinking that the challenge was still in progress when you posted your shot and that it wouldn't be reinstated because the anonyminity would be blown - not that the SC would refuse to act once all was "uncovered." |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 11:38:06 AM · #35 |
And this is why I prefer the RAW format among many other reasons.
You always have the original unedited "RAW" file to work with. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 11:50:50 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
- We allow 48 hours for a photog to provide an original. Once we receive a file, we have to go on the assumption that this is the photographer's original, and act on that. We can't assume that the photographer will submit a "more original original" in the allowed time. |
Doesn't this sound more like a bad attitude than a fellow DPC'er trying to work things out?
You know mistakes are made. We're all human. So when someone accidently sends the edited file instead of the original, shouldn't you (as a group) patiently, dilligently, work with them towards a resolution?
Just to illustrate my point on attitude:
Take for instance, my wife. She works in a grocery store. Sometimes she gets irritated that the 14th customer in one day asks her the same stupid question she has previously answered 13 times prior. I try to remind her... for that one customer, this is the FIRST time they asked. And if they already knew the answer, they wouldn't ask in the first place (so it wasn't such a stupid question after all).
In other words, the irration is on the receiving end. It was never intended as a source of irritation by the one asking the question.
And so I work with her, reminding her that she needs to be as patient and understanding with the 14th customer as she most assuredly was with the 1st.
Well... your comment sounds like irration on the receiving end. Bucket's story sounds simple and harmless. He made a mistake. But somehow the straw broke the camel's back and patience has been lost.
It's hard living a public life. Especially when people expect more out of you because of your position. So I don't fault you. I am just ... as with my wife ... trying to urge you back to the side of patience.
Take a deep breath. Realize we're all human. And let's all try to get along.
Peace. :-)
Message edited by author 2006-05-15 11:51:47. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 11:58:32 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by kirbic:
- We allow 48 hours for a photog to provide an original. Once we receive a file, we have to go on the assumption that this is the photographer's original, and act on that. We can't assume that the photographer will submit a "more original original" in the allowed time. |
Doesn't this sound more like a bad attitude than a fellow DPC'er trying to work things out?
You know mistakes are made. We're all human. So when someone accidently sends the edited file instead of the original, shouldn't you (as a group) patiently, dilligently, work with them towards a resolution? |
Kirbic's second point, made directly after the one you quoted:
Originally posted by kirbic:
- If a first submission is found not to be an original, we will re-request. That happened in this case. Along with this request, which I personally sent, was a short explanation on what constitutes an original. I also replied through the ticket system, so that the re-request would be recognized and acted upon. |
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:01:04 PM · #38 |
That's why I included the word "diligently".
To patiently, diligently, work towards a solution may require more than a single request. As bucket said, he sent the file twice - thinking you had not successfully received it the first time. Two mistakes in a row on his part shouldn't be "the end". He's still human.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:05:01 PM · #39 |
Disclaimer: I voted bucket's Cinema entry rather high; I left a comment on it after the voting but before it was DQ'ed; and I was surprised to see it DQ'ed as I did not see anything in it that would lead me to suspect that rules were violated.
Was the photographer told at the time he sent in his first file for pre-validation that it would not be acceptable as an "original" should requesting proof become necessary? If not, perhaps that would have avoided an unnecessary DQ. Other than that possibility I can see nothing wrong in the way this case was handled by SC. And if this case can be reduced to a simple missunderstanding about what constitutes a true original file (as it appears to be by what we know publically) I would see nothing wrong with SC reconsidering it's decision if the photog submits a true original file within a reasonable timeframe.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:06:41 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by kirbic:
- We allow 48 hours for a photog to provide an original. Once we receive a file, we have to go on the assumption that this is the photographer's original, and act on that. We can't assume that the photographer will submit a "more original original" in the allowed time. |
Doesn't this sound more like a bad attitude than a fellow DPC'er trying to work things out?
You know mistakes are made. We're all human. So when someone accidently sends the edited file instead of the original, shouldn't you (as a group) patiently, dilligently, work with them towards a resolution? |
Kirbic's second point, made directly after the one you quoted:
Originally posted by kirbic:
- If a first submission is found not to be an original, we will re-request. That happened in this case. Along with this request, which I personally sent, was a short explanation on what constitutes an original. I also replied through the ticket system, so that the re-request would be recognized and acted upon. |
|
It was not a re-request..I had sent in a saved for web file prior to the challenge, asking if the SC thought my cloning was legal. I reieved a response stating that it looked good. This file was kept, someone looked at it, determined it was not an original (this is now during the challenge), I then received notice for the FIRST time that an original was requested. I sent in what I thought was the original, went to bed around 11pm, and woke up to find out I had been DQ'd. There is no argument as to whether I made a mistake, but I did not receive a re-request. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:10:20 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by idnic:
Just my 2 cents.... but it is the photographer's responsibility to ensure their file is an original, unaltered file -- not SC's responsibility to tell you whether or not your file is unaltered. You can look at the exif info to see if its altered by software or not. SC deal with MANY issues every week, they should not also be expected to hand-hold every member. Also, you had 48 hours to send your original, whether you sent it on hour one or hour 48 is irrelevant, SC begin their deliberation as soon as they recieve your file. There is no rule that says they must deliberate until the 48 hours is over. |
The rule says you have 48 hours to provide an original. If you're going to have a custom as humiliating as a DQ*, you should show a little care with how you apply it. Especially to paying members.
*for those of you who would argue that DQs are not intended to be humiliating, then why are they featured so prominently (and permanently) on our profile pages, and why do they lead to suspensions? |
To be (hopefully) clear:
- We allow 48 hours for a photog to provide an original. Once we receive a file, we have to go on the assumption that this is the photographer's original, and act on that. We can't assume that the photographer will submit a "more original original" in the allowed time.
- If a first submission is found not to be an original, we will re-request. That happened in this case. Along with this request, which I personally sent, was a short explanation on what constitutes an original. I also replied through the ticket system, so that the re-request would be recognized and acted upon.
- The original provided in response to this second request was processed through Photoshop, and thus was not an original. At this point, we had reviewed three files, and none were originals. To be fair, only two of these were submitted by the photog in response to a proof request.
Bottom line, we went through a *very* involved process, and gave multiple chances for submision of a valid original, including giving instructions on what was required. I hope this helps to set the record straight.
To address the question of whether DQs are "humiliating," there must be some negative associated with them, or no one will pay any attention. When DQs were hidden and no penalties existed, some folks would play the system. They would cheat, and when asked for a proof file, simply never respond. The outcome (DQ) meant nothing. The shot was hidden, and no penalty was assessed. Abuse of the system led to the rules we have in place today, which I believe are seen by most as a fair and equitable compromise. These rules also provide more flexibility for the users, in the form of the "self-DQ" system. |
and again..ask yourself when was the first request made? It was not a re-request. I had not heard from the SC until you emailed me. An original had not been requested. and sorry I am not pissed off..writing works differently than speaking..but I would like to set the record straight.
Message edited by author 2006-05-15 12:23:31. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:25:07 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by bucket:
...There is no argument as to whether I made a mistake, but I did not receive a re-request. |
You did receive a request, to which you uploaded a file. This request came long after the first file you submitted, so it is termed a re-request.
At the same time as that request went out, I also sent an explanation of what we needed. We understand you may have been in a rush, and I personally feel for you; it's easy to clidk the wrong file for upload.
If you do have an unedited original, please do submit it. Your public thread was not posted until after the close of the challenge. I cannot speak for the entire team, but if a valid original is submitted, the DQ may be reconsidered. We strive, always, to be as fair as possible, and will correct mistakes whenever it is within our power to do so. |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:38:39 PM · #43 |
After reading this thread, it makes me curious about what constitutes an original file. I typically shoot in RAW and my first step after transferring the shots to my PC is to add my name/copyright to the metadata and to add keywords before backing up the files. Would the addition of this info to the metadata be seen as having been adjusted in PS?
The thought had never occurred to me before, but would like to know for future reference if I should avoid even metadata changes (in the event I ever have to submit a file :)) |
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:41:00 PM · #44 |
dear digitaldave,
my advice to you is to quickly delete your post and hide under a rock for a day or two...
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:43:10 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by digitaldave:
After reading this thread, it makes me curious about what constitutes an original file. I typically shoot in RAW and my first step after transferring the shots to my PC is to add my name/copyright to the metadata and to add keywords before backing up the files. Would the addition of this info to the metadata be seen as having been adjusted in PS? |
The original RAW (in this case .CR2) file is all we'd require, as the metadata is stored in either sidecar files or PS's database.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 12:43:24 PM · #46 |
too slow :)
Message edited by author 2006-05-15 12:43:55. |
|
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: 10/18/2025 06:36:51 PM EDT.
