"Single Light Source III" results recalculated

06/10/2006 05:30:31 PM · #1

Due to the disqualification of the formerly 3rd place image, the results for the 'Single Light Source III' challenge have been recalculated. Congrats to our new 4th & 5th placers!

06/10/2006 05:34:02 PM · #2

Too bad :(

But congrats to Karen for her second ribbon! :)

KarenNfld

06/10/2006 05:45:21 PM · #3

Wow, I wasn't expecting that!

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

06/10/2006 05:48:38 PM · #4

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Wow, I wasn't expecting that!

Suuuuurrrrre ... you've been gone awhile, photopromo's missing .... I don't think I need to connect too many dots here :P

xianart

Canon EOS-7D

06/10/2006 05:55:40 PM · #5

it's too bad, seeing as she does say she'll be away until june 19th.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

06/10/2006 06:00:13 PM · #6

Originally posted by xianart:

it's too bad, seeing as she does say she'll be away until june 19th.

Looks like she posted right after the results were announced since she mentioned her ribbon. If I'm not mistaken they request validation on the top 5 finishers immediately after the results are announced. I know when I finished 4th in Still Life I got that validation request like 2 minutes after the results were made. So basically what I'm saying is she should have known she had to submit her original before she left.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

06/10/2006 06:16:26 PM · #7

Congrats to everyone that moved up. A shame though, that's the one I had rated the highest in the challenge.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/10/2006 06:28:53 PM · #8

Originally posted by yanko:

So basically what I'm saying is she should have known she had to submit her original before she left.

I really don't mean to be mean to her, but I doubt she has read any rules at all.

2 of her 3 submissions have been DQ'ed, and even her third one WOULD have been DQ'ed if it had been looked at (I read her photographer's notes).

I left a note for her, suggesting to read the rules so it doesn't happen a third time. Hopefully she'll understand that I was only trying to help.

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/10/2006 06:29:41 PM · #9

a pity - I loved this shot. Since she is a fairly new member ( 15 days) I wonder if she realised she needed to send validation. If she didn't pick up her emails before she went away, (if requests are made by email - I've never been in this axalted position) - she may just not know. If so it will be horrible when she gets back to the news. OH well with this talent I'm sure she will ribbon again soon.
P

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

06/10/2006 06:38:23 PM · #10

I don't know about her shot, but I don't think this one:

should have got a DQ. I've checked the specifications for his camera and this can be done as one shot. My Nikon 8400 does the same thing. He is another Newbie and obviously didn't bother to submit his original

Of course this photo didn't really meet the challenge, but that's another matter entirely.

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

06/10/2006 06:44:58 PM · #11

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

I don't know about her shot, but I don't think this one:

should have got a DQ. I've checked the specifications for his camera and this can be done as one shot. My Nikon 8400 does the same thing. He is another Newbie and obviously didn't bother to submit his original

Why shouldn't it have been disqualified?

banmorn

Nikon D750

06/10/2006 06:47:13 PM · #12

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I don't know about her shot, but I don't think this one:

should have got a DQ. I've checked the specifications for his camera and this can be done as one shot. My Nikon 8400 does the same thing. He is another Newbie and obviously didn't bother to submit his original

Why shouldn't it have been disqualified?

Because it was done in camera.

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

06/10/2006 06:47:36 PM · #13

It wasn't disqualified for having been done in camera or not.

banmorn

Nikon D750

06/10/2006 06:50:26 PM · #14

Originally posted by mk:

It wasn't disqualified for having been done in camera or not.

Yes...because the original was not provided...but the request for DQ was made without knowing that it could be done in camera.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

06/10/2006 06:51:13 PM · #15

Originally posted by banmorn:

Originally posted by mk:
It wasn't disqualified for having been done in camera or not.

Yes...because the original was not provided...but the request for DQ was made without knowing that it could be done in camera.

Your assumption is that it was anyway. But that doesn't make any difference.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

06/10/2006 06:55:51 PM · #16

Originally posted by mk:

The validation request was fair enough and he didn't supply the original, so it had to be DQ'd. However I still the the image was probably legal.

elemess

06/10/2006 07:07:39 PM · #17

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by banmorn:

Originally posted by mk:
It wasn't disqualified for having been done in camera or not.

Yes...because the original was not provided...but the request for DQ was made without knowing that it could be done in camera.

Your assumption is that it was anyway. But that doesn't make any difference.

The validation request was fair enough and he didn't supply the original, so it had to be DQ'd. However I still the the image was probably legal.

"Probably" and "possibly" are two very different things. I see no reason why someone wouldn't question the validity of that shot, even if it can be done in camera: remember, during a challenge no one can see camera information. Also, the SC shouldn't just assume that because an effect can be accomplished in camera, it actually was. The photog should send in the original and have it validated so there's no question.

06/10/2006 07:50:54 PM · #18

Originally posted by xianart:

it's too bad, seeing as she does say she'll be away until june 19th.

Where does it say that she'll be gone until June 19?

06/10/2006 07:51:57 PM · #19

In the photog comments on the entry.

06/10/2006 07:54:56 PM · #20

Originally posted by alfresco:

In the photog comments on the entry.

Which, as yanko pointed out, is rather curious since she updated her comments after the challenge. Even if she didn't have access to her email, there would have been an immediate notice on her dpc homepage stating that she needed to upload proof. A rather unfortunate oversight. :(

06/10/2006 07:55:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by banmorn:

There were multiple (quite a few) validation requests on the image. I think it's easy to see why.

When there are multiple requests we go ahead and request proof, just so that the "this photo has been validated" stamp can be added (if legal). The proof was not submitted, even though we waited 5 days for it.

06/10/2006 08:00:18 PM · #22

Originally posted by alfresco:

In the photog comments on the entry.

Thank you. I'd seen that, it just slipped my mind.

Just so there is no suspicion, we received 2 different files from her as proof, neither was the original. It is quite possible that she does not have access to her original at this time, or is unable to send it, but we did not get any indication of it being so.

I am sad that the image was DQed, it's beautiful, and I don't suspect cheating in her case. In other words, I don't think she was cheating. But without the original there is no way to validate. And I think it is better in this case to err on the side of too much caution than not.

For me, the date issue is one of the biggest in image validation here. The challenges work so that the images are made during the week when the challenge is announced. If there is one issue that is important to me for validation is that people stick to this.

ADDED: I tried to get hold of her, to clarify the situation, but had no answer. I think it is only fair that Karen have her time on the front page. I do not (I'd like to say I hate) like to DQ images. It really bothers me.

Message edited by author 2006-06-10 20:05:09.