"Rivers & Streams" Results Recalculated

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/24/2008 05:39:04 PM · #1

The former 1st place entry has been disqualified due to an unfortunate creation of new features. =/

Congrats to our new ribbon winners.

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

01/24/2008 05:48:21 PM · #2

Originally posted by langdon:

The former 1st place entry has been disqualified due to an unfortunate creation of new features. =/

Congrats to our new ribbon winners.

Congrats DrAchoo... :/

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/24/2008 05:51:59 PM · #3

Never fun to win one this way. Reminds me of my first blue.

However, this is an opportunity to understand what is legal and what isn't. I have to assume it is the stars that were the problem, but I would love to know if a) that's the case and b) how much or little were they there before?

Even though I wind up getting a blue out of this, I'd wage the argument that with the amalgum of rulings over the last months stars can almost be created out of nothing but noise.

Still, I'd like to know as I use stars in pictures too...

Message edited by author 2008-01-24 17:55:32.

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/24/2008 05:54:53 PM · #4

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Never fun to win one this way. Reminds me of my first blue.

Must be even harder on Robt though, gets red and still loses the H2H!

Photologist

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/24/2008 05:54:58 PM · #5

What was manually added to the photo? The stars?

BTW, congrats, Jason (new 2st place)!...and Jeff (new 3rd place)!

Message edited by author 2008-01-24 17:55:59.

hanneke

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/24/2008 05:55:36 PM · #6

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

What was manually added to the photo? The stars?

My thoughts exactly. They look square.. stars are round over here in Holland :P

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

01/24/2008 05:55:51 PM · #7

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Never fun to win one this way. Reminds me of my first blue.

Not really... you did win before... you just slid over a bit :/

langdon

Canon EOS-20D

01/24/2008 06:02:49 PM · #8

No stars existed in the orginal capture.

01/24/2008 06:17:20 PM · #9

So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image?

I mean ... simply stating "No stars existed in the original capture" adds a LOT of useful information which will be lost in the forums but, attached to the image, could be helpful for a lot of people.

levyj413

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

01/24/2008 06:19:41 PM · #10

Originally posted by dwterry:

simply stating "No stars existed in the original capture" adds a LOT of useful information which will be lost in the forums but, attached to the image, could be helpful for a lot of people.

I agree. It also helps people learn. I definitely look at a lot of DQs to see what not to do.

And thanks for the congrats! :)

langdon

Canon EOS-20D

01/24/2008 06:28:51 PM · #11

Originally posted by dwterry:

So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image?

That's not a bad idea at all. The reason we don't do it now, and/or haven't up to this point is that we use canned DQ messages. This makes it easier on the person pushing the DQ button (which is not even remotely fun, especially on a wonderul image like this), and also allows us to consult a disqualification gallery on the trickier cases (in attempt to not waffle on issues and look foolish). :)

Photologist

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/24/2008 07:20:22 PM · #12

Originally posted by langdon:

Originally posted by dwterry:
So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image?

That's not a bad idea at all. The reason we don't do it now, and/or haven't up to this point is that we use canned DQ messages. This makes it easier on the person pushing the DQ button (which is not even remotely fun, especially on a wonderul image like this), and also allows us to consult a disqualification gallery on the trickier cases (in attempt to not waffle on issues and look foolish). :)

Even though entering in a photo-specific infraction message is a manual procedure, it's not like there are tons of these to do. How many DQs on average are there a week? Less than one?

I think it took you longer to reply in this thread, "No stars existed in the orginal capture." than it would have to enter that into the actual image page. (assuming that type of page infrastructure was already set up) ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-01-24 19:22:06.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

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

01/24/2008 08:56:54 PM · #13

I think it's probably more a matter of trying to sound tactful about describing the DQ, rather than making it sound like we're railing on the person who had the DQ, to be honest.

Message edited by author 2008-01-24 20:57:07.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/24/2008 09:03:18 PM · #14

i'm with alan. we don't want to sound like we're hanging the photographer out to dry.

01/24/2008 10:44:38 PM · #15

I agree that tact is necessary. But not saying anything at all leaves everyone speculating at just what, exactly, the photographer did wrong. And what the potential trap might be that they could fall into. Seeing the image and knowing the sterile description of what rule was broken, leaves too many questions unanswered as witnessed by the many threads that spawn from DQs.

Simply stating "there weren't any stars in the original image" shouldn't hurt anyone feelings and it immediately silences all further speculation.

Yes, do it tactfully... but educate us as well. Perhaps you'll save someone else from getting DQ'd down the road.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

01/24/2008 10:51:43 PM · #16

Originally posted by muckpond:

i'm with alan. we don't want to sound like we're hanging the photographer out to dry.

Why not just ask the photographer (after notification of DQ), if you can use original and edited to show exactly what got DQ'd?

01/24/2008 10:55:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by mad_brewer:

Why not just ask the photographer (after notification of DQ), if you can use original and edited to show exactly what got DQ'd?

Oh man, that would just be so awesome. (with the photographer's permission, of course) Embedding a link to the original right into the message. It would be so much more instructive.

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

01/24/2008 11:43:01 PM · #18

Originally posted by dwterry:

Yes, do it tactfully... but educate us as well. Perhaps you'll save someone else from getting DQ'd down the road.

We are getting educated - these threads, while more cumbersome than an announcement under the photo itself, do help us know what's going on. If anyone's curious, they can just look in the appropriate forum section and see the "results recalculated" thread for details. Reasons for DQ might not always be specified in the first post (I don't know if they always are) but everyone talks about it and the discussion has always, to me, been informative.

Message edited by author 2008-01-24 23:43:39.

01/24/2008 11:51:11 PM · #19

Yes, yes, I know. I've been here for several years and witnessed much of it.

My point is ... threads get buried and forgotten. But when you look at the image, you see the DQ and then you wonder ... what does all that techno-gibberish really mean? (which is what spawns the many threads discussing the DQ) So all I was suggesting is a short quick sentence (as was given here in this thread), together with the stated rule, which states more specifically what was in error.

The forums and threads are great. And the fact that they are searchable helps tremendously. But you wouldn't even have to go searching if the information was stated together with the rule violation.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/25/2008 01:21:36 AM · #20

Maybe they could have the standard DQ statement to help SC in their search for similar DQ's later...but also (with permission from the photographer, of course) have the added extra information beneath the DQ statement...so 2 years down the track you don't have to try and search for the appropriate forum thread. Maybe they could include any link to the said forum thread so people can look there for more discussion(if any) on the said photo.

Also, maybe a 'Recalculated Challenge' thread can be added to the forum list so they are all in one area for further perusal by the members to help them know what they can and can't do...especially as wording rules can be quite a daunting and confusing affair both for SC and for members.

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

01/25/2008 01:59:03 AM · #21

Originally posted by dwterry:

My point is ... threads get buried and forgotten. But when you look at the image, you see the DQ and then you wonder ... what does all that techno-gibberish really mean? (which is what spawns the many threads discussing the DQ) So all I was suggesting is a short quick sentence (as was given here in this thread), together with the stated rule, which states more specifically what was in error.

*nod* Makes sense to me.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/25/2008 02:11:45 AM · #22

As far as having the "photographer's permission" to post the explanation, I can't imagine why this should be required. Either the transgression was accidental (didn't know it wasn't allowed, forgot what ruleset was being used, pushing the envelope, whatever) or it was deliberate (hoping nobody would catch it). If the former, why would anyone object to the details being released, since they will help fellow-members in the future? And if the latter, who cares? I got no sympathy in me for deliberate transgressors. I can see asking permission to post the unaltered original, however, if that's what we're talking about. Although, personally, I think that posting originals of all ribbon-winners ought to be REQUIRED as part of the challenge terms, because there's so much we can learn that way. But I suppose there are some folks who like to keep their PP close to their vests, so to speak...

I think it's an EXCELLENT idea to post a more detailed explanation of WHY the DQ happened, anyway; that's the bottom line. Just this single line "The stars were added" goes a long way towards answering everyone's questions.

R.

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

01/25/2008 02:19:01 AM · #23

I agree with everything Bear just said...

levyj413