DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> What happens after a 'validation'?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 49, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/05/2010 07:01:34 AM · #1
Originally posted by yanko:

An actual explaination of the results (if you're DQed) would also be nice instead of the one size fits all canned responses.


That would only serve to cut down the endless "I don't know why I got DQ'ed" or the "they just don't understand my art" threads that we all love to read.
08/05/2010 04:11:16 AM · #2
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I think these validation request rules are unconstitutional. I mean, imagine - I could be going out for ice cream with my son, Riley, and someone just decides they think my photo is illegally edited and I get an email asking to see the original. What's next - internment camps for photoshoppers?? It's an outrage.


What flavour icecream?

See? Now I am already getting the third degree.


Well you didn't share it with me...so why should I be nice to you...now which image was yours? I reckon you did something illegal on that image.....muuuwwwwaaahhhhhh!
08/05/2010 04:08:55 AM · #3
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I think these validation request rules are unconstitutional. I mean, imagine - I could be going out for ice cream with my son, Riley, and someone just decides they think my photo is illegally edited and I get an email asking to see the original. What's next - internment camps for photoshoppers?? It's an outrage.


What flavour icecream?

See? Now I am already getting the third degree.
08/05/2010 04:07:32 AM · #4
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I think these validation request rules are unconstitutional. I mean, imagine - I could be going out for ice cream with my son, Riley, and someone just decides they think my photo is illegally edited and I get an email asking to see the original. What's next - internment camps for photoshoppers?? It's an outrage.


What flavour icecream?
08/05/2010 04:04:18 AM · #5
I think these validation request rules are unconstitutional. I mean, imagine - I could be going out for ice cream with my son, Riley, and someone just decides they think my photo is illegally edited and I get an email asking to see the original. What's next - internment camps for photoshoppers?? It's an outrage.
08/04/2010 10:36:24 PM · #6
Originally posted by L2:



The challenge was: "Capture an image where a point of color is the main subject. No sort of selective desaturation allowed!" However, the "no selective desaturation allowed" was not an extra rule, so your image could not be DQ'd for it. While you technically passed validation with a split vote, you did break the spirit of the challenge.

What happened here is that you used a feature of your camera to perform an editing step that others would have had to do in Photoshop.


hmmm...i misunderstood. i thought the advanced editing rule "any feature of your camera" and then the additional rule meant "no selective desat allowed in post processing". i certainly would have self dq'ed if i thought i was breaking the spirit of the challenge, it was not my intention to "fool" anyone or circumvent the rules, i used a feature of my camera i thought was within the guidelines....

08/04/2010 10:27:46 PM · #7
Originally posted by FourPoint7:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I've always looked upon a validation request as positive feedback -- it means I had accomplished an image for which someone cannot figure out the technique used. Not only does it means the image "stood out" to at least one voter, but it will give at least one person a chance to learn something new ... ;-)


perfect example. i got a couple comments quesitoning it's legality...and a validation request, for this entry, which I guess was validated (this was over a month ago but i never heard anything) and i find it satisfying that i managed something at least a few people couldn't figure out...
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1227/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_892656.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1227/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_892656.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


The challenge was: "Capture an image where a point of color is the main subject. No sort of selective desaturation allowed!" However, the "no selective desaturation allowed" was not an extra rule, so your image could not be DQ'd for it. While you technically passed validation with a split vote, you did break the spirit of the challenge.

What happened here is that you used a feature of your camera to perform an editing step that others would have had to do in Photoshop.
08/04/2010 09:24:50 PM · #8
Originally posted by yanko:

An actual explaination of the results (if you're DQed) would also be nice instead of the one size fits all canned responses.


' . substr('//img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/91mini/smileys/stirpot.gif', strrpos('//img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/91mini/smileys/stirpot.gif', '/') + 1) . '
I think we can fight for an explanation. That seems fair, but I personally don't believe that we should know who made the request. If that happened there would be more witch hunts (don't pretend that doesn't happen around here) and it would probably discourage people from requesting validation (which SC needs to help aid in finding rule violations).

Message edited by author 2010-08-04 21:25:31.
08/04/2010 09:07:57 PM · #9
An actual explaination of the results (if you're DQed) would also be nice instead of the one size fits all canned responses.

Message edited by author 2010-08-04 21:08:37.
08/04/2010 08:57:47 PM · #10
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Judi:

....so don't you think it would help both the photographer and the requesters to be informed in some way as to why the image was put up for validation and how the result was achieved?

That can all happen after the voting is over -- you aren't supposed to be discussing it before then anyway.

If I were to request validation on an image and it was indeed validated, when the voting was over I'd go read the photographer's notes to see who they'd legally accomplished something I thought couldn't be done. If they don't list their shooting/post-processing info in the notes I'd ask, if interested enough.

You don't need to know who requests a validation. There is no possible purpose/use to such information except to initiate reprisals. If you really want to know, you can start a "Who Dared Question The Validity Of My Image" thread later, and see if anyone's willing to 'fess up and face your enduring wrath ... ;-)


That's the problem....with all the validations I have had to do...I haven't had anyone contact me asking how it was done...I have only received questions from non-validated images (except in the case of top 5). I don't really care who put my image up for validation...I just want to know...WHY!!!!

I am completely baffled over some of the validations...! It just doesn't make sense.
08/04/2010 08:55:09 PM · #11
Originally posted by Judi:

....so don't you think it would help both the photographer and the requesters to be informed in some way as to why the image was put up for validation and how the result was achieved?

That can all happen after the voting is over -- you aren't supposed to be discussing it before then anyway.

If I were to request validation on an image and it was indeed validated, when the voting was over I'd go read the photographer's notes to see who they'd legally accomplished something I thought couldn't be done. If they don't list their shooting/post-processing info in the notes I'd ask, if interested enough.

You don't need to know who requests a validation. There is no possible purpose/use to such information except to initiate reprisals. If you really want to know, you can start a "Who Dared Question The Validity Of My Image" thread later, and see if anyone's willing to 'fess up and face your enduring wrath ... ;-)

Also, please remember that it is "surveillance" by the voting populace which keeps the challenges honest -- relatively few validation requests are initiated by SC members. If we weren't checking a reasonably large sample, and catching rule-breakers -- there would be far more incentive to cheat, and a greater chance of getting away with it (as long as you're satisfied with sixth place or lower).

Message edited by author 2010-08-04 20:58:31.
08/04/2010 08:44:56 PM · #12
Originally posted by posthumous:

This place is crawling with narcs. That's part of the DPC experience. Love it or leave it.


sad but true.
08/04/2010 08:24:26 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't think of them as "requests for validation" as much as I do "alerts". In my opinion, SC sort of relies on us to let them know when something looks strange. I'm pretty sure they don't act on single requests, either; I think most of the time they start taking a closer look when several people all alert them to the same image. I can't imagine what would be gained by publishing who did the alerting/requesting. On the other hand, there have been times in the past when I have "alerted" SC to what I saw as a lot of inadvertent rule-breaking in a particular challenge, and they have responded and told me how I was misinterpreting the artwork rule, in one case; and that was sort of embarrassing.

But, anyway... There's a lot of validating going on. Things just get more complicated if they have to explicate as well as validate. I'm not sure I think that's a good thing...

R.


Exactly...so more than one person requests a validation...so they are all seeing something the author isn't....so don't you think it would help both the photographer and the requesters to be informed in some way as to why the image was put up for validation and how the result was achieved?

Message edited by author 2010-08-04 20:24:43.
08/04/2010 08:22:00 PM · #14
I don't think of them as "requests for validation" as much as I do "alerts". In my opinion, SC sort of relies on us to let them know when something looks strange. I'm pretty sure they don't act on single requests, either; I think most of the time they start taking a closer look when several people all alert them to the same image. I can't imagine what would be gained by publishing who did the alerting/requesting. On the other hand, there have been times in the past when I have "alerted" SC to what I saw as a lot of inadvertent rule-breaking in a particular challenge, and they have responded and told me how I was misinterpreting the artwork rule, in one case; and that was sort of embarrassing.

But, anyway... There's a lot of validating going on. Things just get more complicated if they have to explicate as well as validate. I'm not sure I think that's a good thing...

R.
08/04/2010 08:21:42 PM · #15
Originally posted by posthumous:

This place is crawling with narcs. That's part of the DPC experience. Love it or leave it.


If something can be improved to help others learn in this place...then we should at least try. This place, or any other place, will never get rid of all the different personalities, good and bad....but at least we can try to improve the overall feel of the site.
08/04/2010 08:16:35 PM · #16
This place is crawling with narcs. That's part of the DPC experience. Love it or leave it.
08/04/2010 08:05:20 PM · #17
Originally posted by MeMex2:

Why is the person who questions the image anonymous? Why can't the whole process be transparent.
(imho)


Right. There has to be a better way.
But I'm sure you read the response from site council (General E, in this case) to my asking why there can't be a "you were asked for validation because".
For me it matters much more WHY than WHO (don't really care). I have no idea how many requests they get but it must be a lot. And how does a voter decide to validate for date anyway? Like I said, it's all kind of ridiculous but rules are rules and it is human nature to try and break them I guess.
08/04/2010 07:24:02 PM · #18
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by MeMex2:

I would respect the person who had the courage of his/her convictions and was willing to be open about
why an image should be validated. I bet it would eliminate a lot of frivolous and silly challenges. If you
want an action taken, put your name on it.


And a chance for the author to teach the requester something new.


It would also produce a slew of "How dare you . . . ." PMs. I don't see how if affects anything but the work load on the SC. If you haven't broken any rules then you have nothing to worry about, and if you finish in the top 5 you're going to get the validation request anyway. After the challenge, you can always PM the photographer or start a "How did they do that" thread.

Knowing who requested a validation has no value other than satisfying curiosity and declaring a target. There is little upside.
08/04/2010 07:03:33 PM · #19
Originally posted by MeMex2:

I would respect the person who had the courage of his/her convictions and was willing to be open about
why an image should be validated. I bet it would eliminate a lot of frivolous and silly challenges. If you
want an action taken, put your name on it.


And a chance for the author to teach the requester something new.
08/04/2010 06:46:06 PM · #20
I would respect the person who had the courage of his/her convictions and was willing to be open about
why an image should be validated. I bet it would eliminate a lot of frivolous and silly challenges. If you
want an action taken, put your name on it.

08/04/2010 06:33:01 PM · #21
Originally posted by MeMex2:

Why is the person who questions the image anonymous? Why can't the whole process be transparent.

If I think that something is not cricket I should be willing to put my name on the request for validation, no?

It feels a little on the creepy side. I would like to know who and why my image is being challenged. I think that
having the opportunity to question an image is important. I don't think the person and the reason for the request
has to be a secret. (imho)


What would you do if you knew who requested the validation?

BTW - I am taking the term "something is not cricket" and I'm going to use it daily. ;-)
08/04/2010 06:21:19 PM · #22
Why is the person who questions the image anonymous? Why can't the whole process be transparent.

If I think that something is not cricket I should be willing to put my name on the request for validation, no?

It feels a little on the creepy side. I would like to know who and why my image is being challenged. I think that
having the opportunity to question an image is important. I don't think the person and the reason for the request
has to be a secret. (imho)
08/04/2010 05:47:58 PM · #23
Originally posted by SEG:

I still believe the author should be told at some time as to why there was concern for their image.


Agreed. Why can't the reason for the request not be sent out with the confirmation that you have passed validation? This would not give anything away when asking for the original and would not give anyone the chance to alter it. [/quote]

Or if SC is concerned the author might try to lie about their editing, at least tell the author after the validation is completed.
08/04/2010 05:42:00 PM · #24
Originally posted by judi:

I still believe the author should be told at some time as to why there was concern for their image.


Agreed. Why can't the reason for the request not be sent out with the confirmation that you have passed validation? This would not give anything away when asking for the original and would not give anyone the chance to alter it.

Message edited by author 2010-08-04 18:02:05.
08/04/2010 05:26:42 PM · #25
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I reckon SC only ask to validate images they themselves cannot definitively say are legal. I don't really see any harm in a false positive here as far as requiring validation.

I've always looked upon a validation request as positive feedback -- it means I had accomplished an image for which someone cannot figure out the technique used. Not only does it means the image "stood out" to at least one voter, but it will give at least one person a chance to learn something new ... ;-)


How can they learn something new...when the author isn't even told what the validation request was for. If the author doesn't know...then how can they explain it to the person who put it up for validation...especially when the person who puts the request in doesn't make him or herself known to the author.

I would probably have one of the highest validation requests...and it baffles me constantly as to why an image gets called up...! I still believe the author should be told at some time as to why there was concern for their image.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 10:01:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 10:01:05 PM EDT.