| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2006 11:54:26 AM · #1 |
As noted before, since no Extra Rules restrictions were imposed for the 2 Second challenge, photos taken outside that timeframe will not be disqualified since no rules were broken. Failure to require a 2 second shutter speed was an oversight in the challenge guidelines, and not the fault of photographers who took advantage of that loophole. Specific technical challenges planned for the future will have Extra Rules in place to prevent similar situations.
Please refrain from heckling photographers who used legal (though unpopular) techniques.
As this thread is turning circles and not leading anywhere I am locking it.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:45:14 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My problem is the phrase "exactly 2 seconds". I would bet that absolutely NONE of the entries were "exactly 2 seconds" of exposure, even if the EXIF reads 2.0000000 sec.
Even if you set your camera to an exposure of 2 sec, the shutter will not be open exactly 2 sec. It may be very close to 2 sec, but it will not be exact. |
We aren't talking about semantics like this; people aren't harping about the difference between 2.0000 and 1.9995, which is 4 ten thousandths of a stop. anything >= 1/3 difference is suspect to the challenge in practicality of ACTUAL exposure.
But then again, that is a moot point considering the EXIF will say 2.000 and that meets the challenge.
What people are harping about is the difference between 2.0 and 1/2 a FULL 2 stop difference.
But what about the people with cameras that can't set the shutter speed to 2 secs manually or at all? Sorry then, the photograph won't meet the challenge.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:20:54 AM · #3 |
I feel sorry for the winners as well as the voters with this one. The winner was told he could disreguard the exactly part of the challenge and the voters had their radar set to the exactly part. No one can win in such a situation. I think it would be best to let the winners enjoy the rest of the week without this showing up all the time.
Lock it up? |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:18:19 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by karmat:
And this is exactly what has been said will probably happen in the future. It would seem though, that it is more fun to discuss the past than to let it drop and move on. |
Karma, I have a feeling THIS dead horse will be beaten for quite some time. It is actually becoming quite boring, as the same suggestions are being made over and over again.
Well, maybe the next round of ribbons will bring a fresh dead horse out of the grave.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:15:20 AM · #5 |
| can we lock this thread? Seems all that has to be said here has been said and resaid enough. Just a thought... |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:12:03 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by pcody:
A possible solution for in the future would be to identify those challenges that need to have a special rule set. Post a flag to let everyone know there is a special rule set and also have a special sentence on the submit page asking the photographer if that special rule was followed. Just add it to the area that asks if the date rule was followed.
This would leave the weight of proof on the photographer. The voters would have good reason to believe that they are voting on legal images so there wouldn't need to be more work for the sc. If, at the end of the challenge, someone had not been honest with their submission information and it won, it would be dq'd and the photographer would, I imagine, be convinced not to do something like that again.
No extra work for anyone(except the programmers), more trust created for everyone.
I believe most people want to be honest and proud of winning fairly. |
And this is exactly what has been said will probably happen in the future. It would seem though, that it is more fun to discuss the past than to let it drop and move on. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:01:13 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
DNMC is not actually qualification for a DQ.
Never has been, never will be. |
It sure has been grounds for DQ, by proxy. Had the details of the photograph been known during voting then this photograph would not have broke the top 100, let alone get a blue.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:58:08 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
also NOT taken at 4-5am  |
Read the comments, users aren't happy about that either. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:24:24 AM · #9 |
A possible solution for in the future would be to identify those challenges that need to have a special rule set. Post a flag to let everyone know there is a special rule set and also have a special sentence on the submit page asking the photographer if that special rule was followed. Just add it to the area that asks if the date rule was followed.
This would leave the weight of proof on the photographer. The voters would have good reason to believe that they are voting on legal images so there wouldn't need to be more work for the sc. If, at the end of the challenge, someone had not been honest with their submission information and it won, it would be dq'd and the photographer would, I imagine, be convinced not to do something like that again.
No extra work for anyone(except the programmers), more trust created for everyone.
I believe most people want to be honest and proud of winning fairly. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 09:40:26 AM · #10 |
Respectfully ... how is this post any different from the posts of the people you are chastising? We're having a conversation, and sometimes conversations get heated and people say things they shouldn't. This is further blown up by the fact that we can't read body language over the internet.
Not everyone in this thread has been childish, rude, or disrespectful ... why call the entire thread crap? Why make a grand statement about your future plans on the site? Why insult me because I enjoy competing for meaningless ribbons?
I agree with you that some people have been out of line, but I don't think that calls for sweeping generalizations about the entire thread or the mindset of those who feel hurt about what has happened.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
This entire, ridiculous, completely unnecessary 13 page thread of crap is just one of dozens of reasons I'm not renewing my membership. Yeah, at one time, this site was 99% of my pathetic life but it's not anymore. I've finally realized that a few blue, red, and yellow pixels reflect nothing of my heart, my soul, my character, or my direction in life. They're just affirmation from others that you take pretty pictures. I have learned that I can take pretty pictures that don't need to be externally validated in the form of oohs and aahs from voters. "OMG the winners didn't follow the challenge description to the letter! Sinners! Let's have a public lynching and fill a thread with comments about how righteous we are and how shameful the winners are!" Give me a freaking break. Like nards alluded to in his post...in the grand scheme of things, this site and the SC and the challenges, rules, and descriptions are NOT what matter at the end of the day. Get over yourselves and move on. If you can't move past this issue, you need more help than this site can ever provide.
I'm not particularly religious, but I remember from Sunday School back in the day that we should "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Truth be known, I bet more than one of you who are freaking out about this petty issue is just pissed off that you didn't have the guts to enter something that wasn't EXACTLY a two-second exposure. |
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 09:41:33. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 09:34:20 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by nards656:
[The photo has been ruled legal, and SC has told you time and time again it will not be DQed. I wish to heck you guys would just chill and go take pictures. This REALLY isn't important in the big scheme of things. |
Amen.
This entire, ridiculous, completely unnecessary 13 page thread of crap is just one of dozens of reasons I'm not renewing my membership. Yeah, at one time, this site was 99% of my pathetic life but it's not anymore. I've finally realized that a few blue, red, and yellow pixels reflect nothing of my heart, my soul, my character, or my direction in life. They're just affirmation from others that you take pretty pictures. I have learned that I can take pretty pictures that don't need to be externally validated in the form of oohs and aahs from voters. "OMG the winners didn't follow the challenge description to the letter! Sinners! Let's have a public lynching and fill a thread with comments about how righteous we are and how shameful the winners are!" Give me a freaking break. Like nards alluded to in his post...in the grand scheme of things, this site and the SC and the challenges, rules, and descriptions are NOT what matter at the end of the day. Get over yourselves and move on. If you can't move past this issue, you need more help than this site can ever provide.
I'm not particularly religious, but I remember from Sunday School back in the day that we should "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Truth be known, I bet more than one of you who are freaking out about this petty issue is just pissed off that you didn't have the guts to enter something that wasn't EXACTLY a two-second exposure. |
Ditto. I'm out of here.
Elsapo has shown a LOT more maturity than the whole lot of whiners combined over the last few days. He's taken all sorts of abuse in stride without lashing out. It's sickening to see a bunch of adults picking on a teenager full of talent (More talent than most of us combined!) with NO reason whatsover, and that even after it was explained quite clearly that NOT meeting the challenge is legal and NO grounds for DQ. SC also has some blame to bear by letting this public lynching go on, on this thread and on the blue ribbon photo page. Ultimately D & L bear the blame and yet they have remained invisible in this whole episode. Sad... |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 09:33:33 AM · #12 |
OMG, Laurie's quitting the site. How we gonna expain that to Gary Fong? We're in big trouble now. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 09:16:48 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I'm not renewing my membership. |
Sorry to hear that; you've always been one of my favorite people here. Hope you'll hang around as a R user, anyway :) |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 09:09:19 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by nards656:
[The photo has been ruled legal, and SC has told you time and time again it will not be DQed. I wish to heck you guys would just chill and go take pictures. This REALLY isn't important in the big scheme of things. |
Amen.
This entire, ridiculous, completely unnecessary 13 page thread of crap is just one of dozens of reasons I'm not renewing my membership. Yeah, at one time, this site was 99% of my pathetic life but it's not anymore. I've finally realized that a few blue, red, and yellow pixels reflect nothing of my heart, my soul, my character, or my direction in life. They're just affirmation from others that you take pretty pictures. I have learned that I can take pretty pictures that don't need to be externally validated in the form of oohs and aahs from voters. "OMG the winners didn't follow the challenge description to the letter! Sinners! Let's have a public lynching and fill a thread with comments about how righteous we are and how shameful the winners are!" Give me a freaking break. Like nards alluded to in his post...in the grand scheme of things, this site and the SC and the challenges, rules, and descriptions are NOT what matter at the end of the day. Get over yourselves and move on. If you can't move past this issue, you need more help than this site can ever provide.
I'm not particularly religious, but I remember from Sunday School back in the day that we should "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Truth be known, I bet more than one of you who are freaking out about this petty issue is just pissed off that you didn't have the guts to enter something that wasn't EXACTLY a two-second exposure. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:44:38 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by wibing:
But I'm afraid he has stirred up quite a lot of controversy here. |
That's not true. Many others have stirred up the controversy. Justin simply entered the photo in the contest.
Judgment has been passed, okay? The photo has been ruled legal, and SC has told you time and time again it will not be DQed. I wish to heck you guys would just chill and go take pictures. This REALLY isn't important in the big scheme of things. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:32:57 AM · #16 |
These are my own personal opinions. I will try to state them as objectively as possible.
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 1) Justin read the thread where a member of the site council states that a photo should "LOOK LIKE TWO SECONDS" as opposed to being two seconds. This is no fault of Justin. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT IS CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED AGAIN AND AGAIN. |
That is what most of the 15 pages of discussion is about. There are a lot of people who strongly disagree with the SC. Instead what is (very) conveniently overlooked by your son is the phrase "Exactly 2 seconds".
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 2) Justin went to great lengths to get this photo. He leaped onto a slippery boulder in the middle of the raging water. He is enamored to his photo and not the ribbon. It is a great photo and he deserves to be proud of it. His bad luck is that it did ribbon. As it stands he would have been happier with a lower score and placement but he is not going to DQ his photo based on irrational sour grapes that don't take into account the so important thread mentioned in FACT 1. |
I believe he was not the only person who went into great lengths to get a shot. It's just that most other people went to greater lengths for the 2 seconds exposure.
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 3) Justin has received many many PMs from very credible and respected photographers telling him not to self DQ. Afterall, why should he have a photo DQed if it wasn't a DQable offense? |
I believe if I left it out there. Just as many credible and respected photographers will tell him to DQ himself.
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 4) Justin did attempt many two seconds shots from his slippery and dangerous perch and NEVER had a premeditated intention of taking anything other than a two second shot. REPEAT: There was no premeditated intention of bending the rules or looking for loop holes. |
On this point I believe you. Otherwise he would not be so forthcoming with the fact that he didn't do a 2 second exposure shot. But he should have known better.
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 5) Character flaw, cheater, etc. etc. etc? He has more character than the "grown ups" that are viciously attacking him will ever hope to have in thier lives. At 17 he stands before a howling raging mob, reads every post they spew, clicks it as helpful and stands by his guns. Character flaw....laughable and disgusting at the same time. |
I do agree that standing by your guns shows great character. On the flip side winning an award at the expense of others does not.
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 6) Yes, I am his father. Sitting in another country, far away, unable to comfort him, sad at the treatment my son with an incredible track record at DPC is receiving and proud to tears at the way he is handling himself and not giving in to unjust wrath. Believe me, the EASY ROAD would have been for him to self DQ but he does not take the EASY ROAD ever. |
I do feel for you as a father and in your shoes I would have done the same. But I'm afraid he has stirred up quite a lot of controversy here. Whether he DQs himself or not I can't say but he has to make such a decision based on his conscience.
In summary, I must say that Justin is a very gifted photographer. I know I've got a lot more to go before I'm at a standard even comparable to his. Whilst I personally feel that it is unfair and unjust the way the rules were bent, I must admit that I think Justin has handled himself really well. From the get go, he was forthright about his camera settings. He was always polite and marked every comment as helpful (even the nasty ones like mine). Again, while I do not agree with everything he's done, it is not totally his fault (i.e. coming first, being in the limelight and the crappy ambiguous rules).
I think this has gone on for long enough. I for one would like to drop this issue and carry on having fun taking photos and doing challenges and hopefully learning some photography tricks from your son. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:31:09 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
The apple never falls too far from the tree. |
Explain. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:27:03 AM · #18 |
| There's no reason for the image to be DQ'd, the rules have not been broken. I think it's a moral issue of whats the point in entering a challenge and not doing what the challenge says i.e take a picture with a s/s of exactly 2 secs. If I had entered I would never have thought maybe I won't take it at 2 sec. I understand that Justin didn't think this before taking the image, but if it wasn't going to work at 2 sec then don't enter it in the challenge. Just add it to your portfolio, print it, and hang it on your wall. But don't enter the challenge. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:23:31 AM · #19 |
| The apple never falls too far from the tree. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:21:25 AM · #20 |
I would prefer honest submissions because I make the assumption that the photographer achieved the image using the guidelines.
But when it comes down to it, there are better things to talk about as long as images are taken in the alotted time frame and editting isn't extreme we'll all be OK.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:16:28 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by KingWampum:
FACT 2) Justin went to great lengths to get this photo. He leaped onto a slippery boulder in the middle of the raging water. |
I'm more worried now about what he's doing to get the image. There are not many photographs that are worth risking a life for.
I think Justin should be getting some advice about 'appropriate risk' from those whose opinions he trusts.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 07:30:40 AM · #22 |
| Thank you very much to the individuals that have stood up for Justin against the name calling and personal attacks. You will never know how much we appreciate that. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 07:29:51 AM · #23 |
FACT 1) Justin read the thread where a member of the site council states that a photo should "LOOK LIKE TWO SECONDS" as opposed to being two seconds. This is no fault of Justin. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT IS CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED AGAIN AND AGAIN.
FACT 2) Justin went to great lengths to get this photo. He leaped onto a slippery boulder in the middle of the raging water. He is enamored to his photo and not the ribbon. It is a great photo and he deserves to be proud of it. His bad luck is that it did ribbon. As it stands he would have been happier with a lower score and placement but he is not going to DQ his photo based on irrational sour grapes that don't take into account the so important thread mentioned in FACT 1.
FACT 3) Justin has received many many PMs from very credible and respected photographers telling him not to self DQ. Afterall, why should he have a photo DQed if it wasn't a DQable offense?
FACT 4) Justin did attempt many two seconds shots from his slippery and dangerous perch and NEVER had a premeditated intention of taking anything other than a two second shot. REPEAT: There was no premeditated intention of bending the rules or looking for loop holes.
FACT 5) Character flaw, cheater, etc. etc. etc? He has more character than the "grown ups" that are viciously attacking him will ever hope to have in thier lives. At 17 he stands before a howling raging mob, reads every post they spew, clicks it as helpful and stands by his guns. Character flaw....laughable and disgusting at the same time.
FACT 6) Yes, I am his father. Sitting in another country, far away, unable to comfort him, sad at the treatment my son with an incredible track record at DPC is receiving and proud to tears at the way he is handling himself and not giving in to unjust wrath. Believe me, the EASY ROAD would have been for him to self DQ but he does not take the EASY ROAD ever.
FACT 7) This post is not for the comments that disagree with Justin posting the photo or feel disappointment. These statements and feelings are understandable and respected. That is much, much different the the labels and deeper insults that have been thrown his way. I say SHAME ON YOU to those people. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 05:35:23 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
Whew, what a debate! I gotta throw in my 2 cents...
I am with those who believe a 2sec exposure is not open for interpretation.
What if the top 10 finishers in technical challenges are verified? That way, no ribbons or honorable mentions are given to cheaters. |
perfect...only make it top 20 |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 05:33:51 PM · #25 |
Whew, what a debate! I gotta throw in my 2 cents...
I am with those who believe a 2sec exposure is not open for interpretation.
What if the top 10 finishers in technical challenges are verified? That way, no ribbons or honorable mentions are given to cheaters.
|
|
