| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2004 11:51:47 PM · #1 |
Please be advised the results of the "Waiting" challenge have been recalculated due to a disqualification. Congratulations to librodo on his new ribbon!
|
|
|
|
06/16/2004 11:55:44 PM · #2 |
What happened with the track photo? What a shame...I really thought that was a good one. Oh well...congrats to Manny! :o)
|
|
|
|
06/16/2004 11:58:06 PM · #3 |
hmm wonder why it was DQed, poor md8speed =/ his ribbon was taken away
Message edited by author 2004-06-16 23:59:33. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 12:08:09 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 12:11:22 AM · #5 |
That sucks. It was an awesome photo.
Oh well, I am sure it was DQ'ed for good reason, but it still makes me sad because I thought it was the very best of the best in the contest.
Message edited by author 2004-06-17 00:12:59. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 12:18:34 AM · #6 |
Absolutely one of my favorites!
So when something like this happens, can the photographer explain what happened in these forums or is that not allowed? |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 12:19:49 AM · #7 |
Yes, they are welcome to do so... they can also repost the photo in their portfolio if they so choose.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 01:16:10 AM · #8 |
My top pick as well, what a shame...
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 01:30:32 AM · #9 |
| Out of the three ribbon winners that had been my only choice in the top ten. Too bad. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 03:24:16 AM · #10 |
Yes - shame. It was Dq'd because it didn't show people waiting - apparently the contestants weren't actually waiting for the starting gun but were in fact asleep.
; ) |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 04:04:32 AM · #11 |
Couldn't you wait for something in you sleep?
Like sleeping before Christmas morning?
;)
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:23:00 AM · #12 |
| Whoa---- I came home and found an email saying my image had been disqualified! Here is an explanation to clear my name- This image was disqualified for "not being taken within the given dates." This photo was taken with the Nikon d70 and the EXIF info says 6/6/2003. Does anyone else see something wrong with this??? Too bad the d70 released until 2004.... I know that many d70's came out of the factory with the wrong dates in the memory, but I should have checked to make sure it said 2004. I am not too happy with dpchallenge for just axing my photo without contacting me first when the EXIF info showed a clear contradiction in dates. I have plenty of evidence to show that this picture was taken on 6/6/2004! I have heat sheets for the track meet showing that the athlete in the photograph is in lane 4 (as in the picture), I have results showing that the athlete finished 2nd in the meet. I took over 400 pictures at the meet, which was at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, OR, this same meet was not at Lewis and Clark college last year, nor was on the same date (6/6/2003). All I have to say is that if the site counsel had contacted me about date problem, I could have sent plenty of information to show with out a doubt that this photo was taken on the given day (6/6/2004) and did indeed qualify for the challenge. As far as I am concerned, I pretty much got screwed. I had already taken pictures for two of the challenges up right now, but I guess I won't be submitting them since if they did well they'd just get axed again. What a bummer. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:26:58 AM · #13 |
Don't like your chances on getting this revoked, they are pretty strict on this. Sorry man.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:38:55 AM · #14 |
it is pretty sad sometimes about the rules, I really wonder and have asked before how they rule. I believe that if you had entered a challenge in the week of 9/11 and had shots of the twin towers coming down but the exif data was wrong, they'd dq it. Price you pay sometimes for technology...common sense and all other factors/proof goes out the window. I'm sure some would just cling to the idea that it's fair man!...and quietly stuff the common sense back in the closet :)
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:44:27 AM · #15 |
| I have that feeling too. I just wanted to pass on the info so people know what was going on. I'd be happy to upload over 2600 pictures from my d70, all with EXIF date stamps of 2003. Go figure. I think it would have been kind of amusing to have the "newspaper" entry with a 2003 date stamp on it for something that definatively happened in 2004 ;) I guess that's the way it goes. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:47:50 AM · #16 |
That really sucks MD8. It was a gre picture.
The site council is right in rejecting all the pics with wrong dates however, despite having overwhelming proof of the contrary (no D70 available in June 2003). Too many people were submitting wrong dates, and too much work was being done to try to figure out if the photographer had just failed to adjust his camera date. It clearly states no exceptions in the rules. It's a good rule.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:56:02 AM · #17 |
With my new camera a Fujifilm Finepix S3000 each time the batteries are on charge and I reload them back into my camera I have to reset the date I dont think I had to on my last one I am learning something new everyday
So I have to check for that it is so easy to forget
Sally |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 05:57:07 AM · #18 |
With all the recent DQs for not verifying the date ... and the count continues to rise! And, incredibly, they are still shocked when it happens!
Sorry you lost your ribbon, but blaming the SC for acting on your blunder is not the best way to handle this.
David
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 06:02:54 AM · #19 |
A few months ago we made several announcements that we would no longer be accepting photos with incorrect EXIF, regardless of circumstances, as it is the photographer's responsibility to check their camera settings are correct.
The fact that the D70 wasn't available last year doesn't make any difference to our ruling, since the photo could have been taken last month for all we know - the EXIF data is pretty much the only way of ensuring that photos are taken within the timeframe.
That being said, your shot was still a great photo, and you're welcome to upload it into your portfolio for others to see. It's a shame that we had to DQ it, but we have to be strict and impartial regarding this aspect of the rules...
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 07:31:51 AM · #20 |
| Bummer indeed. Simular thing happened to me. Hade 2003 instead of 2004 in my D70 and got some DQ requests. Mine wasn't a ribbon but it was a picture I liked and it was doing OK. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 07:37:36 AM · #21 |
| picture one and two are nearly identical. were the voters duped? |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 07:38:40 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
picture one and two are nearly identical. were the voters duped? |
See this thread.. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 07:57:00 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by md8speed:
Whoa---- I came home and found an email saying my image had been disqualified! Here is an explanation to clear my name- This image was disqualified for "not being taken within the given dates." This photo was taken with the Nikon d70 and the EXIF info says 6/6/2003. Does anyone else see something wrong with this??? Too bad the d70 released until 2004.... I know that many d70's came out of the factory with the wrong dates in the memory, but I should have checked to make sure it said 2004. I am not too happy with dpchallenge for just axing my photo without contacting me first when the EXIF info showed a clear contradiction in dates. I have plenty of evidence to show that this picture was taken on 6/6/2004! I have heat sheets for the track meet showing that the athlete in the photograph is in lane 4 (as in the picture), I have results showing that the athlete finished 2nd in the meet. I took over 400 pictures at the meet, which was at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, OR, this same meet was not at Lewis and Clark college last year, nor was on the same date (6/6/2003). All I have to say is that if the site counsel had contacted me about date problem, I could have sent plenty of information to show with out a doubt that this photo was taken on the given day (6/6/2004) and did indeed qualify for the challenge. As far as I am concerned, I pretty much got screwed. I had already taken pictures for two of the challenges up right now, but I guess I won't be submitting them since if they did well they'd just get axed again. What a bummer. |
The info you have does not matter. No date, no ribbon. I'd refer you to an earlier rant o' mine about this, but I am too tired to look it up. Needless to say, I've been where you are.
M
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 08:13:20 AM · #24 |
I think it has been suggested before (maybe even by me as well). when you submit a picture you are asked
Yes, this photograph was taken with a digital camera on or between Jun 1 2004 and Jun 30 2004.
I suggest it should be changed to...
Yes, this photograph was taken with a digital camera on or between *Insert challenge date* AND I HAVE CHECKED THE EXIF DATE ON THE ORIGINAL THAT I STILL HAVE
Maybe then we won't have this problem? imho this mistook is almost as bad as submitting (say) a poor shot. I know is gutwrenching when this happens but at least you know your talent was acknowledged.
A problem I suffer is boosting the ISO settings up and forgetting I've done this next time I start to shoot. Now when I turn the cam on the first button I hit is 'info' I check all my settings (including the date) before I hit the shutter.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 08:27:51 AM · #25 |
A problem I suffer is boosting the ISO settings up and forgetting I've done this next time I start to shoot. Now when I turn the cam on the first button I hit is 'info' I check all my settings (including the date) before I hit the shutter
Oh I'm glad I'm not the only one - doh!!
I go out and take some 800iso grainy shots and then forget to change back. Of course next time out I want silky smooth and ....bummer! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 01:15:18 PM EDT.
