| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2004 08:45:08 AM · #1 |
...to submit basically the same photo, twice, but to different challenges. Say a photo didn't work the first time you submitted it, and you want to try shooting and submitting it again. I know it's lazy, I'm just wondering about it.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:47:12 AM · #2 |
It happens often...It seemed to work for the Implied Lines challenge. I'm sure I've seen that blue ribbon before...
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:52:44 AM · #3 |
these two examples come to mind:
 
  |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 12:26:14 PM · #4 |
Here is a quote from the rules:
A photograph may only be used in one challenge, even if it is cropped or altered differently to fit another challenge. Duplicate photos will be disqualified. A person may only hold one DPChallenge account and may submit only one photograph per challenge. He or she will not be able to vote on their own image.
but it seems that it could be a photo of the same subject, even the same settings, etc.
stevie |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 12:28:18 PM · #5 |
stevie has it right. You can't use the same exposure twice, but if you shot a bunch of pictures of the same thing, you could use another exposure for a subsequent challenge so long as it fell within the acceptable dates.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 12:32:02 PM · #6 |
Hey I've even taken a picture of the same place twice!! :-)
 
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:02:15 PM · #7 |
If you can't re-shoot photos, then you really can't improve.
In other words, it's only natural to want to improve your craft :-)
Give 'er! |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:18:10 PM · #8 |
I've entered at least 3 shots of the Michigan State Capital building dome in 3 different challenges (from the outside) without problem (or high scores). I did get a great score in the orange challenge though with a shot from the inside...
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:25:56 PM · #9 |
These were entered in "Windows and Doors" and "Squares" at the same time :)
 
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:44:37 PM · #10 |
i can't believe one of these wasn't dq'd ... was it an oversight or did the SC decide this was ok?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:49:49 PM · #11 |
well, they aren't the same photo.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:20:34 PM · #12 |
It's 2 seperate images taken within minutes of eachother. It was considered for DQ at the time, but I sent both originals and they stayed.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:43:56 PM · #13 |
| There's no reason for those photos to be DQ'ed in my eyes. They're different photos, if we start DQ'ing (that's not a Dairy Queen reference..lol) photos that are very similar - or could be identical- then we'd seriously dwindle entries. How many macro shots of bugs have we seen? And usually from the same photographer and the shots are almost identical (just one example). |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:47:17 PM · #14 |
Yeah, they should not be DQ'd.
Technically you could set the camera on a tripod, set it to burst mode, and have the 2 photos taken only a fraction of a second apart, same settings, and it would be legal.
Mind you, I am not sure in that example if the exif data would look any different, as they might even show the same second for time *laugh*
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:20:54 PM · #15 |
well ... then I have no problem "standing alone" on this one. In my opinion this breaks the spirit of the rules. But really, who cares, it was almost 2 years ago.
:)
Perhaps I'll submit the same exact photo (moments apart, of course) for calendar, macro, and impressionism. It'll either boost my overall score or destroy it :) |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:37:56 PM · #16 |
if nothing else ( outside of trying to improve a particular shot ) it's pretty cheesy.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:41:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Yeah, they should not be DQ'd.
Technically you could set the camera on a tripod, set it to burst mode, and have the 2 photos taken only a fraction of a second apart, same settings, and it would be legal.
Mind you, I am not sure in that example if the exif data would look any different, as they might even show the same second for time *laugh* |
The exif would be different (for the file number at least :) )
There is the notion in the 'fine art photography' world of limited editions, ie. only 10 prints from a single negative, to effectively artificially inflate the value. (there's a long diversion in to woodcuts and limited life media) but it was apparently quite often common practice to take several exposures of a particularly promising scene, just so you could sell the 10, destroy the negative, move on to the next one and so on...
Literally ethical while totally missing the point. I think it is a bit similar here really
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:00:37 PM · #18 |
|
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: 04/26/2024 03:14:01 PM EDT.
