| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 02:42:33 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Please note that the admins (Langdon) spoke to this issue before the challenge started -- I quoted his statement at least a couple of times in the pre-challenge thread which discussed this -- and that was to the effect that photos not "exactly 2 seconds" would nonetheless be allowed to stand. This is not a surprise. |
Now this is interesting. I've just found the thread you were referring to. You see, it was not Langdon that opened the challenge up to abuse of the challenge, it was you.
Langdon's comment was an attempt to accommodate the P&S cameras that cannot manually set the shutter. He was being inclusionist, allowing some latitude, trying to give everyone a fair and equal chance. You on the other hand, put a completely different spin on it by offering the 'out' for anyone to go outside of the 2sec limitation.
The full context of your "Langdon said" post is most illuminating - and disturbing.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought I had already posted this comment from Langdon in this thread, but I can't find it now.
Originally posted by langdon:
I knew that a very small, if not tiny portion of the user base would not be able to participate. Every point and shoot I've used within the last few years had a manual mode that had an adjustable shutter.
That said, we've never disqualified anyone for DNMC, so if you can take a long exposure, then you can particpate. |
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the official word is that exposures other than exactly 2 seconds are legal; they are part of the description but not a "rule" and they won't be DQd. I suggest voting on the quality of the photo ... |
His comment was relatively unambiguous and was in the spirit of DPC and its challenges. It was clear the reason it was being made. Your own comment however turned that into an all-encompassing Official Statement that a 2sec exposure was not required in the 2sec challenge.
Wow. Houston, we have a problem.
Brett |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:43:26 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I didn't want to submit anything lower than 2-seconds, so I set the shot up on a tripod and loosely covered the lens when I snapped the shot. I worked on timing the shot as best I could, removing the lens cap just before the two seconds ran out, effectively making it a 1/2 second shot, but with the shutter open for two seconds.
I'm curious to see whether people have the same problems with my methodology -- was it right of me to submit my shot the way I did it, or was I as "guilty" as the ribbon winner for shooting it at a speed less than two seconds? |
Oh, the semantics we can get into with that one :-)
The shutter was open for 2 seconds, so it's "legal" right? The actual exposure was 1/2 second, so it violates the "spirit", right?
But wait a second... on a dSLR the "shutter is like a curtain that raises and lowers. The card you raised and lowered to shorten your exposure, isn't that a "shutter"? Hmmm...
Is there a difference between "shutter speed" and "exposure"? Oy, vey!
We're getting to the level of needing to hire a talmudic scholar, or perhaps a Jesuit theologian, to unravel all this...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:46:03 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I didn't want to submit anything lower than 2-seconds, so I set the shot up on a tripod and loosely covered the lens when I snapped the shot. I worked on timing the shot as best I could, removing the lens cap just before the two seconds ran out, effectively making it a 1/2 second shot, but with the shutter open for two seconds.
I'm curious to see whether people have the same problems with my methodology -- was it right of me to submit my shot the way I did it, or was I as "guilty" as the ribbon winner for shooting it at a speed less than two seconds? |
Oh, the semantics we can get into with that one :-)
The shutter was open for 2 seconds, so it's "legal" right? The actual exposure was 1/2 second, so it violates the "spirit", right?
But wait a second... on a dSLR the "shutter is like a curtain that raises and lowers. The card you raised and lowered to shorten your exposure, isn't that a "shutter"? Hmmm...
Is there a difference between "shutter speed" and "exposure"? Oy, vey!
We're getting to the level of needing to hire a talmudic scholar, or perhaps a Jesuit theologian, to unravel all this...
R. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Shutters outside the mechanism of the camera are discounted because they are not dedicated curtains. lol
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:46:45. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:47:19 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We're getting to the level of needing to hire a talmudic scholar, or perhaps a Jesuit theologian, to unravel all this... |
Quite unfortunately, all of the talmudic scholars and Jesuit theologians at this particular park were busy handling other visitors' problems when I was there...! :) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:48:40 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We're getting to the level of needing to hire a talmudic scholar, or perhaps a Jesuit theologian, to unravel all this... |
Quite unfortunately, all of the talmudic scholars and Jesuit theologians at this particular park were busy handling other visitors' problems when I was there...! :) |
For the record, your EXIF shows 2 seconds and that's all I need to be happy; creative approach to solving the problem.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:48:48 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Shutters outside the mechanism of the camera are discounted because they are not dedicated curtains. lol |
But if we polled on this, my bet would be a badly split population. Many would surely believe that the hand is just as much a shutter as the "normal" shutter.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:49:46 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
You fooled the camera - not the community. |
Well said. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:51:27 PM · #233 |
Alan. I agree with the others that feel that using your HAND as a cover over the front of the lens is a totally different story. Why?
A camera is a machine. A very precise machine. It knows the difference between things like 1/1000 of a second and 1/1250 of a second. Some cameras know the difference between 1.9999979 seconds and 2.0000000 seconds.
Just as dodging and burning can also be accomplished in the darkroom, not just the digital darkroom, this falls to the art of photography and cannot simply be hacked and muddled through by any joe blow. I certainly can't do it.
You were using creativity to work with the limitations of your camera to turn a 2 second exposure into something workable with an effective 1/2 second exposure. You did so with your HAND.
That's a far cry from doing it with a highly precise machine.
The challenge criteria specifically states to set your camera to a 2 second exposure. Not your hand.
Well done.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:52:47 PM · #234 |
i think this perfectly legit - and a creative way to overcome a tricky situation - while at the same time upholding the spirit of the challenge description./ i posted that elsapo could have done his image this way in the sister thread.
however - the ribbon winner did not attempt to find a work around to produce an image which followed the challenge description. when the possiblity was there why should his image be glorified? my point is had the rules been more specific about meeting the challenge details - this process of producing his image MAY have become an option ie: popped into his head, and possibly been used to produce an exact duplicate of the entered image.
Originally posted by alansfreed:
I'm curious to see whether people have the same problems with my methodology -- was it right of me to submit my shot the way I did it, or was I as "guilty" as the ribbon winner for shooting it at a speed less than two seconds? |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:54:01 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Shutters outside the mechanism of the camera are discounted because they are not dedicated curtains. lol |
But if we polled on this, my bet would be a badly split population. Many would surely believe that the hand is just as much a shutter as the "normal" shutter. |
I would consider his hand as an ND filter with a very high, but variable rating. :-) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:56:28 PM · #236 |
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Rules create necessity and spark invention (aka creativity). Take away the rules (or consider them as merely "suggestions") and you take away the creativity.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:56:59. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:57:02 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
His comment was relatively unambiguous and was in the spirit of DPC and its challenges. It was clear the reason it was being made. Your own comment however turned that into an all-encompassing Official Statement that a 2sec exposure was not required in the 2sec challenge.
Wow. Houston, we have a problem.
Brett |
What problem? The issue of whether exposures of other than 2-seconds would be DQd was already under way. I asked Langdon for clarification, since I didn't want to enter if my 1/2 second exposure were subject to DQ.
He issued, as you point out, an unambiguous statement that non-2-second exposures would not be DQd -- a message which I passed along to the membership, in the hope that it would quell the hue and cry for DQs for non-adhering photos.
The bottom line is that each photographer was able to read that information and make their own decision.
To paraphrase, it wasn't necessarily the decision I'd have made, but I'll defend the photographer's right to make it. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:59:45 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One of the problems which arose with the original challenge was that some people (like myself) would be excluded from participation because our cameras are simply not capable of keeping the shutter open for 2 seconds.
The decision (by the admins) -- announced well in advance -- was that since the 2-second requirement was part of the challenge description and not a flagged "special rule" (and therefore [/b]not[/b] subject to DQ) no one was actually excluded, and that exposures other than "exactly 2 seconds" would not be DQd.
|
Originally posted by kirbic:
With regard to a special rule for this challenge, believe me when I say that administering it would have been pretty close to impossible. We literally would have been faced with requiring a proof file on all entries, then going through the arduous process of validating each of them. It would have been the only way to verify EXIF. |
i rarely get into these things, and i couldn't read every page of this, so if i missed the explanation for this already, then i apologise.
this particular issue is one that i don't understand. if all of this stuff was taken into consideration *before* the challenge, and the higher-ups were aware of these substantial issues going into this challenge...then why on earth was it ever brought forth as a specific challenge in the first place? would it not have been far easier and certainly more fair to everyone to just implement a different challenge, such as one that only specified a *general* slow shutter speed, with a less specific and rigorous description?
i am speaking of the past here, because i am confused as to the logic behind ever letting this specific challenge come into frution...especially knowing that the dpc members as a whole, *never* let anything slide, and that it just might turn into potential chaos, when all was said and done. :) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:00:14 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
The full context of your "Langdon said" post is most illuminating - and disturbing.
Wow. Houston, we have a problem. |
Please. Disturbing? The only problem I see is with people digging/poking and trying to twist others words around.
This is all such a mute point - this entire thread. Nothing technically illegal was done. The rules stand as they are and until something is done to address these rare special situations (specific challenge description requirement) results, such as the 2-Second challenge, can continue into the future.
Notice I said illegal, as in rule breaking...doesn't mean I think that those that entered photos with anything other than 2 seconds is right from a "fair play" standpoint.
edit punctuation.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 15:01:24.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:02:05 PM · #240 |
Alan's solution required some skill in the timing of the hand. Changing your camera's shutter speed from 2 sec to a half sec does not require any skill. As far as legality, I would say that Alan's image would pass muster because it's EXIF info would show the correct shutter speed, and checking the EXIF info of a requested proof file is the established method here at dpc. Had there been a special rule in effect, the normal established methods would have resulted in the blue being DQ'ed.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:05:00 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
this particular issue is one that i don't understand. if all of this stuff was taken into consideration *before* the challenge, and the higher-ups were aware of these substantial issues going into this challenge...then why on earth was it ever brought forth as a specific challenge in the first place? would it not have been far easier and certainly more fair to everyone to just implement a different challenge, such as one that only specified a *general* slow shutter speed, with a less specific and rigorous description? |
I meant discussion during the week after the challenge was announced and before the voting began.
Once a challenge is posted and entries submitted we really try to not change the rules -- thus the attempt to clarify just what those guidelines meant.
There was no discussion before the challenge was announced -- SC members do not get the unfair advantage of knowing the challenge topics in advance. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:10:22 PM · #242 |
It was said in the 4-5am challenge and it's been said here again as well as in Bear_Music's rule suggestion ....
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The big mistake was allowing the image in 4-5 to stand. This now sets the precedence to this more highly technical exposure time challenge. |
A statement in the challenge description for technical challenges that non-compliances will be DQ'd would be enough to stop them being entered. The responsibility is thereby placed on the entrants not the voters, nor SC after the fact. It would hopefully allay Kirbic's fears of too much validation work.
The deterrent factor is the most powerful tool we have. C'mon guys (SC & Admin), you have to fix this. This is serious - inaction and vacillation is making it worse. Leadership - please.
Brett |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:31:00 PM · #243 |
Honestly, I think the best thing that could happen right now is for Langdon to check this out, regroup his thoughts and send us another technical challenge, but one that has a backbone.
I too come here to submit pictures to stand (a head or two shorter than) alongside pictures taken by guys who actually know their stuff. Really well.
I like the specific challenges and I like having deadlines and things because it pushes me to work harder. I'm quite lazy otherwise.
Now as far as Langdon's statement, I believe that it was originally made as a concession to people who were unable to meet the 2 second requirement. Not as a means to open the doors of leniency to those who were merely unwilling.
Further, as far as that statement being public knowledge to all submitters, I can't recall having seen this or perhaps having made special note of this until recently and I cruise the forums quite a bit.
I would imagine that there are plenty of submitters who are in the same boat. To be fair, if one wants to say that this information should have been available to all, it should have been placed in the challenge description. Not everyone reads the forums. And not everyone who reads the forums does so every day.
It would definitely be good to see some immediate and positive action taken here that will set a new precedent that we can be more comfortable with and that will give us the right set of borders to make the "Challenge" part of this site important again. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:31:22 PM · #244 |
Just to add my .02, for what it's worth. I don't really have a problem with what elsapo did. I had strongly considered submitting a shot that wasn't 2 seconds, frankly because I had driven 45 minutes to this location, and climbed down a pretty steep cliff in cold weather to get to this place, and I didn't want to go away empty-handed.
I think it was more of a personal decision to find away around the problem the way I did. I found it to be an extra challenge to pull it off within the challenge description and it worked, thankfully (not that my score was worthy of bragging about!).
But he knew the challenge description ahead of time, and he knew that doing a shot of less than 2 seconds wasn't a DQ'able offense. By not following the description to a tee, he has opened himself up to the criticism he's getting here, and that's essentially the price he is paying for that choice. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:35:09 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
would it not have been far easier and certainly more fair to everyone to just implement a different challenge, such as one that only specified a *general* slow shutter speed, with a less specific and rigorous description?
|
Personally, I thought the 2 second challenge, in theory, was a very good one for a technical challenge. I learned more about exposure with this one than if it was just simply a long exposure challenge. With a long exposure challenge, I could just keep making adjustments till I was satisfied. This one made you work.
The results, well it's unfortunate that there has been such a polarizing end to it. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:36:13 PM · #246 |
I'm just curious. Where was the announcement made that exposures didn't necessarily have to be 2"? In that impossibly long thread about what the challenge meant or didn't mean? IMHO, that was a bad place to put it. Personally, I was so turned-off by the whole thread that I stopped following it after about page 3.
I believe an announcement as important as this deserves one of those green admin messages so we all see it. And while the admins are at it, I don't see what's so bad about putting a clarification note on the submission page.
If I missed something, I apologize in advance for this post. I hope we have all learned something from this episode.
I'd also like to say that I really liked the 2" challenge and would like to do it again (with clear rules in place). My picture did poorly, but I learned a lot and can live with it.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 15:38:44.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:36:56 PM · #247 |
here's my two cents:
Justin has made the choice. However, having the ability to manually set an exposure of 2 seconds is easy for him with his gear. technically he is capable of doing it. however,i don't really care so much how much trouble one goes through to get the right shot. as a voter, i don't see it as much but there are cases where i do perceive a complex setup (i.e. Scalvert).
Justin's and Caleb's (I suspect his wasn't 2 seconds either) ribbons will stay but they will always be tainted by this controversy. Time to move on guys. Let's hope that changes are to be made so that we don't find ourselves in this same situation again.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:37:45 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
It was said in the 4-5am challenge and it's been said here again as well as in Bear_Music's rule suggestion ....
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The big mistake was allowing the image in 4-5 to stand. This now sets the precedence to this more highly technical exposure time challenge. |
A statement in the challenge description for technical challenges that non-compliances will be DQ'd would be enough to stop them being entered. The responsibility is thereby placed on the entrants not the voters, nor SC after the fact. It would hopefully allay Kirbic's fears of too much validation work.
The deterrent factor is the most powerful tool we have. C'mon guys (SC & Admin), you have to fix this. This is serious - inaction and vacillation is making it worse. Leadership - please.
Brett |
I've started an SC discussion thread to distill what positive, constructive feedback we can from this and other discussions of the matter. There are, I believe, workable solutions that will allow technical challenges with tighter compliance requirements without overburdening the system. There are really two issues here:
1.) The question of verification. I believe that Robert's suggestion is a good step toward a middle ground where we can strongly encourage compliance (you can't make even the top 10 if you don't comply) without taxing the validation system beyond its limits.
2.) The "Paul exclusion principle" (Sorry, Paul couldn't resist the pun!). Those who own cameras unable to meet the demands of the technical challenge are by definition excluded. How do we address this valid concern?
Further input is needed on both of these problems. We're very open to suggestions as to how to continue to incorporate technical challenges while minimizing the issues.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:38:57 PM · #249 |
I'm starting to feel like a genius for taking a picture of a waterfall at sunset! hahahaha
I had another shot that I almost entered instead. It was a shot of Tom Jones singing the entire song, "It's Not Unusual," but everyone knows that song is exactly 2 minutes, not 2 seconds. I got around this by traveling toward Tom at one half the speed of light, which left me with an EXIF reading of 2 seconds.
My question is this: after I crashed into Tom at half the speed of light, he admitted that this WAS, in fact, unusual. So, is Tom a liar or am I a cheater? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:39:53 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The "Paul exclusion principle" (Sorry, Paul couldn't resist the pun!). Those who own cameras unable to meet the demands of the technical challenge are by definition excluded. How do we address this valid concern?
Further input is needed on both of these problems. We're very open to suggestions as to how to continue to incorporate technical challenges while minimizing the issues. |
If there is a technical challenge that some members cannot enter due to their equipment, maybe a secondary challenge is introduced so as not to exclude them from participating in a challenge.
Rikki |
|
