| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 03:42:41 PM · #251 |
maybe next challenge shoudl be a point and shoot camera only., but the p&s can opnly be under 3 megapixel cameras
Originally posted by Rikki:
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 |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:43:01 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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? |
It's OK -- not entering this challenge probably kept my average score from declining yet further : ) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:43:53 PM · #253 |
Now you can't shut me up.
I don't think you have to test all the entries to make sure their exif conforms to the rules. I'd ask the top ten for verification. As for the rest, it's been years since I studied statistics, but I do remember there was a formula for determining how many samples you had to draw from a population to have a representative sample. It was surprisingly few. Is there a statistician out there that can help out?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:47:10 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
This sounds like a good start.
Re: your point 2 above, I'm not sure this should be a concern. MANY challenges are at one level or another exclusionary. And not just technically. A "Nude" challenge, for example, confers a huge advantage on those who actually have access to willing and attractive nude models. A "Shallow DOF" challenge tends to eliminate from serious contention P&S users, while a "Deep DOF" challenge favors them over dSLR users, especially you 5D folks. Admittedly, this doesn't draw a line quite as precisely as you'd have with cameras that are incapable of preset 2-second or bulb exposures, but the principle's still there.
I don't think it's a good idea, off the top of my head, to try to word every challenge so it's 100% inclusive.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:50:53 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by Germaine:
Now you can't shut me up.
I don't think you have to test all the entries to make sure their exif conforms to the rules. I'd ask the top ten for verification. As for the rest, it's been years since I studied statistics, but I do remember there was a formula for determining how many samples you had to draw from a population to have a representative sample. It was surprisingly few. Is there a statistician out there that can help out? |
Random sampling is a great idea; perhaps in addition to validating the top N photos, an additional number of random requests could be made. You're correct that there is some good statistical science that tells us how many need to be sampled to ensure compliance is above a given percentage. Since compliance/non-compliance is binomial (two values only) the statistics are pretty easy. One can rely on sampling systems devised for quality control to screen for defects, for instance.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:57:52 PM · #256 |
I'll make one more post, and everyone should ask themselves is it worth beating the dead horse:
Here are a few hypotheticals mixed with a few real-life cases:
- 0.5 exposure shot that looks like a 2s exposure (blue ribbon)
- 2s exposure of waterfall (alansfreed's) that was exposed for only ~0.5s (this looks like a 2s exposure(
- 2s exposure of a water drop in dark room, with strobe illuminating stopped motion
- 2s exposure of water baloon bursting, again with a strobe
- 2s exposure, any portrait/pet portrait/still life/product shot taken in a dark room with flash.
Which one is the most appealing, and which one is the most likely one to scream "foul!" when you see it.
I went out of my way once to get a shot for a challenge (Bored), had to talk to a sheriff to let me stand in the middle of the road while he is stopping the traffic, standing in front of p*ssed off people in the middle of a rush hour etc. and that gave me a whopping 4.x score. I did not feel cheated for a second, and all the effort I went through was really paid for - I learned that I should do simpler, yet more appealing shots.
I am implying here that some members feel that a) cheating is bad, which I agree with, and b) putting more effort into an image should be rewarded, which I stringly disagree with.
Think about your own thoughts for a second. Or two. Not half:-)
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:06:18 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
ah, gotcha. well, i admit having a twinge of regret when i first read justin's notes...before this thread even started, so i can't say i'm surprised that this issue has created such a debacle. i admire his work immensely and i certainly don't think he is a bad person or whatever, but i do think that this sort of thing questions the integrity of the site. there have been a gazillion times over the past few years where i have gone through ridiculous lengths to try and get a shot, only to find that it didn't work within the spirit of the rules. so i didn't enter. but the upswing is that i learned a lot personally.
also, i am not at all saying that we shouldnt have specific technical challenges, because honestly, those are the ones that have helped me the most in my learning...but i do think that if we are going to have them...if they are going to be so specifically specific, then there should not be any leeway as far as the end result...because otherwise, what is the point?
just for the record, i am not desperately upset about this, but i do think it brings to light some serious issues that needs be addressed in future challenges...and it appears that these things are already being worked out in this thread. which is good. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:06:59 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by doctornick:
NO rules were broken and the photos look like they could have been a 2 sec exposure. Period. Let's move on.
Have special yellow flag rules for the next time. This horse has been beaten to death and into the ground already... |
You can always put the thread on ignore good doctor... |
I sure can! But why should I not be allowed to voice my opinion? I let you mouth off...so.... |
Never said you couldn't voice your opinion, just a suggestion if your tired of people beating the dead horse. ;o)
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:10:19 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
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? |
BY FAR the most enjoyable post in this whole thread.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:10:22 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
Geez.....12 hours ago I suggested a way around this problem...but due to everyones little spats it got lost in the thread. Oh well...maybe one person can't be heard.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:13:16 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Germaine:
Now you can't shut me up.
I don't think you have to test all the entries to make sure their exif conforms to the rules. I'd ask the top ten for verification. As for the rest, it's been years since I studied statistics, but I do remember there was a formula for determining how many samples you had to draw from a population to have a representative sample. It was surprisingly few. Is there a statistician out there that can help out? |
Random sampling is a great idea; perhaps in addition to validating the top N photos, an additional number of random requests could be made. You're correct that there is some good statistical science that tells us how many need to be sampled to ensure compliance is above a given percentage. Since compliance/non-compliance is binomial (two values only) the statistics are pretty easy. One can rely on sampling systems devised for quality control to screen for defects, for instance. |
OOOOH like random drug testing in sports!!!
Good idea. It's probably a lot easier to send in a file for verification than it is to pee on demand into one of those cups.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:22:48 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by kirbic::
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. |
Thanks for the heads-up Kirbic, only good can come from the discussion - appreciated.
For those who feel more comfortable behind the rules, here's one ...
Originally posted by Registered Users Agreement:
4. Your Conduct
4.1 Generally, you must use the DPChallenge.com Service in a manner that demonstrates good taste and respect for the rights of DPChallenge.com and third parties. |
It appears that I and the majority of contributors to this thread regard ourselves as 'third parties' whose rights to a fair challenge have not been respected.
That's not the fault of SC or Admin I hasten to add, but I was sure I had read something that required members to respect the rights of others, in this case, their right to a level playing field when it comes to challenges. I guess, that's where the general feeling of conformance to some form of fair play and the spirit of this site is coming from.
Brett |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:23:21 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
also NOT taken at 4-5am  |
Aha! I always wondered if two 'wrongs' made a 'right'.
What is the point of being so specific about challenge titles if we don't ask ourselves to adhere to at least the 'spirit' of them?
This challenge could have been described as 'long exposure' and avoided all the wrangling.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:28:29 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by posthumous:
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? |
BY FAR the most enjoyable post in this whole thread. |
Ummm, as one of the resident geeks, I have to inform you that to get a time dilation factor to compress the 2 minute song into 2 seconds (0.0167), you would have to travel at approximately 99.86% of the speed of light, not 50%, which would only give you a factor of 0.865.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:30:40 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ummm, as one of the resident geeks, I have to inform you that to get a time dilation factor to compress the 2 minute song into 2 seconds (0.0167), you would have to travel at approximately 99.86% of the speed of light, not 50%, which would only give you a factor of 0.865. |
Ah, no wonder my focus was a little off! (that's why I didn't submit the photo... those damn focus nazis!) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:56:44 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ummm, as one of the resident geeks, I have to inform you that to get a time dilation factor to compress the 2 minute song into 2 seconds (0.0167), you would have to travel at approximately 99.86% of the speed of light, not 50%, which would only give you a factor of 0.865. |
Ah, no wonder my focus was a little off! (that's why I didn't submit the photo... those damn focus nazis!) |
MY question would be whether the energy released by the impact of the combined mass of a photographer and a pop singer at 1/2C would be sufficient to divert Earth out into the vicinity of the Oort Cloud ... |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:59:00 PM · #267 |
| Were either being carried by a swallow? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 04:59:56 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by posthumous:
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? |
BY FAR the most enjoyable post in this whole thread. |
Ummm, as one of the resident geeks, I have to inform you that to get a time dilation factor to compress the 2 minute song into 2 seconds (0.0167), you would have to travel at approximately 99.86% of the speed of light, not 50%, which would only give you a factor of 0.865. |
Yes but then is it actually considered 2 seconds if the photographer and camera themselves did not experience the full 2 second exposure or more than? Or if the contents in the photo were longer than 2 seconds but the camera experienced 2 seconds. Would this not be the same as "altering" the EXIF data and the spirit of time travel??
And considering SC has not made a time travel rule yet this is bound to be broken and discussed on these forums. We must therefore agree from here on out that we will not take our camera or ourselves at such speeds of light to adhere to the spirit of this website. (And so we don't colapse in on ourselves) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:06:27 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by brizmama:
Were either being carried by a swallow? |
What KIND of swallow? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:08:41 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Originally posted by brizmama:
Were either being carried by a swallow? |
What KIND of swallow? |
Probably a non-migratory one... =] |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:09:18 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Originally posted by brizmama:
Were either being carried by a swallow? |
What KIND of swallow? |
African or European?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:09:49 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
NO rules were broken and the photos look like they could have been a 2 sec exposure. Period. Let's move on.
|
You keep saying this but it is an incorrect statement as it pertains to the challenge. The shot didn't have to LOOK like it was a 2 second exposure. It had TO BE a 2 second exposure. And quite frankly, a lot don't look close to a 2 second exposure, including two of the ribbon winners. Although I did a check and according to the exif supplied 8 weren't 2 sec and 19 did not supply exif.
As for the argument that it would take too long to validate the entries...I think this is just a smoke screen. You would never have to validate all entries and you know it. Only the ones that you do now as a matter of course would have to be validated or in the case of Bear's example, the top ten (which is a good idea for technical challenges).
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 17:12:00. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:11:15 PM · #273 |
| If it was a swallow I'm going with African but how did it get all the way to New Jersey? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:12:09 PM · #274 |
Should not have entered the shot.
Originally posted by elsapo:
Ok I see some ppl are not happy, well this was by far the hardest shot I have taken, the waterfall was so strong that the mist got everything wet, and at the same time I had to balance myself (w/ a tripod) on slippery rocks (yes dangerous). I tried 2 second shots and they came out way way to bright, little by little I lowered the shutter until 1/2 second, then it came out. The sun is very strong (even on this cloudy day) up in the andes mnts., even with an ND4 filter I couldn't get it to come out at 2 seconds. I submited only because of the amount of effort I put into the shot. Sorry to those who do not like my choice to submit. |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 05:12:32 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by brizmama:
If it was a swallow I'm going with African but how did it get all the way to New Jersey? |
Was this posted in the right thread?
|
|
