| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 10:12:46 AM · #151 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
It was hardly a free study, the challenge was to create a photo that *looked* like it was taken with a 2-second shutter speed. |
You must have a different english to the rest of us?
"Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
I'm not familiar with a dictionary that gives the meaning of "exactly" as "looking like".
Brett |
That's the key the word "exactly". Integrity is real important in any business, also goes for photography. If you quote a price of $200, take the deposit or "challenge" to do the work and then demand $800 is that good business and did you meet the contract or the challenge. In that case the client has every right to take legal action to DQ the contract. It is standard business to be -/+ say 10%, unless your contract says "exactly" then then when the contract is accepted it has a legal obligation to perform. a half second is not 2 seconds, the contract was broken.
This is not an attack, just a comment that blatant DNMC is different than trying to interpret a Picaso type photo that the content is not immediately seen.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:15:22. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:23:48 AM · #152 |
I've done some work in the IEEE standards process and they define normative and informative text in the standard. Normative text means information that is required and informative text is provided for information only and is therefore not required.
How a sentence/clause is worded indicates if it is normative or informative. For example, directive words like "shall", "will", or "exactly" is considered normative and is therefore required. In this challenge, "exactly" would be a required feature of the photo.
If you have "should" or no real direction then the challenge description is informative and there for open for interpretation.
So a suggestion, for the rules changes is to adopt the normative/informative challenge decription definitions. An entry that breaks a normative description would be DQ'd. An entry that doesn't follow an informative description will be left to the mercy of the voters. The admins could either clearly identify a description as normative/informative in the challenge or post a message on the forums (although I would prefer the notice in the challenge).
David |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:32:31 AM · #153 |
"The ultimate arbiters of the challenge rules are the "Voters""
As a dilligent voter who votes for each and every image in a challenge, sometimes a time consuming - if learning - process, I do like to be assured that the photographer is working within the letter and spirit of the rules and challenge description. The shots not taken at 2 seconds in this challenge are not within the spirit of the rules. The loophole which the site council inadvertantly left open in this challenge should be closed so as to encourage and assure voters that their time is not being wasted.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:33:25. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:32:48 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by Artan:
Originally posted by pineapple:
Thank you, doctornick. Now that I understand that the challenge description is not part of the rule whatsoever, I can take part with a better understanding in future. |
The ultimate arbiters of the challenge rules are the "Voters" |
And in this challenge, voters voted blind. If voters are the arbiters of the challenge rules but have nothing to go on, what role do they play? This is why we all feel taken advantage of. Not because the rules were broken per se, but more because there was no way we could know beyond the so called 'honors' system.
What is a ribbon good for if not 'honoring' achievement? Certainly, it's not good for much else. It's definitely not a measure of a person's value as a human, a photographer or anything else so great.
If a the 'honor' of a ribbon has been bestowed on someone who has not had the 'honor' to abide by such a system, then we can either appeal to have the 'honor' stripped (which isn't happening), or we can make the adjustment in our own points of view.
Elsapo is an awesome photographer and indeed one of my favorites that isn't actually in my favorites, and stands to lose nothing both in his own eyes and in my own eyes if I personally disagree with his ribbon for this challenge. If he were to personally relinquish the ribbon, he would gain something. And that would be unrelated to his ribbon or his photographic achievement. If he chooses not to, and he indeed might, I can either take offense, or assume that he comes here for the photographic aspect and is uninterested in any sort of 'human validation'.
Can't see anything wrong with that myself.
I'm definitely a bit uncomfortable because of it, but that's not really got anything to do with why I'm here either, so....
Oh and Brent, I don't feel like you are 'stirring up trouble' here at all, but I wish you would enter challenges even when you feel like you don't want to. I've seen your stuff in your portfolio and in the forums and you clearly kick some serious @$$. I don't think you should need to worry about petty stuff like this. Your scores are going to be better than mine and they will give us all a chance to compete against more talent. Simply having your images in the mix can only be a good thing for us as competitors and as learners.
To be honest, I would have thought that stuff like this would make you more disheartened about using the forums rather than submitting to challenges. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:34:41 AM · #155 |
When I voted on the all the photo’s for this challenge, I assumed all the entries was taken with a 2 second exposure. While the winning photo is stunning there is a long way from half a second to two seconds exposure. If I had taken this photo I would be very happy with it BUT wouldn’t have entered it as IMHO didn’t meet the challenge.
If I did enter it I would have felt I was cheating and disrespected for my fellow photographers, and seeing the Blue ribbon on my profile each time would remind me of how I got it....
Just my 2 cents
Edited for red to blue
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 11:08:59. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:36:46 AM · #156 |
This has probably already been mentioned, but the rules clearly state:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered."
An image cannot be DQed for failing to be exactly 2 seconds in the 2 second challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:37:21.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:41:21 AM · #157 |
yes, we know the written rule ... we're discussing the spirit of the rules in this particular challenge.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This has probably already been mentioned, but the rules clearly state:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered."
An image cannot be DQed for failing to be exactly 2 seconds in the 2 second challenge. |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:44:40 AM · #158 |
The spirit of a challenge description for this challenge is no different from any other. Remove the ability for the artist to creatively interpret the topic description and you kill creativity.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:44:55.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:47:00 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by rachelellen:
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. |
In that case, wow, you have a gorgeous print to hang up on your wall, or enter in some other contest where I'm sure it would do well, or post in your portfolio under 'gorgeous shots that didn't meet the challenge', and you should have gone and taken an actual two-second shot for the two-second challenge. What you did was disingenuous and totally against the spirit of the challenge, in my opinion, and the fact that you won by doing that really sucks.
I definitely think it's time for non-subjective technical challenges to have special DQ rules, and this is a perfect example as to why. |
Really uncool to submit these Photos and for them to remain as ribbon winners - It was assumed that Photos entered had met the technical criteria established when I voted. I'm sure many other voters made the same assumption also. It is a clear case of misrepresentation. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:47:13 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The spirit of a challenge description for this challenge is no different from any other. Remove the ability for the artist to creatively interpret the topic description and you kill creativity. |
Nobody is suggesting removing the ability to be creative - just saying don't CHEAT. Use your creativity to meet the challenge of a 2-second exposure.
With the variety of shots that were in the challenge, the vast differences in subject matter and style - creativity was certainly not lacking.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:48:00 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The spirit of a challenge description for this challenge is no different from any other. Remove the ability for the artist to creatively interpret the topic description and you kill creativity. |
How can "exactly 2 seconds" be interpreted creatively? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:48:17 AM · #162 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
creatively interpret the topic description |
so changing "exactly 2 seconds" to "1/2 second looks better" is a creative interpretation? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:06:23 AM · #163 |
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.
Also note that the current challenge does not say "photograph something yellow" -- it merely says "Yellow."
To me, it is a deliberately vague phrasing intended to allow creative interpretations, either by color-shifting traditionally non-yellow objects or by using other definitions (e.g. "cowardly"), or something else I haven't thought of. |
I hadn't read that before seeing this thread. I usually try to avoid reading threads about a current challenge so that I will not be influenced by other peoples ideas when I shoot for a challenge.
I did a little searching, and after glancing over the first two pages of 2-second exposure I can see that the issue at hand was addressed, rather definitely, prior to the close of the submission period for the challenge. And I now can understand why the SC/admins are not taking any action at this point.
However, my feeling that a half-second shot is not a "shoehorn" but rather a pretty blatent disregarding of the challenge details, and it's title, still lingers. The blue ribbon winner knew that he was not adhereing to what was expected, and what his competitors would be trying to shoot. No surprise that many have called it a very good image, and that it scored well. The winning photog gave himself an unfair advantage by not restricting himself in the same way (almost) everyone else in the challenge did.
I repeat my request to elsapo - Please give up your ill-gotten blue ribbon voluntarily. How could you possibly fell that you deserve to keep it? Same goes for anyone else in the challenge who didn't submit a two second shot.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:06:45 AM · #164 |
Whether you are angry because entries were submitted (throughout the challenge participants) that were not 2 seconds, or angry because you didn't think to do the same, or angry because you nearly froze to death in the cold (burrrrr)-
Whether this is a constructive venting session or a witch-hunt-
It is a moot discussion.
I neither entered nor voted in this challenge so it is probably easier for me to not be upset by the results. It is easier for me to accept the SC's repeated statments that DNMC does not equal a DQ anymore today than it ever has before. If it is a beautiful day or night where you live then you are wasting it here. (If not and you really don't have anything else interesting to do then best of luck to you.) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:09:18 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
This has probably already been mentioned, but the rules clearly state:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered."
An image cannot be DQed for failing to be exactly 2 seconds in the 2 second challenge. |
That rule is clear and many people should agree that that trumps all things but the controversy here is that the Challenge title and rule/description was for shizzle.
Something so specific should be clearly guarded and honored by the site admins and SC to the best of their ability and from here on in.
What I find funny is how scared I am of not following that rules and how I will be crushed if I break the rules while some images squeak right through to the top ranks consitently, regardless of the description.
How a 70's icon won an 80's Challenge, I'll never understand, great photo or not. I feel like I'm operating on a different frequency.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 11:17:05.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:16:56 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I'm willing to give it an over-look if it's within 0.01%?
As mentioned earlier by someone else their shot was 1.99999979s
Close enough?
|
Well, 1.99999979 sec is not 2 seconds exactly, now is it?
As far as being within 0.01%, who's to say that's reasonable? What if it was within 0.011%? or 0.0101%?
I think the requirement should have read something like "set your shutter speed to 2 seconds and take a picture". And it should have been a DQ'able rule.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:18:32 AM · #167 |
Ok...here are the numbers...
192 entries
by exif data supplied, 8 shots were NOT 2 second exposures including the Blue Ribbon
19 shots did not supply a shutter speed including the Yellow Ribbon
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:20:18 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The spirit of a challenge description for this challenge is no different from any other. Remove the ability for the artist to creatively interpret the topic description and you kill creativity. |
It is easy to take a photo of just ANYTHING. It takes MORE creativity, not LESS, to adhere to a given topic and still come up with a good photo.
If you ("you" meaning everybody this applies to) hate being "stifled" and "restricted" by topics and rules so much, then why bother enter challenges at all?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:25:16 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The spirit of a challenge description for this challenge is no different from any other. Remove the ability for the artist to creatively interpret the topic description and you kill creativity. |
It is easy to take a photo of just ANYTHING. It takes MORE creativity, not LESS, to adhere to a given topic and still come up with a good photo. |
Amen to that, couldn't agree more. Creativity is a lame and over-used excuse for not meeting the topic here at dpc.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:30:27 AM · #170 |
Pathetic really. This has happened before and will happen again until technical aspects of the challenge are made a "rule". I for one would love to see less themes and more technical challenges but seems like everytime a technical one appears this stuff happens, making it less likely to see more.
I don't understand why this keeps happening because keeping the loophole helps nobody [generally not specifically although maybe him too :)] and just hurts the site as a whole. I can see why people following the assignment are pi**** and I also understand why they would be less likely to care what text is there next time - although obviously some of us still care about the spirit of the rules rather than the letter (maybe that is our problem).
Oh well, I was not in the challenge and cannot vote, so why should it matter. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:40:14 AM · #171 |
As for this shot  If I took it at about 1/3 of a second or so I could have rested the camera on the fence and eliminated that distraction and done way better. I could not hold the camera steady enough for 2 sec's since I did not have my tripod.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:57:27 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by puma:
|
Not sure what your point is, but congratulations on a great shot and high placing. Always good to see Oregonians do well. :)
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:00:31 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Not sure what your point is, but congratulations on a great shot and high placing. Always good to see Oregonians do well. :) |
I'll take a stab at this - I *think* she's saying that had he chosen to break the rules, and submitted a photo that has a shutter speed shorter than the 2-seconds stated, his photo would have been better, and placed higher.
By choosing not to cheat, he submitted a photo that he knew wasn't up to the best of his capabilities. He chose to follow the rules and take his lumps.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 12:01:52.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:23:22 PM · #174 |
What a bummer man! I just read this whole post!
My $.02 is you let yourself down by choosing to ignore the 2 second challenge and making it a 1/2 second challenge.
It is a slap in the face for the rest of those who tried to stay with in the description.
Its not DQ'able but its not quite fair either.
:-(
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 12:26:45 PM · #175 |
| I thought the 2 second rule would be dq'able. I seem to remember a weird challenge with white grapes and ducks and if you didn't have the right amount you would be dq'ed. Now for a whole week everyone that logs onto this site is going to get to see how you don't have to follow the rules to win, let alone play. |
|
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: 04/19/2024 07:39:01 AM EDT.
