DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> When is 2 seconds NOT?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 383, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/27/2006 12:29:04 PM · #176
The problem is a little deeper. It is the misapplication of logic borne out of the phrase that is proudly repeated, "dnmc is no grounds for a dq." A reasonable mind will first ask what is the reason for this phrase. Simple, if you enter a challenge and you misread or misunderstand they will not hold your feet to the fire. This happens a lot whenever instructions are posted because of the interpretation phenomena. Therefore, the main reason for it is to allow for this ever pervading misunderstanding.

So if you run a challenge like "The color Yellow" someone can literaly enter a white light source and argue that white contains all the colors. All well and good and we can not really argue...but and this is a big BUT: the voters will see the image and vote it accordingly. As we all know, DNMC are never competing for a ribbon.

So, in reality there is a big logical flaw and DNMC is used as the final arbiter even when it defies common sense. DNMC states that an image that dnmc is no ground for a dq but voters continually disperse with such images by the the weight of their votes.

Well, the BIG FLAW is what happens when voters are not able to discern the fact that an image dnmc? Imagine that each voter is up on his game and very alert and you post a challenge such as, " shoot something between 4 and 5 a.m." All that the upright voter can do is believe that each entry here was done at that time. Those that placed images with tell tale signs will suffer the wrath of the voters.

Now, if a challenge gives a specific time, aperture, or a shutter speed,should not the exif be the final arbitor?

You must understand that whenever morals eclipse a logical stance there must be pause to reconsider the faulty conclusion of the logical structure. To me the reason for the existance of the dnmc rule does not trump honesty and integrity. What I mean is that when descriptions state a specific condition specially when the voters will be unable to know otherwise, this is not kosher.

I am not saying DQ the winners. Simply make changes to insure that this will not happen because it is all a matter of integrity.

Consider this: how would you explain this to a friend. You say that you belong to DPC and that it is such an upright community and in our last contest the winners presented an image that violated the very condition and title of the challenge. You see, it sounds too convoluted.

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.
I stayed away from the 4-5 am challenge. I had no plans for being up at that time. That being the title, the exif should have been employed. No 4-5 time then you are out. We can say that some will fidget with their times, let them, these are the very little people and they will not be here for always.

Again, I am not interested in what has passed. Simply make a correction because otherwise do not even bother to run technical challenges because the integrity will not stand up.

03/27/2006 12:33:40 PM · #177
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.



I agree 100%!
03/27/2006 12:34:42 PM · #178
Submitting a 1/2 second photo in the guize of a 2 second photo is premeditated fraud.
03/27/2006 12:45:16 PM · #179
Originally posted by pineapple:

Submitting a 1/2 second photo in the guize of a 2 second photo is premeditated fraud.


You've previously posted your (strong) opinion. I don't see what this adds to the discussion? It's a valid opiinion, but the language is inciteful, and though it does not violate forum rules, IMO (note the "M" in IMO) it does detract from civil discussion and invites argumentative response.
03/27/2006 12:50:03 PM · #180
I think it's time to let it go, nothing else can be said, it's between the photographers, the site council and what they can live with. This is a great site, bad things happen, we can either learn from them and move on or keep crying about it. I choose to learn and move on and hope DPC learns from this lesson for future challenges.

This thread is now going on ignore. :)

Deannda
03/27/2006 01:03:09 PM · #181
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.
I stayed away from the 4-5 am challenge. I had no plans for being up at that time. That being the title, the exif should have been employed. No 4-5 time then you are out. We can say that some will fidget with their times, let them, these are the very little people and they will not be here for always......


but you could still change the time on your camera and still keep within the dates!
03/27/2006 01:06:09 PM · #182
I voted but did not enter this challenge. I voted on every image in this challenge and I voted on the (very naive) assumption that all the entries were taken at 'exactly 2' seconds. It never occured to me that someone would fudge this because what would be the point? The challenge was to creatively use a technical requirement to get a great shot. Entering something different is just weirdness to me. There are no language loopholes as far as DNMC goes. I agree with everyone who says these types of challenges,in which the EXIF data can clearly be checked, should have a yellow flag or whatever. This won't weed out the cheaters who manage to place high but at least it will discourage more people from fudging a technical challenge.
I feel duped and foolish as a voter in this challenge. When the challenge topic can clearly be evaluated in the photo the voter can make a value judgement regarding DNMC. However, for a technical challenge like this, we are at the mercy of the honor system which clearly failed here. For shame!

I went and looked at all the ones I voted 8-10 (not the winner by the way which I didn't like nearly as much as some that placed below the top 10). I was gratified to see my favorites
didn't cheat (assuming what they entered for technical info can be trusted :D).

03/27/2006 01:08:04 PM · #183
Competitions in all flavors, be it a NASCAR race or a human-powered plane race, ALL have one underlying factor: A set of rules to follow. In some instances, an inspection is done before hand, in many, after. If the rules were not followed, then they are not allowed to participate or if the rules were found to have been violated after the fact, then they were disqualified, plain & simple.

I have relaxed my thinking in many challenges to allow freedom of thinking and out of the box creativity, but when a set of specific criteria parameters have been set for ALL to follow, the playing field is leveled so all have the same degree of difficulty to be challenged by, in order to enter a competition.
The winning shot in this case, at ISO100 and f/22.0 could have easily been replicated by setting a 2-second shutter speed, and covering the lens for 3/4 of the time, if f/22.0 was the max value on the lens.

I wouldn't feel any different if I had not entered. Makes no difference to me in the grand scheme of things, just feel very strongly that the very core of competitions here should be adhered to so that all members face the same rules of play and every challenge here from this day forward, does not fall into such a state of turmoil. If not, may as well just make all challenges a free study in my opinion.
03/27/2006 01:10:34 PM · #184
The sheer length of this thread attests that folks take the challenge topic seriously, and that's a very good thing. Some excellent points have been brought forth, particluarly that in this case there was no way for the voter to really know whether the challenge topic had been adhered to. It's apparent, in retrospect, that it may have been a good idea to impose special rules for the challenge (i.e. DQ for exposure time other than 2 seconds). This would seem simple enough, but in reality is would not be so. Follwing are some problems with doing this:
- Requirement to validate a LOT of images; time requirement for SC and impact on validation timeline for all images (not just this challenge)
- EXIF may show exposure time as a fraction that does not reduce exactly to 2 seconds, even if shutter was set to that value. Just a fact of how some cameras work.
- Some P&S cameras can do 2 seconds but cannot be manually set to that value. For these cameras, the photog must "fool" the camera into taking a long exposure. What range of exposures would be acceptable?
- Shutter is open for 2 seconds, but actual time of expousre is shorter. This happens with flash illumination in a dark place, or can be forced under normal illumination by use of a "secondary shutter," for exampel a hand held in front of the lens for part of the exposure. Note: there was at least one entry in the challenge that used the latter technique.
Given the above, I think it's apparent that enforcing a hard-and-fast adherence to 2 seconds would have been a practical impossibility. We'll certainly learn from this experience; I hope that this "learning" does not mean that further challenges of this type can't happen; these are the kind of challenges that encourage us to get out of the box and try things that we haven't attempted before.
The real question is, how do you enforce adherence to the spirit of the challenge? Adherence to the challenge guidelines is usually not a black & white issue. Judging whether an entry meets the spirit of the challenge guidelines is VERY subjective, since one must assume things about the mindset and intent of the photographer. One must also assume that we can understand that intent, and interpret it in the proper context. Cultural differences alone make this a near impossibility.
I challenge the contributors to this thread to suggest ways that we can encourage adherence to the "spirit of the challenge," which is, after all, what it's really all about. Let's take what positive we can out of this, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects.
03/27/2006 01:14:29 PM · #185
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by pineapple:

Submitting a 1/2 second photo in the guize of a 2 second photo is premeditated fraud.


You've previously posted your (strong) opinion. I don't see what this adds to the discussion? It's a valid opiinion, but the language is inciteful, and though it does not violate forum rules, IMO (note the "M" in IMO) it does detract from civil discussion and invites argumentative response.


kirbic- you are correct that pineapple's opinion apears to be a strong one. Perhaps it was really a toned-down-for-forum-posting iteration of how he really feels, or maybe an outright exaggeration. But at least he tried to contribute something (one user's position/opinion on the issue at hand) to the ongoing discussion. Most of your fellow SC members have been pretty silent.

Edited after seeing kirbic's second post.

Message edited by author 2006-03-27 13:20:03.
03/27/2006 01:18:43 PM · #186
Originally posted by kirbic:

The sheer length of this thread attests that folks take the challenge topic seriously, and that's a very good thing. Some excellent points have been brought forth, particluarly that in this case there was no way for the voter to really know whether the challenge topic had been adhered to. It's apparent, in retrospect, that it may have been a good idea to impose special rules for the challenge (i.e. DQ for exposure time other than 2 seconds). This would seem simple enough, but in reality is would not be so. Follwing are some problems with doing this:
- Requirement to validate a LOT of images; time requirement for SC and impact on validation timeline for all images (not just this challenge)
- EXIF may show exposure time as a fraction that does not reduce exactly to 2 seconds, even if shutter was set to that value. Just a fact of how some cameras work.
- Some P&S cameras can do 2 seconds but cannot be manually set to that value. For these cameras, the photog must "fool" the camera into taking a long exposure. What range of exposures would be acceptable?
- Shutter is open for 2 seconds, but actual time of expousre is shorter. This happens with flash illumination in a dark place, or can be forced under normal illumination by use of a "secondary shutter," for exampel a hand held in front of the lens for part of the exposure. Note: there was at least one entry in the challenge that used the latter technique.
Given the above, I think it's apparent that enforcing a hard-and-fast adherence to 2 seconds would have been a practical impossibility. We'll certainly learn from this experience; I hope that this "learning" does not mean that further challenges of this type can't happen; these are the kind of challenges that encourage us to get out of the box and try things that we haven't attempted before.
The real question is, how do you enforce adherence to the spirit of the challenge? Adherence to the challenge guidelines is usually not a black & white issue. Judging whether an entry meets the spirit of the challenge guidelines is VERY subjective, since one must assume things about the mindset and intent of the photographer. One must also assume that we can understand that intent, and interpret it in the proper context. Cultural differences alone make this a near impossibility.
I challenge the contributors to this thread to suggest ways that we can encourage adherence to the "spirit of the challenge," which is, after all, what it's really all about. Let's take what positive we can out of this, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects.


All these facts were brought up even before the challenge went to voting the stage. Plenty of time to institute a dq flag for the wrong exposures.

Using a flash in a darkroom for seconds is a creative way to get around the camera settings, BUT still following the spirit of the challenge.

The minor differences in exif info if it reads 1.99999 seconds is negligable and easily seen as a camera quirk.

Only validate images like you would normally do, not everyone.
03/27/2006 01:26:25 PM · #187
Originally posted by kirbic:

I challenge the contributors to this thread to suggest ways that we can encourage adherence to the "spirit of the challenge," which is, after all, what it's really all about. Let's take what positive we can out of this, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects.


I think it's been said, a special rule for this challenge would have worked fairly well. No special SC action would have been required (besides maybe a few extra DQ requests during voting). Those issues that you stated regarding how some cameras work could have been discussed and voted on within the framework of the SC (where it should be). Yes, there are perhaps situations where there wasn't a clear answer - so in those cases, the SC decides as best they can.

The existance of the special rule would have eliminated almost all entries that weren't 2 seconds, in my opinion.

Please know I have not intended to attack the SC in any way, I understand this was not in your control. No one is "at fault", but hopefully this discussion will be helpful for the future.
03/27/2006 01:32:01 PM · #188
Originally posted by kirbic:


I challenge the contributors to this thread to suggest ways that we can encourage adherence to the "spirit of the challenge," which is, after all, what it's really all about. Let's take what positive we can out of this, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects.


The theory has always been that the "fear" of low votes is what encourages adherence to the "spirit of the challenge" - if voters feel like a photo does not meet the challenge, it will more than likely score a lower vote. However, with challenges such as the one under discussion, where the voter is not able to judge if a photo meets the spirit of the challenge or not, that theory crumbles.

A suggestion would be for the powers that be to think about each challenge before announcement, and question, "Can the voters judge whether a photo meets the spirit of this challenge?" If not, then add extra rule(s) to the challenge that would move the onus of determining this from the voters to the SC.
03/27/2006 01:34:08 PM · #189
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

All these facts were brought up even before the challenge went to voting the stage. Plenty of time to institute a dq flag for the wrong exposures.


Yes, some of them were brought up prior to voting. Remember, though, that some had already submitted, and that any change would have a potentially disruptive impact. We've made changes before based on concerns raised, however this time we felt that the problems far outweighed the potential benefits.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Using a flash in a darkroom for seconds is a creative way to get around the camera settings, BUT still following the spirit of the challenge.


Does it meet the spirit of the challenge? How long was the actual "image forming exposure?" 1/2000s? Whether this meets the spirit of the challenge is VERY subjective. Your conclusion is "yes." My *personal* conclusion is "no." Now, multiple flashes showing a 2-second progression of an event, different story.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

The minor differences in exif info if it reads 1.99999 seconds is negligable and easily seen as a camera quirk.


Where is the line to be drawn? How much deviation is acceptable? Also, in order to administer this, *all* submissions would need proof files uploaded and verified.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Only validate images like you would normally do, not everyone.


See above. In addition, you can imagine that every shot that did not *look* like a 2-second exposure would have gotten DQ requests. Because DNMC would have been DQable, we would have been forced to request proof and validate all of them. We would have had no choice in this matter.

Per my previous post, it's great to discuss this, and constructive, considered ideas on how to reduce problems with "technical" challenges" like this are greatly appreciated.
03/27/2006 01:43:31 PM · #190
Originally posted by hopper:

.... Those issues that you stated regarding how some cameras work could have been discussed and voted on within the framework of the SC (where it should be). Yes, there are perhaps situations where there wasn't a clear answer ....

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.

You may not like that rule structure -- I don't myself -- but labeling people as "cheaters" when they broke no rules and after the fact bellyaching is wrong.

Offering constructive suggestions for challenge topics which avoid these pitfalls would be more useful.
03/27/2006 01:43:47 PM · #191
Originally posted by sibeling:

[quote=kirbic] A suggestion would be for the powers that be to think about each challenge before announcement, and question, "Can the voters judge whether a photo meets the spirit of this challenge?" If not, then add extra rule(s) to the challenge that would move the onus of determining this from the voters to the SC.


Point well taken. For technical challenges in particular, we should put forth extra effort upfront in identifying whether a "special rule" would be desirable, and/or enforcable.
Remember that when the SC takes on the load of judging DNMC, it always increases the workload enormously. We have some history with this; For the "Rubber Ducky" challenge last year we actually did DQ for DNMC. Even though the criterion was only to include certain objects in the shot, the number of DNMC DQ requests was huge, and some of the determinations were not easy at all, LOL. I certainly speak only for myself and not the entire SC/Admins, but DQs for DNMC are very likely to become a regular feature, unless we can employ our SC members full time ;-)
03/27/2006 01:46:43 PM · #192
Kirbic, I don't understand why you ask, "Let's take what positive we can out of this, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects" and then focus your answers on defending the past.

Why not respond to this excellent, positive, forward-looking suggestion from Sibeling, "A suggestion would be for the powers that be to think about each challenge before announcement, and question, "Can the voters judge whether a photo meets the spirit of this challenge?" If not, then add extra rule(s) to the challenge that would move the onus of determining this from the voters to the SC" or several of those mentioned by Brent Ward and others?

Many of us have been offended, shocked and saddened by the admissions of the Blue Ribbon winner in this challenge, but if we are to move ahead we cannot dwell on what was, we must focus on what can be. Surely there are enough concerns and possible solutions contained within this and the other forum thread that can be applied to improving the challenge environment and restoring trust among the participants!

edit to say you replied while i typed

Message edited by author 2006-03-27 13:48:53.
03/27/2006 01:51:12 PM · #193
I didn't label anyone anything (hopefully that wasn't directed at me). And the part of my suggestion that you didn't quote said:

"Yes, there are perhaps situations where there wasn't a clear answer - so in those cases, the SC decides as best they can."

Shots are being fired on both sides (SC and non), a discussion like this is bound to make that happen. I'm sorry if anyone feels I have attacked them, it was not my intent.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by hopper:

.... Those issues that you stated regarding how some cameras work could have been discussed and voted on within the framework of the SC (where it should be). Yes, there are perhaps situations where there wasn't a clear answer ....

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.

You may not like that rule structure -- I don't myself -- but labeling people as "cheaters" when they broke no rules and after the fact bellyaching is wrong.

Offering constructive suggestions for challenge topics which avoid these pitfalls would be more useful.
03/27/2006 01:53:56 PM · #194
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by sibeling:

[quote=kirbic] A suggestion would be for the powers that be to think about each challenge before announcement, and question, "Can the voters judge whether a photo meets the spirit of this challenge?" If not, then add extra rule(s) to the challenge that would move the onus of determining this from the voters to the SC.


Point well taken. For technical challenges in particular, we should put forth extra effort upfront in identifying whether a "special rule" would be desirable, and/or enforcable.
Remember that when the SC takes on the load of judging DNMC, it always increases the workload enormously. We have some history with this; For the "Rubber Ducky" challenge last year we actually did DQ for DNMC. Even though the criterion was only to include certain objects in the shot, the number of DNMC DQ requests was huge, and some of the determinations were not easy at all, LOL. I certainly speak only for myself and not the entire SC/Admins, but DQs for DNMC are very likely to become a regular feature, unless we can employ our SC members full time ;-)


Another very simple solution could have been to post the camera settings on the voting page so that voters could vote accurately. Although you would have to make "supplying false information" a DQ offense. That should be a no brainer but I'm guessing someone would still object thinking providing false information is somehow being creative...
03/27/2006 01:54:48 PM · #195
Originally posted by kirbic:

The sheer length of this thread attests that folks take the challenge topic seriously, and that's a very good thing. Some excellent points have been brought forth, particluarly that in this case there was no way for the voter to really know whether the challenge topic had been adhered to. It's apparent, in retrospect, that it may have been a good idea to impose special rules for the challenge (i.e. DQ for exposure time other than 2 seconds). This would seem simple enough, but in reality is would not be so. Follwing are some problems with doing this:
- Requirement to validate a LOT of images; time requirement for SC and impact on validation timeline for all images (not just this challenge)
- EXIF may show exposure time as a fraction that does not reduce exactly to 2 seconds, even if shutter was set to that value. Just a fact of how some cameras work.
- Some P&S cameras can do 2 seconds but cannot be manually set to that value. For these cameras, the photog must "fool" the camera into taking a long exposure. What range of exposures would be acceptable?
- Shutter is open for 2 seconds, but actual time of expousre is shorter. This happens with flash illumination in a dark place, or can be forced under normal illumination by use of a "secondary shutter," for exampel a hand held in front of the lens for part of the exposure. Note: there was at least one entry in the challenge that used the latter technique.
Given the above, I think it's apparent that enforcing a hard-and-fast adherence to 2 seconds would have been a practical impossibility. We'll certainly learn from this experience; I hope that this "learning" does not mean that further challenges of this type can't happen; these are the kind of challenges that encourage us to get out of the box and try things that we haven't attempted before.
The real question is, how do you enforce adherence to the spirit of the challenge? Adherence to the challenge guidelines is usually not a black & white issue. Judging whether an entry meets the spirit of the challenge guidelines is VERY subjective, since one must assume things about the mindset and intent of the photographer. One must also assume that we can understand that intent, and interpret it in the proper context. Cultural differences alone make this a near impossibility.
I challenge the contributors to this thread to suggest ways that we can encourage adherence to the "spirit of the challenge," which is, after all, what it's really all about. Let's take what positive we can out of this, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects.


There would have been no problem in enforcing the 2 second criteria here. Most of the "problems with doing this" listed above are pretty lame excuses. The bottom line is that it is either the EXIF is 2 seconds or not. Some leeway for camera idiocynchrocies would be appropriate, but it would be real clear as to whether or not somebody tried to comply.

IF A CHALLENGE IS GOING TO BE POSTED WITH SPECIFIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (4-5 AM, 2 SECONDS), THEN THEY SHOULD BE ENFORCED. It is not possible for those voting to tell whether or not these requirements have been met, and so it is unreasonable to expect that the DNMC mechanism will weed these out.

If it is too much work for the SC to validate and enforce this type of challenge, then technical challenges should not be posted. I normally feel pretty good about the way this site is run but in these two instances (4-5 AM, 2 Seconds), the membership has been let down. Strong words, but there isn't much that gets a persons blood boiling more than seeing someone get away with cheating. And to many of us, that is what has happened and is being allowed to stand.
03/27/2006 01:56:28 PM · #196
Kris, I don't believe GeneralE was referring to your post with the reference to calling non-2-second submittors "cheaters," though his wording was perhaps ambiguous.
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.

Edited to correct double-negative :-P

Message edited by author 2006-03-27 13:57:49.
03/27/2006 01:58:12 PM · #197
How many time in for instance in a blue challenge someone entered a yellow ball and they were not DQ I think it stands , Next time the rules should state DQ
03/27/2006 01:59:33 PM · #198
Originally posted by hopper:

I didn't label anyone anything (hopefully that wasn't directed at me).

Nope -- that was someone else's post.
03/27/2006 01:59:39 PM · #199
I guess I can't argue with that, Kirbic. Perhaps your right. I love this site AND the manor in which it's run.

This one just bums me out.

PS ... please keep the technical challenges coming ... I like them most.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Kris, I don't believe GeneralE was referring to your post with the reference to calling non-2-second submittors "cheaters," though his wording was perhaps ambiguous.
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.


Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:00:15.
03/27/2006 02:01:38 PM · #200
Originally posted by Nobody:

There would have been no problem in enforcing the 2 second criteria here. Most of the "problems with doing this" listed above are pretty lame excuses. The bottom line is that it is either the EXIF is 2 seconds or not. Some leeway for camera idiocynchrocies would be appropriate, but it would be real clear as to whether or not somebody tried to comply.


Sam, please read carefully my previous posts. The ONLY way to verify that an exposure was actually two seconds would have been to request proof on ALL entires, then validate each individually. We'd be working on it into next month.
I wholeheartedly agree that technical challenges need special attnention. It's clear that if we are to have them, we need to work on the system a bit. Your post, however, shows that you have not considered the problem, and I'm a bit disappointed at the combative nature of your language. It's your opinion, but IMO it does nothing to advance the discussion.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 05:59:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/29/2024 05:59:18 AM EDT.