| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 02:04:22 PM · #201 |
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. |
Two suggestions, one simple and one more involved.
First, to get more people to pay attention to the "spirit of the challenge" SC must disqualify more entrants for violating that spirit. Precluding the thread titled 2-second exposure as I did not read all 13 pages, this would have been as good of an opportunity as you could ask for to to just that.
Secondly, SC members must attempt to reform their mindset about their role of enforcing the rules. You, as a group, seem to lean way too much toward allowing creativity at the expense of encouraging users to adhere to the "spirit of the challenge". Creativity is to be encouraged but integrity is a necessity. The "anything goes" and "we can't do anything about it" attitudes displayed repeatedly by many SC members in this, and the many previous, controversies is a negative force working against the "spirit of the challenge". It should not be viewed as the job of SC to built creativity or to find loopholes. The cunning competitors and would-be cheats can do that well enough for themselves. The role of the SC should be to close the loopholes, and discourage users from trying to find work-arounds, while encouraging them to abide by the "spirit of the challenge". There are many posts from SC members explaning why they cannot enforce the spirit because of the letter. This is backwards, the spirit should trump the letter. There will be no improvement until SC members stop using the encouragement of, or refusal to stifle, creativity as an excuse to not enforce the spirit as well as the letter.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:05:36 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
So, by extension, are we to understand that date validations are done this way?
It has been mentioned before, it is the risk/threat of being caught cheating that keeps this place honest. Why wouldn't what is applied to the date requirement work equally well for the exif on exposure times and other non-subjective criteria? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:09:18 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
I don't get this. People may submit photos that are outside of the exposure dates but you don't go and validate everyone just the top 5 or so. I don't see why you couldn't do the same with this. OR at the very least do something like what I suggested earlier and that is have the voters see the camera settings on the voting page for technical challenges like this. That way voters can vote accordingly.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:10:21.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:10:41 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
I really can't understand what would be any different about enforcing this and enforcing challenge dates. You only check EXIF on a certain amount of pictures for dates; what would be different about exposure time? Kirbic, seriously, your responses give the impression that I sometimes give my customers - "let's make this sound really complicated so they'll just shut up and let this issue die". It's an old engineering trick, I've even used it with my boss. You really wouldn't have to check EVERY entry, we're just talking about verifying the winners! You don't check EVERY entry for ANY other rule; why would you for this one?!?!?!
I think nearly everyone here - except you, it seems - would be perfectly content with verifying that all ribbon winners conformed with a special rule which could have been established. Most of the folk here only seem bummed out because a "non-conforming" entry WON the challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:11:17 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
All I see is symantics here.
If the exif obviously shows something within a +-1/3 of stop range than it's impossible for the camera to be manually set to that shutter speed.
If you say that it should be exactly a 2 second shutter speed, then if the exif backs it up then it should count, no matter if it looks like a 2 second shot or not.
Your the second SC to say it should look like a 2 second shot. If you want it to look like a second shot, say "image should LOOK like it was a 2 second exposure, not "shutter speed should be exactly 2 seconds".
TO defend anything else is laughable and obviously spin tactics to save the integrity of DPC.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:11:49 PM · #206 |
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... |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:13:23 PM · #207 |
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...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:16:05 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
So, by extension, are we to understand that date validations are done this way?
It has been mentioned before, it is the risk/threat of being caught cheating that keeps this place honest. Why wouldn't what is applied to the date requirement work equally well for the exif on exposure times and other non-subjective criteria? |
Obviously I don't want to delve to deeply into the mechanics of validation, but of course the information embedded with the image data in the proof file is key. Date violations have been also detected by other means, however :-)
Remember that once an image has been edited, much of the embedded metadata can be changed or destroyed. Photoshop's "Save for Web," in particular, strips off all information other than the image data to conserve space. For things like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etcetera, the embedded metadata provides the only evidence, so a proof file (original) is then required for validation. It is possible to modify this information in the original, but it is damnably difficult to do so undetected. More than that I shall not say.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:17:31 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
It seems to me that if we had flagged the challenge with wording such as:
"For this challenge we will require originals from the top 10 finishers and will check EXIF data for compliance with the 2-second shutter speed. Images not falling within the range of 1.85 — 2.15 seconds will be DQ'd.
We will NOT investigate validation requests based on suspected shutter speed violations. We will validate the shutter speeds from the top 10 finishers only."
The "range" is there to allow for human error in using "bulb", and the top-10 to avoid overloading SC.
I believe the knowledge this would happen would have eliminated virtually all deviant shutter speeds.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:21:50 PM · #210 |
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. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With all due respect: In this particular challenge we are not addressing the spirit of the challenge. You present enough circumstances to know better than to run these types of challenges but if you analyse the particulars, we can safely eliminate the cameras that will not round out into a digit. That is the fractions are good enough for acceptance. Regarding cameras that must be fooled into a long exposure, I am certain that allowance can be made for them. The other cases are so minute yet enough time can be given to resolve them even if it requires a judgment call. You must admit that the majority of entrants were able to meet the 2 sec aspect.
You see a "two second" exposure is not open to interpretion. If there is one case of black and white this is it because two seconds is the very challenge and if grennwich time is in play then it means the same around the globe.
Now, not every image has to be validated for exif time of exposure: only the top five and this to me is not a great deal of work. Yes, there may be an entry which did not record the 2 seconds in the exif because of camera design but then these cases can be singularly handled.
Allow me to present an overview outside of DPC. Imagine that DPC was world wide popular and made the news and here is what it may look like:
The technical "Two Second" challenge at DPC was won by a 1/2 exposure. One has to question if the title should have been, "open exposure" Their argument for allowing this quirk to stand goes back to the mother rule that images that dnmc are not subject to a dq. This phrase renders all challenges open and remove restrictions set on descriptions. Under a technical challenge such as this "Two Seconds challenge" you need not adhere to the challenge description. Voters are not assured at what it is they are looking. So if you want to learn what you can in a two second exposure do not look here and alsway keep the disclaimer that in effect says you need not adhere to descriptions.
This is simply a case of using the disclaimer of the dnmc whose concept was not thoroughly investigated because here it is biting off the rear end. The reason for this disclaimer was to accomodate misunderstanding in interpretations. If the next question was asked: Well, what happens when you have a "2 sec challenge" and a 3/4 sec exposure surfaces to the top? No one can guess if the image met the challenge until the end. You see, this is a different case because images that do not meet challenge are properly dealt with by the voters. In this case, they were unable to do so. Here the mother phrase dnmc no grounds... fails.
You must remember that many members did not enter precicely because their cameras could not negotiate the 2 sec. Others may have had better images of less time, this happens a lot when your aperture is closed all the way and you are lacking a polarizer or nd filter. So, if you are a hair overexposed but its 2 secs you enter it, but a better image could have been had with less time. Now imagine the outrage when you throw into the members face the disclainer phrase. This means that all who wanted could have entered the challenge and those that took the full 2 secs could have improved their chances by using less exposure time.
The solution here is that when a challenge is technical it should bear this name and the exif will be required. If the camera can not meet this stipulation then seek another challenge to enter. End of story. The complaints will be less then the outrage presented in this thread.
Again, I repeat. Let winners stand but simply consider making the modification otherwise there is no point in having technical challenges with a disclaimer.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:22:34 PM · #211 |
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....
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:22:55. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:22:41 PM · #212 |
| Well, I am finally ashamed of DPC |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:26:39 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
All I see is symantics here. |
Were we talking about the logic of the discussion ofr the security sofware company? ;-)
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If the exif obviously shows something within a +-1/3 of stop range than it's impossible for the camera to be manually set to that shutter speed.
If you say that it should be exactly a 2 second shutter speed, then if the exif backs it up then it should count, no matter if it looks like a 2 second shot or not. |
So +/- 1/3 stop is the criterium. Duly noted.
FWIW, I'd agree that this would be a good "error margin" but it is rather arbitrary. What seems logical to you & I may not to others.
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Your the second SC to say it should look like a 2 second shot. If you want it to look like a second shot, say "image should LOOK like it was a 2 second exposure, not "shutter speed should be exactly 2 seconds".
TO defend anything else is laughable and obviously spin tactics to save the integrity of DPC. |
Yup, spin tactics. :-P
Brent, the challenge was technical. I did NOT say it *should* look like a 2-second shot, I merely pointed out that things that did not look thusly would have garnered DQ requests *from the community* and thus would have required validation. I further pointed out that in order to validate, we would have been required to ask for proof, since it is not possible to validate any other way.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:27:28 PM · #214 |
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 don't see why this would be so, but then, I'm not a member of the SC.
Granted, you may have had an increase in requests for DQ's during voting, but surely not every photo. Currently, not every photo submitted is checked for adherence to the editing rules, so why would you need to verify every photo adheres to an extra challenge rule? Only those in the top 5, and those with a DQ request would need to be verified.
And if there were an increase in DQ requests, surely they could be investigated even after the challenge has finished and the top 5 photos have been validated? Is there a statute of limitations on when a photo can be DQ'd?
[sucking up] Before I'm labeled as a ungrateful complainer, let me say that I greatly appreciate all that the Site Council and Admins do to maintain such a great site. I cannot even begin to image all the work you put into this - I don't even keep up with voting on all the challenges, and I'm slacking miserably as a Critique Club member - so I don't mean to insinuate that you all are not doing enough, because I know nothing could be farther from the truth. [/sucking up] |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:28:34 PM · #215 |
I don't see the difficulty of enforcing a secial rule in a challenge like 2-second. Why would it be necessary to request proof from ALL entrants? Why not just check the top five finishers and the ones that got a DQ request during voting? Might be advisable to check a few randomly selected entries. I may be completely wrong on this but I would guess that the number of requests for DQ received during voting for 2-Second Exposure was quite a bit lower than for the average challenge. Was there an unusually high number of requests for DQ regarding DNMC in the Rubber Ducky challenge?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:28:39 PM · #216 |
I'll admit I didn't read this entire thread since it has gotten so long, so maybe someone else has covered the ground that I'm about to...
I had the same dilemma while shooting my entry. I had a ND filter AND a circular polarizer, but even with them stacked I couldn't get the shot to an acceptable level for a 2-second shot in daylight.
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?
 |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:30:20 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
..... 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. |
Obviously there is no fool proof way but the bottom line is that closing the loophole by at least making it a DQable event is the only real starting point. I liked the idea that any technical stipulation that is in EXIF data can be considered for a DQable event. This would obviously not affect the theme based challenges.
The other thing would be to add something that most pro sports have along the lines of bring the sport into disrepute. I think this might sort of apply given the reaction each time it's found out about. It might also be useful for other things that rarely occur. This would at least give SC the ability to DQ an entry for non-specific reasons.
As to something on the code end - well, it's a lot of work and complicated by the different EXIF uses across cameras but - you asked :).... Require on submission for these "technical" challenges (no need to waste processing on the others) both a 620px (or whatever) and the origonal (RAW or JPG or TIFF). Use the various available tools to extract the EXIF and maybe the imbedded thumbnail. This would be kept with the submission (could also be used to auto populate those couple of fields that people enter or not now). The origonal file would likely need to be thrown away due to the size when added to everybodys version. A scan at the start of the challenge could wipe out any that don't meet the additional technical requirements. The current deal of requiring a full origonal would still remain since the first one was not kept. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:37:38 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
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?
|
To me, that sounds like a "creative solution" to a difficult requirement. Kudos!
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:38:04 PM · #219 |
What Bear_Music said... A B S O L U T E L Y.
What is so hard about this?
You asked for our suggestions and we have given many very simple and easily implementable suggestions...
You could add a statement that allows the SC to reserve the right to DQ based on not meeting the technical challenge data.
SC already does take this stance towards things. Not every image is flagged for verification in ANY challenge.
It would also have been VERY easy to require that the shutterspeed be included in the title. Several challenges have title requirements.
Again, this would have put the DNMC criteria back in the voter's court, but would need to have some level of enforceability to ensure adequate reporting.
The bottom line is that precedent has been set to allow SC to reserve this right (Rubber Ducky) and it does NOT actually represent a significant increase in the workload.
Indeed, why would it increase the workload any more than is already the case. It should be apparrent already that a significant portion of the community felt that this was already a requirement and could have been DQ'able. How many DQ requests did you get? Would that have increased or decreased if there had been some indication of the photographer's compliance? Would that have increased or decreased at all? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:38:07 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I'll admit I didn't read this entire thread since it has gotten so long, so maybe someone else has covered the ground that I'm about to...
I had the same dilemma while shooting my entry. I had a ND filter AND a circular polarizer, but even with them stacked I couldn't get the shot to an acceptable level for a 2-second shot in daylight.
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?
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
No problem at all. The requirement is for the shutter to remain open with no restrictions on nd filters or the creative use of the hand to cover the lens. The main thing is that the criteria of the open shutter for two seconds was met. While this may be considered a creative way of meeting the challenge, it is sometimes the only way that one can catch a certain image with restrictions. You see, at the end the exif meets the criteria. You can also fan a black poster board rapidly across the lens. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:38:09 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
Why would you have to check all the entries? Why not just the ones that ribbon. Those are checked anyway, right?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:38:53 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I'll admit I didn't read this entire thread since it has gotten so long, so maybe someone else has covered the ground that I'm about to...
I had the same dilemma while shooting my entry. I had a ND filter AND a circular polarizer, but even with them stacked I couldn't get the shot to an acceptable level for a 2-second shot in daylight.
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?
|
Hello Alan. Personally I think that your method is actually one "creative" way to use a 2 second shutter speed when it's not truly an option at the time of shoot. You fooled the camera - not the community. I see nothing creative in using anything other than a 2 second shutter speed in a challenge such as this.
I stacked 2 nd filters and still didn't get the right shot because of time of day. I could've shot it at 1/2 second and went home. However, I chose to wait it out over 4 hours until after sunset when a 2 second shutter was necessary. Is that creative? Probably not - but I do feel that my personal integrity is still intact and that is worth much more to me than a virtual ribbon.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:40:12 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
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? |
At the end of the day (or challenge), you're shutter was open for 2 seconds. How you decided to manage the light was up to you. I don't have a problem with this at all. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:40:37 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I'll admit I didn't read this entire thread since it has gotten so long, so maybe someone else has covered the ground that I'm about to...
I had the same dilemma while shooting my entry. I had a ND filter AND a circular polarizer, but even with them stacked I couldn't get the shot to an acceptable level for a 2-second shot in daylight.
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?
|
That's being creative. You worked within the constraints producing something that seems to defy those constraints but didn't.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:41:05.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:40:49 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I don't see the difficulty of enforcing a secial rule in a challenge like 2-second. Why would it be necessary to request proof from ALL entrants? Why not just check the top five finishers and the ones that got a DQ request during voting? Might be advisable to check a few randomly selected entries. I may be completely wrong on this but I would guess that the number of requests for DQ received during voting for 2-Second Exposure was quite a bit lower than for the average challenge. Was there an unusually high number of requests for DQ regarding DNMC in the Rubber Ducky challenge? |
It would only be necessary to request proof from all entrants if you wanted to verify compliance; it would be necessary to do so in order to reject outright entries that DNMC, but not to verify post-hoc.
With regard to Rubber Ducky, there were 110 entries. Of those, no less than 49 got DQ requests. Of those, 16 were DQ'd. That's nearly half the entires requiring validation.
This for a challenge where the criteria for meeting the challenge should have been readily apparent to the voter! We could expect similar or even worse numbers for any challenge where the voter is unable to clearly judge whether the photo meets the challenge, if DNMC is DQable.
We do desperately need a better system for avoiding this in the future. Suggestions like Robert's are probably workable, since they do not involve greatly increasing the validation requirements byt strongly encourage compliance.
|
|
