| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 09:54:25 AM · #1 |
Challenge Description vs Rules
Once again, a challenge description, DNMC, and DQ rise to the surface.
Given the debate going on over the 2-Second challenge I'm not sure if this can be discussed with level heads or not, but here's an attempt.
1) The challenge topic and description are just that; they identify the subject and general guidelines of the photo shoot. The "assignment" if you will.
2) The rules are things you can and cannot do that cover all challenge entries (ruleset for Basic and ruleset for Advanced).
Meeting the requirements of item #1 is subjective. Anyone that's spent any time at DPChallenge will know that the challenge topic and description can be dissected and twisted into numerous variations. Those that disagree with the way a challenge entry was submitted (i.e - subject matter) will think that the photo does not meet the challenge (DNMC). Many, many discussions in the forums have attempted to pin DNMC down as a rule but all have failed because it is so subjective. Who can say what was going through the mind of the photographer when a shot was taken? No one, except the photographer.
Meeting the requirements of item #2 is not subjective (for the most part - rule rewrite is in process still I believe). Rules need to be adhered to.
Not meeting the "assignment", in most cases cannot be clearly judged, and therefore is not grounds for a disqualification (DQ).
Not meeting the rules, in most cases can be clearly judged, and are reasonable grounds for a DQ.
In the time that I have been participating here at DPChallenge (1yr, 4mths), only once have I seen an exception to what is stated above, and that was during the Rubber Ducky challenge. For this challenge there was an "Extra Rules" section inserted into the challenge description specifically stating an entry could be DQ'd for not meeting the challenge details. An interesting side note; before voting starts challenges have "Descriptions", after voting they have "Details"?
My opinion on the debate currently ongoing about DQ'ing an image for not meeting the challenge description is this:
The only time an image should be DQ'd is for not meeting the rules (//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php) (rules, not challenge description), unless it is specifically stated in the challenge description and flagged as having special rules for all to see. I also think that a special flag is appropriate when a challenge is targeting a very specific "assignment". The only way to fairly implement a special flag is when it is being applied to a qualifier that can be unquestionably verified (yes or no) via EXIF data.
I think this is a healthy topic for discussion and could lead to changes that the entire DPChallenge community would be able to live with - given a chance to debate it publicly.
Smile and keep having fun! ;^)
Barry
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:57:24 AM · #2 |
1) The challenge topic and description are just that; they identify the subject and general guidelines of the photo shoot. The "assignment" if you will.
Funny, from my many years in school. If I was given an assignment to write a paper on frogs and I wrote a paper on ducks the result was usually an "F" |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:58:12 AM · #3 |
| Even if you mentioned that the ducks ate frogs? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:01:51 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Funny, from my many years in school. If I was given an assignment to write a paper on frogs and I wrote a paper on ducks the result was usually an "F" |
That's a low vote. It is NOT the same as being thrown out of the class. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:04:54 AM · #5 |
| isn't this a duplicate thread? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:05:01 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Funny, from my many years in school. If I was given an assignment to write a paper on frogs and I wrote a paper on ducks the result was usually an "F" |
That's a low vote. It is NOT the same as being thrown out of the class. |
Only the teachers (the sc) would know it didn't meet the assignment (challenge), so does this mean the SC are going to re adjust the peoples scores who didn't shoot for exactly 2 seconds?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:09:16 AM · #7 |
| The issue is do we expect management to go every exif file to determain if they followed the criteria? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:11:06 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
The issue is do we expect management to go every exif file to determain if they followed the criteria? |
it could be easliy a part of the code for challenges like this to do it automagically.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:15:10 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
it could be easliy a part of the code for challenges like this to do it automagically. |
The vast majority of entries have no EXIF data at upload. Save for Web strips it out. As with most challenges, it wouldn't matter for this one if you shot 2 seconds, 2 milliseconds or 2 hours. The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot, and the voters judge on that basis. As the Kodak ads say, "Image is everything." If it looks like you met the challenge, then (barring a rules violation) you did. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:16:55 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
it could be easliy a part of the code for challenges like this to do it automagically. |
The vast majority of entries have no EXIF data at upload. Save for Web strips it out. As with most challenges, it wouldn't matter for this one if you shot 2 seconds, 2 milliseconds or 2 hours. The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot, and the voters judge on that basis. As the Kodak ads say, "Image is everything." If it looks like you met the challenge, then (barring a rules violation) you did. |
Then why didn't the challenge description say that? IT said EXACTLY seconds, not make it look like a 2 second shot.
...and if the exif wasn't there, I guess it would have to be done manually.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:17:42.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:17:26 AM · #11 |
1) I think that this thread is a better one than the other thread since it does not attack anyone but we are discussing options.
2) I didn't enter nor did I vote on the 2 sec challenge
3) While on the fence on this issue, I tend to interpret latest analogies with the school paper and grading this way:
If your image LOOKS (because that's all the voters can do - look at the image) like it meets the challenge, and it is appealing, you get a passing grade.
If your image DOES NOT LOOK like it meets the challenge, you get DNMC 1s, 2s, and 3s, sometimes a 4, 5, 6 if your image is extraordinary but still does not meet the challenge.
SC checks winners for the official rule violations, not for guideline violations;
We had other hot discussions in the past about site member collaborations which are discouraged, but still happen. I.e. images get posted on other forums, discussed, corrected, suggestions taken/refined etc.
I recommend that we do not have challenges worded in this way in the future. Just to save this good site from falling apart. (www.dpchallenge.com won't go away, I'm talking about the community).
-Serge |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:18:20 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
The issue is do we expect management to go every exif file to determain if they followed the criteria? |
Wouldn't need to. Only the top 5 are validated now as it is, unless an image is questioned during the challenge. Just knowing it will be checked should be a deterrent, and if not, they get DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:19:20 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's a low vote. It is NOT the same as being thrown out of the class. |
Not expecting them to be thrown out of class. Just to not be able to get an "A" on their paper. I spent hours and hours looking for research material at our library on frogs. They had one book. They had an entire bookshelf on ducks. So, yes, I'd be annoyed if I did the actual assignment and got a C. And a fellow classmate said, "Hey I can't find any books on frogs. The heck with it, I like ducks so I'll write on ducks. And gets an 'A'."
That's unfair in my book.
As for the vast number of entries having no Exif. I always thought those that got the ribbons had to submit for valiation. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:24:37 AM · #14 |
The deterrent would be there. No one would submit their entry knowing that if questioned the exif would say ducks when it was supposed to be frogs. Wouldn't catch everyone, as some might still risk it, but it would go a long way to preserve the integrity of those who ribbon.
Making it a requirement in these rare situations takes all this subjectivity out of it, just as the word "exactly" should have. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:26:48 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
As the Kodak ads say, "Image is everything." If it looks like you met the challenge, then (barring a rules violation) you did. |
So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck - even if the DNA says its a frog ?
The big newsflash is 'the camera lies' - always. If it looks right, it is right.
'All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.'- Richard Avedon
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:27:15. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:27:48 AM · #16 |
It totally makes sense to have some sort of distinction for the challenges that are intended to have a stricter interpretation of the rules, a` la 2-second, duotone, b&w etc.
An extra rules section or simply an indicator flag to denote liberal or strict interpretation of the challenge description. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:28:43 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
As the Kodak ads say, "Image is everything." If it looks like you met the challenge, then (barring a rules violation) you did. |
So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck - even if the DNA says its a frog ?
The big newsflash is 'the camera lies' - always. If it looks right, it is right.
'All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.'- Richard Avedon |
Photography in general I totally agree. AN assignment that say shoot something at exactly 2 seconds it totally different. ;o)
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:33:18 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot, and the voters judge on that basis. |
Then why didn't the challenge description say that? IT said EXACTLY seconds, not make it look like a 2 second shot. |
OK then... make it look EXACTLY like a 2 second shot.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I spent hours and hours looking for research material at our library on frogs... and a fellow classmate said, "Hey I can't find any books on frogs. The heck with it, I like ducks so I'll write on ducks. And gets an 'A'." |
I don't believe that's good analogy in this case. It's more like you went out and spent hours around a marsh trying to capture a good duck picture while someone else beat you with a handpainted model of a duck. You are "graded" on the presentation, not your source material. If it looks like a duck, it's a duck. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:33:48 AM · #19 |
thanks for starting this thread, barry.
LIFE IS UNFAIR
but
it goes on. and unless you are involved in some horrible, tragic incident that keeps you from moving on, it is your decision and yours alone as to whether or not to keep moving.
life is full of opportunities. take them. make the most of them. learn from them. share them.
just please, quit complaining about unfairness.
yes, in the future, it would be good to have flagged special rules. but, if the challenge isn't flagged, then shannon's advice is the best.
go out and take the best photos you can. try to interpret the challenge the best you can. participate as much as you can. but stop getting hung up. if you don't move yourself forward, you will be passed by everyone who is... |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:36:20 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
As the Kodak ads say, "Image is everything." If it looks like you met the challenge, then (barring a rules violation) you did. |
... and the arguement is that in a challenge such as this ... it should be a rules violation, even if that rule is a "special rule" added just for a particular challenge.
And ... like all other challenges, only the top 5 should have to provide originals ... I don't think overworking the SC is the goal at all - rather making sure that rule breaking images don't win. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:37:40 AM · #21 |
| Scalvert: If you mean The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot then say it! in the description. Come on. Come on. Be reasonable. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:37:45 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
just please, quit complaining about unfairness.
yes, in the future, it would be good to have flagged special rules. but, if the challenge isn't flagged, then shannon's advice is the best. |
this conversation is for the future ... if we don't have it, nothing will happen |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:48:58 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by skiprow:
just please, quit complaining about unfairness.
yes, in the future, it would be good to have flagged special rules. but, if the challenge isn't flagged, then shannon's advice is the best. |
this conversation is for the future ... if we don't have it, nothing will happen |
there's a difference between a conversation and the teeth-gnashing wailing about unfairness.
there is a consistency about the people who have done well here, and i attribute it not to just being able to take good photos, but to being able to work within the system as it is. i have a feeling that if the system was changed, the same people would adapt and still do well.
by all means, discuss and converse! but don't be bitter (not directed at you, hopper), and don't wail about unfairness. the unfairness of life is when innocent people are murdered, not when someone interprets a challenge differently than others and wins without breaking the standing rules. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:53:45 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by skiprow:
just please, quit complaining about unfairness.
yes, in the future, it would be good to have flagged special rules. but, if the challenge isn't flagged, then shannon's advice is the best. |
this conversation is for the future ... if we don't have it, nothing will happen |
there's a difference between a conversation and the teeth-gnashing wailing about unfairness.
there is a consistency about the people who have done well here, and i attribute it not to just being able to take good photos, but to being able to work within the system as it is. i have a feeling that if the system was changed, the same people would adapt and still do well.
by all means, discuss and converse! but don't be bitter (not directed at you, hopper), and don't wail about unfairness. the unfairness of life is when innocent people are murdered, not when someone interprets a challenge differently than others and wins without breaking the standing rules. |
Hear hear! And this is one of the many reasons why you have my utmost respect Skip! :) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 11:02:03 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The object for the photographer is to give the impression of a 2-second shot, and the voters judge on that basis. |
Then why didn't the challenge description say that? IT said EXACTLY seconds, not make it look like a 2 second shot. |
OK then... make it look EXACTLY like a 2 second shot.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I spent hours and hours looking for research material at our library on frogs... and a fellow classmate said, "Hey I can't find any books on frogs. The heck with it, I like ducks so I'll write on ducks. And gets an 'A'." |
I don't believe that's good analogy in this case. It's more like you went out and spent hours around a marsh trying to capture a good duck picture while someone else beat you with a handpainted model of a duck. You are "graded" on the presentation, not your source material. If it looks like a duck, it's a duck. |
Well which is it? This is one of the major problems with some of the SC, no teeth and flip flopping answers around to justify the sites actions.
DPC is the one that created this whole issue by wording it so limited, but not enforcing that limitation.
|
|
