Disqualification / Vote Recalculation

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/27/2002 12:18:37 AM · #4

Woo hoo! I actually moved up 2 places to 107th. I''m gonna sleep good tonight.

Thanks Drew for doing the right thing. Only 106 more disqualifications to go and I''ll reach first place :? )

By the way. It really is an awesome photo!

Tim

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/27/2002 12:38:34 AM.

hokie

Nikon D2X

06/27/2002 08:13:15 AM · #5

Drew...I commend you and the moderators on a tough but fair decision.

That was and still is a great photo and the infraction of the rules was definitely minor but often times rules are hardest to inforce on the smallest of errors. By doing that you guys show that there is no favoritism or looking the other way. Tough decision all around.

I donate time to the local high school with a summer school graphics class (we publish all the sports programs for the high school) and the kids had the same discussion and they all thought that the photo had to be DQ'ed as well..even though they all thought it was just a goof.

moondoggie

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/27/2002 04:13:06 PM · #6

I missed that thread - in what way had the photo been spot edited? Too bad, it was a very nice photo.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/27/2002 04:21:58 PM · #7

Originally posted by Moondoggie:
I missed that thread - in what way had the photo been spot edited? Too bad, it was a very nice photo.

A date-stamp in the lower-right was covered with black -- it's in the shadow so it wasn't obvious, especially since monitor calibration... etc. etc.

I still think photographers should have the option of having their DQ'd photo listed on the bottom of the results page.

moondoggie

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/27/2002 04:27:48 PM · #8

Oh, I see. Bummer.

Hey, maybe in addition to having a "How'd They Do That" section, we could have a "How They Shouldn't Have Done That" section, where we could display DQ'ed photos. :?P Of course, any submissions would have to be by consent of the photographer...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/27/2002 04:59:19 PM · #9

Originally posted by Moondoggie:
Oh, I see. Bummer.

Hey, maybe in addition to having a "How'd They Do That" section, we could have a "How They Shouldn't Have Done That" section, where we could display DQ'ed photos. :?P Of course, any submissions would have to be by consent of the photographer...

That would work too. I guess I don't like that the penalty for a mistake is depriving us of the opportunity for the work to be seen, even if ineligible for a prize. I think anyone who troubles to prepare a submission deserves to have the work seen unless it violates the date, copyright, or "decency" provisions of the site rules. It makes no sense to try and expunge its existence (the forums are full of references to something unseen).

Or at least leave the DQ'd photos on the profile page...

mpmcgeehan

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/27/2002 05:37:14 PM · #10

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Moondoggie:
[i]Oh, I see. Bummer.

Hey, maybe in addition to having a "How'd They Do That" section, we could have a "How They Shouldn't Have Done That" section, where we could display DQ'ed photos. :?P Of course, any submissions would have to be by consent of the photographer...

That would work too. I guess I don't like that the penalty for a mistake is depriving us of the opportunity for the work to be seen, even if ineligible for a prize. I think anyone who troubles to prepare a submission deserves to have the work seen unless it violates the date, copyright, or "decency" provisions of the site rules. It makes no sense to try and expunge its existence (the forums are full of references to something unseen).

Or at least leave the DQ'd photos on the profile page...[/i]

I agree, General. Disqualification from the challenge should not mean removal from the site altogether. He deserves to have that photo on his profile page, regardless of his minor infraction. Are the webmasters dead set against this???

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/27/2002 05:45:51 PM · #11

Originally posted by mpmcgeehan:
I agree, General. Disqualification from the challenge should not mean removal from the site altogether. He deserves to have that photo on his profile page, regardless of his minor infraction. Are the webmasters dead set against this???[/i]

The profile is currently mearly a reflection of challenge entries. Disqualification means just that -- you're disqualified. Following the site rules is simple to say the least. 99% of the site users do it. I'm definitely opposed to keeping photographs in a photographer's profile if his photograph is disqualified.

Drew

timj351

06/27/2002 05:47:57 PM · #12

Sorry to be so hardnosed about this but I just think that if a picture is illegal then it is illegal and should not be shown on this site. There are simple and very easy to follow rules on this site. While it is unfortunate that some photographers have been DQ'd for honest mistakes I like to think that they will learn from this and create some wonderful new photos for us to enjoy and not worry about the DQ'd photo anymore.

Tim

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/27/2002 06:10:27 PM · #13

Originally posted by timj351:
...it is illegal and should not be shown on this site. There are simple and very easy to follow rules on this site. While it is unfortunate that some photographers have been DQ''d for honest mistakes I like to think that they will learn from this and create some wonderful new photos for us to enjoy and not worry about the DQ''d photo anymore.

Tim

I don''t consider those entries illegal, just ineligble. I think Moongoggie''s point about having a "Rogue''s Gallery" would be for EVERYONE to benefit with learning from the experience of a few.

I myself had a photo DQ for a stupid, careless cropping mistake, having about 0.1% effect on the the image. I don''t want it to happen to anyone else. And...it''s not like I would have had a particularly high score anyway...but I do agree it seems necessary to draw a pretty rigid line regarding the DQ criteria themselves. And I''m definitely trying to get on with the next photo -- hope you''ll like it!

--Paul

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/27/2002 8:44:09 PM.

timj351

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

06/27/2002 07:06:27 PM · #14

You make a good point, Paul, and I'm sure I will like what you submit. I'm trying to climb out of the hole that my shadow entry dug for me. I think I have a good photo that may do it We'll see. This week's challenge was sure a fun one.

Tim

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

06/27/2002 08:26:47 PM · #15

I don't consider those entries illegal, just ineligble. I think Moongoggie's point about having a "Rogue's Gallery" would be for EVERYONE to benefit with learning from the experience of a few.

I myself had a photo DQ for a stupid, careless cropping mistake, having about 0.1% effect on the the image. I don't it to happen to anyone else. And...it's not like I would have had a particularly high score anyway...but I do agree it seems necessary to draw a pretty rigid line regarding the DQ criteria themselves. And I'm definitely trying to get on with the next photo -- hope you'll like it!

--Paul

I'd like to know more about your DQ - I thought cropping was allowed.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/27/2002 08:52:30 PM · #16

Originally posted by Gina Rothfels:

I'd like to know more about your DQ - I thought cropping was allowed.

With some versions of Photoshop, it is possible to drag the cropping marquee PAST the edge of the photo, creating some new "blank canvas" in that area. In my case, this created 1-3 pixels of "padding" at the top edge of the photo -- that's what the DQ was actually for. I was cropping at a small size, and assumed (THAT word) that the crop tool had snapped to the photo's edge, but it actually ran a little over.

You can see it here.

moondoggie

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/27/2002 09:23:37 PM · #17

You know, at first I was just kind of kidding about having a page devoted to DQ'ed images. But after hearing General's example, I'm thinking it might actually be of benefit to have a place to go to learn form the honest mistakes of other photographers. I for one would have never suspected that the cropping tool could be used to create additional space (and I consider myself reasonable proficient in Photoshop). Might also help everyone to learn what to look for in an editied image - both so that everyone can be more proficient at spotting them, and perhaps even more importantly so that more people know what to look for when examining a legit photo they think has been photoshopped.

Not a biggie though - just a thought.

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

06/27/2002 09:28:19 PM · #18

[
With some versions of Photoshop, it is possible to drag the cropping marquee PAST the edge of the photo, creating some new "blank canvas" in that area. In my case, this created 1-3 pixels of "padding" at the top edge of the photo -- that's what the DQ was actually for. I was cropping at a small size, and assumed (THAT word) that the crop tool had snapped to the photo's edge, but it actually ran a little over.

You can see it here.

Thanks for the explanation. What a pity it was disqualified - I really like the humour in that picture.

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

06/27/2002 09:32:04 PM · #19

Originally posted by Moondoggie:
You know, at first I was just kind of kidding about having a page devoted to DQ'ed images. But after hearing General's example, I'm thinking it might actually be of benefit to have a place to go to learn form the honest mistakes of other photographers. I for one would have never suspected that the cropping tool could be used to create additional space (and I consider myself reasonable proficient in Photoshop). Might also help everyone to learn what to look for in an editied image - both so that everyone can be more proficient at spotting them, and perhaps even more importantly so that more people know what to look for when examining a legit photo they [i]think has been photoshopped.

Not a biggie though - just a thought.
[/i]

I agree with you. If you live in a different time zone from most of the members it's easy to miss comments about disqualification in the forums. This way everyone would have the opportunity to find out about things even long after they happen.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/27/2002 09:32:09 PM · #20

Originally posted by Moondoggie:
...just a thought...

Whose Asimov collection do you think is larger? I just found a "Caves of Steel" mystery "video" game (you watch a videotape and draw cards!). He's everywhere!

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/27/2002 09:55:52 PM · #21

I've just skimmed this thread, so forgive me if someone already commented like this, but, wouldn't a page or area devoted to DQ'd photo's be a little like "The Scarlet Letter". 'OH! Nice photo, but THAT was the one...'.
Not sure I like that... even though I'm sure that's not what you intended, but may be construed that way...?