a little DQ discretion PUHLEEZE!!!

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

05/21/2007 11:05:51 PM · #1

I really wonder how is it, that either people who just want to confirm how a picture was created or can't figure it out then convince the administrators to request validation from legitimate users in a challenge. Please tell me that the council doesn't always require originals whenever someone hits the 'rules violation' button during voting. If they do, I imagine people should always just hit the 'rules violation' link to cause chaos and waste time and who cares?...we are all guilty until WE prove we're innocent. If I have to be constrained down to a 640x640 150kb file then have to turn around and submit a 3.5mb file over my slow damn connection, then everyone should. Letting off a little steam here but tell me that some thought goes into this and that those that click the link don't get information after the fact.

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/21/2007 11:09:28 PM · #2

I wish somebody would require me to validate my entry. I suspect that a stamp of approval on what seems to be an incredible use of imagination would actually help the score tremendously.

BTW, so what? How many times does it happen? How many times has it happened to you? Was it that much trouble to do what you'd have to do if you scored a top five position? Would you complain then?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

05/21/2007 11:10:09 PM · #3

No, we do not request proof on every entry submitted for validation, but every entry is subject to such a request.

If you put adequate editing steps in the photographer's additional information area, you can sometimes avoid having to submit the original.

PhantomEWO

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/21/2007 11:11:58 PM · #4

It would be interesting to see if the same members have a habit of requesting DQ reviews.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/21/2007 11:12:30 PM · #5

The mere fact that you were asked to provide a validation in no way should be misconstrued as a lack of discretion on anyone's part. The SC conducts the review and then advises you accordingly... period.

Ray

05/21/2007 11:13:03 PM · #6

the "so what" is just that over my slow connection it's quite a challenge to send such large files...and if you haven't received the notification it really is threatening, using language that you are in a sense guilty before proven innocent...rather stressful.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

05/21/2007 11:14:28 PM · #7

Originally posted by GeneralE:

like my cultural event submission. I had put the details of my editing right there in with the submission, it was DQ'd without need for original. Of course it probably didn't help that it was a pretty obvious DQ too, probably didn't even have to be requested due to my misunderstanding of how certian tools work.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/21/2007 11:16:36 PM · #8

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

It would be interesting to see if the same members have a habit of requesting DQ reviews.

I remain confident that the SC could deal with such a scenario if it was demonstrated that these repeated requests were unfounded.

Personally I truly don't care if the same people request reviews, if indeed their requests are based on valid assumptions. Furthermore, I certainly would not want that information to become public... We have enough "Witch Hunts" as it is.

Ray

05/21/2007 11:16:40 PM · #9

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

It would be interesting to see if the same members have a habit of requesting DQ reviews.

There are probably a couple that frequently request, but for the most part it is as wide and varied as the membership here itself. I have not 'data' to support me, but I do think new members request more often than older ones.

05/21/2007 11:17:18 PM · #10

Originally posted by ericsuth:

You are more than welcome to suggest an alternative wording. :)

As far as a slow connection -- I can definitely feel your pain.

PhantomEWO

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/21/2007 11:19:19 PM · #11

Oh come-on. A request for DQ validation is exactly that, an accusation by someone that they think you cheated. So the accused is flagged but the accuser stays hidden. The part that is correct is when validated it clears the air but the fact that a person is accused by a unknown person for unknown reasons can be upsetting. If someone feels strong enough to accuse they should take it upon themself to announce who they are and why. I hope the SC's monitor who and how many DQ requests individuals send in. This has nothing to do with having "thick skin" this should be fun, get rid of the cheaters who are really cheatin and lets get bnack to having fun.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

05/21/2007 11:19:45 PM · #12

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
It would be interesting to see if the same members have a habit of requesting DQ reviews.

There are probably a couple that frequently request, but for the most part it is as wide and varied as the membership here itself. I have not 'data' to support me, but I do think new members request more often than older ones.

Aye. It seems like people who have been around here longer often have a better understanding of what is possible. Which makes sense, after reading so many photographer's notes and forum threads and whatnot. :-)

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

05/21/2007 11:20:01 PM · #13

Thanks guys, I do love the forums and enjoy knowing the SC watches to help out bristling comrades...I'm still curious to know if the 'reporter' receives info after the SC 'investigates'.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/21/2007 11:20:06 PM · #14

Well, if we actually requested you to submit the original, then there was probably some merit to the validation issue raised (I haven't reviewed your photo myself).

Sorry about the slow connection, but that's one factor we don't/can't consider when we decide to request an original.

And while I'm not saying it's impossible that we might request originals on some random entries, most of the time we have far more photos to validate than we'd like, and we try hard to avoid adding any unnecessary tasks.

yakatme

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/21/2007 11:21:20 PM · #15

Originally posted by ericsuth:

the notification it really is threatening, using language that you are in a sense guilty before proven innocent...rather stressful.

Now THAT is something that I am familiar with here on this website.

I have found that when requested to provide the original file that it is requested in a manner consistent with something like a doctor telling you that he is going to take one of your kidneys but doesn't even hint as to why. I submitted the file numbered very similiar to my entry when I got my only ribbon, and then I was 'notified' that I needed to provide my original file. I reiterated that I had complied with their original request, only to get pretty much the same insensitive, generic request for my original. It took several attempts to clarify what the problem was before I was able to determine that I had sent the wrong file. It seemed to me that I was guilty and that "they" knew what the problem was but weren't about to slack off on the stance that I was guilty and that I had to figure out how to prove that I was in the clear. Oh yeah, and there was a time limit on proving that I deserved this ribbon.

So, yeah, I'll back off from my original response. It can be fairly intimidating when dealing with "them" from DPChallenge.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

05/21/2007 11:21:33 PM · #16

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Thank you ....very well said...I don't think accusers should remain anonymous.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

05/21/2007 11:22:10 PM · #17

Originally posted by ericsuth:

I don't know your camera at all, but if it can shoot in RAW+JPG, then sending that (much smaller) JPG counts as an original. If that helps at all.

05/21/2007 11:22:19 PM · #18

ericsuth -- no, we don't go back to the "reporter" after validation. Occasionally we will get ask why we didn't dq a particular entry that someone requested, and we will usually point them to the photographer to get the editing step or whatever.

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

05/21/2007 11:23:52 PM · #19

Originally posted by yakatme:

Originally posted by ericsuth:
the notification it really is threatening, using language that you are in a sense guilty before proven innocent...rather stressful.

Now THAT is something that I am familiar with here on this website.

I have found that when requested to provide the original file that it is requested in a manner consistent with something like a doctor telling you that he is going to take one of your kidneys but doesn't even hint as to why. I submitted the file numbered very similiar to my entry when I got my only ribbon, and then I was 'notified' that I needed to provide my original file. I reiterated that I had complied with their original request, only to get pretty much the same insensitive, generic request for my original. It took several attempts to clarify what the problem was before I was able to determine that I had sent the wrong file. It seemed to me that I was guilty and that "they" knew what the problem was but weren't about to slack off on the stance that I was guilty and that I had to figure out how to prove that I was in the clear. Oh yeah, and there was a time limit on proving that I deserved this ribbon.

So, yeah, I'll back off from my original response. It can be fairly intimidating when dealing with "them" from DPChallenge.

Again, you are more than welcome, encouraged, and invited to rewrite the proof for original. :) You can post it here, or send it in a ticket.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/21/2007 11:24:02 PM · #20

Originally posted by ericsuth:

Thanks guys, I do love the forums and enjoy knowing the SC watches to help out bristling comrades...I'm still curious to know if the 'reporter' receives info after the SC 'investigates'.

If you mean the person who requested validation, no, they don't get any more information about the photo than anyone else. The photo either ends up with the "This Photo Has Been Validated" notice, or else it ends up in the "DQ pile" at the end of the challenge results when posted, with the reason for the DQ listed.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/21/2007 11:24:02 PM · #21

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

It's easy to forget, or make a mistake, and perform non-legal editing in Basic Editing. So, no, it doesn't mean you "cheated". Sometimes people realize they made a mistake and self-report the error, sometimes other people catch it for them. In addition, there's always the possibility someone simply doesn't understand the rules. For example, we see entries with added text in them quite often. I think it's pretty hard to claim that these people were trying to pull a fast one: they simply didn't understand the rules.