| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2008 07:51:41 PM · #1 |
Is anyone else puzzeled by what is going on with these two images in the recent Backlighting IV Challenge?
 and 
With the looking I did it looks like the orange slices are the same in both images - they have not been moved between the two images. They were submitted by two different people. One was disqualified because the original was not provided for verification. I'm not sure that the two images did not come from the same original. Seems there had to have be some collaboration in the creation of the two images even if they came from different originals.
Inquiring minds wonder.......... |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 07:54:22 PM · #2 |
| Both users are 13 years old. Could be friends that got together for a photo shoot. |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 08:06:23 PM · #3 |
the first seems to be confused about how old they are... which is it 13 or 11?
Wish I had a D700 at age 13! |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 08:47:28 PM · #4 |
I discovered a few months ago that high school photography classes sometimes use DPC challenges as class assignments. I discovered this during the patterns challenge, when my entry received two nearly identical comments, 5 minutes apart and the users had the same join date and camera.
At first I thought it was one person joining with two accounts, so I asked the SC, and was told this was a class project. Since then, I have periodically noticed similar entries in various challenges that appear to be from classmates.
Message edited by author 2008-12-03 20:49:08. |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 08:50:32 PM · #5 |
| yeah, at first, I was kind of thinking that someone was cheating, but then I realized that it was probably some kids who were just starting out. I mean, look at the quality of the photos; would someone really go to the trouble of cheating for those two photos? |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 08:54:49 PM · #6 |
a question:
what if 5 people setup a prop with lights and all, then setup a tripod in front of the prop, and:
situation #1: press the shutter by themselves from the SAME camera, and submit? DQ?
situation #2: mount their own respective cameras on the same tripod and snap, submit? DQ? |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 08:55:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by katiemcg:
yeah, at first, I was kind of thinking that someone was cheating, but then I realized that it was probably some kids who were just starting out. I mean, look at the quality of the photos; would someone really go to the trouble of cheating for those two photos? |
if those were my submissions, i'd be heartbroken right now hehehe |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 09:10:29 PM · #8 |
| hey, just being honest, not trying to insult anyone =) |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 09:45:54 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by katiemcg:
yeah, at first, I was kind of thinking that someone was cheating, but then I realized that it was probably some kids who were just starting out. I mean, look at the quality of the photos; would someone really go to the trouble of cheating for those two photos? |
OUCH!
|
|
|
|
12/03/2008 10:24:37 PM · #10 |
| Well, if you superimpose one over the other they're a perfect match, but I assume that if SC looked at one they looked at both... |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 10:27:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Well, if you superimpose one over the other they're a perfect match, but I assume that if SC looked at one they looked at both... |
oh, never would have thought about super-imposing them! nice catch |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 10:35:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Well, if you superimpose one over the other they're a perfect match, but I assume that if SC looked at one they looked at both... |
Well, perhaps one shouldn't assume anything, and, if you truly suspect entries of being illegal, you should request validation (or send a ticket) rather than conducting an investigation in the forums. |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 10:43:05 PM · #13 |
| Sorry, I started to type one yesterday when I tested and found that, then the phone rang and I never got back to it. Shall I still submit it? :) |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 10:44:57 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Sorry, I started to type one yesterday when I tested and found that, then the phone rang and I never got back to it. Shall I still submit it? :) |
of course.
no smiling oranges should be allowed to break the rules! :p
anyway, lets just see the investigation results from the SC gang |
|
|
|
12/03/2008 11:37:58 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Well, if you superimpose one over the other they're a perfect match, but I assume that if SC looked at one they looked at both... |
Well, perhaps one shouldn't assume anything, and, if you truly suspect entries of being illegal, you should request validation (or send a ticket) rather than conducting an investigation in the forums. |
But this way its like group participation CSI (not implying there is a crime here). All we're missing is the yellow tape.....oh....maybe we could get some flashy blue and red lights.......oh.....and jackets, we should all have jackets......oh.....oh.....microscopes, will Langdon buy us microscopes? And I'd love to have a mass spec. I really miss playing with the mass spec. How about a big van with DPC on the side? Oh, and how about a sarcasm button that marks posts like this with a special "sarcasm" box. |
|
|
|
12/04/2008 06:01:52 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Well, if you superimpose one over the other they're a perfect match, but I assume that if SC looked at one they looked at both... |
Well, perhaps one shouldn't assume anything, and, if you truly suspect entries of being illegal, you should request validation (or send a ticket) rather than conducting an investigation in the forums. |
Not to argue with you but we all make assumptions. To clear up one point a request for validation was made - I know because I made one. I felt that two images of the orange slices with those slices in the exact same positions merited examination. I did not know or assume that they both came from the same capture. I don't know if that was the only validation request and I don't know if that is why one image ended up being disqualified. I left it to the SC to decide what to do, but when one image remained I thought a discussion of very similar images was a worthwhile to the entire group here. I also remain puzzled as to how it was determined that the two submissions were not made from the same image when they could not get the original for one of the images. But I do not have all of the information and I expect that for very good reasons the SC would not want it to known how they decided that they were two separate images.
What I do have to assume is that the SC either through examination or by inaction decided that they were in fact two distinct image. I am very comfortable with that assumption.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2008 06:13:29 PM · #17 |
| I don't have much problem with it. My only question is what are these students learning if they are aping their buddies and submitting nearly identical photos and comments? My suspicion is that the photography class may have simply been an easy elective and the identical efforts represent students without a real interest in photography. |
|
|
|
12/04/2008 06:57:09 PM · #18 |
Per the results of our inquiry, it appears that two friends got together for a photoshoot. Both originals were requested, only one was actually submitted.
The photographer that did not submit an original file within 48 hours was disqualified, as noted above. |
|
|
|
12/04/2008 09:43:11 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by L2:
Per the results of our inquiry, it appears that two friends got together for a photoshoot. Both originals were requested, only one was actually submitted.
The photographer that did not submit an original file within 48 hours was disqualified, as noted above. |
out of curiousity - if both originals were submitted, and the SC found them to be identical originals, would then both the entries be DQ, or only 1 of them? |
|
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: 04/23/2024 03:38:48 AM EDT.
