| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2015 05:29:40 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
"perhaps it is something that I will remember doing when this situation occurs again."
I'm happy about this! It's a wonderful image and this "infraction" didn't seem egregious enough for DQ. Also, it inspired me to email myself my original Golden Hour files "just in case" since we're going away this weekend. :-) Thanks, SC, for doing the right thing! Congrats again, kasaba! |
No need as it would appear if you go away you don't need to send an original until you return (or did I miss something?)
Whilst I feel sorry for the original dq I feel just as sorry for the new yellow ribbon winner that has now lost it. I'm not, but if I was gyaban I'd be changing the date on my camera, taking a picture with my lens cap on and sending it in to SC saying "I found my exif guys".
|
|
|
|
08/11/2015 05:35:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
No need as it would appear if you go away you don't need to send an original until you return (or did I miss something?) |
Within limits, and as long as you let us know, that's basically true. Bear in mind that Kasaba had asked for an extension BEFORE the DQ was logged, but we hadn't seen the request.
Let me flip that around for you: are you in favor of draconian enforcement of the "originals" timeline, no leeway at all? That seems rather harsh to me. The main reason the rule's in there, really, is to give us a cutoff point where we can axe people who are not making an effort. Amazingly, that happens relatively often; Joe Blow wins a ribbon and doesn't respond in any way, shape, or form to repeated requests for his original for validation. The rule's NOT (in my mind, anyway) in place so we can make people jump through arbitrary hoops, just to show our power over them. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 05:49:51 PM · #28 |
Robt, I know how hard it is for SC and not suggesting it's a power thing. I guess in this instance SC made the error as a request had been overlooked. Maybe in recompense you can add 1 full point on to  Tates Golden Hour image?
Am sure many folk enjoy their image on the front page for a week? Not so good if it's only for a couple of days or not at all due to dq's. Maybe it would be an idea to ask for originals midweek from those who are scoring well? Submitting an original from all would be too much work am sure. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 06:12:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Am sure many folk enjoy their image on the front page for a week? Not so good if it's only for a couple of days or not at all due to dq's. Maybe it would be an idea to ask for originals midweek from those who are scoring well? Submitting an original from all would be too much work am sure. |
Unfortunately, SC doesn't know who's scoring well... |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 06:30:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Maybe it would be an idea to ask for originals midweek from those who are scoring well? Submitting an original from all would be too much work am sure. |
Or, alternatively, it would be reasonable to put the onus upon those who are scoring well mid-week and won't be around at rollover to actually submit an original.
Heck, if I submit something I think might do well enough to need validation, I almost always pre-submit the original just to NOT have to go looking for it later.
SC isn't paid to do this, and ANYTHING that raises the amount of time they need to commit is generally unwelcome, I can only guess that many of them likely already feel that they commit as much time as they can to DPC. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 06:36:36 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Or, alternatively, it would be reasonable to put the onus upon those who are scoring well mid-week and won't be around at rollover to actually submit an original.
Heck, if I submit something I think might do well enough to need validation, I almost always pre-submit the original just to NOT have to go looking for it later.
SC isn't paid to do this, and ANYTHING that raises the amount of time they need to commit is generally unwelcome, I can only guess that many of them likely already feel that they commit as much time as they can to DPC. |
I agree. On the off chance one would forget or not expect to do well but did... SC are reasonable folks. Having been lurking on the site for many years, I don't remember the last time this exact type of DQ has occurred, where the photog had proof but was too late to submit to the requested deadline. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 07:26:13 PM · #32 |
| I left on vacation once.. had a low score so didn't think I needed to send the original... but then someone flagged it and I was asked to submit. Geezl I wrote a note and was given an extension.. got my submission in before the challenge ended. But it happens. I think this leeway should be offered so long as the participant responds. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 07:28:50 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We have removed the DQ on the former 5th-place entry pending review of the original files. A request for an extra day to upload had been in our system but had slipped through the cracks. Since we regularly grant such extensions (we HATE to DQ otherwise-valid images for failure to produce an original), we have done the same thing here. So the front page is looking a little back-and-forthy right now. Sorry for all the drama. |
Yay way to go! Congrats Kasaba and sorry Semper ;-) |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 07:31:34 PM · #34 |
Until Ouija boards are issued to all SC members, it would seem appropriate to cut them some slack
the same way they cut us 'mere mortals' some slack.
A case by case evaluation seems perfectly fair and just.
I suppose we could promulgate some rule where folks could have 5 days from the time of request, but
that just makes the rules sheet even longer and more (er) disputable. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 07:41:45 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We have removed the DQ on the former 5th-place entry pending review of the original files. A request for an extra day to upload had been in our system but had slipped through the cracks. Since we regularly grant such extensions (we HATE to DQ otherwise-valid images for failure to produce an original), we have done the same thing here. So the front page is looking a little back-and-forthy right now. Sorry for all the drama. |
Yay way to go! Congrats Kasaba and sorry Semper ;-) |
It's all good. My profile page is still showing I need to submit my work. Still required now that I am in 6th? I assume no. Especially since I spent a boat load of money on a party to celebrate an HM with 3 of my kids in the photo and now no HM. They will most likely get over the disappoint in a few years. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 09:23:12 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We have removed the DQ on the former 5th-place entry pending review of the original files. A request for an extra day to upload had been in our system but had slipped through the cracks. Since we regularly grant such extensions (we HATE to DQ otherwise-valid images for failure to produce an original), we have done the same thing here. So the front page is looking a little back-and-forthy right now. Sorry for all the drama. |
Yay way to go! Congrats Kasaba and sorry Semper ;-) |
It's all good. My profile page is still showing I need to submit my work. Still required now that I am in 6th? I assume no. Especially since I spent a boat load of money on a party to celebrate an HM with 3 of my kids in the photo and now no HM. They will most likely get over the disappoint in a few years. |
Only if they also get therapy :P
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:43:27 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We have removed the DQ on the former 5th-place entry pending review of the original files. A request for an extra day to upload had been in our system but had slipped through the cracks. Since we regularly grant such extensions (we HATE to DQ otherwise-valid images for failure to produce an original), we have done the same thing here. So the front page is looking a little back-and-forthy right now. Sorry for all the drama. |
Yay way to go! Congrats Kasaba and sorry Semper ;-) |
It's all good. My profile page is still showing I need to submit my work. Still required now that I am in 6th? I assume no. Especially since I spent a boat load of money on a party to celebrate an HM with 3 of my kids in the photo and now no HM. They will most likely get over the disappoint in a few years. |
Only if they also get therapy :P |
I'm sure my photoshopping will be a major reason for future therapy sessions.
 |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 04:54:45 PM · #38 |
One more time around the mulberry bush :-( Unfortunately, Kasaba's image, like the former blue ribbon, contains objects created in a modelling program outside of, and imported into, Photoshop. These files are .PNG format, and they do not have any EXIF data we can use to validate who created them and when. Accordingly we have to DQ images that use these modeled objects as part of their submission.
We acknowledge there's been some confusion about this, particularly with regard to Gyaban, because unfortunately his "Blue" entry used a LOT of these files and was, in fact, validated not too long ago. It seems like we had a collective blindness on SC and nobody caught that these elements were naked with regard to EXIF. Compounding this, we'd earlier had a long discussion with Christophe about how he wanted to use the modeling programs, and although we did have some misgivings we did give him the green light to experiment. The first experiment, then, was the "Blue" entry, the underwater saxophone player.
Unfortunately, we misunderstood what Christophe was planning to do: we thought he was going to wrap photographic objects around wireframe models. However, actually what he wanted to do, and what he and, in this case, Kasaba have done, is to create the objects entirely in the modeling program and import them into Photoshop for assembly. SC, collectively, feel like this is straying way too far from the intended scope of the Expert Editing rules:
Originally posted by Expert Rules:
Your submission must be: composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline, based on the Current Server Time (US Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) displayed at the bottom of every page on this site.
Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. |
Because we have not been entirely clear about this, we are registering these two DQs as "no-penalty" DQs, meaning they won't be applied against any potential time limits for suspensions etc. We will also work to clarify the Expert Editing rules and dial ourselves back from where we have gotten to in these challenges. I'm sure many of you have opinions you'd like to share on this :-)
Incidentally, I'm writing this without running it by the rest of SC first because I think we need to make clear what's happening. But it may well be (probably WILL be) that there will be a lot of discussion in SC forum about that last paragraph of mine :-) |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 11:13:27 PM · #39 |
| Bleccch. How is it, exactly, that drawing with a mouse (vs. modeling) is ok? I've drawn major elements in expert editing for many years and they've been validated. They were created within ps, but there was no exif to go with them. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 11:36:00 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Bleccch. How is it, exactly, that drawing with a mouse (vs. modeling) is ok? I've drawn major elements in expert editing for many years and they've been validated. They were created within ps, but there was no exif to go with them. |
Exactly the issue. And if we take the Expert Editing rules literally, as written, we shouldn't be DOING that. We're starting to feel that bit-by-bit, over the years, expert editing has been pushed so far beyond the "photographic" that it no longer makes sense. Bear in mind that I was the first one to DO that, too, with those seagull silhouettes in the sky. Look how far we've come since then... If it's led us to the point where we're willing to accept, in a *photography* contest, images that are entirely rendered in 3D modeling programs (which is where we're at now; if we allow the PNG files to stand as valid components, how long until someone submits an image that's entirely PNG?) then haven't we escaped the bounds of photography altogether?
Here's the deal: over in SC land we're tossing around the idea of renaming the rulesets to better describe them. What we currently call "expert" might be dialed back to a more purely photographic ruleset, with a different name, and then we might create an "unlimited" ruleset that actively promotes itself as being beyond photography and encourages the application of all these modeling techniques.
I donno, it's all under discussion, has been for some time. This latest brouhaha is just forcing us to take a hard look. We've been slack in enforcing the rules. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 11:51:40 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[...]
Here's the deal: over in SC land we're tossing around the idea of renaming the rulesets to better describe them. What we currently call "expert" might be dialed back to a more purely photographic ruleset, with a different name, and then we might create an "unlimited" ruleset that actively promotes itself as being beyond photography and encourages the application of all these modeling techniques.
I donno, it's all under discussion, has been for some time. This latest brouhaha is just forcing us to take a hard look. We've been slack in enforcing the rules. |
Where do I send the check?
Can we run the unlimited as a monthly free study? Frankly 1 week is a crappy deadline for that type of work anyway, and this would allow for amazing work, as well as encouraging a more photographic overall nature to the site.
With that being said, it really would be great if we could do some of the stuff Mike always mentions using PS. I like the idea of something beyond Advanced rules, but WAY scaled back from what Expert allows currently.
Finally, if you're renaming the rulesets, it'd be amazing if the "Expert" ruleset reads like our current "Minimal" ruleset. ;-)
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 23:54:58. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 11:58:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Where do I send the check? |
We'll be setting up a PayPal account at SCbribesSCTipJar@DPChallenge.com shortly ... ;-)
Originally posted by Cory:
Finally, if you're renaming the rulesets, it'd be amazing if the "Expert" ruleset reads like our current "Minimal" ruleset. ;-) |
Good idea ... |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 12:17:50 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Bleccch. How is it, exactly, that drawing with a mouse (vs. modeling) is ok? I've drawn major elements in expert editing for many years and they've been validated. They were created within ps, but there was no exif to go with them. |
[...] we shouldn't be DOING that. [...] |
Maybe 'we' shouldn't, but yet, 'we' are. The fact that drawn parts is valid in 'expert' is a known fact, there are forums posts (even by SC members) that second that, not mentioning the numerous examples of entries doing so that have been validated. In my case, I even explained in details what I wanted to do beforehand, and was told to go ahead. This is why those DQs are completely unfair. I understand you may decide that the current rules are not satisfactory anymore, but until they are actually changed, DQing entries just because you suddenly decide to modify the way the rules been enforced for years, without any word of warning about it, is really harsh, to say the least. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 01:02:24 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I left on vacation once.. had a low score so didn't think I needed to send the original... but then someone flagged it and I was asked to submit. Geezl I wrote a note and was given an extension.. got my submission in before the challenge ended. But it happens. I think this leeway should be offered so long as the participant responds. |
The problem is that in some areas of this world you can actually be out of signal of any kind for days :-). So you can't even send a message that you can't send the original :-). I was glad I could resubmit, but as I said before, rules are rules, and now that I know I can upload originals immediately, I will do so. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 01:03:22 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We have removed the DQ on the former 5th-place entry pending review of the original files. A request for an extra day to upload had been in our system but had slipped through the cracks. Since we regularly grant such extensions (we HATE to DQ otherwise-valid images for failure to produce an original), we have done the same thing here. So the front page is looking a little back-and-forthy right now. Sorry for all the drama. |
Yay way to go! Congrats Kasaba and sorry Semper ;-) |
It's all good. My profile page is still showing I need to submit my work. Still required now that I am in 6th? I assume no. Especially since I spent a boat load of money on a party to celebrate an HM with 3 of my kids in the photo and now no HM. They will most likely get over the disappoint in a few years. |
Go Semper - congrats - no party is ever in vain :-) |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 01:14:51 AM · #46 |
LOL ... what a discussion :-).
In my own case, I also ran the idea of the flame past SC. I was told that it could be "iffy", therefor I am good with the DQ on their reasoning.
The reason I thought my image was OK for Expert is that the majority of it were pictures and picture editing. Yes, the flame is an important part of the picture, but it is only part of. Anyway, decision has been made.
Would I like to see a challenge beyond "Expert" - Yeahhhhh :-) definitely. But that is me, I like playing around. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 01:29:28 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Bleccch. How is it, exactly, that drawing with a mouse (vs. modeling) is ok? I've drawn major elements in expert editing for many years and they've been validated. They were created within ps, but there was no exif to go with them. |
[...] we shouldn't be DOING that. [...] |
Maybe 'we' shouldn't, but yet, 'we' are. The fact that drawn parts is valid in 'expert' is a known fact, there are forums posts (even by SC members) that second that, not mentioning the numerous examples of entries doing so that have been validated. In my case, I even explained in details what I wanted to do beforehand, and was told to go ahead. This is why those DQs are completely unfair. I understand you may decide that the current rules are not satisfactory anymore, but until they are actually changed, DQing entries just because you suddenly decide to modify the way the rules been enforced for years, without any word of warning about it, is really harsh, to say the least. |
I sorta hate to say it, but Christophe has a pretty darn valid point here.
What a mess. Sorry Christophe, sorry SC. Glad it's not my problem to solve. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 01:44:40 AM · #48 |
| Expert should just become unlimited, we don't need a lighter version of expert. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 03:18:19 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Expert should just become unlimited, we don't need a lighter version of expert. |
Don't agree, I think all challenges should be completely photographic in nature. No modelling or what so ever. So bring back Expert Editing back to what is. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 03:36:04 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Originally posted by jagar:
Expert should just become unlimited, we don't need a lighter version of expert. |
Don't agree, I think all challenges should be completely photographic in nature. No modelling or what so ever. So bring back Expert Editing back to what is. |
well, just to mention, what about the use of brushes? You get amazing brushes that look like real things (spider webs, leaves, splatter, birds, trees, clouds, hair, ... endless other stuff). Nothing photographic about them (unless you happen to have made them yourself which mostly is not the case). As far as I know they are allowed in Expert ... just saying :-) |
|
