| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2006 05:22:03 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by dleach:
A suggestion before posting the new challenge is to ask the question, is the description normative or informative? If normative, then add the special rules flag to the challenge. If informative... just keep doing what the site always does. |
I understand the SC cannot go back in time, the entries in the 2 second challenge met the rules at the time and therefore should stand.
However, I fully support implementing a special condition in future challenges which have a description as specific as "exactly 2 seconds"
After all, if the challenge had read "Use a long exposure to create impact in your image" (almost) no-one would have had a problem with any of the entries. The wording of the 2 second challenge and current rules are at odds with each other - hence the differing opinions. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 06:28:06 AM · #102 |
"go out and take the best photos you can. try to interpret the challenge the best you can."
How can "take a picture at exactly 2 seconds" be interpreted in any other way? Many people are making generalities in these posts. I see this as a very specific issue to this challenge. In the 2 second challenge two of the three winners did not follow the spirit of the competition. Their images are gorgeous. I rated both of them very highly. However, they did not take a photo of "exactly two seconds".
If they didn’t "break any rules" then so be it.
In the future this issue needs to be addressed either through event specific rules or more broad challenges that do not include words like "exactly" in their description.
To the people who have said "the camera lies": That is definitely true. Photography is deception. The issue I have in this case is not with the camera, it's with a major flaw in this specific challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 06:31:04 AM · #103 |
| In my humble opinion, as someone that did not enter or vote, is that I agree that the description is just that. Would a 1/500 shot of a naked mad standing in a window ("exposing himself") for two seconds be right or wrong? I think it would be a lateral interpretation of the challenge and perfectly alright. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 08:57:19 AM · #104 |
Even though I think this site is great and I've learned a lot from all of you guys and gals, I think that there is much slack about Challenge description and the photos submitted.
I don't think it's fair with people that commit themselves to follow the Challenge guidelines to be beaten by a beatiful sunset, macro or portrait. I for instance, if can't comply with the Challenge description I choose not to enter.
Why don't we make a test for maybe two weeks? Let's make an exception to the rules so if Challenge criteria is not met with, the picture is DQ'ed to see what happens...
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:02:41 AM · #105 |
The issue isn't so much one of the DQing non 2-second challenge entries, but the more general issue that it leads to.
So if suddenly the site DQs photos for not meeting the challenge, then that has to be applied in a consistant way.
Should non-yellow pictures be DQed for yellow ? Which precise wavelengths of light should be allowed in that challenge ? After all - 'yellow' is a technically definable term.
How about the 4-5am challenge - How are you going to know ? How accurately set are the clocks in your camera ? Is a shot at 3:59 DQable ?
So yes, there are a few, very specific challenges where this may make sense, but the reason not meeting the challenge is not a DQable thing was the huge grey area of 'what meets the challenge' that you open up. It wasn't as if the site council never thought about this in the past. But the problems it introduces are huge and lead to even more rambling, pointless threads like this -week in week out.
There are very few cases were it can be made cut and dried. This is why the voters get to vote on how well they think you met the challenge. The problem isn't so much one of needing to DQ entries that don't meet the challenge, the issue is defining challenges that don't allow the voters to evaluate if the challenge was met or not - as such it was a badly defined challenge.
The correct fix is to word challenges more intelligently and put more thought in to the problems that they'll generate. Not more rules or going back on something fundamental like this. Fix the problem at the source - don't patch it further. When this challenge was announced several threads pointed out the obvious problems. It has been the same for all the other 'contraversial' challenge topics. A wee bit of thought up front would go a long way to fixing this, without needing rule changes.
But for years the problem has been lack of sensible review of the challenges prior to releasing them, so I don't have a lot of hope of that changing either. But who knows. Maybe.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 11:28:45. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:15:17 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
In fact, if it's only the 1st, 7th, and 16th place images in the top 20, that's not really a HUGE percentage is it? |
I donno your definition of "huge" in this context, but that's 15% of the top 20 that are self-admitted to be not in compliance. That's a pretty big percentage in my book.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:23:01 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by sigth:
I will have to say that I am losing interest in participating in challenges if the details are just bullshit.
It says in the detals for the 2 sec. exposure challenge:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
I did my very best to follow this and now I see it didn´t matter....
I think this is stupid and unfair to those participating and following these "rules"... |
They weren't rules. If I submit a picture of a dog to a cat challenge and call it "Chasing cats" I haven't met the challenge. BUT, I have followed the rules that were in place for that challenge. Again, they didn't break the rules, SC cannot dq them because we do not have grounds to. |
Hi Karmet
I have a question if I can. The details are not rules so they don't need to be followed! Correct?
So what are the details there for, they seem to have no real purpose if they can be completly ignored and do what ever you want?
So why have details? |
The details are there to give everyone a "topic" to shoot on. It is what puts the "challenge" in dpc, otherwise, it would simple be digital photo contest. Traditionally, photos that dnmc are voted lowly, and that in itself is "punishment" enought.
Back in the day, photos could be dq'ed for no meeting the challenge. Talk about a subjective decision. I wasn't on SC then, but it was butt-ugly. Ya'll really do NOT want dnmc to be grounds for dq.
In every challenge, if you so wanted, you could completely ignore the challenge topic and enter whatever you wanted. People do it every week. But, be prepared for the repercussions. ;)
Granted, 2 seconds would have been pretty subjective. BUT, it was stated many times that not meeting that aspect of the challenge would not result in dq, because we do not dq for not meeting the challenge.
As has been stated, 2 seconds is over, and we are discussing the best procedure for such challenges in the future.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:32:27 AM · #108 |
"Ya'll really do NOT want dnmc to be grounds for dq. "
That sounds reasonable - as well as being tried out. Then in the case of the 2 SECONDS challenge, the challenge wording was to blame for the furor. Maybe the person who sets the challenge could do with some coaching in English? Take, for example the latest challenge: "YELLOW"
Not very precise is it. Perhaps those that word the challenges view all publicity as being good, not matter how derived. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:35:30 AM · #109 |
yes, it's true. we could check EXIF information for the 2-second and 4-5am challenges.
but what about technical challenges that require techniques NOT stored in the EXIF, such as, oh, i dunno...
shallow dof
single light source
black and white
square crop
painting with light
duotone
motion panning
off-centered subject
backlighting/silhouette
triptych
image grain
wide angle
rule of thirds
high contrast
macro
bokeh
you see where i'm going. none of these specified a subject, but instead instructed photogs to use a particular photographic technique. policing technical challenges like this for DNMC requests puts the subjective burden on the SC. are we to only require exif validation for challenges where that information can actually be validated?
do i need to remind you guys about all of the threads arguing about "single light source" and "backlighting?" |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:37:01 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
yes, it's true. we could check EXIF information for the 2-second and 4-5am challenges.
but what about technical challenges that require techniques NOT stored in the EXIF, such as, oh, i dunno...
shallow dof
single light source
black and white
square crop
painting with light
duotone
motion panning
off-centered subject
backlighting/silhouette
triptych
image grain
wide angle
rule of thirds
high contrast
macro
bokeh
you see where i'm going. none of these specified a subject, but instead instructed photogs to use a particular photographic technique. policing technical challenges like this for DNMC requests puts the subjective burden on the SC. are we to only require exif validation for challenges where that information can actually be validated?
do i need to remind you guys about all of the threads arguing about "single light source" and "backlighting?" |
All of your examples are viewable to the voter (so they can vote it down if it DNMC).
Not a good comparison since we are talking about these technical challenges that are easily checked like a shutter speed, aperture, time, & date.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 11:38:03.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:39:18 AM · #111 |
can voters really tell when something is shallow dof or when it's been photoshopped to look that way? can voters really tell when something is pink or when it's been photoshopped to look that way?
there have been plenty of instances where people have gotten away with things NOT visible to the voters and the voters then felt cheated. there's just no way we (SC) can police all of those instances. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:45:07 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
can voters really tell when something is shallow dof or when it's been photoshopped to look that way? can voters really tell when something is pink or when it's been photoshopped to look that way?
there have been plenty of instances where people have gotten away with things NOT visible to the voters and the voters then felt cheated. there's just no way we (SC) can police all of those instances. |
and that's ignoring the discussion about pre/post shutter adjustments being equally valid ways to create a photograph and that whole realm of what actually is not meeting a challenge.
Btw - the answer to your question is 'no, they can't tell, if it was done well'
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 11:45:51. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:46:24 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
can voters really tell when something is shallow dof or when it's been photoshopped to look that way? can voters really tell when something is pink or when it's been photoshopped to look that way?
there have been plenty of instances where people have gotten away with things NOT visible to the voters and the voters then felt cheated. there's just no way we (SC) can police all of those instances. |
Most of us are only talking about 2 challenges that the descriptions were very specific and easliy varified, but not enforced.
I personally could care less if some photoshops a pink background into their image to meet a challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 11:47:14.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:50:26 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Most of us are only talking about 2 challenges that the descriptions were very specific and easliy varified, but not enforced.
I personally could care less if some photoshops a pink background into their image to meet a challenge. |
and some people, who actually have had to follow through on what that would mean, or would have to follow through in the future, are pointing out the problems with what you are asking for.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.
Though personally, I think Marx might be more apt in this case History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 11:51:22. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:50:43 AM · #115 |
personally, i DON'T like it when someone color-shifts something to wedge it into a challenge where it doesn't belong. that's my personal opinion.
and i don't really see a difference between the two situations here, other than the fact that one can be "easily" (haha) verified and one cannot.
if you landed in 41st place in the 2sec challenge and KNEW that the 40th place person cheated but we didn't verify it, would that not bother you? i'm just asking. it would bother me 'cause even if i placed lower than a ribbon-winner, i still was beaten by a "cheater." |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:52:18 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... there have been plenty of instances where people have gotten away with things NOT visible to the voters and the voters then felt cheated. there's just no way we (SC) can police all of those instances. |
I agree. Going back to the OP, the need for additional enforceable rules is going to be very rare. It's only come up a couple of times where it would have been practical to use.
What's needed is a special rules flag that gets put on the challenge description/details page and supported via an icon (like speed challenges) that shows on DPChallenge front page.
The only time this should be used is for a challenge that has a unique challenge parameter that can be validated strictly on a yes/no basis using the original file EXIF data. No subjective calls needed.
No extra burden to SC as this would be part of the checklist for entry validation on the top five placing photos (or any validation requests during voting stage).
edit to remove signature...too much space used for it. ;^)
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 11:52:52. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:54:53 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
personally, i DON'T like it when someone color-shifts something to wedge it into a challenge where it doesn't belong. that's my personal opinion.
and i don't really see a difference between the two situations here, other than the fact that one can be "easily" (haha) verified and one cannot.
if you landed in 41st place in the 2sec challenge and KNEW that the 40th place person cheated but we didn't verify it, would that not bother you? i'm just asking. it would bother me 'cause even if i placed lower than a ribbon-winner, i still was beaten by a "cheater." |
This is digital photography, color shifting is par for the coarse. I guess I could always make my background, then print it out, but how is that any different? End result is the same.
Don't you DQ 40th placed images for date violations currently? Don't you have to look at the same exif file? I'm not sure what your getting at.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:57:55 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Not a good comparison since we are talking about these technical challenges that are easily checked like a shutter speed, aperture, time, & date. |
The only useful challenge-related information that the EXIF might supply is shutter speed and time & date (for challenges which involve shutter speeds or 4-5am shoots)
Reading aperture from the EXIF to verify a DOF challenge isn't much good. f2.8 on a P&S does not give the same effect as f2.8 on a dSLR. You also have variables like the distance from the subject etc. to consider for shallow DOF. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:58:28 AM · #119 |
| So not submitting a 2 second exposure for a 2 second challenge is wrong but taking a photo that contains none of the color specified by the challenge topic and then shifting it to contain it is okay? I'm honestly asking here because to me, both seem to kind of miss the point of the challenge. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:00:35 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Not a good comparison since we are talking about these technical challenges that are easily checked like a shutter speed, aperture, time, & date. |
The only useful challenge-related information that the EXIF might supply is shutter speed and time & date (for challenges which involve shutter speeds or 4-5am shoots)
Reading aperture from the EXIF to verify a DOF challenge isn't much good. f2.8 on a P&S does not give the same effect as f2.8 on a dSLR. You also have variables like the distance from the subject etc. to consider for shallow DOF. |
I'm fully aware of the difference in DOF with different sized sensors, but if you had an f8 challenge, all the cameras could verified that the camera was set to f8.
Small sensors would have more DOF to use to their advantage, and larger sensors would have shallow DOF they could use to their advantage.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:01:10 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by mk:
both seem to kind of miss the point of the challenge. |
exactly. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:02:23 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The issue isn't so much one of the DQing non 2-second challenge entries, but the more general issue that it leads to.
So if suddenly the site DQs photos for not meeting the challenge, then that has to be applied in a consistant way.
Should non-yellow pictures be DQed for yellow ? Which precise wavelengths of light should be allowed in that challenge ? After all - 'yellow' is a technically definable term.
How about the 4-5am challenge - How are you going to know ? How accurately set are the clocks in your camera ? Is a shot at 3:59 DQable ?
So yes, there are a few, very specific challenges where this may make sense, but the reason not meeting the challenge is not a DQable thing was the huge grey area of 'what meets the challenge' that you open up. It wasn't as if the site council never thought about this in the past. But the problems it introduces are huge and lead to even more rambling, pointless threads like this -week in week out.
There are very few cases were it can be made cut and dried. This is why the voters get to vote on how well they think you met the challenge. The problem isn't so much one of needing to DQ entries that don't meet the challenge, the issue is defining challenges that don't allow the voters to evaluate if the challenge was met or not - as such it was a badly defined challenge.
The correct fix is to word challenges more intelligently and put more thought in to the problems that they'll generate. Not more rules or going back on something fundamental like this. Fix the problem at the source - don't patch it further. When this challenge was announced several threads pointed out the obvious problems. It has been the same for all the other 'contraversial' challenge topics. A wee bit of thought up front would go a long way to fixing this, without needing rule changes.
But for years the problem has been lack of sensible review of the challenges prior to releasing them, so I don't have a lot of hope of that changing either. But who knows. Maybe. |
No. Because the challenge description is "informative" and not "normative". Informative descriptions will be judged by the voters and if the voters believe it DNMC then so be it.
The suggested rule change is NOT to DQ DNMC but to DQ entries that do not meet "NORMATIVE" text. This normative text would be flagged as a special rule. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:02:55 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by mk:
So not submitting a 2 second exposure for a 2 second challenge is wrong but taking a photo that contains none of the color specified by the challenge topic and then shifting it to contain it is okay? I'm honestly asking here because to me, both seem to kind of miss the point of the challenge. |
If the challenge just says yellow, then how is it breaking the rules of the challenge description?
If the challenge says photograph a yellow subject, then color shifting wouldn't be okay, unless you shot a yellow object then shifted the background.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:04:44 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
personally, i DON'T like it when someone color-shifts something to wedge it into a challenge where it doesn't belong. that's my personal opinion.
and i don't really see a difference between the two situations here, other than the fact that one can be "easily" (haha) verified and one cannot.
if you landed in 41st place in the 2sec challenge and KNEW that the 40th place person cheated but we didn't verify it, would that not bother you? i'm just asking. it would bother me 'cause even if i placed lower than a ribbon-winner, i still was beaten by a "cheater." |
Yeah, but this would be informative description left to the voters to decide. I your case you would probably vote lower a color shifted photo where others may not.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:09:43 PM · #125 |
challenge: pink.
description: Capture a photograph where the color pink is the primary color in the shot.
reading the photographer's details, does this meet the challenge to you? was the pink captured in the original photograph? |
|
