| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2006 12:10:29 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
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. |
Again, this is an informative challenge description. Yellow doesn't necessaryly mean color. It can also mean cowardly. This would be left to the voters to decide.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:12:57 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
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? |
Yes. Because the editing rules allowed the shift. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:14:32 PM · #128 |
| well, there's also nothing in the rules that prohibits a .5 second photograph. so, why the outrage there and not for other challenges where entries are within the rules but outside of the description? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:14:36 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Originally posted by muckpond:
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? |
Yes. Because the editing rules allowed the shift. |
The rules also allow you to enter an 8 second exposure into a 2 second challenge. That's what we're discussing. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:23:56 PM · #130 |
Actually, I thought this thread started to make a suggested change. I added to this by suggesting that the change acknowledge normative/informative wording in a challenge description where normative wording are "required" features (or extra rules) of the photographic challenge. It appeared that the current system already allows this (for example; rubber ducky extra rule).
I acknowledge that the current state of the rules allowed the entries in the "2 second" challenge with different shutter settings even though the wording said "exactly". I'm not even attempting to argue this one because we all know that those who did this really didn't follow the spirit of the challenge... water under the bridge.
The suggestion then is to recognize that some descriptions for a challenge are normative descriptions which are requirements that need to be verified (at least the winners). Before the challenge is posted, the wording should be reviewed and the question asked "Is this normative?" If it is then add an extra rule for the challenge.
For challenges with informative descriptions then it would be up to the voters to weed out. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:26:34 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
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? |
DNMC to me with that challenge description.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:33:13 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Actually, I thought this thread started to make a suggested change. I added to this by suggesting that the change acknowledge normative/informative wording in a challenge description where normative wording are "required" features (or extra rules) of the photographic challenge. It appeared that the current system already allows this (for example; rubber ducky extra rule).
I acknowledge that the current state of the rules allowed the entries in the "2 second" challenge with different shutter settings even though the wording said "exactly". I'm not even attempting to argue this one because we all know that those who did this really didn't follow the spirit of the challenge... water under the bridge.
The suggestion then is to recognize that some descriptions for a challenge are normative descriptions which are requirements that need to be verified (at least the winners). Before the challenge is posted, the wording should be reviewed and the question asked "Is this normative?" If it is then add an extra rule for the challenge.
For challenges with informative descriptions then it would be up to the voters to weed out. |
Yes, and thank you. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:37:00 PM · #133 |
| So if the challenge description says "Take a photo where yellow is the main impact" then we should DQ photos where yellow is not the main impact or where yellow was not actually in the original shot but if the description says "You should take a photo where yellow is the main impact," then it's up to the voters to decide and it's cool if people color shift? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:51:24 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by mk:
So if the challenge description says "Take a photo where yellow is the main impact" then we should DQ photos where yellow is not the main impact or where yellow was not actually in the original shot but if the description says "You should take a photo where yellow is the main impact," then it's up to the voters to decide and it's cool if people color shift? |
Are you trying to get a better handle on normative/informative wording? I can't really help much on that one, but I'm sure there are some who can. ;^)
In your examples above I don't see where either way could be set up as an special rule that would be enforceable with a DQ. They are too subjective. What is "main impact"? A certain percentage, etc...? What is "yellow"? Hues from x value to y value?
This whole subject has really gotten WAY bigger than it needs to be as the right scenario for a special rule is going to be far and few between. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:51:33 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Actually, I thought this thread started to make a suggested change. I added to this by suggesting that the change acknowledge normative/informative wording in a challenge description where normative wording are "required" features (or extra rules) of the photographic challenge. It appeared that the current system already allows this (for example; rubber ducky extra rule).
I acknowledge that the current state of the rules allowed the entries in the "2 second" challenge with different shutter settings even though the wording said "exactly". I'm not even attempting to argue this one because we all know that those who did this really didn't follow the spirit of the challenge... water under the bridge.
The suggestion then is to recognize that some descriptions for a challenge are normative descriptions which are requirements that need to be verified (at least the winners). Before the challenge is posted, the wording should be reviewed and the question asked "Is this normative?" If it is then add an extra rule for the challenge.
For challenges with informative descriptions then it would be up to the voters to weed out. |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The correct fix is to word challenges more intelligently and put more thought in to the problems that they'll generate. [...]
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. |
Sorry to re-quote myself, but as you previously disagreed with it, but then went on to say that the challenges need to be carefully worded, I thought it would be easier.
As you already mentioned, the potential for normative/ informative distinctions in challenges already exists and has been used in the past.
The only change required is a bit more thought on setting challenges.
Though assuming that a prescriptive ruling on something like 'main impact' is going to make this any less of a problem is a touch naive.
We should perhaps encourage David Hume to join the SC to establish the finer points of those philosophical debates. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:51:50 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by mk:
So if the challenge description says "Take a photo where yellow is the main impact" then we should DQ photos where yellow is not the main impact or where yellow was not actually in the original shot but if the description says "You should take a photo where yellow is the main impact," then it's up to the voters to decide and it's cool if people color shift? |
Seems to be that would be one major headache to sort out. Much more so than a "shoot at exactly 2 seconds" challenge. ;o)
Why not jsut have the special rule set apply to easier topics with less gray area?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:54:17 PM · #137 |
I wonder if Have fun and Be creative! should be considered normative parts of challenges. Would make DQ requests fun and creative to enforce.
A bit more thought, leading to a little less debate. It isn't rocket science, or even IEEE standards worthy.
As mentioned : the methods are in place to fix this. It has been done in the past. The one constant is careless definition of challenges. It never seems to get addressed. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile focusing on why that happens, rather than trying to get rules added.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 12:58:10. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:57:12 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by mk:
So if the challenge description says "Take a photo where yellow is the main impact" then we should DQ photos where yellow is not the main impact or where yellow was not actually in the original shot but if the description says "You should take a photo where yellow is the main impact," then it's up to the voters to decide and it's cool if people color shift? |
Remember that Yellow doesn't only mean a color...
But since you have to take the rules in total then the editing rules allow you to shift the color so yes it would be allowed. Also, the quantity of color (if the challenge said "Color Yellow") is not specified so it is an "informative" description which is left to the voters to decided. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:01:47 PM · #139 |
IMHO, I think in most challenges, such as yellow, pink, etc...the voter can determine directly from the photo, whether, in their minds, the photographer met the rules or spirit of the rules. And they can then vote based on that assessment.
With the 2 sec challenge, there wasnt a distinctive way to tell how many secs anyone kept their shutter open, until after the challenge ended. If there was a way to post what the shutter speed was, during the voting, again IMHO, we would not have these threads.
I think everyone has brought about more awareness to this issue and I now hope we can all move onto more constructive discussions.
Just my thoughts... :-) |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:05:43 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wonder if Have fun and Be creative! should be considered normative parts of challenges. Would make DQ requests fun and creative to enforce.
A bit more thought, leading to a little less debate. It isn't rocket science, or even IEEE standards worthy.
As mentioned : the methods are in place to fix this. It has been done in the past. The one constant is careless definition of challenges. It never seems to get addressed. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile focusing on why that happens, rather than trying to get rules added. |
Agreed. I had fun shooting my 2 second challenge (even though I froze my butt off).
Just review the definition and decide if the wording is normative and give a special rule if it is. All of the current open challenges awaiting submission would be informative.
Remember that normative wording is just giving directives or rules that must be followed. Informative wording is just giving guidence. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:09:16 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This whole subject has really gotten WAY bigger than it needs to be as the right scenario for a special rule is going to be far and few between. |
If we go back to my original question, I do think it pertains to your original subject.
Your point, I believe, is that challenges like "2 seconds" that are very specific should have extra rules which allow us to disqualify photos that are not taken with the appropriate shutterspeed. A few people followed up and mentioned that the type of challenge that needs this extra rule or flag are very few and far between. The 2 second and 4-5:00am challenges are the only ones which I've seen mentioned.
My question, then, is if the challenge specifically says to shoot a certain color (and I mean color, please no semantics games here), do we also use the flag to require that the original shot contain the specified color? Sure, the voters can vote on what they see but that doesn't really mean much as far as what the photographer actually shot.
If yes, then I don't think the extra rules are as cut and dry as you think. If no, why is the requirement to shoot a color not as important as the requirement to shoot a certain shutterspeed.
(Bonus points for answering the question without the use of the words "informative" or "normative.")
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:16:05 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This whole subject has really gotten WAY bigger than it needs to be as the right scenario for a special rule is going to be far and few between. |
If we go back to my original question, I do think it pertains to your original subject.
Your point, I believe, is that challenges like "2 seconds" that are very specific should have extra rules which allow us to disqualify photos that are not taken with the appropriate shutterspeed. A few people followed up and mentioned that the type of challenge that needs this extra rule or flag are very few and far between. The 2 second and 4-5:00am challenges are the only ones which I've seen mentioned.
My question, then, is if the challenge specifically says to shoot a certain color (and I mean color, please no semantics games here), do we also use the flag to require that the original shot contain the specified color? Sure, the voters can vote on what they see but that doesn't really mean much as far as what the photographer actually shot.
If yes, then I don't think the extra rules are as cut and dry as you think. If no, why is the requirement to shoot a color not as important as the requirement to shoot a certain shutterspeed.
(Bonus points for answering the question without the use of the words "informative" or "normative.") |
Someone said before that if it can be verified by exif data, then it should be flagged. I'd have to say that I agree with that... shutter speed, aperture, time of day, etc...
As far as why these, and not others... The policy now is: DNMC is not ground for a DQ, but it is grounds for a low vote. With technical challenges sometimes the voter is blind to wether or not the image complies to the Challenge Details, and is therefore robbed of the right to vote a DNMC low.
I think a lot of us are feeling duped b/c we assumed everyone was playing by the same rules, and then afterwards we found out we weren't...
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 13:26:52. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:16:34 PM · #143 |
what? no inform...
Seriously, the description/extra rules would be where to define that. Since the rules allow color shifting then if you wanted a challenge that was "color" yellow and no color shifting then specify it in the challenge. I could imagine a duetone with a yellow color as an entry that would fit this challenge.... |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:17:02 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Remember that normative wording is just giving directives or rules that must be followed. Informative wording is just giving guidence. |
I understand the principles, I've even had to suffer writing standards in the past as well. But the point still stands - it isn't a need for special rules. It isn't the need for a clearer definition of the rules that's the issue (as stated - this sort of thing has been done before)
All that would have to happen is that the people who define the challenges would need to step up and pay more attention to how they word the challenges. Given that hasn't happened in the 4+ years I've been here (my first entry was shot 4 years and 2 days ago - woohoo), I don't think better definitions and more exacting terms are what is needed to address the issue - well, they are - but not better meta-definitions and exacting terms.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 13:19:21. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:20:25 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by tryals15:
Someone said before that if it can be verified by exif data, then it should be flagged. I'd have to say that I agree with that... shutter speed, aperture, time of day, etc... |
So then I would ask again, why are those values important enough to be subject to disqualification but things like color aren't?
Originally posted by Gordon:
All that would have to happen is that the people who define the challenges would need to step up and pay more attention to how they word the challenges. Given that hasn't happened in the 4+ years I've been here (my first entry was shot 4 years and 2 days ago - woohoo), I don't think better definitions and more exacting terms are what is needed to address the issue - well, they are - but not better meta-definitions and exacting terms. |
You are always welcome to suggest perfectly worded challenges and descriptions in the appropriate forum. :) |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:25:41 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This whole subject has really gotten WAY bigger than it needs to be as the right scenario for a special rule is going to be far and few between. |
If we go back to my original question, I do think it pertains to your original subject.
Your point, I believe, is that challenges like "2 seconds" that are very specific should have extra rules which allow us to disqualify photos that are not taken with the appropriate shutterspeed. A few people followed up and mentioned that the type of challenge that needs this extra rule or flag are very few and far between. The 2 second and 4-5:00am challenges are the only ones which I've seen mentioned.
My question, then, is if the challenge specifically says to shoot a certain color (and I mean color, please no semantics games here), do we also use the flag to require that the original shot contain the specified color? Sure, the voters can vote on what they see but that doesn't really mean much as far as what the photographer actually shot.
If yes, then I don't think the extra rules are as cut and dry as you think. If no, why is the requirement to shoot a color not as important as the requirement to shoot a certain shutterspeed.
(Bonus points for answering the question without the use of the words "informative" or "normative.") |
Because time & shutter speed are a constant variable (within +- 1/3 of a stop) and color is totally subjective with the whole variable of monitor calibration.
...and you crack me up in a informative type of way.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 13:26:35.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:27:24 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by tryals15:
Someone said before that if it can be verified by exif data, then it should be flagged. I'd have to say that I agree with that... shutter speed, aperture, time of day, etc... |
So then I would ask again, why are those values important enough to be subject to disqualification but things like color aren't?
Originally posted by Gordon:
All that would have to happen is that the people who define the challenges would need to step up and pay more attention to how they word the challenges. Given that hasn't happened in the 4+ years I've been here (my first entry was shot 4 years and 2 days ago - woohoo), I don't think better definitions and more exacting terms are what is needed to address the issue - well, they are - but not better meta-definitions and exacting terms. |
You are always welcome to suggest perfectly worded challenges and descriptions in the appropriate forum. :) |
Edited original post... |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:28:33 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by tryals15:
Someone said before that if it can be verified by exif data, then it should be flagged. I'd have to say that I agree with that... shutter speed, aperture, time of day, etc... |
So then I would ask again, why are those values important enough to be subject to disqualification but things like color aren't?
<> |
I would answer because the description for the challenge says:
"Yellow"
instead of:
"Use the color yellow as the theme of your photo. Special rule: Color shifting is not allowed." |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:31:30 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by mk:
You are always welcome to suggest perfectly worded challenges and descriptions in the appropriate forum. :) |
Abstract macro would be a fine example.
Couldn't Take a picture so close up to something that it cannot easily be identified at first glance. be easily rephrased to avoid the obvious problem ?
It seems pretty normative to me. (Though still subjective - which, btw, is the entire problem with the 'normative' ideal) It is prescriptive - it is telling me to do something. yet that 'something' is open to interpretation.
What if I look at someone's abstract picture, but I can tell what the subject was at first glance ? Oh, it's a flower. It can still be an abstract macro or close-up.
Part of the problem is that the title:
Abstract macro
and the subsequent elaboration, don't talk about the same things.
macro doesn't mean the same thing as close-up
Abstract doesn't always mean the same thing as 'can't tell what it is at first glance'
Normative, prescriptive, confusing and open to lots of DNMC and low votes for images that are perfectly reasonably abstract macros, but that don't meet the subsequent qualifications.
An abstract macro shot. Pretty obvious that it's a flower though, even at first glance. DNMC ? Should it be DQed ?
Just one of many convenient examples.
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 13:31:46. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:33:40 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This whole subject has really gotten WAY bigger than it needs to be as the right scenario for a special rule is going to be far and few between. |
If we go back to my original question, I do think it pertains to your original subject.
... If no, why is the requirement to shoot a color not as important as the requirement to shoot a certain shutterspeed. ... |
mk - I hope you didn't take my comment as thinking you're drifting off topic, you're not. Just seems that it's a bit more complicated than it needs to be. Apparently not. ;^)
As to your question - I would answer no, color shift (example pink to yellow) is not an item to create a special rule for. You would still have a small level of subjectivity. Besides the subjectivity, most images, especially advanced editing, have some value change whether it be some blurring, saturation boost, desaturation, etc... color shift is acceptable IMO because of this.
Special rules (again, very limited/rare), should only apply to quantifiable items that can be looked at and a decision made yes/no without any subjectivity. Where specific instructions have been given for a challenge and it can be determined without question (EXIF data) that the instructions (read rules) were met or not. |
|
