| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2006 10:58:08 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
also NOT taken at 4-5am  |
Read the comments, users aren't happy about that either. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:01:13 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
DNMC is not actually qualification for a DQ.
Never has been, never will be. |
It sure has been grounds for DQ, by proxy. Had the details of the photograph been known during voting then this photograph would not have broke the top 100, let alone get a blue.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:12:03 AM · #378 |
Originally posted by pcody:
A possible solution for in the future would be to identify those challenges that need to have a special rule set. Post a flag to let everyone know there is a special rule set and also have a special sentence on the submit page asking the photographer if that special rule was followed. Just add it to the area that asks if the date rule was followed.
This would leave the weight of proof on the photographer. The voters would have good reason to believe that they are voting on legal images so there wouldn't need to be more work for the sc. If, at the end of the challenge, someone had not been honest with their submission information and it won, it would be dq'd and the photographer would, I imagine, be convinced not to do something like that again.
No extra work for anyone(except the programmers), more trust created for everyone.
I believe most people want to be honest and proud of winning fairly. |
And this is exactly what has been said will probably happen in the future. It would seem though, that it is more fun to discuss the past than to let it drop and move on. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:15:20 AM · #379 |
| can we lock this thread? Seems all that has to be said here has been said and resaid enough. Just a thought... |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:18:19 AM · #380 |
Originally posted by karmat:
And this is exactly what has been said will probably happen in the future. It would seem though, that it is more fun to discuss the past than to let it drop and move on. |
Karma, I have a feeling THIS dead horse will be beaten for quite some time. It is actually becoming quite boring, as the same suggestions are being made over and over again.
Well, maybe the next round of ribbons will bring a fresh dead horse out of the grave.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:20:54 AM · #381 |
I feel sorry for the winners as well as the voters with this one. The winner was told he could disreguard the exactly part of the challenge and the voters had their radar set to the exactly part. No one can win in such a situation. I think it would be best to let the winners enjoy the rest of the week without this showing up all the time.
Lock it up? |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:45:14 AM · #382 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My problem is the phrase "exactly 2 seconds". I would bet that absolutely NONE of the entries were "exactly 2 seconds" of exposure, even if the EXIF reads 2.0000000 sec.
Even if you set your camera to an exposure of 2 sec, the shutter will not be open exactly 2 sec. It may be very close to 2 sec, but it will not be exact. |
We aren't talking about semantics like this; people aren't harping about the difference between 2.0000 and 1.9995, which is 4 ten thousandths of a stop. anything >= 1/3 difference is suspect to the challenge in practicality of ACTUAL exposure.
But then again, that is a moot point considering the EXIF will say 2.000 and that meets the challenge.
What people are harping about is the difference between 2.0 and 1/2 a FULL 2 stop difference.
But what about the people with cameras that can't set the shutter speed to 2 secs manually or at all? Sorry then, the photograph won't meet the challenge.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:54:26 AM · #383 |
As noted before, since no Extra Rules restrictions were imposed for the 2 Second challenge, photos taken outside that timeframe will not be disqualified since no rules were broken. Failure to require a 2 second shutter speed was an oversight in the challenge guidelines, and not the fault of photographers who took advantage of that loophole. Specific technical challenges planned for the future will have Extra Rules in place to prevent similar situations.
Please refrain from heckling photographers who used legal (though unpopular) techniques.
As this thread is turning circles and not leading anywhere I am locking it.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 03:05:11 PM EDT.
