| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 09:22:37 AM · #126 |
This stinks. Nobody wins in situations like this. The real winners don't win because the cheaters aren't disqualified. The ones with the ribbons don't win because their repuations are now dirt (do you ever trust their entries again?).
I would feel a whole lot better about someone who got caught spot-editing in a basic challenge than I feel about this. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:23:57 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
Nobody wins in situations like this. |
You did? Congrats! |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:24:11 AM · #128 |
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. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:26:56 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
... maybe it's time for SC and the Owners to take a stand. You would upset a lot less people by just saying ...
"this is wrong, everyone knows it, we're going to fix it - these are DQ'd, members take note!" |
Please note that the admins (Langdon) spoke to this issue before the challenge started -- I quoted his statement at least a couple of times in the pre-challenge thread which discussed this -- and that was to the effect that photos not "exactly 2 seconds" would nonetheless be allowed to stand. This is not a surprise.
Also note that the current challenge does not say "photograph something yellow" -- it merely says "Yellow."
To me, it is a deliberately vague phrasing intended to allow creative interpretations, either by color-shifting traditionally non-yellow objects or by using other definitions (e.g. "cowardly"), or something else I haven't thought of. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:27:29 AM · #130 |
I'm willing to give it an over-look if it's within 0.01%?
As mentioned earlier by someone else their shot was 1.99999979s
Close enough?
1/2 second is 2 stops different.
My shot at 4 seconds would have been only 1 stop out.
On the issue of the "Yellow" challenge, I can see that this is significantly more relaxed as there is interpretation here.
Think of the Coldplay song "yellow". Can't even see that.
There could be a myriad of emotions or situations here.
Kinda not in the same league as the 2 second challenge.
I'm with posthumous on this one too. I like his rule modification. It simply makes sense.
As far as Langdon's comments on "not exactly 2 seconds", was that in reference to shots that were like 1.5 seconds or 1.996 seconds or shots that might be like 1 second or 0.3 seconds or 12 seconds or...?
2 seconds is a very specific section of time. A lot can or can't be done in that time frame.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 09:31:46. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:27:43 AM · #131 |
I hear what you're all saying, but I think that many of you are extraordinarily naive to expect people to use *exactly* 2 seconds just because that's what the challenge asked for. People try to shoehorn into every single challenge, but here it was harder to spot those in the voting stage. Many people here didn't submit photos because they weren't exactly 2 seconds, and that's great but I think you're all a bit idealistic to expect people not to bend the rules a bit on this challenge. Maybe this will prompt a change in the challenge rules to force people to be a bit more on-topic.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:32:15 AM · #132 |
Oh my lord,
It's the attack of the DNMC freaks.
From some of the same people who would just say on any other challenge that they were just being "creative" with the challenge definition.
Somehow 2 sec is hard black/white rule, and metal or something is "interpretive".
Go ride another horse, there were no special rules, lesson learned. SC take notes or whatever (I'm sure they already have)
Horse dead, move on.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:33:19 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I hear what you're all saying, but I think that many of you are extraordinarily naive to expect people to use *exactly* 2 seconds just because that's what the challenge asked for. People try to shoehorn into every single challenge, but here it was harder to spot those in the voting stage. Many people here didn't submit photos because they weren't exactly 2 seconds, and that's great but I think you're all a bit idealistic to expect people not to bend the rules a bit on this challenge. Maybe this will prompt a change in the challenge rules to force people to be a bit more on-topic. |
The 1.999 seconds comment is a red herring. The winner wasn't even close to 2 seconds. One half-second isn't in the ballpark. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:38:50 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I hear what you're all saying, but I think that many of you are extraordinarily naive to expect people to use *exactly* 2 seconds just because that's what the challenge asked for. People try to shoehorn into every single challenge, but here it was harder to spot those in the voting stage. Many people here didn't submit photos because they weren't exactly 2 seconds, and that's great but I think you're all a bit idealistic to expect people not to bend the rules a bit on this challenge. Maybe this will prompt a change in the challenge rules to force people to be a bit more on-topic. |
The 1.999 seconds comment is a red herring. The winner wasn't even close to 2 seconds. One half-second isn't in the ballpark. |
Apparently, nobody cares. :P
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:40:00 AM · #135 |
DNMC is what?
It's a poor show that the winner has not the honour to take part in the contest according to the rules. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:41:22 AM · #136 |
This is a photography website, not a materials specifications website.
2 seconds is a photographic specification in the camera settings.
Metal is a characteristic of the subject.
Photographic subjects are always subject to the eyes and thoughts of the photographer. Camera settings are not. If your exposure is 2 seconds, your exposure is 2 seconds. Whether you are an 'artist' with a Leica, a holiday shooter with a paper disposable, a beginner experimenting with a pin-hole camera or a diver shooting underwater. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:41:52 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
I feel that when that requirement is in the title, it should be grounds for dq if not adhered to. Why? Because my entry, which was 2 seconds, ended up five from the last. It was 2 seconds, and I had hoped that people would see that my overexposure was on purpose, hence the title. apparently not. At least those who look at it will know that what I tried to do cannot be done with 2 seconds. I have to say, this was my second to the last worse position, beat only by my very first entry I submitted.
The worse part is that I lost sleep that entire week trying to get a shot where the moon was where I wanted it when I took the shot. The whole process made me ill, had to leave work early on Friday, and I could not get up the whole weekend because I was so tired. So the lesson here is, I have got to stop trying to get these very hard to get shots, because they always do badly.
Here is the one I originally was going to enter, but decided the focus was too soft. I'll bet it would have done better than the one I entered. And this one I got around 10:30 at night, early in the week. If I had just left it at this, I wouldn't have gotten sick by trying to get a better one.
|
Yep... what we do for a photograph. I was in Boston on a family vacation (spring break) during this challenge. So two nights during the week I was out hiking around trying to find the images I wanted for the challenge. It was FREEZING. Literally, it was 24 degrees with terrible wind. Coming from Texas, I didn't have a warm enough jacket and no gloves so I froze trying to get the pictures. Plus I was out at Midnight doing it.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:43:04 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Nobody:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I hear what you're all saying, but I think that many of you are extraordinarily naive to expect people to use *exactly* 2 seconds just because that's what the challenge asked for. People try to shoehorn into every single challenge, but here it was harder to spot those in the voting stage. Many people here didn't submit photos because they weren't exactly 2 seconds, and that's great but I think you're all a bit idealistic to expect people not to bend the rules a bit on this challenge. Maybe this will prompt a change in the challenge rules to force people to be a bit more on-topic. |
The 1.999 seconds comment is a red herring. The winner wasn't even close to 2 seconds. One half-second isn't in the ballpark. |
Apparently, nobody cares. :P |
Nobody cares when someone with enough natural talent to have 8 ribbons and a 6.1141 average can't play by the spirit of the rules that everyone else is trying to live by. Can Tiger Woods play from the red tees at the Masters this year? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:43:44 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
DNMC is what?
It's a poor show that the winner has not the honour to take part in the contest according to the rules. |
Challenge description is not a rule, otherwise SC would have changed the front page by now.
Is that going to happen?
No, it will not.
To honour the rules, one must have a rule to follow.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:46:23 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
The only way to look is forwards. |
i agree, and BTW: i also tried for 3 hours to do the photo and finnaly be happy with the outcome :-|
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:47:11 AM · #141 |
The letter and the spirit of the law are arguably different. However, what part of:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
is not clearly stated and easy to understand. It's cheating. .
Message edited by kirbic - Removed personal attack. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:48:29 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
Ok I see some ppl are not happy, well this was by far the hardest shot I have taken, the waterfall was so strong that the mist got everything wet, and at the same time I had to balance myself (w/ a tripod) on slippery rocks (yes dangerous). I tried 2 second shots and they came out way way to bright, little by little I lowered the shutter until 1/2 second, then it came out. The sun is very strong (even on this cloudy day) up in the andes mnts., even with an ND4 filter I couldn't get it to come out at 2 seconds. I submited only because of the amount of effort I put into the shot. Sorry to those who do not like my choice to submit. |
You should have tried taking this shot at night. There was a full moon during this week and that could have given you the light you needed. Or a dusk/dawn... or a strong flashlight to "paint" the scene.
Nice picture though... |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:54:16 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
The letter and the spirit of the law are arguably different. However, what part of:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
is not clearly stated and easy to understand. It's cheating. . |
Those are pretty harsh words...
From the Challenge rules:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered. Please do not request disqualification for these reasons, as such requests will not be considered. "
So let's move on. Personal attacks have no place here.
Message edited by kirbic - Edited to remove (quoted) personal attack. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:56:25 AM · #144 |
There should have been an extra...explicit 2 second only, "yellow flag" rule added to the description. That would have made things clear and proper. We all would have been playing on the same field and it would have been a better challenge. For the life on me, I can't understand why Langdon's statement went in any other direction.
It seems pretty easy and pretty logical. Let's hope that hindsight is 20/20 and that they are smart enough to tighten the Challenge rules to avoid this type of stuff.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 10:02:22.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:57:48 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Oh my lord,
It's the attack of the DNMC freaks.
From some of the same people who would just say on any other challenge that they were just being "creative" with the challenge definition.
Somehow 2 sec is hard black/white rule, and metal or something is "interpretive".
Go ride another horse, there were no special rules, lesson learned. SC take notes or whatever (I'm sure they already have)
Horse dead, move on. |
OR the attack of ignorant ( or just cheaters) people who don't realize what the phrase "exactly 2 seconds" means.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:00:37 AM · #146 |
| Thank you, doctornick. Now that I understand that the challenge description is not part of the rule whatsoever, I can take part with a better understanding in future. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:06:19 AM · #147 |
In most normal challenges DNMC shots get voted down because the voters see (or are of the opinion) that the shot does not meet challenge.
This challenge was different in that the piece of information the voters needed to ensure the shot met the challenge (i.e. the EXIF) was hidden until after voting. They therefore voted in good faith that the shutter speed was indeed 2 seconds for all the entries.
Suggestion: How about exposing sections of the 'photograph information' box during voting on technical challenges? - That way it will be up to the voters to vote down shots they can plainly see DNMC. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:06:26 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Thank you, doctornick. Now that I understand that the challenge description is not part of the rule whatsoever, I can take part with a better understanding in future. |
The ultimate arbiters of the challenge rules are the "Voters" |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:06:35 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
OR the attack of ignorant ( or just cheaters) people who don't realize what the phrase "exactly 2 seconds" means. |
My gosh, Brent, would you please quit trying to stir up trouble and actually enter a challenge? |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:08:40 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
OR the attack of ignorant ( or just cheaters) people who don't realize what the phrase "exactly 2 seconds" means. |
My gosh, Brent, would you please quit trying to stir up trouble and actually enter a challenge? |
Ignorant things like this prevent me from entering challenges. It really makes kinda digusted with teh challenge part of this site in general. :D
|
|
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 03:09:07 PM EDT.
