| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 01:30:27 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by mk:
I find it interesting that you direct all your outrage towards the Site Council and none towards your fellow photographers. |
I thought this thread was started to get away from posts directed at the individual photogs involved.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:57:38 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
... I blame D&L for using a phrase that indicates the details will be a requirment and then they are not enforced.
I really don't think SC can do anyhting about this without D&L stepping to the plate and admitting they screwed up. |
I didn't start this thread to point any fingers. I posted it as a web suggestion intentionally to look at the way many view challenge descriptions as an absolute rule, when in essence the only rules are these: Basic and Advanced.
Challenge descriptions will always be just that, a description of what the challenge subject is. Enforcement of meeting the challenge description should continue to be left to the voters in how an image is scored. Everyone has their own opinion of what the challenge subject is, and many of those opinions conflict with others. Given the global nature of DPChallenge that will never change.
What I would like to see happen is when there is a special challenge requirement that can be enforced because it IS very specific and defined, then flag the challenge with rules that are DQ enforceable. The flag needs to be very clear and evident. Enforcement would be checked the same way the Basic and Advanced rules are now with the original photo being sent for validation (including EXIF data).
We need to put the DNMC requirement enforcement to bed. It can't happen for the reasons stated above. We CAN look at the rare special situation and possibly address that with enforceable rules.
Let's not lose the occasional restrictive challenge that put our technical abilities to the test.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:01:45 PM · #53 |
Scalvert, where in the rules does it state what you are saying (i.e. shoot like.., give the impression of.., etc)? If that's the case I'll just treat every challenge as if it's a free study then.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:02:24.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:09:02 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Scalvert, where in the rules does it state what you are saying (i.e. shoot like.., give the impression of.., etc)? If that's the case I'll just treat every challenge as if it's a free study then. |
As it stands now, you are more than welcome to shoot every challenge like it's a free study. There is nothing officially to stop you, but the voters most likely would score it lower if it's hard to find any connection to the challenge description.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:11:49 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Scalvert, where in the rules does it state what you are saying (i.e. shoot like.., give the impression of.., etc)? If that's the case I'll just treat every challenge as if it's a free study then. |
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered." If you can't be DQ'd for NOT shooting exactly 2 seconds, then logically you're allowed to shoot something that looks like 2 seconds. Knock youself out. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:18:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
I'm boycotting the challenges and hope others choose to do the same. |
Great! My photos have all just moved up one spot! Yaaay!
:) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:20:01 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
Scalvert, where in the rules does it state what you are saying (i.e. shoot like.., give the impression of.., etc)? If that's the case I'll just treat every challenge as if it's a free study then. |
As it stands now, you are more than welcome to shoot every challenge like it's a free study. There is nothing officially to stop you, but the voters most likely would score it lower if it's hard to find any connection to the challenge description. |
Well in this case the voters couldn't vote it lower even if they wanted to. So in a nutshell when you want to cheat do so in challenges like this where people can't tell and DPC won't take the easy steps to make it clear to everyone.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:20:40.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:23:11 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered." If you can't be DQ'd for NOT shooting what the theme said, then logically you're allowed to shoot anything. Knock youself out. |
I think this is more accurate.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:30:48.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:23:40 PM · #59 |
I really wish everyone would make a distinct effort to separate the "rules" from the "challenge description."
The "challenge description" is NOT A RULE!!!!!!!! Please stop calling it such. The rules are listed at //www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php. PLEASE do not contribute to the confusion. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:25:06 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I really wish everyone would make a distinct effort to separate the "rules" from the "challenge description."
The "challenge description" is NOT A RULE!!!!!!!! Please stop calling it such. The rules are listed at //www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php. PLEASE do not contribute to the confusion. |
I think people are saying it SHOULD BE, not that it is. Actually, I'm not even suggesting that be changed. The solution I would do is just give more info to the voters on the voting page. DNMC is not grounds for a DQ but it is grounds for a low vote. Give people the chance to vote accurately in technical challenges like this. It's not hard to do.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 14:30:35.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:30:55 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by seenosun:
I'm boycotting the challenges and hope others choose to do the same. |
Great! My photos have all just moved up one spot! Yaaay!
:) |
Well it's nice to see my talent is appreciated even if my opinion isn't.
:-) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 02:36:41 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
Scalvert, where in the rules does it state what you are saying (i.e. shoot like.., give the impression of.., etc)? If that's the case I'll just treat every challenge as if it's a free study then. |
As it stands now, you are more than welcome to shoot every challenge like it's a free study. There is nothing officially to stop you, but the voters most likely would score it lower if it's hard to find any connection to the challenge description. |
Well in this case the voters couldn't vote it lower even if they wanted to. ... |
Sorry. Sounded like you were talking about challenges in general. The point you make just reinforces my position even more that we should have DQ enforceable rules flagged on challenges that have a unique, quantifiable requirement. I'll not spell it all out again as I just posted recently on this.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:15:26 PM · #63 |
from this thread we gather that the disclaimer renders and removes the restriction that make each challenge different. In short all challenges are corrupted by the disclaimer so the challenge description is only a guideline and only the naive will rise at 4 am or use the 2 seconds as prescribed. The wiser knows better.
Well, keep me in the naive camp. I do enjoy presenting illusions but I prefer to make the illusion within the restrictions or dictates of the challenge. I will never use the illusion shooting at at 2 pm when the challenge called for 4 am or shooting at f22 when the challenge called for f3.5
I am not beating the drum to change what just took place, merely to reconsider the employment of technical challenges that do mean what they say. A technical challenge has no merit if its technical requirement is not met. Simply flag the event to curtail the wiser amongst us.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 15:22:54. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:17:34 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... merely to reconsider the employment of technical challenges that do mean what they say. |
Working on it as you type...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 03:20:51 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Entries will not be disqualified for misinterpreting or failing to meet the challenge to which they are entered." If you can't be DQ'd for NOT shooting exactly 2 seconds, then logically you're allowed to shoot something that looks like 2 seconds. Knock youself out. |
Shannon, maybe it would be a good thing for you to have a private, heart-to-heart with your fellow SC member kirbic. You could kick it off by asking him to fill you in on what he means by "spirit of the challenge" as he posted about in the other thread.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:35:58 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... merely to reconsider the employment of technical challenges that do mean what they say. |
Working on it as you type... |
That's good to know. ;^)
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:50:31 PM · #67 |
| The only ones who suffered here are the ones who stayed within the 2 second guideline. It is unfortunate that the challenges are so loosely interpreted, but there is no changing this one. Yeh it would be great if we could just toss this one out as a learning experience for the dp staff (we all make mistakes, even the dp staff) but that isn't going to happen. It will stay as a valid challenge, and I believe with the extreme dismay of the photographers, dp will not make this mistake again. I know I was extremely upset when I initially saw my score, but I also know that even if everybody had stayed within the 2 sec. guideline, mine would have still done badly. I also have a bet that the placement wouldn't have been all that different then it was for the majority of the participants. By tomorrow I am expecting wisdom will overtake most of the gripers, and they will cool down and focus their energies on the next challenge. This will be swept under the rug as soon as the results are in for the current challenges. Onward and upward, and let us give our support to the administration. Their job is hard, they take the heat, and they will learn from their mistakes as we all do. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 09:52:32 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... merely to reconsider the employment of technical challenges that do mean what they say. |
Working on it as you type... |
I really think that this is all that most people are looking for.
It generally takes a few days to hash these things out, maybe a little longer, and I think we can wait, but we do need to know that the SC takes this seriously and is working on it.
When it comes out, I think it would be important to 'get back on the horse' quickly and have another technical challenge to set the new standard. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:10:59 PM · #69 |
As we have proved over and over again it is not possible to determine the level or percentage figure to describe the amount of appropriateness of any given image to any given challenge topic. It is ALWAYS subjective and therefore can't be quatified.
The rule, even a technical guidline, for example the 2 second exposure cannot be verified without a huge burden on the SC, so why keep bringing up the same old arguments.
Its upto the individual photographers to make the best endeavours to meet the challenge, and only the photog will know whether the interpretation was strict or lax.
For me if you can't absolutely enforce a rule then you shouldn't even try, and DNMC cannot be enforced in this way. No amount of fiddling the wording will ever come up with an effective way of expressing an absolute explicit requirement. Thats why lawyers make so much money.
Just accept that the challenge is a guidline and get on with doing your best to make a good image in the spirit of the challenge. If that means 1.5 seconds or 2.5 seconds then to me that really isn't too big an issue. Both are sufficiently slow as to make little or no difference to the final outcome.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:22:45 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Falc:
As we have proved over and over again it is not possible to determine the level or percentage figure to describe the amount of appropriateness of any given image to any given challenge topic. It is ALWAYS subjective and therefore can't be quatified.
The rule, even a technical guidline, for example the 2 second exposure cannot be verified without a huge burden on the SC, so why keep bringing up the same old arguments.
Its upto the individual photographers to make the best endeavours to meet the challenge, and only the photog will know whether the interpretation was strict or lax.
For me if you can't absolutely enforce a rule then you shouldn't even try, and DNMC cannot be enforced in this way. No amount of fiddling the wording will ever come up with an effective way of expressing an absolute explicit requirement. Thats why lawyers make so much money.
Just accept that the challenge is a guidline and get on with doing your best to make a good image in the spirit of the challenge. If that means 1.5 seconds or 2.5 seconds then to me that really isn't too big an issue. Both are sufficiently slow as to make little or no difference to the final outcome. |
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:27:02 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed. |
In this instance maybe yes, but how would you enforce the next topic and the one after that? - The rules have to remain constant, you can't change the rule or lack of rule on an arbitary variable. You either enforce DNMC or not period, and as its a subjective value then it can't be enforced.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:41:46 PM · #72 |
It says in the detals for the 2 sec. exposure challenge:
"Details: Take a photograph using a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds."
How can it be ok to not follow this?!
This is completely unfair to all those who followed the details as asked.
I ask for the photos in 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th seat to be disqualified and all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:44:02 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you can enforce the date, then you can just as easily enforce a shutter speed. |
In this instance maybe yes, but how would you enforce the next topic and the one after that? - The rules have to remain constant, you can't change the rule or lack of rule on an arbitary variable. You either enforce DNMC or not period, and as its a subjective value then it can't be enforced. |
DNMC doesn't have anything to do with it. You've echoed a very valid point made earlier that challenge descriptions and DNMC is not enforceable.
What has been suggested, and appears to have garnered SC attention, is to use a special rule in these rare instances when there is something quantifiable in the challenge description that can be validated. I used an example in the OP of this thread.
As for any burden on SC, there isn't any. The validation process would be the same as it is now; the top 5 challenge entries must submit an original file with EXIF data and editing steps.
This really isn't a huge thing to do. I can't see it being applied very frequently, but it sure would come in handy for those unique challenges (primarily technical) with special parameters.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:44:30 PM · #74 |
New & improved version:
I wonder which will happen first:
1) The DPC rule book crosses the 500 700 page mark.
2) The Site Council become full-time employees and number into the hundreds.
3) No members will be allowed to enter a challenge without legal representation and Notary services.
4) The ribbons get replaced by cash prizes and justify the new rule book & employee costs involved.
5) Memberships now cost $100 per member, per year to cover the cash prizes, legal & staff cost increases.
6) All editing will be done using only Irfanview.
7) All Challenges become a free study.
8) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it.
Something is bound to break soon. Hang on tight. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 10:45:08 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by sigth:
I ask for the photos in 1st seat, 7th seat and 16th seat to be disqualified and all those who do not have exif. information, untill they prove their 2 sec. exposure time. |
The SC would have to request/get/go through 192 EXIF data files... |
|
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 08:09:01 AM EDT.
