I was asked to submit "proof" for my 'free study' July entry. I had no idea why.
I submitted the original photo and just received word that my photo had been 'validated'.
I wish there had been an indication as to why it was questioned or why it was validated.
It's a mystery and not a learning experience. The challenge was for advanced editing and my post processing skills are
primitive, which may be the reason it was suspect.
I would find it helpful if I knew the reasons why it was questioned. Is the person who initiates the investigation then
then notified that the photo was validated?
I wish the process was more transparent and in the end a learning experience for at least one person.
Lots of times people think something is out of date or something trivial like that, and so to verify, we must see the original. There isn't much to be learned from something like that.
Your July Freestudy entry was questioned about whether the background had been cloned. We could not definitely determine from examination of your entry whether that was the case or not, so we had to look at your original to compare. Simple as that! :)
If someone suspects that you violated the rules of the challenge, they can submit a ticket and then SC will ask you for your original and/or your editing steps. After a review they will decide if you have violated rules or not. Any schmo can send in a ticket. If you have some fancy editing, there will often be someone who suspects something.
It is said that if you have the stamp "this photograph has been validated" with your image, you will receive higher votes. Also, it's fortuitous that you received a verdict so quickly. It can often take weeks.
If it's positive, then the SC, the members, and the photographer breathe a collective sigh of relief. The person who reported it usually thumps their desk in frustration and says 'Drat!'
If it's negative, then SC raise defcon to 1 before notifying the photographer. SC then retreat to their secret bunker until the challenge is over, but sometimes until the thread complaining about the DQ has died down. The person who requested the validation celebrates the DQ with copious amounts of champagne. And there exists an air of tension and uncertainty on the forums for a number of weeks.
I still think it would be nice to have the message, from the beginning, read "we are requesting your image for validation because ________________".
One of the reasons for not stating a reason is to avoid giving the photographer a clue as to how to "fix" a problem. It's not that we want to think anyone here would intentionally cheat, but it's happened in the past and we have to structure the process to account for that possibility.
If you're asked to submit your original it shouldn't matter why ...
Originally posted by MeMex2:
My question was: Is the person who initiated the 'investigation' notified that 'this photograph has been validated'?
My photo isn't pulled during the SC review, correct?
The person who made the request is NOT personally notified. Photos remain in voting during validation, which is why one of the few voting instructions we have ask you to vote every photo as if it is legal.
I still think it would be nice to have the message, from the beginning, read "we are requesting your image for validation because ________________".
One of the reasons for not stating a reason is to avoid giving the photographer a clue as to how to "fix" a problem. It's not that we want to think anyone here would intentionally cheat, but it's happened in the past and we have to structure the process to account for that possibility.
If you're asked to submit your original it shouldn't matter why ...
I don't understand - once it's already being exhibited in the challenge you can't "fix" a problem. Right?
Hehe.
Suppose they request validation for reason X (say cloning). Can it be DQ'd for a completely separate reason that was seen after the image was posted? Or can it only be DQ'd for the reasons suggested by the person who raised the concern?
Is that the reason they don't say "we want your image for X"?
Hehe.
Suppose they request validation for reason X (say cloning). Can it be DQ'd for a completely separate reason that was seen after the image was posted?
Well, I think the person who initiated the false accusation should be penalized by deducting 10 points from their next entry and the person who was unjustly accused should be awarded 10 points. (sort of joking, although)
Well, I think the person who initiated the false accusation should be penalized by deducting 10 points from their next entry and the person who was unjustly accused should be awarded 10 points. (sort of joking, although)
Keep in mind that many editing challenges are made by beginners who do not understand all of the legal ways of doing something. For instance, many believe that you must do a selection to have one object saturated in a scene with the rest desaturated. Beginners see it and think "that's gotta be spot editing, not legal in basic," but there's a way to do it. There are many other examples too. My "Camera Bag" entry was pulled for validation, probably because somebody thought the pictures were pasted in, but they are in fact physically there.
My point is that many of the ways to get around rules are obscure and require specific techniques that many are unfamiliar with. I reckon SC only ask to validate images they themselves cannot definitively say are legal. I don't really see any harm in a false positive here as far as requiring validation.
I reckon SC only ask to validate images they themselves cannot definitively say are legal. I don't really see any harm in a false positive here as far as requiring validation.
I've always looked upon a validation request as positive feedback -- it means I had accomplished an image for which someone cannot figure out the technique used. Not only does it means the image "stood out" to at least one voter, but it will give at least one person a chance to learn something new ... ;-)
I've always looked upon a validation request as positive feedback -- it means I had accomplished an image for which someone cannot figure out the technique used. Not only does it means the image "stood out" to at least one voter, but it will give at least one person a chance to learn something new ... ;-)
perfect example. i got a couple comments quesitoning it's legality...and a validation request, for this entry, which I guess was validated (this was over a month ago but i never heard anything) and i find it satisfying that i managed something at least a few people couldn't figure out...
I reckon SC only ask to validate images they themselves cannot definitively say are legal. I don't really see any harm in a false positive here as far as requiring validation.
I've always looked upon a validation request as positive feedback -- it means I had accomplished an image for which someone cannot figure out the technique used. Not only does it means the image "stood out" to at least one voter, but it will give at least one person a chance to learn something new ... ;-)
How can they learn something new...when the author isn't even told what the validation request was for. If the author doesn't know...then how can they explain it to the person who put it up for validation...especially when the person who puts the request in doesn't make him or herself known to the author.
I would probably have one of the highest validation requests...and it baffles me constantly as to why an image gets called up...! I still believe the author should be told at some time as to why there was concern for their image.
