Jump to content


adamhanlon

Member Since 09 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Apr 28 2016 01:21 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: SUBAL for Nikon D500

27 April 2016 - 09:58 AM

I understand that Subal, Nauticam, Hugyfot and BS Kinetics (probably among others) are using an internal circuit made by UW Technics:

 

http://wetpixel.com/...s-ttl-converter

 

This can produce an optical trigger if it is fed into a special bulkhead that is fitted with an LED. 

 

Adam


In Topic: My Strobe Controller Blog

27 April 2016 - 09:53 AM

This is a great topic!

 

Thank you for sharing all your hard work so freely.

 

Adam


In Topic: Moving of critters for competition entries

22 April 2016 - 12:36 AM

Yes, I think that is true. Thought is based on experience and judgement. Creatures being in places or doing things that they would not normally (naturally) do have been disqualified. 

 

Equally, so have images that have watermarks on them, that have been post-capture modified, that have been entered into the wrong category etc.

 

Unless you are physically with a photographer when an image is captured, someone else was that will state that the subject was/was not manipulated or they were videoed doing so (don't even go into the resulting video being edited :) ) there is unlikely to be definitive evidence of how the image was captured. 


In Topic: Moving of critters for competition entries

22 April 2016 - 12:17 AM

I can only speak from my own experience of course. I am not aware of the issues around the LAUPS contest.

If a judge suspects that manipulation has occurred the organisers would accept his/her opinion and would disqualify the image.

As I mentioned above, there is no burden on the judges to prove in an evidentiary way that manipulation took place before disqualication. A benthic animal in the water column would simply be disqualified for example.

What is more complex is when there is disagreement about an image and how it was captured by third parties after the contest's results have been announced. The fact that the image has not been disqualified means that the judges must think that the image is within the contest's rules. If this is to be challenged then the third party must bring definitive proof in order to do so.

If such proof is forthcoming, then the results should be reversed. If not, the results should stand.

In Topic: Moving of critters for competition entries

19 April 2016 - 10:58 AM

 

 

A few people that have judged in competitions have come forward to argue that if they have no evidence that manipulation has happened then they can't disqualify the entry.

 

 

 

Saying that without definite proof of moving they can't make a ruling is hogwash.

 

I very much doubt that any judge would accept a rule that says that they cannot disqualify. Every competition I have either judged in or administered has disqualified images that were thought to have been unnaturally moved.

 

In my experience, there is no burden of evidence on the judges to account for why they disqualify images. 

 

However, what is sometimes not definitive are opinions or rulings about whether movement has taken place or not.