To whoever is in charge of validating my Picture

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

05/13/2005 01:48:21 PM · #51

Originally posted by hopper:

you only want people who are going to back you up to butt in?

(it could have been very easy for you to contact the SC in private, you made this a public discussion, not me)

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by grandmarginal:
What more proof do you need?

They need the same thing that they get from EVERY single other validated photo on this site ... the original photo with unaltered exif data.

Why should you get special consideration, the rules are very clear?

This is my thread buddy to solve my problem, if you ever have a problem with SC I'll let you deal with it how you want and I won't butt in...

If you were accused, you could choose your lawer no?

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

05/13/2005 01:48:44 PM · #52

Originally posted by srdanz:

...but something must be since PS remembers what the WB settings were when I open the file again in PS.

The portion that PS changes in the RAW file is the Camera Raw section of the metadata. It does not alter the EXIF portion of the metadata.

Shannon, does this satisfy the request for the "unaltered exif data"?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/13/2005 01:49:23 PM · #53

The EXIF has apparently changed therefore there is no way the SC can say for certain that the original information in the file is in fact the original. Since there are programs out there to edit the EXIF one could in fact change that to say whatever they want.

So, to keep it fair, unchanged EXIF data is used to verify entries.

This discussion has been enlightening. I'll have to check my RAW files when I get home to see what happens when they get opened in ACR and RSE.

05/13/2005 01:49:38 PM · #54

Anyways, you guys do what you have to do...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/13/2005 01:49:49 PM · #55

I have to say that rules are rules, and they shouldn't be bent in midstream. BUT, as someone who shoots exclusively NEF, I think that it's now time to evaluate whether the existing rule set is valid for RAW shooters.

Speaking for myself, I don't shoot exclusively for challenges. I shoot many times a week, sometimes 100+ images at a pop. Those images go through my workflow, and if something aligns with a challenge I submit it. I can't justify archiving 500mb - 1GB every time I shoot just to retain pristine NEFs. Why?

Because the whole point of NEFs is to preserve the original data. Which it does. It retains an image capture date field which is not changed. this field prooves that a submission is within the right date range. It also will write whether Picture Project moved a file. Given that a raw converter is a necessary part of a workflow, and doesn't have the capability to perform illegal edits, what is the point of calling it illegal?

If you want to be a stickler about someone who is skilled enough to write algorithms to illegally manipulate non-demoasiced data you'd have to be insane. You can download EXIF editors for normal JPEG files that can easily change ANY exif field, and yet, it's illegal to pass an NEF through a tool which is not capable of an illegal edit.

Let's think this through and put some sanity into the rules.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/13/2005 01:50:17 PM · #56

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

If you were accused, you could choose your lawer no?

huh?

you haven't been accused of anything

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

05/13/2005 01:51:38 PM · #57

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I'd still be curious to know which ones "DO" alter the EXIF so I can avoid them!

Nikon Capture saves the new settings in the file + remembers the old settings. At the same time it changes the EXIF line "Date Last Modification". It has an option to save all adjustments in another *.set file, but you have to manually link it to the NEF.
For my normal photo's I just save the NEF and for all the DPC ones I use the *.set file and don't save the NEF.

As far as I can check, changing the property values of the NEF with Windows (left click, properties, summary) has no effects on the EXIF. But that's no garantee it will be validated by DPC.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

05/13/2005 01:52:06 PM · #58

"I can't understand why the SC can't do the same."
[[[Could you send them the software you use, perhaps they can see it then.]]]

It's not that the image doesn't get altered. It's the fact that unaltered EXiF is how they determine they're looking at the original.

With enough other images from the same shooting that show unmodified EXIF. Perhaps the SC will show leniency and take the opportunity to express and re-iterate the EXIF rule. Stressing the fact that the image datetime and modified datetime must be identical. But at the same time detail how RAW editors may modify it. And that the best and safest way is to preserve/archive/zip a copy of the image straight out of the camera before any editing is done.

And perhaps we can post a sticky-thread of which editors "DO" alter the EXIF so we can be avoided or at least aware of such.

GREAT IDEA Azrifel!!!!!

I know it's hard GM, and I doubt the SC wants to DQ the shot. It's a good shot. And they probably believe it to be unmodified. But it's all about that created datetime = modified datetime to ensure it's the original.

05/13/2005 01:52:22 PM · #59

Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by grandmarginal:
If you were accused, you could choose your lawer no?

huh?

you haven't been accused of anything

Anyways, forgive me for that, I'm pretty frustrated as you can all understand.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/13/2005 01:57:29 PM · #60

of course ... i do understand ... and it seems your situation kind of sucks.

you ribboned once ... you'll do it again :)

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by grandmarginal:
If you were accused, you could choose your lawer no?

huh?

you haven't been accused of anything

Anyways, forgive me for that, I'm pretty frustrated as you can all understand.

05/13/2005 01:59:36 PM · #61

I still say that enough proofs that my shot was taken within the challenge days, and since the original file is still in there, matched up with date of shot available to view to see if illegal editing was done.

Like I said, everything's there to prove it's legal.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

05/13/2005 02:02:34 PM · #62

With an edited JPEG, I understand that all original EXIF can't be tracked down, but we're talking RAW, the wonderfull format that's known to keep all original data... Anyways.

coolhar

05/13/2005 02:04:12 PM · #63

Bottom line -- the photographer failed to submit the original file when requested to do so.

If a photographer doesn't produce the original file when requested to do so the entry must be disqualified.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/13/2005 02:05:23 PM · #64

Originally posted by theSaj:

And perhaps we can post a sticky-thread of which editors "DO" alter the EXIF so we can be avoided or at least aware of such.

GREAT IDEA Azrifel!!!!!

I know it's hard GM, and I doubt the SC wants to DQ the shot. It's a good shot. And they probably believe it to be unmodified. But it's all about that created datetime = modified datetime to ensure it's the original.

I think the point here is that a rule exists which is logical in a JPEG context, but illogical in a NEF context. Fair/unfair is about whether or not GM gets a DQ. But that's one instance. I think this instance should illustrate why the rules need an update.

It's much easier to fake a JPEG's EXIF data than it is to perform an illegal edit directly on the NEF's raw data. Given that Dave Coffin and Eric Hymen don't often submit entries to challenges I think it's pretty rediculous to block a workflow that is incapable of illegal edits.

DPC shouldn't be about uneccesarily constraining a workflow, especially when there are no prizes involved. Given how easy it is to cheat with a JPEG, and the Doctorate in Mathematics it requires to illegally edit an NEF file, this just makes no sense.

bruski

Canon EOS-50D

05/13/2005 02:06:40 PM · #65

It dosen't matter how much proof there is. This has been discussed over and over again. If you cannot produce the original from the camera file, then it gets dqed. The same thing has happened many times before. What you need to understand is that opening an image in software does not alter the exif. But as soon as you save the image with the software it does alter the exif. Even if you did nothing to the image, it will say it was altered at some point by the software. The only way to have unaltered exif is to save directly from the camera or card reader to somewhere on your computer. Do not open the images with any software. Just drag the files into a folder or onto your desktop or whatever. But again once you save through any software device the exif becomes altered.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

05/13/2005 02:06:50 PM · #66

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

With an edited JPEG, I understand that all original EXIF can't be tracked down, but we're talking RAW, the wonderfull format that's known to keep all original data... Anyways.

But it was altered because you didn't work on a copy. Something to remember for the future. Use it as a learning tool.. and know that you'll have to start adjusting the way that you load images on to your computer now. (direct transfer instead of an image program). Many many others have fallen to this thing in the past, and I suspect others will follow in the future.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/13/2005 02:09:26 PM · #67

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

...everything's there to prove it's legal.

...everything except unaltered EXIF data. Is it possible the original file might still be recoverable off your media card?

neophyte

Nikon D810

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/13/2005 02:10:24 PM · #68

I'm confident that the SC will do the right thing, If nothing else they've become aware of a possible problem and will decide if the rules need to be "tweaked", I'm sure it'll be addressed. Live and learn and let it go. By the way, I really admire Grandmarginal's work, but, I too am a stickler for rules as written.

Dx

05/13/2005 02:10:54 PM · #69

Originally posted by coolhar:

I didn't failed to submit it, I did it twice. There's no decision that have been rendered yet... But if there is any failure, it will be to reckognise the authenticity of the file. I'm no computer wizard, but I know that the time and date of the shot is there, the original picture is kept in that file. The editing doesn't consist of much. All the elements in the edited picture can be seen in the file. The clouds are the same... Nothing was added or removed...

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/13/2005 02:14:47 PM · #70

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by grandmarginal:
...everything's there to prove it's legal.

...everything except unaltered EXIF data. Is it possible the original file might still be recoverable off your media card?

I shoot a lot and can only afford one card... So I format it a lot.

Let me try an analogy. A guy commits a crime in a store... There are witnesses that can identify him, circumstantial evidences, everything's there to prove he's the guy... But he gets off because the surveillance tape failed to film him...

bruski

Canon EOS-50D

05/13/2005 02:15:31 PM · #71

But the exif still states that some software altered it on the same date. Scalvert has a good idea. Is there any chance you still have the image on your memory card?

Originally posted by grandmarginal:

Originally posted by coolhar:
Bottom line -- the photographer failed to submit the original file when requested to do so.

If a photographer doesn't produce the original file when requested to do so the entry must be disqualified.

I didn't failed to submit it, I did it twice. There's no decision that have been rendered yet... But if there is any failure, it will be to reckognise the authenticity of the file. I'm no computer wizard, but I know that the time and date of the shot is there, the original picture is kept in that file. The editing doesn't consist of much. All the elements in the edited picture can be seen in the file. The clouds are the same... Nothing was added or removed...

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/13/2005 02:16:46 PM · #72

Originally posted by cghubbell:

Originally posted by theSaj:
And perhaps we can post a sticky-thread of which editors "DO" alter the EXIF so we can be avoided or at least aware of such.

GREAT IDEA Azrifel!!!!!

I know it's hard GM, and I doubt the SC wants to DQ the shot. It's a good shot. And they probably believe it to be unmodified. But it's all about that created datetime = modified datetime to ensure it's the original.

I think the point here is that a rule exists which is logical in a JPEG context, but illogical in a NEF context. Fair/unfair is about whether or not GM gets a DQ. But that's one instance. I think this instance should illustrate why the rules need an update.

It's much easier to fake a JPEG's EXIF data than it is to perform an illegal edit directly on the NEF's raw data. Given that Dave Coffin and Eric Hymen don't often submit entries to challenges I think it's pretty rediculous to block a workflow that is incapable of illegal edits.

DPC shouldn't be about uneccesarily constraining a workflow, especially when there are no prizes involved. Given how easy it is to cheat with a JPEG, and the Doctorate in Mathematics it requires to illegally edit an NEF file, this just makes no sense.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

nico_blue

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/13/2005 02:17:31 PM · #73

Having run into problems with SC in the past, I feel like I know first hand what you are going through grandmarginal...

I have read the whole thread so far and have to agree with your point of view that since raw files cannot be illegally edited, having an attached date modified should not be a grounds for dq, especially since a raw file can be readily reverted to its original state.

But I also respect SC strict abinding to the rules which clearly state that unmodified shots only are acceptable proof. So while the outcome of this event cannot be changed I would like to see the rules just add a blurb saying that modified raw files are unacceptable as proof.

I would be against allowing modified raw files as proof because for the potential for abuse down the line. While I currently dont know anything that can save as a raw files a few months or years from now, no one knows...

05/13/2005 02:20:30 PM · #74

The bottom line is that the rule is only logical in a JPEG context. And in that JPEG context, it's only rational assuming that the person who intends to cheat didn't search Goole for an EXIF editor. On the other hand, someone who runs an NEF file through a tool which is INCAPABLE of illegal edits will have a file that cannot be validated.

I'm sure that most people only shoot images for DPC, and they can afford to back up all of their NEFs right after a shot, and before they invest time in editing them. For me, this has illustrated that DPC is not compatible with my workflow. It makes no sense to double my storage needs to accomodate an unfounded rule.

Until this rule is amended for RAW, I won't be entering any further challenges. Not that anyone cares - I'm not exactly a regular in the winner's circle :) But between this and the ever-absent DPC Prints update, I'm beginning to think my membership moneyt might make more sense on a site that doesn't discourage RAW workflows.