| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2005 02:26:02 PM · #76 |
Nick,
while Simon's case is probably resolved (unfortunately for him) as it would be bad to modify the rules after the fact, I am all for the discussion for the future use of RAW files as proofs of originality.
And these rules may not be the final ones. Your argument that there might be a software in the future for editing RAW files is valid, and this is why the rules should never be set in stone.
Today we have SW packages that illegaly modify the EXIF data - and I stand behind this statement: if the image hasn't been modified, the EXIF data should not have been modified as well. There are other file attributes that you can touch if you want to indicate a change.
There are also SW packages that you can use to edit your photo and those would not edit your EXIF - which is to the contrary of what we would like to see. These are far more dangerous as you can do whatever you'd like to your photo and submit it as valid - EXIF will be intact.
So, let's continue with the discussion about the possibility of re-wording the rules for what constitutes the 'original' image please. While it won't help Simon, it may help him and all of us in the future.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:26:33 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
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. |
Is it worth siphoning this off into a new thread to discuss the methods of validation in general and discuss whether or not they are the best methods for RAW?
I like the way I can open a RAW file and apply conversion settings etc and save those to the file without writing over the actual image data or original settings. I don't want to have to find storage space to keep TWO versions of my RAW files...
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:27:10 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
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. |
Thank you so much. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:31:39 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
(...)I like the way I can open a RAW file and apply conversion settings etc and save those to the file without writing over the actual image data or original settings. I don't want to have to find storage space to keep TWO versions of my RAW files... |
Yeah, those files a over 5MB per shot... I'm having trouble not overflowing my hard disk with single copies... |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:32:20 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Let's take the time to understand RAW files before making statements like this. A RAW file is nothing like a JPEG or TIFF. It is a washed out, dark, ugly, non color balanced blob of pixels. To make any edit to that file, let alone an illegal one, would require VERY advanced programming skills that FAR exceed what it takes to cheat with a JPEG file.
You can fake ANY exif information in a JPEG with no programming skills if you know how to use Google. Where is the greater potential for abuse? Today or tomorrow? |
To fake the capture date in any RAW file would take very basic editing skills and a hex editor. 2 minute job for me. If you wanna relax the rules for RAW files go ahead, it will give me a few thousand images to choose from every challenge ; ) |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:34:05 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
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... |
The file you submitted is not the ogiginal file as it came out of your camera. By your own description here in this thread it is a file that contains all the informational that was in the original file but had been opened, and saved, by an editing program.
Even though it is irrelevant you keep assuring us that info in RAW files can't be changed, but that is impossible to accept as factual. If David Coffin can crack Nikon's encryption to create the a RAW conversion that is the basis of many programs, what makes you think that a single RAW file can't be altered?
This rule is as cut & dried as the time/date rule. If you can't/don't submit the original file as from camera when requested, your image is DQ'ed. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Losing a ribbon is hard medicine to take, but this is not the first time it has happened, and for the same reason. Live and learn. For challenge entries edit from a copy of the original.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:34:11 PM · #82 |
| Simon--Just a wild idea. Is it possible your file is still also on your CF card? Even in a deleted form? (Even if deleted, if you haven't shot much since then, you might be able to recover the original using Norton Utilities, or similar undelete utility) |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:35:17 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Let's take the time to understand RAW files before making statements like this. A RAW file is nothing like a JPEG or TIFF. It is a washed out, dark, ugly, non color balanced blob of pixels. To make any edit to that file, let alone an illegal one, would require VERY advanced programming skills that FAR exceed what it takes to cheat with a JPEG file.
You can fake ANY exif information in a JPEG with no programming skills if you know how to use Google. Where is the greater potential for abuse? Today or tomorrow? |
To fake the capture date in any RAW file would take very basic editing skills and a hex editor. 2 minute job for me. If you wanna relax the rules for RAW files go ahead, it will give me a few thousand images to choose from every challenge ; ) |
Congratulations, I couldn't even mess with a JPEG's EXIF if I wanted.
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 14:35:55. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:38:08 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Simon--Just a wild idea. Is it possible your file is still also on your CF card? Even in a deleted form? (Even if deleted, if you haven't shot much since then, you might be able to recover the original using Norton Utilities, or similar undelete utility) |
Nope, that was shot on the 3rd... I fill my 1GB card every 2 days... And format. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:40:08 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I don't want to have to find storage space to keep TWO versions of my RAW files... |
You only have to keep one extra file after you have decided which shot to enter, and you only have to keep that extra one for a couple of weeks. Doesn't seem like much of a burden.
You are probably going to have to find a lot more storage space when you make the break from shooting in jpeg to shooting in RAW regardless of entering challenges.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:44:42 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I don't want to have to find storage space to keep TWO versions of my RAW files... |
You only have to keep one extra file after you have decided which shot to enter, and you only have to keep that extra one for a couple of weeks. Doesn't seem like much of a burden.
You are probably going to have to find a lot more storage space when you make the break from shooting in jpeg to shooting in RAW regardless of entering challenges. |
I will in the future... Its just that I had just got my camera and was working with Picture Project for the first time... I'm trusting the software that comes with the camera. I shoot, I stick my card in my printer card slot, automatically, Picture Project uploads the picture and opens. I notice I can do (very basic, but effective) editing with it. I'm all enthousiastic because the image quality is amazing and I play with it because I know a RAW file keeps it's original... Oh well.. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:45:53 PM · #87 |
I already do shoot in RAW (depending on context) so I have space but... fair point - it would only be for a few weeks that one would need to keep that extra RAW RAW!
I'm still curious about just how much ACR changes within a raw file when one opens and takes the file through the conversion process.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:49:36 PM · #88 |
Anyways, this is my last post. I think the most important thing here is to determine wether or not the shot is illegal...
So instead of having "4" as a proof, you have "2+2"
Can you guys add 2+2 ?
I trust your judgement. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:49:40 PM · #89 |
[quote]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... [/quote]
[[[But if that surveillance cam was functioning properly and did not show him. Then one would question - was the crime committed or are the witnesses false.
In your case, I think no crime was committed. But there may not be enough evidence to convict (prove) that case based on what is legally admissable.
Believe it or not...hundreds of murderers are walking free because of this. There are people who were secretly recorded proving guilt - but because recordings were made illegally it's not admissable to court. Silly in my opinion. As I believe ALL evidence should be admissable. And if evidence was garnered illegally, said individual who did so should then go to court for their crime. But - it's not the way our court systems work...nor DPC.
The system works 98% of the time...but it will fail.
]]] |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:49:50 PM · #90 |
Have you tried a recovery program? A lot of times it can recover even if it was reformatted. Try //www.snapfiles.com and click freeware. On the right is Data recovery tools. Try PC Inspector Smart Recovery. It is for flash memory.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:51:19 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I already do shoot in RAW (depending on context) so I have space but... fair point - it would only be for a few weeks that one would need to keep that extra RAW RAW!
I'm still curious about just how much ACR changes within a raw file when one opens and takes the file through the conversion process. |
My understanding is that it keeps it in a sidecar and doesn't alter it. You do have a choice though to store the data in a central data file or a sidecar. In either case, it does not modify the RAW file. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:51:49 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I'm still curious about just how much ACR changes within a raw file when one opens and takes the file through the conversion process. |
I would hope it wouldn't touch it! That's what the "sidecar" files are for.
All this makes me very glad that I make all my RAWs read-only as soon as they come off the card. Not that I could be certain that that would stop Windows from letting a program write to it anyway :( |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:55:21 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's pretty reasonable to assume that whatever camera you are shooting with, at least some of us will be able to open the file. Where problems come in is when software like Picture Project is used to move files, and changes are made to the EXIF data on the way. In these cases, there is literally no way for us to validate that the file is an original.
As TheSaj posted, the best practice is to copy the originals to an archive directory using the operating system (in widnows, open both directories in separate windows, highlight the files, copy, paste). Then make "working copies" of the files you want to edit. Now only work on the "working copies" and you never have to worry about the validity of an original. |
I know this may sound tacky...but what about a little generic tutorial for this? I wasn't sure how this was suppose to be done so I kept the picture on my compact flash card in case if anyone asked because I wasn't sure I was copying it 'with the correct' info when I upload it. I didn'realize the EXIF file was changed when I open the photo in a program (Photoshop Elements 2). Just a thought....
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:58:56 PM · #94 |
Simon - I just read through this thread - I can't believe this! It actually almost happened to me too!!!
Earlier this week they asked me for a verification, when I sent it to them they said it wasn't the original (even though I did not do any modifications). However, I happened to still have it in my camera and sent it to them directly from my camera (didn't even download it onto my computer). I left it on my memory card and did the same today when they asked for it again for verification. If someone did not request a verification earlier this week then I guarantee I would be in the same boat as you... no "original" because I would have formated that card and used it for my last shoot and wouldn't have known that the one I had saved was marked as "modified."
You still earned that 2nd place and this technicality does not change that. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 02:59:41 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's pretty reasonable to assume that whatever camera you are shooting with, at least some of us will be able to open the file. Where problems come in is when software like Picture Project is used to move files, and changes are made to the EXIF data on the way. In these cases, there is literally no way for us to validate that the file is an original.
As TheSaj posted, the best practice is to copy the originals to an archive directory using the operating system (in widnows, open both directories in separate windows, highlight the files, copy, paste). Then make "working copies" of the files you want to edit. Now only work on the "working copies" and you never have to worry about the validity of an original. |
I know this may sound tacky...but what about a little generic tutorial for this? I wasn't sure how this was suppose to be done so I kept the picture on my compact flash card in case if anyone asked because I wasn't sure I was copying it 'with the correct' info when I upload it. I didn'realize the EXIF file was changed when I open the photo in a program (Photoshop Elements 2). Just a thought.... |
When you open a RAW file in PhotoShop, it creates a PP file as a copy. My file allready had some editing (B/W, sharpness, brightness) done in picture project.
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong on this...
Anyways, remember, 2+2 is the same as 4. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 03:07:38 PM · #96 |
was the SC question answered? is the original image still on the media card?
I have the ability to shoot in RAW, but choose JPG so I dont have to convert. Is there a program that converts the raw to jpg without modification or a way to save the raw straight to the desktop from the camera and use that raw as proof to the SC?
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 03:14:27 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote]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... [/ quote]
[[[But if that surveillance cam was functioning properly and did not show him. Then one would question - was the crime committed or are the witnesses false.
In your case, I think no crime was committed. But there may not be enough evidence to convict (prove) that case based on what is legally admissable.
Believe it or not...hundreds of murderers are walking free because of this. There are people who were secretly recorded proving guilt - but because recordings were made illegally it's not admissable to court. Silly in my opinion. As I believe ALL evidence should be admissable. And if evidence was garnered illegally, said individual who did so should then go to court for their crime. But - it's not the way our court systems work...nor DPC.
The system works 98% of the time...but it will fail.
]]] |
To use your analogy, the crime that was commited was that the photog didn't submit the original file. Whether or not illegal editing techniques were used is irrelevant, and so is the photog's intent. There is no judgement on either of those points.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the case at hand. You seem to be saying that this is one that falls into the 2% which are failures. But their is no failure in the system in this case. The system functioned properly.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 03:21:09 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote]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... [/ quote]
[[[But if that surveillance cam was functioning properly and did not show him. Then one would question - was the crime committed or are the witnesses false.
In your case, I think no crime was committed. But there may not be enough evidence to convict (prove) that case based on what is legally admissable.
Believe it or not...hundreds of murderers are walking free because of this. There are people who were secretly recorded proving guilt - but because recordings were made illegally it's not admissable to court. Silly in my opinion. As I believe ALL evidence should be admissable. And if evidence was garnered illegally, said individual who did so should then go to court for their crime. But - it's not the way our court systems work...nor DPC.
The system works 98% of the time...but it will fail.
]]] |
To use your analogy, the crime that was commited was that the photog didn't submit the original file. Whether or not illegal editing techniques were used is irrelevant, and so is the photog's intent. There is no judgement on either of those points.
I don't think that's a very good analogy for the case at hand. You seem to be saying that this is one that falls into the 2% which are failures. But their is no failure in the system in this case. The system functioned properly. |
Ok, nevermind that... Stick with the 2+2=4 one then... |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 03:23:42 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
(...)But their is no failure in the system in this case. The system functioned properly. |
The system reckognises my picture as illegal after submitting a file containing all the info to prove it's legal. It's broken in 2 but it's all there (the date of shoot and the original aspect of the picture). You just have to be willing to look into it to see it.
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 15:28:26. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 03:34:01 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
The system reckognises my picture as illegal after submitting a file containing all the info to prove it's legal. It's broken in 2 but it's all there (the date of shoot and the original aspect of the picture). You just have to be willing to look into it to see it. |
If you want to get down to the fine points, technically, they should not "look into it" because the entry has not yet passed the theshold of submitting the original file. To go beyond that standard now would not be fair to all the entries that have been dq'ed in the past for not submitting the original file.
|
|
