DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> To whoever is in charge of validating my Picture
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 156, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/13/2005 03:37:50 PM · #101
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
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.


I thought I made it pretty clear with my original post that the SC doesn't entertain the "2+2s". We simply do not have the time or manpower to evaluate all the various forms of supporting evidence that a photographer could potentially provide. Our request is laid out in the rules and is very easily and clearly determined by the following question: Do you have original, unaltered EXIF data? (circle yes or no).
 05/13/2005 03:38:53 PM · #102
Here, I just did a JPEG (resize only) of the original file. It's funny because when I loaded it into PhotoShop (to resize it and convert in JPEG since we can't post RAW files) PhotoShop reckognizes it as being the original file since a menu to adjust exosure comp appeared. Something that only happens with non-edited files.



Message edited by author 2005-05-13 15:39:59.
 05/13/2005 03:41:55 PM · #103
Originally posted by mk:
I thought I made it pretty clear with my original post that the SC doesn't entertain the "2+2s". We simply do not have the time or manpower to evaluate all the various forms of supporting evidence that a photographer could potentially provide. Our request is laid out in the rules and is very easily and clearly determined by the following question: Do you have original, unaltered EXIF data? (circle yes or no).


Don't have the time? You guys are always here in forum posting...
 05/13/2005 03:43:47 PM · #104
Originally posted by grandmarginal:


Here's another edit that I did of it, uploaded the same day it was shot (I kept it hidden after a couple of hours). You can see everything is there. The site council might not care for anything else but the out-of-camera file but at least people can see I'm no cheater. I didn't add or remove anything that wasn't in the original file (beside the cropping).


Is this the Original file but edited that your entry came from or is this another file taken the same day?
 05/13/2005 03:44:34 PM · #105
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:


Here's another edit that I did of it, uploaded the same day it was shot (I kept it hidden after a couple of hours). You can see everything is there. The site council might not care for anything else but the out-of-camera file but at least people can see I'm no cheater. I didn't add or remove anything that wasn't in the original file (beside the cropping).


Is this the Original file but edited that your entry came from or is this another file taken the same day?


No I goofed, it's fixed. Look back at the post.
 05/13/2005 03:45:52 PM · #106
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by mk:
I thought I made it pretty clear with my original post that the SC doesn't entertain the "2+2s". We simply do not have the time or manpower to evaluate all the various forms of supporting evidence that a photographer could potentially provide. Our request is laid out in the rules and is very easily and clearly determined by the following question: Do you have original, unaltered EXIF data? (circle yes or no).


Don't have the time? You guys are always here in forum posting...


Right, which is part of our responsibility. Sifting through piles of evidence and back up support and letters from your grandmother who swears on the Holy Bible that you took the shot on the day you say you did is not. (Not you specifically, but if we open it up to one, we open it to all.)

Perhaps we do need to re-evaluate our methods. But I would hope that you would understand why we cannot open up our standards to a much more biased method of evaluation. As it stands right now, these are the rules.
 05/13/2005 03:46:05 PM · #107
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Here, I just did a JPEG (resize only) of the original file. It's funny because when I loaded it into PhotoShop (to resize it and convert in JPEG since we can't post RAW files) PhotoShop reckognizes it as being the original file since a menu to adjust exosure comp appeared. Something that only happens with non-edited files.



This one is the real one... Like I said, I took many simalar shots.
 05/13/2005 03:46:54 PM · #108
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by mk:
I thought I made it pretty clear with my original post that the SC doesn't entertain the "2+2s". We simply do not have the time or manpower to evaluate all the various forms of supporting evidence that a photographer could potentially provide. Our request is laid out in the rules and is very easily and clearly determined by the following question: Do you have original, unaltered EXIF data? (circle yes or no).


Don't have the time? You guys are always here in forum posting...


Right, which is part of our responsibility. Sifting through piles of evidence and back up support and letters from your grandmother who swears on the Holy Bible that you took the shot on the day you say you did is not. (Not you specifically, but if we open it up to one, we open it to all.)

Perhaps we do need to re-evaluate our methods. But I would hope that you would understand why we cannot open up our standards to a much more biased method of evaluation. As it stands right now, these are the rules.


Ok... Whatever, take it off... I'm happy for Carrieanne.
 05/13/2005 03:49:46 PM · #109
Originally posted by mk:
(...)Perhaps we do need to re-evaluate our methods. But I would hope that you would understand why we cannot open up our standards to a much more biased method of evaluation. As it stands right now, these are the rules.


No I don't, you have a proof that is more solid than a JPEG exif and I believe that your responsibilities as SC is to look into it.
 05/13/2005 03:58:27 PM · #110
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
No I don't, you have a proof that is more solid than a JPEG exif and I believe that your responsibilities as SC is to look into it.


It is your responsibility to supply an original file with unaltered EXIF data (which you haven't done) in accordance with the rules. Our responsibility is to make sure you do so. In the future, the rules may be amended to include alternate proof of original files, but right now those are the rules you agreed to.
 05/13/2005 04:03:17 PM · #111
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
No I don't, you have a proof that is more solid than a JPEG exif and I believe that your responsibilities as SC is to look into it.


It is your responsibility to supply an original file with unaltered EXIF data (which you haven't done) in accordance with the rules. Our responsibility is to make sure you do so. In the future, the rules may be amended to include alternate proof of original files, but right now those are the rules you agreed to.


Ok then take it off then, you guys have time for that? I want to see Carrieanne's picture up there.

Message edited by author 2005-05-13 16:04:18.
 05/13/2005 04:08:31 PM · #112
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
...you guys have time for that?


I do understand your frustration, but we're not being mean or singling you out. No matter how much we might believe your file is the original, we have to follow the standard of proof.

You can try to claim you've won the lottery by providing a receipt for the winning ticket, a photocopy of the ticket, videotape of you filling out the ticket, a year's worth of past tickets with the same numbers, and 40 eyewitnesses who watched you buy the ticket, but unless you can produce the original ticket, you're out of luck. Sorry. :-(
 05/13/2005 04:11:34 PM · #113
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
...you guys have time for that?


I do understand your frustration, but we're not being mean or singling you out. No matter how much we might believe your file is the original, we have to follow the standard of proof.

You can try to claim you've won the lottery by providing a receipt for the winning ticket, a photocopy of the ticket, videotape of you filling out the ticket, a year's worth of past tickets with the same numbers, and 40 eyewitnesses who watched you buy the ticket, but unless you can produce the original ticket, you're out of luck. Sorry. :-(


Whatever, just take it off and make Carrianne happy.
 05/13/2005 04:13:17 PM · #114
What's the day today? Oh yeah, friday the 13th.
 05/13/2005 04:16:01 PM · #115
I AM SO SORRY THAT YOU ARE HAVING ISSUES VALIDATING YOUR IMAGE. REGARDLESS, IT IS A FINE IMAGE, YOU DID WIN THE RIBBON AND WE ALL NOW THAT AND SO DO YOU. WE KNOW THAT YOU WOULD NEVER CHEAT AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF CHEATING.
YOU MADE AN "DPC ERROR" THAT ANY OF US COULD MAKE.

PERHAPS IF NOTHING ELSE, YOU HAVE SAVED SOMEONE ELSE FROM THE SAME DEMISE.

AND FOR THAT, I THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US.
(we luv ya, GM, consider yourself hugged)
 05/13/2005 04:17:25 PM · #116
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Here, I just did a JPEG (resize only) of the original file. It's funny because when I loaded it into PhotoShop (to resize it and convert in JPEG since we can't post RAW files) PhotoShop reckognizes it as being the original file since a menu to adjust exosure comp appeared. Something that only happens with non-edited files.



This one is the real one... Like I said, I took many simalar shots.


I am impressed with the vision you have obviously shown in cropping to achieve the final result.
You have a good eye...
 05/13/2005 04:19:39 PM · #117
Originally posted by sofapez:
I AM SO SORRY THAT YOU ARE HAVING ISSUES VALIDATING YOUR IMAGE. REGARDLESS, IT IS A FINE IMAGE, YOU DID WIN THE RIBBON AND WE ALL NOW THAT AND SO DO YOU. WE KNOW THAT YOU WOULD NEVER CHEAT AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF CHEATING.
YOU MADE AN "DPC ERROR" THAT ANY OF US COULD MAKE.

PERHAPS IF NOTHING ELSE, YOU HAVE SAVED SOMEONE ELSE FROM THE SAME DEMISE.

AND FOR THAT, I THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US.
(we luv ya, GM, consider yourself hugged)


Thanks to everyone(well mostly). I appreciate the support. Seriously, I can't wait to see Carrieanne's picture up there. I suggest you all go comment and congratulate her for her superb picture.

-Simon
 05/13/2005 04:21:53 PM · #118
I have read this complete and very interesting thread. All in all it does pose some questions from me which I will ask here. If I should ever get lucky enough to need to submit an original to alleviate a DQ, is a RAW file that has been opened, adjusted and you click on Okay, on Photo shop CS modified. I know the copy that is generated has been modified, but is the original going to show some altering when viewed with whatever program the SC uses? I don't think the whole DPC experience is going to be worth the effort, if I have to catalog and file separately all of the possible images that I just might want to submit. If this becomes necessary I feel that an update needs to be initiated by the site that will make it a simple as possible for those that play the game.

Please give me an answer, so I will know if I should buy an apple and stay up tonight to try to get the silhouette that I have pictured in my head.
 05/13/2005 04:31:12 PM · #119
Originally posted by autool:
...is a RAW file that has been opened, adjusted and you click on Okay, on Photo shop CS modified...


No, it's not modified.
 05/13/2005 04:37:11 PM · #120
Thank you very much!!!
 05/13/2005 04:59:54 PM · #121
Interesting post. I will have to recheck the version of the Canon raw viewer I am using. Seems to me if you change a setting, close the application and then reopen the application and view the same photograph it will recall the change that was made. That might indicate the exif data was touched. I think I have done that in the past, and was surprised to see that the viewer remembered the changes even though I never elected to save the file or apply the changes.

In the past I would have automatically sided with the SC on this issue. Not so today. There are far too many Exif editors readily available, some that leave no footprints. If it's possible to modify the Exif data and the modification cannot be detected, then imo the reliance on Exif would be overstated.

05/13/2005 05:02:43 PM · #122
Kirbic,

the file IS modified, but the EXIF information in it is NOT modified. This is fair to mention... I think.

How else would it remember the parameters such as WB and others? I believe that the section called Camera Raw is modified and it contains this specific information, but the EXIF portion of the metadata is not touched by Adobe.

You can verify this by previewing the photos in Adobe without opening them first, then open them and click OK, go back to the browser and preview the new RAW file and you'll see what I mean.

DISCLAIMER: I'm at work and I have only elements available here and this is true for the elements. However, I've experienced opening RAW photos at home that I've previously made WB adjustments to, and they appear to "remember" what my adjustments were.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by autool:
...is a RAW file that has been opened, adjusted and you click on Okay, on Photo shop CS modified...


No, it's not modified.

05/13/2005 05:04:42 PM · #123
In my typical workflow, I copy the files from the card to my hard disk using a card-reader and standard drag-and-drop file copy via the operating system (Mac or PC, same thing). I generally leave the files on the card until I've made a backup from the hard drive to CD-R/DVD-R or other media, so there's always two copies of the original file. When I open the file in Photoshop, one of the first things I do is Save As in Photoshop's native format (.PSD), so the original is still there, unaltered.

I've had to upload originals for verification 2-3 times in the last month, and it was never a problem.
 05/13/2005 05:15:16 PM · #124
so i guess all my images should be disqualified
i edit ALL my raw images - and save new settings to the file
(my camera settings are good for quik viewing but not for other things)
I presume that my i can alwasy revert to the original.

i would NOT save two copies, what would be the point i can always see the original ... - occasionally if i'm doing something weird - ia save copies in PScs but rarely

i would guess that there are a number of people who also do this

05/13/2005 05:21:31 PM · #125
Originally posted by ralphnev:
i would NOT save two copies, what would be the point

The point is if you are required to submit the original to DPC, you will have it. You don't have to save two copies of every picture, but you should save the original of any photo you plan to submit here.

Besides, if you back up to read-only media first, you'll have an original. If you don't back up, you may not have anything ...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 03:13:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/14/2025 03:13:30 AM EDT.