| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2005 05:25:48 PM · #126 |
| A stupid question, when one is asked to provide proof, he/she must email the original raw file? what happens when the raw file weighs 16MB ? |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 05:27:29 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
what happens when the raw file weighs 16MB ? |
Grab a cup of coffee... it's going to take a while.
[as Artan noted, it's an upload process just like submitting entries, not email.]
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 17:30:13. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 05:28:27 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
A stupid question, when one is asked to provide proof, he/she must email the original raw file? what happens when the raw file weighs 16MB ? |
You do not have to email
you are sent a link to a page where you can upload the file straight from your PC |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 05:44:21 PM · #129 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 17:46:38.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 05:44:48 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by autool:
[quote=Gil P] A stupid question, when one is asked to provide proof, he/she must email the original raw file? what happens when the raw file weighs 16MB ? |
Funny..... I was always told there was no such thing as a stupid question. I have learned however that a stupid reply slips in now and then.
The only way the SC could actually view the original file would be to view it on the camera. All files sent to them just simply have to be copies of the original at best. Some of us just want the people that are making decisions on our file validity to clear up what we can send, if we are lucky enough to need to.
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 17:45:35.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 05:53:48 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by autool:
The only way the SC could actually view the original file would be to view it on the camera. All files sent to them just simply have to be copies of the original at best. Some of us just want the people that are making decisions on our file validity to clear up what we can send, if we are lucky enough to need to. |
When you send us your camera, make sure to get enough insurance, and include a return shipping label and extra batteries.
Or, you can upload an unaltered, unmodified, exact bit-for-bit duplicate of your original file via the handy link ...
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 17:54:36. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:06:44 PM · #132 |
Are we allowed to know what the Site council views EXIF in? EXIF is not standard (for example, Breezebrowser shows a lot of fields that Bibble and other programs don't somehow show). I'd be curious to see what my EXIF's from my two cameras look like to the site council.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:23:36 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by bod:
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 :( |
I know about the sidecar/ camera raw database thing but understand from recent conversations that changes are also made to the image file itself... but I'm assuming that if this is the case, the changes are only to the metadata and nothing more?
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:28:09 PM · #134 |
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. |
Grandmarginal, now you're starting to get rude. You DO realise, I hope, that SC do what they do on a volunteer, unpaid basis and that they deserve our sincere gratitude for all the time they do invest rather than a dig that they don't put in even more, since without it the site as we know it would cease to function at all.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:32:29 PM · #135 |
| I only wish to second Kavey's sentiment that the SC do an INCREDIBLE amount of work and handle themselves at all times with class. And that isn't easy nor does it get you a lot of applause. Kind of like being a mom! lol |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:40:04 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
I only wish to second Kavey's sentiment that the SC do an INCREDIBLE amount of work and handle themselves at all times with class. And that isn't easy nor does it get you a lot of applause. Kind of like being a mom! lol |
They do get to have personalised Avitars though..... |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:43:16 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Artan:
Originally posted by Kylie:
I only wish to second Kavey's sentiment that the SC do an INCREDIBLE amount of work and handle themselves at all times with class. And that isn't easy nor does it get you a lot of applause. Kind of like being a mom! lol |
They do get to have personalised Avitars though..... |
Hey I got me one of those (my cybernephew makes 'em) but I have to shove mine into my sig instead!
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:43:30 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Artan:
Originally posted by Kylie:
I only wish to second Kavey's sentiment that the SC do an INCREDIBLE amount of work and handle themselves at all times with class. And that isn't easy nor does it get you a lot of applause. Kind of like being a mom! lol |
They do get to have personalised Avitars though..... |
That's right . . . . I need to re-think my position on this one. OK, I am officially jealous!!!! LOL |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:46:22 PM · #139 |
Totally Hijacking this thread for a few moments...
Perhaps we could have a dphallange.... My own Avitar..... |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:50:53 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Artan:
Totally Hijacking this thread for a few moments...
Perhaps we could have a dphallange.... My own Avitar..... |
We need a good highjack every now and then for the spirit! Now, who would like to design one for me??? I love U2, have rats for pets, am an old ex-hippie . . . . somebody should be able to do wonders with that!! LOL |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:53:30 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
Originally posted by Artan:
Totally Hijacking this thread for a few moments...
Perhaps we could have a dphallange.... My own Avitar..... |
We need a good highjack every now and then for the spirit! Now, who would like to design one for me??? I love U2, have rats for pets, am an old ex-hippie . . . . somebody should be able to do wonders with that!! LOL |
I requested yellow top (joint favourite colour), purple hat (other joint favourite colour and also something I own a lot of), long dark hair, brown skin and big tits... I think you'll agree my cyberneph delivered pretty well given the teeny size of the avatar!
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:56:04 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Kylie:
Originally posted by Artan:
Totally Hijacking this thread for a few moments...
Perhaps we could have a dphallange.... My own Avitar..... |
We need a good highjack every now and then for the spirit! Now, who would like to design one for me??? I love U2, have rats for pets, am an old ex-hippie . . . . somebody should be able to do wonders with that!! LOL |
I requested yellow top (joint favourite colour), purple hat (other joint favourite colour and also something I own a lot of), long dark hair, brown skin and big tits... I think you'll agree my cyberneph delivered pretty well given the teeny size of the avatar! |
Yes, Yellow and Purple!!! I knew I liked you! Can he make me 20 and sexy for mine? lol
Edit for screw-up
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 18:56:46. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 06:59:45 PM · #143 |
Goshdarnit, hijacking is a guilty pleasure, isn't it? ;o)
Purple and yellow rocked. When I was a kid, purple in particular was a totally UNCOOL colour but now it's much more in favour...
And now we return to your scheduled broadcast:
... two raw or not to raw? that is the question ...
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 19:24:37.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:33:17 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ... |
my work flow:
i view the pictures / rotate ones necessary / edit 80% / toss 20%--
once or twice a month i burn dvd's of the original files - which all have been touched /
and certainly anything that i will be submitting will have been touched
and potentially modified THOUGH the original can always be reverted to
now i have never looked for a EXIF editor but "it ain't rocket science "
to modfiy several fields in a EXIF using a bin/hex editor.
the way i see this is - the process is flawed - if you don't have the correct tools to check the files -
or you can change the name of the site to dpJPGchallenge & not take raw files & loose many supporters
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:37:39 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by mk:
We like to consider "jamming things where they don't belong" being fair across the board. We've had several instances where members have provided outside proof to demonstrate that their shot was legal but the bottom line is that we ask for the same thing from every person - unaltered, original EXIF information in the photo that was submitted. That way, it doesn't become a contest for who can argue the best (ask lawyer Mavrik) or who can send us the most material to sift through. It's just a cut and dry rule that we use to make things fair. |
Since you brought it up, I'll reply. Yes, I submitted outside proof that my shot was legal. No, it didn't help. No, no amount of arguing will convince SC of what they see as the "rule."
Now, I'll reply in the way I would like to - I am clearly no longer "upset" about a DQ that happened what, a year ago? However, that being said - arbitrarily deciding that something is a certain way in the face of proof to the contrary is willful blindness. Is the rule the same for everyone - yes. Is that a "fair" application of the rule? That depends on your version of fair. I do NOT think fair means an arbitrary rule that never moves.
Does SC "jam things where they don't belong" - HELL yes. Is it stupid? Hell yes. Just ask lawyer Mavrik.
M
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:39:06 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
I love U2, have rats for pets, am an old ex-hippie . . . |
Well we Love You2.
 |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:43:04 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
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. |
Grandmarginal, now you're starting to get rude. You DO realise, I hope, that SC do what they do on a volunteer, unpaid basis and that they deserve our sincere gratitude for all the time they do invest rather than a dig that they don't put in even more, since without it the site as we know it would cease to function at all. |
I'm sorry if I sound like an asshole. I get that way when I have to debate over stupid things. Here's what I meant.
MK stated herself that SC have responsibilities. With responsibilities, comes priorities. What's more important? Debating this by posting comments after comments or looking into the issue of whether of not my picture is legal or not, all the have to do, is look at the NEF file's EXIF that shows when the picture was taken and then look at the original picture contained in the file. So far, none of them seem to be willing.
By doing so, the SC could validate my picture. But instead of making sure that a winning picture is legit... They will spend some time posting back and forth.
I'm very sorry, I know that the SCs are doing this voluntarely, but the fact is, volunteers aren't necessarely the most qualified people to do their jobs right (general observation, no one in particular).
It sounds harsh, I know, but that's how I feel.
-Simon |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:46:42 PM · #148 |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:48:39 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
my work flow:
i view the pictures / rotate ones necessary / edit 80% / toss 20%--
once or twice a month i burn dvd's of the original files - which all have been touched /
and certainly anything that i will be submitting will have been touched
and potentially modified THOUGH the original can always be reverted to
now i have never looked for a EXIF editor but "it ain't rocket science "
to modfiy several fields in a EXIF using a bin/hex editor.
the way i see this is - the process is flawed - if you don't have the correct tools to check the files -
or you can change the name of the site to dpJPGchallenge & not take raw files & loose many supporters |
I'll change my name to RAW Martyr. I've died for all your sins! LOL (see, I still have a bit of humor left.) |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:49:09 PM · #150 |
Simon,
You're implying that the SC has not looked at your picture. That is simply not true.
You need to submit valid proof for the picture that you entered to the challenge.
|
|
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 08:45:14 AM EDT.
