| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2005 11:13:33 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by mavrik:
if I download with ACDSee, then edit in PS, is my original legal. |
once the file is edited in Photoshop, it is definitely not an original |
If I save it as a new file, the original doesn't change at all.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 11:16:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
If I save it as a new file, the original doesn't change at all. |
If doesn't change at all, then it's legal. |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 11:26:23 PM · #28 |
Ok, so the PS part is - but that was what I already thought. Muck says the ACDSee part MAY be....can we test this?
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 12:45:19 AM · #29 |
I have confirmed this both at work and at home now...
When I look at a batch of photos, those that were taken in landscape mode do not have their EXIF data modified. But the ones that were taken in portrait mode have been auto-rotated by ACDSee and now have an entry in the EXIF data that says "ACD Systems Digital Imaging".
So the question that has been asked is: Does this "auto rotated image" still count as an original even though the EXIF file now has ACD stamped within it?
Background info:
I am using ACDSee 7.0 build 62.
I typically use it to acquire images off my CF cards because with minimal effort it copies them into dated folders and properly names them for me. (and, obviously auto rotates them for me as well)
Now for me personally... this is probably not an issue. I had to actually "hunt down" images that I had shot in jpeg mode. Most of my images are raw images and ACDSee doesn't touch them.
But it would be good to find out the answer now before someone (anyone who may be using ACDSee to copy their images to disk) submits a potentially winning photo to DPChallenge and has it rejected for something totally innocent.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 06:55:47 AM · #30 |
I think the issue is bigger than just ACDSee. This whole discussion leave me feeling like any download software puts the EXIF data at risk. This is especially true for those of us who like to rename the files when we donwload them.
Does someone know of a good free EXIF viewer that we can all use to view the data to be sure our method does not change the data? |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 07:03:54 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
So the question that has been asked is: Does this "auto rotated image" still count as an original even though the EXIF file now has ACD stamped within it? |
Basically, No. There is no way for us to tell if the photo has just simply been rotated, or whether it's been illegally edited to match the submission, therefor in this situation we have no choice but to DQ.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 07:46:02 AM · #32 |
it seems to me that somebody, in this dpc universe, with programming skills, could cobble together a utility that would handle this basic workflow situation:
~ it reads the images from your card into a lightbox
~ it takes a snap-shot of the image for previewing
~ it auto-rotates the snap-shot
~ it allows you to rename the files
~ it allows you to direct where you want them to go
~ it allows you to separate the keepers from the discards
~ you click a process button, and it moves the untouched/unaltered originals to where you want them to go (including cd and/or dvd burners).
the questions are:
1) is there such a tool, and if so, how much does it cost?
2) if there isn't, what would you be willing to pay for it?
3) would you be willing to pay dpc a little more for a pro membership that would give you access to tools like this?
Message edited by author 2005-07-15 07:46:30. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:03:47 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
it seems to me that somebody, in this dpc universe, with programming skills, could cobble together a utility that would handle this basic workflow situation:
~ it reads the images from your card into a lightbox
~ it takes a snap-shot of the image for previewing
~ it auto-rotates the snap-shot
~ it allows you to rename the files
~ it allows you to direct where you want them to go
~ it allows you to separate the keepers from the discards
~ you click a process button, and it moves the untouched/unaltered originals to where you want them to go (including cd and/or dvd burners).
the questions are:
1) is there such a tool, and if so, how much does it cost?
2) if there isn't, what would you be willing to pay for it?
3) would you be willing to pay dpc a little more for a pro membership that would give you access to tools like this? |
I may be wrong but doesn't PS cs do just that, well except for auto rotate? I've noticed that when I rotate in the RAW software that it only stays rotated in there. Any other program it is still wrong. This way you rotate and save as new image only. The original RAW is still intact safe and sound.
I know it is more work, but if my images were good enough to worry about needing the original EXIF data I would move them to a CD, put that one away for safe keeping then download images I need again to maybe a working CD and do a batch for rotate or whatever.
Aain, I haven't been at this for long and am probably off key but seems to make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:49:22 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
Originally posted by skiprow:
it seems to me that somebody, in this dpc universe, with programming skills, could cobble together a utility that would handle this basic workflow situation:
~ it reads the images from your card into a lightbox
~ it takes a snap-shot of the image for previewing
~ it auto-rotates the snap-shot
~ it allows you to rename the files
~ it allows you to direct where you want them to go
~ it allows you to separate the keepers from the discards
~ you click a process button, and it moves the untouched/unaltered originals to where you want them to go (including cd and/or dvd burners).
the questions are:
1) is there such a tool, and if so, how much does it cost?
2) if there isn't, what would you be willing to pay for it?
3) would you be willing to pay dpc a little more for a pro membership that would give you access to tools like this? |
I may be wrong but doesn't PS cs do just that, well except for auto rotate? |
yes, ps cs does all this (and more), including the auto rotate, but not everyone uses ps, let alone ps cs. i am looking for a simple, lightweight solution that would work for just about everyone.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2005 09:19:37 AM · #35 |
I recently purchased acdsee7 (build 102) and joined with my Kodak DX6340 which has an orientation setting that automatically rotates my images before they are downloaded by acdsee. I cannot see any changes to the EXIF being made by acdsee. And if "Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission." They why don't you just turn it on? I am by no means an expert in photography, but am I missing something here by letting the camera rotate my images?
Joe |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 09:32:58 AM · #36 |
I don't have a PC, so you'll have to rely on others to test ACDsee's settings. The bottom line is that any file with the "fingerprints" of editing software on it is not considered an original. The EXIF data will record what application you used, but not how you used it- so even if all you did was autorotate, we'd have no way of knowing that you didn't ALSO use other software features and we'd have to DQ.
Your only choice is to preserve the original files exactly as they came off the media card or look for preference settings or alternate software that leaves the EXIF data intact. Apple's iPhoto, for example, offers autorotation and a host of other editing tools, but it keeps an untouched copy of the original files that you can revert to if needed. Regardless of whether you use ACDsee or other editing software for downloading, if you suspect that a batch of photos includes candidates for DPC entries, it shouldn't be THAT big a deal to back up the files as-is off your media card in case you need them (and probably a wise practice for backup anyway). |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 12:35:54 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by mavrik:
If I save it as a new file, the original doesn't change at all. |
If doesn't change at all, then it's legal. |
if i open a file straight from the camera in photoshop and then save it -- even if NO changes are made -- photoshop edits the exif data. therefore this is NOT an original.
i don't want to speak out of turn, but i think mk meant "if the EXIF doesn't change at all, then it's legal."
i hope that, combined with scalvert's comments, makes sense. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 12:36:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by dcjoes:
They why don't you just turn it on? I am by no means an expert in photography, but am I missing something here by letting the camera rotate my images?
|
if your camera rotates images for you, that's great. mine does too. but not every camera has that option. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 04:58:38 PM · #39 |
my basic workflow is something like this:
copy card to hd
-> open in ps, save as psd
-> use 'save for web' with a slightly different name
this way, in only open originals, but never write back over top of them.
it seems to me that a bunch of people are going to need to revisit their workflows...
Originally posted by dcjoes:
They why don't you just turn it on? |
just because your camera has it turned on doesn't mean the file is rotated. my camera simply sets the 'rotated' flag to true, but leaves the jpg horizontal. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:13:11 PM · #40 |
They can have a good workflow and still have problems. That is what the folks with ACDSee are saying. Seems like everyone needs to look at their workflow and how it interacts with the EXIF data.
Basically the SC is using the EXIF data in a way and for something it was not intended for - and that use is inconsistant with how others are treating the same data. I'm not saying they should not use the data, just that by using it certain problems are created. I don't really see any other alternative than the current rules if someone whats to verify the image meet the editing rules.
With that in mind I went searching and located an EXIF data viewer today and then tried a few options to see what happened to the data under various download situations. I tried it with both a Nikon Coolpix 5400 and a Canon Digital Rebel XT. The results were not always the same. In all cases I just download the images and exited the software - no editing was done other than the automatic renaming of the files. I made no explicit save commands.
The EXIF data had three date fields:
Original date - the date an time the image was taken
Image Date - the date the image was created - this is what is changed with a "save as" command.
Modified Date - this seems to have different meaning and is not treated consistently
There is also a software field - this was always a blank when I worked with the Canon. With the Nikon the entry was always E5400v1.3
For the Canon
Transfer with card reader and treaded as a hard drive - all three dates are the same
Transfer with Adobe - all three dates the same
Transfer with the Canon software - all three dates are the same
Transfer with Microsoft Scanner and Camera Wizard - the modified date was changed
For the Nikon
Transfer with Nikon software - all three date are the same
Transfer with Microsoft Scanner and Camera Wizard - the modified date was changed
The only one that is problem for me is the Microsoft tool. For the Canon it is a clear problem. For the Nikon I'm not so sure. The EXIF data is actually reporting that the file was modified at a later time, but that the software used was in the camera.
The bottom line is that the Microsoft tool is not going to get used. Any other tool that I might use can now be check the same way to make sure it give clean results. |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 08:47:21 PM · #41 |
I use ACDSee for acquiring images from flash cards. I did look at the EXIF info for my originals that ranked in the top 5 and only two of them were shot turning the camera vertically. One of them has EXIF data updated by modifying the Software field with the value: "ACD Systems Digital Imaging".
I am a bit surprised that this has not been noticed by the SC until now. I do think that the auto rotation feature is turned on by default. I have now turned in off.
I think that software such as ACDSee should not modify the EXIF for the rotation operation because it is what the photographer intended to do.
I suggest that the SC should make a request to ACD software and other software makers that do change the EXIF while rotating images to skip modification of the EXIF when rotating images.
I don't think it makes sense to keep a double copy of all photographs shot vertically. Don't we all have enough data to store and backup as is? |
|
|
|
07/15/2005 11:16:20 PM · #42 |
what version of ACDSee are you using.
it's interesting that it's modifying your EXIF data with the auto-rotation on but it did not do the same for mine.
i wonder if it's because my cam does the auto-rotation itself. therefore, it's possible that my ACDSee is never actually "touching" the file. i will have to test it with that turned off and report back. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 12:33:16 AM · #43 |
you know i was gonna say something this morning but i refrained. I cant make suggestions, and I cant put forth answers because I dont have any.
Contrary, I would just like to say that my heart is breaking in two, because DP is saying my photo is not original, and it is, and it is obvious. I didn't do anything to that photo, nothing at all. I just transferred from camera to P.C. using all the typical means of doing so, and ACDsee left some kind of mark.
Thats it. So everybody that reads this thread please take into consideration, and take the necessary steps to preserve your originals. In my case, it took about 20 challenges, and the best photo I have ever entered to find that out ( yeah the hard way ), so good luck, and happy photo clicking <-lol. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 08:11:50 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by sacredspirit:
you know i was gonna say something this morning but i refrained. I cant make suggestions, and I cant put forth answers because I dont have any.
Contrary, I would just like to say that my heart is breaking in two, because DP is saying my photo is not original, and it is, and it is obvious. I didn't do anything to that photo, nothing at all. I just transferred from camera to P.C. using all the typical means of doing so, and ACDsee left some kind of mark.
Thats it. So everybody that reads this thread please take into consideration, and take the necessary steps to preserve your originals. In my case, it took about 20 challenges, and the best photo I have ever entered to find that out ( yeah the hard way ), so good luck, and happy photo clicking <-lol. |
I have sympathy for you finding out the hard way sacredspirit but I must beg to differ with your assertion that using ACDsee to acquire images is a "typical means". People shouldn't expect programs like that, or PS, that to handle (to acquire, or auto-rotate, or rename) their image files without leaving "fingerprints". A part of the purpose for having EXIF data is to be able to track what has happened to the file. A file that has been manipulated in any way is no longer an original file, but that does not necessarily mean that you edited the image.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 08:36:27 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
what version of ACDSee are you using.
it's interesting that it's modifying your EXIF data with the auto-rotation on but it did not do the same for mine.
i wonder if it's because my cam does the auto-rotation itself. therefore, it's possible that my ACDSee is never actually "touching" the file. i will have to test it with that turned off and report back. |
I am using Version 7.0 (Build 102) |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 08:58:59 AM · #46 |
My Test:
ACDSee 7.0(build 102)
Kodak DX6340
Camera Orientation Sensor set to NO
AcdSee Auto Rotate check box checked on download
Results: images not rotated and the EXIF appears unchanged
what if? I now rotate the image - Software entry is added to EXIF
Camera Orientation Sensor set to NO
AcdSee Auto Rotate check box NOT checked on download
Results: images not rotated and the EXIF appears unchanged
what if? I now rotate the image - Software entry is added to EXIF
Camera Orientation Sensor set to YES
AcdSee Auto Rotate check box checked on download
Results: images rotated (in camera) and the EXIF appears unchanged
Camera Orientation Sensor set to YES
AcdSee Auto Rotate check box NOT checked on download
Results: images rotated (in camera) and the EXIF appears unchanged |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 09:08:09 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I must beg to differ with your assertion that using ACDsee to acquire images is a "typical means". People shouldn't expect programs like that, or PS, that to handle (to acquire, or auto-rotate, or rename) their image files without leaving "fingerprints". |
Then if you use the camera and scanner wizard, does the exif say Software: Microsoft Windows XP? No? Are you SURE?
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 09:53:20 AM · #48 |
I would of never paid attention to rotating my images. Its possible, or hell I would even say likely, with this guys ^test^. You know it just wouldn't of occured to me that rotating was altering the original. In hindsight it makes complete sense.
Owe and Dcjoes, ty, that was awesome of you to do that, and very helpful.
Message edited by author 2005-07-16 09:55:45. |
|
|
|
07/16/2005 10:17:12 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by dcjoes:
My Test:
ACDSee 7.0(build 102)
Kodak DX6340
[...]
Camera Orientation Sensor set to YES
AcdSee Auto Rotate check box checked on download
Results: images rotated (in camera) and the EXIF appears unchanged
|
The diference here appears to be the camera.
As you mentioned, your image is probably rotated in camera and so ACDSee is not having to do the rotation for you. It simply copies the file.
It appears that Canons (at least 300D and 20D has been reported in this thread) do NOT perform the rotation in camera. All they do is set a flag that indicates the image needs to be rotated. Then when ACDSee copies the image, it rotates the image. Having done the deed, it leaves its mark by stamping the EXIF with its name in the Software field.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2005 10:38:38 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by sacredspirit:
I would just like to say that my heart is breaking in two, because DP is saying my photo is not original, and it is, and it is obvious. I didn't do anything to that photo, nothing at all. I just transferred from camera to P.C. using all the typical means of doing so, and ACDsee left some kind of mark. |
Given that ACDsee is the software supplied with your camera and is the manufacturer's "supported" method of transferring images from the camera to your PC, I think the situation is pretty crappy. Based on what I've read (not having access to the original file itself), if I was still on the SC, I'd personally be voting "No DQ".
Imagine if Canon's in-box software tagged each downloaded image with "Canon Digital Photo Pro 1.0" in the EXIF Software field (which the EXIF standard specifically says can be modified by any software that handles the image). Would DPC enforce a requirement that you must purchase more hardware (a card reader), change your workflow and only transfer images by "copying files"?
|
|
