| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2007 12:02:10 PM · #26 |
| The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:03:15 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
At that point it would be quicker to photoshop it lol. |
ahhh but before the rule change change, i could have done that in basic editing! :) hell, i could have done it in minimal editing ... plus it's fun to sit outside on a nice nice and take photos of the sky! :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:03:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I'm not sure I agree with this sort of rule. I would like to think that as cameras increase in capability we would move with the technology. |
This isn't even new technology. My automatic film SLR manufactured in 1990, the Minolta Maxxum 8000i had a multiple exposure feature which was fantastic.
 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:06:12 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
its a shame that such rules are made because some people would actually cheat in order to have a little ribbon gif under their photo ...
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:06:45 PM · #30 |
Please put me down for being against this new rule. I accept and understand site counsel's decision but do not agree with it.
:(
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 12:07:25.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:09:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
This isn't even new technology. My automatic film SLR manufactured in 1990, the Minolta Maxxum 8000i had a multiple exposure feature which was fantastic. |
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:09:22 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
Well thats actually nothing todo with Multiple Exposure thats exif tampering. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:10:01 PM · #33 |
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it...
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 12:10:32.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:11:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
Well thats actually nothing todo with Multiple Exposure thats exif tampering. |
Well, if it wasn't apparent from the announcement, there is no way to tell between the two, so both had to go.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 12:12:48. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:11:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it... |
BS check the first page 4 non ME camera users support being able to. I know where u assume this but your wrong. I included have already stated my camera cant (my film camera has bene modified so it can.) And i totaly am against the rule I am for allowing ME. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:13:50 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
Well thats actually nothing todo with Multiple Exposure thats exif tampering. |
Well, if it wasn't apparent from the announcement, there is no way to tell between the two, so both had to go. |
Heh in that case we should ban single exposures too! :-) You cant say we banned it for this if its not even the cause. If it can be done both methods then you need more of a reason. Which i think their is but its hard to calrify.
If theres no difference between exif abuse and multiple exposure abuse then how can u ban one without banning the other.... oh banning the other would kill the site.
Message edited by frisca - fixing quote. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:14:29 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by TooCool:
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it... |
BS check the first page 4 non ME camera users support being able to. I know where u assume this but your wrong. I included have already stated my camera cant (my film camera has bene modified so it can.) And i totaly am against the rule I am for allowing ME. |
You misread my comment. I see this conversation degenrating into...
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:15:23 PM · #38 |
Believe us when we say that we're not thrilled with this. As pointed out, it breaks with the longstanding tradition that "anything done in-camera is legal." We knew this time would come, given the numerous new features that make validation difficult or impossible. We've held off doing this as long as possible, and tried diligently to find ways to avoid it, but unfortunately it is necessary to ensure the fairness that we all value so highly.
At least three of the SC own the Nikon D200, the camera that started the debate, so we really do understand how this will impact the community. We also understand that in-camera compositing is a time-honored photographic technique. Luckily, it's still possible to composite, it just got more difficult.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 12:15:52. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:15:36 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it... |
as you can already see by all the D200 owners protesting! :)
rain - you're precisely right, multiple exposures are not the problem ... but the site council sees that the only way they can prevent exif tampering is to ban multiple exposures.
site council should be more worried about programs that can modify EXIF
and leave multiple exposures out of it ...
Message edited by kirbic - Removed link to EXIF tampering software. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:15:54 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it... |
I hope not.
I don't particularly like the rule, BUT, after a rather lengthy discussion, there simply was no way to get around it. (And my camera doesn't even come close to doing either). I can understand that the D200 owners are frustrated by it, but in my time on SC I found that 1) most people are honest 2)those that aren't will use every chance they can to skirt around the rules. Sadly, the honest majority will have to suffer because of the dishonest minority -- alot like life.
If you have a camera that does this, you can still use it on expert editing challenges, and in real life -- not all shooting has to be done for dpc (at least I hope not). |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:16:57 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by TooCool:
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it... |
BS check the first page 4 non ME camera users support being able to. I know where u assume this but your wrong. I included have already stated my camera cant (my film camera has bene modified so it can.) And i totaly am against the rule I am for allowing ME. |
You misread my comment. I see this conversation degenrating into... |
I know but u assume that because some people cant they dont want others to. While thats usually true i think many of us want to be able to when we get camera's that do. Otherwise if we support the ban and in 2 years 90% of cameras do all of a sudden where hipocrits when we want it back.
I didnt miss crap what im saying is i dont think itll go that way. I think 1 or 2 people will say yeah ban it. But i think those of use who are moving up but cant do it yet do not support this ban. But i think people will be on both sides and i cant speak for anyone but myself and maybe a few of my peers. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:18:00 PM · #42 |
| @super-dave: We all know that there is sotware out there that potentially can be used to tamper with EXIF. We don't however, have to link to it. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:18:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
If theres no difference between exif abuse and multiple exposure abuse then how can u ban one without banning the other.... oh banning the other would kill the site. |
I don't understand what you are saying. Now, they are both "illegal." What is left to kill the site?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:20:59 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
@super-dave: We all know that there is sotware out there that potentially can be used to tamper with EXIF. We don't however, have to link to it. |
well, to be honest, it's much easier to edit your exif directly than do it using multiple exposures in the camera.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:21:32 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
If theres no difference between exif abuse and multiple exposure abuse then how can u ban one without banning the other.... oh banning the other would kill the site. |
I don't understand what you are saying. Now, they are both "illegal." What is left to kill the site? |
What you guys ar esaying is you cant tell the difference between Multiple Exposure tampering nad pasting a picture into another file to get around the date.
If you cant tell the difference between the two that no reason to ban Multiple Exposure. Multiple exposure being legal or not legal still results in people trying to do the same exploit. Thats like making guns illegal but knives not... people still get killed by puncture wounds. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:23:20 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
What you guys ar esaying is you cant tell the difference between Multiple Exposure tampering nad pasting a picture into another file to get around the date. |
that's not at all what we are saying. please don't jump to conclusions like that. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:26:11 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
What you guys ar esaying is you cant tell the difference between Multiple Exposure tampering nad pasting a picture into another file to get around the date. |
that's not at all what we are saying. please don't jump to conclusions like that. |
Thats what this person said
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
According to this one person the potential for abuse being in its ability to use the feature to get around the date rule is why its banned.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 12:26:29. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:28:54 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:30:10 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
EXCELLENT choice, SC! :) |
Originally posted by TooCool:
I see this conversation degenerating into those who's cameras can do this being against the new rule and those that can't being for it... |
This is what TooCool was talking about. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:30:58 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
What you guys ar esaying is you cant tell the difference between Multiple Exposure tampering nad pasting a picture into another file to get around the date. |
that's not at all what we are saying. please don't jump to conclusions like that. |
Thats what this person said
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo. |
According to this one person the potential for abuse being in its ability to use the feature to get around the date rule is why its banned. |
Overlay has always been banned. Multiple exposure is now banned since the exif on a multiple exposure shot is indistinguishable from the exif on an overlay shot. There is nothing in the exif that identifies the image as using one or the other feature (info from a Nikon user). |
|
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: 07/18/2025 07:26:02 AM EDT.
