| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2008 04:09:04 PM · #26 |
not to mention the act of looking at the picture downloads the image to your computer ...
edit : thats how the internet works ...
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:10:00. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:09:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Wow, Jan.....a lot of time on your hands...or, working for SC as an undercover agent? ;)
Just out of curiosity....in a site that has VIRTUAL RIBBONS, what on earth would make you take this all so seriously that you'd actually take this kind of time to do something like this??? Have you got it out for someone and want to catch them at it?! Or, are you sour graping your own scores? What gives? This had to have taken a bit of time to do. And, I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data???
Personally, I think that since you are NOT part of SC, you have NO right to be downloading ANYONE but your own photos onto your computer to run it through this type of thing! I can tell you one thing, I do NOT want my photos downloaded to your computer! They are MINE and you have no right to them. |
Wow... attack the messenger why doncha? |
My apologies....just corrected that! Thank you! |
I think you're getting confused. The OP of the EXIF was, in fact, Thingfish... Jdub's reference to 10X was referring back to the original post in this thread, which repeated the same statement, in bold, over and over again. She was being "funny"...
R. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:10:29 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
ETA - Robert beat me to it...and he has firsthand knowledge of how it works. Hooray! :-) |
Yup. In fact, I easily located the image in question using that utility...
R. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:11:01 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
This had to have taken a bit of time to do. And, I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data??? |
Not at all, actually. A lot of us have a dandy little plugin for Firefox that allows you to right-click any image and read its exif data, assuming there IS exif data appended to it (in DPC challenges easily half the images have been stripped of exif so as not to waste bytes in compression). It's real handy when you want to see the tech details of a shot.
R. |
Well, assuming that everyone does have this, then there is no problem. I, personally, don't have it...perhaps, I should get it but, in all honesty, I don't have either the time nor, the want to do that to every photo. There are cheaters in here, yes...but, it is more insidious. ;) |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:15:40 PM · #30 |
I once reported an image after voting ended because it was a basic editing challenge and the user's comments listed a bunch of things not allowed in basic, however SC didn't seem to do anything about it as the image was never disqualified, even though I'm pretty sure it still could have been since it was right after voting ended. So I guess sometimes they take reports into account, sometimes they ignore them. I didn't bother trying to report again.
Edit: My mistake, it was DQd, it just took a while. Sorry!
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 17:44:36.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:17:30 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Wow, Jan.....a lot of time on your hands...or, working for SC as an undercover agent? ;)
Just out of curiosity....in a site that has VIRTUAL RIBBONS, what on earth would make you take this all so seriously that you'd actually take this kind of time to do something like this??? Have you got it out for someone and want to catch them at it?! Or, are you sour graping your own scores? What gives? This had to have taken a bit of time to do. And, I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data???
Personally, I think that since you are NOT part of SC, you have NO right to be downloading ANYONE but your own photos onto your computer to run it through this type of thing! I can tell you one thing, I do NOT want my photos downloaded to your computer! They are MINE and you have no right to them. |
Wow... attack the messenger why doncha? |
My apologies....just corrected that! Thank you! |
I think you're getting confused. The OP of the EXIF was, in fact, Thingfish... Jdub's reference to 10X was referring back to the original post in this thread, which repeated the same statement, in bold, over and over again. She was being "funny"...
R. |
You are right Bear....just re-corrected it LOL! My head is spinning now! ;) |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:19:36 PM · #32 |
If there is exif data being illegally changed to suit the photo for a challenge, then I say we need to bring this type of fraud to the front line and hand out the same punishment as dual membership.
A true believer of photography and its photo representation to the world has no right being altered to suit an Alta Ego.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:20:02 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Well, assuming that everyone does have this, then there is no problem. I, personally, don't have it...perhaps, I should get it but, in all honesty, I don't have either the time nor, the want to do that to every photo. There are cheaters in here, yes...but, it is more insidious. ;) |
Hey, I have never used my exif viewer to check out the legality of challenge entries, myself. At least not until today, when I was curious if I could find the image and see it for myself; which, as it happens, I was able to do. What I use it for, when I use it at all, is as stated before; to see if I can glean technical information like f/stop, shutter speed, time of day shot, out of my own curiosity.
R. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:21:17 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Well I'll tell you that in the "Poverty" challenge I happened to check the exif data on some of the entries that I gave top marks to and one of them I reported for having been shot outside of the challenge dates. ( 2 years out in fact) I included a copy of the exif data in my report.......
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created: 2008:10:18 10:49:02 |
Huh? How is that 2 years out of date?
R. |
image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Image Generated 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Anyway I believe I am not allowed to discuss this here as the photo is still being checked out but I will say that I do have irrefutable proof that the photo in question was taken in 2006 through magazine articles and online records. I cannot and will not divulge anything more at this stage. |
WOW.
I guess ACORN is registering users on this site too! :) |
Why dear friend do you need a photography forum and a thread like this to take your political frustrations out? Why dont you spend this time campaigning outside where it might actually help your motives? Everyone is just getting sick of people taking their reservations and stirring things out here on DPC!!
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:23:27 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
WOW.
I guess ACORN is registering users on this site too! :) |
Why dear friend do you need a photography forum and a thread like this to take your political frustrations out? Why dont you spend this time campaigning outside where it might actually help your motives? Everyone is just getting sick of people taking their reservations and stirring things out here on DPC!! |
Chill dude. It was a funny comment relevant to the issue here and utilizing current events.
Calm down. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:27:11 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
WOW.
I guess ACORN is registering users on this site too! :) |
Why dear friend do you need a photography forum and a thread like this to take your political frustrations out? Why dont you spend this time campaigning outside where it might actually help your motives? Everyone is just getting sick of people taking their reservations and stirring things out here on DPC!! |
Chill dude. It was a funny comment relevant to the issue here and utilizing current events.
Calm down. |
No it was NOT a funny comment. I have seen how and what you post on the DPC forums. It is not gaining you any respect OR any political following writing comments like this. I am serious. Your blog may be a better place for such outlets.. or do you post here because DPC has more viewership?
Some people just like to stir things up if they cannot change things. You seem to be one of them.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:28:21 PM · #37 |
OK look ..I want to get this straight. In that challenge "Poverty" I did not have an entry myself. I was busy voting on the entries I liked and I was checking the exif data of some shots like I always do to get details of the shutter speed, ISO speed, aperture and stuff like that. I do that often if I come across a shot I like so that I can learn a bit on how to achieve effects I like and to maybe use that info for some of my own shots in the future. Anyway so I noticed this particular shot had a date that went back to 2006 and as the rules state that it has to be taken in the week of the challenge I decided to use the fascility that DPchallenge has to report that oddity.
Then when I saw the results and the photo in question was in those results I asked myself if there was a mistake with the data in the exif and that therefore the photo was not DQ'd
I then noticed the thread started here (This thread} about DPchallenge disqualifications and decided to bring this up. I dont know if this option that members have to report an entry which is suspected of not conforming to the rules is generally ignored or if it's frowned upon if a member reports such a case.
I have not named the actual photo and that is not my job anyway. I merely pointed out here that there is such an entry and it does not conform to my knowledge. I reported it to the admin as I feel that a famous renowned photographer ( for that is what he is) known for his integrity should have to cheat with his entry in this challenge.
I do have 100% proof that the shot was taken in 2006 and have that proof in the form of the actual photo appearing on a webpage of the photographer with the date it was taken on underneath it.
It's not a matter of being spiteful at all. I dont know the guy personally and I did not have an entry in the challenge myself. It's more a case of justice and ethics. Why should someones entry not be disqualified if they cheat on the rules?
Regards
Jan
Ps. And no..I am not affiliated to Acorn or to the SC or any other agencies. I dont live in the USA. Look at my profile.
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 17:04:07.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:38:44 PM · #38 |
| Reporting it was the correct thing to do. After that, sitting back and waiting for the DQ is the correct thing to do. It can take time. Have no fear, if the entry is illegal, it will be DQed. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:43:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Reporting it was the correct thing to do. After that, sitting back and waiting for the DQ is the correct thing to do. It can take time. Have no fear, if the entry is illegal, it will be DQed. |
Thanks for the support Nathan. Looks like some people here want to lynch me for having reported it.
I think there's many people who look at a photo's exif data. That's not illegal and very simple. I just have to drag the photo of the webpage with my mouse with a click and drag action and drop it into my exif viewer. Voila... And then I trash the photo into the trashbin and clear the trashbin...gone. So what's illegal. What is illegal is downloading copyrighted music.
Regards
Jan
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:46:13 PM · #40 |
I tried that exif viewer once and everything I tried it on had the exif stripped. It is sometimes useful to see details. I will often look at the file size of an entry that seems unclear or pixelated to determine if excessive compression is what killed the detail. I'll also sometimes copy and paste the image into PSP for some quick adjustments in order to offer accurate suggestions on what might help.
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:46:45. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:50:48 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Prash:
No it was NOT a funny comment. I have seen how and what you post on the DPC forums. It is not gaining you any respect OR any political following writing comments like this. I am serious. Your blog may be a better place for such outlets.. or do you post here because DPC has more viewership?
Some people just like to stir things up if they cannot change things. You seem to be one of them. |
You seem to have no sense of humor. Oh well. It was my thread anyway that got hijacked by the other comments. So there. Jeepers. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:09:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Reporting it was the correct thing to do. After that, sitting back and waiting for the DQ is the correct thing to do. It can take time. Have no fear, if the entry is illegal, it will be DQed. |
Thanks for the support Nathan. Looks like some people here want to lynch me for having reported it.
I think there's many people who look at a photo's exif data. That's not illegal and very simple. I just have to drag the photo of the webpage with my mouse with a click and drag action and drop it into my exif viewer. Voila... And then I trash the photo into the trashbin and clear the trashbin...gone. So what's illegal. What is illegal is downloading copyrighted music.
Regards
Jan |
Ok, seeing this information, it really puts things into better perspective now. I totally agree with you that since you have discovered this information, it SHOULD have been reported and SC SHOULD DQ this entry if that is the case. Hopefully, they are looking into it fully and will take appropriate action. THIS, I totally agree with.
And, I thank you for explaining it in full as the original post sounded as though you were sitting there, going through photos, looking to catch people cheating LOL!
I also must apologize because, being a tech moron, I wasn't aware of the fact that there were other ways that to extract efix data without having to download the photo to run it through that software. Personally, I never think of looking at that type of thing during voting and hadn't heard of anyone else doing it either. I look at it after voting is over and the info is posted IF I really like a shot and want to know more details. So, please excuse my bluntness but, that was my thinking at that moment.
Again, having heard this, I sincerely hope that this is being looked into very carefully by SC right now! You were right to report it since you had discovered it! Big shot, well known, renowned or not...cheating is cheating. There's lots of celebrities who fill justice systems because they thought they were above the laws! :)
Best Wishes,
Jamie |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:12:02 PM · #43 |
Thingfish, I had a similiar situation. I saw a shot I recognised from elsewhere, and reported it. I too thought it was being ignored, as the photo stayed in place for at least 2 weeks (from memory). Watching people comment on how good the shot was and congratulating the photographer was infuriating to say the least! In the end it was moved to the disqualified section, and the photographer either got kicked or quit the site (he is no longer a user).
I think you need to understand, accusing someone of cheating is quite serious, so the SC are doing their best to ensure that things are done with everyones best interest in mind. They will at the very least need to wait for a response from the photographer in question.
I really don't understand the need to cheat on this site - if you can't enter a competition because you never got a chance to go and shoot for it, then wait till next week. If you aren't happy with the shot you took, then wait till next week. This place is for fun and teaches us different tricks and techniques. My shots don't do so well, but I have seen a marked improvement from when I first joined this site.
Now, if I could wear those ribbons in my hair it would be a different story!
HawkeyeLonewolf - you have officially lost control of your thread!
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 17:15:22. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:15:42 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Well, assuming that everyone does have this, then there is no problem. I, personally, don't have it...perhaps, I should get it but, in all honesty, I don't have either the time nor, the want to do that to every photo. There are cheaters in here, yes...but, it is more insidious. ;) |
Hey, I have never used my exif viewer to check out the legality of challenge entries, myself. At least not until today, when I was curious if I could find the image and see it for myself; which, as it happens, I was able to do. What I use it for, when I use it at all, is as stated before; to see if I can glean technical information like f/stop, shutter speed, time of day shot, out of my own curiosity.
R. |
Robert, I wasn't implying that you were using it all of the time. I was really simply trying to say that since that type of ability exists then, it's not doing any harm because it doesn't mean that someone is downloading our shots. In haste, I was trying to say that I was not aware of such an ability or that something like Firefox allowed that ability and frankly, even if I had it, I likely wouldn't have the time to use it nor, care to use it. And, in being brief (I had a work call...I was at work at the time), I added the idea that there are other forms of cheating as well that go on in here that can't be detected by this type of program/ability. Again, this was in no way aimed at you at all! :) My apologies if it seemed that way.
~J~ |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:29:43 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by BrianR:
If there is exif data being illegally changed to suit the photo for a challenge, then I say we need to bring this type of fraud to the front line and hand out the same punishment as dual membership.
|
That has been done on here. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:34:00 PM · #46 |
And added to add, that I once got a DQ a whole month after the challenge was over. SC do take the time to look things over, nothing is automatic and it has to be agreed by from pretty much all of them.
Give them a chance, they all have other lives apart from this virtual one. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:16:09 PM · #47 |
This thread has more rant than 'rant'.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:19:00 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by JH:
This thread has more rant than 'rant'. |
Perhaps thats what the OP intended? ;-0)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 11:25:43 AM · #49 |
So... is this really a 5.0 image (seriously) or do you think I was graded down because people felt it was illegal?
These days I really don't know anymore. :)
Got a couple of comments questioning it's legality. I uploaded the original right after entering it, because I knew it would be challenged. But no challenge was ever filed and no "validation" ever performed during the voting process.
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 11:30:08 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
So... is this really a 5.0 image (seriously) or do you think I was graded down because people felt it was illegal?
These days I really don't know anymore. :)
Got a couple of comments questioning it's legality. I uploaded the original right after entering it, because I knew it would be challenged. But no challenge was ever filed and no "validation" ever performed during the voting process.
Thoughts? |
Honestly, I'd have given it a 4 or 5 (depending on my mood that day). It's creative, but there's not much more to it. The colors, even though complementary, are still fighting with each other, the composition isn't entirely pleasing, and it looks a lot more like some kind of clip-art power-point presentation piece than a photograph.
So is it a 5.0 image? In my opinion, yes. |
|
