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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> What's missing from New Year's Resolution?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/16/2004 01:19:23 PM · #1
I just noticed that my shot moved up a spot and the total entries went down one. It seems I should know which one out of the 6 that were ahead of mine is missing, but I can't remember. Does anyone know which shot was taken out or why? I don't think it was one of the top 3.

It's nice to be closer to those elusive ribbons, but not at someone else's expense.

01/16/2004 01:28:33 PM · #2
The third place entry was removed as it was found to have been taken outside the challenge dates. Congrats on your new place!
 01/16/2004 01:36:45 PM · #3
I have contacted the administration concerning the disqualification of my picture. This picture as well as all of my pictures have been taken during the picture date guidelines. When I read the recent rules about sending in EXIF data to check dates, I checked my camera and found that the date in the camera was wrong. I had never known to set it. I contacted Langdon before the contest was over and told him of the problem I told him that if he checked all of my submissions that even if the date was wrong they would coincide with the challenges. In fact I said that if he were going to disqualify this picture then he should disqualify all of my over 100 entries because all of the dates would be wrong. I apologize for this error but it was an HONEST one.
 01/16/2004 01:42:05 PM · #4
Originally posted by lnede:
I have contacted the administration concerning the disqualification of my picture. This picture as well as all of my pictures have been taken during the picture date guidelines. When I read the recent rules about sending in EXIF data to check dates, I checked my camera and found that the date in the camera was wrong. I had never known to set it.


Good luck. I hate to see a DQ for something like this. I'm going to check my camera when I get home.
 01/16/2004 01:47:42 PM · #5
Had Langdon told me at that time that the picture would not be permitted I would have withdrawn before the end of the contest.
 01/16/2004 01:54:27 PM · #6
Originally posted by lnede:
Had Langdon told me at that time that the picture would not be permitted I would have withdrawn before the end of the contest.


This issue is being discussed. I do not know what the outcome of it will be yet but hopefully there will be a decision soon.
 01/16/2004 01:58:08 PM · #7
Lawrence,
Sorry to hear you got DQ'd. It might not have needed to happen, IMO. I've sent a possible verification scenario to the admins.
01/16/2004 02:19:36 PM · #8
Since the date on most cameras resets everytime the batteries are changed, I'm sure a lot of entries throughout the history of the site would have to be disqualified if the basis of determining the photo's date is the EXIF information.
01/16/2004 02:20:52 PM · #9
Originally posted by vonautsch:
Since the date on most cameras resets everytime the batteries are changed, I'm sure a lot of entries throughout the history of the site would have to be disqualified if the basis of determining the photo's date is the EXIF information.


Unfortunately, this is the only method of validating a photo for dates. This is why it is important that everyone keep their camera date and time accurate.
 01/16/2004 02:26:05 PM · #10
That sucks! I have had that happened to me as well. (UN)fortunately I haven't come any where close to winning a challenge so it hasn't been an issue. I do check the date on my camera now c of this. Hope everything works out in your favour!
 01/16/2004 02:28:00 PM · #11
this is to bad. I checked my dates. Thank goodness they are correct.
Hope the admin. can figure something out. It's a great photo.

Originally posted by lnede:
I have contacted the administration concerning the disqualification of my picture. This picture as well as all of my pictures have been taken during the picture date guidelines. When I read the recent rules about sending in EXIF data to check dates, I checked my camera and found that the date in the camera was wrong. I had never known to set it. I contacted Langdon before the contest was over and told him of the problem I told him that if he checked all of my submissions that even if the date was wrong they would coincide with the challenges. In fact I said that if he were going to disqualify this picture then he should disqualify all of my over 100 entries because all of the dates would be wrong. I apologize for this error but it was an HONEST one.

 01/16/2004 03:05:35 PM · #12
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Unfortunately, this is the only method of validating a photo for dates. This is why it is important that everyone keep their camera date and time accurate.


But anyone can change the date with exif editing software, such as AttributeMagic.
 01/16/2004 03:09:35 PM · #13
As always, should you have a better method of verification, the SC would welcome your comments.
 01/16/2004 03:36:18 PM · #14
I guess my suggestion would be going back to common sense such as seen with the Burning Man photo that was disqualified because the event happened before the challenge date. Using the EXIF with a hardline approach can lead to legitimate photos being disqualified (such as we may be seeing now) and others that should be disqualified being allowed simply because their EXIF says so. Or, an explanation as to why the date is not within challenge limits could be asked for by the site council before disqualifying the photo. Because, as may be the case here, you may disqualify a photo only to decide it is actually legit, leading to the reinstating of that photo and stripping the newly awarded 3rd of their ribbon. I'd hate to see an incident like the Russia-U.S. figure skating mishap at the Olympics

Ok, I'm being long-winded now...I'll stop! ;)
 01/16/2004 03:40:12 PM · #15
I feel like the margin of error is going to be a lot smaller with checking exif than when depending on the shot to tell. The number of people who falsely edit their exif or who have wrong camera dates is still relatively small. Think of the hundreds of photos that have no relation to any specific date...I'd say most of them. It is definitely unfortunate when a photo gets wrongly DQed or when illegal ones pass by, but it's just a difficult thing to enforce.
01/16/2004 05:10:13 PM · #16
Originally posted by vonautsch:
Since the date on most cameras resets everytime the batteries are changed, I'm sure a lot of entries throughout the history of the site would have to be disqualified if the basis of determining the photo's date is the EXIF information.

Most cammeras have a separate, internal battery, which will maintain your settings during an ordinary battery change (something like 1-5 minutes). Since we have no other way to check for dates right now, it's important to keep your settings accurate.
 01/16/2004 05:14:24 PM · #17
Originally posted by vonautsch:
I guess my suggestion would be going back to common sense such as seen with the Burning Man photo that was disqualified because the event happened before the challenge date. Using the EXIF with a hardline approach can lead to legitimate photos being disqualified (such as we may be seeing now) and others that should be disqualified being allowed simply because their EXIF says so.

We have also used things such as the weather and the phase of the moon to both DQ and validate entries, but this option is rarely available. Unfortunately, EXIF still seems to be the easiest and most reliable verification method -- although we are certainly open to alternative methods. Fortunately, we can tell when someone has edited the EXIF data ....
 01/16/2004 05:19:59 PM · #18
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by lnede:
Had Langdon told me at that time that the picture would not be permitted I would have withdrawn before the end of the contest.


This issue is being discussed. I do not know what the outcome of it will be yet but hopefully there will be a decision soon.


I thank you for giving this more consideration. For me it is an issue of integrity. I realize I may not have understood the workings of my camera and the need to set the time correctly but that has nothing to do with the quality of the picture, the time and date it was taken and the outcome of the voting. Yes, if one follows the rules as stated, I deserve to be disqualified, but as stated if this is the case, then every one of my pictures should be removed from this web site. That too would be the letter of the law. So is there mercy in this court? Thank you again for listening to my case.
 01/16/2004 05:39:30 PM · #19
One more thing to plead my case. The Owl picture and the "Polar Bear Love" picture were both taken at the Baltimore Zoo on January 3, 2004. I have the validated admissions tickets to the zoo for that day if that would add any credibility to my plea.
 01/16/2004 05:39:45 PM · #20
Originally posted by lnede:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by lnede:
Had Langdon told me at that time that the picture would not be permitted I would have withdrawn before the end of the contest.


This issue is being discussed. I do not know what the outcome of it will be yet but hopefully there will be a decision soon.


I thank you for giving this more consideration. For me it is an issue of integrity. I realize I may not have understood the workings of my camera and the need to set the time correctly but that has nothing to do with the quality of the picture, the time and date it was taken and the outcome of the voting. Yes, if one follows the rules as stated, I deserve to be disqualified, but as stated if this is the case, then every one of my pictures should be removed from this web site. That too would be the letter of the law. So is there mercy in this court? Thank you again for listening to my case.


As much as I would HATE to be removed from the front page (I took a screen shot,m just in case), I hope they find in your favour. Yours is a very good image, and deserves to win if it really was taken in the appropriate time frame.

As I have stated in a previous thread, I do not like the idea of being upgraded to a ribbon amidst contraversy. I'll take it if they deem it to be so, but I really hope the SC find a way to resolve this whole DQ thing.

Is there a way to submit only the EXIF data along with our submission. That way, at least the date could be confirmed prior to the end of the challenge voting period. Just a thought.
 01/16/2004 05:44:00 PM · #21
Thank you Jim, Fritz, David and Mario for your comments.
 01/16/2004 06:14:47 PM · #22
I vote Inede is innocent. :) With all of the explanation of the date problem you had, and if the SC is able to validate that, and the other proof you are willing to provide, I'd be surprised if you are DQ'd for this.

Good Luck!
 01/16/2004 06:26:29 PM · #23
Originally posted by mk:
As always, should you have a better method of verification, the SC would welcome your comments.


If a picture is modified in any way by editing software, there is special EXIF data added to the image that is NEVER included in an image that is straight from the camera, regardless of the camera used to take the picture. So it's fairly easy for the SC to look at these attributes to determine if an image is or isn't straight from the camera.

The date deal isn't as straight forward, but there ARE clues in the EXIF that can indicate false dates, when using AttributeMagic, etc. to minipulate the dates.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/16/2025 04:59:04 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: 10/16/2025 04:59:04 AM EDT.