pissed of - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

02/13/2011 02:43:24 PM · #26

why would you expose his entry like that??

Gordon_1

Nikon D800

02/13/2011 02:44:18 PM · #27

Originally posted by cutout:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cutout:
i think i send them 3x the original file

I just took a look, and neither of the two files I see listed is an "original straight from the camera," but each has clearly been modified by other software, changing the name at least, if not actually affecting any pixels. Following is the pertinent EXIF data from the second file you uploaded, after being informed that the first was not a valid original, with the parts most clearly problematic highlighted:
================================================================
Original filename: [DELETED].jpg

Modify Date: 2011:02:11 20:23:17
Create Date: 2011:02:11 20:20:31+02:00
Date/Time Original:
Camera Model Name:
Aperture:
ISO:
Shutter Speed:
Lens:
Focal Length:
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Byline:
Creator Tool: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
======================================================

3x afterwoods i send you proof straight from camera
so dont twist the truth will you
not NICE

how do u check an image that hasnt been opened up with another software?

Message edited by Manic - removing reference to image in voting.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2011 02:44:58 PM · #28

Originally posted by skewsme:

why would you expose his entry like that??

you right

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/13/2011 02:49:59 PM · #29

Originally posted by skewsme:

why would you expose his entry like that??

How else do you suggest I demonstrate why what the SC sees is not a valid original? SC members are being accused of DQing a valid entry -- from what I can see on the validation page, that's not so. I guess I'm tired of SC members being accused, essentially, of cheating by DQing images inappropriately, and then being called-out for it in the forums ... why does the OP get a pass on posting accusations of either dishonesty or incompetence on the part of SC members rather than resolving the matter in private through the ticket system?

02/13/2011 02:54:11 PM · #30

what is the TICKET system?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2011 02:55:10 PM · #31

Originally posted by cutout:

what is the TICKET system?

Help>Contact Us

You've been here how long?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/13/2011 02:56:08 PM · #32

Help > Contact Us > DPC General Inquiry

02/13/2011 02:57:17 PM · #33

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by cutout:
what is the TICKET system?

Help>Contact Us

You've been here how long?

yeah
i did that 3x
with no reply

its hard to get through bone

Message edited by author 2011-02-13 15:00:29.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/13/2011 03:04:14 PM · #34

maybe the SC should move en bloc to FLICKER?

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

02/13/2011 03:06:06 PM · #35

I may have missed it but here is one thing. Did you transfer it with Nikon transfer? Because thats a bad choice. Nikon transfer always modify's the modify date.

- Never use Nikon transfer and avoid all transfer software if possible
- Dont change anything related to the picture in the camera (IE, With dSLR's anyways u can change the output settings like vidid, etc sometimes this will change the modify date even though it does NOT change file data).
- If the camera supports it just goto dpc, do the upload directly from the camera
- Do check the modified date yourself (Not the windows one as that many times will not be accurate, check the nikon one in exif with ViewNX).

- ViewNX is safe as long as you change nothing.

I personally keep a folder by date of capture of all untouched originals, then a second folder of originals sorted further by event that i might adjust white balance or whatever on.

EDIT - What does flicker have todo with anything? I dont think photo hosting is a good idea for making a submission of proof, especially since people who can and do shot in raw wouldnt use it. Alot of photographers here ise Flickr and alot of people link to it for other reasons why would we ever block it?

Message edited by author 2011-02-13 15:08:16.

02/13/2011 03:06:46 PM · #36

Originally posted by cutout:

yeah
i did that 3x
with no reply

its hard to get through bone

Now see, that's really uncalled-for. Have you considered that there might be an issue on your end with receiving replies? A lot of folks assume they are not getting a reply, when in fact it's their ISP, their e-mail settings... you get the picture.
Being combative and accusatory will not usually get you what you want, and it does not relfect well on you either.

02/13/2011 03:08:15 PM · #37

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by skewsme:
why would you expose his entry like that??

How else do you suggest I demonstrate why what the SC sees is not a valid original? SC members are being accused of DQing a valid entry -- from what I can see on the validation page, that's not so. I guess I'm tired of SC members being accused, essentially, of cheating by DQing images inappropriately, and then being called-out for it in the forums ... why does the OP get a pass on posting accusations of either dishonesty or incompetence on the part of SC members rather than resolving the matter in private through the ticket system?

this is no witchhunt, we were just trying to understand what happened. you could have simply explained, or masked the filename.

as long as the policy is 'dq first, ask questions later' - sc will have angry people calling them out. why rush to dq when it's so problematic and embarrassing to reinstate? what's gained?

cutout gets validated all the time and his original exif usually passes. you don't do blinded validations. why not ask?

02/13/2011 03:10:17 PM · #38

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by cutout:

yeah
i did that 3x
with no reply

its hard to get through bone

Now see, that's really uncalled-for. Have you considered that there might be an issue on your end with receiving replies? A lot of folks assume they are not getting a reply, when in fact it's their ISP, their e-mail settings... you get the picture.
Being combative and accusatory will not usually get you what you want, and it does not relfect well on you either.

not on the SC either
but i think its over and done with
until the next time i get DQed for the same reason

Message edited by author 2011-02-13 15:13:00.

02/13/2011 03:12:22 PM · #39

Originally posted by skewsme:

What was "revealed" other than the information that the EXIF on the "original" had been stamped by CS2? And "DQ first, ask questions later??" Seriously, you have *no* clue about what was and was not communicated between the SC and the OP. You are making rash assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

ETA: I can *guarantee* that before *any* image is DQ'd, the SC goes the extra mile to try to communicate with the user and get the problem ironed out. That is in fact part of the reason that DQs can take as long as they do.

Message edited by author 2011-02-13 15:14:25.

02/13/2011 03:15:30 PM · #40

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by skewsme:
this is no witchhunt, we were just trying to understand what happened. you could have simply explained, or masked the filename.

as long as the policy is 'dq first, ask questions later' - sc will have angry people calling them out. why rush to dq when it's so problematic and embarrassing to reinstate? what's gained?

cutout gets validated all the time and his original exif usually passes. you don't do blinded validations. why not ask?

What was "revealed" other than the information that the EXIF on the "original" had been stamped by CS2? And "DQ first, ask questions later??" Seriously, you have *no* clue about what was and was not communicated between the SC and the OP. You are making rash assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

the last proofs were NOTthrough potoshop
put on your spectacles and look

02/13/2011 03:17:29 PM · #41

why do you have insider info? you're no longer sc.
i don't see a lot of conclusions in what i posted, i see questions.

02/13/2011 03:23:50 PM · #42

the original pic is in my portofolio

02/13/2011 03:23:52 PM · #43

Originally posted by cutout:

the last proofs were NOTthrough potoshop
put on your spectacles and look

I can assume they were not through PS, why? I am not SC, and I can't look at your proof files, therefore I cannot comment on them.

02/13/2011 03:28:19 PM · #44

Originally posted by skewsme:

why do you have insider info? you're no longer sc.
i don't see a lot of conclusions in what i posted, i see questions.

You stated that the SC "DQ[s] first and asks questions later" and this is certainly a statement, not a question. You drew this conclusion based on only what the OP told you, and nothing else. Your question "Why not ask?" also directly implies that the SC did not try to communicate with the OP, again something you have no knowledge of.
You are correct, I am no longer SC, but four and a half years of experience on that side of the fence gives me a damn good basis for knowing how they behave.

02/13/2011 03:32:14 PM · #45

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by skewsme:
why do you have insider info? you're no longer sc.
i don't see a lot of conclusions in what i posted, i see questions.

You stated that the SC "DQ[s] first and asks questions later" and this is certainly a statement, not a question. You drew this conclusion based on only what the OP told you, and nothing else. Your question "Why not ask?" also directly implies that the SC did not try to communicate with the OP, again something you have no knowledge of.
You are correct, I am no longer SC, but four and a half years of experience on that side of the fence gives me a damn good basis for knowing how they behave.

i am still waiting for 3 replies

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

02/13/2011 03:32:22 PM · #46

Originally posted by kirbic:

no. there is precedent.

KristinaG

Canon EOS-7D

02/13/2011 03:35:41 PM · #47

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I completely agree.
Its been happening way too often.
People say they are just "trying to figure out the truth" but doing that on the forums publicizes it way too much. Too many other people see it and then think it is ok to question any and every DQ.
I don't care if people say that this particular one isn't a witchhunt, or some other case isn't. When topic after topic is made questioning the SC, it amounts as an attack together, period.

02/13/2011 03:39:16 PM · #48

Originally posted by skewsme:

Originally posted by kirbic:
You stated that the SC "DQ[s] first and asks questions later" and this is certainly a statement, not a question. You drew this conclusion based on only what the OP told you, and nothing else.

no. there is precedent.

I'm sure there is... in cases where there is unassailable proof of a rules violation, for example EXIF on an entry that proves it was shot outside the challenge time limits, it doesn't make much sense to ask questions, does it?
Also keep in mind that the SC are a bunch of *human* volunteers, and that as humans, they can and do make mistakes. But combative, accusatory public displays are no way to resolve issues.