| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2011 03:55:39 PM · #51 |
Now everyone is pissed of.  |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 03:57:06 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
what a tangled mess of defensiveness. |
WikiLeaks would have a field day DPC
quote .better to discus matters in private.
yes we are the children |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:04:19 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by bvy:
None of this helps Jan with his validation. He's obviousy very frustrated. Instead of further engaging and provoking him, maybe we can help him now.
Jan, if you got your file straight out of the camera, it should have an incremental filename. P1010035.jpg, for example. I don't the Nikon filenaming scheme, but do you have anything like this? Is the image still on your camera? You want the untouched original as the camera recorded it. Not even the filename should be changed. |
its still in the camera
but dont know what to do
my girlfriend used to take care of the computer side
but alas
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:17:32 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by cutout:
its still in the camera
but dont know what to do
my girlfriend used to take care of the computer side
but alas |
1. Connect camera to computer with USB cable. If a Nikon transfer box comes up, tell it NO.
2. Go to "Start" (lower left on screen) and find "computer", click that.
3. You should have the camera showing up as a drive, somewhere after the "C" drive; maybe D, maybe E, maybe F.
4. Double click on the drive and you'll get a file tree.
5. Open the folder that has the pictures in it (explore a little) and right-click on the file you want and drag it to the desktop and let go.
6. When it asks you "move or copy" tell it to copy.
7. That's an untouched original, on your desktop: send it to SC. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:20:26 PM · #55 |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:22:00 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cutout:
its still in the camera
but dont know what to do
my girlfriend used to take care of the computer side
but alas |
1. Connect camera to computer with USB cable. If a Nikon transfer box comes up, tell it NO.
2. Go to "Start" (lower left on screen) and find "computer", click that.
3. You should have the camera showing up as a drive, somewhere after the "C" drive; maybe D, maybe E, maybe F.
4. Double click on the drive and you'll get a file tree.
5. Open the folder that has the pictures in it (explore a little) and right-click on the file you want and drag it to the desktop and let go.
6. When it asks you "move or copy" tell it to copy.
7. That's an untouched original, on your desktop: send it to SC. |
ok bear i am going to try just now |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:34:42 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cutout:
its still in the camera
but dont know what to do
my girlfriend used to take care of the computer side
but alas |
1. Connect camera to computer with USB cable. If a Nikon transfer box comes up, tell it NO.
2. Go to "Start" (lower left on screen) and find "computer", click that.
3. You should have the camera showing up as a drive, somewhere after the "C" drive; maybe D, maybe E, maybe F.
4. Double click on the drive and you'll get a file tree.
5. Open the folder that has the pictures in it (explore a little) and right-click on the file you want and drag it to the desktop and let go.
6. When it asks you "move or copy" tell it to copy.
7. That's an untouched original, on your desktop: send it to SC. |
Hey, Bear. Is it possible that the original transfer wrote to the file on the camera? I believe that you can do copies both ways, and copy something back to the camera. Could the original be corrupted from the first time around?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:36:28 PM · #58 |
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? |
It was completely and totally reasonable to display the information. People were just thinking you could have hidden the filename, in case there was a chance of the DQ getting reversed if he found his original.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:49:50 PM · #59 |
thats exactly what i did a few times
i send it through HELP
but i think they feel a bit guilty because i should have gotten a penalty
what i did not get |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 04:58:26 PM · #60 |
Is the file on your camera called [DELETED].jpg? Or does it have another name?
Message edited by Manic - removing reference to image in voting. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 05:02:57 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Is the file on your camera called [DELETED].jpg? Or does it have another name? |
yes but in camera there is no name right
just a number
skewsme,brian and all
this is over now
let our wings catch the updraft and soar
the bureaucrats can take care of the land
but baby
we take the sky
Message edited by Manic - removing reference to image in voting. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 05:10:28 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by cutout:
Originally posted by bvy:
Is the file on your camera called [DELETED].jpg? Or does it have another name? |
yes but in camera there is no name right
just a number |
Yeah and it should be uploaded to the SC in that form. The validation submission wasnt named was it? Not that is an immediate problem but it can be.
Message edited by Manic - removing reference to image in voting. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 05:14:15 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by cutout:
Originally posted by bvy:
Is the file on your camera called [DELETED].jpg? Or does it have another name? |
yes but in camera there is no name right
just a number |
Yeah and it should be uploaded to the SC in that form. The validation submission wasnt named was it? Not that is an immediate problem but it can be. |
so it was
Message edited by Manic - removing reference to image in voting. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 05:26:25 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
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? |
Perhaps you missed that, when I posted the EXIF data, it was for the second file which had been uploaded. In response to the validation request the OP uploaded an "original" which was not valid. The SC sent a message (apparently received) that the submitted image was not a valid original, and re-requesting such to be uploaded. The file which was subsequently uploaded in response to that request (for which I posted the info) is obviously also not a valid original for DPC purposes. At what point do you suggest SC be allowed to stop re-requesting originals and proceed to the next stage of the process?
Instructions for retaining and submitting a valid original are all over the site, and there are plenty of people willing to help if soemone doesn't know how. I don't think it is the SC's responsibility to teach every member individually, or to wait beyond the stated 48 hours (though we often do, and are taken to task for the delay) to DQ an image for which there is no valid original. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 05:34:18 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by skewsme:
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? |
Perhaps you missed that, when I posted the EXIF data, it was for the second file which had been uploaded. In response to the validation request the OP uploaded an "original" which was not valid. The SC sent a message (apparently received) that the submitted image was not a valid original, and re-requesting such to be uploaded. The file which was subsequently uploaded in response to that request (for which I posted the info) is obviously also not a valid original for DPC purposes. At what point do you suggest SC be allowed to stop re-requesting originals and proceed to the next stage of the process?
Instructions for retaining and submitting a valid original are all over the site, and there are plenty of people willing to help if soemone doesn't know how. I don't think it is the SC's responsibility to teach every member individually, or to wait beyond the stated 48 hours (though we often do, and are taken to task for the delay) to DQ an image for which there is no valid original. |
any way when all is said and done
my pic was legit unlike some other pics what you are to intimidated to DQ |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 06:05:05 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I don't want to seem insensitive ...
But after 4 year you'd think you'd just get it right rather than play the victim card, or playing the conspiracy card. This isn't hard.
|
Bit rough, don't you think? I don't see any concern on Jan's part regarding conspiracy, or playing the victim card. He's not the first experienced DPCer to get DQ'd and ask for help in clarification. |
Direct, certainly. I was responding to this:
Originally posted by cutout:
i think in the future whenever they ask me for proof
i will be DQed
|
when I mentioned victim and conspiracy.
And for the record, I offered direct instructions on how to do it correctly. Sorry if I offended anyone's sensibilities.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 06:14:02 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I don't want to seem insensitive ...
But after 4 year you'd think you'd just get it right rather than play the victim card, or playing the conspiracy card. This isn't hard.
|
Bit rough, don't you think? I don't see any concern on Jan's part regarding conspiracy, or playing the victim card. He's not the first experienced DPCer to get DQ'd and ask for help in clarification. |
Direct, certainly. I was responding to this:
Originally posted by cutout:
i think in the future whenever they ask me for proof
i will be DQed
|
not mine
when I mentioned victim and conspiracy.
And for the record, I offered direct instructions on how to do it correctly. Sorry if I offended anyone's sensibilities. |
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 18:14:34. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 06:15:36 PM · #68 |
Is any of this confusion a language barrier?  cutout's English is pretty good, but I can't confidently say I'm understanding it as he means it. Perhaps he's not really understanding the process required to get an actual original. He says his girlfriend used to do it for him.
While I can understand the confusion and frustration, I think the attitude by a few individuals is uncalled for. I doubt the SC or anyone is on a witch hunt for cutout's images. If I wasn't one of the people that requested a validation for the image, I specifically remembering questioning it. It's not that I didn't like the image or that I recognized it as his and am out to get him, it just didn't look like a photo that was created within the rules of the challenge.
To me much of what cutout does borders on the "photographing artwork" rule. Obviously most of his stuff is validated, so he's managed to stay within that rule. However, when you're that close to the edge of a rule people are going to suspect it. It's nothing personal, and nothing against the art created. I actually really like his work. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 06:32:07 PM · #69 |
by goddele
without photography my images woulnd exist
exept in my mind
Message edited by author 2011-02-13 18:33:11. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 06:52:12 PM · #70 |
I have a question which doesn't relate directly to cutout's problem, but to the validity of RAW images.
I have always understood that RAW files cannot be modified. Yet in Lightroom, which I am currently running as a trial, images to which I have added keywords show Metadata status as "Has been changed". When I look at the EXIF data of the same files in Bridge there may be a variation of about one second between date created and date modified. Under the file properties in Windows Explorer it shows the file as being created at the time it was downloaded to the computer, and having been modified at the (earlier) time when the photo was taken. All of this seems rather confusing and I'm getting worried that if one of my photos needs validation, the RAW may prove not to be acceptable. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 06:57:21 PM · #71 |
| I just noticed that in Bridge one of my files shows date modified as the day after it was created while others from the same sequence have a variation of no more than a second. I don't understand how this can happen as I didn't add keywords until at least a month later. I have no clue how I could have modified the RAW at that stage. |
|
|
|
02/13/2011 07:18:37 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
i think a valid question is why do your images keep getting singled out? is there actually a dq policeman?
(ETA: i ask because in 80 something challenges i've only had 2 requests for validation...coming nowhere near the top ten helps in that sure, but still) |
Look through his portfolio. I think it's relatively easy for somebody to wonder how it was done with a single image, etc. Great stuff. |
Originally posted by aliqui:
To me much of what cutout does borders on the "photographing artwork" rule. Obviously most of his stuff is validated, so he's managed to stay within that rule. However, when you're that close to the edge of a rule people are going to suspect it. It's nothing personal, and nothing against the art created. I actually really like his work.
|
these both make a good case for the common requests for validation, thank you.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2011 11:33:18 PM · #73 |
When I got my 10D back from having it converted to shoot IR, the year in the camera was set to 2025, which I didn't notice until after a few test shoots...
I'm waiting for another 15 years, then I'll shoehorn them into a challenge. |
|
|
|
02/14/2011 07:23:15 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Instructions for retaining and submitting a valid original are all over the site, and there are plenty of people willing to help if soemone doesn't know how. I don't think it is the SC's responsibility to teach every member individually, or to wait beyond the stated 48 hours (though we often do, and are taken to task for the delay) to DQ an image for which there is no valid original. |
Originally posted by cutout:
any way when all is said and done
my pic was legit unlike some other pics what you are to intimidated to DQ |
No.....it wasn't legit if you couldn't get an undamaged original file in for validation. The process has not changed, you've been here for four years and over a hundred challenges. Something *you* did, or didn't do in the transfer or editing process, created the problem.
You've also been making these snarky little comments (Emboldened above), and this last one is pretty out of line considering how bent out of shape you are. Do you have any proof of these pics you're referring to are not legit?
It's your responsibility to properly submit and provide valid original files. SC is not responsible for teaching you, and they're certainly not just sitting there waiting for you to write just so they can respond to your issue. They have other people to help as well......all for that amazing salary.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2011 07:48:31 AM · #75 |
the third time i submitted the proper file
they did not even look at it .
mr snarky |
|
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: 11/21/2025 01:43:31 PM EST.
