| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2011 12:17:15 AM · #1 |
Somewhat perplexed as to why there are so many DQs in the just ended Babies and Toddlers challenge.
4 were due to failure to submit the original file, which is easy enough to do especially if they were shot as a jpg.
But 3 were shot outside the challenge dates.
And one was due to changing the EXIF data.
I hope that last one in particular will sound a loud and clear warning to all who may be contemplating such actions, in any challenge.
Message edited by author 2011-10-26 00:19:02. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 05:11:47 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
I hope that last one in particular will sound a loud and clear warning to all who may be contemplating such actions, in any challenge. |
Make no mistake. You're either with us, or against us. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 06:00:54 AM · #3 |
| I expect if every entry in a challenge was queried there would be many DQ's - given the reasons for the majority of DQ's here, I'd say there's a good chance someone went through this challenge very trigger happy at accusing people of not following the rules. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:10:10 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
I expect if every entry in a challenge was queried there would be many DQ's - given the reasons for the majority of DQ's here, I'd say there's a good chance someone went through this challenge very trigger happy at accusing people of not following the rules. |
Except that's not how it works; SC won't automatically request an original for validation just because you ask them to. If you point out something that looks very suspicious to THEM, or iof many people ask for validation of the same image, THAT will trigger an inquiry. That's how I understand it, anyway...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:11:34 AM · #5 |
Well the one where the exif was changed was hardly worth the effort. The other DQ's weren't top photos either except for one that I really like. I too wonder what is going on. Did SC ask for more originals than normal, or were they targeting photographers they suspected.
One suggestion, if someone has a DQ, they should automatically have their next two images reviewed. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 08:07:19 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 08:44:18 AM · #7 |
Maybe the SC was getting curious due to this thread: Can the date on the original file be changed?
I looked at the exif information of the fotos that were DQed. As far as I remember they were all taken outside the challenge dates.
I guess the SC probably asked all for the original.
If they didn't send it they got DQed for not sending in the original. If they did send it and the date was outside the challenge dates, they were DQed because of that. And the last one was obviously stupid enough to change the date in the original he sent in, not realizing that the picture he posted had exif information too. (I don't shed a single tear if he gets banned because of changing of the exif info.)
(Edited to clarify.)
Message edited by author 2011-10-26 08:49:19. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 08:55:04 AM · #8 |
Even more puzzling, one of the people caught entering a photo taken outside the challenge date, already has several very recent DQs. Virtually every 2nd one was a DQ. Don't people learn? Or do they just not care?
And the one with the changed EXIF data was such a poor photo, that even if it had been legit, it would have ended up at the bottom anyway. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 09:40:11 AM · #9 |
I can assure you that SC has not been in any sort of increased "witch hunt" mode or anything. When we get credible tips from the community, we investigate them. That's how most of the DQ requests come to light.
Message edited by author 2011-10-26 09:43:22. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 10:41:56 AM · #10 |
| I figured that at least one of them would have been from the SC checking the subject's ID card to verify their age... |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 10:56:04 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I can assure you that SC has not been in any sort of increased "witch hunt" mode or anything. |
'Increased' witch hunt mode versus... 'normal' witch hunt mode? :P |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 10:59:50 AM · #12 |
Well, we are close to Halloween, so there are a lot more witches nowadays...
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I can assure you that SC has not been in any sort of increased "witch hunt" mode or anything. |
'Increased' witch hunt mode versus... 'normal' witch hunt mode? :P |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 11:27:07 AM · #13 |
I suspect most were self-DQ's. I could be wrong, but this is my gut feeling
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 11:27:16 AM · #14 |
can't there be some sort of program that weeds out some of this stuff and won't even let you post a shot that is not kosher- kind of like if you tried to post a 1000px x1000px shot that is 500mb, it would even take it. can't the exif data be examined and pre-refused?
There has to be some sort of software to detect it, either that or some dual submission of the original file with the entry. Is there anyway to submit the original just not at high res, large file, to clear it up from the get go? |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 11:43:16 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I suspect most were self-DQ's. |
Self dq's get removed from the challenge completely and don't show up in the final results. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 11:54:13 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
can't there be some sort of program that weeds out some of this stuff and won't even let you post a shot that is not kosher- kind of like if you tried to post a 1000px x1000px shot that is 500mb, it would even take it. can't the exif data be examined and pre-refused?
There has to be some sort of software to detect it, either that or some dual submission of the original file with the entry. Is there anyway to submit the original just not at high res, large file, to clear it up from the get go? |
The best solution is always the most simple. Members and users should simply read and follow the rules. It's the old saw, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." I don't comprehend knowingly submitting an entry the author "knows" is out of date range. Was there some hope the illegal entry would escape discovery? |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:07:19 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
can't there be some sort of program that weeds out some of this stuff and won't even let you post a shot that is not kosher- kind of like if you tried to post a 1000px x1000px shot that is 500mb, it would even take it. can't the exif data be examined and pre-refused?
There has to be some sort of software to detect it, either that or some dual submission of the original file with the entry. Is there anyway to submit the original just not at high res, large file, to clear it up from the get go? |
Exif data can be read with javascript or php, I'm not sure why this hasn't been implemented TBH, even if only to help fill in the form fields on the submissions page. Maybe SC could (or does, who knows...) have it displayed when they look at challenge entries or even better just a script that compiles a list of suspicious entries for them. Not foolproof I know, but it'd surely make the job easier for them.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:18:27 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by james_so:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
can't there be some sort of program that weeds out some of this stuff and won't even let you post a shot that is not kosher- kind of like if you tried to post a 1000px x1000px shot that is 500mb, it would even take it. can't the exif data be examined and pre-refused?
There has to be some sort of software to detect it, either that or some dual submission of the original file with the entry. Is there anyway to submit the original just not at high res, large file, to clear it up from the get go? |
Exif data can be read with javascript or php, I'm not sure why this hasn't been implemented TBH, even if only to help fill in the form fields on the submissions page. Maybe SC could (or does, who knows...) have it displayed when they look at challenge entries or even better just a script that compiles a list of suspicious entries for them. Not foolproof I know, but it'd surely make the job easier for them. |
Three things come to mind regarding uploading of EXIF data with a challenge entry:
1) File size would change and we're already squeaking by at 300kb (not that EXIF data is that large but every little bit makes a difference).
2) Personally, I leave my GPS tracker on all the time which shows up in EXIF...I'd hate to have to remember to toggle that off & on all the time.
3) Considering that this site recently made changes to help keep entries more anonymous (not updating comment counts while in voting, etc..) I can see where people would then start trying to figure out who an image belonged to by checking EXIF details all the time. Crazy I know, just saying. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:27:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I suspect most were self-DQ's. I could be wrong, but this is my gut feeling |
I don't think so. I've self-DQ'd in the past, during voting, and those entries just vanish, fall off the face of the earth. In the list of 16 DQs in the challenge mentioned by  KarenNfld, some members did admit to illegal editing or what have you. Their image still got DQ'd, but seems that the penalty was waived if they fessed up. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:28:27 PM · #20 |
Setting up something that warns you on upload is probably not so easy because many photos in the challenges have the exif information stripped completely. I think "save for web" does this (I don't know for sure because I use GIMP and that keeps the information when saving the file).
(Corrected a typo.)
Message edited by author 2011-10-26 12:29:55. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:29:28 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... I can see where people would then start trying to figure out who an image belonged to by checking EXIF details all the time. Crazy I know, just saying. |
As if all of the DQ'd entries weren't displaying EXIF data? |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:31:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by bjoern:
Setting up something that warns you on upload is probably not so easy because many fotos in the challenges have the exif information stripped completely. I think "save for web" does this (I don't know for sure because I use GIMP and that keeps the information when saving the file). |
Not only that, but it wouldn't work for HDR composites. I would also hate to send up a red flag for an entry whose EXIF changed from the original somehow. It's the original file(s) that matter. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:52:25 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
can't there be some sort of program that weeds out some of this stuff and won't even let you post a shot that is not kosher- kind of like if you tried to post a 1000px x1000px shot that is 500mb, it would even take it ... |
You already cannot upload an entry which is larger than 800x800 or >300KB. Those values are not dependent on analyzing the EXIF data ... |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 01:35:49 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by bjoern:
Setting up something that warns you on upload is probably not so easy because many fotos in the challenges have the exif information stripped completely. I think "save for web" does this (I don't know for sure because I use GIMP and that keeps the information when saving the file). |
Not only that, but it wouldn't work for HDR composites. I would also hate to send up a red flag for an entry whose EXIF changed from the original somehow. It's the original file(s) that matter. |
Obviously having the site upload function read the EXIF data and check for the date compliance wouldn't replace validation, but clearly it would have weeded out most of these DQ's before they were able to be submitted. Wouldn't be that difficult to implement, but then there are a lot of fairly simple suggested improvements sitting in "the Queue". ;-) |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 01:40:15 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bjoern:
And the last one was obviously stupid enough to change the date in the original he sent in, not realizing that the picture he posted had exif information too. (I don't shed a single tear if he gets banned because of changing of the exif info.) |
I already did shed a tear since I paid for his membership. :( |
|
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: 08/03/2025 05:54:58 PM EDT.
