| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2004 03:39:31 PM · #1 |
Based on capture date.
I was asked to provide proof within the first few hours of submission, which I did; but today it was decided by the committee that the picture was not captured during the submission period, when it clearly was!
My unedited version of the picture is the best proof of this!
What can I do? Who do I contact for immediate attention?
grrr.... |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 03:41:33 PM · #2 |
If the site council has spoken and you have been disqualified, you can site back and relax and submit again in the next challenge after you have fixed your date in your camera.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 03:53:54 PM · #3 |
This is what's displayed in the EXIF of the original you submitted:
EXIF.DateTimeOriginal: 2004:09:01 23:34:57
EXIF.DateTimeDigitized: 2004:09:01 23:34:57
The submission dates were between May 5-11; those dates don't fall within that span. Because of recent "abuse" we no longer allow any excuses for the date being mis-set in your camera -- see the rules. Sorry!
For the future, you should set the date and time as accurately as possible, for whatever time zone you are shooting in -- we will make an allowance for time zone differences -- but remember that all challenge date/time deadlines are based on DPC Server Time as displayed at the bottom of every page. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 03:58:40 PM · #4 |
September 1, 2004!
oh this really sucks.
For some reason the date on my laptop has three different dates; modified, accessed, created...
The modified date was the date of capture...but I guess that is obviously insufficient.
Shitty deal.
Oh well. Next time.
Thank you for the response.
Regards,
Salar |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:05:14 PM · #5 |
For what little consolation it may be, there have been a spate of these recently, and a lot of photographers checking their camera date every day.
The most "secure" DPC workflow is to copy the files directly from the camera card (with a card reader if possible) to your hard disk, and then, if possible, to CD.
If you use any software or utility to transfer the files -- even/especially if it came with your camera -- you run the risk of altering the EXIF data in several ways, although there certainly are programs which do not. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:09:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Salar:
For some reason the date on my laptop has three different dates; modified, accessed, created... |
For reference, those dates are irrelavant to our analysis. Only the EXIF data imbedded in the file is important; the date/time stamps maintained by the operating system make no difference. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:13:33 PM · #7 |
Though I can appreciate your frustruation with having a picture DQ'd, I totally support the site council on this ruling and all further rulings regarding wrong dates, even with overwhelming evidence that the picture was taken during the week of the challenge. I say this because the site council is doing this on a voluntary basis, and the entries with wrong dates have been multiplying. It is clearly stated in the rules ... wrong date on the EXIF = DQ. Good job guys.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:36:48 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Salar:
For some reason the date on my laptop has three different dates; modified, accessed, created... |
For reference, those dates are irrelavant to our analysis. Only the EXIF data imbedded in the file is important; the date/time stamps maintained by the operating system make no difference. |
I hate to put a damper on all your good logic, but shouldn't tears in the space-time continuum be accounted for?
Surely there must be something in Einstein's equations that we could use.
;)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:41:52 PM · #9 |
| Wow! I totally never thought about setting the date on my camera so that it matches the DPC time zone. I'm going to do that as soon as I get home just in case. Cheers! |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:45:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Salar:
For some reason the date on my laptop has three different dates; modified, accessed, created... |
For reference, those dates are irrelavant to our analysis. Only the EXIF data imbedded in the file is important; the date/time stamps maintained by the operating system make no difference. |
I hate to put a damper on all your good logic, but shouldn't tears in the space-time continuum be accounted for?
Surely there must be something in Einstein's equations that we could use.
;) |
Ahhh. But then the SC's would be forced to purchase an expensive "Quantum Decay Meter" to test all shots. The cost of this device (no to mention the software to interface with archaic 21st century computer technology) would raise the membership fee by 999%.
drg
(Can you tell that I am a Trekkie?) |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:48:07 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I hate to put a damper on all your good logic, but shouldn't tears in the space-time continuum be accounted for?
;) |
No. If the DPC server travels through a wormhole and has time stop for awhile, you have to adjust your camera accordingly. Alternatively, if you could travel through a wormhole, you could greatly increase the time you have to work on a challenge submission and still have valid EXIF data. Hmmm, I'm gonna go work on that... ;) |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:51:48 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:51:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ccraft:
Wow! I totally never thought about setting the date on my camera so that it matches the DPC time zone. I'm going to do that as soon as I get home just in case. Cheers! |
It should match your LOCAL time zone (where you are taking the pictures. The DEADLINES go by DPC-Server time.
Where you are, your camera should be set to Pacific Time, but your deadline for a photo would be 9:00 pm (Midnight Eastern Time). Hope that's clearer ... |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:54:44 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by drgsoell:
... raise the membership fee by 999%.
drg |
This might allow for the possibility of having an SC member come to your house and personally download the images to your hard disk for you .... |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:55:04 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Salar:
For some reason the date on my laptop has three different dates; modified, accessed, created... |
For reference, those dates are irrelavant to our analysis. Only the EXIF data imbedded in the file is important; the date/time stamps maintained by the operating system make no difference. |
I hate to put a damper on all your good logic, but shouldn't tears in the space-time continuum be accounted for?
Surely there must be something in Einstein's equations that we could use.
;) |
i don't know that we would be concerned with tears so much as with whose view point we are using as a standard. (if we're dealing with einsteins equations that is) but if we get into quantum discussions, forget einstein entirely...he hated quantum mechanics :)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 04:55:28 PM · #16 |
In all seriousness I agree that images should always be DQed for bad dates. The single most important rule at DPC is that images be taken during the submission week.
I'm actually surprised people don't check the dates at the time of submission.
Every time I go to submit I can't remember the camera settings and sometimes not even the date the image was taken and therefore have to look at the EXIF data every time anyway. If you do that there is no way you could miss a bad date.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 05:41:26 PM · #17 |
I am fully empathetic of the DQ rule based on exposure date.
However, an an amateur on DPC, I have yet to examine the camera date before submission. That, is surely something that will change from this point on.
Another note of interest, is that as a rookie, you can understand my frustration with being DQ'd. Just the word DQ'd carries more weight than comes to mind, especially when in your mind you were completely legitimate--it was technology that failed you.
Regardless, something was definitely learned today.
Thanks,
~Salar
Message edited by author 2004-05-13 17:42:25. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 06:02:46 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Salar:
...as a rookie, you can understand my frustration with being DQ'd ... |
Several SC members can not only understand your frustration but have experienced it themselves ... accidental problems like this are considered no big deal. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 06:08:28 PM · #19 |
Yes, this photograph was taken with a digital camera on or between May 10 2004 and May 16 2004
The above is a check box that everybody has to click before submitting, maybe we should add "I have checked the exif date" and have a link as to how to do this?
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 06:56:23 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by drgsoell:
... raise the membership fee by 999%.
drg |
This might allow for the possibility of having an SC member come to your house and personally download the images to your hard disk for you .... |
Hmmm, I think we'd need to get more SC people. :)
Lots more.
Clara
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:16:15 PM · #21 |
Exposure dates and timezones have been discussed in this thread. Thought you'd all might like to have a quick look :)
Jose
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:32:27 PM · #22 |
What, out of general curiousity, is the official SC decision on the matter of cameras which do NOT save EXIF data?
Mine, for example, does not. However, I also have a very crummy camera which will nver ever in a million years win a ribbon (oh, and it doesn't like XP and Intel doesn't support it anymore, but that's a completely separate rant...)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:35:03 PM · #23 |
| I don't know if there is an "official" ruling on this, but the rules do say that if your photo is up for DQ, you must produce the original and "This original photograph must contain valid, unaltered EXIF data." |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:38:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I don't know if there is an "official" ruling on this, but the rules do say that if your photo is up for DQ, you must produce the original and "This original photograph must contain valid, unaltered EXIF data." |
So, really, I guess you're just taking your chances. Ah well, such is the system I suppose. And if one has a good camera, it would be good enough to do something simple, like EXIF's.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2004 01:50:30 AM · #25 |
| Just to let people know, this is a simple little program that will read the exif data and display it easily. It is freeware, and I've been using it for about a year without any problems. It also makes it easy when submitting the photo to put in the other information (ISO, Shutter Speed, etc...) //www.takenet.or.jp/~ryuuji/minisoft/exifread/english/ |
|
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: 09/06/2025 10:37:19 AM EDT.
