| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2004 07:48:08 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by abreul:
This is really wrong DPCHALENGE SUCKS. |
I'm sorry you feel that way. Your constructive suggestions for improvement are welcome.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 07:56:16 PM · #52 |
| I'll say that even though I got DQ'd for a photo that was taken during the timeframe of the challenge and got dinged for having the wrong year, I still think that dpchallenge is one of the best photo challenge websites out there |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:01:09 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by abreul:
This is really wrong DPCHALENGE SUCKS. |
What?????????!!!!! It does not! You need to mind your manners, boy!
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 11:03:08 PM · #54 |
Thanks for the answers. Anyway before this thing goes out of hand ... why don't we all join hands and sing kumbaya.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 11:54:34 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by md8speed:
Whoa---- I came home and found an email saying my image had been disqualified! Here is an explanation to clear my name- This image was disqualified for "not being taken within the given dates." This photo was taken with the Nikon d70 and the EXIF info says 6/6/2003. Does anyone else see something wrong with this??? Too bad the d70 released until 2004.... I know that many d70's came out of the factory with the wrong dates in the memory, but I should have checked to make sure it said 2004. I am not too happy with dpchallenge for just axing my photo without contacting me first when the EXIF info showed a clear contradiction in dates. I have plenty of evidence to show that this picture was taken on 6/6/2004! I have heat sheets for the track meet showing that the athlete in the photograph is in lane 4 (as in the picture), I have results showing that the athlete finished 2nd in the meet. I took over 400 pictures at the meet, which was at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, OR, this same meet was not at Lewis and Clark college last year, nor was on the same date (6/6/2003). All I have to say is that if the site counsel had contacted me about date problem, I could have sent plenty of information to show with out a doubt that this photo was taken on the given day (6/6/2004) and did indeed qualify for the challenge. As far as I am concerned, I pretty much got screwed. I had already taken pictures for two of the challenges up right now, but I guess I won't be submitting them since if they did well they'd just get axed again. What a bummer. |
I am really sorry to hear this. Is there a way to fix the date in your camera so this won't happen again? My camera had the wrong date when i got it too and I was able to use the menu and change the date. So sorry about your picture that was very fine indeed. Ann
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 01:55:43 AM · #56 |
| Hm, as much as I understand where this rule came from, this might be evidence that it is written too restrictively. We should remember that rules are made to enforce policy, not the other way around. Site policy states that pictures taken within the week are eligible to compete; this rule has exempted a photograph which satisfies that criteria. Though it may be too late for any change to be applicable in this case, perhaps one should be considered. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 02:59:37 AM · #57 |
Site policy also states that the approved method for verifying that the photo is taken within the allowed dates is to submit an original, unaltered file directly drom the camera with intact EXIF data, and a we offer a specific reminder to check the date, since no exceptions will be made.
This is not overly restrictive -- it is very clear, straightforward, and (most of all) enforcable by objective criteria.
If I submitted a file with the wrong date, would you want me to get a pass because the SC would choose to believe I'd goofed instead of cheated?
We've discussed this for a LONG time -- other versions of the rule are basically unenforceable and would take up too much of our time, as well as being subject to subjectivity and abuse.
The person whose photo it is has accepted responsibility (and disappointment) over making the mistake and is ready to move on ... maybe everyone else can too.
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 03:00:31. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 09:32:30 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by abreul:
This is really wrong DPCHALENGE SUCKS. |
I'm sorry you feel that way. Your constructive suggestions for improvement are welcome.
-Terry |
Ok Here is something, I was not able to find the pic againg , but there was a comment from someone saying that he leave arround that place and the picture was take it on the frame time. Did you people give a chance to this guy to show some other kind of proof??? because people do make mistakes... like you guys did, showing results before verifing data. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 09:34:59 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by abreul:
This is really wrong DPCHALENGE SUCKS. |
What?????????!!!!! It does not! You need to mind your manners, boy! |
please give me a break. and be realistic.
Peace |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:01:38 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by abreul:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by abreul:
This is really wrong DPCHALENGE SUCKS. |
I'm sorry you feel that way. Your constructive suggestions for improvement are welcome.
-Terry |
Ok Here is something, I was not able to find the pic againg , but there was a comment from someone saying that he leave arround that place and the picture was take it on the frame time. Did you people give a chance to this guy to show some other kind of proof??? because people do make mistakes... like you guys did, showing results before verifing data. |
We smply cannot accept alternative "proof". As GeneralE stated earlier in the thread, this has been discussed at great length over many months. In order to be fair to everyone, we need to take a very firm stance on the rule. It is in fact objective, and easily understandable. Everyone should be aware that the original, unmodified file MUST show a valid date.
Sorry if you feel this "sucks", hope you come to realize it is necessary, and that we are enforcing it strictly for the good of the site.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:05:17 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by abreul:
... there was a comment from someone saying that he leave arround that place and the picture was take it on the frame time. Did you people give a chance to this guy to show some other kind of proof??? because people do make mistakes... like you guys did, showing results before verifing data. |
No, as has been stated, we gave up on trying to have peole "prove" their submissions by other methods after two or three tries -- it just doesn't work. That's why we put up all the warnings, and made it clear that there are no more excuses or appeals on this issue.
It is the photographer's responsibility to make sure that they (and there equipment) follow the rules, not ours.
And, again, please note that the photographer in this case DOES NOT feel the DQ was wrong, just highly disappointing. I agree. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:13:08 AM · #62 |
Well, seem like we are going round in circles here. It is a rule and a rule that should be simple enough to follow. Yes, we can all make mistooks but surely remembering to check the date should be one of the more basic elements of meeting a challenge? As for giving 'other' proof thats not what the site is about. I remember saying in another 'similar' thread that maybe we should all change our camera date to 01/01/2001 that way if the rules got relaxed we'd be able to submit any picture I ever took to any challenge.
Maybe soon pics that are great technically but don't meet the challenge will suffer the same fate?
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:20:44 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Maybe soon pics that are great technically but don't meet the challenge will suffer the same fate? |
Never -- "meeting the challenge" is a subjective evaluation left entirely to the voters. The SC will "ignore" DQ requests made because someone doesn't think the photo meets the challenge topic, as long as it was taken within the allowed time period. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 11:53:42 AM · #64 |
Like many of you, I guess, I would like to see the Site Council a little more flexible in cases where ribbons are involved. But I can see why they're strict on this rule. Sorry about the DQ, md8speed.
One thing I'd like to add to the discussion though (I didn't notice anyone commenting on this, at least). I'm new here so perhaps I missed out on something, but what about different time zones? I mean, I live in Iceland and I don't even know how many hours ahead I am. So I might be taking pictures on June 28th for a challenge that ends on the 27th. EXIF will say June 28th, but disqualifying the picture would definitely not be fair. But like I said, I'm new to the site and I'm sure the SC has thought this through? :)
Besides, you COULD change the EXIF information for a picture, if you really wanted to. In the end, what can ultimately prove that you took the picture on the day you say you did?
(PS. After my initial post I noticed the "Current Server Time" at the bottom of the page. =) I can see I'm 4 hours ahead.)
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 11:55:38. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 01:18:38 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by jdk80:
One thing I'd like to add to the discussion though (I didn't notice anyone commenting on this, at least). I'm new here so perhaps I missed out on something, but what about different time zones? I mean, I live in Iceland and I don't even know how many hours ahead I am. So I might be taking pictures on June 28th for a challenge that ends on the 27th. EXIF will say June 28th, but disqualifying the picture would definitely not be fair. But like I said, I'm new to the site and I'm sure the SC has thought this through? :) |
The SC take into account the timezone that the photo was taken in, as our validation of previous Icelandic ribbon winners shows :o) Just remember to change your camera's datestamp to the local timezone whenever you cross borders!
Originally posted by jdk80:
Besides, you COULD change the EXIF information for a picture, if you really wanted to. In the end, what can ultimately prove that you took the picture on the day you say you did? |
We have various means of testing whether the EXIF of an original is genuine or not, which has so far been sufficient for enforcing the rules in this regard.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 03:22:24 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by abreul:
Did you people give a chance to this guy to show some other kind of proof??? because people do make mistakes... like you guys did, showing results before verifing data. |
We did not make a mistake in showing the results before verifying the data. In most cases, "proof" isn't requested until after the results are posted. The only way around this is to find out the winners. Email them that they need to submit proof. Wait 48 hours. Give site council a day or so to look at them. Then verify and post the winners. Instead of winners being shown immediately after the voting, it could take up to a week.
People do make mistakes. True dat. But I am not your (or anyone else's on here) mother, so making sure your date is correct is your job. Not mine. :-)
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 03:32:40 PM · #67 |
Interesting....
EXIF modifications
EXIFER
Chances are, modifications done like this still leave a footprint our honorable SC could decipher.
I just tried it and yes, it does leave it's mark. ExifR is left in the data, and I'm sure the SC would DQ any shot with this data tag in it.
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 15:51:09.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 03:48:41 PM · #68 |
| Can someone take a moment to explain why everyone thought so highly of this shot? Not saying it was bad, not making a comment at all. Just wondering why people liked it so much. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 03:54:59 PM · #69 |
Has it ever been suggested, or would it even work, to submit your full exif file after uploading your resized one for the challenge? Then you're done, and if your photograph needs to be valdated for any reason, the council already has it on file so-to-speak. I am going to be gone during the week the June Open ends and I have submitted something. I would have loved to have just submitted the full file at the time I submitted my "entry", because due to a particular aspect of my entry, I have a feeling it will be asked to be DQ'd quite possibly. It would probably cut down on DQ's also.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:43:41 PM · #70 |
If a photographer knows he/she will be away during voting, etc. he/she can submit "proof" before they leave "just in case."
It has been mentioned uploading either EXIF or original with submissions. However, from what little I know about web sites, etc. that would be a lot of "space" taken. And, we really need the original in addition to the EXIF, so with some of the files that some of your cameras produce, that would be HUGE!!!
The system at present may not be perfect, but it works about as efficiently as anything we have done.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:45:10 PM · #71 |
We've extensively discussed and decided against requiring the original to be uploaded with every entry.
If you are going on vacation, you can email your original to one or more SC members so that it IS on hand if a DQ is requested; see if you can find the link on the photo submission page to "Request Administrative Note" and take it from there.
Darn slow typing ...
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 16:45:36. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:46:28 PM · #72 |
Thank you for the info, Karmat!! I figured it would overload the site. How would I submit "proof" prior to leaving? It would also be my first time submitting the exif/proof, so I would also know that it "works" for me. Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:47:35 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We've extensively discussed and decided against requiring the original to be uploaded with every entry.
If you are going on vacation, you can email your original to one or more SC members so that it IS on hand if a DQ is requested; see if you can find the link on the photo submission page to "Request Administrative Note" and take it from there.
Darn slow typing ... |
You were quicker than me! You answered my questions before I posted them!! Thanks to you, also.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 08:13:57 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by difarnecio:
Can someone take a moment to explain why everyone thought so highly of this shot? Not saying it was bad, not making a comment at all. Just wondering why people liked it so much. |
You know... I agree with you on your coment the picture was not the best shot ever but at least was way much much better than those two unoriginal Dark Purple Pictures. I still cannot get it.... why those pic were the winners. With all the respect they deserve.
Peace
Lou |
|
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 07:07:33 AM EDT.
