| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2012 01:24:01 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I'm sure the info can be removed when the file is uploaded automatically. This feature should be added. From now on will take Bear's advice and strip the exif before I upload. |
The original (entry) uploader did strip the EXIF, but the current version uses it to automatically fill in the aperture, ISO, and shutter-speed fields on uploads. If a person chooses to customize their EXIF (as I have) to show a copyright notice in the "Owner" field, it may well be illegal for the site to remove that without the photographer's explicit permission, as it would facilitate the illegal use of the photo. |
I agree. So just put the protective layers on the thumbnails like on the full image. Solved.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 01:30:02 PM · #27 |
| Considering how much PP is done to images, the EXIF info doesn't seem that useful to me. Under and over exposed images and some other issues can many times be "fixed" in post so you wouldn't know if the image EXIF would help you take a similar shot. Maybe knowing fast or slow shutter speeds to either stop motion or blur water or eliminate people walking through a scene might be somewhat useful but, if you've been using a DSLR for a while, you probably already know that info anyway. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 01:39:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Considering how much PP is done to images, the EXIF info doesn't seem that useful to me. Under and over exposed images and some other issues can many times be "fixed" in post so you wouldn't know if the image EXIF would help you take a similar shot. Maybe knowing fast or slow shutter speeds to either stop motion or blur water or eliminate people walking through a scene might be somewhat useful but, if you've been using a DSLR for a while, you probably already know that info anyway. |
The issue here is the name of the photographer and maybe camera bias.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 01:46:50 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by james_so:
No exif data is removed from the larger images, the overlay is intended to stop people right clicking to download the image and steal it. |
No one said it was removed. It's hidden. |
That doesn't change the point I made.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 01:48:40 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Considering how much PP is done to images, the EXIF info doesn't seem that useful to me. Under and over exposed images and some other issues can many times be "fixed" in post so you wouldn't know if the image EXIF would help you take a similar shot. Maybe knowing fast or slow shutter speeds to either stop motion or blur water or eliminate people walking through a scene might be somewhat useful but, if you've been using a DSLR for a while, you probably already know that info anyway. |
The issue here is the name of the photographer and maybe camera bias. |
Why is this an issue to you?
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 01:56:47 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Considering how much PP is done to images, the EXIF info doesn't seem that useful to me. Under and over exposed images and some other issues can many times be "fixed" in post so you wouldn't know if the image EXIF would help you take a similar shot. Maybe knowing fast or slow shutter speeds to either stop motion or blur water or eliminate people walking through a scene might be somewhat useful but, if you've been using a DSLR for a while, you probably already know that info anyway. |
The issue here is the name of the photographer and maybe camera bias. |
I suppose that could be a consideration in a very small number of members here but I would venture to guess almost no-one cares to spend any time looking up EXIF info to see who took a particular image during voting and I would also guess most people didn't even know they could see the info until it was brought up in this thread - I know I didn't! :-) |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 02:16:49 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
... I would venture to guess almost no-one cares to spend any time looking up EXIF info to see who took a particular image during voting and I would also guess most people didn't even know they could see the info until it was brought up in this thread - I know I didn't! :-) |
I find that threads expressing concern about one form or another of potential "cheating" seem invariably to include explicit instructions for how to accomplish the same ... I'd think an administrative ticket to the site administrator/programmer might be both more effective and discreet if preventing cheating is the true motive ... :-( |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 02:29:24 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I find that threads expressing concern about one form or another of potential "cheating" seem invariably to include explicit instructions for how to accomplish the same |
Just to make it clear, i didn't start the thread expressing concern that others were cheating, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't inadvertently breaking the rules myself. I probably won't bother changing or hiding the exif details myself. I don't care if anyone looks really. I have very little interest in the whole cheating/dnmc/competition etc side of DPC myself and as long as the basic submission rules aren't broken with my entry then that's ok with me.
Message edited by author 2012-04-28 14:30:22. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 02:54:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I'm sure the info can be removed when the file is uploaded automatically. This feature should be added. From now on will take Bear's advice and strip the exif before I upload. |
The original (entry) uploader did strip the EXIF, but the current version uses it to automatically fill in the aperture, ISO, and shutter-speed fields on uploads. If a person chooses to customize their EXIF (as I have) to show a copyright notice in the "Owner" field, it may well be illegal for the site to remove that without the photographer's explicit permission, as it would facilitate the illegal use of the photo. |
I guess you could include that in the TOS. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 04:36:05 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
I agree. So just put the protective layers on the thumbnails like on the full image. Solved. |
Not solved. Very easy to see it on large images as well. No instructions! (but I am sure a large percentage of technically minded voters know how to do it) I personally don't check Exifs. I have been here long enough to recognize styles of some of the best photogs without needing Exifs. I use Mogrify in Lightroom to strip all my Exif data at the moment as a precaution against some harsh voters but I hope I will to develop a recognizable style myself and will stop removing Exifs. I'd love to have a recognizable style! ;)
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 05:52:48 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:
It's not a site 'bug' it's just exif data that's either there or it isn't!
|
Then according to you it's a bug that it is NOT viewable in the larger image. It's inconsistent and removes anonymous voting. Thus a bug. |
No, it's not a bug that some people leave exif data in and some don't. Nor is the information only available from thumbnails. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:00:33 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Considering how much PP is done to images, the EXIF info doesn't seem that useful to me. Under and over exposed images and some other issues can many times be "fixed" in post so you wouldn't know if the image EXIF would help you take a similar shot. Maybe knowing fast or slow shutter speeds to either stop motion or blur water or eliminate people walking through a scene might be somewhat useful but, if you've been using a DSLR for a while, you probably already know that info anyway. |
Personally I like to see the focal length and possibly the lens used. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:02:16 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
My question is... Why would you even look? |
+1. Who cares...
I read the entire thread. Someone might give low scores because they figured out who took the pic... Who cares... |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:19:24 PM · #39 |
Ironic that we're wanting to CLOSE a loophole and people who I guess want to use it are arguing to keep it open.
Does it hurt anything to close the loophole? Nothing.
Does it hurt anything to keep it open? Potentially. Maybe. Better safe than sorry and just be consistent.
I repeat, I don't understand the hostility here about such a simple issue and harmless request.
Very odd.
ETA: And on that note of obvious common sense, I'm out of this thread.
Message edited by author 2012-04-28 18:23:34. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:24:26 PM · #40 |
| I don't think there is any effective technical way to stop viewing of images and Exif. All methods can be easily cracked. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:38:47 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Considering how much PP is done to images, the EXIF info doesn't seem that useful to me. Under and over exposed images and some other issues can many times be "fixed" in post so you wouldn't know if the image EXIF would help you take a similar shot. Maybe knowing fast or slow shutter speeds to either stop motion or blur water or eliminate people walking through a scene might be somewhat useful but, if you've been using a DSLR for a while, you probably already know that info anyway. |
Personally I like to see the focal length and possibly the lens used. |
Maybe if all EXIF info was hidden during voting on both the large images and thumbnails, and only made available after rollover, that would solve the problem somewhat of friend/foe voting.
I like to see the camera and lens combo and that info is almost always available after rollover. Most of the EXIF info is not that important to me though as it seems the PP dominates the looks of most images in the challenges, except maybe for minimal challenges. If people are looking right now to see if the name of a person is in the EXIF during voting .........well, what can you say about them???? :-/
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:42:08 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Ironic that we're wanting to CLOSE a loophole and people who I guess want to use it are arguing to keep it open.
Does it hurt anything to close the loophole? Nothing.
Does it hurt anything to keep it open? Potentially. Maybe. Better safe than sorry and just be consistent.
I repeat, I don't understand the hostility here about such a simple issue and harmless request.
Very odd.
ETA: And on that note of obvious common sense, I'm out of this thread. |
Any hostility is in your own mind Kevin, there is no loophole that matters greatly to anyone but you it seems. We are competing for *virtual* ribbons on a site for which the primary focus is learning and improving, cheaters will only be cheating themselves as they say (and will invariably get caught out sooner or later too).
If you are so hot about anonymity why aren't you trying to stop people getting help choosing images, surely that damages anonymity just as much?
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 06:47:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I don't think there is any effective technical way to stop viewing of images and Exif. All methods can be easily cracked. |
Bump! I am amazed that people still think there is a loophole that can be closed! All this discussion is purely academic. Removing Exif is the only way to ensure anonymity. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 07:43:38 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
......I figured out how to do this because I like knowing the ISO, shutter speed, aperture and focal length of most photos. That's actually how all this came out to begin with, just happens there a lot of other information to be had also.
CS |
I like knowing this too and wish it was always shown with the photos. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 07:47:05 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
......I figured out how to do this because I like knowing the ISO, shutter speed, aperture and focal length of most photos. That's actually how all this came out to begin with, just happens there a lot of other information to be had also.
CS |
I like knowing this too and wish it was always shown with the photos. |
Why do you need to know this information WHILE voting? If you really want to know this information, look at the image details after the challenge. And if the information is not included, ask the photog.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 08:01:32 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
......I figured out how to do this because I like knowing the ISO, shutter speed, aperture and focal length of most photos. That's actually how all this came out to begin with, just happens there a lot of other information to be had also.
CS |
I like knowing this too and wish it was always shown with the photos. |
Why do you need to know this information WHILE voting? If you really want to know this information, look at the image details after the challenge. And if the information is not included, ask the photog. |
+1 |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 10:46:53 PM · #47 |
| I used to download images during voting in order to check and then deleted it afterwards. The download image was just mean to be view enlarge in CS for learning purposes e.g to check for compos, colors, info reading of RGB, quality and so on. With the new auto fill, that works great by providing full info for someone newbie like me who is here to learn. Too bad, it̢۪s became an issue now. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 11:25:03 PM · #48 |
| Weapon of mass destruction, I vote we invade Wales. |
|
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: 08/02/2025 11:57:49 PM EDT.
