| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2025 05:39:55 PM · #1 |
The results for Hidden Gem 4,000 (Archival) have been recalculated due to the disqualification of two images: “Delicate Balance” (originally 2nd place) and “Arctic Explorer” (originally tied for 5th).
Per the Common Editing rules: You must retain your original, unedited file (exactly as recorded by your camera) and provide it to the Site Council, along with a list of editing steps, within 48 hours of a validation request. In both cases, the photographers were unable to provide original files exactly as recorded by their cameras.
A quick reminder: Please take care with your original files so the Site Council can ensure that challenges remain fair. Files that have been modified, resaved, or altered by any editing or transfer software are not considered originals.
Thank you for your patience, and congratulations to the new Honorable Mention.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2025 06:31:38 PM · #2 |
Do you know that if the original raw file is ever copied or moved on a windows PC the Date Modified will change? If somebody had ever copied his photo storage from one hard drive to another all his photos are not qualified for Archival challenges. Unless you had the foresight of using Robocopy or similar tool to move your storage.
Mine was 10 years old so had been copied ofcourse. Very strange rule to enforce on a archival challenge IMOA. |
|
|
|
11/16/2025 07:30:12 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by orvaratli said on 2025-11-16::
Do you know that if the original raw file is ever copied or moved on a windows PC the Date Modified will change? If somebody had ever copied his photo storage from one hard drive to another all his photos are not qualified for Archival challenges. Unless you had the foresight of using Robocopy or similar tool to move your storage.
Mine was 10 years old so had been copied ofcourse. Very strange rule to enforce on a archival challenge IMOA. |
Copying a raw file from one drive to another on a Windows system doesn't change the Date Modified. I've done it many times. There has to be something else involved to change the Date Modified. The problem for SC is that we have no way of knowing how a file has been modified. So any original file has to have a Modified date that matches the Original/Create date. The file has to be literally unchanged in any way to count as an original. The rule is the same for any kind of challenge. I'm sorry for the DQs, but the rule is clear. |
|
|
|
11/16/2025 08:03:51 PM · #4 |
I wish there is an easy way to find out if any pixels were changed or only file type is changed. In my case, I did batch update to my old files to convert them from RAW to DNG. I have more than 100 photos with exact same modified date as I ran batch update to convert from RAW to DNG.
It hurts even more when yout PB gets DQed. I guess no more archival challenges for me as I have converted all my old photos to DNG at some point. I am disappointed and feel discouraged a little.
Message edited by author 2025-11-16 20:06:31. |
|
|
|
11/16/2025 08:28:35 PM · #5 |
I certainly agree with you feeling disappointed. My mistake was likely made 10 years ago taking a backup of my files on a wooden sailboat in Greenland. I suspect my Nikon NX Studio I used to handle files ages ago.
If anyone had the deep knowledge to change actual pixels on f.x. a Nikon .cr2 file he would certainly know how to change the Date Modified back to the original. There is no way to catch those. Just saying this rule is likely catching alot of false positives. Honest people who made honest mistakes. Dishonest people likely rarely get caught knowing how files are validated as it would be easy to circumvent. I know a few honest people that have been DQed by this rule.
Originally posted by DigiFotoBuddy:
I wish there is an easy way to find out if any pixels were changed or only file type is changed. In my case, I did batch update to my old files to convert them from RAW to DNG. I have more than 100 photos with exact same modified date as I ran batch update to convert from RAW to DNG.
It hurts even more when yout PB gets DQed. I guess no more archival challenges for me as I have converted all my old photos to DNG at some point. I am disappointed and feel discouraged a little. |
|
|
|
|
11/16/2025 08:53:09 PM · #6 |
I was under the impression that no one can't modify RAW and DNG format. What are the software and/or steps to process RAW or DNG file; and save it again as RAW file or DNG file. I never did it before. Is it even possible to do that? I thought it's called Digital Negative for a reason, so no one can modify. May be it's possible to do that, but I never thought it can be possible.
My point is if I provide DNG file as proof, isn't that enough that it's unaltered? |
|
|
|
11/16/2025 09:39:11 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DigiFotoBuddy:
I was under the impression that no one can't modify RAW and DNG format. What are the software and/or steps to process RAW or DNG file; and save it again as RAW file or DNG file. I never did it before. Is it even possible to do that? I thought it's called Digital Negative for a reason, so no one can modify. May be it's possible to do that, but I never thought it can be possible.
My point is if I provide DNG file as proof, isn't that enough that it's unaltered? |
Unfortunately not. The DNG isn't the original; it's a modified version of the original. The rules clearly state that an original must be exactly what's produced by your camera. There are a few cameras that natively produce DNGs (some drones, for instance), and for those DNGs the Modify Date is the same as the Original/Create Date, so those are acceptable originals. The file produced by your camera wasn't a DNG.
I do understand the frustration of being DQ'd, and I hate doing it, but we've got to apply the same rules to everybody. |
|
|
|
11/16/2025 10:01:42 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MaryO:
Originally posted by DigiFotoBuddy:
I was under the impression that no one can't modify RAW and DNG format. What are the software and/or steps to process RAW or DNG file; and save it again as RAW file or DNG file. I never did it before. Is it even possible to do that? I thought it's called Digital Negative for a reason, so no one can modify. May be it's possible to do that, but I never thought it can be possible.
My point is if I provide DNG file as proof, isn't that enough that it's unaltered? |
Unfortunately not. The DNG isn't the original; it's a modified version of the original. The rules clearly state that an original must be exactly what's produced by your camera. There are a few cameras that natively produce DNGs (some drones, for instance), and for those DNGs the Modify Date is the same as the Original/Create Date, so those are acceptable originals. The file produced by your camera wasn't a DNG.
I do understand the frustration of being DQ'd, and I hate doing it, but we've got to apply the same rules to everybody. |
Thanks for explaining the rules and I understand the rule. But is it okay to ask the reasoning behind the rule? What easily available software can allow RAW or DNG to be modified and saved back to RAW and/or DNG. I am not sure how that can be achieved with normal workflow that most of us follows. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 03:08:17 AM · #9 |
| In my over 30 years of editing image files I've never come across any software that allows you to write files as RAW files such as .NEF or .CR2's, other than DNG's of course. In my opinion, if the RAW EXIF date matches with the Date Creation date, we should be able to trust that. I am also curious if there is any software that is capable of editing and then saving, RAW files. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 03:25:59 AM · #10 |
I asked ChatGPT and unfortunately such software exists. There were some DPCers years ago that I suspect could have used it then.
I would have never used it myself because that totally loses the point of DPC which is to encourage to go out and shoot. And I quite like occasional Archival challenges as it allows to revisit some old photos, but again, you really need to be obsessed with winning to cheat. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 03:52:22 AM · #11 |
I'm sorry for doubting, but I also asked ChatGPT and got the following result: No software can write edited data back into your camera’s native RAW file (CR2, CR3, NEF, ARW, etc.)
As far as I know, DNG is the only RAW format that can be written by software. So I'm still wondering, what software can indeed save edited RAW files back as RAW files :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 05:04:06 AM · #12 |
Here is what I got:
Key Features
Read and write EXIF, IPTC, XMP, GPS, and more
Supports over 20 file formats, including RAW files (ARW, CR2, NEF, etc.)
Batch processing (change metadata in hundreds of files at once)
Preserve file integrity (does not touch image data unless explicitly told)
Can modify internal dates and OS-level timestamps |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 05:22:37 AM · #13 |
And this:
"RAW files edited carefully may leave no obvious trace in the file itself."
The RAW file is edited and saved as RAW file, the software only changes metadata. It is not image editing software. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 05:32:56 AM · #14 |
| What software is this? ChatGPT has a tendency to give us the answers we want, and not necessarily correct answers. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 05:48:04 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Oligamli:
What software is this? ChatGPT has a tendency to give us the answers we want, and not necessarily correct answers. |
I prefer not to in case someone was tempted. Maybe reword your question to find out for yourself.
I use ChatGPT a lot and I know it makes mistakes. If in doubt I verify the info in basic Google Search and the new AI Mode.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2025 09:00:40 AM · #16 |
In my over 30 years of editing image files I've never come across any software that allows you to write files as RAW files such as .NEF or .CR2's, other than DNG's of course. In my opinion, if the RAW EXIF date matches with the Date Creation date, we should be able to trust that. I am also curious if there is any software that is capable of editing and then saving, RAW files.
On all the images I edit, I preserve an original by making a virtual copy for preservation safety of the original. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 09:06:16 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
I prefer not to in case someone was tempted. Maybe reword your question to find out for yourself.
I use ChatGPT a lot and I know it makes mistakes. If in doubt I verify the info in basic Google Search and the new AI Mode. |
If you had the expertice to use these tools which is very complicated, you would certainly have the knowledge to edit the Date Modified attribute on the file. A user that goes down that path of pixel editing a .cr2/.nef files would never be detected by these rules.
The only users this rule seems to catch is honest users making techincal mistakes handling the files. This discurrages them (including me) from further engagement with the site as being treated as suspected fraudster is not a nice feeling. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 09:33:43 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by orvaratli:
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
I prefer not to in case someone was tempted. Maybe reword your question to find out for yourself.
I use ChatGPT a lot and I know it makes mistakes. If in doubt I verify the info in basic Google Search and the new AI Mode. |
If you had the expertice to use these tools which is very complicated, you would certainly have the knowledge to edit the Date Modified attribute on the file. A user that goes down that path of pixel editing a .cr2/.nef files would never be detected by these rules.
The only users this rule seems to catch is honest users making techincal mistakes handling the files. This discurrages them (including me) from further engagement with the site as being treated as suspected fraudster is not a nice feeling. |
Not sure what you mean. 99% DPCers are honest and obey by the rules. We all make mistakes, it is fair enough to get DQ'd in such cases. I had my share of DQs but I didn't feel that I was assumed to be a fraudster. Once I put the wrong original in and went away, another time I got the date wrong, and yet another I deleted the original by mistake. Such things happen. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 09:36:32 AM · #19 |
| Why someone would intentionally modify EXIF data to fake an original in order to try and win a virtual ribbon is beyond me. There may well be people who intentionally cheat, but I prefer to assume people have made honest mistakes. We ask for the original file from the camera so we can check that the editing rules were followed from original to entry. It's really that simple. Not being able to provide us with the original within the 48 hour deadline is actually a pretty common reason for a DQ, although the reason for not being able to provide the original varies, and it includes file handling mistakes. It doesn't imply fraud. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 09:44:26 AM · #20 |
That is exactly my point. For the record, I did provide the proof as DNG file within the 48 hours. I got DQ because photo taken date and modified date is not matching in EXIF. I explained why photo taken date is not matching with modified date in the DNG that I provided. It happened because I usually convert my files from RAW to DNG using lightroom.
The rule of matching create date(photo taken date) to modified date makes sense when it's JPEG or other formats which can be saved by photo editing software to ensure it's not edited after taken. But matching photo taken date to modified date doesn't make sense when photo submitted is RAW or DNG, IMHO.
If there are no such software easily available to edit photo and save back as RAW or DNG; Can I please request Site Admins to review and amend this rule of matching photo exposure date to modifieddate for RAW or DNG? For the validity of dates, of course check the photo exposure date for time validity in original submitted as RAW or DNG.
Message edited by author 2025-11-17 10:21:05. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 11:13:55 AM · #21 |
| In theory, someone could edit a file in something like Lightroom and then save that file as a DNG. So we can't be sure that DNGs are unedited just because it's a DNG. RAW files should be OK, but if somehow those dates don't match then it's not straight out of the camera and is therefore not an original. It's only happened once that I've seen, but I haven't been on Site Council that long. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 12:45:16 PM · #22 |
I’d appreciate if an Adobe expert could clarify this. My understanding is that Lightroom stores all edits as separate instructions and never modifies the original file. The adjustments are only applied when you export the photo, and Lightroom doesn’t provide an option to export as DNG. This nondestructive workflow—keeping edits separate and preserving the original file—is essentially the core design of Lightroom. So unless I’m mistaken, you can’t apply edits in Lightroom and then save the edited version as a DNG.
Lightroom does offer the option to convert files to DNG during import, which many recommend for long-term compatibility. I prefer converting to DNG so I’m not dependent on proprietary RAW formats that might become unsupported in the future—I’ve already run into issues with formats like HEIF. Based on advice from many professional photographers, I’d rather convert my files to DNG than keep them in their original RAW formats. But when you do this the modified date in photo EXIF will differ from the picture taken date, and it's not allowed as per the current rule in DPC.
Also, just to clarify: at no point did I suggest reverting my DQ or complain about it. I’m simply questioning whether the rule requiring the create date and modify date to match makes sense for RAW or DNG files. You won’t hear anything further from me on this unless a site admin or DPC user reaches out directly.
Message edited by author 2025-11-17 12:49:09. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 01:01:46 PM · #23 |
| I just checked my version of Lightroom Classic and when I export a file DNG is listed as an option for the file format, along with JPG, PNG, etc. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 01:33:52 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by DigiFotoBuddy:
So unless I’m mistaken, you can’t apply edits in Lightroom and then save the edited version as a DNG. |
The old AI DeNoise in LR (recently changed) would save your RAW file as a DNG after applying noise reduction. So, yes, you could edit a photo in LR and save it as a DNG. Not at home, so I can't check if it changed any of the date/time information, but I am going to guess it did. Also, someone else posted that you can export an edited image as DNG, and I am pretty sure some of the other features in LR (like panorama) will export as DNG as well.
Personally, I would never convert my RAW files to DNG and delete the originals. All that crap on the internet about preserving for future use assumes Adobe will be around 50 years from now. Sorry, I don't buy into the hype Adobe put out about their DNG format. If it were so amazing, the camera manufacturers would have switched to it years ago. |
|
|
|
11/17/2025 05:56:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by orvaratli:
The only users this rule seems to catch is honest users making techincal mistakes handling the files. This discurrages them (including me) from further engagement with the site as being treated as suspected fraudster is not a nice feeling. |
I appreciate you speaking up about how this felt. Getting a DQ is frustrating, and I completely understand why it can come across as being treated like you did something wrong on purpose. Speaking as someone who has managed to rack up multiple DQs over the years, I promise you: it’s not a moral judgment, and it’s definitely not us viewing you — or anyone — as a fraudster.
The validation rules exist because they’re the only practical way for the SC to keep the playing field fair. We need to confirm that entries follow the editing rules and were taken during the challenge window, and the only way to do that reliably is by checking the untouched original. Most DQs we issue are exactly like yours: honest mistakes, a technical slip, or a misunderstanding of a rule. Actual cheating is rare.
I know it never feels good to have an image disqualified, especially when the mistake feels small. But please don’t let it discourage you from sticking around and entering more challenges. Everybody who participates long enough eventually hits a snag — it’s practically a rite of passage. What matters is that you’re here, you’re shooting, and you’re part of the community.
We genuinely value your participation, and I hope we’ll keep seeing your work in future challenges.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/31/2026 11:17:15 AM EDT.
