|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2006 01:48:06 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
However, I assume that rotating it, even in the Windows filmstrip view, will serve as editing it? When I've rotated images this way, they open in a real editing program as rotated, so it seems it's real.
As opposed to my Canon picture viewing software, which stores rotation info in the EXIF, rather than changing the actual pixel data. |
You're correct that Windows actually rotates the image data. As a matter of fact, the OS will give you a warning on this the first time you do it. I have verified that at least two EXIF fields are rewritten. I can't say for sure whether this would invalidate an original at this time. I know that I'd take a conservative approach on it.
There's another *very* good reason not to rotate this way. Windows does not do "lossless rotation," so the rotate operation immediately imposes one generation of "JPEG entropy." Same as opening, editing, and resaving a JPEG. |
|
|
|
08/17/2006 01:55:04 PM · #27 |
my wife,  prozac, almost got dq'd for this exact issue a long time ago (which was actually my fault because at the time, i was teaching her how to do everything). In the end, it was not dq'd but why take that chance?
Originally posted by kirbic:
I can't say for sure whether this would invalidate an original at this time. I know that I'd take a conservative approach on it. |
|
|
|
|
08/17/2006 02:27:57 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's another *very* good reason not to rotate this way. Windows does not do "lossless rotation," so the rotate operation immediately imposes one generation of "JPEG entropy." Same as opening, editing, and resaving a JPEG. |
Abso-tootly. I would never recommend or use this method. I raised the concept solely as a warning for folks who may not be particularly conversant with image editing software.
From the look of many entries, there are people here who doing much in the way of post-processing, so I wanted to clarify it for them.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
08/17/2006 02:48:00 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Ok, I figured it out. Nobody said you couldn't call your image "blah blah ORIGINAL" That's how I save stuff so I know which one it is. UGH Ok, I sent it with the original file name off of the card. I had no idea naming it "original "changed any data. WOW
So that means two of my entries (should they need the originals) will have to be pulled, cause I saved them the same way as "____Original" instead of just as the number off the card. Am I an idiot or do other people do the same thing?
AUGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Your Friendly Dunce Photog |
Here's what I do when naming stuff:
DSCN1234 is the original.
1234-briefdescriptor is the edit.
This way when SC asks me for proof, I don't have to hunt through files wondering which one was the original for my submission. It was number 1234, and so I pull DSCN1234.
The parent folder is also labeled with the date and a brief description of what it contains, which eliminates the need to rename originals.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/05/2025 05:38:33 PM  |
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: 09/05/2025 05:38:34 PM EDT.
|
