| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2006 11:47:23 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The main concern I have is that a prohibition would likely not be enforceable. An in-camera multi-exposure would contain valid EXIF identifying it as an original. If someone can identify an EXIF tag that will tell us it's a multi-exposure, perhaps we could reconsider.
~Terry |
Given the number of editing methods which can either preserve EXIF data, or simply edit it to your liking, that's kind of like saying "We might as well not validate anything because the EXIF info could be faked."
Everything we do is tied to some level of trust, and there will always be people who get away with things that are illegal, but that doesn't mean the rule shouldn't be there. |
|
|
|
12/07/2006 11:52:08 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Everything we do is tied to some level of trust, and there will always be people who get away with things that are illegal, but that doesn't mean the rule shouldn't be there. |
Unfortunately, as history records for DPC has proven, trust is sometimes mis-used. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 01:19:31 AM · #403 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Unfortunately, as history records for DPC has proven, trust is sometimes mis-used. |
Again, this is a throwing-in of the towel. "We can't physically enforce it so it's not worth doing." Locks on your doors and windows only keep the honest people out. If people want to cheat they're going to do it and there's little that can be done about it. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 04:15:09 AM · #404 |
| Woo hoo, I am so excited for Expert Editing! |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 06:55:31 AM · #405 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The main concern I have is that a prohibition would likely not be enforceable. An in-camera multi-exposure would contain valid EXIF identifying it as an original. If someone can identify an EXIF tag that will tell us it's a multi-exposure, perhaps we could reconsider.
~Terry |
When in doubt ask the photog for their setup.
Yes, they may lie. But the vast majority will not lie because the vast majority here are honest.
Rules are for the honest, not the dishonest; if someone is going to cheat they will cheat regardless of the ruleset in place, there should be no accomodations made for these people. Not having a logical rule simply because an exceptionally small minority will violate it makes no sense.
Unenforcable rules currenlty in place:
- Your submission must be taken and post-processed by you.
Subjective rules currently in place:
- or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council.
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 06:59:03. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 07:19:38 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
When in doubt ask the photog for their setup.
Yes, they may lie. But the vast majority will not lie because the vast majority here are honest.
Rules are for the honest, not the dishonest; if someone is going to cheat they will cheat regardless of the ruleset in place, there should be no accomodations made for these people. Not having a logical rule simply because an exceptionally small minority will violate it makes no sense. |
Under the Classic Rules (as they are now called), we did not require camera dates to be set correctly, and we did not consider EXIF dates to be conclusive. This made the date rule largely an "honor system" thing. DQ's for date violations were rare, and only happened when the content of the photograph, or a comment by the photographer, gave away the violation (one well-known example was a photograph from a marathon that took place the day before the challenge began). We had many cases where EXIF was out of date, and we accepted the photographer's word that the dates were in error, and the photo was taken during the challenge.
Subsequent research by a member of the Site Council discovered widespread abuse of this trust, ultimately leading to the recalculation of multiple challenges, lengthy suspensions, and the current "EXIF date must be valid" requirement, as well a general desire not to once again create rules that punish the honest but let the dishonest go free.
Originally posted by alfresco:
Unenforcable rules currenlty in place:
- Your submission must be taken and post-processed by you. |
Disqualifications and suspensions have been issued for violations of this rule.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 07:32:43 AM · #407 |
Understood, and I think that is an example example from which we can learn. From the sound of everything that's being said here it seems everyone wants this but your reason above has led SC to not do implement.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Disqualifications and suspensions have been issued for violations of this rule.
~Terry |
You have shown that non-EXIF-related rules can be enforced, the above must have been accomplished with data other than exif.
And more than one SC has stated that this is something that must be addressed when cameras allow full editing and I doubt ultra-in-camera editing will include cool exif data to say what has and has not been done to the image.
So why not take this opportunity to solve the problem now? Instead of saying "no, this is not enforceable from EXIF" let's say "This is something we must solve." No, it's not EXIF-enforceable but you've already shown that is not a barrier to rules enforcement.
Taking this from the positive approach can lead us to the very real instance of finding a solution that works for everyone, is enforceable, doesn't make SC work day and night looking for cheaters, and gives a logical delineation between pre-processing (everything in front of the sensor, ie - setup) and post-processing (everything behind the sensor).
To this positive end and to start us all working towards that goal I propose:
"You may
- while photographing your entry, use any post processing feature of your camera that does not violate any rule. If in doubt SC will ask for the setup of your photograph; validity of setup will be determined by a majority vote of the SC."
SC already performs subjective rules enforcement, this would be another: do you believe the story of the setup?
Will someone eventually lie? Probably, that can't be stopped; but they will put in a lot of time and effort fabricating a story that needs to withstand the scrutiny of thirteen intelligent people.
And if someone isn't willing to give up their setup then they just plain won't be able to win. It can be a submission checkbox: I agree, if asked, to give full details of my setup to SC.
Your above information about the date and valid-exif information should be an example to learn from, not an example to just say no. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 08:32:20 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by ambaker:
You have a better lens, fine. More pixels, fine. A better sensor, fine. But when purely software functions are carried out, then they should be allowed inside or outside of the camera. Or banned inside and outside of the camera. |
I hate to post something simply saying "I agree" but... I agree. |
I'm sorry, but I gotta disagree. :)
Film cameras have been doing multiple exposures for YEARS. Some can, some cannot. Why do we have to take a step backward for Canon users just because Nikon is more "sensible" with what they put in their cameras? Nikon also sells flashes that have manual power adjustments; Canon does not. Are we going to be so silly as to outlaw that?
Software vs. hardware is NOT a good comparison, folks. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 11:30:25 AM · #409 |
Apologies for chopping up your post to reply. Several points need to be addressed together, and they're not together in your port. I believe I've preserved the context and meaning of your original post, if you feel otherwise please let me know and I'll edit my reply accordingly.
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Disqualifications and suspensions have been issued for violations of this rule.
~Terry |
You have shown that non-EXIF-related rules can be enforced, the above must have been accomplished with data other than exif.
...
Taking this from the positive approach can lead us to the very real instance of finding a solution that works for everyone, is enforceable, doesn't make SC work day and night looking for cheaters, and gives a logical delineation between pre-processing (everything in front of the sensor, ie - setup) and post-processing (everything behind the sensor). (emphasis added) |
...and therein lies the contradiction.
One notable example of an ownership violation occurred at the beginning of the year, and involved an established and well-respected member of the community. Resolving the issue took an extensive amount of investigation and forensic work, and I would estimate collectively took well over 100 hours of the Site Council's time. Resolution of the issue took a full two weeks, and the internal discussion of the issue ran to 179 posts. Only three users since 2002 have Site Council discussion threads which are longer, and two of those no longer have active DPChallenge accounts.
Our ability to uncover the widespread date abuse which led to the EXIF date requirement is owed almost entirely to a single Site Council member, who at the time was not employed, and spent literally hundreds of hours tracing down the violations and the evidence to support them. This was a herculean task even with the number of entries at the time, and goes orders of magnitude beyond what we have a right to expect from anyone.
Originally posted by alfresco:
Understood, and I think that is an example example from which we can learn. From the sound of everything that's being said here it seems everyone wants this but your reason above has led SC to not do implement. |
I agree. One lesson learned from this is that we need to consider enforceability and scalability any time we implement a rule.
Originally posted by alfresco:
And more than one SC has stated that this is something that must be addressed when cameras allow full editing and I doubt ultra-in-camera editing will include cool exif data to say what has and has not been done to the image.
So why not take this opportunity to solve the problem now? Instead of saying "no, this is not enforceable from EXIF" let's say "This is something we must solve." No, it's not EXIF-enforceable but you've already shown that is not a barrier to rules enforcement. |
I'm not disputing that this is something we will need to address. I do think we have time, though -- the sky is not yet falling on this issue at all. It's at most an "edge case" at this point, and it's important that we don't implement a cure that's worse than the disease.
With that in mind, I personally came to the following conclusions, which I think were mirrored at least to some degree by other members of SC at well.
1. The ability to post-process in camera is something that will need to be looked at for future rule revisions, to evaluate whether and to what extent changes are appropriate.
2. Researching this issue will require extensive research, including but not limited to an understanding of the full spectrum of "problem" cameras and their capabilities, analysis of actual files generated by a selection of the cameras in question.
3. There is a former SC member who works for a major camera retailer, and would be willing to provide us with the information needed for the research in #2, but November and December is not the best time to pester a retail salesperson for that sort of thing. ;-)
4. Given that this is a marginal issue at present, the benefit of rolling out the rule revisions immediately outweighed the benefit of delaying them into 1Q07.
Originally posted by alfresco:
To this positive end and to start us all working towards that goal I propose:
"You may - while photographing your entry, use any post processing feature of your camera that does not violate any rule. If in doubt SC will ask for the setup of your photograph; validity of setup will be determined by a majority vote of the SC." |
I do appreciate the suggestion, and it is one option we will consider.
Originally posted by alfresco:
SC already performs subjective rules enforcement, this would be another: do you believe the story of the setup?
Will someone eventually lie? Probably, that can't be stopped; but they will put in a lot of time and effort fabricating a story that needs to withstand the scrutiny of thirteen intelligent people.
And if someone isn't willing to give up their setup then they just plain won't be able to win. It can be a submission checkbox: I agree, if asked, to give full details of my setup to SC. |
One overarching goal of the latest rules revision was to reduce the amount of subjectivity in the rules. Where subjectivity could not be eliminated, we set out to define a clear standard that would define how we intend to interpret the rule in question. Overall, the current rules revisions are much less subjective or ambiguous than previous versions.
Another issue is the need to get it right when an entry is submitted for validation. I submit that it does little harm to have the occasional honest mistake get missed, but that disqualifying an entry where the user followed the rules (and not correcting the error if it's called to our attention) is inexcusable. To call the person a liar in the process is even worse.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 05:28:47 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I'm sorry, but I gotta disagree. :)
Film cameras have been doing multiple exposures for YEARS. Some can, some cannot. Why do we have to take a step backward for Canon users just because Nikon is more "sensible" with what they put in their cameras? Nikon also sells flashes that have manual power adjustments; Canon does not. Are we going to be so silly as to outlaw that?
Software vs. hardware is NOT a good comparison, folks. |
Sorry, but that is a very bad argument. It has been stated by more people, and more times than I can count that basic rules are "process oriented" and advanced rules are "results oriented".
Basic rules are tuned to force the photographers to make sure that something looks the way they want it in-camera. To get the right lighting, make sure that distracting elements are clear, etc. because they can't be removed or edited (too heavily) in post-processing.
Using film cameras as an example for allowing double-exposures isn't a valid comparison. Anyone with enough skill can use any SLR and achieve double exposures. All you need is knowledge and a film puller to restart your film. That is NOT the case with digital. If your camera does not support it internally, you can't achieve it in-camera. Period.
(You're also wrong about Canon's flashes and manual power adjustment, but that's irrelevant.) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 05:33:17 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Anyone with enough skill can use any SLR and achieve double exposures... That is NOT the case with digital. If your camera does not support it internally, you can't achieve it in-camera. Period. |
Not true, really. You can easily achieve multiple exposures with a digital camera that does not support it. One method is to fire a flash multiple times with a long shutter opening. There are several other methods. So it's not impossible, just more work and a bit less flexible.
The only reason I'd ever want to do in-camera multiple exposures is for challenge entries. Otherwise, it's much easier, and more flexible to do them in post. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:02:06 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Not true, really. You can easily achieve multiple exposures with a digital camera that does not support it. One method is to fire a flash multiple times with a long shutter opening. There are several other methods. So it's not impossible, just more work and a bit less flexible.
The only reason I'd ever want to do in-camera multiple exposures is for challenge entries. Otherwise, it's much easier, and more flexible to do them in post. |
You might achieve multiple subjects in that photo, but it's still a single exposure, and you're severely limited in what it can do. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:07:34 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
and you're severely limited in what it can do. |
I see you haven't been to  graphicfunk's profile yet. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 05:36:23 AM · #414 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
and you're severely limited in what it can do. |
I see you haven't been to graphicfunk's profile yet. |
Concurrence. Exceptionally amazing results can be acheived with one shutter actuation. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 05:57:51 AM · #415 |
Terry
Thanks for the reply.
I'll summarize since I'm ill and incoherent:
I agree, the sky isn't falling. Yet. But the complexity and ubiquity of in-camera processing is only going to increase to the point of making all the rules moot, better to address the issue sooner rather than later; 1Q07 is a good timeframe.
Implementation doesn't have to be immediate but discussion of how to best address the issue shouldn't stop; and it seemed to me that the issue was being pushed aside.
For me the whole issue has nothing to do with level playing fields, fair play, limitations of other cameras, etc; it has to do with logical delineation of pre-procesing and post-processing; defining the demarcation as the sensor would make the rules that much easier to understand and apply.
That's a long summary! |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 06:11:24 AM · #416 |
hello!
could you pelase answer me, I don't quite understand, if it's allowed to use actions in challenges? (advanced and expert)?
also is it allowed to use raw software to open one photo/file twice: one brighter and one darker and then use them as layers in photoshop?
thank you! |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 06:41:29 AM · #417 |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 06:55:08 AM · #418 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
hello!
could you pelase answer me, I don't quite understand, if it's allowed to use actions in challenges? (advanced and expert)? |
Actions are permitted, so long as the steps taken by the action, and the end-result thereof, do not violate any rules. For example, if you run an action that adds text (Advanced or Expert) or would change a typical viewer's description of the photo (Advanced), it would be illegal in that case.
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
also is it allowed to use raw software to open one photo/file twice: one brighter and one darker and then use them as layers in photoshop? |
Yes. This is specifically addressed in the rules: "You may: overlay two copies of the same original file and process them differently to enhance dynamic range."
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 08:36:19 AM · #419 |
thank you so much Terry for your answer! I'm sorry, I haven't seen that you answered me earlier.
may I ask one more question? is it allowed to use old canvas filter? like here for example: 
I was not DQed for that:) but some commenters said it might not be allowed. the rules say I can apply any filetrs though. I am a bit confused.
thank you!
Svetlana |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 09:06:11 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by nards656:
I'm sorry, but I gotta disagree. :)
Film cameras have been doing multiple exposures for YEARS. Some can, some cannot. Why do we have to take a step backward for Canon users just because Nikon is more "sensible" with what they put in their cameras? Nikon also sells flashes that have manual power adjustments; Canon does not. Are we going to be so silly as to outlaw that?
Software vs. hardware is NOT a good comparison, folks. |
Sorry, but that is a very bad argument. |
No, it's not. You just don't agree with it.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
It has been stated by more people, and more times than I can count that basic rules are "process oriented" and advanced rules are "results oriented". |
I see no connection at all with the "in camera discussion" in this statement.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Basic rules are tuned to force the photographers to make sure that something looks the way they want it in-camera. To get the right lighting, make sure that distracting elements are clear, etc. because they can't be removed or edited (too heavily) in post-processing. |
You just used the words "in-camera", but yet you want to disallow in-camera software. So you are right back at hardware versus software. Composition is a totally different skill.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Using film cameras as an example for allowing double-exposures isn't a valid comparison. |
Yes, it is. Again, you just don't agree with it.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Anyone with enough skill can use any SLR and achieve double exposures. All you need is knowledge and a film puller to restart your film. |
I'm not so sure that's a good idea with a power feed camera. Of course, you seem to think I'm a blooming idiot, so I guess you know a lot of things that I don't.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
That is NOT the case with digital. If your camera does not support it internally, you can't achieve it in-camera. Period. |
This one we agree on. However, since I don't agree that it can be easily done with ANY film SLR, I maintain that it is simply a feature of a camera that should not be punished or disallowed just because someone chose to buy a camera that can do it. You're wanting to impose a rule that makes no sense and has no reason, IMHO. WHY should double exposures be illegal in-camera????? Photogs have been doing them for a LONG time. I see no reason to outlaw them just because some cameras can't do them. That, to me, is totally ridiculous.
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
(You're also wrong about Canon's flashes and manual power adjustment, but that's irrelevant.) |
I may be wrong, but there's still a lot I don't like about Canon. You can't change that, I'm sorry. You also can't change the fact that they don't put PC terminals on many of their cameras, and I really wish they did. :) |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:06:01 AM · #421 |
I think there is a rule that is missing from the voting rules...
It should state in there that "you may not PM a commentor about a comment made on your photo during the challenge voting dates."
I've had people PM me during a challenge and violates the whole spirit of being anonymous. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:20:00 AM · #422 |
Originally posted by albc28:
I think there is a rule that is missing from the voting rules...
It should state in there that "you may not PM a commentor about a comment made on your photo during the challenge voting dates."
I've had people PM me during a challenge and violates the whole spirit of being anonymous. |
If you don't want to be bothered by PM's during a voting period, you can leave a comment anonymously. Just set that feature in your preferences.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 01:20:20.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:30:16 AM · #423 |
It's not about being bothered...I wasn't bothered by what was said...it's a matter of principle. The reasons your names aren't attached to your photo during voting is so that it's all anonymous. So if I comment on your photo (and lets just say for example we are friends) and you PM me back just mentioning the comment...now I know that is your photo...and if I wanted to I could go back and change the vote to make it higher....especially for those on the same WPL team.
I'm not saying that anyone on this site wouldn't be fair...but it can be awefully tempting. PMing about comments should only be done after the voting period. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:51:10 AM · #424 |
Originally posted by albc28:
It's not about being bothered...I wasn't bothered by what was said...it's a matter of principle. The reasons your names aren't attached to your photo during voting is so that it's all anonymous. So if I comment on your photo (and lets just say for example we are friends) and you PM me back just mentioning the comment...now I know that is your photo...and if I wanted to I could go back and change the vote to make it higher....especially for those on the same WPL team.
I'm not saying that anyone on this site wouldn't be fair...but it can be awefully tempting. PMing about comments should only be done after the voting period. |
I don't follow this logic. The rules already say "You may not vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system." What more is needed? Just because by chance you find out who's photo it belongs to doesn't exempt you from voting according to the rules, which is to vote on the photo's merits and how it relates to the challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 01:52:11. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:00:24 AM · #425 |
| Well how do you prove an intent to disrupt the voting system? Why would there be a need to PM a commentor during the voting period? It doesn't even have to be intent to disrupt the system. The PM has your name and the title of your photo....simply could just make you look at the photo differently...but it makes a difference. |
|
