Camera or Phone - DPChallenge Forums

05/18/2007 08:34:41 PM · #1

Ive my own suspisions, obviously or else I wouldnt be posting the thread, but is their any way to find out what took these photos, I dont have the origionals, just these web steals. What do you think?

05/18/2007 08:45:21 PM · #2

Heh well camera phones range from 0.3 - 5 Megapixels some even have optical zoom.

This is a snap shot to show the color a 1.3 MP Samsung Camera Phone can produce not worth much photographically speaking.

awpollard

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/18/2007 08:51:52 PM · #3

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Yes, but yours handles contrast a lot better than whatever Shadow posted.

I'm guessing Shadows are a phone because a p&s would have bumped the ISO causing more grain. If done with a dSLR the shooter should probably consider eBay :)

05/18/2007 08:53:39 PM · #4

I'm entering a shot from my camera phone into the Free Study this month :-)

05/18/2007 08:57:33 PM · #5

Originally posted by awpollard:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Heh well camera phones range from 0.3 - 5 Megapixels some even have optical zoom.

This is a snap shot to show the color a 1.3 MP Samsung Camera Phone can produce not worth much photographically speaking.

Yes, but yours handles contrast a lot better than whatever Shadow posted.

I'm guessing Shadows are a phone because a p&s would have bumped the ISO causing more grain. If done with a dSLR the shooter should probably consider eBay :)

It does good in brilliant light but it would probly do the same as the posted indoors.

05/18/2007 09:07:41 PM · #6

So probably is but might bad shots if its a camera. It their any program out there to tell? fotoman, I hope we arnt going to be able to tell yours :)

05/18/2007 09:11:43 PM · #7

Myne
Samsung A930 2MP Camera Phone
Resized with photo shop from 1280x960 to 640x480

EXIF
Equipment Make MSM6500
Camera Model MICRON_AU75C
Exposure Time 1/21sec.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

05/18/2007 09:22:19 PM · #8

these were take by a 'profesional advertiser' and used in an advertisment, that is supossed to show off how good the house is. Im just asstounded that they would use something so bad.

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

05/18/2007 09:50:49 PM · #9

Looks like exif has been stripped from these files. Could have been taken from any low megapix camera of which a cellphone cam would apply.
Archive Collection - Cellphone

An example from : Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_514698.jpg
re: ExifTool Version Number : 6.86
Directory

File Size : 41 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2007:05:18 20:42:29
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
JFIF Version : 1.1
Resolution Unit : inches
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Image Width : 800
Image Height : 600
Image Size : 800x600

PhotoDave

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

05/18/2007 09:56:39 PM · #10

Originally posted by Shadowi6:

these were take by a 'profesional advertiser' and used in an advertisment, that is supossed to show off how good the house is. Im just asstounded that they would use something so bad.

You would be surprised on what some agencies use or are forced to use, I started as a graphic artist and ended up as production manager for an ad agency and some of the sh!t I had to push through was embarrassing to say the least.

-dave

Apple iPhone

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Nikon

05/18/2007 10:22:32 PM · #11

we know phones take great pics...

konador has entered challenges with his! I think that advertiser is just a horrible photographer

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 22:23:01.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

05/18/2007 10:30:38 PM · #12

Originally posted by undieyatch:

Looks like exif has been stripped from these files.

I think DPC does that on upload.

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

05/18/2007 11:25:09 PM · #13

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by undieyatch:
Looks like exif has been stripped from these files.

I think DPC does that on upload.

I believe you. Curious.... that has not always been true in the past.

PhantomEWO

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/18/2007 11:57:13 PM · #14

These are the standard type and quality of photos that most real estate agents take for posting in the MLS. I've seen much worst. At least they got out of the car. I've seen many MLS photos where the mirror of the car is blocking a big part of the photo and not too uncommon to see the hood or truck of the car. Most real estate agents are not pro photogs and are too cheap to hire one. Most use 2-4 Mp P&S camera and many their cell phone camera. I feel sorry for anyone using a real estate agent that does not obtain quality, sharp, great contrast, and detailed photos for MLS and/or marketing.

05/19/2007 12:09:07 AM · #15

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

[rant] It makes me very angry to see agents doing that, my day job is a real estate agent here in Aus and I know I do one hell of a better job for my clients. Its just damn lazy imo to do anything that looks like the shots above. But I do know that my chosen profession doesnt have the cleanest hankie. It anoyies me that the owner probably wont see how bad it is. [/rant]

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 00:09:19.

05/19/2007 12:56:22 PM · #16

Originally posted by undieyatch:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by undieyatch:
Looks like exif has been stripped from these files.

I think DPC does that on upload.

I believe you. Curious.... that has not always been true in the past.

1 - DPC does not
2 - Save for web does
3 - Many camera phones dont support exif
4 - Judging by the titles of the files they were uploaded a site that uses the GD library to resize and down the file size which is a library that under default strips exif data because by default it doesnt read it.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 12:58:12.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/19/2007 01:13:05 PM · #17

Originally posted by undieyatch:

Shouldn't have. I was wrong. I just tested it. :-D

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/19/2007 01:30:25 PM · #18

Originally posted by undieyatch:

Actually, DPC *used* to strip EXIF but no longer does.

BTW, if these were snagged from the web, the method has something to do with it. If you "copy image" and paste into an image editor, then save, the EXIF is not preserved (it's lost in the copy/paste process which transfers just the image data as displayed) whereas if you right-click and save, then open in an editor, if the EXIF was there it will still be there.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 13:31:06.

DjFenzl

05/19/2007 01:44:53 PM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by undieyatch:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by undieyatch:
Looks like exif has been stripped from these files.

I think DPC does that on upload.

I believe you. Curious.... that has not always been true in the past.

Actually, DPC *used* to strip EXIF but no longer does.

BTW, if these were snagged from the web, the method has something to do with it. If you "copy image" and paste into an image editor, then save, the EXIF is not preserved (it's lost in the copy/paste process which transfers just the image data as displayed) whereas if you right-click and save, then open in an editor, if the EXIF was there it will still be there.

Not even for challenge entries anymore? Because my EXIF says Â©Dan Fenzl in it and I don't usually strip it myself before uploading.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/19/2007 01:57:20 PM · #20

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Not even for challenge entries anymore? Because my EXIF says Â©Dan Fenzl in it and I don't usually strip it myself before uploading.

Correct. However, your copyright is a part of the IPTC information, not EXIF. The IPTC info is also retained, but people have to know (and want) to look there. FWIW, if you're worried if you could breech anonymity this way, I wouldn't give it much thought. It's a relatively high hurdle to DL an image and open it to see if someone has left identifying information in the IPTC fields. There's little to gain. If you are concerned, just delete the IPTC info on the challenge entry, or use Save for Web. I'd encourage the former, leaving the EXIF, since it can enhance learning (though, again, folks need to know they can look).

DjFenzl

05/19/2007 02:07:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Not even for challenge entries anymore? Because my EXIF says Â©Dan Fenzl in it and I don't usually strip it myself before uploading.

Correct. However, your copyright is a part of the IPTC information, not EXIF. The IPTC info is also retained, but people have to know (and want) to look there. FWIW, if you're worried if you could breech anonymity this way, I wouldn't give it much thought. It's a relatively high hurdle to DL an image and open it to see if someone has left identifying information in the IPTC fields. There's little to gain. If you are concerned, just delete the IPTC info on the challenge entry, or use Save for Web. I'd encourage the former, leaving the EXIF, since it can enhance learning (though, again, folks need to know they can look).

Well I don't enter many challenges but I was curious if it would be considered a violation. Just an FYI my camera actually adds the line to the "User Comments" field of the EXIF so it isn't actually IPTC info.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/19/2007 02:09:32 PM · #22

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Nope, not a violation at all. Ahh, yes, the comments field, so it is part of the EXIF. I stand corrected.

Artifacts

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/19/2007 02:19:48 PM · #23

Originally posted by kirbic:

Good to know EXIF data is retained by DPC. Ironically, I don't upload it to DPC as much as I used to. Whenever I do "Save As" to retain it I have trouble making the size limitations because Photoshop displays the file size incorrectly when saved. It is always larger than what it says and I frequently exceed maximum file sizes and have to re-save.

Outside checking the file size manually before upload, is there something than can be done about that?

05/19/2007 02:24:26 PM · #24

Save it about 10kb under what u would. And itll end up about what photoshop said it did when u were tying under 150k.

Its like a gun that shoots a little to the right just aim a little to the left.