| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2007 01:12:41 PM · #26 |
Jeff....
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Your humdinger shot should be on the 'front page' but now it is gone...I will miss it. Please fix your camera so we don't have to "miss" any more!!!
Mike
Message edited by author 2007-08-10 13:14:36.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 01:46:49 PM · #27 |
He was unlikely aware of the problem until after the first one was DQd. By that time the second one had been submitted.
Hopefully it's fixed now.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 01:49:01 PM · #28 |
i really really hate this. y'all have no idea how bad it feels to have to have to DQ a shot for unintentional date infractions. :(
PLEASE check your camera's date settings before you do anything else! put a post-it note on the lens cap if you have to, tie a string around your finger...anything to remind you until you just do it automatically!
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 01:58:50 PM · #29 |
Ohhhhh, man. I feel so bad for Jeff and the SC, both. Sheesh. That said, SC, I know you got tired of people claiming all kinds of things about dates that you couldn't verify, but this is a case, as Brad showed, where it's clearly a 2-year error on a series of shots. I wouldn't be upset at your granting leniency in this case, despite what the rules say.
And I DEFINITELY hope you're not going to impose any sanctions because of two DQs within 25 challenges.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:01:57 PM · #30 |
Rest assured, as a member of the team Jeff is on, we the team members are beating Jeff over the head. We don't care how the DQ's affected the team we are more concerned as to his attitude as a photographer. In the last several months we have seen him go from a good photographer to a great one and this kind of situation can really take the wind out of you. We learn and live...
Jace Land
the eXposed team member
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:03:48 PM · #31 |
| Can't there be some sort of award the guy wins for those shots. I mean they are absolutely deserving of praise and ribbons/awards or something. Terrible, just terrible about the dates... |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:05:57 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Ohhhhh, man. I feel so bad for Jeff and the SC, both. Sheesh. That said, SC, I know you got tired of people claiming all kinds of things about dates that you couldn't verify, but this is a case, as Brad showed, where it's clearly a 2-year error on a series of shots. I wouldn't be upset at your granting leniency in this case, despite what the rules say.
And I DEFINITELY hope you're not going to impose any sanctions because of two DQs within 25 challenges. |
as much as we would like to be lenient in cases like this...and there have been MANY where it has been an obvious date error, the date rule is hard and fast. we have preached this topic over and over again and again. i hate it, but this rule is non-debatable. :/
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:06:07 PM · #33 |
Here, here...well said. I also agree with Dr. Achoo that the second submission may have been done before he knew of the problem.
Talk about bad luck. I'm sorry, man...
Originally posted by levyj413:
Ohhhhh, man. I feel so bad for Jeff and the SC, both. Sheesh. That said, SC, I know you got tired of people claiming all kinds of things about dates that you couldn't verify, but this is a case, as Brad showed, where it's clearly a 2-year error on a series of shots. I wouldn't be upset at your granting leniency in this case, despite what the rules say.
And I DEFINITELY hope you're not going to impose any sanctions because of two DQs within 25 challenges. |
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:11:04 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
looks like he didnt learn from his own mistake last time. |
hahahaha exactly! Oh my gits, meant to be his second blue ribbon!!! COME ON!! =D I would be kicking myself lol |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:13:44 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Dantzr:
Jeff....
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
F I X * Y O U R * C A M E R A " S * D A T E ! ! !
|
Worthy of repeating!
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:16:05 PM · #36 |
BTW, if the site could parse EXIF (and required it on the submission shots) this wouldn't happen nearly as much (if ever).
"Sorry, your submission doesn't pass the date requirements. Please check your cameras date."
Message edited by author 2007-08-10 14:20:04.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:16:52 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by JawnyRico:
Can't there be some sort of award the guy wins for those shots. I mean they are absolutely deserving of praise and ribbons/awards or something. Terrible, just terrible about the dates... |
Ummm...a couple of days on the front page of DPC, 4259 views, and 43 favorites. For an entry that was deemed not legally entered? I'd say that's a pretty good reward considering. :) |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:18:21 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by sher:
as much as we would like to be lenient in cases like this...and there have been MANY where it has been an obvious date error, the date rule is hard and fast. we have preached this topic over and over again and again. i hate it, but this rule is non-debatable. :/ |
As for the DQs, I know, but I can always hope, can't I? :)
As for penalties resulting from multiple DQs, though, the rules do give the SC the ability to let it go: "In exceptional circumstances, the Site Council may elect not to apply a penalty." I'd say these are exceptional.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:34:48 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, if the site could parse EXIF (and required it on the submission shots) this wouldn't happen nearly as much (if ever).
|
I use PSP, it does not save the EXIF.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:40:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, if the site could parse EXIF (and required it on the submission shots) this wouldn't happen nearly as much (if ever).
|
I use PSP, it does not save the EXIF. |
Karen, I use PSP X and if I use File/Save As, JPG type, then Options - it provides a checkbox to include EXIF or not. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:43:40 PM · #41 |
Karen,
PSP X saves EXIF. Take an image and go Save As, then hit the Options button, then look in Run Optimizer. There should be a box you can check there.
Tim
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, if the site could parse EXIF (and required it on the submission shots) this wouldn't happen nearly as much (if ever).
|
I use PSP, it does not save the EXIF. |
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:46:46 PM · #42 |
Parsing the EXIF during uploads for the site as a whole would be a great addition, and in the case of challenges, if no EXIF is present, as in a Save for Web scenario, a pop-up could come on screen in the process, nudging the member to make sure the time stamp on theirs is valid, and a click to proceed. If the parse indicated an out of date image and gave a warning on screen, much as it does if an image is not of the correct file size and/or dimensions, it sure would save a lot of embarrassment later, not to mention how much forum space will be saved. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:49:33 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, if the site could parse EXIF (and required it on the submission shots) this wouldn't happen nearly as much (if ever).
"Sorry, your submission doesn't pass the date requirements. Please check your cameras date." |
Most/ many entries won't actually have the EXIF attached though.
E.g., Photoshop's save for web strips off the EXIF.
I usually throw it away to get a bit more quality in the file, too. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:53:27 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I usually throw it away to get a bit more quality in the file, too. |
I do too, but if allocations in file space were made, I'd leave it intact.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 02:56:43 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I do too, but if allocations in file space were made, I'd leave it intact. |
It sort of depends, if they went to 200k all the time, I'd probably still throw it away and use all the available :)
Would be real nice if there was a decent EXIF parser though, get all the camera info available not just the date info. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:04:39 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I do too, but if allocations in file space were made, I'd leave it intact. |
It sort of depends, if they went to 200k all the time, I'd probably still throw it away and use all the available :) ... |
You wouldn't be the only one; most likely the majority would use all of the file size for better image quality.
The only way around it would be to make uploading EXIF data a submission requirement.
Similar to the first line under Challenge Rules/Submission Requirements: "Your submission must be: taken with a digital camera that records EXIF data."
Of course requiring uploaded EXIF data opens a whole new can of worms around the software people use here. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:08:50 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Of course requiring uploaded EXIF data opens a whole new can of worms around the software people use here. |
???
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:13:12 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Of course requiring uploaded EXIF data opens a whole new can of worms around the software people use here. |
??? |
It was just mentioned that PS Save for Web strips out EXIF data. That could be worked around with some education.
I've seen on other threads over the last couple of years where there are some photo app's that don't have the option to include EXIF data (and no I don't know them off the top of my head). May not be an issue anymore, but certainly an item that would need consideration before making EXIF uploads a requirement. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:14:07 PM · #49 |
| Should all of this EXIF data talk be in it's own thread? Kind of taking over this one. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:27:06 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Of course requiring uploaded EXIF data opens a whole new can of worms around the software people use here. |
??? |
education, frustration, complication, other words ending in ion |
|
