DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Um... Remember the GOLDEN RULE of DPC VOTING!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 57, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/29/2008 11:54:51 AM · #1
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.
IMPORTANT: If you think a photo has been illegally altered, vote as if the entry is valid, and allow the Site Council to pursue the issue.

Thank you.
 10/29/2008 11:55:52 AM · #2
hey im not sure i got it the first 10 times. what?
 10/29/2008 11:59:24 AM · #3
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
hey im not sure i got it the first 10 times. what?


:)
 10/29/2008 12:06:23 PM · #4
lol im guessing something unpleasant is happening to one of our photos in voting now?
 10/29/2008 12:15:37 PM · #5
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
lol im guessing something unpleasant is happening to one of our photos in voting now?


Yea! - Go HawkeyeLonewolf! - Yea!

Ahem.

(OK - I admit I also have a deeply vested interest in this particular topic for one of the current challenges...)
 10/29/2008 12:29:30 PM · #6
See I always interpreted that rule as I am to vote the image as a 1 and change my vote later if it is proven to be a good entry. Is that not correct? Perhaps the rule is to vague and needs to be clarified.

Message edited by author 2008-10-29 12:30:04.
 10/29/2008 12:36:00 PM · #7
Originally posted by CraigD:
See I always interpreted that rule as I am to vote the image as a 1 and change my vote later if it is proven to be a good entry. Is that not correct? Perhaps the rule is to vague and needs to be clarified.

You forgot the tags.

Another good place for rules --> Forum Rules. :-)
 10/29/2008 12:44:07 PM · #8
I generally vote 1, leave a nasty comment, report it for validation, and then follow-up by lobbying the SC to DQ the shot.

10/29/2008 12:52:36 PM · #9
Originally posted by JH:
I generally vote 1, leave a nasty comment, report it for validation, and then follow-up by lobbying the SC to DQ the shot.

While it's refreshing to see so many miscreants readily confessing their sins, I think it's a serious error to blithely assume that confession confers automatic absolution.
 10/29/2008 12:53:48 PM · #10
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
hey im not sure i got it the first 10 times. what?


Well I'll tell you that in the "Poverty" challenge I happened to check the exif data on some of the entries that I gave top marks to and one of them I reported for having been shot outside of the challenge dates. ( 2 years out in fact) I included a copy of the exif data in my report.
Well the photo in question was not disqualified because of my report. Dont the powers that be on this forum give feedback to the member that filed the report to explain why the entry was not disqualified?
Here is the exif data from that particular photo. Maybe there is a perfectly logical explanation as to why this entry is legal..maybe an error or something in the exif data but I would like to know.
image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Image Generated 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized 2006:11:09 15:29:16

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width: 8000
Image Height: 12001
Number of Bits Per Component: 8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme: Uncompressed
Pixel Composition: RGB
Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement: Chunky Format
Image Created: 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Exposure Time: 1/160 sec
F-Number: f/10.0
Exposure Program: Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating: 200
Lens Aperture: f/10.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 41.00 mm
Color Space Information: sRGB
Image Width: 427
Image Height: 640
Rendering: Normal
Exposure Mode: Auto
White Balance: Auto
Scene Capture Type: Standard

Other Properties:

Number of Components: 3
Resolution Unit: i
Exif IFD Pointer: 944
Compression Scheme: JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Resolution Unit: i
Offset to JPEG SOI: 1426
Bytes of JPEG Data: 6114
Exif Version: 2.21
6Image Generated: 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized: 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Shutter Speed: 1/160 sec
Focal Plane Horiz Resolution: 3959 dpi
Focal Plane Vert Resolution: 3959 dpi
Focal Plane Res Unit: i

Message edited by author 2008-10-29 15:39:23.
 10/29/2008 12:56:35 PM · #11
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
I generally vote 1, leave a nasty comment, report it for validation, and then follow-up by lobbying the SC to DQ the shot.

While it's refreshing to see so many miscreants readily confessing their sins, I think it's a serious error to blithely assume that confession confers automatic absolution.

LOL!
 10/29/2008 12:57:36 PM · #12
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Well I'll tell you that in the "Poverty" challenge I happened to check the exif data on some of the entries that I gave top marks to and one of them I reported for having been shot outside of the challenge dates. ( 2 years out in fact) I included a copy of the exif data in my report.......

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Created: 2008:10:18 10:49:02


Huh? How is that 2 years out of date?

R.
 10/29/2008 01:01:51 PM · #13
image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Image Generated 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized 2006:11:09 15:29:16

Not sure how the generated and digitized play into this?
 10/29/2008 01:10:07 PM · #14
I'd also say that SC looks at the EXIF info on the original image. There's no way of knowing if the EXIF info on an entry is legit or not however the original EXIF doesn't lie. If it's been tampered with SC knows!

I'd also agree with Melethia. The image created info is what I would go with. I'm also not sure what the other dates are for.
10/29/2008 01:11:55 PM · #15
The image may be still under consideration ... you really should not be discussing it's legality here.
 10/29/2008 01:12:05 PM · #16
Oh yeah...back on topic:
When I come across an image I believe needs to be validated, I skip voting on it because I probably have a bias in that case.
10/29/2008 01:12:09 PM · #17
Hey Guys

The Exif data on my camera looks the same. The date created is when the shot was taken, and I think the other information I believe is something about when the software/hardware in the camera was created? Not sure... but I've always wondered this about my exif.

Ex. I'm looking at a shot off of my camera that says

"Date Created 1/1/04 12:25:04AM
Date Modified 10/21/08 12:41:26PM"

This was a shot I took last tuesday... on a camera I bought less than a year ago... so there is no way I could have taken it on Jan 1st, 2004 (as I barely even had a point and shoot back then). Every picture off of my camera (that is unprocessed in photoshop) has that exif data on it.

When I look at the post from this thread, it says, "Image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02," which could be the time the camera was actually used to take the photo. So maybe the generated and digitized dates/times are like the times on my camera? If you want to check if that's true, maybe check a few of this users photographs and see if there are similar markings on the other photos with different "created" dates.
 10/29/2008 03:36:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Well I'll tell you that in the "Poverty" challenge I happened to check the exif data on some of the entries that I gave top marks to and one of them I reported for having been shot outside of the challenge dates. ( 2 years out in fact) I included a copy of the exif data in my report.......

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Created: 2008:10:18 10:49:02


Huh? How is that 2 years out of date?

R.


image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Image Generated 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Anyway I believe I am not allowed to discuss this here as the photo is still being checked out but I will say that I do have irrefutable proof that the photo in question was taken in 2006 through magazine articles and online records. I cannot and will not divulge anything more at this stage.
 10/29/2008 03:41:59 PM · #19
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Well I'll tell you that in the "Poverty" challenge I happened to check the exif data on some of the entries that I gave top marks to and one of them I reported for having been shot outside of the challenge dates. ( 2 years out in fact) I included a copy of the exif data in my report.......

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Created: 2008:10:18 10:49:02


Huh? How is that 2 years out of date?

R.


image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Image Generated 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Anyway I believe I am not allowed to discuss this here as the photo is still being checked out but I will say that I do have irrefutable proof that the photo in question was taken in 2006 through magazine articles and online records. I cannot and will not divulge anything more at this stage.


WOW.

I guess ACORN is registering users on this site too! :)
 10/29/2008 03:54:00 PM · #20
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
I generally vote 1, leave a nasty comment, report it for validation, and then follow-up by lobbying the SC to DQ the shot.

While it's refreshing to see so many miscreants readily confessing their sins, I think it's a serious error to blithely assume that confession confers automatic absolution.


Hey, do you mean that 15 Hail Mary's and 10 Our Father's ain't enough for absolution?! ;)
 10/29/2008 03:55:19 PM · #21
Originally posted by ThingFish:
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
hey im not sure i got it the first 10 times. what?


Well I'll tell you that in the "Poverty" challenge I happened to check the exif data on some of the entries that I gave top marks to and one of them I reported for having been shot outside of the challenge dates. ( 2 years out in fact) I included a copy of the exif data in my report.
Well the photo in question was not disqualified because of my report. Dont the powers that be on this forum give feedback to the member that filed the report to explain why the entry was not disqualified?
Here is the exif data from that particular photo. Maybe there is a perfectly logical explanation as to why this entry is legal..maybe an error or something in the exif data but I would like to know.
image created 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Image Generated 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized 2006:11:09 15:29:16

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width: 8000
Image Height: 12001
Number of Bits Per Component: 8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme: Uncompressed
Pixel Composition: RGB
Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement: Chunky Format
Image Created: 2008:10:18 10:49:02
Exposure Time: 1/160 sec
F-Number: f/10.0
Exposure Program: Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating: 200
Lens Aperture: f/10.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 41.00 mm
Color Space Information: sRGB
Image Width: 427
Image Height: 640
Rendering: Normal
Exposure Mode: Auto
White Balance: Auto
Scene Capture Type: Standard

Other Properties:

Number of Components: 3
Resolution Unit: i
Exif IFD Pointer: 944
Compression Scheme: JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Resolution Unit: i
Offset to JPEG SOI: 1426
Bytes of JPEG Data: 6114
Exif Version: 2.21
6Image Generated: 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Image Digitized: 2006:11:09 15:29:16
Shutter Speed: 1/160 sec
Focal Plane Horiz Resolution: 3959 dpi
Focal Plane Vert Resolution: 3959 dpi
Focal Plane Res Unit: i


Wow, Jan.....a lot of time on your hands...or, working for SC as an undercover agent? ;)

Just out of curiosity....in a site that has VIRTUAL RIBBONS, what on earth would make you take this all so seriously that you'd actually take this kind of time to do something like this??? Have you got it out for someone and want to catch them at it?! Or, are you sour graping your own scores? What gives? This had to have taken a bit of time to do. And, I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data???

Ok, IF you don't have this Firefox ability and ARE downloading shots to go through an efix extractor AND since you are NOT part of SC, you don't have the right to be downloading ANYONE but your own photos onto your computer.

But no matter what....my original question still stands. There are all kinds of cheaters in here.

Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:16:13.
 10/29/2008 04:01:24 PM · #22
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Wow, Jan.....a lot of time on your hands...or, working for SC as an undercover agent? ;)

Just out of curiosity....in a site that has VIRTUAL RIBBONS, what on earth would make you take this all so seriously that you'd actually take this kind of time to do something like this??? Have you got it out for someone and want to catch them at it?! Or, are you sour graping your own scores? What gives? This had to have taken a bit of time to do. And, I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data???

Personally, I think that since you are NOT part of SC, you have NO right to be downloading ANYONE but your own photos onto your computer to run it through this type of thing! I can tell you one thing, I do NOT want my photos downloaded to your computer! They are MINE and you have no right to them.


Wow... attack the messenger why doncha?
 10/29/2008 04:05:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Wow, Jan.....a lot of time on your hands...or, working for SC as an undercover agent? ;)



Wow... attack the messenger why doncha?


My apologies....just corrected that! Thank you!

Edited to add:

And, recorrected it LOL...because it was Thingfish that originally posted this.

Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:19:50.
 10/29/2008 04:06:26 PM · #24
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
This had to have taken a bit of time to do. And, I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data???


Not at all, actually. A lot of us have a dandy little plugin for Firefox that allows you to right-click any image and read its exif data, assuming there IS exif data appended to it (in DPC challenges easily half the images have been stripped of exif so as not to waste bytes in compression). It's real handy when you want to see the tech details of a shot.

R.
 10/29/2008 04:08:05 PM · #25
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
... I'll assume that you'd have to actually DOWNLOAD other people's shots onto YOUR computer in order to run it through a program to get the efix data??? ...

I think the Firefox browser has a utility to do this pretty easy - no download involved. I say that with hesitation because I'm still using IE...just something I'd read/heard.

ETA - Robert beat me to it...and he has firsthand knowledge of how it works. Hooray! :-)

Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:09:12.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 12:40:30 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/14/2025 12:40:30 PM EDT.