| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2009 06:57:49 PM · #76 |
Isn't it possible to go in through Windows explorer, get the file from the card and email directly? What about opening the original with DPP? Maybe I'm full of crap, but if the original is on the card still, there has GOT to be a way to get it off and submit it without the "controlling" fingers of Microsoft trying to run your life. Damn you Bill Gates!!! :P
Send Langdon your card with a pre-paid, pre-addresses return envelope!!!! This is making me crazy!!! We have got to figure this out!
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:00:48 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Isn't it possible to go in through Windows explorer, get the file from the card and email directly? What about opening the original with DPP? Maybe I'm full of crap, but if the original is on the card still, there has GOT to be a way to get it off and submit it without the "controlling" fingers of Microsoft trying to run your life. Damn you Bill Gates!!! :P
Send Langdon your card with a pre-paid, pre-addresses return envelope!!!! This is making me crazy!!! We have got to figure this out! |
If I read her posts correctly she viewed the image in Windows Photo Gallery directly from the card, so it saved a new version over the original directly on the card.
Too bad Judy. Love the shot. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:03:34 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
If I read her posts correctly she viewed the image in Windows Photo Gallery directly from the card, so it saved a new version over the original directly on the card.
Too bad Judy. Love the shot. |
Yep. It is the Vista default. I put in my memory card, I click on the folder and start looking at stuff. Never thought a thing about it. Oh well. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:07:23 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
If I read her posts correctly she viewed the image in Windows Photo Gallery directly from the card, so it saved a new version over the original directly on the card.
Too bad Judy. Love the shot. |
Yep. It is the Vista default. I put in my memory card, I click on the folder and start looking at stuff. Never thought a thing about it. Oh well. |
Crap! So sorry about this. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:07:50 PM · #80 |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:10:24 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...
If I read her posts correctly she viewed the image in Windows Photo Gallery directly from the card, so it saved a new version over the original directly on the card.
Too bad Judy. Love the shot. |
DAMN! Yep, Geek Squad just confirmed that the file is forever changed the minute Picture Viewer was closed, even against your will!
I still love the shot!!! (load the canon software as it doesn't change the EXIF when you view and close. It even asks you if you want to!)
Hugs my friend...it's a stunning shot!! |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:16:14 PM · #82 |
| Oh SNAP! Very sorry, Judy. :-( |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:17:43 PM · #83 |
Well that's poopy. Sorry, Judy. I've been watching closely, hoping a solution would show itself for you. There's still time?
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:20:11 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
If I read her posts correctly she viewed the image in Windows Photo Gallery directly from the card, so it saved a new version over the original directly on the card. |
This may not be the case. There is a substantial difference between how a media card handles logical vs. physical addressing when it comes to actually writing data. It's not very "easy" to truly *overwrite* a data file on a media card intentionally. In fact, you'll end up with two sections of the file content written to the card in different physical addresses; only the file allocation table will point you to the new copy.
In not-so-much-geek-speak -- it's rather unlikely you have overwritten the original image, unless you have used the card enough since the original shoot that you have "wrapped" the data on the card and actually written over the original copy. Any number of data recovery programs, specifically written for media card recovery (emphasis added), should be able to retrieve it.
Confusingly, in the case above, it would actually recover both copies of the image, so be careful when combing through your results to determine which is a true "original".
I personally have used and recommend Piriform's Recuva. It's free -- couldn't hurt to try.
ETA - I was "led" here by this thread. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I wasn't following this discussion at all.
Message edited by author 2009-10-27 19:22:38. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:23:58 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Get ready to see me on the last page with the pink heading. Vista has a default that if you open a program in Photo Gallery, it will automatically show it as the Program and even a modification date and time - the time in which you opened it. XP didn't do that. The retrieval program was able to get back to the original with no modification time, but the Windows Photo Gallery was permanently saved as Program. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. Thanks tons for the helpful comments and support. You guys are simply the best. |
VISTA SUCKS!!! That is so stupid of them. How could they do this to you?!?!?! |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:30:34 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
If I read her posts correctly she viewed the image in Windows Photo Gallery directly from the card, so it saved a new version over the original directly on the card. |
This may not be the case. There is a substantial difference between how a media card handles logical vs. physical addressing when it comes to actually writing data. It's not very "easy" to truly *overwrite* a data file on a media card intentionally. In fact, you'll end up with two sections of the file content written to the card in different physical addresses; only the file allocation table will point you to the new copy.
In not-so-much-geek-speak -- it's rather unlikely you have overwritten the original image, unless you have used the card enough since the original shoot that you have "wrapped" the data on the card and actually written over the original copy. Any number of data recovery programs, specifically written for media card recovery (emphasis added), should be able to retrieve it.
Confusingly, in the case above, it would actually recover both copies of the image, so be careful when combing through your results to determine which is a true "original".
I personally have used and recommend Piriform's Recuva. It's free -- couldn't hurt to try.
ETA - I was "led" here by this thread. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I wasn't following this discussion at all. |
I think the card should be sent to Charles who sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I would hope Langdon and the SC will be willing to make an exception with regards to the deadline for submission of the original. I'll gladly chip in for the postage and handling involved along with any other willing contributor.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:40:04 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
I think the card should be sent to Charles who sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I would hope Langdon and the SC will be willing to make an exception with regards to the deadline for submission of the original. I'll gladly chip in for the postage and handling involved along with any other willing contributor. |
Hey, sure -- if that's allowed, and will help -- no problem here. I'm not sure it should be very difficult either way. I'm happy to help over the phone or such if I can just talk her through it. Whatever helps -- no trouble for me at all.
I'm in AZ, not far from TX, right? ;)
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 07:41:01 PM · #88 |
It seems the time requirement of validation could be satisfied if Judy sent in two untouched originals from the card, with file numbers bracketing the file in question. (one file with a higher number and one with a lower number) It would be especially helpful if one of the files contained a scene similar to the winner. I'm sure  langdon and the SC could come up with something to satisfy the terms of validation.
Anyone who has been a member for almost 6 years and has left 43,000 comments deserves one mulligan, with special handling.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 08:38:31 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
It seems the time requirement of validation could be satisfied if Judy sent in two untouched originals from the card, with file numbers bracketing the file in question. |
I think that this may be moot. If you use some built-in Vista POS to browse your images directly on the media card, then those files are modified after Image Viewer (or whatever it's called) closes.
However, I'm in  senor_kasper's camp....damn the rules for this one. Judy deserves her blue.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 08:41:31 PM · #90 |
| i"m still holding out that the original file is on the card untouched. Did Rescue Pro get you any results? (Maybe show two files?)I'm not giving up yet! Will overnight the Canon software for you to use to open if needed! Just give me a call or email me and I'll send it next day when I get to work tomorrow. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 08:46:59 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
It seems the time requirement of validation could be satisfied if Judy sent in two untouched originals from the card, with file numbers bracketing the file in question. |
I think that this may be moot. If you use some built-in Vista POS to browse your images directly on the media card, then those files are modified after Image Viewer (or whatever it's called) closes.
However, I'm in senor_kasper's camp....damn the rules for this one. Judy deserves her blue. |
The only problem there is you set a precedent - where do you draw the line in future when the same thing happens to someone else? Do you judge if they should have it allowed due to number of images they have commented on? on whether or not they have entered enough challenges, or just because `they deserve one` - if that is the case then it becomes cliquey and the integrity and fairness of the site and challenges comes into question.
But I am just playing Devils Advocate and personally I think that maybe the SC should just bend the rules, but when this happens again in future I wouldn't like to be the one to make the call.
Alternatively the best way out of this situation is a good old fashioned lie, just say "we received her file eventually and everything looks legit" - we would never know and everyone goes away feeling the rules have been obeyed..
Good luck Jutilda, FWIW I think its a smashing shot! |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 08:56:41 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Simms:
The only problem there is you set a precedent - where do you draw the line in future when the same thing happens to someone else? Do you judge if they should have it allowed due to number of images they have commented on? on whether or not they have entered enough challenges, or just because `they deserve one` - if that is the case then it becomes cliquey and the integrity and fairness of the site and challenges comes into question. |
This is absolutely true, Mark, and I'm sure Judy would agree...
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:01:38 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Alternatively the best way out of this situation is a good old fashioned lie, just say "we received her file eventually and everything looks legit" - we would never know and everyone goes away feeling the rules have been obeyed.. |
Until one of the SC decides to blow the whistle and witnesses start disappearing and then the tapes are subpoenaed and a grand jury is assembled. Then things get messy. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:01:47 PM · #94 |
I am so sorry to hear this.
But you know what, once you have got one ribbon they just keep appearing!! So I am pretty darn sure you will be up on the front page within weeks! |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:03:07 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I figured that since I wasn't likely to win anything, why worry about validation?
|
i had to validate a photo once... it passed... and it is my lowest scoring photo of the lot...lol! |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:04:48 PM · #96 |
| I have all of the images in a recovered file and I wiped the card clean. I wonder if I tried using the recovery software again, would it maybe find the original original? Hmmmmm |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:09:21 PM · #97 |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:11:47 PM · #98 |
| I am doing that now but I'm afraid it'll just show everything ok but under PROGRAM - but we'll see. This is totally lame. It's strange because I tried doing the same thing with just a benign image, opened it, looked at it, then opened it in Photoshop, and it did NOT have anything listed under Program afterward. It's like it's hit or miss. I know I didn't rotate the deer image because he would have been lying on his side. LOL |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:16:25 PM · #99 |
Fingers crossed, and sitting on the edge of my seat.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 09:19:47 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
I have all of the images in a recovered file and I wiped the card clean. I wonder if I tried using the recovery software again, would it maybe find the original original? Hmmmmm |
Unless you completely over-wrote the entire card with new data, original files and images can still be recovered.
Essentially, media cards (CF/SD/etc) act like a circular FIFO queue. To extend the life of the card, the microcontroller built into the card essentially "wraps" the data around the physical extents of the media, while presenting a different logical data map to the computer. Correctly-written media recovery software will actually read the entire card's "raw" data contents, ignoring file allocation tables and other metadata, and extract the original raw data which was recorded. Using known data structures and/or header "magic numbers" (yes, that's really what we call them), you can derive original data files from the raw card image.
Recovery depends on how much *actual data* has been over-written since the original file was saved on the card. Formatting/erasing/deleting-files/blahblahblah, is all irrelevant.
|
|
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: 08/04/2025 04:57:56 PM EDT.
