| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2009 10:30:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Magnumphotography:
I sent the second Jpeg with info, to Dpc general inquiry. |
The last General Inquiry ticket from you was sent on October 19th. |
|
|
|
11/12/2009 10:49:45 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Jac:
I am tired of seeing people get their great images disqualified because some stupid software stamped its name into the file. I just saw Magnumphotography's image that was DQed and it inspired me to write this. I know many of you already know this but I'll go on for those who don't or are not sure. I think the SC should be doing this because of the many DQ's we have been seeing lately but that's another matter. |
It's really not an SC issue. We're supposed to pay attention, learn, and/or know this stuff.
We don't. That's not SC's fault.
We always seem to find this info out when one of us, or a close friend, finds it out the hard way.
I had already won a ribbon, and had my RAW image validated, only to find this out months later when Catherine got DQed for this reason.
I dodged the bullet completely by accident because I had the good fortume to find a mentor early on that urged me to shoot RAW.
So......taking it into consideration that SC has their hands full, and it's really something all of us are supposed to know, how about if you either write, or organize a group, to write a clear & concise tutorial on how to do this file preservation thing for both Mac & PC?
Then......the link to the tutorial could go out in a welcome message to everyone.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 01:54:29 AM · #28 |
Jeb, let's stay on target here. I wasn't inferring that the SC weren't doing their job. I was inferring that it might have been a good idea to remind folks on how to properly save their files since lately there have been some very worthy ribbon winners that have been DQed for a minor, to me anyways, detail (not original image). Nothing else.
I like your idea about the tutorial and maybe someone can write it one day who can stick long words together and make sense out of them. :)
Scalvert, would the SC reconsider their decision if the RAW file were to be handed in and everything turned out to be legit? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 02:55:17 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I always keep the raw file on the card until well after voting, do any programs ever touch the original on the card? |
No/Yes. RAW files will always be OK. It's only the JPEGs you have to worry about, and those can be modified on any writable media when you're working with them. |
Nikon Capture will modify the RAW if you work with it and save it. It doesn't make a seperate modifications file.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 03:05:27 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Jeb, let's stay on target here. I wasn't inferring that the SC weren't doing their job. I was inferring that it might have been a good idea to remind folks on how to properly save their files |
Maybe link If requested, I will provide the unedited, original file from my digital camera within 48 hours. that you tick a box for on every challenge, to the discussion where all is explained?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 03:14:55 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Jeb, let's stay on target here. I wasn't inferring that the SC weren't doing their job. I was inferring that it might have been a good idea to remind folks on how to properly save their files since lately there have been some very worthy ribbon winners that have been DQed for a minor, to me anyways, detail (not original image). Nothing else. |
Originally posted by Jac:
I think the SC should be doing this because of the many DQ's we have been seeing lately but that's another matter. |
Okay......what exactly do you have in mind here?
It sure sounds like you think SC should be doing something here......since you say this.
I merely tried to point out that it is something that we are supposed to do ourselves.......familiarize ourselves with how the system works, and utilize our cameras and computers accordingly so we don't end up DQed because of something we didn't pick up on.
I whole heartedly agree that this has been something that people have been caught short on.
Originally posted by Jac:
I like your idea about the tutorial and maybe someone can write it one day who can stick long words together and make sense out of them. :) |
All I'm asking is that why can't you put together either the tutorial, or round up a group effort to do so.
I like your idea: it might have been a good idea to remind folks on how to properly save their files
Again, isn't it OUR responsibility to know the TOS and what we're supposed to do should we enter a challenge and check the block that says: If requested, I will provide the unedited, original file from my digital camera within 48 hours.
That's a pretty clear statement, HOW to do that is one of those things that actually has been made abundanly clear over the past two and a half years or so in various threads due to people getting snagged by the transfer software thing.
I applaud your feelings on the subject, and encourage the efforts necessary to produce a tutorial.
Originally posted by Jac:
Scalvert, would the SC reconsider their decision if the RAW file were to be handed in and everything turned out to be legit? |
You do realize that you're asking for an exception to be made......one that all too shortly ago was disallowed Judy  Jutilda for consistency in rule enforcement?
Yes, it's a hard lesson, and none of us wants to learn it this way, have a promising newcomer learn it that way, or see a much beloved long time legend have her first and only ribbon ever stripped away. So what say we do this?
I don't know how to do tutorials, and my computer skills are sketchy at best.
Can you make that description in your first post that sounded so easy accompany a few screenshots that would make it so that the greenest newbie photog can easily do this?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 03:26:03 AM · #32 |
sorry, i've tried to read everithing here, but you write too fast for me!! ;-)
which is the correct method to send an original file when required?
i have to send the nef file (24Mb) if i understood correctly, without open it with Nx or CS, ok?
(is not my case now, but in the future not known...)
tnx to answers... |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 03:30:42 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GiorgioBaruffi:
sorry, i've tried to read everithing here, but you write too fast for me!! ;-)
which is the correct method to send an original file when required?
i have to send the nef file (24Mb) if i understood correctly, without open it with Nx or CS, ok?
(is not my case now, but in the future not known...)
tnx to answers... |
As I understand it, CS won't alter the RAW files, but possibly Capture NX will.
I think what is being said is to open the drive in "My Computer" (For the PC folks) and drag and drop the original files into a specified file. Then copy them for working files and leave the originals untouched.
Since I shoot RAW, and have CS2, and probably won't enter a Minimal Editng challenge, I'm unclear as to how to properly do this.
Hence my interest in a cut & dried, idiot-proof tutorial.....8>)
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 03:31:26.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 03:41:10 AM · #34 |
The correct Nikon Capture NX workflow is to
a) copy/paste the NEF from the camera to the correct map on the drive
b) open it and edit it with Capture NX, but do not save it (only save as... a different name) or don't save but find the option (it is there) to write all the changes to a seperate 'changes'-file.
c) use the menu option to 'send' the edited raw to Photoshop for the fine-tuning if you have to. NX will transfer a copy to PS. This you can save as whatever you want.
Or you simply copy the file in windows, rename it DSC1000DPC.NEF and work with that and dont worry.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 03:53:06 AM · #35 |
oook... now i understood perfectly...
I usually edit the file with nx and save the changes, I will leave a copy of the original nef not edited for any claim, though you can always go back to the original file with nx, simple solution for this is not always obvious, thanks a lot Azrifel!
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 07:17:25 AM · #36 |
Once again Jeb, you've made that darn mountain out of that darn molehill. I refuse to answer your queries because that's not the purpose of this thread.
Start another thread if you want but please stop trying to deride this one. Thanks. :)
But I'll answer one though.
Judy never supplied her original because it was modified but in this case the original might still exist in its pristine state, hence the question. I would expect the rules be bent for legitimate claims by paying members, DPC needs to lighten up with its strict rules. Why do we only have 48 hours to send the original? Is this site going somewhere? Why is it so important to hand in that original within 48hrs? Why not a week, a month? It seems the SC wants to resolve these situations before the challenge is removed from the front page so the new ribbon winner can appreciate his victory by seeing his image there. Is this why this 48 hour rule exists? Some people aren't sitting by their computers 18 hours a day, some go days without booting their PCs.
Still waiting for an answer to my question Scalvert. :)
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 07:35:36 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Once again Jeb, you've made that darn mountain out of that darn molehill. I refuse to answer your queries because that's not the purpose of this thread.
Start another thread if you want but please stop trying to deride this one. Thanks. :)
But I'll answer one though. |
I am not trying to deride the thread.
I merely pose to you the question: Why is this an SC issue? Why is this anything but the responsibility of the photog to learn?
Personally, I get pretty tired of the whole, "We want you to do all the work for us." attitude.
It's not unreasonable to expect someone who signs up, ticks off all the appropritae boxes that state in one way or another:"Yes, I *have* read, and I understand the TOS, and the various processes necessary to participate on the site." and then not hold them to it.
You, and everyone else knows that none of us read all the fine print, but that *IS* where the information, and the guidelines for participation are.
At *ANY* point, you may submit a ticket, and one of quite a few polite, helpful, and knowledgeable SC members will get back to you and engage with you 'til your quest for information is satisfied. Their interest lies in your ability to get your questions answered so that your DPC experience is an informed and enjoyable. What more would you have them do? Show up at your houyse the evening you register and spend four hours going over everything that you *MIGHT* encounter during your time here?
You can quit telling me to go away because you domn't like hearing this, but it *IS* the responsibility of the participant to read and understand the TOS and the rules of participation.
At this point since you seem so intent on telling me off, I submit to you, either put up, and do the work necessary to implement your idea, or shut up.
Don't just sit there and propose work for someone else to do.......it's your great idea, get to work!
Originally posted by Jac:
Judy never supplied her original because it was modified but in this case the original might still exist in its pristine state, hence the question. I would expect the rules be bent for legitimate claims by paying members, DPC needs to lighten up with its strict rules. Why do we only have 48 hours to send the original? Is this site going somewhere? Why is it so important to hand in that original within 48hrs? Why not a week, a month? It seems the SC wants to resolve these situations before the challenge is removed from the front page so the new ribbon winner can appreciate his victory by seeing his image there. Is this why this 48 hour rule exists? Some people aren't sitting by their computers 18 hours a day, some go days without booting their PCs.
Still waiting for an answer to my question Scalvert. :) |
Why should the rules be bent?
It's not important that the original be handed in in 48 hrs, it's important to have a ruleset, that applies to one and all, and abide by it. What would you have? A week? So that we can have more threads bitching about how long it takes to get your ribbon-winning image validated? So someone who ends up with a ribbon by default gets *zero* front page time? How would you feel if you won a ribbon and got no front page time?
What's wrong with having the new winner step up and have his/her image on the front page?
Are they not entitled to it if they followed the rules?
You can put all the smileys in you want, but you really ought to think through what you're asking.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 08:09:42 AM · #38 |
i think original should be made mandatory. When you submit for challenge upload the original too along with it. If you do not have original then you have no right to enter challenge.
These originals should stay till the validations things are sorted out, and after certain period could be removed.
This will save us lot of headache if implemented.
/// not joking ...
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 08:10:07. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 08:53:56 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
i think original should be made mandatory. When you submit for challenge upload the original too along with it. If you do not have original then you have no right to enter challenge.
These originals should stay till the validations things are sorted out, and after certain period could be removed.
This will save us lot of headache if implemented.
/// not joking ... |
Problem with that is, it takes human interpretation on the part of the SC to determine if the uploaded "original" is a *valid* original. So, short of requiring SC to validate every entry in every challenge, we'd still be int he same boat we're in now.
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:09:22 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by zxaar:
i think original should be made mandatory. When you submit for challenge upload the original too along with it. If you do not have original then you have no right to enter challenge.
These originals should stay till the validations things are sorted out, and after certain period could be removed.
This will save us lot of headache if implemented.
/// not joking ... |
Problem with that is, it takes human interpretation on the part of the SC to determine if the uploaded "original" is a *valid* original. So, short of requiring SC to validate every entry in every challenge, we'd still be int he same boat we're in now.
R. |
they don't have to validate every entry, they just need to refer it when they validate. Then there will be no such thing that some time must be given or i will upload when i get time or etc etc.
when they validate, they just refer to it, if it is deemed disqualify-able one can not appeal. The point is to help SC and not to over burden them.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:22:09 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Judy never supplied her original because it was modified but in this case the original might still exist in its pristine state, hence the question. I would expect the rules be bent for legitimate claims by paying members, DPC needs to lighten up with its strict rules. Why do we only have 48 hours to send the original? |
You have between 9 and 16 days to upload your original, plus the time the SC gives you after the challenge. From the moment you upload your entry, you also have the option to upload your original.
Originally posted by Photpage after upload:
If you will be away or offline and unable to submit an original during or in the few days after voting, we suggest that you submit your original(s) in case your entry is questioned. |
If you are not online much, expect to be away, think you have a winner but know you will not be there the next two days, you can upload your original. You also tick a box just before that, where you state to supply the original within 48 hours.
There is not really an excuse to upload a week or a month later. You read the rules, there is a clear option, you are making a problem where there exists no problem.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:22:44 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Then there will be no such thing that some time must be given or i will upload when i get time or etc etc.
when they validate, they just refer to it, if it is deemed disqualify-able one can not appeal. |
That wouldn't help in this type of situations. The photographers uploaded a file in plenty of time, it just wasn't the correct file. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:26:40 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Then there will be no such thing that some time must be given or i will upload when i get time or etc etc.
when they validate, they just refer to it, if it is deemed disqualify-able one can not appeal. |
That wouldn't help in this type of situations. The photographers uploaded a file in plenty of time, it just wasn't the correct file. |
This type of situation would not have cropped up in the first place, because you won't be requesting original. Original would have been already submitted. If someone uploaded wrong original - it would be disqualified.
In fact my suggestion is just to avoid this type of work for SC. Now you see you guys have to wait for another file, and discuss with each other what to do etc etc. All that would have been avoided.
Ps: Goodnight i am off to bed. Will be out of station for 2 days so expect no replies from me. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:34:26 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
This type of situation would not have cropped up in the first place, because you won't be requesting original. Original would have been already submitted. If someone uploaded wrong original - it would be disqualified. |
That's not the point. We DO request an original, regardless of whether it's sent at the beginning or end of the challenge, but we DON'T automatically DQ if the file is incorrect. We'd rather not disqualify anyone if it can be avoided, and sometimes go back and forth trying to help the photographer get the right file for days. Automatic DQs would make the OP's issue even worse. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:21:28 PM · #45 |
I just wanted to thank Scalvert, for the help and great advice. Oh and the patience of dealing with a newbie. lol
Just nice to know help is ample, if you have a problem or issue.
Thanks again....
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:59:48 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by zxaar:
This type of situation would not have cropped up in the first place, because you won't be requesting original. Original would have been already submitted. If someone uploaded wrong original - it would be disqualified. |
That's not the point. We DO request an original, regardless of whether it's sent at the beginning or end of the challenge, but we DON'T automatically DQ if the file is incorrect. We'd rather not disqualify anyone if it can be avoided, and sometimes go back and forth trying to help the photographer get the right file for days. Automatic DQs would make the OP's issue even worse. |
Not mention we are going from everyone loading ONE image that is 300KB to uploading one OR more images that can be several megabytes in size. I think the assumption that every has the original handy is fine but to force EVERYONE to upload them? eeeks....
One suggestion I saw before is to do a trial validation to make sure your work flow is legal. Once you know that if you do step a,b, then c and submit the image as an original and its ok then just repeat those steps for each image. If you change your workflow? Resubmit another sample to make sure. Which makes me think...maybe I should be doing this...
Message edited by author 2009-11-15 13:00:22.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 01:40:57 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think the assumption that every has the original handy is fine but to force EVERYONE to upload them? eeeks.... |
I'd like to see this implemented actually. It'd be a bit of a pain but I sometimes wonder how many people have shots that don't make the top 5 that would be DQ'd on a basic check of EXIF data but they are never validated. It happens fairly often in the top 5 and if all entries had a review of EXIF data on all entries then we may see a few more be tossed out. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 01:44:15 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think the assumption that every has the original handy is fine but to force EVERYONE to upload them? eeeks.... |
I'd like to see this implemented actually. It'd be a bit of a pain but I sometimes wonder how many people have shots that don't make the top 5 that would be DQ'd on a basic check of EXIF data but they are never validated. It happens fairly often in the top 5 and if all entries had a review of EXIF data on all entries then we may see a few more be tossed out. |
And who's going to check all 150-200+ files for valid info? SC is on board as volunteers...I don't see them having the time (or desire) to do this. I also think the extra overhead to upload hundreds of originals to DPC isn't really a good thing. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 01:49:18 PM · #49 |
Jeb, DQs have been over-turned before. Jutilda ended up not being able to get an un-modified original off her card, so was out of luck. It has nothing to do with SC not accepting an unmodified original from her. Were she able to get one, word was that she probably would have been re-instated. As for this case, it's already been said in this thread that were this user to get an unmodified original, he'd probably get re-instated, but that he never ended up sending one in, even when his friend told him that he should.
This has nothing to do with rule bending, or anything.
As for the OP, I think that a nice little green shaded reminder about certain things you can do to protect yourself from modified original DQs would be a very nice thing to do.
Message edited by author 2009-11-15 13:49:40. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 01:56:33 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think the assumption that every has the original handy is fine but to force EVERYONE to upload them? eeeks.... |
I'd like to see this implemented actually. It'd be a bit of a pain but I sometimes wonder how many people have shots that don't make the top 5 that would be DQ'd on a basic check of EXIF data but they are never validated. It happens fairly often in the top 5 and if all entries had a review of EXIF data on all entries then we may see a few more be tossed out. |
And who's going to check all 150-200+ files for valid info? SC is on board as volunteers...I don't see them having the time (or desire) to do this. I also think the extra overhead to upload hundreds of originals to DPC isn't really a good thing. |
It could be automated in many cases. That wouldn't catch the people who have modified their data but it would identify originals with
a) dates outside the range
b) modifications by software where the user thought they had the original |
|
