Submission/Exposure Dates - DPChallenge Forums

01/21/2003 10:20:10 AM · #6

Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

You mean that's not monitored?!?!?!? OMG! Yes, I agree that some sort of automatic monitoring should be in place. This will increase the fairness of this wonderful site!

Agree.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/21/2003 10:46:45 AM · #7

Originally posted by KimInNB:

#3 The EXIF information on the original photo has the date in it. If you don't have the EXIF to prove the photo is indeed eligible, it should be disqualified!!!

Two slight problems with that - firstly, low end cameras aren't all capable of stamping the date on the EXIF data. My old Jenoptik, for example, always put a date sometime in 1998 on everything I took!

Secondly, I'm sure I'm not letting the cat out of the bag by pointing out that it's not exactly impossible to fake EXIF data.

I'd like to think that most people are honest enough not to try and get away with it - maybe the 'must be taken this week' rule just needs to be highlighted more (although it IS pretty obvious at the moment...)

mjcecil

Nikon D100

01/21/2003 11:31:46 AM · #8

First, the reason for limiting to challenge period...

Many of us have large libraries of material that could be drawn upon to compete. I consider myself pretty amateur across the board and I have almost 20,000 images on disk and cd right now. I certainly have images in there that are pretty good that could be used for around 50% of the challenges, and all I'd have to do is fire up Pshop to fine tune them while the rest of the DPC'ers are out running around frantically trying to come up with material.

Requiring photos to be shot during the challenge puts those of us with large libraries on a more even playing field with those who are just starting out and who don't necessarily have all the images in the world to draw from, or who are simply not as hardcore as many others.

Not to mention, it really puts pressure on you to get a good shot in a limited amount of time. What shot of Subject A taken in/over seven days is going to compete well against the same Subject A photographed over the course of a year or more, under every set of conditions possible?

And on to proving the shot took place in the challenge period...

If I read the rules properly, if a shot is recommended for disqualification, then the ORIGINAL photo, including EXIF, if the camera supports it must be submitted to the moderators, along with instructions on how the image was rendered to its final form. Then the moderators make a determination and DQ or not. Seems straightforward. If you shot your image with a camera made in the last two years, you have EXIF, and if you can't provide it, you are disqualified.

For older cameras, it is more complex. I would like to believe that if your camera does not stamp EXIF, then we as the DPC community should subscribe to the innocent-until-proven-guilty philosophy. Pretty much, if there's not a good reason to DQ on a temporal basis (phase of moon is obviously wrong, building that doesn't exist anymore is present, photo has been seen elsewhere on the web posted as taken earlier), then the photo should be allowed to slide. And we should be big enough, as people, to accept that sometimes, people will get away with stuff.

More coffee...

mjc

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/21/2003 11:35:35 AM · #9

Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

You mean that's not monitored?!?!?!? OMG! Yes, I agree that some sort of automatic monitoring should be in place. This will increase the fairness of this wonderful site!

There are a number of reasons an automated date monitoring system isn't in place right now, and I'll quickly explain them and then tell you what's to change in that.

If you submit an image to us with the 'exposure date' field filled out with an improper date, either a) you didn't read the rules or b) you made a mistake. I assure you that when we used to disqualify for exposure date fields, we were constantly emailed to say that people had made a mistake. Typos, different date systems, ... you name it.

If we monitor EXIF but don't require it, we're only hurting honest people. Anyone who wants to hide their EXIF can use 'save for web' or something similar to strip out exif data. Again, when we used to disqualify for EXIF dates, we were constantly emailed with reasons why their EXIF was wrong -- usually that they don't set the date on their camera or that they'd recently changed the batteries.

If we require EXIF, we eliminate a good number of Sony cameras and certainly some smaller name ones as well. Also, if you want to fake your EXIF, you can -- it's no secret.

We've been in this dilemma for quite some time, and the conclusion that we've always come to is that we only hurt the people who aren't trying to lie. And then on top of that, like I said, there's always a reason why people who validly took their photos will have been caught by our system.

Right now, we rely on proof other than exposure date field or exif data to disqualify for dates. Images posted on other sites, events that aren't happening, even moon phases and more have all been used as proof that an image wasn't taken at the proper time. Even then, in most cases, we'll request proof from the photographer to give them one last chance.

What's changing...
In light of the 2nd place winner this week, we know that we've got to do something about date monitoring. Starting this week, we'll be disqualifying for 'exposure date' fields outside of the submission dates. We will give photographers a fair warning.

We will also be implementing a number of extra security measures to use collectively to help determine if a photograph is taken outside of the dates.

It is very important to us that all photos be taken during the required dates, as anything else would be unfair to the photographers who follow the rules. Like I said, this has long been an issue for us with no clear answer. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Drew

01/21/2003 11:43:55 AM · #10

I like the system used on another site where you submit your unaltered original image with your submission. If we did this here, we would be able to quickly validate the winners each week and i believe it would discourage a lot of mischief...

moondoggie

Canon EOS-20D

01/21/2003 11:54:42 AM · #11

A good idea John, but that could be a bit of an obstacle for those with dial-up connections. Also, I don't know what the storage situation is like, but that could consume a lot of disk space pretty rapidly. I guess it just depends on what the trade-off is. Do you really have a lot of DQ requests to review each week, and is it a big pain to get the originals from the users?

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

01/21/2003 11:54:53 AM · #12

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

It would be quite hard for me to submit unaltered originals over dialup :(. I use the "super high quality" setting on my camera normally, which creates photos that can be 2 MB or so. That would be a 10 minute upload for me much of the time. Changing my mind on which photo to submit would be a pain!

I'd do it though, if I had to.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/21/2003 11:55:31 AM · #13

why not just do some random sampling...say pick 5% of the pictures in a challenge and look at the data and verify the dates if possible...sort of like an audit

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

01/21/2003 11:59:14 AM · #14

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

In general, we have less than 20 DQ requests in a week. We do occationally DQ for failure to provide EXIF. Not very often though.

01/21/2003 12:03:36 PM · #15

I think the ribbon winners should always be required to submit originals after the challenge is over...

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/21/2003 12:08:16 PM · #16

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I think the ribbon winners should always be required to submit originals after the challenge is over...

Yes, but it's pretty embarassing for us to be dq'ing/changing winners.

Drew

01/21/2003 12:14:11 PM · #17

Originally posted by drewmedia:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think the ribbon winners should always be required to submit originals after the challenge is over...

Yes, but it's pretty embarassing for us to be dq'ing/changing winners.

Drew

I believe that if everyone was aware that an original image would be required if you won, there would be less of a need to ever disqualify anything :)

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

01/21/2003 12:19:03 PM · #18

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I believe that if everyone was aware that an original image would be required if you won, there would be less of a need to ever disqualify anything :)

Yes, but how often do you submit thinking you're going to win? OK OK, you're allowed to think that more than the rest of us ;) But in the freak chance I actually submit again one of these days, I'll be pretty certain I have no chance of winning :)

Drew

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/21/2003 12:21:13 PM · #19

I am not a DQ nut but it seems that since there is a clear case of an image being taken outside of deadlines, with little room for error (2002 is surely 2002) that the image in question should be DQd.

Otherwise it seems very unfair on those DQd for other violations like accidental border errors etc.

01/21/2003 12:22:59 PM · #20

Originally posted by drewmedia:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I believe that if everyone was aware that an original image would be required if you won, there would be less of a need to ever disqualify anything :)

Yes, but how often do you submit thinking you're going to win? OK OK, you're allowed to think that more than the rest of us ;) But in the freak chance I actually submit again one of these days, I'll be pretty certain I have no chance of winning :)

Drew

I think it's a good deterrant though :)

Azrifel

Nikon Coolpix P340

01/21/2003 12:27:49 PM · #21

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Could be a problem with certain camera's.
You don't want to receive RAW and TIFF files, a dSLR will soon have a 18mb+ RAW (Or lower in case of smart losless compression). I don't know if people use that, but you can't disallow them to. The Sigma SD9 only produces RAW, and an 11mp jpeg of a Canon 1Ds of 5,5mb is quite a lot of data. The 1Ds is an extreme of course, but with the expected 8mp consumer dSLR's you get hige file sizes.

moondoggie

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

01/21/2003 12:30:41 PM · #22

Just out of curiosity, in regards to the recent 2nd place photo, did we try to verify the date the image was taken by requesting the original image with exif data?

uuhhh, never mind...

Message edited by author 2003-01-21 12:32:49.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/21/2003 12:37:01 PM · #23

Originally posted by drewmedia:

We could not announce the winners until we'd verified it ? Once the particular winner is verified, show it - there is an incentive to get your verification in early, so you show up quicker. Maybe not ideal - or have a winner, and show it, with some kind of 'Verified' tab that can be added when it is verified.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/21/2003 12:46:45 PM · #24

Originally posted by drewmedia:

Yes, but it's pretty embarassing for us to be dq'ing/changing winners.
Drew

Konador's excellent castle photo was DQd after winning wasn't it? Or was it DQd just before results were displayed?

I just think consistency is fairest, that's all.

IGNORE. Just noticed that you have just DQd the image in question.

Message edited by author 2003-01-21 12:48:40.

moondoggie

Canon EOS-20D