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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Life II Results Recalculated (Again)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 45, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/16/2006 05:34:32 PM · #1
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Oh why couldn't all this be happening in the Death challenge :(


Really...even though it wouldn't do much for my standing anyways.
 12/16/2006 01:02:28 PM · #2
Oh why couldn't all this be happening in the Death challenge :(
 12/16/2006 12:37:51 PM · #3
Due to a lack of an original, the former 4th placed image has been disqualified. Congratulations to our new 4th, 5th, and 10th places.
 12/15/2006 11:28:41 PM · #4
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
the editing checked out


When you guys can explain how the kid's shoe has three white stripes on it in the photo posted on photosig, and yet the same three white stripes have magically disappeared in the same photo as posted on DPC I will be glad to admit that I was a complete moron for assuming this shot was in any way a violation of basic editing rules.


The version posted on Photosig was edited differently. Remember that his editing for the Photosig version would not have had to comply with DPChallenge rules.

~Terry
 12/15/2006 11:27:16 PM · #5
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
12/15/2006 11:09:25 PM · #6
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
12/15/2006 08:05:41 PM · #7
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Gawd, they better not start doing that. Some of my more complex, full-size working PSD files have 20 or so layers and weigh in at like 125 Mb of filesize :-)

R.


Yeah, and if the dog had an ass it would
probably be 175 MB. ;)
 12/15/2006 07:04:21 PM · #8


I found my sparkle, it was there all the time, just hidden from view for awhile.
My little star, beside my little duckling, makes me very happy.....
Thank you everyone.....

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Congratulations to ... sherpet on ... 10th place finishes!


Hey, that should help her find her Sparkle :-)

12/15/2006 05:12:16 PM · #9
I'm just glad it was finally done. The comments about the photo on another site seemed like they were posted daayys ago (at least to me) it felt like it was never going to get resolved!

Ordinarily I feel sorry when someone gets DQed and would not be too happy to benefit from it... but judging by the fact that it should not have been in the running in the first place and was not an honest mistake but a deliberate attempt to dodge the rules, I am pretty pleased.

Thanks for all the great comments.
 12/15/2006 04:46:04 PM · #10
Originally posted by routerguy666:
If that's not doding and burning, you should ask the guy back to write a tutorial and then ban him. That's one hell of a BW conversion.


When you take the PS CS feature "Shadows and Highlights" to its limits and adjust contrast accordingly and for color consistency's sake convert to B&W you can get a 'dodged and burned'-look that is still legal.


12/15/2006 04:43:39 PM · #11
Originally posted by sickdog:
it kills me that people have enough time on their hands to modify the EXIF file in a contest where there are no prizes.


Enough time?
It takes 10 seconds to do that, a click to open the file, a few clicks to enter a new date and a click to confirm the change.
But as it shows, you get caught, fortunately.


12/15/2006 03:59:45 PM · #12
Validation is done by following the steps the photographer outlines in their provided details, using the original provided, and verifying that the results may be reproduced by the steps provided.
Bear in mind that we have to validate a *lot* of files, and so we do not replicate every shot. We do so when it's necessary, which is certainly less than 50% of the time.
Case example:
Someone raises a question as to whether lens flare has been added to a shot. We look at the original, and see it's not there, we DQ. No need to reproduce. Or we see it is there, and in the spot and shape it's in on the final submission, great, validate it, after a quick EXIF inspection. Wait, what's that laying on the ground in the original, a soda can? It's not in the submission... was it cropped? Overlay submission on original, verify it was cloned, not cropped, DQ.
The above is a hypothetical case that illustrates some of the nuts & bolts of validation. There's a *lot* more that may go on in complicated cases.
 12/15/2006 03:54:01 PM · #13
Originally posted by AZSnapper:
Does DP also require the orginal psd file? Thanks


Gawd, they better not start doing that. Some of my more complex, full-size working PSD files have 20 or so layers and weigh in at like 125 Mb of filesize :-)

R.
 12/15/2006 03:51:34 PM · #14
Question - how is an image 'validated'? I mean, for instance, in basic editing, as is this case, how can one tell what is done to the image just based on them supplying the base, out of the camera image? Just curious more than anything. How would a person tell if dodge and burn is used, especially if someone is good at it? Does DP also require the orginal psd file? Thanks
 12/15/2006 03:41:23 PM · #15
Not to beat a dead horse too severely, but there seems to be a texture in the sky suggesting that this is a photograph of a photograph.
 12/15/2006 03:15:57 PM · #16
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm just glad that my photo moved up from the brown ribbon to... um... uh... never mind...


Just don't let this success go to your head.

it kills me that people have enough time on their hands to modify the EXIF file in a contest where there are no prizes.

maybe if they dedicated their time to getting the shot at the right time, they might not need to do this.
 12/15/2006 03:11:31 PM · #17
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm just glad that my photo moved up from the brown ribbon to... um... uh... never mind...


Congratulations on 160th place. :)
 12/15/2006 03:04:09 PM · #18
I'm just glad that my photo moved up from the brown ribbon to... um... uh... never mind...

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 15:04:24.
 12/15/2006 02:57:26 PM · #19
I'm just glad that this was found out and not allowed to slip by...good work for those that raised the flags and stopped it.
12/15/2006 02:52:47 PM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:

While it's true that he could have removed evidence of saving from editing software, in all likelyhood he did not. He provided details (though sketchy) that allowed us (me personally) to replicate his results to a high degree of accuracy, starting with the submitted file and ending with a very close approximation of the submitted shot. My conclusion: there was no editing violation. He just used an old shot, changed dates, and tried (unsuccessfully) to cover it up.


OK, not trying to give him more publicity, but I want to point something out about the editing. If you look at the shoe in what was submitted and the other site, there is a definate difference. If the "original" that was submitted for validation shows the shoes without the stripes, that suggests to me that editing to the picture was also done, along with the EXIF falsification.

12/15/2006 02:44:10 PM · #21
amen~
 12/15/2006 02:41:43 PM · #22
The photo was illegal and has been DQ'd. Let's not give the cheater any more publicity ....
 12/15/2006 02:41:25 PM · #23
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
If the proof file was reviewed before the voting ended the image would have been marked as validated, which it wasn't.


That's not necessarily true either.

But I do agree with jhonan...if the EXIF was tampered with, there's really no way of knowing whether or not the editing was legal.


While it's true that he could have removed evidence of saving from editing software, in all likelyhood he did not. He provided details (though sketchy) that allowed us (me personally) to replicate his results to a high degree of accuracy, starting with the submitted file and ending with a very close approximation of the submitted shot. My conclusion: there was no editing violation. He just used an old shot, changed dates, and tried (unsuccessfully) to cover it up.
 12/15/2006 02:39:34 PM · #24
It does look like a lot of localised sharpening, blurring and dodging and burning went on, at least from the pretty bad editing that the file shows.

I suppose it could all be just a terrible starting image with weird sharpness and blur problems and then some wild sharpening halos or something, but it would be real interesting to know how he got different parts of the same plane of focus to be over sharp and Gaussian blurred at the same time.

Never mind the wild localised brightness swings
 12/15/2006 02:39:32 PM · #25
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Validation request says to submit if you 'suspect' a rules violation, which I did. If the proof file was reviewed before the voting ended the image would have been marked as validated, which it wasn't. And yes I can see that it was ultimately dq'd for another reason, as I said. If that's not doding and burning, you should ask the guy back to write a tutorial and then ban him. That's one hell of a BW conversion.

Given that the EXIF was falsified, the question of whether or not there was or wasn't any illegal editing is irrelevant -- we can't tell, and it doesn't matter.

In this case, uncovering the ultimate violation (sic) required more time than it takes to just compare an edited entry against an original. That's too bad, but it happens from time to time.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:56:42 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:56:42 AM EDT.