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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Why We Validate
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/01/2016 05:33:54 PM · #1
One of our members sent us an inquiry asking why and how we validate images. It seems there's nothing on the site that really talks about this. I fired off the following quick response, which I'm posting here in case others have ever wondered. I guess I sorta just assumed everyone knerw this stuff, but of course how could they?

Got any other questions about the process? This would be a good place to ask them...

#######################

Purpose of validation: to be sure the rules were followed. First and foremost, was the image taken by the member who submitted it and within the specified date window? Also, of course, were the applicable editing rules followed? If an image was taken within the correct time frame and was 'legally' edited, it will be validated.

Procedure: we look at the embedded EXIF information on the original to see when it was taken, and to be sure the EXIF itself has not been modified. As necessary, we compare the original image with the submitted image to be sure the editing was challenge-legal. The SC members all "vote" on whether or not to validate an image. For the most part, the voting is unanimous. If it's not, we have an internal discussion to resolve the issue.

Timing: we try to validate or DQ within 48 hours of receiving the original.
06/01/2016 06:01:45 PM · #2
And just to add - it's automatic that you need to supply your original image if you finish in the top five. When I first ribboned, I didn't connect those two things and was quite defensive about being asked!
06/01/2016 06:25:45 PM · #3
And as a suggestion, along these lines, now that the entry sizes are larger,
and because it's imperative that all entries are taken within a certain time frame,
perhaps it's time to require that the EXIF data be included on all DPC Entries.

(maybe stirs up hornets nest, runs, hides...just in case)
06/01/2016 06:58:47 PM · #4
Once, long ago, Sofia entered a challenge and during voting was asked to submit the original. We inquired as to why since we assumed someone clicked the link on the image. We were told that we were not allowed to know why we were being asked or who asked. Has this changed? I think a more transparency would be good in this area. I understand not saying WHO requested it for fear of angry emails but you should be able to know WHY it's being requested.
06/01/2016 07:20:13 PM · #5
Why get angry? I'm happy to prove i have achieved something others think is not possible within the given rules :)
06/01/2016 07:21:56 PM · #6
Originally posted by Tiberius:

Why get angry? I'm happy to prove i have achieved something others think is not possible within the given rules :)


Not certain if you're referring to me but if so, I can assure you I am not angry, only curious.
06/01/2016 07:22:01 PM · #7
Originally posted by smardaz:

Once, long ago, Sofia entered a challenge and during voting was asked to submit the original. We inquired as to why since we assumed someone clicked the link on the image. We were told that we were not allowed to know why we were being asked or who asked. Has this changed? I think a more transparency would be good in this area. I understand not saying WHO requested it for fear of angry emails but you should be able to know WHY it's being requested.

I have no objection to someone PMing me to ask why their original was requested, as long as it is AFTER they have submitted the original and listed their processing steps... Most of the time it's pretty obvious anyway.

Here's the way it usually works; some individual, or several individuals, "report" the challenge entry to SC, and they say why. Sometimes it's as obvious as copyright text on the image, sometimes it's more a suspicion that the editing rules weren't adhered to, and sometimes (rarely) the reporter has seen the image posted elsewhere and wants us to know it was shot outside the challenge dates., to give just a few examples of why an image might get reported. Once the report's received, it logs the image into an investigation queue for that challenge and we will take a look at it.

Many times when we investigate it we can see there's not an issue and the matter stops there. This will usually be for one of two reasons; either the photographer has written how the image was created in their comments field (always a good idea, actually) or we can see that the request arose out of a misinterpretation of the editing rules.

SC may, after examining the image, choose to request an original for purposes of validation. We usually do this for one of two reasons; either we, ourselves, agree something may not be kosher and we need to validate the image, or we may feel that based on the photographer's notes the image IS legal but we can see that it is getting hammered by voters who don't think it is (not supposed to do that, folks!) so we'll ask for the original, check for legitimacy, and validate the image with a note on the voting page.

WHY don't we want to tell you, when requesting the original, the reason for the request? Simply because, in rare cases, people who are trying to game the system would be forewarned and might attempt to monkey around trying to con us. We HAVE had people do that. But not very often. As I said before, I'm personally OK with your asking me for more details after the proofs have been submitted. I can't speak for other SC on this, though. And we will NOT release the IDs of those reporting the image to us; there's no point whatsoever in doing that. We count on the voters to help us keep an eye on things, and some individuals are very active in that. I used to be one of them before I became SC...
06/01/2016 07:30:48 PM · #8
Originally posted by smardaz:

Originally posted by Tiberius:

Why get angry? I'm happy to prove i have achieved something others think is not possible within the given rules :)


Not certain if you're referring to me but if so, I can assure you I am not angry, only curious.


I misread, sorry
06/01/2016 10:35:02 PM · #9
Also to make sure the image was not stolen. In case that wasn't obvious.
06/01/2016 10:54:57 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

[quote=smardaz] Once, long ago...
I used to be one of them before I became SC...


I am so glad to have a "transparent Site Council".

Carry on, folks.

I love having you doing your job so well... even when it hurts.

06/01/2016 11:01:14 PM · #11
It should also be mentioned that on occasion, an image will pass inspection on the editing rules, but turn out to be shot outside the challenge dates, which as you well know, is an automatic DQ.
06/02/2016 10:19:54 AM · #12
What is the time limit on when it's safe to delete old originals? Seems unfair to ask for validation weeks after the challenge has ended.
06/02/2016 10:48:15 AM · #13
Originally posted by nygold:

What is the time limit on when it's safe to delete old originals? Seems unfair to ask for validation weeks after the challenge has ended.


Usually it's after rollover, for about a week. Two weeks is more than enough to keep originals.
06/02/2016 11:34:42 AM · #14
Originally posted by nygold:

What is the time limit on when it's safe to delete old originals? Seems unfair to ask for validation weeks after the challenge has ended.

just curious, why on earth would you ever delete an original file?

fwiw, i felt the same righteous indignation in my very first challenge when a validation was requested during voting. some viewers just couldn't understand how i got my text into the image without photoshop (even though at that time i not only did not own it, i had no clue what it was!)

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_90460.jpg

Originally posted by sfalice:

And as a suggestion, along these lines, now that the entry sizes are larger,
and because it's imperative that all entries are taken within a certain time frame,
perhaps it's time to require that the EXIF data be included on all DPC Entries.

(maybe stirs up hornets nest, runs, hides...just in case)

i agree completely! i wish all the fields were mandatory. i hate looking at images here with no info in them. selfish and lazy, imho, considering that this is a learning site...

Message edited by author 2016-06-02 11:37:36.
06/02/2016 12:31:05 PM · #15
Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by nygold:

What is the time limit on when it's safe to delete old originals? Seems unfair to ask for validation weeks after the challenge has ended.


Usually it's after rollover, for about a week. Two weeks is more than enough to keep originals.


I got DQd for not having an original (cleaned up some files) two weeks after the challenge ended. The thread that ensued assured me that it could happen anytime and I shouldn't delete the originals from photos submitted here, ever.
06/02/2016 12:35:52 PM · #16
Originally posted by Skip:



Originally posted by sfalice:

And as a suggestion, along these lines, now that the entry sizes are larger,
and because it's imperative that all entries are taken within a certain time frame,
perhaps it's time to require that the EXIF data be included on all DPC Entries.

(maybe stirs up hornets nest, runs, hides...just in case)


i agree completely! i wish all the fields were mandatory. i hate looking at images here with no info in them. selfish and lazy, imho, considering that this is a learning site...


Post challenge I often go back and look for exif and find myself disappointed. I would love to see this requirement added.
06/02/2016 12:40:02 PM · #17
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by nygold:

What is the time limit on when it's safe to delete old originals? Seems unfair to ask for validation weeks after the challenge has ended.

Usually it's after rollover, for about a week. Two weeks is more than enough to keep originals.

I got DQd for not having an original (cleaned up some files) two weeks after the challenge ended. The thread that ensued assured me that it could happen anytime and I shouldn't delete the originals from photos submitted here, ever.

That's the smart way to handle it, though "forever" may be extreme :-) When you consider that all you need to keep is what you've ENTERED, not everything you shot, it's not that big a deal. Tanguera's right about that 2 weeks, as a rule, BUT it's conceivable something could come up later than that. I can't offhand think of an example since I've been SC except one time that we DQ'd a top-5 a few weeks after the challenge ended. Personally, I try to be proactive and request originals down the line if it looks like we MAY have a problem validating a top-5, so that helps.
06/02/2016 12:42:45 PM · #18
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by Skip:

Originally posted by sfalice:

And as a suggestion, along these lines, now that the entry sizes are larger,
and because it's imperative that all entries are taken within a certain time frame,
perhaps it's time to require that the EXIF data be included on all DPC Entries.
(maybe stirs up hornets nest, runs, hides...just in case)

i agree completely! i wish all the fields were mandatory. i hate looking at images here with no info in them. selfish and lazy, imho, considering that this is a learning site...

Post challenge I often go back and look for exif and find myself disappointed. I would love to see this requirement added.

Sounds great in theory but how would you have us enforce this? Seems a bit draconian to DQ otherwise valid images because someone failed to enter data in those fields. Requiring EXIF on actual submissions is not a good idea because that EXIF can be peeped during the challenge to identify shooters. For that reason alone, many of us strip EXIF from submissions.

Message edited by author 2016-06-02 14:45:56.
06/02/2016 12:43:45 PM · #19
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by Skip:



Originally posted by sfalice:

And as a suggestion, along these lines, now that the entry sizes are larger,
and because it's imperative that all entries are taken within a certain time frame,
perhaps it's time to require that the EXIF data be included on all DPC Entries.

(maybe stirs up hornets nest, runs, hides...just in case)


i agree completely! i wish all the fields were mandatory. i hate looking at images here with no info in them. selfish and lazy, imho, considering that this is a learning site...


Post challenge I often go back and look for exif and find myself disappointed. I would love to see this requirement added.


I have a tendency to spend too much time on something and getting myself headachy or overly tired. So it seems a pain to go back and add the exif data. I figure hardly anyone is looking for it.

But then someone told me that the save as keeps the data and imports it. So now I try to do that option whenever I can.

However, when the file is too big, the only way I know of to keep the best resolution and still get within the 700k file size limit is to use the save for web info, which strips out the exif data.

Is there something I'm missing? Can you use the save as function to get the exif and still tell it to stay under 700k without simply guessing over and over?
06/02/2016 12:49:19 PM · #20
You can always do a save-as at low res, make the entry, which populates the fields, then go back and save-for-web and replace the entry; the fields will still be populated. I think it's easier to just type 'em in while entering; I do it every time, it just takes a few seconds. When you're in Bridge or LR getting ready to process you can note those 3 numbers on a scratch pad, then you don't have to search after you're done.
06/02/2016 01:17:23 PM · #21
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

You can always do a save-as at low res, make the entry, which populates the fields, then go back and save-for-web and replace the entry; the fields will still be populated. I think it's easier to just type 'em in while entering; I do it every time, it just takes a few seconds. When you're in Bridge or LR getting ready to process you can note those 3 numbers on a scratch pad, then you don't have to search after you're done.


I rarely use SFW anymore because the JPEG enters the information automatically. That way I can always check to make sure I'm in date range. I save the jpeg (doesn't have to be under 700) to my workshop and upload to the challenge from there (the site resizes it).

Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Sounds great in theory but how would you have us enforce this? Seems a bit draconian to DQ otherwise valid images because someone failed to enter data in those fields. Requiring EXIF on actual submissions is not a good idea because that EXIF can be pepped during the challenge to identify shooters. For that reason alone, many of us strip EXIF from submissions.


What is "pepped"?
06/02/2016 01:26:28 PM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by nygold:

What is the time limit on when it's safe to delete old originals? Seems unfair to ask for validation weeks after the challenge has ended.

Usually it's after rollover, for about a week. Two weeks is more than enough to keep originals.

I got DQd for not having an original (cleaned up some files) two weeks after the challenge ended. The thread that ensued assured me that it could happen anytime and I shouldn't delete the originals from photos submitted here, ever.

That's the smart way to handle it, though "forever" may be extreme :-) When you consider that all you need to keep is what you've ENTERED, not everything you shot, it's not that big a deal. Tanguera's right about that 2 weeks, as a rule, BUT it's conceivable something could come up later than that. I can't offhand think of an example since I've been SC except one time that we DQ'd a top-5 a few weeks after the challenge ended. Personally, I try to be proactive and request originals down the line if it looks like we MAY have a problem validating a top-5, so that helps.


With solid state drives getting cheaper and cheaper, it's driving down the price of traditional hard drives. Considering the price of a 1 tb traditional hard drive is $60 it shouldn't be a problem to keep originals on challenge entries.
06/02/2016 02:43:24 PM · #23
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

What is "pepped"?

Sorry, "peeped".
06/02/2016 03:07:14 PM · #24
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

What is "pepped"?

Sorry, "peeped".


By that you mean you think people will take the trouble to look up the exif in hopes of discovering the owner of the file? Really?
06/02/2016 03:16:26 PM · #25
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

What is "pepped"?

Sorry, "peeped".

By that you mean you think people will take the trouble to look up the exif in hopes of discovering the owner of the file? Really?

We know for a fact it's done. Or was done, anyway; there used to be posts in the forums about it. It was suggested we should have some sort of a filter as part of our upload mechanism that would strip identifying info whilst leaving technical info in place. How prevalent it is now, we don't know, but the "sanctity of anonymity" people believed we should REQUIRE stripped EXIF on entries for this reason :-) Can't win for trying, is my take on it...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/20/2018 01:14:03 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 © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/20/2018 01:14:03 AM EDT.