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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Life II Results Recalculated (Again)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/15/2006 01:53:41 PM · #1
The results of Life II (Challenge 594) have been recalculated. The entry previously ranked in 2nd place was disqualified due to a date violation and EXIF tampering. The EXIF tampering violation also resulted in a permanent ban for the user.

Congratulations to ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' escapetooz and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' sherpet on their respective 3rd and 10th place finishes!
12/15/2006 01:57:24 PM · #2
Hopefully the life-time ban will influence others to not tamper with the EXIF data. Its a shame, the photo was an outstanding shot.
12/15/2006 01:59:44 PM · #3
OK, someone remind me which shot it was...
12/15/2006 02:00:40 PM · #4
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/594/thumb/434221.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/594/thumb/434221.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
In the Life II challenge.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:01:03.
12/15/2006 02:00:59 PM · #5
Man on a bench, water and castle in background, tonemapping treatment.

LOL, too slow!

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 14:01:12.
12/15/2006 02:01:50 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:

Man on a bench, water and castle in background, tonemapping treatment.

LOL, too slow!

LOL....beat you by a few seconds.....what do I win?
12/15/2006 02:06:24 PM · #7
whoo, 14th now.


12/15/2006 02:07:20 PM · #8
...and what is the reason anybody would put effort into cheating to win virtual ribbon?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/35357/thumb/213792.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/35357/thumb/213792.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

12/15/2006 02:09:03 PM · #9
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:


Congratulations to ... ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' sherpet on ... 10th place finishes!


Hey, that should help her find her Sparkle :-)
12/15/2006 02:11:07 PM · #10
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

...and what is the reason anybody would put effort into cheating to win virtual ribbon?

So people can listen to them because they know what they're talking about.
12/15/2006 02:15:01 PM · #11
Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

...and what is the reason anybody would put effort into cheating to win virtual ribbon?

So people can listen to them because they know what they're talking about.

Touché!

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/35357/thumb/213774.gif', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/35357/thumb/213774.gif', '/') + 1) . '
12/15/2006 02:25:26 PM · #12
So I submitted a validation request on this image the first or second day of voting. I submitted it because it was a basic editing challenge and the image clearly benefited from quite a bit of dodging and burning. Is it just me that sees that? There's a big swipe of dodge below the bench and what appears to be a lot of it on the sweatshirt.

Was this not the case? I kept checking back to see This Image Has Been Validated but apparently the request was never followed up on. I'm not really irritated at the request being ignored, but it is bothersome that a validation request goes in and an image is ultimately DQ'd anyway and the net result is the 4th place finisher got 'robbed' of a few days of face time on the front page.
12/15/2006 02:27:42 PM · #13
' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' routerguy666 We try to be timely, but we aren't always able to get things done within the time-line folks would like.
12/15/2006 02:28:02 PM · #14
I'm guessing you weren't getting ignored. The process can take a while. They ask for the original, which can take 48 hours (so that's 2 days). Then if it isn't straightforward the debate among SC and the votes take a few days as well.

Still, if you did it early in the voting, it does seem like a long time. Maybe the problem was the EXIF was altered to make the copy look like the original. In that case the dodging would have already been there and it wouldn't have looked like it was added.
12/15/2006 02:29:53 PM · #15
Originally posted by routerguy666:

So I submitted a validation request on this image the first or second day of voting. I submitted it because it was a basic editing challenge and the image clearly benefited from quite a bit of dodging and burning. Is it just me that sees that? There's a big swipe of dodge below the bench and what appears to be a lot of it on the sweatshirt.

Was this not the case? I kept checking back to see This Image Has Been Validated but apparently the request was never followed up on. I'm not really irritated at the request being ignored, but it is bothersome that a validation request goes in and an image is ultimately DQ'd anyway and the net result is the 4th place finisher got 'robbed' of a few days of face time on the front page.


You are making (incorrect) assumptions. Here are the facts:

1.) There was no dodging/burning. The editing was legal.
2.) We followed the same procedure we follow for all requests. In this case, we requested and reviewed a proof file.
3.) Though the editing checked out, as you can see, the EXIF was found to have been tampered with.
12/15/2006 02:32:45 PM · #16
If someone is messing about with EXIF, there's no guarantee that the original they supplied is the unedited out-of-camera version of the file.
12/15/2006 02:33:42 PM · #17
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

So I submitted a validation request on this image the first or second day of voting. I submitted it because it was a basic editing challenge and the image clearly benefited from quite a bit of dodging and burning. Is it just me that sees that? There's a big swipe of dodge below the bench and what appears to be a lot of it on the sweatshirt.

Was this not the case? I kept checking back to see This Image Has Been Validated but apparently the request was never followed up on. I'm not really irritated at the request being ignored, but it is bothersome that a validation request goes in and an image is ultimately DQ'd anyway and the net result is the 4th place finisher got 'robbed' of a few days of face time on the front page.


You are making (incorrect) assumptions. Here are the facts:

1.) There was no dodging/burning. The editing was legal.
2.) We followed the same procedure we follow for all requests. In this case, we requested and reviewed a proof file.
3.) Though the editing checked out, as you can see, the EXIF was found to have been tampered with.


I'm not making any assumptions. 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.

12/15/2006 02:37:26 PM · #18
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
12/15/2006 02:37:44 PM · #19
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.
12/15/2006 02:38:49 PM · #20
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
12/15/2006 02:39:32 PM · #21
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.
12/15/2006 02:39:34 PM · #22
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 02:41:25 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 02:41:43 PM · #24
The photo was illegal and has been DQ'd. Let's not give the cheater any more publicity ....
12/15/2006 02:44:10 PM · #25
amen~
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/23/2020 02:44:05 PM

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 © 2001-2020 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: 11/23/2020 02:44:05 PM EST.