| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2007 03:34:22 AM · #101 |
Well why bother sending the rename then if you want both? ...
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:35:59 AM · #102 |
And as for rotation ... I use Irvanview image viewer editor to view possible shots for editing and rotation does not touch the file unless you actually rotate it THEN save it.
Irfanview is free to ALL not commercial use and with the free plugins can view and edit just about ANY format of image on the planet.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:38:51 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Well why bother sending the rename then if you want both? ... |
So that we can confirm that your method of changing the names doesn't affect the image, since there are probably many different ways of doing it.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 04:57:36 AM · #104 |
So is there a DPC primer for newbie/computer challenged people?
Is there a "Starter Packet", or some such thing in the way of suggested reading?
Have I just volunteered for spending the precious few spare minutes a day I have now to help facilitate this?
I can volunteer to be the Beta dummy!.....8>)
Seriously, I would love it if there was a system in place that would help folks who are new to this whole process and if, by virtue of having it spelled out up front, there was less confusion about what is, and is not, allowed at DPC, and the onus of informing people that they've erred is less on DPC at a time when it may make them seem to be the heavies.
Off to work I am, I will check back later.....
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 06:06:22 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Well why bother sending the rename then if you want both? ... |
So that we can confirm that your method of changing the names doesn't affect the image, since there are probably many different ways of doing it. |
Well if you ask for a proof from me, why would I bother to send the easy renamed file when I have to give you the straight from the camera 100-467.jpg or whatever name the camera gave it file anyways? ... I will just make sure I have those and send THAT. Why would I bother to send you a file that may be unacceptible AND a proof that it is? ... D'OH!
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 06:13:49 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Well why bother sending the rename then if you want both? ... |
So that we can confirm that your method of changing the names doesn't affect the image, since there are probably many different ways of doing it. |
Well if you ask for a proof from me, why would I bother to send the easy renamed file when I have to give you the straight from the camera 100-467.jpg or whatever name the camera gave it file anyways? ... I will just make sure I have those and send THAT. Why would I bother to send you a file that may be unacceptible AND a proof that it is? ... D'OH! |
I was referring to you just sending in some examples, not a request-for-proof situation (where we'd just want the one).
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 06:18:54 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Well why bother sending the rename then if you want both? ... |
So that we can confirm that your method of changing the names doesn't affect the image, since there are probably many different ways of doing it. |
Well if you ask for a proof from me, why would I bother to send the easy renamed file when I have to give you the straight from the camera 100-467.jpg or whatever name the camera gave it file anyways? ... I will just make sure I have those and send THAT. Why would I bother to send you a file that may be unacceptible AND a proof that it is? ... D'OH! |
I think there's a disconnect between what Manic is saying and what you're reading. Let me try to rephrase:
You asked:
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Can you just clear up this one thing? ... What if the proof file comes STRAIGHT from the camera but is renamed so that it is easier for you to remember which was your original rather than 100-467.jpg?
Is that ok? ... or do you have to go track down the camera numbered file? |
What Manic is saying, is that it depends on how you rename the file, but we'd be happy to check. So that we can do that, go take a sample picture right now (or use one of your already-existing originals). The photo doesn't need to be anything special, you can just snap one right now while you're sitting at your desk. Then, rename it using whatever method you normally use. Once you've done that, send the original and the renamed file to us. We'll take a look at them and let you know whether you need to worry about keeping the numbered files or not.
In other words, he's not saying submit both files if we request proof. He's saying submit a pair of sample files now and we can answer your question.
Make sense?
~Terry
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 06:19:45.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 06:22:38 AM · #108 |
Greetmir, I think what Manic is trying to say is that if you send him an original file and a copy of the original renamed then he can see if it they are both validatable. <-- me thinks this isn't a word. If it is able to be validated from the test then you can continue on the way you are doing things and feels safe about validation requests. :)
too slow :P
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 06:22:54. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:38:40 AM · #109 |
I am lucky. I have a card reader on my printer. I insert the card, it calls it up on my computer, then I save to cd. That is it. It keeps all the information. The only problem with that is if the cd gets scratched, but I've even taken a step toward remedying that. I got a cd cleaner from K-Mart. It is this neat round, hand cranked object that you insert your cd into, then you crank and it resurfaces your cd.
I use the hp photo printers, and they all have card readers, which means I don't have to even plug my camera in at all. Saves on battery power, and also seems gentler on the card as well.
You can also just keep your challenge entries untouched on your card, and when the challenge is over, validation requests have been completed, then you can get rid of the photo to cd. Just keep it in its original state so that if you find you want to send it to a paper or stock site, you can have the original file to send. I don't think that transfers will work if you want to sell your photos because just like dp they require original unedited versions if it has a chance of appearing somewhere. Not everybody asks, but there are some places that do.
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 08:42:28. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:59:12 AM · #110 |
I just read thru most of this, and still am not too sure about how to get the jpg to send for validation, as I use iPhoto and sometimes Graphic Converter. I shoot 12meg Fine jpg with the Fuji S3.
My solution to keeping the orij file intact is to lock it on the CF card with the camera menu that allows this, and keep it there for the contest week. As long as I do not reformat the card, then I have the orij still on the card, exactly as it was. I keep my settings (preferences on Mac) to not erase the camera contents when downloading from the camera anyway.
I guess if I get a call to verify an orij, I can then find out about how to get it done. By then maybe there will be an easy "how ya get 'er done" posted.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 09:01:35 AM · #111 |
RE: Transfer Software Guidelines
Guidelines for Preserving Your Challenge Entry Originals
I think the guidelines are a pretty good clarification.
One point that may not have been addressed, in relation to the aspect of a file name. "....ignore any dialog boxes that appear when you attach your card or your camera". Should this directive also include in-camera adjustments? The great innovators of cell phone software have created a scenario - the technology is undoubtedly available on other cameras.
The fact is, on some cameras, file naming tag can also be made easily in-camera as a alternative default. A user file name would not appear on a sc's list of approved file format camera id names and would undoubtedly be judged (unfairly) as a tampered file. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 09:35:07 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
The fact is, on some cameras, file naming tag can also be made easily in-camera as a alternative default. A user file name would not appear on a sc's list of approved file format camera id names and would undoubtedly be judged (unfairly) as a tampered file. |
no, that's not the case. if your camera allows you to name files while still in the camera, it's still a valid original.
renaming the file using your OS (meaning, right-click-and-"rename") doesn't affect the photo's data either.
we're really just focused on programs that "save" the file for you -- thereby leaving their invisible little fingerprints all over the image. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 09:37:25 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So is there a DPC primer for newbie/computer challenged people?
Is there a "Starter Packet", or some such thing in the way of suggested reading? |
no, there's really not. and it would not be feasible for us to create something like this because there are about 1,238,230 ways of doing everything related to your camera and saving your file.
your best bet is to take the guidelines provided (those given here as well as those in the Challenge Rules) and see if you understand them. if you have questions, post in the forums. if you have specific questions that apply to your individual situation, feel free to Contact Us. :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 09:37:33. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 09:57:16 AM · #114 |
I keep hearing "just manually copy and paste your images, simple as that".
Well, the problem is that it is MANUAL.
I pop the card in the reader and ACDSee asks if I want to transfer.
When I click 'yes' I have ACDSee set up to create a folder named as today's date, to copy all the images over to it, and then delete them off the card.
When you are talking gigs, being able to insert the card and just click one button saves time.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that I see all the EXIF data in the images.
If this is not the case is there file transfer program out there that is legal that I could use that recognizes the card, creates a folder of today's date, copies then deletes the files?
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:07:33 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by rswank:
If this is not the case is there file transfer program out there that is legal that I could use that recognizes the card, creates a folder of today's date, copies then deletes the files? |
That's a really good question, and I'm hoping the DPC Army can find such and point us all at it. If such could be found, perhaps SC would be willing to verify that said software is legal for transferring, and then a recommendation could be made at a site level that such is acceptable. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:09:38 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by rswank:
If this is not the case is there file transfer program out there that is legal that I could use that recognizes the card, creates a folder of today's date, copies then deletes the files? |
That's a really good question, and I'm hoping the DPC Army can find such and point us all at it. If such could be found, perhaps SC would be willing to verify that said software is legal for transferring, and then a recommendation could be made at a site level that such is acceptable. |
well, yes and no. we would be perfectly willing to validate a specific transfer METHOD but i don't know that we can wholesale stamp "OK" on any particular software product. there are so many versions and so many different ways to use each one that there's no telling what can be done.
when in doubt, submit a before and after for review. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 07:14:04 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So is there a DPC primer for newbie/computer challenged people?
Is there a "Starter Packet", or some such thing in the way of suggested reading? |
no, there's really not. and it would not be feasible for us to create something like this because there are about 1,238,230 ways of doing everything related to your camera and saving your file.
your best bet is to take the guidelines provided (those given here as well as those in the Challenge Rules) and see if you understand them. if you have questions, post in the forums. if you have specific questions that apply to your individual situation, feel free to Contact Us. :) |
Ya know.....I think that most of what I do not know and am hazy on is the stuff in the Help section.
Maybe I should read it.......just a thought.....8>)
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 19:15:29.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 07:30:04 PM · #118 |
| This place is getting complicated. I知 afraid I知 going to goof in submitting a photo now. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:29:09 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by connie:
This place is getting complicated. I知 afraid I知 going to goof in submitting a photo now. |
I am now comfortable with the feeling that there's any one of a number of people here being foolish enough...willing to help a "computer challenged" individual on a one-on-one basis through PMs and questions.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 08:57:45 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by connie:
This place is getting complicated. I知 afraid I知 going to goof in submitting a photo now. |
I am now comfortable with the feeling that there's any one of a number of people here being foolish enough...willing to help a "computer challenged" individual on a one-on-one basis through PMs and questions. |
LOL I hope Connie was kidding since she's been around since 2002 and has a great deal of DPC experience. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:23:57 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by rswank:
If this is not the case is there file transfer program out there that is legal that I could use that recognizes the card, creates a folder of today's date, copies then deletes the files? |
That's a really good question, and I'm hoping the DPC Army can find such and point us all at it. If such could be found, perhaps SC would be willing to verify that said software is legal for transferring, and then a recommendation could be made at a site level that such is acceptable. |
well, yes and no. we would be perfectly willing to validate a specific transfer METHOD but i don't know that we can wholesale stamp "OK" on any particular software product. there are so many versions and so many different ways to use each one that there's no telling what can be done.
when in doubt, submit a before and after for review. |
If a software that is KNOWN to be safe could be tested thoroughly by DPC SC, I don't see any reason on earth why it would be inappropriate to "wholesale stamp" it "OK". To refuse to do so, in my opinion, would be a disservice to the community.
There are many GOOD reasons to use transfer software, and I'm personally of the opinion that to simply outlaw them, or give the impression that they are illegal, is unfair. I'm not a Site Council member, so my opinion about the matter carries little to no weight, I understand, but I still have that opinion.
Not every user of DPC has the knowledge, ability, or the necessary software to determine if the software they are using is legal. Thus, you are asking that virtually every user of DPC who wishes to use a particular transfer method submit you two samples. Seems to me like a monster workload if say, 300 people take you up on that. If you're going to answer each individual with a "Yes" or a "No", what in the name of all that is cute and furry is wrong with publishing those results to the general populace and possibly reducing future inquiries of an identical nature? Thus, if a particular solution is found that is acceptable, what is so inappropriate about releasing that as a "recommended method" and tracking it's capabilities and versions in the future? Sure, you might have to do it twice - once for Mac and once for Win, or even three times if you include Linux - but I don't understand your position that you couldn't keep up with all the "methods and versions" if it were narrowed down to a single piece of software. You're basically asking that every user do that, or else risk DQ at some unspecified time, most likely when they get a ribbon, because you're not going to be checking their stuff most of the time if it's not top 5.
I think you're being a little balky here, quite honestly. Your logic just doesn't hold water, to me. Sorry.
Basically, what you're telling us is that transfer software being used could result in a DQ at any time, because nobody wants to go to the effort to determine if transfer software is doing anything illegal on an ongoing basis. Sure, I can submit two files for approval now, but what if I upgrade the same software and all of a sudden the new version adds a stamp to the EXIF? The software may have no editing capability at all other than that, but suddenly it's illegal. If I don't know enough about these things to either learn it myself, or if I don't think (because it's been a theoretical 6 months) to submit another pair of files to get SC approval, suddenly I'm creating illegal files and any shot that I submit will be summarily DQed.
My personal workflow doesn't include a file transfer software. I copy straight from the card, set up my own directories, yadda yadda. It's not a problem for me. But I can see how folks who shoot 500 or more pics at a time would really appreciate the convenience of transfer software.
If we can't establish a recommended software, I propose that you simply go ahead and step up to the plate and say that transfer software should not be used, period. Otherwise, you're going to have tons of newbies that don't understand this whole situation, and they're going to get unfairly DQed. Telling "us" (those who read this thread) to submit two files does little for future people who don't understand the situation at all.
Sorry to be so verbose about it, but I think the answer needs to be a little more clear cut. It's very muddy right now. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:35:11 AM · #122 |
I am having trouble finding what I am looking for. What is the statute of limitations on image validation? i.e. How long must I keep my "original" around for fear of being asked to produce it?
Thanks,
~Ab
Edit: for poor spelling
Message edited by author 2007-02-22 10:29:27. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:04:49 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by chunky:
I am having trouble finding what I am looking for. What is the statue of limitations on image validation? i.e. How long must I keep my "original" around for fear of being asked to produce it?
Thanks,
~Ab |
It's not really set in stone. I would advise keeping them as long as you want to be active on the site. Otherwise any question about the legality of your image could result in a DQ for you being unable to submit an original, regardless of whether a rule was actually broken. That said, in most cases the only DQ requests you'll see will be during challenge voting. SC may have a number they recommend for how long to keep them, but I'm just making a "practical" recommendation. They don't take up THAT much space, normally.
There is no statuTe of limitations, I'm fairly certain. (A statue is a work of sculpture). :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-22 10:05:20. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 10:09:54 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So is there a DPC primer for newbie/computer challenged people?
Is there a "Starter Packet", or some such thing in the way of suggested reading?
Have I just volunteered for spending the precious few spare minutes a day I have now to help facilitate this?
I can volunteer to be the Beta dummy!.....8>)
Seriously, I would love it if there was a system in place that would help folks who are new to this whole process and if, by virtue of having it spelled out up front, there was less confusion about what is, and is not, allowed at DPC, and the onus of informing people that they've erred is less on DPC at a time when it may make them seem to be the heavies.
Off to work I am, I will check back later..... |
"having it spelled out up front", keep dreaming.
Sorry, I've been here almost a year and this place seems to be the "School of Hard Knocks". I've requested several times to have things *Explicitly* explained/defined in the rules. I have asked and suggested a Hyperlink for a collection of rules like in this thread, after it dissapears from the view, for New-members.
All my efforts have been *Futile* and ignored. Things like this is the downside of such a wonderful website community, I hope it won't lead to it's downsizing some day. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 11:24:00 AM · #125 |
| So, I know how to pull up my EXIF information. How can I tell if it's been altered in some way to make it no longer a 'valid' original? |
|
