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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Transfer Software Guidelines
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 234, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/22/2007 11:42:21 AM · #126
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

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?

Specifically look at the "Software" tag and the date that follows it. If you see a program name and a date/time that doesn't match when you actually took the photo, it's no longer valid. If you don't see either of those, send a completely untouched version and the file you just "transfered" to SC and make sure they don't see something that you and I don't know to look for :)
02/22/2007 11:44:33 AM · #127
Originally posted by justamistere:

All my efforts have been *Futile* and ignored.

I seriously doubt they've been ignored. You've just not gotten the results you wished for. There is a difference :)

Insulting the very people who could make a difference in the outcome by accusing them of ignoring you probably isn't the best approach.
02/22/2007 12:32:15 PM · #128
Originally posted by justamistere:

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.


Do you have a list of the threads you've seen that you'd like on that list ? You could always put it in your profile and link in your sig as a starting point.

The Administrator Announcements forum would be a whole lot more readable, if the near constant 'results recalculated' threads had their own (sub)category, then we could point newbies at the more useful AA forum. That might even reduce the need for those near constant recalculations, but that seems like a pipe dream.

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 12:34:42.
02/22/2007 12:47:30 PM · #129
Originally posted by Gordon:

The Administrator Announcements forum would be a whole lot more readable, if the near constant 'results recalculated' threads had their own (sub)category, then we could point newbies at the more useful AA forum.


Oooh. Great idea.
02/22/2007 01:41:42 PM · #130
Originally posted by nards656:

Specifically look at the "Software" tag and the date that follows it. If you see a program name and a date/time that doesn't match when you actually took the photo, it's no longer valid. If you don't see either of those, send a completely untouched version and the file you just "transfered" to SC and make sure they don't see something that you and I don't know to look for :)

If there is a "software" tag does that invalidate the image?
If it's just exifs that are a problem it's no secret that there are idiot-proof tools that can edit exif data.
Now the question is if there are tools that can tell if the exif has been modified... is there a secret checksum or something.
02/22/2007 01:56:17 PM · #131
SC has not said that you can't use transfer software. Simply that some transfer software invalidates originals for DPC purposes, and that the safe method is direct transfer.

02/22/2007 02:05:28 PM · #132
Originally posted by rswank:

Originally posted by nards656:

Specifically look at the "Software" tag and the date that follows it. If you see a program name and a date/time that doesn't match when you actually took the photo, it's no longer valid. If you don't see either of those, send a completely untouched version and the file you just "transfered" to SC and make sure they don't see something that you and I don't know to look for :)

If there is a "software" tag does that invalidate the image?
If it's just exifs that are a problem it's no secret that there are idiot-proof tools that can edit exif data.
Now the question is if there are tools that can tell if the exif has been modified... is there a secret checksum or something.


If there is a software "tag" that will probably mean somewhere/somehow your picture has been "touched" and we will not consider it an original. Also, when you change one thing on the EXIF, other "stuff" changes. And yes, I'm being balky and indirect. It would be kinda silly to tell you all the secrets, now wouldn't it.

Also, as far as saying you can use this or this but not that or that. We try to stay away from lists like that for a reason. Yes, there is some software that "works" and is fine. Yes, there is some that seems to always leave its print. BUT, as with the English language, there seem to always be exceptions. So the list would have to be something like, you can use XYZ (except for such and such and such and such, unless such and such is thus and so), you can use ABC (exception blah, blah, blah) and it is best not to use LMNOP (unless you do this and such). We could make a list, but then we would have to be constantly amending and editing that list and that would simply be too time consuming and inefficient, I think.

To remind everyone, like ursula said, we are not saying you cannot/should not/will not use transfer software, just be warned that from this point forward, if that transfer software shows on your EXIF it will not be considered a valid original.
02/22/2007 02:08:38 PM · #133
Originally posted by rswank:

If there is a "software" tag does that invalidate the image?
If it's just exifs that are a problem it's no secret that there are idiot-proof tools that can edit exif data.
Now the question is if there are tools that can tell if the exif has been modified... is there a secret checksum or something.


For JPEGs, yes, a software tag is one thing that will invalidate the image. For RAW originals, a software tag does not automaticaly invalidate the image at this writing.
Yes, there are EXIF editing tools, most of which are detectable after-the-fact. It's no secret that it *is* possible to alter EXIF in an undetectable way, but it is not as easy as it sounds. FWIW, if we detect an attempt to edit EXIF, we regard this as an intentional attempt to defraud the community, and as such it has severe consequences.
Because the vast majority of entries never need to undergo validation, we're mostly on the honor system here. It's a shame that we even have to police this; why do people feel it necessary to cheat for the chance at a virtual ribbon?
02/22/2007 02:15:57 PM · #134
Originally posted by karmat:

Also, as far as saying you can use this or this but not that or that. We try to stay away from lists like that for a reason. Yes, there is some software that "works" and is fine. Yes, there is some that seems to always leave its print. BUT, as with the English language, there seem to always be exceptions. So the list would have to be something like, you can use XYZ (except for such and such and such and such, unless such and such is thus and so), you can use ABC (exception blah, blah, blah) and it is best not to use LMNOP (unless you do this and such). We could make a list, but then we would have to be constantly amending and editing that list and that would simply be too time consuming and inefficient, I think.


I think she's arguing with me, gang. Can y'all BELIEVE that?

:)
02/22/2007 02:18:20 PM · #135
Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by karmat:

Also, as far as saying you can use this or this but not that or that. We try to stay away from lists like that for a reason. Yes, there is some software that "works" and is fine. Yes, there is some that seems to always leave its print. BUT, as with the English language, there seem to always be exceptions. So the list would have to be something like, you can use XYZ (except for such and such and such and such, unless such and such is thus and so), you can use ABC (exception blah, blah, blah) and it is best not to use LMNOP (unless you do this and such). We could make a list, but then we would have to be constantly amending and editing that list and that would simply be too time consuming and inefficient, I think.


I think she's arguing with me, gang. Can y'all BELIEVE that?

:)


Yea, well you'll notice I didn't bring it up while you were home for lunch. :) Instead, I waited until you were back at work.

hehe.
02/22/2007 02:28:34 PM · #136
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by karmat:

Also, as far as saying you can use this or this but not that or that. We try to stay away from lists like that for a reason. Yes, there is some software that "works" and is fine. Yes, there is some that seems to always leave its print. BUT, as with the English language, there seem to always be exceptions. So the list would have to be something like, you can use XYZ (except for such and such and such and such, unless such and such is thus and so), you can use ABC (exception blah, blah, blah) and it is best not to use LMNOP (unless you do this and such). We could make a list, but then we would have to be constantly amending and editing that list and that would simply be too time consuming and inefficient, I think.


I think she's arguing with me, gang. Can y'all BELIEVE that?

:)


Yea, well you'll notice I didn't bring it up while you were home for lunch. :) Instead, I waited until you were back at work.

hehe.

Betcha a dollar you're gonna have to maintain a list anyway. How else you gonna know how to answer JoeBlow when he asks about the same software that JimDoe, JaneFox, JeffDuck, and TimBobbaly use and have already submitted for testing?

I understand that list may be slightly inconclusive and will not be public as a result, but I betcha there's gonna be a list. Somewhere.

Maybe on my bulletin board. :)
02/22/2007 02:45:09 PM · #137
OK, so let me get this straight:

I rotate an image in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.

This image is now invalid as an original??


02/22/2007 03:03:23 PM · #138
Originally posted by nards656:

I betcha there's gonna be a list.


Not a chance. ANY transfer software is capable of modifying a file, so it's simply impossible to declare that a particular application is always "approved." You could submit a valid original from ACDSee and someone else could submit one that's modified because they're working with a different version, different settings or different steps. Listing all the possible variables just isn't practical. The vast majority of originals submitted for validation are perfectly fine, and we try to help the few people who have a problem. This is primarily a reminder to protect your originals to whatever extent you can, and ask for help if you need it.
02/22/2007 03:09:00 PM · #139
Originally posted by option:

OK, so let me get this straight:

I rotate an image in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.

This image is now invalid as an original??


I just rotated a couple of photos using Windows Picture and Fax viewer, nothing showed in EXIF regarding software and no additions or subtractions in data. Photos were dragged from SD card in card reader and then rotated.

Doesn't look to invalidate, but I could be wroung. Someone is sure to pipe up soon enough :))

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 15:09:13.
02/22/2007 04:33:05 PM · #140
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nards656:

I betcha there's gonna be a list.


Not a chance. ANY transfer software is capable of modifying a file, so it's simply impossible to declare that a particular application is always "approved." You could submit a valid original from ACDSee and someone else could submit one that's modified because they're working with a different version, different settings or different steps. Listing all the possible variables just isn't practical. The vast majority of originals submitted for validation are perfectly fine, and we try to help the few people who have a problem. This is primarily a reminder to protect your originals to whatever extent you can, and ask for help if you need it.


In this case you shouldn't be offering to approve processes, because you're going to have to keep up with what you've approved or else there is no approval. If you're offering to approve a process but aren't going to honor that process - even if SC made a mistake - you shouldn't be offering to approve processes.

Your second sentence basically means that SC has outlawed transfer software. My problem with the way this is being done is that you're saying "sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's not", but you're NOT giving us the tools to know whether we're legal or not. The ONLY way to KNOW I'm legal is to NOT use transfer software. Don't tell me you can "verify" my process if you're going to hedge around and say that I'm still responsible for maintaining clean EXIF.

What are you going to do when I send you two files, and you say "They're fine, whatever you did to them is fine", and then next week, when I get DQed for a non-original on my blue ribbon winner, and raise cain because "you told me this process was okay".

My point is this - don't offer to approve a process if your not going to honor that approval. That's not good "business". The last sentence in this quote says "to whatever extent you can", but that's not quite good enough. They MUST be preserved COMPLETELY unmodified, and if anyone uses transfer software, they risk DQ. Only SC can verify that they won't be DQed for a particular software, and you guys aren't willing to make any promises, which means that the use of ANY transfer software is an unacceptable risk.

02/22/2007 04:51:28 PM · #141
Originally posted by nards656:

...you shouldn't be offering to approve processes


We haven't. We can only tell you if a FILE is valid (we have no way of validating your process). If you submitt a file that's OK, then submitting another one using the same process should be equally OK. If you submit a file later that's modified, then you've probably done something differently, no?

The only other hard rule we have is dates, and the situation is similar. We can't accept a file with EXIF dates outside the challenge period, and we don't/can't explain how to set each camera model. If you send us a file with the correct dates, we can tell you it's OK, but can't guarantee that your camera settings will stay the same forever.

Again, nothing has really changed here. Everyone is supposed to keep unaltered originals for validation anyway. If you have trouble with that now, then what were you doing before? :-/

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 17:18:13.
02/22/2007 05:21:07 PM · #142
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nards656:

...you shouldn't be offering to approve processes


We haven't. We can only tell you if a FILE is valid (we have no way of validating your process). If you submit a file that's OK, then submit another one using the same process should be equally OK. If you submit a file later that's modified, then you've probably done something differently, no?

The only other hard rule we have is dates, and the situation is similar. We can't accept a file with EXIF dates outside the challenge period, and we don't/can't explain how to set each camera model. If you send us a file with the correct dates, we can tell you it's OK, but can't guarantee that your camera settings will stay the same forever.

Again, nothing has really changed here. Everyone is supposed to keep unaltered originals for validation anyway. If you have trouble with that now, then what were you doing before? :-/

Obviously this whole thing is going nowhere. Just nevermind. Thanks for your trouble and your time.

Edit - "You" (SC) actually HAVE offered to approve "methods".

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 17:55:05.
02/22/2007 05:43:52 PM · #143
So am I assuming correctly that some things can be altered by transfer software without the Date-Time EXIF data changing?

I hope that's not the case, otherwise how can we tell if something was changed or not.

I know some graphics software rotate thumbnail copies of images for viewing. Some don't alter the file, only the thumbnail image collections. I sure hope I'm safe with using Adobe Bridge with it's setting set to auto rotate.

I think there is an auto rotate setting in my camera menu system, too. That's probably where a flag gets marked as Horizontal/Landscape or Vertical/Portrait orientation. There must be an internal leveling system for the camera to determine this.

I will send an email to Adobe inquiring about thier Bridge graphics browser software. I would suggest for all users to contact their software manufacturers to verify if thumbnail rotation or anything else will alter the file and it's EXIF data. They're paid to answer such questions and have the specific knowledge.
02/22/2007 05:47:14 PM · #144
You could just mandate this and make life easier for everyone.
02/23/2007 08:05:12 AM · #145
Originally posted by formerlee:

Originally posted by option:

OK, so let me get this straight:

I rotate an image in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.

This image is now invalid as an original??


I just rotated a couple of photos using Windows Picture and Fax viewer, nothing showed in EXIF regarding software and no additions or subtractions in data. Photos were dragged from SD card in card reader and then rotated.

Doesn't look to invalidate, but I could be wroung. Someone is sure to pipe up soon enough :))


I would like to know the answer to this... If we rotate the picture in Windows Picture and Fax viewer does that mean that our pictures are invalid?
02/23/2007 08:55:55 AM · #146
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:

I would like to know the answer to this... If we rotate the picture in Windows Picture and Fax viewer does that mean that our pictures are invalid?


based on my test with a JPG in WinXP service pack 2, no, it does not invalidate the original.

however, as others have pointed out, it's really not a great thing to do for your photos:

Originally posted by hajeka:


Here's a small example why you shouldn't rotate with Windows Viewer.

Original: Rotated 100 times: Which one do you prefer?
02/23/2007 10:04:27 AM · #147
Originally posted by muckpond:


based on my test with a JPG in WinXP service pack 2, no, it does not invalidate the original.

however, as others have pointed out, it's really not a great thing to do for your photos:

Originally posted by hajeka:


Here's a small example why you shouldn't rotate with Windows Viewer.

Original: Rotated 100 times: Which one do you prefer?


I think you may want to do a retest.
If indeed the second picture passes your "orignal image test", then there is a problem with the test.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you could consider image 2 an "original".
Please elaborate.

Message edited by author 2007-02-23 10:04:51.
02/23/2007 10:11:28 AM · #148
Originally posted by nards656:

Edit - "You" (SC) actually HAVE offered to approve "methods".


Allow me to clarify then.

The ONLY approved method for preserving JPEG originals is to copy the files via the operating system, as outlined in the "Guidelines for Preserving Your Challenge Entry Originals" section of the original post. All other methods are untested, unsupprted, and at your own risk.

If a user wants us to confirm whether a specific file is acceptable, we will do that, but without purchasing and installing every possible transfer software application ourselves, we cannot address the methods used to create that file.

We also cannot, and will not, guarantee that changes in the user's process, changes in our verification process, software upgrades, downgrades, patches, phase of the moon or anything else will not render future files invalid.

If you want to be safe, please use the operating system method outlined in the original post. If you wish to deviate from that, we will help you as best we can, but you are at your own risk.

~Terry
02/23/2007 10:34:05 AM · #149
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

...we will help you as best we can, but you are at your own risk.

That's the part that, at least to me, was previously unclear. I personally knew what you were saying, but the direction of the thread made for a lot of confusion. Thanks for clarity.

If this is a "sticky" thread, this final post really should be edited into the initial post so that newbies can read that post without having to track the entire thread.

Thanks.
02/23/2007 10:50:23 AM · #150
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:


The ONLY approved method for preserving JPEG originals is to copy the files via the operating system, as outlined in the "Guidelines for Preserving Your Challenge Entry Originals" section of the original post. All other methods are untested, unsupprted, and at your own risk.


Though for now, it sounds like Vista is trashing Nikon RAW files if you preview them in the OS, so even the OS only path can be somewhat suspect on occasion.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 08:46:24 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: 03/29/2024 08:46:24 AM EDT.