| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2013 10:21:25 AM · #1 |
The results of the 'Burst of Color IV' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 1st place image for being unable to provide a valid original within the required timeframe. Congrats to our new top 5 places!
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:14:50 AM · #2 |
| Aw, sucks, but not surprised...seems to be the fate of many new challenge winners. Congrats to the new ribbon holders. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:19:37 AM · #3 |
| i know it wouldn't work 100% of the time, but if the upload process detected an out-of-range date, then the submission could be blocked and we wouldn't have to go through this... |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:26:38 AM · #4 |
| Well, when you upload your picture you click the box saying you took the picture during the specified timeframe. So the new people either don't read or don't care. Just a bummer that the deserved new ribbon winner doesn't get the full week on the front page. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:39:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Skip:
i know it wouldn't work 100% of the time, but if the upload process detected an out-of-range date, then the submission could be blocked and we wouldn't have to go through this... |
+12ty billion. There's code telling you if you try to upload too large a file, why can't there be a line of code detecting the date and refusing to upload the file? Would save a lot of heartbreak and in my case anyway, at least 2 of my 6 DQs. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:45:46 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Skip:
i know it wouldn't work 100% of the time, but if the upload process detected an out-of-range date, then the submission could be blocked and we wouldn't have to go through this... |
That would require exif info to be included in the upload and I think the majority of folk strip the exif when doing the save for web as it reduces the file size,. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:46:31 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
There's code telling you if you try to upload too large a file, why can't there be a line of code detecting the date and refusing to upload the file? Would save a lot of heartbreak and in my case anyway, at least 2 of my 6 DQs. |
1. The file size is a constant throughout all challenges. The dates vary with every challenge...
2. Many of us strip EXIF from our submissions anyway, for reasons of file size and anonymity...
Message edited by author 2013-01-25 11:46:50. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 11:51:36 AM · #8 |
I think that what  Manic was saying is that the owner of the DQ image was not able to provide a valid original image file within the alloted 24/48 hours or whatever for validation.
However, since the thread went with the date stamp discussion, I also think it would be a nice idea to not be able to upload a file with a date out of range.
A lot of us remove the exif files to maximize useful filesize when preparing an image to upload to a challenge, which would make it not possible for software to determine the original shooting time. It's best to just pay attention, and keep your camera up to date. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:06:32 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
I think that what Manic was saying is that the owner of the DQ image was not able to provide a valid original image file within the alloted 24/48 hours or whatever for validation.
However, since the thread went with the date stamp discussion, I also think it would be a nice idea to not be able to upload a file with a date out of range.
A lot of us remove the exif files to maximize useful filesize when preparing an image to upload to a challenge, which would make it not possible for software to determine the original shooting time. It's best to just pay attention, and keep your camera up to date. |
The other thing is you should always save an original in a safe place for any challenge entry, be it RAW or jpeg or whatever you shoot in. I do each challenge the same way- I have a larger challenge folder. Within it I have folders for each individual challenge. Within that, there are an original folder and and edit folder, so all possibles are contained in both locations, and then a jpeg folder for finals. Keeping things together means you can always verify the original, which you should ALWAYS have hanging around and ready ANYWAY.
ETA: Wait, I misread you. Are you saying a date screen would/would not work for uploads? I think a huge portion of us strip that info, and you say so too...
Message edited by author 2013-01-25 12:08:32. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:17:19 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Are you saying a date screen would/would not work for uploads? I think a huge portion of us strip that info, and you say so too... |
Here's the deal as I see it: assuming Langdon was willing to do the coding for this feature, then it's certainly not a liability, as long as it accepts "no date" as a valid date. But the way things are right now, the restrictions that block entries (file size, pixel dimensions, no title, whatever) are NOT coded from EXIF. So I imagine the coding to read EXIF and discriminate would take some effort to accomplish.
Obviously it would be of no help to folks like us, who strip EXIF, but arguably it could help newcomers avoid frustrating mistakes... |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:17:50 PM · #11 |
New Rule:
If you get a DQ and deprive someone of their time on the front page, you will have to go to that person's home and be their 24 hour a day butler for the number of days your image spent on the front page.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:23:08 PM · #12 |
in theory, it would be no problem at all to
1) require the exif to be left in
2) read it, validate it, and store it in the database
3) strip it from the submission
in reality, it will never happen, at least not here... |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:27:38 PM · #13 |
It seems like the problems with including EXIF should be easily worked around.
1) Increase the limit to file size. EXIF doesn't represent that much. 10kb?
2) What anonymity does the EXIF remove? How many people who do not want their name on their user account have also taken the time to put their real name into their EXIF? I'm not sure I understand what people are worried about by including it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:35:40 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems like the problems with including EXIF should be easily worked around.
1) Increase the limit to file size. EXIF doesn't represent that much. 10kb?
2) What anonymity does the EXIF remove? How many people who do not want their name on their user account have also taken the time to put their real name into their EXIF? I'm not sure I understand what people are worried about by including it. |
+1 I like these comments. EXIF data on each image would be very helpful in an educational way. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:45:25 PM · #15 |
nothing is going to get done.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:53:22 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems like the problems with including EXIF should be easily worked around.
1) Increase the limit to file size. EXIF doesn't represent that much. 10kb?
2) What anonymity does the EXIF remove? How many people who do not want their name on their user account have also taken the time to put their real name into their EXIF? I'm not sure I understand what people are worried about by including it. |
If you shot with a camera that geotags (all phones do this) and didn't have geotagging turned off, the EXIF data has the exact location of the camera when the shot was taken. Yes, it can be turned off, but most camera phone users don't realize that it's turned on by default. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:58:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Are you saying a date screen would/would not work for uploads? I think a huge portion of us strip that info, and you say so too... |
Here's the deal as I see it: assuming Langdon was willing to do the coding for this feature, then it's certainly not a liability, as long as it accepts "no date" as a valid date. But the way things are right now, the restrictions that block entries (file size, pixel dimensions, no title, whatever) are NOT coded from EXIF. So I imagine the coding to read EXIF and discriminate would take some effort to accomplish.
Obviously it would be of no help to folks like us, who strip EXIF, but arguably it could help newcomers avoid frustrating mistakes... |
Langdon has said previously that he uses the ImageMagick API for the image resizing on this site. Using that same API you can pull out the EXIF capture date with a single function call. It should be trivial for him to add. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 01:07:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What anonymity does the EXIF remove? How many people who do not want their name on their user account have also taken the time to put their real name into their EXIF? I'm not sure I understand what people are worried about by including it. |
That's not the point: some of us have EXIF tagging our images with our name and copyright stuff. If EXIF is left on entries, then any voter with an EXIF reader can see who shot those pictures. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 01:11:29 PM · #19 |
So, I looked at the DQ announcements, and did some quick math. In the past year (approx 170 challenges), there were 27 disqualifications (15% of challenges have a top finisher DQ'd for one reason or another). Of those...
- 14 were for not providing an original (includes one that was later reinstated).
- 8 were for editing violations.
- 5 were for date violations.
Requiring EXIF data would solve a small DQ problem, and create a bigger privacy problem. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 01:17:25 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What anonymity does the EXIF remove? How many people who do not want their name on their user account have also taken the time to put their real name into their EXIF? I'm not sure I understand what people are worried about by including it. |
That's not the point: some of us have EXIF tagging our images with our name and copyright stuff. If EXIF is left on entries, then any voter with an EXIF reader can see who shot those pictures. |
Aha. Gotcha. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 01:40:32 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Ann:
So, I looked at the DQ announcements, and did some quick math. In the past year (approx 170 challenges), there were 27 disqualifications (15% of challenges have a top finisher DQ'd for one reason or another). Of those...
- 14 were for not providing an original (includes one that was later reinstated).
- 8 were for editing violations.
- 5 were for date violations.
Requiring EXIF data would solve a small DQ problem, and create a bigger privacy problem. |
EXIF data shouldn't be required, but it should be allowed and checked against if present. While in voting that EXIF data can be stripped to allow for anonymity, then reapplied after voting is complete. This is already done for images that are larger than 800 pixels. I think it was  AllenP who won with an image that was 1000 pixels wide, but while in voting is was automatically scaled to 800 pixels wide. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 01:43:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What anonymity does the EXIF remove? How many people who do not want their name on their user account have also taken the time to put their real name into their EXIF? I'm not sure I understand what people are worried about by including it. |
That's not the point: some of us have EXIF tagging our images with our name and copyright stuff. If EXIF is left on entries, then any voter with an EXIF reader can see who shot those pictures. |
Metadata embedded with copyright and image authorship is a good thing. I have some problems with stripping this kind of data, as it affords a modicum of declared property rights. Depending on one's established style and subject matter, there is little anonymity in the DPC challenges anyway. (At least not much for me.) Furthermore, I can somewhat accurately guess on the authorship of many challenge entries, as can most other longer term participants.
I'd sure like to see an evolved membership that can cast fair and impartial votes knowing full well the identity of the image's author. EXIF data transparency would provide the opportunity for people to get past friend or foe voting immaturity. It would be a character building experience! The kindest thing we can do for our peers is to offer them a fair and objective vote.... regardless of whether we hate or love them. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 01:47:31 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
EXIF data shouldn't be required, but it should be allowed and checked against if present. |
This is currently the status.
Originally posted by bhuge:
While in voting that EXIF data can be stripped to allow for anonymity, then reapplied after voting is complete.... |
If you know where to look, EXIF data is there, if it hasn't been removed by the image's author. DPC does not strip any EXIF data. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 02:40:53 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by bhuge:
EXIF data shouldn't be required, but it should be allowed and checked against if present. |
This is currently the status.
Originally posted by bhuge:
While in voting that EXIF data can be stripped to allow for anonymity, then reapplied after voting is complete.... |
If you know where to look, EXIF data is there, if it hasn't been removed by the image's author. DPC does not strip any EXIF data. |
what we're saying is that it would not be any problem to programatically strip ALL the exif, store it until after the challenge completes, then add it back. yes this would be a great idea, but we all know that it's never going to happen, at least not with the current site ownership... |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 03:21:03 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by bhuge:
EXIF data shouldn't be required, but it should be allowed and checked against if present. |
This is currently the status.
Originally posted by bhuge:
While in voting that EXIF data can be stripped to allow for anonymity, then reapplied after voting is complete.... |
If you know where to look, EXIF data is there, if it hasn't been removed by the image's author. DPC does not strip any EXIF data. |
what we're saying is that it would not be any problem to programatically strip ALL the exif, store it until after the challenge completes, then add it back. yes this would be a great idea, but we all know that it's never going to happen, at least not with the current site ownership... |
Unfortunately I would have to agree with that statement :( |
|
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: 04/23/2024 04:58:16 AM EDT.
