| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2006 11:35:32 AM · #1 |
| The image previously in 2nd place has been DQed due to exif showing it was taken outside the time frame for the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:40:05 AM · #2 |
nice catch SC, its just ashame that these keep happening after the results are announced. I dont know if anything can really be done about that though.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:52:18 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by nlghttrain:
... I dont know if anything can really be done about that though. |
Why can't DPC just scan all images submited with a simple program that would check the date? Images can be DQ'ed before voting starts. I'm surprised it is not implemented.
I'm not a web programmer but I could probably come up with something like that in VB.NET in 20 minutes.
Nick
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:53:27 AM · #4 |
| Ohhhhhhhh I almost made it to top 10! lol |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:55:11 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Why can't DPC just scan all images submited with a simple program that would check the date? Images can be DQ'ed before voting starts. I'm surprised it is not implemented.
I'm not a web programmer but I could probably come up with something like that in VB.NET in 20 minutes.
Nick |
I think because the EXIF info isn't saved with the image when saving for the web...you have to save and keep that info in tact which makes the file larger...
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:57:20 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I think because the EXIF info isn't saved with the image when saving for the web...you have to save and keep that info in tact which makes the file larger... |
Yup ...
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:58:31 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Why can't DPC just scan all images submited with a simple program that would check the date? Images can be DQ'ed before voting starts. I'm surprised it is not implemented.
I'm not a web programmer but I could probably come up with something like that in VB.NET in 20 minutes.
Nick |
I think because the EXIF info isn't saved with the image when saving for the web...you have to save and keep that info in tact which makes the file larger... |
You right. That would be a problem. Hmm....
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:04:42 PM · #8 |
I know that this will never happen, but just to throw it up there...
why don't we _require_ submissions with EXIF? It is already stated somewhere in the rules that your image must have been taken with a camera that supports EXIF. That info is not that big, it would not noticeably deteriorate your image quality. And that way, the rest of the information (shutter speed, aperture, lens used, flash etc. etc. could also be transferred to the image data.)
I'd give up my right to a couple of hundred bytes for this to happen. (or, D&L could increase the max.size limit to 151K to cover for the new requirement.) |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:13:53 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I know that this will never happen, but just to throw it up there...
why don't we _require_ submissions with EXIF? It is already stated somewhere in the rules that your image must have been taken with a camera that supports EXIF. That info is not that big, it would not noticeably deteriorate your image quality. And that way, the rest of the information (shutter speed, aperture, lens used, flash etc. etc. could also be transferred to the image data.)
I'd give up my right to a couple of hundred bytes for this to happen. (or, D&L could increase the max.size limit to 151K to cover for the new requirement.) |
I'm all for that.
Nick
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:19:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
why don't we _require_ submissions with EXIF? |
it's not that we don't like this idea. however, the final files that are submitted to DPC would have their EXIF altered by whatever application made the edits. therefore, the EXIF isn't truly original, and we have no way to confirm that it is indeed the correct information.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:19:55. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:24:17 PM · #11 |
| Sure, but that would not change any DQ process as it stands right now, people will still have to submit originals for DQ reasons. The exif submitted with the image would only help trigger the dq request. Nobody should be automatically dqd only based on the exif from the image... |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:46:01 PM · #12 |
It's also not so easy to save your image with the EXIF but without other extraneous things that you don't want and contribute to your 150K limit. e.g. thumbnails and other metadata fields. Also if you're using Photoshop then you're probably using the "Save for Web" feature, which doesn't save EXIF AFAIK.
Personally I think DPC's procedure is fine. In fact I find it kind of comforting when someone gets DQ'd. I may have come in 400th place but at least I can follow the rules :-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:08:57 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
why don't we _require_ submissions with EXIF? |
My exif is altered as soon as I convert from raw with Nikon Capture. After that I work in Photoshop 6 and that doesn't save exif in either save as jpeg or save for the web mode.
Besides that, my name is in the exif.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:13:29 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by srdanz:
why don't we _require_ submissions with EXIF? |
My exif is altered as soon as I convert from raw with Nikon Capture. After that I work in Photoshop 6 and that doesn't save exif in either save as jpeg or save for the web mode.
Besides that, my name is in the exif. |
Two good points...
Some programs may not be able to save EXIF, and not only do some people have their name/copyright in their EXIF automatically from their camera, but camera information as well, I could honestly see people checking the EXIF and voting a shot down if it wasn't taken with their brand of cameras heh.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:20:09 PM · #15 |
even if we could magically include exif in the files during upload, i can't imagine that it would be retained in a way that it was viewable during voting.
another issue is that the exif is relative to the user's time zone, whereas all of the challenges are based on US EST. a photographer in london could take a shot at 1am local time and it would show as a day ahead when submitting the file at DPC time (which would be 8pm the previous date). that would be a mell of a hess to code.
it's pretty much a moot point, as the software just doesn't allow it. if the exif is altered in any way, who's to say that it's still the original information for the file?
i think these situations are few and far between. we all might just have a heightened sensitivity to it now because of the recent mega-batch of DQs we had to do. most of the time the date DQs are from people who are brand new to the site or people who have their cameras set incorrectly. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 05:43:27 PM · #16 |
I just checked the date on my camera and it is July 1, 2004. Oh, my.
I certainly learned my lesson.
Congrats to shabbychic on the ribbon. Its a wondeful photo ! |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 09:19:03 PM · #17 |
UPDATE
the entry formerly in 14th place has been disqualified. congratulations to cbonsall for a top 20 finish. |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:34:14 PM · #18 |
| HMMM.....i bet he'll never say anything again.... |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:38:20 PM · #19 |
| Sucks Riggs, it was an awesome image! |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:48:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
even if we could magically include exif in the files during upload, i can't imagine that it would be retained in a way that it was viewable during voting.
|
Just as a question, D and L probably are not actively stripping the EXIF, so isn't it still attached to the image? If a user saved the image to their hard drive and then opened it with something that would read EXIF, wouldn't it still be there?????
My opinion is that it would still be there. No evidence as of yet. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 01:48:16 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Kivet:
HMMM.....i bet he'll never say anything again.... |
I知 not mad about it Kivet,
Layers are still very new to me. Bear music was good enough to let me know I had broken a rule with the type of layer I used. I知 the one who sent it to the site counsel for review. If the step I used was illegal, it should rightfully be disqualified. I知 just a little embarrassed is all. I知 still learning too.
:-/ |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 01:53:01 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by Kivet:
HMMM.....i bet he'll never say anything again.... |
I知 not mad about it Kivet,
Layers are still very new to me. Bear music was good enough to let me know I had broken a rule with the type of layer I used. I知 the one who sent it to the site counsel for review. If the step I used was illegal, it should rightfully be disqualified. I知 just a little embarrassed is all. I知 still learning too.
:-/ |
I believe she was referring to Riggs who disqualified himself a couple of posts above hers.
Great attitude, by the way. :)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 03:08:31 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
even if we could magically include exif in the files during upload, i can't imagine that it would be retained in a way that it was viewable during voting. |
If the EXIF data is still attached to the submitted file, then it is visible post-challenge (and presumably during voting, since afaik the files are not altered once they're submitted).
I don't intend to single anyone out, but below is an example of a file with intact EXIF data (SC: feel free to edit this post to remove the thumbnail if you feel that I shouldn't give any examples).
 |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:18:11 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by muckpond:
even if we could magically include exif in the files during upload, i can't imagine that it would be retained in a way that it was viewable during voting.
|
Just as a question, D and L probably are not actively stripping the EXIF, so isn't it still attached to the image? If a user saved the image to their hard drive and then opened it with something that would read EXIF, wouldn't it still be there?????
My opinion is that it would still be there. No evidence as of yet. |
If you use Save for Web, it strips the EXIF.
However, once you've resaved your image, some of that EXIF has been altered. There is no way to tell that the other info hasn't. That's why we require an original. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:19:33 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by muckpond:
even if we could magically include exif in the files during upload, i can't imagine that it would be retained in a way that it was viewable during voting.
|
Just as a question, D and L probably are not actively stripping the EXIF, so isn't it still attached to the image? If a user saved the image to their hard drive and then opened it with something that would read EXIF, wouldn't it still be there?????
My opinion is that it would still be there. No evidence as of yet. |
If you use Save for Web, it strips the EXIF.
However, once you've resaved your image, some of that EXIF has been altered. There is no way to tell that the other info hasn't. That's why we require an original. |
Slightly off-topic question - when shooting RAW, is the original the RAW file or the jpeg you created from it? |
|
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: 04/25/2024 04:47:11 AM EDT.
