| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2003 01:50:06 AM · #1 |
| so somebody wants to disqaulify my simple photograph.. no reason why... just to give me trouble...so what do i do? they want the original and an .exif file... the original is what i posted and i dont know what an .exif file is... so what do i do?? this is such a hassle... (can anybody just recommend a disqaulification no matter what? doesnt seem fair..) |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:52:05 AM · #2 |
the original is the photo that cam off your camera. no cropping, no changing file size, nothing. just send the actual original file and you should be ok.
And yes, anyone can request dq for anything.
M
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:05:18 AM · #3 |
| well thats all good.. but i usually just save over the original with my edited version... so i guess im just gonna get dq'ed because someone randomly decided to recommend it... damn that sucks.. i hsould just become a member.. people in these open challenges can be very immature |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:11:51 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by maxpower:
people in these open challenges can be very immature |
May be true BUT It is clearly stated that you should save the original in case it is need. Also IMO it is always a good idea to have the original intact just in case you want to do something entirely different with it at a later date
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:14:54 AM · #5 |
its very sound practice to save a copy of a file you're going to work on and leave the original intact. Also, exif data is just the data that comes with your picture that give some technical details about it. Most cameras will record this in the file and there are programs available that can read it for you. I don't have any because win xp allows me to see my exif data in the advanced properties of an image (which is very useful!)
I'm sorry if you do get dq'd. I hope you can see past that and stick around, DPC is invaluable!
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:16:24 AM · #6 |
yea i suppose youre right.. i just never expected to need it... im on limited hard dive space, so i just dont keep many originals.. and i shoot a LOT of pictures... oh well... guess i screwed myself...
but there SHOULD be more restrictions on recommending pictures for disqualification... |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:17:04 AM · #7 |
Saving over the original is a bad habit and a good one to break.
Just think - this silly challenge that won't matter in a year may have just saved you some valuable time or energy down the road because you start saving all your stuff and when you need it, presto, it's there!
Take the good.
Mav
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:18:03 AM · #8 |
As for being limited on HD space - get a cd burner and burn your images on cd...that or get a dpportfolio (www.dpportfolio.com)
M
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:18:43 AM · #9 |
| true, mavrik... i DO need to break that habit... its too bad though, my picture was doing really well... |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:19:59 AM · #10 |
not every dq request is taken at face value. The site council review the reason given and the picture and then decide whether they think there is a basis to request an original file. So there are safeguards!
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:21:30 AM · #11 |
well thats good to know...
although my photo was practically unedited.. all i did was autolevels and and auto-color... didnt even sharpen or anything |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:26:27 AM · #12 |
Email site council. Tell them what your photo is of and how it was achieved. Explain you dont have the file. Who knows...they may not listen, but it's all you got.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:27:24 AM · #13 |
| yea.. will do that.. thanks for the tip!! |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 03:47:15 AM · #14 |
| If it makes you feel any better, you're my statistically fave photographer (I was checkin it out earlier cause of the forum post Konador left). |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 09:03:42 AM · #15 |
Don't know where you live, however, Fry's has 120G Drives for $78US. That's a lot of pictures. Also, you could get a CD Writer for about $50 and these days you can always get CD's for free with rebates. They hold 640MB's.
Sorry if you already knew all of this and are a starving college student...
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 09:12:51 AM · #16 |
| right on.. starving college student here... no $$$.. lol i spent it all on my camera and accessories.. and thank you to 'irockstars' -- iif youre referring to me... |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 09:14:41 AM · #17 |
| When I first became a member I asked about the exif info and there was a thread or tutorial (sorry don't remember for sure) suggesting PIE which I downloaded for free. I now save the original and when I have made any changes I save with the original file # and a descriptive word or two so that I don't lose that original info. Doesn't take a lot of room - also I make a lot of use of CDs. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 09:34:57 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
And yes, anyone can request dq for anything.
|
Though anything may the reason someone may request a dq, the site council will not dq a picture except for specific rule violations. Not all request for info results in dq.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 10:45:45 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by mavrik:
And yes, anyone can request dq for anything.
|
Though anything may the reason someone may request a dq, the site council will not dq a picture except for specific rule violations. Not all request for info results in dq. |
This is not entirely true. We have DQed photos in the past for inability to produce originals. Not sure which photo this is refering to or even what challenge, but I guarentee we aren't just trying to give you trouble. We vote on these things when they come to out attention. If the reason is totally off the wall, or things seems ok, we vote no DQ. If it's obvious rules have been violated (text on border or something) it will be DQed, and if it looks like there MIGHT be a violation, we vote to request proof on the photo. I think there are 13 people who vote and the majority has to think the photo was iffy to request proof on it.
Keep in mind that different effects CAN be achieved legally, however they also COULD be achieved NOT legally. So while it may have just been a simple effect, we don't know HOW you got that effect. most photos turn out to have been perfectly fine. Perfect examples from the past have been desaturation of all but one color, and multiple exposure or long exposures. Perfectly legal, but possible to achieve other ways. We have to make sure it wasn't achieved other ways.
Sometimes there are possible date violations. It may be a photo of a golf outting in Alaska and someone in Alaska requests DQ and says "I was at this golf outting, and it was 2 weeks ago". We would then request proof to see when it was taken.
Don't know which one is yours, but I do hope you understand why we need to check some things out. And only D and L can find out which photos belong to which people, so we can't assume anything there either.
~Heather~ |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:22:58 AM · #20 |
I don't have much confidence in the rule enforcement process, but I do think DQ inquires are an adequate deterrence, even if done on a random basis. Why some photos are questioned is beyond me. I got a DQ inquiry on this shot - I guess someone was naive as to what can be done within normal editing rules.
What percentage of DQ inquires (request for proof) actually end up as a DQ? Half of them are probably the result of not responding within 48 hours. This happened to me on one of my first submissions (admittedly, not a very good one) because I couldn't check my email while out of town.
I guess this leads me back to a site improvement that was suggested some time ago - a longer time to respond to DQ inquiries, and a notice somewhere on the DPC front page that your shot has been flagged.
Jerry
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 12:17:04 PM · #21 |
I went down the list of challenges since DPC V2 launched, and just took the first 27 challenges on the list. Here were the stats.
249 requests for DQ. 67 of which GOT DQed. Only 7 of those were for not being able to produce originals. So actually no where near 1/2.
10 were from someone holding multiple accounts. (completely not legal)
Almost all of the rest were for text on the image. (very obvious DQ)
Other reasons were for violating the 'artwork' rule, or spot editing. A couple were for date violations.
Anyway, just thought I'd share. Hope this clears some things up for you.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:26:02 PM · #22 |
I think it would be a good idea to create an area for the "DQ" photographs. Showing all the stats for members to view, i.e. reason for DQ, who requested it, what the final vote was, who voted on it and etc.
Why shouldn't paying members be allowed to see this information?
This could also serve as a warning to others who may want to attempt it.
Just a thought :)
Calvus
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I went down the list of challenges since DPC V2 launched, and just took the first 27 challenges on the list. Here were the stats.
249 requests for DQ. 67 of which GOT DQed. Only 7 of those were for not being able to produce originals. So actually no where near 1/2.
10 were from someone holding multiple accounts. (completely not legal)
Almost all of the rest were for text on the image. (very obvious DQ)
Other reasons were for violating the 'artwork' rule, or spot editing. A couple were for date violations.
Anyway, just thought I'd share. Hope this clears some things up for you. |
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 13:27:16.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:45:31 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Calvus:
I think it would be a good idea to create an area for the "DQ" photographs. Showing all the stats for members to view, i.e. reason for DQ, who requested it, what the final vote was, who voted on it and etc.
Why shouldn't paying members be allowed to see this information?
This could also serve as a warning to others who may want to attempt it.
Just a thought :)
Calvus
|
I always thought they could be placed below the ones on the results page, with no vote results, and reason for DQ stated.
I personally think it would be too harsh on the person's overall average score, but we could add in the maximum number of votes cast in that challenge with zero scores if you really want to punish someone .... |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:44:37 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I always thought they could be placed below the ones on the results page, with no vote results, and reason for DQ stated.
I personally think it would be too harsh on the person's overall average score, but we could add in the maximum number of votes cast in that challenge with zero scores if you really want to punish someone .... |
Frequently the DQed photos are the result of an honest mistake. I do not think that punishing the photographer is the appropriate thing to do.
Barbara
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:47:57 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Frequently the DQed photos are the result of an honest mistake. I do not think that punishing the photographer is the appropriate thing to do.
Barbara |
I completely agree -- it has happened to me. But I do think the first part (posting the images with explanation, but not counting towards any statistics) would be more educational than punative. |
|
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: 04/17/2024 09:23:06 PM EDT.
