| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/26/2003 04:41:54 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why doesn't the EXIF format allow for a user-programmable field to include photographer/copyright info ... or does it? |
If a you add your copyright information to the EXIF data, then you no longer have an un-altered original do you?
Message edited by author 2003-12-26 16:42:41.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2003 04:52:38 PM · #152 |
So, let's everyone go out and get Photoshop CS...it has session history that can be written right into the EXIF data. Sound good? Someone pony up my $600, please.
As with my copyright into EXIF, I do this right after I download the originals, then burn to CD. So I guess anything I send in would be altered. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 04:57:43 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why doesn't the EXIF format allow for a user-programmable field to include photographer/copyright info ... or does it? |
If a you add your copyright information to the EXIF data, then you no longer have an un-altered original do you? |
I'm talking about having a way to program your camera (like setting the date) to include a line of user-definable text, which could include copyright info, or having a specified copyright area with fields to enter date and owner. You'd set your camera ahead of time, and the data would be included with each frame along with the date and exposure info.
You are correct -- do not alter the existing EXIF data or you won't have an "original." I was hoping .... |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 05:55:07 PM · #154 |
i have noticed on some posts here - when folks post the EXIF data
that some have a field for camera owner - and for photograpaher
but from what i have seen - it has never been filed in with a name. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 06:19:10 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Holy cow. I've been away from the site for a day because of the holiday so I haven't been following this thread. I still haven't read it all because I'm about to head out the door, but I had to chime in. By the reaction of some of the folks in this thread, you'd think we are asking for their first-born child.
For reference, every submission to DigitalPhotoContest.com requires "the original, unmodified digital camera image" be uploaded at the time your entry is submitted. And they have daily photo contests. So it isn't like DPC is doing something "wild and crazy" here by validating the winning entries.
If you don't like the rules here, don't submit here. Simple as that.
(I'm really tempted to lock this thread.) |
BUT LETS ASLO KEEP IN MIND.... They pay money for prizes!!! This site does not!!! I would not send an original unless there was some kind of "possible investment".
|
|
|
|
12/26/2003 07:14:17 PM · #156 |
This is a contest. There are rules if you want to enter it. The rules help keep things fair for everyone.
If your work is too valuable to enter within the existing rules, then don't enter the contest. You can enter the "valuable shots" into your portfolio pictures so all of us can goggle over them.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2003 07:30:14 PM · #157 |
I totally agree. Which is why I have stated... I will happily take a DQ in exchange for not having to send an orignal RAW file .... (I have posted a couple of times earlier about this)
If there is another way around this... fine.
I am all for the rules. I have no problem being DQ'd if thats what the council feels. I will then post my photo and what steps I took to create it, on the public forum, just to clear my name, because after all, all you get here is a ribbon....
Just think of this... Would you mail your original NEGATIVE to someone you dont know??
Because thats what the RAW file is. It is a "digital negative".
Message edited by author 2003-12-26 19:36:37. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 07:46:18 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
I totally agree. Which is why I have stated... I will happily take a DQ in exchange for not having to send an orignal RAW file .... (I have posted a couple of times earlier about this)
If there is another way around this... fine.
But I am all for the rules. I have no problem being DQ'd if thats what the council feels. I will then post my photo and what steps I took to create it, on the public forum, just to clear my name, because after all, all you get here is a ribbon....
Just think of this... Would you mail your original NEGATIVE to someone you dont know??
Because thats what the RAW file is. It is a "digital negative". |
Yes, I would send my negative and my raw file to anyone who would use it in a way that would benefit others. My name is not Rembrandt and it would suit me just fine to see my work show up on the chapel ceilings, semi trucks, billboards. I guess our agendas are different. I don't care if the site counsel prints posters of my lemon car. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 07:46:29 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
Just think of this... Would you mail your original NEGATIVE to someone you dont know??
Because thats what the RAW file is. It is a "digital negative". |
There is s slight difference ... you will ALSO have an original copy of the "original." If you took your card directly out of the camera and mailed it to someone it might be the same, but this is more like mailing in a duplicate slide or print than it is like sending the original and ONLY negative.
Message edited by author 2003-12-26 19:47:00. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 07:47:46 PM · #160 |
| Who knew there could be an advantage to never doing THAT well on this site, that this is somewhat irrelavent for me, but I think requesting info is fair enough. I ave no idea what format my shots are saved in but I would gladly submit them if I was so lucky as to get that far. Perhaps, would be acceptable to add just name to the original to keep it for being 're-used' somehow. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 08:59:37 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
Would you mail your original NEGATIVE to someone you dont know?? |
You are not sending it to someone you don't know. You would be sending it to a group of people who are known.
I know of at least a dozen cases of illegal photos being entered and dq'ed in the four months I've been hanging around this site. I have not heard of a single instance of a photo being stolen and sold by anyone, let alone an official of the site. We do need to prevent illegal entries, probably more vigilantly than in the past. I think the people who have voiced opposition to sending in an original file are way overreacting. I wish they were as vociferious about protecting the integrity of the challenges, or the anonymity of the entries. The Site Council should be applauded for this lastest move, not have their integrity questioned.
Message edited by author 2003-12-26 21:01:58. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 09:05:38 PM · #162 |
there are always those who disagree with you no matter what the topic.
a rule is a rule, you follow them - or you break them...
|
|
|
|
12/26/2003 10:11:48 PM · #163 |
I don't like the idea of trying to compete in a photo contest with photographers who have thousands of archive photographs to choose from. If they are questioned about the date of the photograph, they simply get DQ'd. If they are not questioned, they win and steel the ribbon from the rightful winners.
I think every entry should be sent with the original and the site counsel should have access to them all if they have any questions at all. Then they need only view the ones necessary to keep the rules enforced. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 10:26:36 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
The discussion I'm having is nothing more than addressing the concerns of the top 10 winners which have to provide the actual image file, which again is not a problem in itself, but the terms provides no safeguards against providing such a file as far as ownership or duration of terms with your work. |
I agree that this site seems top notch to me. I've thoroughly enjoyed this site since I came upon it.
As for the copyright discussion, I'd have to read more (I still haven't had a chance to do so), but it seems to me the issue here isn't copyright ownership, but potential for infringement. More specifically, the ease with which the original image (or an exact copy thereof) can be used by others without permission.
This is not a concern of mine - poor to average photos are easy to come by, so there is no market for my pics. With that said, if the site were claiming rights beyond those necessary to run this site (like the right to make and distribute copies), I might want to know why, and the possible consequences. I haven't seen anything to suggest this is the case though.
As a newbie to the site and digital photography generally, can you add a watermark to the image without compromising the EXIF data? If so, could this be controlled to permit the council to check the photos and the EXIF data while alleviating the fear some have of copyright infringement in the digital age? That's probably a dumb question, but I'll throw it out there anyway and take whatever abuse comes my way!
:-) |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 10:53:13 PM · #165 |
I just cannot believe all the moaning and crying over this!
When I joined this site, I read the rules, and I MADE A CHOICE to join, knowing full well what the rules are.
EVERY time I submit a photo for a challenge, I know full well that it says my ORIGINAL may be requested, and I MAKE A CHOICE to submit to this rule, as well as all others stated on the site.
I don't think it's right to be slamming this site because you don't like the rules,after you've joined, read the rules, and continue to read them every time you submit a photo. Maybe your CHOICE should have been to NOT join the site, and NOT submit photos because you don't agree with the stated rules.
Heck; throw me in that briar patch! I'll be happy to submit my original every week!
(And by the way, I am an artist that HAS had some (unregistered) work "stolen", so I know full well about copyrights and the protections thereof.)
|
|
|
|
12/26/2003 11:03:27 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
As a newbie to the site and digital photography generally, can you add a watermark to the image without compromising the EXIF data? If so, could this be controlled to permit the council to check the photos and the EXIF data while alleviating the fear some have of copyright infringement in the digital age? That's probably a dumb question, but I'll throw it out there anyway and take whatever abuse comes my way!
:-) |
The issue is not just the integrity of the EXIF data; that's (somewhat) useful only for establishing the date. What's really needed, if we are going to continue to have challenges with limitations on editing, we need to validate that the photo has not been edited outside the rules. Comparing the entry to the original pixels is the only way this can be done. The watermark affects the pixels, and changes the revision date.
I'm also not sure that saying "Fine, DQ me, I'm taking my file and going home..." is a valid solution. When one submits the entry, one is agreeing to abide by the site rules, including providing the original if asked. If someone consistently submits without intent to provide the original, I'd say they were CONSISTENTLY violating site rules and should be suspended -- after all it DOES have an effect on the site to have to disqualify a winning photo, and creates more work for the administrators. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 11:29:29 PM · #167 |
I have been wondering this all along since this thread started. What about a screen shot showing the exif info and then allowing a marked copy of the orginal to be sent in. Would site council accept this?
|
|
|
|
12/26/2003 11:36:02 PM · #168 |
| Don't see why it should be. That's not what you agreed to when you checked that box on the submission page. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 11:37:57 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Would site council accept this? |
No. |
|
|
|
12/26/2003 11:57:58 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
I don't like the idea of trying to compete in a photo contest with photographers who have thousands of archive photographs to choose from. If they are questioned about the date of the photograph, they simply get DQ'd. If they are not questioned, they win and steel the ribbon from the rightful winners. |
Right, that's why this rule is good. It'll discourage cheaters. I personally don't think there are that many cheaters who participate, because I don't see the reason or motivation behind it. If you cheat by submitting a photo from a year ago, for example, what is the point? You know you cheated, you don't win any money, you are just a cheater and you know it. Don't know what anyone would gain from that.
Originally posted by Gringo:
I think every entry should be sent with the original and the site counsel should have access to them all if they have any questions at all. Then they need only view the ones necessary to keep the rules enforced. |
Bad idea.... there's no reason to request the original for every photo. Can you imagine how much disk space and extra work that would require? It's much better to request the orig from the top 10 (or so) winners only. Who cares if photo 152 out of 223 cheated or not? Those are the ones who won't be around long anyway because they will lose intrest quickly.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2003 12:02:59 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The issue is not just the integrity of the EXIF data; that's (somewhat) useful only for establishing the date. What's really needed, if we are going to continue to have challenges with limitations on editing, we need to validate that the photo has not been edited outside the rules. Comparing the entry to the original pixels is the only way this can be done. The watermark affects the pixels, and changes the revision date. |
Thanks GeneralE. I thought there might be a way to watermark without significantly affecting the review process, a compromise of sorts as a way to alleviate the concerns of others, but I agree it won't work in view of the need to review the original pixels.
I also agree with the recent posts that those who submit a photo for a challenge do so with the knowledge that they may be asked to submit the original photo, so those who are unwilling might want to find some other outlet for their creative energies! Continual refusal to submit the original benefits no one and is likely a nuisance. |
|
|
|
12/27/2003 12:06:46 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Who cares if photo 152 out of 223 cheated or not? Those are the ones who won't be around long anyway because they will lose intrest quickly. |
Uh, that's probably close to my average finish and I've been around for a while .... |
|
|
|
12/27/2003 12:08:25 AM · #173 |
I have never really liked that in case of a DQ the exif file would have to go to all of site council and now that it is a case of top 10 finishing photos have to submit exif file to all of the site council I am sitting back and thinking hard if I want to be subjected to this rule or just walk away.
Maybe what would make several people, myself included feel better about having to submit exif files to site council is a current and uptodate list of who all are members of site council. So we know exactly who all is getting the files.
I know profiles have it listed if they are site council but heck I've been here almost a year and I can probably only name about 4 or 5 members of site council for that matter I don't even know how many members there are on site council.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2003 12:13:58 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I have never really liked that in case of a DQ the exif file would have to go to all of site council and now that it is a case of top 10 finishing photos have to submit exif file to all of the site council I am sitting back and thinking hard if I want to be subjected to this rule or just walk away.
Maybe what would make several people, myself included feel better about having to submit exif files to site council is a current and uptodate list of who all are members of site council. So we know exactly who all is getting the files.
I know profiles have it listed if they are site council but heck I've been here almost a year and I can probably only name about 4 or 5 members of site council for that matter I don't even know how many members there are on site council. |
When you do a search of photographers, the site council members are all at the top of the initial list.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2003 12:21:25 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When you do a search of photographers, the site council members are all at the top of the initial list. |
I forgot about that fact and I knew that before, got to admit though a simple list of who is going to have access to the file makes a difference for some. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 03:19:02 PM EDT.
