Dang, I hate DQs!

Greensquared

We had several new players in DSS#13, and some really great entries, but waaayyyy too many DQs due to exif issues. Please read the rules guys, and try again next time!

Greensquared

Okay, and another thing...make sure you give your photo a UNIQUE title. It's best to not use the Challenge theme as your title (or even part of your title), but anything is better than nothing. Yes, I've let a couple slip in the past, so stone me for that if you must. However, I'm going to do my best to enforce all rules equally in the future. No title = DQ.

cjmchch

Mine was one of those dq'd and I'm not 100% sure why. The rules, as you point out, state that the exif data must be embedded or linked. My exif data was clearly embedded in the image that was posted as the entry in the thread, so why then was it dq'd? Was it beacuse I also pasted what the exif data was?

Greensquared

The exif was not embedded with the photo as per the rules. At least not as far as I can see. I should be able to easily click on the image or a link that takes me directly to your official exif info. Look at the other entries to see how it should appear.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I cannot automatically see your exif just because it is still travelling with the image. Pasting exif is not allowed.

cjmchch wrote:

Mine was one of those dq'd and I'm not 100% sure why. The rules, as you point out, state that the exif data must be embedded or linked. My exif data was clearly embedded in the image that was posted as the entry in the thread, so why then was it dq'd? Was it beacuse I also pasted what the exif data was?

cjmchch

Greensquared wrote:

The exif was not embedded with the photo as per the rules. At least not as far as I can see. I should be able to easily click on the image or a link that takes me directly to your official exif info. Look at the other entries to see how it should appear.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I cannot automatically see your exif just because it is still travelling with the image. Pasting exif is not allowed.

Embedded means exactly that, that it travels with and stays as part of the image, which was a requirement, which I believe I met.

There are instructions on how to facilitate the viewing of that embedded data from a smugmug account but this is not housed there. This is housed on my own website.

If anyone can provide me with any info on how to 'link' this embedded data from any other place other than smugmug I'd appreciate it.

<disgruntled> <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > </disgruntled> and yep, I feel pretty disgruntled by that given the jpeg contains embedded exif data.

pyroPrints.com

I think the issue here is that the EXIF needs to be embedded in the post, not the image. We may want to elaborate in the rules.

Greensquared

I feel the rules that we've been using for years are pretty clear and give specific direction:

Proof of Fresh Photo: Entries must have exif embedded or appended. (No "type-ins" or "copy/pastes"). Click here and here for help.

I'll rewrite for the future though.

cjmchch

Greensquared wrote:

I feel the rules that we've been using for years are pretty clear and give specific direction:

Proof of Fresh Photo: Entries must have exif embedded or appended. (No "type-ins" or "copy/pastes"). Click here and here for help.

I'll rewrite for the future though.

My entry did, and still does, have the exif embedded therefore why is it disqualified?

If linking is the only thing you want then rewrite the rules to ask for linking only as any 'clickable' link is not an embedding it is a linking.

Also, I ask the same question....how to link/append to anything housed outside of smugmug or is this a smugmug only contest?

achambers

This has always been viewed as an embedded link or appended link to your exif.

pyroPrints.com

cjmchch wrote:

Also, I ask the same question....how to link/append to anything housed outside of smugmug or is this a smugmug only contest?

No, it's not, but the most image host should be able to show the exif in the uploaded images. Obviously you can't do this on your own web hosting (unless that's a feature your host provides, which is unlikely). Most people use smugmug, but I've seen some photobucket/flikr as well. In fact I used photobucket for a while, until I got a smugmug account.

Anyhow, i think this one should be chalked up to a learning experience, you'll have plenty more chances, and judging by the image it's not long till you win yourself an account on smugmug anyway =c)

divamum

pyroPrints.com wrote:

No, it's not, but the most image host should be able to show the exif in the uploaded images. Obviously you can't do this on your own web hosting (unless that's a feature your host provides, which is unlikely). Most people use smugmug, but I've seen some photobucket/flikr as well. In fact I used photobucket for a while, until I got a smugmug account.

Anyhow, i think this one should be chalked up to a learning experience, you'll have plenty more chances, and judging by the image it's not long till you win yourself an account on smugmug anyway =c)

I keep my files for dgrin on picasaweb, and I link to the photo's page where it reads the exif (displayed on the rh side of the page as "photo information". The date is clearly shown right away, and if you click "more info" it will give other categories there as well.) Can't speak to any other services, but this one has worked for me.

cjmchch

pyroPrints.com wrote:

No, it's not, but the most image host should be able to show the exif in the uploaded images. Obviously you can't do this on your own web hosting (unless that's a feature your host provides, which is unlikely). Most people use smugmug, but I've seen some photobucket/flikr as well. In fact I used photobucket for a while, until I got a smugmug account.

Anyhow, i think this one should be chalked up to a learning experience, you'll have plenty more chances, and judging by the image it's not long till you win yourself an account on smugmug anyway =c)

Thanks Pyro.

I'm not really trying to be an ass, I'm just a stickler for rules and the wording of them. The rules really do need to be changed to reflect that the exif data needs to be viewed either through a clickable link embedded in the image or an appended link, certainly not worded as it is, which inplies that the exif data needs to be embedded.

pyroPrints.com

cjmchch wrote:

Thanks Pyro.

I'm not really trying to be an ass, I'm just a stickler for rules and the wording of them. The rules really do need to be changed to reflect that the exif data needs to be viewed either through a clickable link embedded in the image or an appended link, certainly not worded as it is, which inplies that the exif data needs to be embedded.

I hear you, I'm sure the mods will make the wording clearer.

CWSkopec

:hide

If I may... I just tried this to see what the results were... I right clicked to download your image, then looked at it in Bridge... While all the info is there, the Date Created is today's date. The Date Modified also reflects today's date.

That makes it impossible for the judges to verify that the image was taken durring the contest's time frame as an image from 3 years ago, saved and EXIF viewed in this manner would show today's date as well.

I used flickr for a while to host images and link them to my posts here. I would recommend that for any subsequent contests that you host that particular image on flickr and link to the EXIF there as they create a seperate page showing a small thumbnail of the image followed by all the EXIF data.

Just a thought... I'll get back to work now!:D

cjmchch

CWSkopec wrote:

:hide

If I may... I just tried this to see what the results were... I right clicked to download your image, then looked at it in Bridge... While all the info is there, the Date Created is today's date. The Date Modified also reflects today's date.

That makes it impossible for the judges to verify that the image was taken durring the contest's time frame as an image from 3 years ago, saved and EXIF viewed in this manner would show today's date as well.

I used flickr for a while to host images and link them to my posts here. I would recommend that for any subsequent contests that you host that particular image on flickr and link to the EXIF there as they create a seperate page showing a small thumbnail of the image followed by all the EXIF data.

Just a thought... I'll get back to work now!:D

Thanks for that. Image date and time is always an issue for me when I get to deadlines as I live in the future for most of you, given I am in New Zealand. As the contest rules stipulated a time zone it gave me the ability to take, process and enter the photo anytime up until Dec 2nd 02.00am NZ time. "This challenge is open to any Dgrin member NOT qualified for the Mega-Challenge #2. It will run from Monday, November 17th 20, <st1:time hour="8" minute="0">08:00am</st1:time>, EST time (GMT -5) to Monday, December 1st,<st1:time hour="8" minute="0">08:00am</st1:time>, EST time (GMT -5)."

The embedded exif data in an original image would, in most sitautions, be far more relaible than any data relayed through either a third party or from an image of exif data, which is my whole point really. Why bother linking an image of exif data when you can get the real thing straight off the image itself. If it isn't embedded in the image then how can it be proven?

As for the date created/modified.....does creation date not stay the same no matter what you do to the photo and when? I know there are certain elements that remain unchanged no matter what you do to the exif data, just can't recall exactly what that is.

idiom

Likely, a part of this rule is that greensquared prefers to have to download, open, examine each file. If the link to the exif info is posted, it's a single click. She does a lot of work for these challenges.

CWSkopec

cjmchch wrote:

As for the date created/modified.....does creation date not stay the same no matter what you do to the photo and when? I know there are certain elements that remain unchanged no matter what you do to the exif data, just can't recall exactly what that is.

Everything else looked "normal." I mean, I can't prove that what was there was real, but everything I normally expect to be there was and it all looked right in accordance to the photo. Just not the date.

ChrisJ

CWSkopec wrote:

Everything else looked "normal." I mean, I can't prove that what was there was real, but everything I normally expect to be there was and it all looked right in accordance to the photo. Just not the date.

Auckland is +20 from PST. So the photo was taken within the correct time frame (I think). 2:50 PM Auckland time on December 1st, 2008 is 6:50 PM Pacific Time on November 30, 2008. [Edit, sorry, I'm on the west coast, but it's still valid, 9:50 PM EST 11/30/2008)]

The only problem is the misunderstanding with the wording. "Embedded" in the rules means embedded somewhere in the post (like if you click on the image). Whereas cjmchch was thinking embedded in the photo was ok.

Yes, the latter is technically more accurate, but it would be laborious for volunteers to save every photo to disk and look at the EXIF that way.

When in doubt, do it like everyone else is doing and ask questions later. But the rules may need just a slight tweak to make it even clearer.

cjmchch

ChrisJ wrote:

Auckland is +20 from PST. So the photo was taken within the correct time frame (I think). 2:50 PM Auckland time on December 1st, 2008 is 6:50 PM Pacific Time on November 30, 2008. [Edit, sorry, I'm on the west coast, but it's still valid, 9:50 PM EST 11/30/2008)]

The only problem is the misunderstanding with the wording. "Embedded" in the rules means embedded somewhere in the post (like if you click on the image). Whereas cjmchch was thinking embedded in the photo was ok.

Yes, the latter is technically more accurate, but it would be laborious for volunteers to save every photo to disk and look at the EXIF that way.

When in doubt, do it like everyone else is doing and ask questions later. But the rules may need just a slight tweak to make it even clearer.

You're bang on with the time thing. As for any doubt....it only came once I was disqualified........poorly written rules.

As for viewing the exif data..there are plenty of exif viewers available that allow you to view exif data from within the browser window that the image appears in, providing of course that the data is fowarded on by the hosting service, Mozilla exif viewer for example.

jwear

cjmchch wrote:

You're bang on with the time thing. As for any doubt....it only came once I was disqualified........poorly written rules.

As for viewing the exif data..there are plenty of exif viewers available that allow you to view exif data from within the browser window that the image appears in, providing of course that the data is fowarded on by the hosting service, Mozilla exif viewer for example.

wow I have been dq but I have never been as right as yu are. the rules are wrong and you are RIGHT but if you do the same thing next time the same thing will happen, NO MATTER HOW RIGHT YOU ARE . you just need to take some of the help offered by others here in this thread and you are good to go

cjmchch

jwear wrote:

wow I have been dq but I have never been as right as yu are. the rules are wrong and you are RIGHT but if you do the same thing next time the same thing will happen, NO MATTER HOW RIGHT YOU ARE . you just need to take some of the help offered by others here in this thread and you are good to go

CWSkopec

ChrisJ wrote:

Auckland is +20 from PST. So the photo was taken within the correct time frame (I think). 2:50 PM Auckland time on December 1st, 2008 is 6:50 PM Pacific Time on November 30, 2008. [Edit, sorry, I'm on the west coast, but it's still valid, 9:50 PM EST 11/30/2008)]

The only problem is the misunderstanding with the wording. "Embedded" in the rules means embedded somewhere in the post (like if you click on the image). Whereas cjmchch was thinking embedded in the photo was ok.

Yes, the latter is technically more accurate, but it would be laborious for volunteers to save every photo to disk and look at the EXIF that way.

When in doubt, do it like everyone else is doing and ask questions later. But the rules may need just a slight tweak to make it even clearer.

Oh lord... you know, I read that you were in New Zealand and time changes... I just didn't do any math, or realize that the date created should have actually been today's... serves me right for trying to post while work is distracting me... my appologies...

Anyway, sorry about the DQ, but again flickr works like a gem for this purpose and it's free!

cjmchch

CWSkopec wrote:

Oh lord... you know, I read that you were in New Zealand and time changes... I just didn't do any math, or realize that the date created should have actually been today's... serves me right for trying to post while work is distracting me... my appologies...

Anyway, sorry about the DQ, but again flickr works like a gem for this purpose and it's free!

No need to apologise, I wasn't concerned about what you wrote, but thanks anyway. It is always a little difficult to understand how someone can be living as much as 24 hours into the future, even more so for exif data to show that

......and thanks to whoever updated the rules. It makes it more clear now.

ulrikft

Hmm, my image has the exif-embedded, the site I host it on, DeviantArt, also have the exif printed. But I guess I should use my smugmug account next time...

Hard to know, that embedded doesen't mean "embedded" :P

cjmchch

ulrikft wrote:

Hmm, my image has the exif-embedded, the site I host it on, DeviantArt, also have the exif printed. But I guess I should use my smugmug account next time...

Hard to know, that embedded doesen't mean "embedded" :P

Thanks to Greensquared (I presume) the rules have now been changed to reflect that the link to your exif data needs to be embedded or appended, not the exif data itself.

Greensquared

cjmchch wrote:

Thanks to Greensquared (I presume) the rules have now been changed to reflect that the link to your exif data needs to be embedded or appended, not the exif data itself.

Yep.

ulrikft

Hey, what about the UN convention on no bakwards reaching laws?

Just kidding, I'll try to take a good straight from the camera-picture and join in this time

DoctorIt

ulrikft wrote:

Hey, what about the UN convention on no bakwards reaching laws?

How about the UN convention on being kind to volunteers who give out their time and prizes?

KCBearcat

DoctorIt wrote:

How about the UN convention on being kind to volunteers who give out their time and prizes?

lustlustbowbowthumbthumb



Yes, I'm an insufferable kiss-up when I wanna be.

ulrikft

DoctorIt wrote:

How about the UN convention on being kind to volunteers who give out their time and prizes?

It was a joke, which I think I made quite clearly, but no worries, I'll just stay away then...

DoctorIt

ulrikft wrote:

It was a joke, which I think I made quite clearly, but no worries, I'll just stay away then...

then there's the UN convention on "if you're gonna dish it out, you gotta take it back without tucking tail and running". In other words, I'm joking too, relax!


(but it is nice to know that on demand, I can post in here and still be Emily's "muscle")
:rambo


...was that enough smilies to convey the sarcasm?