Cheaters never win! (an LPS example and lesson)

DoctorIt

I guess it was only a matter of time, but after only 3 rounds, we've had our first cheater. It's not bringing me any joy to do this, but I want to make it clear that cheating will not be tolerated, hence, let me review what happened.

The entry in LPS3 had a manually typed date of April 08, 2007:





Very shortly after the close of the thread, and before I had a chance to review all the entries thoroughly myself, an anonymous user sent me a PM alerting me that this photo had been posted on another forum, some time ago. I was sent a screen shot from this forum:





To be thorough, I simply saved the image that was submitted to our contest and read the exif, and true enough, it indicated the shot was much too old for the contest:





This is a big contest, with really big stakes, and while I hope things stay very friendly around here, as is the dgrin way, this was a case of zero tolerance. The entry was disqualified, and the user has been banned.

What's the moral of the story here?

1) cheaters never win.
2) there's always someone watching!

But most importantly, and the main reason I'm doing this in public:

3) EXIF is very important! We will have to be even more strict than before in demanding that proper date-shot information be included with all entries. This means manually entered date information is NOT sufficient! As the contest continues to grow we will not be able to PM everyone and hold your hand with this. If we are not satisfied that your entry was shot during the contest period, it will be disqualified, no discussion.

Thanks for reading, folks, now let's get back to shooting! :nod

Speck26

Well that truely sucks. Just takes one to ruin it for everybody else.

Any suggestions on how to keep the quality on a large file without "Save for Web" which strips out the exif?

DoctorIt

Speck26 wrote:

Well that truely sucks. Just takes one to ruin it for everybody else.

Any suggestions on how to keep the quality on a large file without "Save for Web" which strips out the exif?

It's not ruined. For the most part, I think everyone here is playing nice, we have a great community, and while whistle-blowing is a tough discussion, I almost find it relieving that it was a fellow dgrinner who noticed this and reported it to me. Community watch is a good thing.

As for your tech question: You should be using "save as". This should not ruin your quality, at all. On the contrary, it preserves exif and all parameters. All "save for web" does is compress the image even further, particulary in terms of reducing the number of colors it saves. I may be mistaken here, so tech nerds, feel free to correct. I do however, use "save as" exclusively, and I can confirm that my linked images look great and they have their exif in tact.

Andy

Burn him!


Seriously, this is bad news. Good on the informant for letting us know

Speck26

Ruined was a harsh word and sloppily choosen. I didn't mean that the contest was ruined, just the trust. This is an incredibly huge undertaking and it's been great to see what people come up with on short notice, can't wait to see more!

Nikolai

Good catch, Erik!

I guess film and old P&S shooters are SOL here at LPS then - no exif whatsoever... Oh, well, it's "Digital Grin" afterall

DoctorIt

Nikolai wrote:

I guess film and old P&S shooters are SOL here at LPS then - no exif whatsoever... Oh, well, it's "Digital Grin" afterall

Well, Nik, not so much.

You're right, this is Digital grin, but we don't want to limit this to the dslr crowd. There are ways of confirming photos. I don't want to get off on a specific tangent here, but let's just say we have, and will encounter this in the future, and will handle/have handled it on an individual basis.

photogmomma

Speck26 wrote:

Well that truely sucks. Just takes one to ruin it for everybody else.

Any suggestions on how to keep the quality on a large file without "Save for Web" which strips out the exif?

Yup, just do a Save As... and that should work.

If you are using Photoshop Elements or Lightroom you should also be able to export from both at 800x800 with high quality and retain all your EXIF

I wouldn't use Save For web - that makes a lower quality image for use on the web rather than a high quality contest image.


Anyway, bummer about the cheater, but to you guys for catching this! I totally agree about being tough on EXIF - It's all spelled out numerous times and it's not that hard with all the help you guys have given....

Great job!

tsk1979

My wife uses an old Canon Powershot A20. That also has exif.
The only digi cams without exif? Mobile phones.
With 3.2MP mobiles getting common, it wont be long before someone takes a masterpiece shot with those. Infact any good 2MP phone cam can take great pics in bright sunlight.

Nikolai

DoctorIt wrote:

Well, Nik, not so much.

You're right, this is Digital grin, but we don't want to limit this to the dslr crowd. There are ways of confirming photos. I don't want to get off on a specific tangent here, but let's just say we have, and will encounter this in the future, and will handle/have handled it on an individual basis.

My kudos to you then!

Strikeslip

Zoinks. In the rules it says 800 pixels max and 150KB max. In order to hit both maximums I used Save For Web. Do I understand correctly that I'm able to upload the full-sized, Save As shot to my SmugMug portfolio and link the (L) size version of it in the contest threads and I'll be OK? What are the ramifications for the final Sharpening routine I run?

Also. I always just shoot RAW (CR2), but I think SmugMug only accepts JPG files.

Also again. I have a love for HDR, healthy or not. I'm pretty sure this strips the EXIF. But I do hold on to the original(s), out-of-the-camera files. Would you be willing to verify from these?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers,
Slippy

Andy

Strikeslip wrote:

Zoinks. In the rules it says 800 pixels max and 150KB max. In order to hit both maximums I used Save For Web. Do I understand correctly that I'm able to upload the full-sized, Save As shot to my SmugMug portfolio and link the (L) size version of it in the contest threads and I'll be OK?

Yes.

What are the ramifications for the final Sharpening routine I run?

None, try it

Also. I always just shoot RAW (CR2), but I think SmugMug only accepts JPG files.

Correct.

Also again. I have a love for HDR, healthy or not. I'm pretty sure this strips the EXIF. But I do hold on to the original(s), out-of-the-camera files. Would you be willing to verify from these?

Just link the exif from the underlying HDR'd images - we'll understand

ericgtr

Andy wrote:

Just link the exif from the underlying HDR'd images - we'll understand

That's exactly what I did and it's in the original instructions. In fact, I double checked before going out on my shoot just to be safe.

Strikeslip

Thanks Andy,

You're like the King of Answers. I guess I'm like a walking question-mark.

I'll try to behave.

DoctorIt

Strikeslip wrote:

Zoinks. In the rules it says 800 pixels max and 150KB max.

To clarify, the 150kb limit only applies to people who are attaching. This is a technical limit imposed by the forum software, so that our servers don't get overloaded.

If you are linking your photo from SmugMug, or anywhere else on the web that your image may be hosted, only the 800px size rule applies.

clear as mud?

Speck26

DoctorIt wrote:

If you are linking your photo from SmugMug, or anywhere else on the web that your image may be hosted, only the 800px size rule applies.

clear as mud?

MY HERO!!!!!!! This makes it MUCH easier! Thank you!!!!!!!!!!ivar

Strikeslip

DoctorIt wrote:

To clarify, the 150kb limit only applies to people who are attaching. This is a technical limit imposed by the forum software, so that our servers don't get overloaded.

If you are linking your photo from SmugMug, or anywhere else on the web that your image may be hosted, only the 800px size rule applies.

clear as mud?

I understand, and that's good to know! Too bad for my last entry, as it suffered for the sampling-down. It was something like 50% quality to get those maximums.

Maybe I should've gabbed in these forums a bit, but I thought I'd spare everyone that pain. My wife doesn't even listen to me anymore, hehe.

LiquidAir

DoctorIt wrote:

To clarify, the 150kb limit only applies to people who are attaching. This is a technical limit imposed by the forum software, so that our servers don't get overloaded.

If you are linking your photo from SmugMug, or anywhere else on the web that your image may be hosted, only the 800px size rule applies.

clear as mud?

The rules page could be clearer on this point. Here is what it says:

Photos must be not longer than 800 pixels on their longest side, and not more than 150Kb in size. If you use SmugMug, link a -L image (Large) for landscapes or use a custom image size to maximize a portrait. Photos with branding or watermarks will be disqualified, however, a small signature and copyright are encouraged. No borders or framing (discussion here).

Note the "." after 150Kb in size? There's nothing in there at all about a linked vs. attached images. I would change it to something along the lines of

Photos must be not longer than 800 pixels on their longest side. Note that attached images are limited to 150KB but if you host your image elsewhere the file size can be larger. If you use SmugMug, link a -L image (Large) for landscapes or use a custom image size to maximize a portrait. Photos with branding or watermarks will be disqualified, however, a small signature and copyright are encouraged. No borders or framing (discussion here).

DoctorIt

LiquidAir wrote:

The rules page could be clearer on this point.

I should also be wealthier and have a Ferrari...


See some of Shay's other posts: we're stuck between writing a book of rules, that no one will read, and letting you figure some stuff out on your own. you're here to learn not only photo technique, but dealing with life as a photog. It ain't always gonna be handed to you on a platter.


btw, we're straying off the point with file sizes and rule technicalities here. this thread is about nailing down the importance of a very blunt point: play fair, and don't expect handholding - if your entry smells funny, we're throwing it out.

pyroPrints.com

DoctorIt wrote:

if your entry smells funny, we're throwing it out.

Does that mean I can't shoot spoiled cheese for LPS4 ?

DoctorIt

pyroPrints.com wrote:

Does that mean I can't shoot spoiled cheese for LPS4 ?

(thanks, I needed that)

LiquidAir

Hmmm, and I had some smelly ideas for "Organic" too...

TylerW

Andy wrote:

Just link the exif from the underlying HDR'd images - we'll understand

In the future, do you want exif for all involved exposures in an HDR? I submitted an HDR to challenge #2, and with it I sumbitted the EXIF of the middle exposure. Seemed fair and simple, but I wouldn't mind knowing exactly what you guys needed in the future.

ericgtr

The official instructions say this:

Photos made via HDR, you can include the exif from one of the merged images.

In my case it looks a little different than the original because I didn't do all my PP (cloning, etc) until after I did the merge, but it's obvous that the exif is from one of the merged photos.

gus

pyroPrints.com wrote:

Does that mean I can't shoot spoiled cheese for LPS4 ?

Spoiled cheese is for eating ! Im one of those weirdos that searches the cheese sections in supermarkets for stuff thats out of date.

tsk1979

gus wrote:

Spoiled cheese is for eating ! Im one of those weirdos that searches the cheese sections in supermarkets for stuff thats out of date.

so do you often cry "Who moved your cheese"

gus

tsk1979 wrote:

so do you often cry "Who moved your cheese"

Took me a minuite to get that !

lynnesite

Strikeslip wrote:

Thanks Andy,

You're like the King of Answers. I guess I'm like a walking question-mark.

I'll try to behave.

Yay, Slippy! Glad you're here.

Strikeslip

lynnesite wrote:

Yay, Slippy! Glad you're here.

Uh Oh! I've been found out! Curses on DPC!
*runs & hides*

Ristyz

Strikeslip wrote:

Uh Oh! I've been found out! Curses on DPC!
*runs & hides*

Lynne wasn't the only one that noticed....... you? behave?...... riigghhhttt!

Welcome

padu

DoctorIt wrote:

Well, Nik, not so much.

You're right, this is Digital grin, but we don't want to limit this to the dslr crowd. There are ways of confirming photos. I don't want to get off on a specific tangent here, but let's just say we have, and will encounter this in the future, and will handle/have handled it on an individual basis.

I asked this before, and the answer was a big no no for submiting film entries...