The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to Jack Cat, 4 months ago

Jack Cat wrote:

The point is you're a liar and a cheat. Thanks to tasad everyone is now aware of it. You remind me of the lowlifes we used to "bring in for questioning". They thought they were smart so we just let them keep talking. They couldn't remember their own lies and they couldn't shut up. They would double down after the inconsistencies were noted and just dug a deeper hole. Eventually they told us everything we needed to know. You should just walk away now. You've already made a fool out of yourself.

The clique is talking total bollox.

Whilst you lot (the forum clique) are clamouring over yourselves to disprove my EXIF logs, none of you, have taken into consideration that a Microsoft Windows Platform will naturally append file update differences that routinely occur when storing 3 different camera file types on a PC (spanning a 7yr period) which are routinely opened, saved, backed-up (on multiple occasions and on multiple devices) and worked on (opened) by 2 or 3 different editors then saved and converted to different files-formats (DNG/NEF/TIFF/JPEG/PNG - to name only a few) and converted again for print purposes and online uploads/emails etc. so on and so on..

Do you, self-appointed prats, really believe - with utter-conviction, that after 7yrs of multiple red/writes to images spanning such a time frame, that exploitable EXIF data file remains as the bible of all bibles to go by when checking (date-taken) entries and accusing people of cheating based on all that you don't know about file integrity and design?

Its no wonder the challenge forums are choked with accusations of this and that with red arrows pointing to date-related 'discrepancies' that are by-and-large - all in your tiny little minds.

You bunch of amateurs!!

Get yourselves to IT school for a couple of years and give us photographers a well deserved break from your ignorance, and unfounded paranoia over EXIF 'alterations'.

Yes, I entered (1) image outside of the date-rule and much to the annoyance of this clique it came in 3rd. But my infringement of the 'rule' patrolling pales into insignificance compared to the oppressive, finger-pointing regime you operate on DPR.

Your gestapo-style attacks on photographers have to stop!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: Very saddened by this thread
In reply to anisah, 4 months ago

anisah wrote:

I feel very saddened by this thread. Parts of it have become very personal and there appears to be a lot of anger in some of the responses. Is this really necessary?

I will try to make some reasonable points, about which, I hope, we might agree:
1. Hosts of challenges can make whatever reasonable rules they see fit.
2. Very few Challenges actually stipulate a capture date, so we are talking of very few incidents here.
3. Entrants should stick to the rules set by the hosts, if they cannot meet the rules they should not enter - to do so is show disrespect to those members who make the effort to make and stick to the rules.
4. While hosts may make the rules, we, as entrants, may reinterpret them in ways that the hosts have not considered - but we must be able to justify with reasoned argument why this is done, and it should not include ignoring rules that are very clearly defined, likes capture-dates or re-entering images.
5. There are no rewards for winning, so why take it all so seriously? This is supposed to be relaxation and fun, isn't it? The reward is in having your image judged fairly (using consistent, reliable and valid criteria) by other members who represent a wide variety of opinion.
6. Cheating of any sort (eg in falsifying an image, or some form of vote rigging) is unacceptable. Would any of us like it if someone else cheated so that they gained an unfair advantage over us? The so-called "Golden Rule" applies here just as it does in the rest of life.
7. In this I am not sure, but I would assume that most of us are not professional photographers, by which I mean that we do not use photography as our main source of income. This being the case is it really helpful to ourselves and other members to get so "worked up" about our hobby? Take it seriously, yes, but winning at any cost, upsetting others, upsetting myself, having to resort to underhand tactics - none of this is worthwhile.
8. If 6 is in any way correct, we are mainly "amateurs" who are described as people who cultivate a particular study for the love of it. I love photography, but I don't want it to upset me or other people as seems to be happening at times.

We all may have the love of the art, but seem to be developing destructive traits like selfishness, and, maybe, envy, jealousy, etc towards other members. I find this very sad. Can we please get back to the serious business of cultivating our love of the art in a fair and reasonable way?

-- hide signature --

"The only thing certain about life is uncertainty." (Rabbi Berel Wein)

Well put. You're right, this thread is well and truly out of hand. It needs to fizzle out now because I've spent very little time with my new D800e since it arrived this morning.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Cat
Forum MemberPosts: 98Gear list
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

xml6000 wrote:

Jack Cat wrote:

The point is you're a liar and a cheat. Thanks to tasad everyone is now aware of it. You remind me of the lowlifes we used to "bring in for questioning". They thought they were smart so we just let them keep talking. They couldn't remember their own lies and they couldn't shut up. They would double down after the inconsistencies were noted and just dug a deeper hole. Eventually they told us everything we needed to know. You should just walk away now. You've already made a fool out of yourself.

The clique is talking total bollox.

Whilst you lot (the forum clique) are clamouring over yourselves to disprove my EXIF logs, none of you, have taken into consideration that a Microsoft Windows Platform will naturally append file update differences that routinely occur when storing 3 different camera file types on a PC (spanning a 7yr period) which are routinely opened, saved, backed-up (on multiple occasions and on multiple devices) and worked on (opened) by 2 or 3 different editors then saved and converted to different files-formats (DNG/NEF/TIFF/JPEG/PNG - to name only a few) and converted again for print purposes and online uploads/emails etc. so on and so on..

Do you, self-appointed prats, really believe - with utter-conviction, that after 7yrs of multiple red/writes to images spanning such a time frame, that exploitable EXIF data file remains as the bible of all bibles to go by when checking (date-taken) entries and accusing people of cheating based on all that you don't know about file integrity and design?

Its no wonder the challenge forums are choked with accusations of this and that with red arrows pointing to date-related 'discrepancies' that are by-and-large - all in your tiny little minds.

You bunch of amateurs!!

Get yourselves to IT school for a couple of years and give us photographers a well deserved break from your ignorance, and unfounded paranoia over EXIF 'alterations'.

Yes, I entered (1) image outside of the date-rule and much to the annoyance of this clique it came in 3rd. But my infringement of the 'rule' patrolling pales into insignificance compared to the oppressive, finger-pointing regime you operate on DPR.

Your gestapo-style attacks on photographers have to stop!

Ha! Microsoft changed the camera manufacturer as well? I've been doing the same thing with my files at least as long as you have and never once had the date of capture or camera manufacturer "changed". Amazing how all the dates were changed by Microsoft to conveniently fit the parameters of a capture date rule. If nothing else, you're entertaining.

 Jack Cat's gear list:Jack Cat's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
babalu
Regular MemberPosts: 265
Like?
Re: Very saddened by this thread
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

...and a good riddance to you and your kind !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,082
Like?
why put in requirements at all?
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

All your arguments apply to ANY restrictions. The fewer restrictions, the larger the gene pole.

Why limit to one camera brand, when I have a good photo taken with another?

Why limit to tele or wide angle, when I have a good photo taken with the other?

Why not allow the same photo to be entered again and again? Then I don't have to take as many photos.

Why limit to portraits, when I have a perfectly wonderful body shot?

Some people just don't get it. You WANT to reduce the talent pool, so everyone has a chance to win. A simple "enter your best shot taken at anytime" will always have the same group of high achieving winners. Putting in restrictions, so matter how silly they seem, allow others to have a chance.

The hidden agenda behind posts like this that that people think removing restrictions will increase their chance of success by allowing that one wonderful photo of theirs to win. In reality, it's the other way around.

So go ahead. Enter your photo in the "National Geographic Photo of the Decade" contest and see what your odds are. Or you could enter the "best photo of an egg taken in July" contest here, and actually have a chance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,494
Like?
Re: why put in requirements at all?
In reply to tko, 4 months ago

The original argument by the OP was just a straw man. He just came here to brag about how he's cheated in some challenges and got away with it to this point, and to rile some people up about it. I predict that soon he will either go by the name Unkown Member or xml7000.
--
- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to Jack Cat, 4 months ago

I started out with a Fuji S2pro and changed in 2007 to a Nikon d70 followed by a D2x then a Canon 5D MK-I - then back to Nikon in the form of a D300. I used an assortment of compact cameras in-between those times - all of which were connected at different stages to 3 PC's and two laptops.

You guys need to get real about the survivability of dates (and data) written by computers to EXIF files.

Here's a common-enough example of how a file can be seriously altered in just 2 weeks.

(1). Camera is set to record RAW only.

(2). RAW files are imported into LR

(3). LR exports the RAW file to any of location/file format of my choosing.

(4). I export my daisy photo as an 8-bit TIFF.

(5). I edit that TIFF in PS.

(6). I save as a JPEG.

(6a) The PC appends the file.

(7). I email the JPEG to a lab for printing.

(8). In the meantime, my PC blue-screens and all is lost on the HD before I can do a backup.

(9). I buy a new PC, email the online printing services to request that they send me a copy of my daisy file.

(10). It turns out, they processed my file on a MAC platform and append the file.

(11). I open the PNG file they sent me in PS and it asks if I want to convert the colour profile back to sRGB from CMYK?

(12). I buy a good printer of my own and print my daisy picture on archival quality paper. It looks rubbish! I check the PNG file and discover that 70% of my original JPEG colour information has been compressed massively. I give up trying to make a print of it and decide instead to upload it to DPR as a challenge entry.

(13). But before doing so, I first convert from a PNG to a JPEG and my new PC appends the file.

(13a).  Not wanting to loose the image again, I buy a backup drive and save the file. The computer now appends both files..

(14). The image is uploaded to DPR and well received by voters who elevate my entry to 3rd out of 50.

(15). Some over-zealous jobsworth decides to do some serious digging.

(16). I'm suddenly 'exposed' as a liar and a cheat for having a date-discrepancy in my EXIF data.

(17). All hell breaks loose in the forum and tempers reach near-boiling point.

(18). The clique who patrol the forums dig deeper and deeper trying to uncover any anomaly however trivial, in an attempt to justify their overbearing - baseless accusations.

(19). I add fuel to the fire by posting 1, outside-of-date entry into a challenge.

(20). The clique gloat - satisfied that their war-of-words against the accused demonstrates to the world that they were right all along about that guy - what a cheat he is - and together we exposed him for all to see!!!!

(21). The accused gets bored with the thread and leaves the clique in peace to celebrate their victory with a virtual bottle of bubbly and lots of back-slapping self-praise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,082
Like?
yup
In reply to billythek, 4 months ago

If (gasp) he actually succeeding in changing the rules, he wouldn't be able to cheat as easily, and any success would drop even further.

Shocking how seriously take what should be fun. Me, me, change the rules for me!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: why put in requirements at all?
In reply to tko, 4 months ago

tko wrote:

All your arguments apply to ANY restrictions. The fewer restrictions, the larger the gene pole.

Why limit to one camera brand, when I have a good photo taken with another?

Why limit to tele or wide angle, when I have a good photo taken with the other?

Why not allow the same photo to be entered again and again? Then I don't have to take as many photos.

Why limit to portraits, when I have a perfectly wonderful body shot?

Some people just don't get it. You WANT to reduce the talent pool, so everyone has a chance to win. A simple "enter your best shot taken at anytime" will always have the same group of high achieving winners. Putting in restrictions, so matter how silly they seem, allow others to have a chance.

The hidden agenda behind posts like this that that people think removing restrictions will increase their chance of success by allowing that one wonderful photo of theirs to win. In reality, it's the other way around.

So go ahead. Enter your photo in the "National Geographic Photo of the Decade" contest and see what your odds are. Or you could enter the "best photo of an egg taken in July" contest here, and actually have a chance.

Hmm; I think W. A. Foster's words (see below) pretty much encapsulate the ethos of my argument against DPR enforcing non-inclusive 'date-capture' rules upon those who would otherwise be only too glad, to share their art as and when they are able.

"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives"..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,494
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

This must be what's called "doubling down".

Tasad exposed at least 3 cases (or was it 4?) where you cheated in date-restricted challenges. No amount of smokescreen that you throw up about "accidental" EXIF date changes changes the fact that these same photos existed on your flickr page before the capture date requirement, and typically a year or more before.

But you suckered me into playing your game again. Well, no more.
--
- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RuthC
Regular MemberPosts: 365
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to billythek, 4 months ago

Methinks, sadly, that xml6000/ xml5000/ Stewart Mcfadyen/ Stewart James/ Stewart Weiss and any other of his alter-egos has EITHER been abusing his body by taking strange substances, OR not taking his prescribed medications.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,082
Like?
you've answered none of my responses
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

Do you really think you could compete in a open contest with no restrictions?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bruxi
Regular MemberPosts: 247Gear list
Like?
Re: why put in requirements at all?
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

tko wrote:

All your arguments apply to ANY restrictions. The fewer restrictions, the larger the gene pole.

Why limit to one camera brand, when I have a good photo taken with another?

Why limit to tele or wide angle, when I have a good photo taken with the other?

Why not allow the same photo to be entered again and again? Then I don't have to take as many photos.

Why limit to portraits, when I have a perfectly wonderful body shot?

Some people just don't get it. You WANT to reduce the talent pool, so everyone has a chance to win. A simple "enter your best shot taken at anytime" will always have the same group of high achieving winners. Putting in restrictions, so matter how silly they seem, allow others to have a chance.

The hidden agenda behind posts like this that that people think removing restrictions will increase their chance of success by allowing that one wonderful photo of theirs to win. In reality, it's the other way around.

So go ahead. Enter your photo in the "National Geographic Photo of the Decade" contest and see what your odds are. Or you could enter the "best photo of an egg taken in July" contest here, and actually have a chance.

Hmm; I think W. A. Foster's words (see below) pretty much encapsulate the ethos of my argument against DPR enforcing non-inclusive 'date-capture' rules upon those who would otherwise be only too glad, to share their art as and when they are able.

"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives"..

Dude - there are hardly any date restrictive challenges. And besides....who cares? Go away for a day and think about whether this is all worth it.

 bruxi's gear list:bruxi's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 60D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: you've answered none of my responses
In reply to tko, 4 months ago

tko wrote:

Do you really think you could compete in a open contest with no restrictions?

As I've hinted throughout this thread (time controls do not maketh the photographer). He or she, is either in possession of the talent needed to produce compelling imagery or not.

Who can't, compete in an open contest (one may not win, but it only requires one to press the shutter and submit an entry).

Try being more specific with your question.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xml6000
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to RuthC, 4 months ago

You're a real sleuth - Ruth.

Presumptuous to the last aren't we  - refusing to consider the technicalities that often lead to the necessity of additional usernames for people caused by that number one of cardinal sins - forgetting your password or email/password combination.

I suppose in Ruth's world, free, online email accounts never become compromised or unsafe to keep using. Never forcing people to open a new email account. Those who have had to endure such an inconvenience will testify to the impossible hurdles the account provider throws at you to stop you having the same name (as already in use according to their records - yes, they are talking about you - the same you, who has held the account for 2yrs or more). In short, one cannot have exactly the same email account again - you have to make an alteration  - such as using your middle name rather than your last. When one is up and running again, people that previously knew you (communication wise) as Mr X, now see you as MR X1.

Oh dear, part of my online identity has been forever altered (how wicked, underhand and deceitful of me).

I suppose in some way, it was my fault all along for not purchasing my own private (ISP-style) email account when the internet began in the 90's.

To avoid further mishaps of forgetfulness, I decide that it will be less precarious if I match (or alter) my new email details to better reflect/remind myself of changes now made.

Which brings us full circle back to Ruth. C.

What does that 'C' stand for? I could hazard a guess but I'm not going to be vulgar here. Perhaps 'C' has a past - a name with a shameful history attached to it. Perhaps Ruth's reason for not displaying her full name, is for very private reasons - but I DEMAND to know, why, she hides in the shadows - who are you really Ruth. C.? Confess! Why do you not display your family name - the world needs to know what you must surely be hiding!

Sorry, am I sounding a little crazy - a tad paranoid - obsessed with my quest to expose you Ruth. C. - sorry, I meant - retired Ruth C.

You're a peace of work Ruth - I'll give you that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
santamonica812
Contributing MemberPosts: 797
Like?
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!
In reply to xml6000, 4 months ago

When this whole thread first started, I viewed it with some sense of amusement. A good troll can be useful for laughs, if for nothing else. I then started to get annoyed, as more and more evidence of cheating was given. But my feelings have changed, and I am giving you a sincere apology.

In my earlier life, before I taught and then entered the legal field, I was a therapist. Mental illness is simply not funny. We on the outside sometimes laugh at examples of it, but if we stopped and gave it a moment's thought, we'd quickly loose our smiles. Although it's hard to put myself into your shoes, I can try and imagine how difficult it is go through each day, knowing that you're right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone is out to get you.

Stewart,

You have asked us to accept your story that EXIF data were stripped off an image, and new data were somehow written in, and this data coincidentally allowed you to enter a challenge here. And then it happened again, and again. I had thought that, at first, you acknowledged changing that data yourself (and called it something like 'shining a spotlight on discriminatory rules."). But, frankly, I'm too exhausted and sad to review this whole thread to double-check that. And even if I am remembering correctly, what point would that accomplish?

I now accept your story. Or, I accept that you believe in your heart your own story. So, there is no need to respond and to convince me . . . I think you've made your case eloquently and you've done a very effective job of giving me enough information to be quite confident in my assessment of this entire situation.

A few final points, and I say each one with absolutely zero sarcasm and zero snark.

a. I noticed in your profile that you've done a lot of voting in the 2 weeks you've been a member. Thanks for that participation . . . many members do not vote, and the challenge community is made stronger by people who vote, who vote with integrity, and who vote in several/many challenges.

b. It might be better if you don't participate for a while in my own challenges that I host. I do have plenty of rules (although not the particular rule that's been debated in this thread), and I do enforce them quite evenly and consistently. I do not want my challenges to be the source of any distress or discomfort for you. But if you want to PM me, I'd be happy to suggest several other hosts, whose approach to challenge rules, or to enforcement of rules, would dovetail nicely with your own philosophy on that matter.

c. Please know that there are members here who are concerned about you and who want nothing but the best for you, even though we don't know you and have never met you. There are therapeutic approaches and medications that were not available when we all were younger, and if you ever are willing to take that first step, you will see that the world can be a welcoming and non-threatening place. Again, if you want to PM me, I can give meaningful suggestions on where to go for that sort of assistance, and can give useful advice on the sorts of questions you might want to ask when you go.

d.  A lot of the photographs you submitted into challenges are very nice, and show a good eye for photography. To the extent that they represent your abilities, you should feel very proud of yourself. Good job. Good job indeed.

In closing; I hope you take this post in the spirit in which it was intended. I care, and I'm very concerned for you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads