brianj: I give up, I have been disqualified twice now for different images without a reason, obviously I am missing something, but I am past trying to figure out what it is!
The image was converted with PSP9, and it can still see it, then I saved the image onto the desktop and windows vista properties can also see it, but I don't know what tool you are using.
Anyway as I said, I am not going to persist with this dodgy nonsense.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 21:38:51 UTC
brianj: I give up, I have been disqualified twice now for different images without a reason, obviously I am missing something, but I am past trying to figure out what it is!
Both of mine had exif data, are you looking for a specific field? Here is the link to the first one in my album, it still has exif: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5128303546/photos/1892719/vented-pressure
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 11:36:50 UTC
I give up, I have been disqualified twice now for different images without a reason, obviously I am missing something, but I am past trying to figure out what it is!
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:58:30 UTC
as 1st comment
| 4 replies
cruser2469: do you usually test several of the same cameras to do a review? I wonder if cameras that didn't test well would do better if several units were used? Scary! This could be great for Canon or really bad. Also, will you be showing results from all the units used, or just the best performing unit?
Thanks, I know you guys put a lot of effort into this business.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 7, 2011 at 23:46:30 UTC
cruser2469: do you usually test several of the same cameras to do a review? I wonder if cameras that didn't test well would do better if several units were used? Scary! This could be great for Canon or really bad. Also, will you be showing results from all the units used, or just the best performing unit?
Yes, but we suspect that performance of the units in the hands of forum members with the latest firmware is significantly better than the review unit results, and unlike the LX5 which was retested when the FW was upgraded, and the S100 which is being selected for optimum performance, the EX1 has been neglected and subsequently never included in the comparison tool for later camera reviews because the results are poorer than they should be.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 7, 2011 at 23:07:30 UTC
cruser2469: do you usually test several of the same cameras to do a review? I wonder if cameras that didn't test well would do better if several units were used? Scary! This could be great for Canon or really bad. Also, will you be showing results from all the units used, or just the best performing unit?
Pity the samsung EX1/TL500 didn't get this special treatment like canon is given.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 7, 2011 at 22:51:07 UTC
Australia
brianj: I give up, I have been disqualified twice now for different images without a reason, obviously I am missing something, but I am past trying to figure out what it is!
The image was converted with PSP9, and it can still see it, then I saved the image onto the desktop and windows vista properties can also see it, but I don't know what tool you are using.
Anyway as I said, I am not going to persist with this dodgy nonsense.
brianj: I give up, I have been disqualified twice now for different images without a reason, obviously I am missing something, but I am past trying to figure out what it is!
Both of mine had exif data, are you looking for a specific field?
Here is the link to the first one in my album, it still has exif: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5128303546/photos/1892719/vented-pressure
I give up, I have been disqualified twice now for different images without a reason, obviously I am missing something, but I am past trying to figure out what it is!
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
cruser2469: do you usually test several of the same cameras to do a review? I wonder if cameras that didn't test well would do better if several units were used? Scary! This could be great for Canon or really bad. Also, will you be showing results from all the units used, or just the best performing unit?
Thanks, I know you guys put a lot of effort into this business.
cruser2469: do you usually test several of the same cameras to do a review? I wonder if cameras that didn't test well would do better if several units were used? Scary! This could be great for Canon or really bad. Also, will you be showing results from all the units used, or just the best performing unit?
Yes, but we suspect that performance of the units in the hands of forum members with the latest firmware is significantly better than the review unit results, and unlike the LX5 which was retested when the FW was upgraded, and the S100 which is being selected for optimum performance, the EX1 has been neglected and subsequently never included in the comparison tool for later camera reviews because the results are poorer than they should be.
cruser2469: do you usually test several of the same cameras to do a review? I wonder if cameras that didn't test well would do better if several units were used? Scary! This could be great for Canon or really bad. Also, will you be showing results from all the units used, or just the best performing unit?
Pity the samsung EX1/TL500 didn't get this special treatment like canon is given.