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

Started Mar 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Jack Cat Regular Member • Posts: 153
Re: The 'discriminatory-nature' of capture-date stipulations!

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 EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow