If the camera wasn't even available in April of 2003 I don't see the problem on this one. The site rules are there to prevent illegal photos from being entered in challenges but in this case they've obviously failed.
Why not just take 10 copies (exposures) of the same shot, but changing the date between each exposure.. that way, you have an image that might be applicable towards the next 10 challenges?
It is pretty ovious that my picture is taken this month. Since the Nikon D70 model is brand new and released 19th of march 2004.
My EXIF data clearly says "Nikon D70".
PLEASE REINSTATE ME INTO THE CHALLENGE!
Best Regards -Hans
First, I'm sorry this happened to you. While I agree this shot could not have been taken in 2003, all that proves is the EXIF information on the shot is wrong. It still falls short of proving the shot was taken during the challenge week.
This is always a troubling decision for us to make, but unfortunately past abuses have left us in the difficult position of having to enforce the rule this way.
I'm all for following the rules. It just felt so anoying! Being acused and disqualified! When I was new to the site, enthusiastic and just payed a fee to enter the member challenge. And I felt that I had a rather unique picture.
Well I have calmed down now and got over it. And my picture did not score all that well (5.x ish)
As the voters cannot see the EXIF data with the image date, there must have been something else about your image that arroused suspicion. Maybe having the wrong date saved you the embarassment of being DQed for a more serious reason. Have you figured how to set the correct date in that D70 yet?
That really sucks Hans. Sorry to hear about your DQ. I guess it's a good lesson for everyone. Too bad it has to be at your expense. If it's consolation, I thought the shot was great.
As the voters cannot see the EXIF data with the image date, there must have been something else about your image that arroused suspicion. Maybe having the wrong date saved you the embarassment of being DQed for a more serious reason. Have you figured how to set the correct date in that D70 yet?
Yes, please tell me what arroused suspicion.
I have submmited my original image to the concil. I'm guilty of having my date of by exactly one year. Nothing else.
That really sucks Hans. Sorry to hear about your DQ. I guess it's a good lesson for everyone. Too bad it has to be at your expense. If it's consolation, I thought the shot was great.
As the voters cannot see the EXIF data with the image date, there must have been something else about your image that arroused suspicion. Maybe having the wrong date saved you the embarassment of being DQed for a more serious reason. Have you figured how to set the correct date in that D70 yet?
Yes, please tell me what arroused suspicion.
I have submmited my original image to the concil. I'm guilty of having my date of by exactly one year. Nothing else.
Wouldn`t mind a PM from someone on my "Strength" submission which has been under scrutiny for the past 24 hrs.
I realise there has been a lot of DQ activity lately and that is what is most likely to be holding this up. However, I am rather puzzled as to why it was suspect in the first place and would appreciate some info on the progress with this image.
Wouldn`t mind a PM from someone on my "Strength" submission which has been under scrutiny for the past 24 hrs.
I realise there has been a lot of DQ activity lately and that is what is most likely to be holding this up. However, I am rather puzzled as to why it was suspect in the first place and would appreciate some info on the progress with this image.
Thanks,
Gordon
It isn't something we usually discuss.
Just upload the proof, and we'll go from there.
:)
Wouldn`t mind a PM from someone on my "Strength" submission which has been under scrutiny for the past 24 hrs.
I realise there has been a lot of DQ activity lately and that is what is most likely to be holding this up. However, I am rather puzzled as to why it was suspect in the first place and would appreciate some info on the progress with this image.
Thanks,
Gordon
It isn't something we usually discuss.
Just upload the proof, and we'll go from there.
:)
Karen, thank you for your reply,I uploaded the proof over 24 hrs ago and am still awaiting an outcome. I didn`t expect to be discussing anything on the messageboard but merely asked for the same action that Heather appeared to be promising "Motorcycleboi"in her previous post ...i.e. a PM to at least let me know if my original had been received and was being scrutinised.
As the voters cannot see the EXIF data with the image date, there must have been something else about your image that arroused suspicion. Maybe having the wrong date saved you the embarassment of being DQed for a more serious reason. Have you figured how to set the correct date in that D70 yet?
Yes, please tell me what arroused suspicion.
I have submmited my original image to the concil. I'm guilty of having my date of by exactly one year. Nothing else.
Wow. How's this for irony:
I am the person who requested that the site council take a look at your image. From the position of the deers legs not matching up with the head inside the bird feeder I thought that perhaps it had been added in photoshop. I've been dissappointed in the fact that a few photoshopped images had been slipping through. I liked your image a lot and voted on it assuming that you had not cheated. I believe I gave you a 7 or an 8. I hoped that you didn't cheat and that by having you submit your original it would be easy to tell. Turns out my camera was also set to 2003. Now that's justice! They should reinstate both our photos in my opinion. My sincere apologies. I didn't mean to cause so many problems this week.
LOL. Jason tell me it wasn`t you who asked for mine to be scrutinised.
You scored it very highly. :)
Gordon
I hope it wasn't me. I won't be doing it anymore since I want the photos to be dqed for the right reasons only. Hope your photo is still in the challenge Gordon. :)
LOL. Jason tell me it wasn`t you who asked for mine to be scrutinised.
You scored it very highly. :)
Gordon
I hope it wasn't me. I won't be doing it anymore since I want the photos to be dqed for the right reasons only. Hope your photo is still in the challenge Gordon. :)
It`s been getting scrutinised since around noon Saturday (your time) and I still haven`t had confirmation one way or the other..There`s no reason for it to be DQ`d that I`m aware of..so I presume that the SC have been very busy lately.
It`s after midnight now so I`ll get off to bed and hopefully it will be sorted out in the morning.
Yes, please tell me what arroused suspicion.
I have submmited my original image to the concil. I'm guilty of having my date of by exactly one year. Nothing else.
What first arroused suspicion I do not know, but I am pretty confident it was not the incorrect date. Apparently some voter thought it violated the rules and the SC felt there was enough doubt to request the original. Maybe you can enlighten us after the process is over.
If you take a good look at my picture you can see that it's actually two deers. The legs of one deer and the peeping head of another deer.
Nothing fake here.
Thats more than I can say about the top 3 ribbons.
In my book they are more fakes than mine that got DQ.
#1 and #2 for ovious reasons. #3 looks like a window dragged out in the wilderness. Why do I think that? No picture comment. It looks like the window stands on a rock. Look at the top rim of the picture. Oh, oh! reveling cropping...
Don't get me wrong. They are all great pictures that got a 9 score from me... Still don't feel good for me...
