At PPG, did you notice

Bart · 08-24-2008, 10:40 AM

how many dSLR users submit a "Scanned Image"?
Strange, isn't it?

*roentarre* · 08-24-2008, 03:42 PM

You could ask the people in film SLR section. They apparently do submit scanned images and they are often great images too.

*rparmar* · 08-24-2008, 04:33 PM

I submit as "scanned" because otherwise my perfectly valid EXIF does not get read and the image is rejected. I wrote to them about this and they said that it's okay to do so.

*Mike Cash* · 08-25-2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by rparmar

I submit as "scanned" because otherwise my perfectly valid EXIF does not get read and the image is rejected. I wrote to them about this and they said that it's okay to do so.

And I've submitted scanned film images as "scanned" and had them rejected because the EXIF data had the scanner info in there, as best I can figure out.

ftpaddict · 08-25-2008, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by rparmar

I submit as "scanned" because otherwise my perfectly valid EXIF does not get read and the image is rejected. I wrote to them about this and they said that it's okay to do so.

That's neat. I think I might try that myself.

Bart · 08-25-2008, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

And I've submitted scanned film images as "scanned" and had them rejected because the EXIF data had the scanner info in there, as best I can figure out.

Perhaps you need to strip the exif data from a scanned photo and then submit as "scanned". I'll give this a try.

@ Roentarre: I did mean photos from K10D, K100D etc. Digital SLRs. I suppose rparmar gave us the reason why.

*Slick* · 08-26-2008, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by rparmar

I submit as "scanned" because otherwise my perfectly valid EXIF does not get read and the image is rejected.

I wonder if this is what happened to all of my submissions. I've never had one last more than a couple of days and I don't think they were that bad (at least I hope they weren't).

I'm guessing that if the EXIF data shows up on the screen where you add more info it should go through when you submit, right?

Slick

*rparmar* · 08-26-2008, 08:52 AM

Unfortunately, Slick, that would not explain the photo getting rejected. If the EXIF is bad then the photo cannot proceed beyond upload -- it never gets reviewed.

*Slick* · 08-26-2008, 11:54 AM

Guess they weren't that good then, lol.

Thanks for the answer.

Slick

*rparmar* · 08-26-2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Slick

Guess they weren't that good then, lol.

A lot of good photos have been rejected. A gallery is subject to the whims of its curators.

vizjerei · 08-26-2008, 02:18 PM

hmm how long usually needed for the photo get approved or rejected?... I uploaded several, just to see how I stand in the photography...

ftpaddict · 08-26-2008, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by vizjerei

hmm how long usually needed for the photo get approved or rejected?... I uploaded several, just to see how I stand in the photography...

Oh I'm pretty sure they'll be approved or rejected by the end of the year.

*rparmar* · 08-26-2008, 03:44 PM

I have had some take 3 weeks. I have only submitted a few, choosing the very very best. I think if everyone did this, the process would be quicker! Some seem to treat it as a dumping ground.

This thread now seems to be duplicating two others.