At PPG, did you notice

Bart · 08-24-2008, 09:40 AM

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

roentarre · 08-24-2008, 02:42 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, 03:33 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, 08:02 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, 08:08 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, 09:30 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, 02:31 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, 07:52 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, 10:54 AM

Guess they weren't that good then, lol.

Thanks for the answer.

Slick

**rparmar** · 08-26-2008, 11:38 AM

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, 01:18 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, 01:32 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, 02:44 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.

08-24-2008, 09:40 AM	#1
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	At PPG, did you notice how many dSLR users submit a "Scanned Image"? Strange, isn't it?

08-25-2008, 09:30 AM	#6
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646 Original Poster	happened to me as well 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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
16:9 until further notice.	Taff	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	25	02-12-2010 06:12 AM
Did anyone notice?	Rupert	General Talk	7	12-28-2009 10:07 AM
Ever notice...	Jasvox	General Talk	1	01-22-2009 07:32 AM
Did anyone notice?	Peter Zack	Photographic Technique	20	11-11-2008 08:25 AM
Anybody Else Notice This	straightshooter	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	5	06-26-2008 07:10 AM

08-24-2008, 02:42 PM	#2
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	You could ask the people in film SLR section. They apparently do submit scanned images and they are often great images too.

08-24-2008, 03:33 PM	#3
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	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.

08-25-2008, 08:02 AM	#4
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	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.

08-25-2008, 08:08 AM	#5
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	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.

08-26-2008, 02:31 AM	#7
Slick Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 154	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

08-26-2008, 07:52 AM	#8
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	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.

08-26-2008, 10:54 AM	#9
Slick Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 154	Guess they weren't that good then, lol. Thanks for the answer. Slick

08-26-2008, 11:38 AM	#10
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	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.

08-26-2008, 01:18 PM	#11
vizjerei Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,418	hmm how long usually needed for the photo get approved or rejected?... I uploaded several, just to see how I stand in the photography...

08-26-2008, 01:32 PM	#12
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	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.

08-26-2008, 02:44 PM	#13
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	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.