| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2006 09:41:13 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Unless I misinterpret what you seem to suggest, jmsetzler and Bear are suggesting that the advanced rules be expanded to allow multiple images to be used for HDR from the same composition. |
Yup...and NOT for any other purpose! |
While I support this idea 100% I'm thinking how would this be judged? Say for example you are shooting a sunset and you setup your tripod and take your bracketed shots but you take your time doing each one to the point where now you have included both the sun and the moon in the shot. In reality you didn't see that but through the process of HDR you were able to capture it. Would that run a foul of what is proposed in this thread? Anyway just curious what others think about that or anything similar that could be done.
Message edited by author 2006-12-23 21:42:39. |
|
|
|
12/23/2006 10:00:18 PM · #27 |
The only problem I would have with this proposal is in regards to objects that move within the frame (animals, clouds, people, and so on). If an object exists in multiple positions within the frames, how is it to be determined which is the legal position?
This presents a whole host of potential work-arounds for the moving, removing, and duplicating of elemnts within the image. This concern extends from the obvious examples, such as kiwiness's 'Brothers' images, to subtle changes in cloud formations.
Of course, anything done in camera... :D
David |
|
|
|
12/23/2006 10:07:42 PM · #28 |
is bracketing really the same image when the wind has moved the boat on the water, or the trees, or the birds in flight are no longer in the same place...
i'm all for things photographic, and allowing people to stretch, but i do believe this multiple-image idea should be somewhat contained. this is just another thing that helps widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. i just wonder how discouraging it would be for someone new to digital photography to happen onto this site and think, "cool, a place to learn how to use what i got," only to find that not only do they need a dSLR and photoshop, but they also need to start buying more software and learning more stuff, if they just want to be able to compete. i may be off base, but it seems that we're getting further and further away from a level playing field... |
|
|
|
12/23/2006 10:12:14 PM · #29 |
IMHO using multiple images is no different than using a finished photo on a computer screen as a background tro a single photo challenge. Fully process the first, put it on a monitor and place the next "main" subject in front of it. So my opinion, multiple images that are not for dynamic range (HDR) should be a novelty here, maybe once a month. AND it doesn't matter if it's processing two different photos and combining or processing one as a background to the other.
Now as far as HDR, sure I'm for it in expert level only. Heck most people don't know how to process HDR to improve dynamic range without making it look fake and art anyway. HDR should be used to improve reality not cause unnatural dynamic range unless it is abstrtact art of science fiction. |
|
|
|
12/23/2006 10:55:40 PM · #30 |
| I want to start using HDR also...would love to get that procedure down |
|
|
|
12/23/2006 11:42:54 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
IMHO using multiple images is no different than using a finished photo on a computer screen as a background tro a single photo challenge. |
That's old news, Rikki is gone ... :-P LOL
|
|
|
|
12/23/2006 11:55:08 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Unless I misinterpret what you seem to suggest, jmsetzler and Bear are suggesting that the advanced rules be expanded to allow multiple images to be used for HDR from the same composition. |
Yup...and NOT for any other purpose! |
While I support this idea 100% I'm thinking how would this be judged? Say for example you are shooting a sunset and you setup your tripod and take your bracketed shots but you take your time doing each one to the point where now you have included both the sun and the moon in the shot. In reality you didn't see that but through the process of HDR you were able to capture it. Would that run a foul of what is proposed in this thread? Anyway just curious what others think about that or anything similar that could be done. |
EXIF data on the bracketed exposures will determine proximity in the timeflow. This technique does NOT work well in dynamic scenes with significant movement, but that's the photographer's problem; HDRI images done this way usually look like hell if there are moving elements. Easy enough to write a rule that disallows obvious things like moving a person from one spot to another. Easy enough to process after the fact to remove things like ghost birds, also.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 12:36:50 AM · #33 |
Conventions which may represent the so called spirit of the site have always seemed to impose a shroud of interpretation & restrictions, especially when there is a swell for change. It is often invoked, usually for preference of a style, or possibly for herd control. I have never really understood what the spirit really represents to me. It may not be for photography as art, to be sure montage is a respectable form, and wholly neglected & intentionally minimized here. My preference is for the better written challenge descriptions, which include the allowances & what is taboo.
Message edited by author 2006-12-25 18:26:45. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 06:28:02 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
this is just another thing that helps widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. |
I feel the exact opposite as this. I feel this narrows the gap of "haves and have-nots" since I don't have the luxury of in camera multiple image as some of you have. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 07:30:10 AM · #35 |
| I haven't done an HDRI photo yet but I sure do plan to. Some of the HDR photos that I have seen are impressive. If a photographers goal is to make a superb photograph worthy of hanging on a wall or selling then HDRI can't be ignored. DPC is a learning site so I vote for adding wording that will allow HDRI as part of the advanced editing rules. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 09:15:46 AM · #36 |
I think HDRI should be in advanced cause it has so many great benefits to images when not over-cooked.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:12:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by The Eskimo:
I haven't done an HDRI photo yet but I sure do plan to. Some of the HDR photos that I have seen are impressive. If a photographers goal is to make a superb photograph worthy of hanging on a wall or selling then HDRI can't be ignored. DPC is a learning site so I vote for adding wording that will allow HDRI as part of the advanced editing rules. |
My view also. The cartoon stuff turned me off to the technique, but seeing the beautiful, judiciously applied versions makes me hopeful that any bad versions will get judged by voters as any other poorly applied post-processing is. What garbled syntax; oh well. It belongs in Advanced Editing.
Message edited by author 2006-12-24 13:13:57. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:29:45 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by skiprow:
this is just another thing that helps widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. |
I feel the exact opposite as this. I feel this narrows the gap of "haves and have-nots" since I don't have the luxury of in camera multiple image as some of you have. |
I don't know exactly what you mean by "luxury of in camera multiple image" but anyone with a camera that can store more than one photo on it's card can do "true HDR".
All you need is a camera and a tripod and the appropriate software.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:31:38 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by skiprow:
this is just another thing that helps widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. |
I feel the exact opposite as this. I feel this narrows the gap of "haves and have-nots" since I don't have the luxury of in camera multiple image as some of you have. |
and, as the rules are written, there is a place for it--in the periodic 'expert' challenges. however, in a weekly 'advanced' challenge, i think things are fine just the way they are. as it is now, if you have a point and shoot and access to some basic editing software, you can make yourself competitive in an advanced challenge. however, i really believe if you throw too much more leeway into advanced editing, you'll risk pushing those with limited equipment/resources off the field... |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:31:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by skiprow:
this is just another thing that helps widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. |
I feel the exact opposite as this. I feel this narrows the gap of "haves and have-nots" since I don't have the luxury of in camera multiple image as some of you have. |
I don't know exactly what you mean by "luxury of in camera multiple image" but anyone with a camera that can store more than one photo on it's card can do "true HDR".
All you need is a camera and a tripod and the appropriate software. |
Eh...I realize this and is why I say multiple image HDR should be allowed in Advanced editing, since those with in camera have an advantage some of us don't. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:33:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
and, as the rules are written, there is a place for it--in the periodic 'expert' challenges. however, in a weekly 'advanced' challenge, i think things are fine just the way they are. as it is now, if you have a point and shoot and access to some basic editing software, you can make yourself competitive in an advanced challenge. however, i really believe if you throw too much more leeway into advanced editing, you'll risk pushing those with limited equipment/resources off the field... |
It "Should" be (IMHO) allowed in Advanced though. Again, just my opinion. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:47:14 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Eh...I realize this and is why I say multiple image HDR should be allowed in Advanced editing, since those with in camera have an advantage some of us don't. |
I think you are getting multiple exposure capabilities and HDR confused. While some cameras like the D200 will do multiple exposures, there are currently no cameras on the market that can do in-camera HDR.
That would be an awesome feature though :-)
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 01:50:17 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by tooohip:
Eh...I realize this and is why I say multiple image HDR should be allowed in Advanced editing, since those with in camera have an advantage some of us don't. |
I think you are getting multiple exposure capabilities and HDR confused. While some cameras like the D200 will do multiple exposures, there are currently no cameras on the market that can do in-camera HDR.
That would be an awesome feature though :-) |
Na, I realize that, I'm just not explaining myself well. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:59:21 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Eh...I realize this and is why I say multiple image HDR should be allowed in Advanced editing, since those with in camera have an advantage some of us don't. |
ahh, gotcha.. I see what you are saying...
|
|
|
|
08/01/2007 09:24:59 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
After a lot of thinking about the expert editing rules and a possible proliferation of 'digital art' that would result from them, I think there may be a better solution to help establish the line between "photographic in nature" and digital art.
1. I think DPC definitely has room for digital art challenges on a regular basis, where anything goes with absolutely no restrictions on editing.
2. I think that the advanced editing rules could quickly become 'expert' rules by adding the following statement to those rules:
"You may use multiple photos of the same composition for the purpose of enhanced dynamic range. You may not use multiple different photos for your final image."
This would maintain the same type of images we get now with a little more robust set of opportunities to finish them. The advanced editing rules seem to give us most of the opportunities we want to properly finish a photograph in whatever way we see fit. The addition of tools to allow for HDR would make those even more complete without turning the results into photo collages.
Just some food for thought... |
Very well stated. :) |
|
|
|
08/01/2007 09:43:51 AM · #46 |
just cuz we're all chiming in:
i'm against using multiple images for any reason except expert editing.
* - How close together (duration of time) do the images have to be in order to be considered the same scene?
* - If trees, grass, and clouds blowing in the wind is ok with HDR, why not moving cars, walking people, etc?
|
|
|
|
08/01/2007 10:06:05 AM · #47 |
I'd say don't change the rules for newcomers, to buy dslr and more software. but if you already have these...
I would be happy to have an occasional HDR-Only Challenge.
The best HDR color range is from multiple exposures.
If used properly, it can extend the Photo, to dynamiucaly see a larger color range, that is more like our own natural vision, not limited by the archaic photographic techniques. Eventually there will be some new stadards that become acceptable. Maybe even use computers and internet (oh that's been done).
I've taken some with 9 different exposures on a tripod, for landscapes of course. I've tried the same with 9-exposures of the same raw file, with results not as good. I'll have a dozen experiments ready soon, using HDR and Photomatix.
A rainbow doesn't look great in black and white.
Added: The difference between Still Pictures and Motion Pictures is only seconds. - Justamistere
Message edited by author 2007-08-01 10:11:55. |
|
|
|
08/01/2007 10:18:47 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by hopper:
just cuz we're all chiming in:
i'm against using multiple images for any reason except expert editing.
* - How close together (duration of time) do the images have to be in order to be considered the same scene?
* - If trees, grass, and clouds blowing in the wind is ok with HDR, why not moving cars, walking people, etc? |
That's easy to validate. The exif will show the images as consecutive. That's really the point of taking different exposures of the same scene is to do them in relatively quick succession, not come back tomorrow. ;o) |
|
|
|
08/01/2007 10:33:35 AM · #49 |
| HDR rocks...My 1st entry got DQed because I wasn't aware of this rule. HDR is not dissimilar from ND Grad and great when you're not carrying all the gear. It should be included in the Advanced editing rules. |
|
|
|
08/01/2007 10:39:25 AM · #50 |
I like the idea, and I think everyone's overthinking it.
Basically, if the two shots are identical, but with different exposures, than it should be fine. By identical, I don't mean all the leaves on the tree have to be in the exact same position, or the water has to stay still while you're setting up the next shot. But if a new feature comes into view, like a bird or boat, than it can effectively be used beyond the means of enhancing the dynamic range of the image, and would be disqualified.
Which means things like moving people or cars would be illegal. It is instantly noticeable if a major feature like that has changed during the exposure, whereas things like trees and grass would have to be closely scrutinized to uncover any differences.
Message edited by author 2007-08-01 10:43:24. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 10:21:12 PM EDT.
