| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2006 07:52:09 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by xylke:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by xylke:
The same shot can be repeated in one long exposure by cleverly using black cardboard to cover the frame instead of clicking the shutter. It probably won't be as easy but it is certainly doable and it is the same concept. I don't see how you can DQ this unless you start saying that exposures longer than n number of seconds cannot be entered. |
He says in his description that he used three exposures and rotated one of them... |
I'm saying I don't see any difference using cardboard as your shutter curtain instead of using the built in metal one. Lower quality cameras with sufficient exposure time can reproduce this shot. |
But that's not how he did it... |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:00:27 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by robs:
The other shoe: What about the ability to combine previously captured images? - That is "in-camera" for the D200 :-)) |
that is ImageOverlay,
not MultipleExposure |
For what it's worth I did do an image overlay for a basic editing challenge after getting my D200. I ran it past SC prior to entering and was told that it was legal since it was done in camera. According to what I was told the "in camera" clause trumps the other rules regarding multiple exposures, etc.
Just as an aside, you use the feature at your own peril. That image did not do well. It was mediocre to begin with, but there was also a noticeable spike of 1 and 2 votes that didn't fit the expected bell curve. The assumption being that a sizable number of voters just decided it was not legal and voted that way despite not asking for a DQ.
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 20:09:48. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:16:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by xylke:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by xylke:
The same shot can be repeated in one long exposure by cleverly using black cardboard to cover the frame instead of clicking the shutter. It probably won't be as easy but it is certainly doable and it is the same concept. I don't see how you can DQ this unless you start saying that exposures longer than n number of seconds cannot be entered. |
He says in his description that he used three exposures and rotated one of them... |
I'm saying I don't see any difference using cardboard as your shutter curtain instead of using the built in metal one. Lower quality cameras with sufficient exposure time can reproduce this shot. |
But that's not how he did it... |
That is exactly how he did from your basic pinhole camera perspective, which is how we should be looking at this problem if it is cheating or not. The dumbing down of cameras in lieu of greater technology has skewed our perception of what photography is. If we call this cheating we start going down that slippery slope of limitting ourselves to pictures of the disposable camera variety. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:17:51 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by xylke:
That is exactly how he did from your basic pinhole camera perspective, which is how we should be looking at this problem if it is cheating or not. The dumbing down of cameras in lieu of greater technology has skewed our perception of what photography is. If we call this cheating we start going down that slippery slope of limitting ourselves to pictures of the disposable camera variety. |
No, that's not what he did. He says so himself. He used 3 exposures and rotated one in p/p. What part of his description is vague? |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:25:14 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
He used 3 exposures and rotated one in p/p. What part of his description is vague? |
But I thought this Steve Davidson challenge has a very relaxed rules regarding major element? |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:03:25 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by crayon:
But I thought this Steve Davidson challenge has a very relaxed rules regarding major element? |
Read this... |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:06:22 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by crayon:
But I thought this Steve Davidson challenge has a very relaxed rules regarding major element? |
Read this... |
I see. It would have been illegal if he used 3 different images to create 1. But it will be legal if he merely used 3 exposures on a single photo. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:12:56 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by ralph:
ok then just limit everyone to the lowest common denominator
you are here by limited to f/4-f/8 1/100-2sec iso 200-400
are we ready to play now ?
go read ""Harrison Bergeron" short story by Kurt Vonnegut |
So you changed names from ralphnev, eh? Seems to be a recent rash of name changes.
I read the story. Good story. And utterly irrelevant. Or, rather, I think it's perversely relevant.
That story is about forcing everyone to give up their natural talents.
Whereas what we're debating is whether it's okay for people to use equipment instead of natural talent to do things that aren't otherwise allowed.
NASCAR and other racing organizations do exactly what you're talking about precisely to focus the competition on ability, not technology.
You'd get a very direct evaluation of people's abilities if you designed some stock camera and asked everyone to take pictures with it, and then handed out stock software and said "do what you want with this."
I'm not really arguing for that here at DPC, just making a point.
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 22:13:53. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:29:07 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by TooCool:
And another... |
special rules allowed / d70 can not do this in camera |
The photographer listed the wrong camera. The image is made with a D200, not a D70. The D200 has multiple exposure capabilities, and the image is legal for the challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:39:47 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by ralph:
ok then just limit everyone to the lowest common denominator
you are here by limited to f/4-f/8 1/100-2sec iso 200-400
are we ready to play now ?
go read ""Harrison Bergeron" short story by Kurt Vonnegut |
So you changed names from ralphnev, eh? Seems to be a recent rash of name changes.
I read the story. Good story. And utterly irrelevant. Or, rather, I think it's perversely relevant.
That story is about forcing everyone to give up their natural talents.
Whereas what we're debating is whether it's okay for people to use equipment instead of natural talent to do things that aren't otherwise allowed.
NASCAR and other racing organizations do exactly what you're talking about precisely to focus the competition on ability, not technology.
You'd get a very direct evaluation of people's abilities if you designed some stock camera and asked everyone to take pictures with it, and then handed out stock software and said "do what you want with this."
I'm not really arguing for that here at DPC, just making a point. |
i , on the other hand, think the story about trying to make everyone equal, technology or not, level the playing feild, etc
& that can't be done, not at DPC, not anywhere
do deal with it, & take more pictures ..
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:46:54 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by ursula:
The photographer listed the wrong camera. The image is made with a D200, not a D70. The D200 has multiple exposure capabilities, and the image is legal for the challenge. |
"The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules."
Either the spirit of the rules allows for multiple exposures or it does not.
"You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs"
Having the statement "Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission." does not, imo, give carte blanche to break another rule nor the spirit of that rule.
I have nothing against current ribbon winners - they have produced very cool images, I simply feel a single shutter actuation follows the spirit of the rules.
What's to stop someone from uploading previously taken images to a CF card, put that in their D200 and combine it with whatever image -or no image if that's an option (or a hack)- to produce a new image? From what I'm hearing this is legal, but it seems to be against the spirit of the rules.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:20:29 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by ursula:
The photographer listed the wrong camera. The image is made with a D200, not a D70. The D200 has multiple exposure capabilities, and the image is legal for the challenge. |
"The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules."
Either the spirit of the rules allows for multiple exposures or it does not.
"You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs"
Having the statement "Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission." does not, imo, give carte blanche to break another rule nor the spirit of that rule.
I have nothing against current ribbon winners - they have produced very cool images, I simply feel a single shutter actuation follows the spirit of the rules.
What's to stop someone from uploading previously taken images to a CF card, put that in their D200 and combine it with whatever image -or no image if that's an option (or a hack)- to produce a new image? From what I'm hearing this is legal, but it seems to be against the spirit of the rules. |
And it's being discussed.
FWIW, multiple exposures have been in photography for a long, long time. The capabilities like the one you describe are a new twist on this old process.
It's not so easy to come up with rules that cover all the bases all the time, and still allow for freedom to enjoy new technology.
[Edited spelling]
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 23:21:32. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:37:41 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by ursula:
And it's being discussed.
FWIW, multiple exposures have been in photography for a long, long time. The capabilities like the one you describe is a new twist on this old process. It's not so easy to come up with rules that cover all the bases all the time, and still allow for freedom to enjoy new technology. |
I agree wholeheartedly. I have nothing against multiple exposures, I've done countless multiple exposure images well before CCD's were a gleam in the mass-consumer eye.
My opinion is that it is much more of a challenge to use a single shutter actuation to produce a final result.
When voting on the now-discussed ribbon winners I wondered in awe at how they were done; I was utterly disappointed to find they were done with multiple exposures.
If the rules are changed they should say: "Multiple exposures are not legal in PP, they must be done in camera." Which is silly, imo. This isn't a 'freedom to enjoy a new technology', the technology to combine multiple digital images has been around for a long time - just not widespread in-camera.
I guess the bottom line question for me is "What's the difference between combining them in camera and combining them on computer?" Both devices are in fact computers, one just doesn't have a nice keyboard or mouse.
signed,
Simply Curious In Michigan
:)
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:50:58 PM · #64 |
I guess the argument boils down to "are multiple exposures ever legal for challenge entries at DPC".
There is not a good answer to that now. We have allowed multiple exposures if done in camera. We have not allowed them if done outside of camera. As you say, that doesn't make much sense.
For myself, I don't mind multiple exposures regardless of where or how they are done. If a multi is done well, it can be a thing of great beauty. I also don't think that multis are necessarily part of the evil "digital art" category. Digital art is so hard to define anyway, and I rather not get into that argument right now.
I think though that a lot of users would be quite upset if multis were allowed in camera or otherwise. I'm quite sure that a lot of people would be upset over this.
The biggest problem for DPC, if multis were allowed, is verifying that ALL OF THEM are made within challenge dates. Making the images within challenge dates is at the core of the challenges here, and IMO that should not change.
Anyway. I really have no answer to this stuff. The image that started me on this thread was legal under the rules as we have interpreted them to this time. So it stands. Wether that's fair or good, I don't know. But it's good to talk about it.
Consider this also, it is possible that in the future RAW editors will allow combining RAW images directly into one. How would that fit into our viewpoints here?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:51:42 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
the bottom line question for me is "What's the difference between combining them in camera and combining them on computer?" Both devices are in fact computers, one just doesn't have a nice keyboard or mouse. |
and hence, it takes more skill and accuracy to pull off in-camera :p |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:52:32 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
"What's the difference between combining them in camera and combining them on computer?" Both devices are in fact computers, one just doesn't have a nice keyboard or mouse.
signed,
Simply Curious In Michigan
:) |
doing it camera - there is no moving objects they must be framed 'just right' there is a small bit of exposure comp. but that is limited
in a computer .. you can crop/ move edit it crap out of it THEN combine ...
in camera is much more difficult .
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:56:06 PM · #67 |
| So, why should difficulty of doing something even be considered for the rules here? If something is more difficult to do, then it's OK? If it can be done easier and with greater accuracy, then it's not? Maybe I am misunderstanding .... |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 12:02:28 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by ursula:
So, why should difficulty of doing something even be considered for the rules here? If something is more difficult to do, then it's OK? If it can be done easier and with greater accuracy, then it's not? Maybe I am misunderstanding .... |
Ursula, my earlier post meant that the in-camera multi-exposure should be allowed because it takes skill to perform too, and having multiple exposure features on a camera is not a highly advantageous thing - and thus, no need for rule change. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 12:13:12 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by ursula:
So, why should difficulty of doing something even be considered for the rules here? If something is more difficult to do, then it's OK? If it can be done easier and with greater accuracy, then it's not? Maybe I am misunderstanding .... |
Ursula, my earlier post meant that the in-camera multi-exposure should be allowed because it takes skill to perform too, and having multiple exposure features on a camera is not a highly advantageous thing - and thus, no need for rule change. |
OK. :) |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 12:21:12 AM · #70 |
| I'm gonna go start a separate Rant about having a new rule to combat what my camera lack - like IS, ultra-sharp L-lens, low-noise high aperture, high DynamicRange, things like that... heh |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 12:31:13 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by crayon:
I'm gonna go start a separate Rant about having a new rule to combat what my camera lack - like IS, ultra-sharp L-lens, low-noise high aperture, high DynamicRange, things like that... heh |
He, he, well, enjoy your rant! :) |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 12:48:42 AM · #72 |
Technically we allow multiple exposures outside of the camera, IMO. Processing a RAW file multiple times to get different exposures to work with is currently legal. It's no different than bracketing shots in-camera except with the latter you simply get a better signal to noise ratio to work with.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2006 07:23:54 AM · #73 |
Thanks Ursula :)
I was not suggesting, nor would I like to see, current or past ribbons taken away for something currently considered legal - *that* would not be fair nor would it be right.
For me this has nothing to do with camera capabilities nor technological advancements, it has nothing to do with "fairness", nothing to do with "leveling the playing field"; it has to do with a physical process that it ubiquitous to all cameras and to photography as a whole: a shutter activation. A physical occurrence.
The term "multiple exposure" is a red herring in this context and is not relevant, the proper term is shutter activation.
It's drawing a line, much like the major elements rule - some things won't be done.
Enforcement, impossible from EXIF, consists of "Tell us your setup".
Just my opinion :)
|
|
|
|
09/01/2006 08:07:56 AM · #74 |
I don't see a problem with the d200 combining multiple exposures. basically its doing what anyone can do, i.e. hold a bit of black card over the lens, change scene, and then expose again. True, it has the advantage of allowing changes to camera settings throughout the images, but i guess thats what the extra $$$ are being spent on... it seems simple to keep it to "in camera ok", "out camera not"... provides a general framework to go by.
Just out of curiousity, or to prove me own stupidity :P, could the fire hands challenge pic been done with bit of black card over the lens trick? put camera on bulb mode, expose it to fire rings, then cover lens with black card, flash on one hand, flash on other hand. Obviously this is gonna require a hell of a lot more work, but hey, thats what you get for a cheaper camera right? |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 08:46:38 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by diablo2097:
I don't see a problem with the d200 combining multiple exposures. basically its doing what anyone can do, i.e. hold a bit of black card over the lens, change scene, and then expose again. True, it has the advantage of allowing changes to camera settings throughout the images, but i guess thats what the extra $$$ are being spent on... it seems simple to keep it to "in camera ok", "out camera not"... provides a general framework to go by.
Just out of curiousity, or to prove me own stupidity :P, could the fire hands challenge pic been done with bit of black card over the lens trick? put camera on bulb mode, expose it to fire rings, then cover lens with black card, flash on one hand, flash on other hand. Obviously this is gonna require a hell of a lot more work, but hey, thats what you get for a cheaper camera right? |
see the discription for  |
|
