| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/22/2006 10:36:12 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
2) Try an "online Survey" or Voting for new policies.
Members should have some privileges in being heard.
Those are the happiest kind. |
While this sounds like a good idea there is no way you will ever please everyone, and you would almost inevitably end up with a messy set of rules that don't really make sense as they were not composed as a whole. I appreciate threads like this asking for feedback but the final decision needs to be made by a small number of people.
"A camel is a horse designed by a committee" |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 07:34:32 PM · #377 |
I hope this hasn't been beaten to death; maybe I missed it somewhere above.
I'd like to suggest that we find a way to ban doing things in-camera that would be illegal outside the camera. Cameras today are adding more and more features to allow non-post-processors some of the same features.
To draw a distinction, let me use two examples (one I just learned of):
1) Selective desat based on color. It's been ruled that it's legal even in basic editing to select a color and do things to those pixels that are in that color (not selecting pixels themselves). Fine. Leave it legal.
2) Multiple images in one "exposure." This would never be allowed in either basic or advanced in off-camera software, so why should it be allowed in either one just because of on-camera software? I don't mean the very clever multiple images captured by folks covering the lens cap during a single long shutter opening time. I mean literally click click click *fiddle in the camera's menu* out pops a "single" image. I question whether things like that were envisioned in the original "anything in-camera is fine" decision. Enough people buy those cameras, and the entire meaning of "single photograph" goes out the window.
Message edited by author 2006-08-29 19:49:56. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 07:41:14 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I hope this hasn't been beaten to death; maybe I missed it somewhere above.
I'd like to suggest that we find a way to ban doing things in-camera that would be illegal outside the camera. Cameras today are adding more and more features to allow non-post-processors some of the same features.
To draw a distinction, let me use two examples (one I just learned of):
1) Selective desat based on color. It's been ruled that it's legal even in basic editing to select a color and do things to those pixels. Fine. Leave it legal.
2) Multiple images in one "exposure." This would never be allowed in either basic or advanced in off-camera software, so why should it be allowed in either one just because of on-camera software? I don't mean the very clever multiple images captured by folks covering the lens cap during a single long shutter opening time. I mean literally click click click *fiddle in the camera's menu* out pops a "single" image. I question whether things like that were envisioned in the original "anything in-camera is fine" decision. Enough people buy those cameras, and the entire meaning of "single photograph" goes out the window. |
I can see what your getting at, but double exposures were done long before digital came along, the double exposure issue is one I wouldn't want to decide on..........thank got I aint on the site council :) |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 07:49:14 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
I can see what your getting at, but double exposures were done long before digital came along, the double exposure issue is one I wouldn't want to decide on..........thank got I aint on the site council :) |
I'm not raising for discussion whether double exposures should be allowed (meaning the shutter opens and closes more than once; several people have gotten two or more "exposures" by covering up the lens while the shutter remains open). That's settled for off-camera software: they're not allowed.
Rather, I'm suggesting that anything not allowed in off-camera software shouldn't be allowed in on-camera software. It's all software, so what's the difference?
Multiple shutter openings just happens to be, to me, an obvious example. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 07:50:17 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
2) Multiple images in one "exposure." This would never be allowed in either basic or advanced in off-camera software, so why should it be allowed in either one just because of on-camera software? I don't mean the very clever multiple images captured by folks covering the lens cap during a single long shutter opening time. I mean literally click click click *fiddle in the camera's menu* out pops a "single" image. I question whether things like that were envisioned in the original "anything in-camera is fine" decision. Enough people buy those cameras, and the entire meaning of "single photograph" goes out the window. |
strongly dissagree - not that i use the feature much but what can be learned by the method & the forthought that goes into it - tool to learn
are you going to limit the hide the lens in a darkened room as well ??
that is what it esentually is (mode 1) below ...
BTW: The D200 has 2 types of multiple exposure
1) Multiple Exposure - you have to determine the number (up to 10) of exposure you are working ahead of time - with the must be done in order (back to back) - raw only - only one image is saved
2)in Image Overlay - two raw files can be read back in in an UNMODIFIED form & combined , & can be out of sequence and you can perform exposure compensation on the two images
the exif says which is which .
i think Multiple exposure is in the spirit of DPC
i have difficulties with Image Overlay being with in limits of the rules as written
Message edited by author 2006-08-29 19:51:15. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 07:53:09 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
I can see what your getting at, but double exposures were done long before digital came along, the double exposure issue is one I wouldn't want to decide on..........thank got I aint on the site council :) |
While I personally would agree with you, I argued for allowing perspective adjustments in basic because those could be done in-camera with a tilt-shift lens, but I wasn't convincing.
The rules are basically arbitrary, and you just have to live with them.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 08:01:14 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
... 2) Multiple images in one "exposure." This would never be allowed in either basic or advanced in off-camera software, so why should it be allowed in either one just because of on-camera software? I don't mean the very clever multiple images captured by folks covering the lens cap during a single long shutter opening time. I mean literally click click click *fiddle in the camera's menu* out pops a "single" image. I question whether things like that were envisioned in the original "anything in-camera is fine" decision. Enough people buy those cameras, and the entire meaning of "single photograph" goes out the window. |
Thread 1 actively discussing multiple exposures.
Double Exposure
Thread 2 actively discussing multiple exposures.
One exposure equal to one shutter release...
Thread 3 actively discussing multiple exposures.
Rules rewrite status and call for suggestions
What's going on? Something big happen regarding this subject?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 08:03:43 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
are you going to limit the hide the lens in a darkened room as well ??
|
Nope. That's legal now, and should remain legal in my book.
Edited to add this:
Ha! Very good point. I hereby suggest that all multiple exposures discussions takes place in thread 2 above.
Then here we can debate my generic suggestion of "legal period, in or out of camera."
Message edited by author 2006-08-29 20:12:15. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 08:11:13 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by talmy:
The rules are basically arbitrary, and you just have to live with them. |
That's the most frustrating thing about the rules. There may have been a logic to them at some point but right now it's just a group of rules put together with little rhyme or reason.
I keep hearing about BUT it's just one file produced with a multiple exposure (done in camera). And? What's so special about that distinction? There are many things one could do to a single raw/jpg file that would be illegal. The problem with these discussions is we don't try to tackle the logic behind allowing something or not allowing something and instead are led by our biases towards traditional photography or current photography (i.e with digital post processing included). The traditionalists by and large will always support anything and everything that can be done in-camera to be legal while trying to stifle things done outside of the camera as if there's a real difference. The type of technology used to acheive an effect shouldn't be a basis for rules but for some strange reason it is.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 08:30:55 PM · #385 |
I actually don't have a problem with 4 rule sets:
1) Straight from camera
2) Basic
3) Advanced
4) Anything goes, provided the images used are all taken within the challenge week
In each of 2 and 3, "legal" would be the same in and out of camera.
They're all interpretations on "photography." Having a challenge/week in each might reduce the crazy numbers of entries we've had recently. You could even make 'em exclusive.
If that's overload, then mix 'em up from time to time, like we've seen already, but a little more regularly.
Who knows? Maybe you'd bring in even more members! |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 01:37:59 PM · #386 |
Now that a lot more can be done in camera, maybe the rewrite should keep that in mind too:
Thread
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 13:38:13.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:07:45 AM · #387 |
While replying to a thread I was re-reading this section of the Advanced Editing rules:
Originally posted by excerpt from Advanced Editing rules:
Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. 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 (even those taken during the challenge week), and other similar items. |
The first sentence states the entry must come from a single photograph, but a photograph is the finished product. The use of the terms 'photograph', 'image' and 'exposure' seem to be quite haphazzard.
In the interest of the continuation and extension of the intention for the rewrite to be stated in short, concise and specificly worded statements I offer the following definitions:
Exposure -- What is started from; the result of exposing the sensor to light; the unconverted RAW file.
Photograph -- The final, presentation ready image regardless of media used. There may be many photographs from a single exposure.
Picture (pic) -- An of (potentially many) intermediate states as an exposure is post-processed into a photograph.
Image -- While similar to a picture, an image may be processed from more than one exposure and computer generated elements.
These terms are so fundamental to what we are doing here, it is important for them to have precisely defined within the confines of this site and specifically the challenges. The list of terms I have defined are likely not all-inclusive of those that need precise DPC-centric definitions. But it is not my intention to bury all with terms that need their meanings stabilized from the rather broad, general and often synonymous common usage. Nor is it my intention to be the author of this stabilization as I am well aware the definitions I gave above could use a bit of polishing.
I am simply providing a gentle and friendly nudge to keep the rewrite moving along to completion. If I can direct attention to a potential source of ambiguity in the rules while doing so -- all the better.
Also, since it has been several months with no word of progress, the SC can consider themselves sufficiently nudged to do so -- and also invited to open a discussion on any specific aspects of the project that have become all gummed up.
David
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 08:33:07 AM · #388 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
The biggest thing I'd love to see is to allow cloning out sensor dust in basic editing. Sensor dust is a problem on dSLR's and even one little speck can give reason for a voter to rate lower. |
I agree with this. Even in the old dark room dust specks needed to be cleaned up.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 08:48:44 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by excerpt from Advanced Editing rules:
Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. 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 (even those taken during the challenge week), and other similar items. |
The first sentence states the entry must come from a single photograph, but a photograph is the finished product. |
Duly noted, but seemingly correct definitions sometimes don't work so well in practice. If you substitute "exposure" in the above rule, "Your entry must come from a single exposure...," then you preclude legal "multiple exposure" images taken with one click of the shutter. I don't necessarily agree with your definitions, either. For example, the common phrase "take a photograph" refers to the capture, not a finished product. Don't worry, we've got it covered in the impending revision (coming very soon to a challenge site near you). ;-) |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 09:37:18 AM · #390 |
First of all, Thanks are in order...because this "All disqualifications are determined by the majority vote of the Site Council..." has always troubled me.
We humans like knowing where the boundaries are so that we can avoid crossing them...or at least... avoid "looking like" we are crossing them. I have never met anyone who had the item "Go to prison!" on their list of things to do in this LIFE.
However, I believe that there is a built-in adreneline rush in seeing just how far you can "lead off first base" without being "picked off by the most cunning & skillful pitcher." The point is that you can't even do that without clearly-defined "bases" and "base lines."
I know that this has been a rather long "Pat on the Back," but I just wanted the Site Council to know how grateful I am that you are "rewriting" the Challenge Rules in very specific almost-legalese. This gives me great hope & confidence for the future of my participation in DPC.
If I ever choose to "lead off the bag" and in so doing "get picked off," then you will hear NO COMPLAINTS from me about any DQ because I will know that whoever "picked me off" was better at "playing the game" that day than I was. I will salute you for you, my most-worthy opponent, won that round. However, when I am "picked off" twice for "leading off" a bag I can't see and didn't want to "lead off", then I'm overwhelmed and lose any thrill corresponding to trying to "steal second base."
Finally, WHEN I become the competent photographer that is my potential & WHEN I win my first of many BLUE RIBBONS on DPC, then I will want to know that every other photographer in that contest was at their best for that event because WHEN I win I want to be the BEST of the BEST, not the Best of the Worst.
Message edited by author 2006-10-24 09:38:49.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 09:46:20 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
... However, when I am "picked off" twice for "leading off" a bag I can't see and didn't want to "lead off", then I'm overwhelmed and lose any thrill corresponding to trying to "steal second base." ... |
Ok. Made me look. Bummer about the back-to-back DQ's. |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 03:08:29 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by excerpt from Advanced Editing rules:
Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. 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 (even those taken during the challenge week), and other similar items. |
The first sentence states the entry must come from a single photograph, but a photograph is the finished product. |
Duly noted, but seemingly correct definitions sometimes don't work so well in practice. If you substitute "exposure" in the above rule, "Your entry must come from a single exposure...," then you preclude legal "multiple exposure" images taken with one click of the shutter. |
Maybe you are referring to a technique for simulating multiple exposures that I am not aware of, but I don't see how this is so. The technique of using a long exposure in place of several shorter ones, covering the lens periodically, while simulating multiple exposures is still only exposing the sensor to light once. That the level of light changes during the exposure doesn't much matter as far as I can see.
I will grant you I said nothing about multiple exposures done in-camera, but those are generally done with two (or more?) clicks of the shutter. There is a specific over-riding statement about everything legal in camera so I didn't see the need to include it.
If there are other ways to simulate multiple exposures with a single click of the shutter I would like to here what they are. :)
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't necessarily agree with your definitions, either. For example, the common phrase "take a photograph" refers to the capture, not a finished product. |
Well ... I certainly didn't expect the definitions I put forward to be accepted as a finished product -- they were to illustrate the need. However, I believe you have demonstrated the need for solid definitions for key terms better than I. Your example of the use of 'photograph' illustrates quite clearly how muddy it can get when relying on common usage. Common usage results from people using terms they do not understand.
Instamatics give little control over the process from exposure to photograph. The exposure is taken, the camera or lab boys 'do something' and the finished photograph comes back. It is all one action so the common usage became ambiguous. We, however, are quite interested in the 'do something', so relying common usage only leads to confusion.
Very good example indeed.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Don't worry, we've got it covered in the impending revision (coming very soon to a challenge site near you). ;-) |
Good to hear.
Let's see ... it was coming 'soon' 8 months ago, so 'very soon' would mean ... well, it would have to be at least an order of magnitude difference or it wouldn't be 'very' ... so, at least half as long a wait or coming twice as soon would put it sometime within the next 4 months. Cool, birthday present for me! ;)
David
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 03:15:23 PM · #393 |
next 4 months. yea, within that time. ;)
maybe even very, very soon. |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 03:15:40 PM · #394 |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 03:32:11 PM · #395 |
I just hope the new rules will be clear , for some of us english is not the first language.
I still don't understand why this photo was DQ'd  .
My rule when editing is : if I'm not sure I don't do.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:06:08 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by Mambe:
I just hope the new rules will be clear , for some of us english is not the first language.
I still don't understand why this photo was DQ'd .
My rule when editing is : if I'm not sure I don't do. |
Ya that one was a pretty soft call. I would have felt stung on that one too. Oh well, it's probably inevitable that there will be cases like this.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:18:45 PM · #397 |
3) Using RAW to process one exposure twice. This is used to increase the dynamic range of a picture rather than "trick" photography. Legal in advanced, not in basic.
 [/quote]
hence If I process the raw with rawshooter essentials and obtain 2 tiff files, I open these files in photoshop and copy in two layers of a same canvas. After this process I can clear areas, choose the trasparency of levels and other is legal.
Is this correct? |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:22:22 PM · #398 |
I looked sandy's picture up (and it is indeed a wonderful one). The reason for the dq was that there are details in the background, and in post-processing they were completely obliterated.
Just thought I'd throw that out there cuz you asked.
And yes,I believe the rules (coming soon) are easier to understand now, with one major reason being that English is not a first language for many. |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:32:00 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by Rino63:
3) Using RAW to process one exposure twice. This is used to increase the dynamic range of a picture rather than "trick" photography. Legal in advanced, not in basic.
|
hence If I process the raw with rawshooter essentials and obtain 2 tiff files, I open these files in photoshop and copy in two layers of a same canvas. After this process I can clear areas, choose the trasparency of levels and other is legal.
Is this correct? [/quote]
In advanced, yes. In basic, no.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:40:22 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by David.C:
The technique of using a long exposure in place of several shorter ones, covering the lens periodically, while simulating multiple exposures is still only exposing the sensor to light once. |
I consider that a true multiple exposure. You expose the sensor to light multiple times for a single capture, but cover the sensor with a lens cap rather than the shutter. Same principle IMO. |
|
