| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2006 09:54:15 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable.
Originally posted by shannon:
Image stabilization, high ISO performance, shallow DOF ability, extreme wide angles or zoom, water resistance and high frame rates |
All of these are 'features' can be overcome with patience, setup, and perseverance; software based multiple exposures cannot. We all, every last one of us, has multiple exposure capability in PP - it's not logical to limit it to specific camera software.
Let me add: were it available in every last camera I would still be adamantly opposed to multiple exposure overlays for dpc challenges. I feel the shutter speed, aperture, and setup are the three constants defining photography, keeping these three constant for a challenge seems only logical.
Why? Shutter, aperture, setup - they define photography, not software-based 'camera features' (read: tricks).
I am not opposed, and openly welcome, uber-advanced multiple exposure no holds barred editing challenges on the now and again.
:) |
|
|
|
11/12/2006 10:05:20 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
|
What he said! |
|
|
|
11/12/2006 10:32:08 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by shannon:
Image stabilization, high ISO performance, shallow DOF ability, extreme wide angles or zoom, water resistance and high frame rates |
All of these are 'features' can be overcome with patience, setup, and perseverance... |
I don't see how all of these can be overcome with patience, setup, and perseverance. For example, I've gotten a lot of shots using a 10mm focal length on my Canon 350D that could never be done with a point and shoot camera. A point-and-shoot simply can not shoot that wide. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
11/12/2006 10:35:17 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/12/2006 11:12:08 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
That's a good point, actually. I never really thought about that. Shots like Daniel does could more easily be done with multiple exposures merged, arguably, but could we tell the difference?
Maybe we should outlaw Daniel too? jejeje� Just to be on the safe side?
R. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 12:04:30 AM · #356 |
I was just now reminded of a very good (in my opinion) suggestion someone else proposed in the past: allowing some type of modification to remove license plate characters from photos.
It would be a simple thing to allow cloning out* of the characters so that they are not visible, and that way if people feel that revealing information like this is something they do not want to do, they would not have to worry about breaking the rules and would still be able to submit their shot. I don't think it should be mandatory but - as I see it - it wouldn't be a big deal to allow it.
*or blurring. I think probably allowing one or the other instead of both would help keep things simpler.
edit: Talking about allowing this in basic as well as advanced.
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 00:21:45. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 12:09:29 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings. No one else may post-process your entry for you
How is the above enforceable? Yet it's a rule. Why not do the same with multiple exposures? |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 10:20:50 AM · #358 |
This one seems pretty straight forward, but it came up on the podcast
In basic,
use a cloning tool or small healing brush for the sole purpose of removing sensor dust or hot pixels. No other spot-editing is allowed.
So I wouldn't be able to say clone out a spot on a model's face or remove some small distracting hairs/ tree branches, right ?
I just need to line up my dust bunnies with the spots on the model, then clone them out ? ;)
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 10:26:24 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wouldn't be able to say clone out a spot on a model's face or remove some small distracting hairs/ tree branches, right ?
I just need to line up my dust bunnies with the spots on the model, then clone them out ? ;) |
Correct, but makeup would be easier. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 10:29:19 AM · #360 |
EDIT: shannon beat me to it...
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 10:29:47.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 11:27:56 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
Enforceability is the only correct answer. :)
When in doubt, ask the photog for their setup. Simple. Easy. Problem fixed.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 11:30:01 PM · #362 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Is there now a limit (previously unlimited) on combining multiple versions of the same RAW file? |
No there isn't (as long as you're working from the same original). |
Yeah baybee. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 11:35:29 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
Enforceability is the only correct answer. :)
When in doubt, ask the photog for their setup. Simple. Easy. Problem fixed. |
Not if they lie, which does happen.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 11:48:35 PM · #364 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
Enforceability is the only correct answer. :)
When in doubt, ask the photog for their setup. Simple. Easy. Problem fixed. |
Not if they lie, which does happen.
~Terry |
Hmm, now I'm confused/concerned... does this conversation mean using a piece of software (ie, Photomatix) to make an HDR image from several exposure settings of the same RAW file is not legal?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 12:32:43 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
Enforceability is the only correct answer. :)
When in doubt, ask the photog for their setup. Simple. Easy. Problem fixed. |
Not if they lie, which does happen.
~Terry |
Hmm, now I'm confused/concerned... does this conversation mean using a piece of software (ie, Photomatix) to make an HDR image from several exposure settings of the same RAW file is not legal?
|
That's currently legal in Advanced.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:30:37 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I was just now reminded of a very good (in my opinion) suggestion someone else proposed in the past: allowing some type of modification to remove license plate characters from photos.
It would be a simple thing to allow cloning out* of the characters so that they are not visible, and that way if people feel that revealing information like this is something they do not want to do, they would not have to worry about breaking the rules and would still be able to submit their shot. I don't think it should be mandatory but - as I see it - it wouldn't be a big deal to allow it.
*or blurring. I think probably allowing one or the other instead of both would help keep things simpler.
edit: Talking about allowing this in basic as well as advanced. |
Looks like you got ignored there :-)
It's not a bad idea to allow this at all.
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 01:30:51.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 01:37:11 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Looks like you got ignored there :-)
It's not a bad idea to allow this at all. |
Easy in a thread like this I think!
Yeah, I think it's a good idea but I can imagine potential problems like: how do you draw the line on what identifiable info gets to be "allowed"? |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 06:44:52 AM · #368 |
could someone from the administration please tell me if it's allowed for me to take a picture for the white on white challenge *now*?
I've been disqualified for one week..yeah...:) but the disqualification ends this thursday and the submission is until this sunday...
I just wanted to check it because I don't want to be disqulkified again and again!:)
thank you!
Svetlana |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 07:18:54 AM · #369 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
could someone from the administration please tell me if it's allowed for me to take a picture for the white on white challenge *now*?
I've been disqualified for one week..yeah...:) but the disqualification ends this thursday and the submission is until this sunday...
I just wanted to check it because I don't want to be disqulkified again and again!:)
thank you!
Svetlana |
The easiest (and surest) way to get hold of the SC is to use the Help menu's Contact option to submit a ticket -- that is send them a message.
From a non-SC point of view, once your able to submit again you may submit any photo you have that fits the rules of submission. That is; taken with a digital camera by you after the challenge was announced.
Even if I'm wrong, at worst you'll get a bit of practice in for your image. :D
David
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 07:34:01 AM · #370 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by kirbic:
What Shannon said :-P
Yes, it's cheesy and tacky, and the increasing migration of these kinds of functions to cameras means that at some point soon we may need to revisit this. |
Why not visit is now and say one shutter activiation and be done with it? I have yet to hear one coherent, justifiable, rational explanation for allowing in-camera software-based multiple exposures when such software based images generated out of camera are not acceptable. |
Enforceability is a potential issue. We'd have to be sure we could tell that someone had violated the rule by looking at a submitted original.
~Terry |
Enforceability is the only correct answer. :)
When in doubt, ask the photog for their setup. Simple. Easy. Problem fixed. |
Not if they lie, which does happen.
~Terry |
And people could lie about who took the photo and who processed the image.
So we're now all in agreement this
You may
- use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.
Will be changed to
You may
- while photographing your entry, use any feature of your camera that does not violate any rule.
eta-
Rules are for the honest, not the dishonest; if someone is going to cheat they will cheat regardless of the rules in place, there should be no accomodations made for these people - ie, not having a logical rule simply because an exceptionally small minority will violate it.
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 07:58:46.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 07:39:43 AM · #371 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Even if I'm wrong, at worst you'll get a bit of practice in for your image. :D
David |
thank you so much David! :) I'll try then! |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 08:58:11 AM · #372 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
So we're now all in agreement this
You may
- use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.
Will be changed to
You may
- while photographing your entry, use any feature of your camera that does not violate any rule.
|
So somebody with a tilt-shift lens can't use it in a basic rules challenge because it can change the perspective? And (also under basic rules) gradulated ND filters can't be used because the don't apply an effect evenly to the entire image? And how about polarizing filters?
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:21:51 AM · #373 |
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by alfresco:
So we're now all in agreement this
You may
- use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.
Will be changed to
You may
- while photographing your entry, use any feature of your camera that does not violate any rule.
|
So somebody with a tilt-shift lens can't use it in a basic rules challenge because it can change the perspective? And (also under basic rules) gradulated ND filters can't be used because the don't apply an effect evenly to the entire image? And how about polarizing filters? |
jejeje� You've hit the nail on the head there. I'm sure that's EXACTLY why they're having a hard time "outlawing" in-camera composites such as the D-200 can make; where are you gonna draw the line? Although polarizing filters effect the whole image equally.... UNlike a GND, anyway :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:34:37 AM · #374 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by alfresco:
So we're now all in agreement this
You may
- use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.
Will be changed to
You may
- while photographing your entry, use any feature of your camera that does not violate any rule.
|
So somebody with a tilt-shift lens can't use it in a basic rules challenge because it can change the perspective? And (also under basic rules) gradulated ND filters can't be used because the don't apply an effect evenly to the entire image? And how about polarizing filters? |
jejeje� You've hit the nail on the head there. I'm sure that's EXACTLY why they're having a hard time "outlawing" in-camera composites such as the D-200 can make; where are you gonna draw the line? Although polarizing filters effect the whole image equally.... UNlike a GND, anyway :-)
R. |
that's why the rules need to be simplified and standardized to level the playing field for everyone and not give advantages to higher tech cameras. Especially in basic challenges. Same goes for standardizing for processing software. The issue with a polarizing filter versus a GND is not that simple of an issue. It's like saying a GND is not legal but selective color is or selective saturation is legal. The GND is effecting the entire image in the same way that using selective color and just adjusting the the red or yellow channel. To me selective color and individual color saturation should not be allowed under basic. It really is very little different than using a section tool and then changing defined areas of a photo. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:42:43 AM · #375 |
Originally posted by talmy:
So somebody with a tilt-shift lens can't use it in a basic rules challenge because it can change the perspective? And (also under basic rules) gradulated ND filters can't be used because the don't apply an effect evenly to the entire image? And how about polarizing filters? |
the current debate about the rules is focused on in-camera software features only. lens features, filters, filter-stacking, pinhole lens, lensbaby...anything done outside of the camera body is fine.
fwiw, the advanced rules actually say:
Originally posted by Advanced Rules:
You may not...
...use software to correct perspective...
|
there's nothing wrong with perspective corrections if you can do it outside of the camera and software. ;) fly superman down to straighten out those bowed buildings, kids! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:45:42 AM EDT.
