| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2006 03:26:07 PM · #1 |
Why was this DQ'd for using multiple images when the extra challenge rules specifically allowed it?
Of course, I voted it low as it was clear to me that this was a composite, and not quite representative of HDR, but I dont understand why it should've been DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 03:30:28 PM · #2 |
| Not sure either, it wasn't clearly stated that it had to be images of the same composition, hence this should have been allowed through (although it's clearly not what the admins had in mind with multiple shots, when they meant multiple exposures for the purpose of HDR processing). |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 03:32:19 PM · #3 |
| Although we allowed multiple source images for purposes of HDR, we didn't mean to allow compositing of *different* source images. We'll need to chalk this one up to misunderstanding. In retrospect, perhaps it would have been good to have qualified the use of multiple captures with "...for purposes of dynamic range enhancement only." It's difficult to forsee every eventuality, though. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 03:39:35 PM · #4 |
| Technically that should have been legal but I can see why it was DQed. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:04:06 PM · #5 |
| Sometimes it best not to take a thing too literally and just apply some common sense to a situation. I am pretty sure everyone knew what the multiple exposures comment was for. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:09:19 PM · #6 |
| While I tend to agree with the common sense thing, it's also important to remember that things are not always as readily obvious to new members as they are to those of us who have been around for some time. While the SC have it within their right to DQ anything that runs afoul of the "spirit of the rules," it's always nice to have more clarity so that that situation can be avoided. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:20:29 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mk:
While I tend to agree with the common sense thing, it's also important to remember that things are not always as readily obvious to new members as they are to those of us who have been around for some time. While the SC have it within their right to DQ anything that runs afoul of the "spirit of the rules," it's always nice to have more clarity so that that situation can be avoided. |
I agree.
I think it was a tad unfair to DQ this shot under the multiple exposure rule, when the challenge description clearly stated that more than one capture could be used, and didn't state that they had to be of the same thing.
Live and learn I suppose. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:33:56 PM · #8 |
Sorry mate but I disagree. Its like buying a Hot Coffee from McDonalds and then suing the restaurant because it didn't say "Warning: Contents HOT!" on the carton. Some things are just OBVIOUS and dont need spelling out word for word.
Just apply some of the gray matter to the situation... sheesh.. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:40:12 PM · #9 |
The "one exposure" rule was waived for the challenge, but this rule was still in effect: You may not... add parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing.
The challenge allowed you to use many exposures of the same image to increase dynamic range, but combining multiple images into a new composition was still illegal. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:45:19 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Sorry mate but I disagree. Its like buying a Hot Coffee from McDonalds and then suing the restaurant because it didn't say "Warning: Contents HOT!" on the carton. Some things are just OBVIOUS and dont need spelling out word for word.
Just apply some of the gray matter to the situation... sheesh.. |
Well to be fair this wasn't a typical challenge.
Challenge Theme: HDR
Description: You should employ the use of HDR on your entry. Don't know what HDR is? Check the forums!
Extra Rules: For this challenge, you may create your entry from more than one capture.
Not a whole lot of info to go by. It's obvious to me what HDR is but judging by the fact that there were only 82 entrants I'm guessing it wasn't exactly crystal clear to the masses. In any case it was certainly an honest mistake especially when you see others use multiple exposures in-camera which are a merger of totally different captures and those are legal. So I can see how someone would put 2 and 2 together.
Message edited by author 2006-11-20 17:07:04. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 04:59:17 PM · #11 |
I tend to agree with Yanko here. While those of us in the HDR swim, who read the forums extensively, knew exactly what was going on, it's very easy to see how someone outside that loop might be completely unaware of what was pushing this challenge. Since the extra rule doesn't seem to exclude what was done here (the submitter used "more than one capture"), it seems to me pretty harsh to slap down a DQ on the record, which forces a 25-challenge danger zone on submissions.
If the rule had said something like "For this challenge, you may make multiple captures of the same scene and merge them for the purpose of increasing dynamic range" then this would not have happened...
R. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 05:02:49 PM · #12 |
Before this becomes a knock-down, drag-out like Doctornick's DQ thread, I'd just like to observe that:
1.) Yes, it could have been clearer.
2.) Yes, it was a misunderstanding.
3.) No, it's not feasible to clarify every challenge description to the point where there will *never* be a misunderstanding.
Per Scalvert's post, we still felt that for consistency it should be DQ'd. That is no reflection on the photog, who submitted it in good faith. It's really nothing to raise a fuss over. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 05:05:16 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...it seems to me pretty harsh to slap down a DQ on the record, which forces a 25-challenge danger zone on submissions... |
Although it has not been discussed, it probably should be. This should not in fact be counted toward penalty assessment. I'll bring it up. Thanks, Robert for mentioning it. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 05:13:49 PM · #14 |
That sucks. I don't like this at all. I mean clearly that was not the intention of a HDR challenge, but the dq in question did simple follow the extra rules. I think kirbic should aggressively consider not penalizing like suggested.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 06:16:06 PM · #15 |
i'd agree ... ;}
Originally posted by kirbic:
Although it has not been discussed, it probably should be. This should not in fact be counted toward penalty assessment. I'll bring it up. Thanks, Robert for mentioning it. |
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 06:21:04 PM · #16 |
and the frittilary was obviously stolen from my entry and modified!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 06:24:26 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...it seems to me pretty harsh to slap down a DQ on the record, which forces a 25-challenge danger zone on submissions... |
Although it has not been discussed, it probably should be. This should not in fact be counted toward penalty assessment. I'll bring it up. Thanks, Robert for mentioning it. |
Good deal.....
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 06:33:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...it seems to me pretty harsh to slap down a DQ on the record, which forces a 25-challenge danger zone on submissions... |
Although it has not been discussed, it probably should be. This should not in fact be counted toward penalty assessment. I'll bring it up. Thanks, Robert for mentioning it. |
Thanx, Fritz. That's my only real concern here.
R. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 09:20:35 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
Why was this DQ'd for using multiple images when the extra challenge rules specifically allowed it?
Of course, I voted it low as it was clear to me that this was a composite, and not quite representative of HDR, but I dont understand why it should've been DQ'd. |
A composite is an undeniable quality of HDR. The use of multiple exposure the basis of the technique, which has followed and been inspired by historical darkroom technical precedent for reasons of either clarity or collage. The element of time lapse is inherent to HDR multiple exposure, either hundredths of a second, an hour, a day, a year - how would those kind of exposures combined be judged.
I am disappointed, given the latitude of the challenge description that some less timid submissions of full file collage were not submitted.
Even though I did not enter this challenge, my own considerations about the subject include utilizing composites from completely different subjects such as this.
I note the strict interpretation of use of HDR as explained by the sc, but I would not agree for this challenge.
For me the effect of this Seaside meditation. by beaflies
Is not distinguishable from the DQ'd entry.
edit to note that the butterfly detail in What's That On My Nose? by noraneko is undoubtedly cut & paste rather than a merged HDR and no doubt is a reason for the DQ on his image. My mistake to assume it was a HDR effect.
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 07:27:27. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 02:17:31 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...it seems to me pretty harsh to slap down a DQ on the record, which forces a 25-challenge danger zone on submissions... |
Although it has not been discussed, it probably should be. This should not in fact be counted toward penalty assessment. I'll bring it up. Thanks, Robert for mentioning it. |
Fair enough then. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:58:13 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Even though I did not enter this challenge, my own considerations about the subject include utilizing composites from completely different subjects such as this.
|
Can you explain what makes this HDR? |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 08:32:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Even though I did not enter this challenge, my own considerations about the subject include utilizing composites from completely different subjects such as this.
|
Can you explain what makes this HDR? |
I already know why this is HDR. However for your verification mk, about all I could say about your question is that this result which you see, was made utilizing three full frame images - tiff files and merged into one 32-bit HDR source file via HDR software technology. No cut & paste, dodge & burn or traditional layers were involved. In photoshop - 16 bit conversion adjustments and sharpen, resize, save for web. It is not a conventional method of working with HDR and the result may or may not meet anyone's expectations. I would have considered this a legal entry in HDR challenge I.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 08:40:32 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
this result which you see, was made utilizing three full frame images - tiff files and merged into one 32-bit HDR source file via HDR software technology. |
Just because you used HDR software doesn't mean the result is HDR. Actually, it doesn't appear that you've increased the dynamic range at all. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:18:04 PM · #24 |
| As I said earlier the result may not meet expectations. Just because dynamic range is an option does not mean one is able to use it well. You can call it anything you want. The result is 32 bit processing. Currently called HDR and the only easily available method of this kind of manipulation. To be sure dynamic range, is only but one element of HDR processing, and a worthy goal. It may be a significant & popular use, however the process does respond to other intentions and surprises. Intentionally restricting how the many other qualities of 32 bit processing, ( a more descriptive title for HDR ) can or should be utilized probably will not eliminate experiments. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:31:01 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
To be sure dynamic range, is only but one element of HDR processing |
Wait a sec ... (not wanting to argue, but) ... isn't that like saying "neutral tones" is but one element of B&W processing? The words "dynamic range" in "High Dynamic Range" would seem to indicate that "dynamic range" *is* the goal of HDR processing.
Color me confused. 
|
|
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: 10/15/2025 10:30:54 AM EDT.
