| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2007 01:09:13 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by super-dave:
...since i believe that D200 exif does state whether either technique was used, that means ME should not be a problem ...
right?
edit: fixed quotes. |
Wrong. Without discussing the nitty-gritty details, which I cannot do, believe me when I say that there are problems that are not surmountable at this writing. |
Can I repeat my question - if it is possible to detect ovrlay will the ME be reinstated?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:12:56 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by super-dave:
...since i believe that D200 exif does state whether either technique was used, that means ME should not be a problem ...
right?
edit: fixed quotes. |
Wrong. Without discussing the nitty-gritty details, which I cannot do, believe me when I say that there are problems that are not surmountable at this writing. |
Can I repeat my question - if it is possible to detect ovrlay will the ME be reinstated? |
It would have to be discussed. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:19:00 PM · #78 |
I'd like to look at this from a slightly different perspective: we currently have four rulesets: minimal, basic, advanced, and expert. Disregarding for the moment that there is a "qualifier" that says "whatever's done "in camera" is legal in all rulesets (except the image overlay/ME bit now, of course)", let's consider this:
Before this rule was changed, if you happened to have a camera that supported multiple exposure/exposure overlay, you could do "composited images" in any of the rulesets legally. But with these cameras, you have no way of checking that BOTH images used in the compositing were shot during the challenge timeframe. That's the problem. On the other hand, if compositing is done in photoshop (something pretty much all of us are able to do), then it's easy to check the legality of both/all images used in the composite.
If I understand what I'm reading correctly, when you use one of these cameras to create a composite image, the EXIF only records the time/date the composite was created, and that it IS a composite. So you have the problem that up until now any user of such a camera could load an old image onto his/her CF card, shoot a blank frame, composite the two, and have a "legal" image as far as EXIF went.
This presents an interesting scenario vis-a-vis expert editing, where you can make the argument that in-camera compositing should not even be allowed in expert editing, as the source images cannot be validated. While, of course, Photoshop compositing allows validation of all images.
I am assuming that when these cameras create a composite, the EXIF is tagged to show that it IS a composite? It just doesn't identify the sources, right?
For those who are saying this is a bad decision, I say "THINK about this!" As long as in-camera overlays are allowed (which thankfully they no longer are) then EVERY image made by one of these cameras and tagged as a composite is suspect. That's a hell of a situation.
I believe SC made the right decision for reasons of image validation alone. I also believe they made the right decision "morally"; I have always thought allowing in-camera multiple exposure is against the spirit of both basic and advanced editing, since they specifically forbid the combining of multiple images (as, obviously, does minimal editing even now).
My question is, "Given that these cameras allow overlaying an "old" image in such a way that its creation dates cannot be verified, doesn't this mean that the in -camera function should not even be allowed in EXPERT editing?"
R.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:19:02 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Wrong. Without discussing the nitty-gritty details, which I cannot do, believe me when I say that there are problems that are not surmountable at this writing. |
what??? you're kidding, right??
so, not only has site council decided to ban incamera ME ... but they're being secretive about why.
that's BS ... you can't ban something and then say WE CAN'T SAY WHY.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:19:45 PM · #80 |
I just did a quicky experiment
previous multiple exposures & images overlay s (both from 2006)
running 'strings' on the files i do not get the keywords
so they must be bit fields (not text) within the files so there is no way to determine if they were ME or Overlays (without using Nikon software)
OF COURSE if the SC were to use Nikon software to examine the files it would be obvious ...
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:21:37 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
For the record, the DSLR I'm mostly likely to buy in the near future is the D200, which can do just what's being banned, and that hasn't changed because of this decision.
I think that nothing should be legal in-camera that's illegal out of the camera. |
I agree with your last statement and if I didn't already have a D200 I'd conform to the first statement. I love my D200. I've always wondered why Nikon wasted time, effort, and camera space on such a useless option. That's what photoshop is for. They should spend their time figuring out how to get 1000 raw shots out of a battery, rather than 200 to 400. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:23:37 PM · #82 |
let me reiterate.
in a D200, image overlay exif is recorded based on IMAGE 1 ... which ever image the user defines as IMAGE 1 becomes the exif info.
in ME the FIRST IMAGE SHOT is the image used for exif.
these details are STRAIGHT from the D200 manual.
i don't know how ME can be exploited ... and SC is saying that it's a big freaking secret.
i admit that the only way to check the difference, as ralph already stated, is by using nikon software which does record that information.
since there are 3 SC with D200s, it only takes one person to check that information.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:24:57 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
They should spend their time figuring out how to get 1000 raw shots out of a battery, rather than 200 to 400. ;) |
they already did that with the D80 ... same battery, most of the same components, enormously improved battery life. :(
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:27:16 PM · #84 |
Uhhh. I think they can and I think they just did. To be honest, I never understood why it was allowed to begin with.
A quick point for all. There is a camera available now that has Photoshop built in. Does this mean that dodging, burning, healing, cloning, removing of major elements, or any spot editing done inside this camera should be allowed for a basic (or even minimal) challenge simply for the fact that it is a feature of the camera?
Originally posted by super-dave:
so, not only has site council decided to ban incamera ME ... but they're being secretive about why.
that's BS ... you can't ban something and then say WE CAN'T SAY WHY. |
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 13:30:49.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:27:26 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I believe SC made the right decision for reasons of image validation alone. I also believe they made the right decision "morally"; I have always thought allowing in-camera multiple exposure is against the spirit of both basic and advanced editing, since they specifically forbid the combining of multiple images (as, obviously, does minimal editing even now). |
I was about to write something like that, too - now I'll just second it :-)
Thank you, SC!
By the way, I would feel this way regardless of the type of camera I own. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:31:29 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Uhhh. I think they can and I think they just did. To be honest, I never understood why it was allowed to begin with.
A quick point for all. There is a camera available now that has Photoshop built in. Does this mean that dodging, burning, healing, cloning, removing of major elements, or any spot editing done inside this camera should be allowed for a basic (or even minimal) challenge simply for the fact that it is a feature in the camera? |
hmmm ... how do i best respond???
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CHALLENGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what part of that isn't understood?
since this site is based on DITIGAL photography, then the site has to adapt and incorporate new technologies.
I AGREE that the exploitation of technology is a concern. but banning in camera editing that is designed to mimic traditional camera features is not the right approach.
edit: fixed quotes, again! :(
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 13:32:02.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:32:29 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
that's BS ... you can't ban something and then say WE CAN'T SAY WHY. |
Sure they can. This isn't real life. It isn't the government. It's a private internet site. After reading Bears post I believe they must now ban it in all competition. If they don't it'll become ammunition for somebody.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:32:48 PM · #88 |
Sad ruling IMHO, I've enjoyed doing multi's since I got the Fuji S2,
 and now with the D200 and image overlay, . No problem, I'll adjust just fine as my single images need improvement anyway. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:33:04 PM · #89 |
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision.
BTW, this is only for challenge entries. If anyone wants to experiment with multi-exposures they can do so to their heart's content - we just can't submit those images to the challenges. And IMHO that's OK. Most every contest has limits, guidelines, and this is part of the limits here. The fun part is to figure out how to make it within those limits. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:34:44 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
they already did that with the D80 ... same battery, most of the same components, enormously improved battery life. :( |
Darn, good to hear they did something right. It's only a nit pic. If I'd not had a D70 first it would not have been such a PITA. The D70 would occasionally get 2000 raws if I weren't using VR.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:35:41 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have always thought allowing in-camera multiple exposure is against the spirit of both basic and advanced editing, since they specifically forbid the combining of multiple images (as, obviously, does minimal editing even now).
R. |
You see thats where our fundemental views differ. I don't see that as being against the spirit of an challenge. If we don't track the technology changes then we would be calling this site 'film-challenge' or some other such name.
If the technology does it and we can detect where the functions are being mis-used, that is loading old images, then we should allow it. If detection can't make the distinction then OK, but re-evaluate the ban when and if detection is possible.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:35:46 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision. |
that's called towing the party line ...
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:38:45 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by ursula:
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision. |
that's called towing the party line ... |
I am part of a group that I enjoy to be part of. Yes, it's towing the party line, but I like it that way. :)
towing or toeing?
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 13:41:57. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:40:44 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by ursula:
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision. |
that's called towing the party line ... |
You must be very strong to tow the line, but weak to toe the line ... I think the least you can do is to spell your insults correctly so they make sense. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:40:47 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision.
BTW, this is only for challenge entries. If anyone wants to experiment with multi-exposures they can do so to their heart's content - we just can't submit those images to the challenges. And IMHO that's OK. Most every contest has limits, guidelines, and this is part of the limits here. The fun part is to figure out how to make it within those limits. |
Right on! That's it in a nutshell. Why do they limit the performance of the golf ball on the PGA tour? There have been plenty of golf balls designed that can fly a HELL of a lot further and/or straighter than the "legal" golf balls. There have been putters designed that could make a mockery of current putting statistics, too, but they don't adhere to the (completely arbitrary) rules of the sport. You're free to use any of these balls or clubs when you are out playing for fun, but when you want to compete you have to agree to arbitrary rules.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:43:34 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by dwterry:
However, doing multiple exposures with a single shutter opening is still allowed, right?
(e.g. long exposure, fire the flash multiple times, or long exposure with the lens "uncovered" multiple times) |
Yes, that is still perfectly legal. |
Even if done well, such images will likely be voted down on the assumption that an illegal technique was used.
Yes, I'm well aware of the "Vote like it was legal" clause in the rules, but I doubt many follow it.
Effectively, this rule will kill those shots too. Well, any chance of success they might have otherwise had.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:44:12 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by ursula:
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision. |
that's called towing the party line ... |
You must be very strong to tow the line, but weak to toe the line ... I think the least you can do is to spell your insults correctly so they make sense. |
Beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:45:58 PM · #98 |
this seems sensible to me. if it were banned for other reasons outside of not being able to validate the source files i would disagree - but under the circumstances this makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My question is, "Given that these cameras allow overlaying an "old" image in such a way that its creation dates cannot be verified, doesn't this mean that the in -camera function should not even be allowed in EXPERT editing?" |
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 13:46:24.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:47:10 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Effectively, this rule will kill those shots too. Well, any chance of success they might have otherwise had. |
I don't agree. I, for one, will now trust (unless proven guilty) that the very clever photo I am looking at was actually done in a clever way, not just by some camera trick. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:48:13 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by ursula:
I love multis, very much, but I think it is a good decision. |
that's called towing the party line ... |
I didn't take this as an insult, but calling people names is an insult. I hid your other post. |
|
