| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2007 02:26:51 PM · #126 |
| To come back to the original subject of this thread, I think that ME in camera should be allowed because it is even possible to do it using a 35 mm SLR. I have seen many clever use of this technique in conventionnal photography. That being said, I will comply on this new rule. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:29:57 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
So rather than rewarding someone for being really clever, I often just assumed it was done the simple "camera trick" way - something I find much less exciting.
Now I will know (to a pretty high degree of certainty) that it isn't just a camera function. |
Why does it matter to you exactly "how" something was done?
If someone cooks a meal for you, are you more impressed if they drive 300 miles to a grocery store in another city rather than the one down the block?
Is the meal any better?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:31:22 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by super-dave:
scalvert ... sorry ... but kirbic has already said that there are reasons that site council aren't discussing it ... so that IS secretive. |
There's more than one reason. One "big picture" reason is that combining multiple FILES conflicts with long-standing contest rules. |
ok ... i don't interpret it that way ... because when it comes OUT of the camera it's ONE FILE. i've done multiple exposures in my D200 and i must instruct the camera by telling it how many exposures i'm taking. it then uses the FIRST photograph in that series to create the exif data. so by all definitions, it's ONE FILE. multiple images in photoshop are the combination of TWO or more files.
there's no way of exploiting that, because ME photos will show a date that's based on the first image ... you're bundling image overlay and multiple exposure together, but you don't need to because nikon software knows that they are different and records that information.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I only correct spelling errors in posts when the error introduces a significant ambguity or change in meaning, or when it's too funny to pass up. I have sufficient other outlets for my pedantic tendencies that I don't need to compulsively change every typo I see. |
my comment was an observation, not an insult ... you've chosen to construe it that way. since there was no ambiguity as to the meaning of my statement, you obviously thought it was funny to correct my error ... bravo!! and this being the internet, it's retarded to point out other people's spelling errors. well, unless you've never misspelled or mistyped anything online, which i strongly doubt.
btw, before you ban me or hide my posts again, i'm not calling you retarded, i'm saying that your comment is retarded. see, i'm labeling your actions, rather than the person. yet another subtle difference.
now, when you're done being condescending ...
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:32:26 PM · #129 |
| I think if you want to blame anybody, you should blame Nikon. Exif files should accurately tell you what has happened to create the image. If part of the image involves an import, the exif should reflect that. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:33:06 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Is the meal any better? |
No, but I'd probably feel a greater appreciation for a meal that required a lot of effort vs. a high-end TV dinner- even if they tasted the same. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:34:07 PM · #131 |
@super-dave:
I didn't hide your post. I knew nothing about it until quite a bit later. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:35:45 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In-camera features have been allowed, but in-camera editing is fairly new. Most of the rules address what you can and can't do with editing, and as such functions are incorporated into the cameras, we'll have to take that into consideration as we've done in this case. |
This is semantics at its very worse.
Scalvert, it's one thing to make a decision that you feel is good for the site and stick to it.. it's another thing entirely to start justifying that decision in the face of ranting by saying things like this.
Multiple Exposures done in-camera isn't really that much different than applying any other camera feature (such as B&W filters.. or stretching/warping a photo.. or whatever else cameras can do with in-camera software). It's still a *feature*.. and they're all still *editing* as well.
What happened here is that a camera decided to allow a feature that really went outside the rules.. in the image overlay. This will.. and probably does, although you can't talk about it.. lead to abuse. Unfortunately, because it also can't be differentiated so much from Multiple Exposures.. that feature (that has long been -- relatively -- worry free and allowed) must be tanked as well.
Ok. I get that. It's absolutely stupid.. but I understand it.
What I do dislike, however, are people that should know better trying to justify that decision by being semantic about it and pretending that out-of-rules editing is different from in-rules editing by using different names for the same darn thing, and only serving to further confuse the point in the first place.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:37:33. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:35:58 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
@super-dave:
I didn't hide your post. I knew nothing about it until quite a bit later. |
And to add, I only hid your first post. The second I never touched, not once :) |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:37:19 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
...by all definitions, it's ONE FILE. multiple images in photoshop are the combination of TWO or more files. |
Hardly. You must combine two or more files in-camera to get that file. Whether it's done in-camera or in Photoshop, you're still combining multiple files to yield one. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:38:52 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why does it matter to you exactly "how" something was done?
If someone cooks a meal for you, are you more impressed if they drive 300 miles to a grocery store in another city rather than the one down the block?
Is the meal any better? |
If he slaved over a hot stove making it from scratch vs picking up the phone for delivery?
You BET it would make a difference to me! |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:39:18 PM · #136 |
i was thinking about this too. why would a popular camera maker among professionals cripple a feature causing it to leave behind no real evidence of when, in fact, the image was recorded. i see this being an issue with media related photos - potentially - if someone wanted to lie with the camera. at any rate - having no EXIF info would better than just making some up. at least with none you'd know something was up with the original file.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think if you want to blame anybody, you should blame Nikon. Exif files should accurately tell you what has happened to create the image. If part of the image involves an import, the exif should reflect that.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:39:59 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
@super-dave:
If you read about the first dozen or so posts in this thread, it is pretty obvious *why* the ruling was made; if it did not impact validation system, we would not be even considering making it illegal.
Your participation in the thread has not been positive, on the whole. It's been more on the order of angry lashing-out, including personal attacks on other users. That's unnecessary. If you disagree, that's fine. Please do it in a civil manner. |
i understood the implication but i disagree with the application. secondly, i'm not particularly concerned whether you view my participation as positive or negative.
Originally posted by dudephil:
Hardly biased.
I'm just trying to get a reasonable reply to my question and am having a tough time doing so. Sure, technology changes but in your opinion where should the line be drawn? Obviously not multiple exposures but where? How about my original post - should in camera advanced Photoshop techniques be allowed in all challenges since the final result is straight from camera? If so, why? If not, why not? |
tough time? i've made myself clear ... there is NO line ... you can't draw a line because you constantly have to rethink the boundaries of what this medium is capable of ... AT THIS EXACT POINT IN TIME multiple exposures are able to be created in camera ... and image overlays are perhaps problematic to the integrity of this site. so SC's responsibility is to consider that and find ways to make sure one is allowed without harming the other.
how is that not a simple reply??
further, regarding the camera with photoshop, then SC has to consider the application of that when it becomes readily available.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by super-dave:
...as technology changes, SC needs to consider the implications of it. |
Exhibit A: this thread.
Originally posted by super-dave:
...the rules have always allowed in camera editing as one of their basic assumptions. |
In-camera features have been allowed, but in-camera editing is fairly new. Most of the rules address what you can and can't do with editing, and as such functions are incorporated into the cameras, we'll have to take that into consideration as we've done in this case. |
in digital terms, a feature and editing are the same thing ... this is semantics. adding sepia to a photo is a digitally edited effect. it's not done with a filter. they're the same thing mate!! :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:40:01 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think if you want to blame anybody, you should blame Nikon. Exif files should accurately tell you what has happened to create the image. If part of the image involves an import, the exif should reflect that. |
it does tell you that -but only by using their software as well ..
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:40:49 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why does it matter to you exactly "how" something was done?
If someone cooks a meal for you, are you more impressed if they drive 300 miles to a grocery store in another city rather than the one down the block?
Is the meal any better? |
If he slaved over a hot stove making it from scratch vs picking up the phone for delivery?
You BET it would make a difference to me! |
He, he, spoken like a mother. But .... if the delivery pizza is better than what I made after slaving over the hot stove to make it from scratch, I'll take the delivery. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:41:39 PM · #140 |
Wow, this discussion is just amazing.
It's a rule. That's all it is. Every competition has its rules, otherwise there would be anarchy within the system. DPC is no different.
Not everyone agrees with every rule. But... in order to keep the "collective together", everyone must agree to abide by the rules.
And that's good enough for me.
If they suddenly said no more shooting raw (even though that's just about all I shoot), I would abide by it. Either by shooting jpegs for challenges ... or by not entering challenges. How hard is that?
In the end, some will be happy, some won't. Some will join the site because of the rules. Some will leave the site because of the very same rules.
But either way, I would much rather an SC that "sticks by their guns" than one that blows every which way in the wind every time they upset someone.
Kudos to the SC. Kudos to DPC.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:42:41 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by super-dave:
...by all definitions, it's ONE FILE. multiple images in photoshop are the combination of TWO or more files. |
Hardly. You must combine two or more files in-camera to get that file. Whether it's done in-camera or in Photoshop, you're still combining multiple files to yield one. |
the camera doesn't treat it that way. my nikon D200 says that it's one file with 5 shutter clicks. that's how it's taken.
i argue that it's one file.
which is exactly the same as film ... it's one film slide, that has been exposed multiple times! :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:42:42 PM · #142 |
I totally agree that image overlays should be illegal, but not allowing multiple exposures is one of the most ridiculous decisions that the SC has made since I've been a member. The fact that if someone can uses a shutter instead of a lens cap or flash to create multiple exposures is just plain silly and IMO (& respectively) narrow-minded.
As several have said multiple exposures have been around since photography was invented. This in camera creative technique is in my opinion less against the spirit of the rules than many allowable techniques such as HDR processing.
BTW, I̢۪ve never used multiple exposures on any entry here. Just about every camera I̢۪ve owned since the mid-eighties has had multiple exposure capabilities; I maybe use it once or twice a year. It is just it should be available is the subject/situation warrants it.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:43:49 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why does it matter to you exactly "how" something was done?
If someone cooks a meal for you, are you more impressed if they drive 300 miles to a grocery store in another city rather than the one down the block?
Is the meal any better? |
If he slaved over a hot stove making it from scratch vs picking up the phone for delivery?
You BET it would make a difference to me! |
This is getting pretty off topic.. but I had to add.. that's a bit of an unfair analogy in the first place. The images in challenges here aren't very much like a personal dinner being made for anyone.. it's more like being invited to a free taste-testing at a local event. Some of the food has been cooked from scratch, some of it has been frozen and re-heated, but spiced up and arranged artfully.
When you taste it, you find you really enjoy both versions.. and only find out later which way they were cooked.
Now.. *before* finding out, you liked each equally.. but after.. you might form an opinion and start convincing yourself that you probably actually liked the one that was cooked from scratch a little better..
hypothetically.
See? |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:44:58 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
...adding sepia to a photo is a digitally edited effect. |
That's true, but it's not editing that conflicts with longstanding DPC editing rules! It's only recently that we've seen the ability to combine multiple files or spot clone images in-camera. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:45:36 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
@super-dave:
I didn't hide your post. I knew nothing about it until quite a bit later. |
And to add, I only hid your first post. The second I never touched, not once :) |
don't worry about it ... i'm more upset about the multiple exposures ... i just got frustrated and lashed out the wrong way.
i actually expected that remark to be edited.
sorry! :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:46:51 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by super-dave:
...adding sepia to a photo is a digitally edited effect. |
That's true, but it's not editing that conflicts with longstanding DPC editing rules! It's only recently that we've seen the ability to combine multiple files or spot clone images in-camera. |
The *point* is.. which I tried to make as well.. is that you chose the wrong way to differentiate that. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:47:24 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
@super-dave:
I didn't hide your post. I knew nothing about it until quite a bit later. |
And to add, I only hid your first post. The second I never touched, not once :) |
don't worry about it ... i'm more upset about the multiple exposures ... i just got frustrated and lashed out the wrong way.
i actually expected that remark to be edited.
sorry! :) |
No problem. :) |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:49:10 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by super-dave:
...adding sepia to a photo is a digitally edited effect. |
That's true, but it's not editing that conflicts with longstanding DPC editing rules! It's only recently that we've seen the ability to combine multiple files or spot clone images in-camera. |
perhaps that's the problem "long standing DPC editing rules" ... i imagine this site would have to evolve very quickly due to the rapid changes in technology. and i understand that it's SC's job to keep up with that.
i admire the work you guys do, honestly ... but this is a backward decision. dpc rules should evolve with the technology. i do see that with some things, but editing is a big issue in digital photography.
a digital camera treats multiple exposures as ONE file ... and all 'features' of digital cameras are exactly the same editing process.
so you're saying 'features' and 'editing' like they're two different things, which they're not.
and you're saying that multiple exposures are more than one file, which they're not.
:)
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 14:51:31.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:50:08 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think if you want to blame anybody, you should blame Nikon. Exif files should accurately tell you what has happened to create the image. If part of the image involves an import, the exif should reflect that. |
it does tell you that -but only by using their software as well .. |
If that is the case, can't images in question be checked with Nikon software? |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:51:24 PM · #150 |
How is that not a simple reply? Well, for one you haven't shied away from your opinions on multiple exposures so why keep avoiding telling me your opinion on in camera advanced Photoshop techniques for basic challenges? I'm not talking about the SC's opinions, I'm asking about yours.
Originally posted by super-dave:
tough time? i've made myself clear ... there is NO line ... you can't draw a line because you constantly have to rethink the boundaries of what this medium is capable of ... AT THIS EXACT POINT IN TIME multiple exposures are able to be created in camera ... and image overlays are perhaps problematic to the integrity of this site. so SC's responsibility is to consider that and find ways to make sure one is allowed without harming the other.
how is that not a simple reply??
|
|
|
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: 07/18/2025 08:25:56 AM EDT.
