DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> In-Camera Multiple Exposures to be Disallowed
Pages:  
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 284, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/25/2007 11:53:51 AM · #226
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
I dont think the double exposure effect is well achieved with a lens cap but if you can go ahead lol.


Been done that way since the beginning of photography. What do you see as the difference that makes it inferior?
 02/25/2007 12:02:29 PM · #227
No difference between the lens cap technique and in-camera ME, the results are the same. Just one is a bit easier than the other.
 02/25/2007 12:06:40 PM · #228
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
No difference between the lens cap technique and in-camera ME, the results are the same. Just one is a bit easier than the other.


Id figure using a peiece of black stock paper to slide back and forth... be easier if u had something attached to the end of the lense it could insert into.

Maybe im just clumsy with lense caps.
 02/25/2007 12:08:01 PM · #229
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Maybe im just clumsy with lense caps.


Me too... so I'd use multiple strobe bursts instead :-)
 02/25/2007 12:11:39 PM · #230
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Cause i know somewhere down the line someone could call an external device that covers the lense opens and closes an external shutter.... i know its a stretch but im just taking the opportunity to stretch it before someone actually tries to.


Yeah, it's called a lens cap.


I dont think the double exposure effect is well achieved with a lens cap but if you can go ahead lol.






Both ribbon winners. Both done with what is, effectively, the "lens cap" method.
 02/25/2007 02:04:50 PM · #231
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
No difference between the lens cap technique and in-camera ME, the results are the same. Just one is a bit easier than the other.


I disagree. They are not the same for two reasons. (1) with lens cap you have to do relatively long exposures (your hand is just a lot slower than the shutter) which excludes a lot of images; (2) The D200 has "auto-gain" for exposure with MEs, doing MEs with lenscaps is the same as overlays in results, not the same as MEs.

And as far as using strobes, well, that excludes a lot of outdoor photos.

I'm not saying that the lens cap or strobes methods aren't useful, but they are not the same as the built in ME of the D200.

Message edited by author 2007-02-25 14:06:33.
 02/25/2007 02:36:59 PM · #232
So let me see. The owner of this site made a decision for his business. The users of his site don't like it. Many conplain.

Let's put it a different way and compare business models a little:
WalMart decides to change the way they do business. This is a board decision. Customers don't like it. Customers go to target from then on. Walmart still is the biggest retailer in the world. People still complain but Walmart still gets new customers and makes more money. In fact a large number of "WalMart Hater's" still shop at Walmart because deep down it's the best around.

So isn't there another photo challenge site that many have talked about here? Seems funny that everyone didn't jump ship. Great to see ya'll still think DPC is worth staying with.
 02/25/2007 02:39:15 PM · #233
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo.


LOL and I was only messing around with gary's camera for 5 minutes. :)


You what????
 02/25/2007 02:57:53 PM · #234
My highest score was this shot:



I had the concept in mind because my 35mm rebel could take multiple exposures. I just assumed my brand new 30D would have the same feature. When I found it didn't I had to create this shot but opening the shutter for 20 or 30 seconds and firing my flash by had at appropriate times. I know others have done something similar.

So if the sensor is essentially blind due to no light, even thought the shutter opens once, isn't that just one step removed from using a lens cap or other device?

Just playing devil's advocate here because I think it's not a bad idea to have the rule, but make it available in expert editing challenges.

Scott
 02/25/2007 03:00:45 PM · #235
Originally posted by scott180:
My highest score was this shot:



I had the concept in mind because my 35mm rebel could take multiple exposures. I just assumed my brand new 30D would have the same feature. When I found it didn't I had to create this shot but opening the shutter for 20 or 30 seconds and firing my flash by had at appropriate times. I know others have done something similar.

So if the sensor is essentially blind due to no light, even thought the shutter opens once, isn't that just one step removed from using a lens cap or other device?

Just playing devil's advocate here because I think it's not a bad idea to have the rule, but make it available in expert editing challenges.

Scott


It is, but the method you describe works because you need the flash to illuminate the subject. If you were to try and make the same in bright light, you couldn't.
 02/25/2007 04:41:22 PM · #236
I think that the decision is a good one.

There are a lot of rules that constrain the technical aspects of photography when shooting for DPC competitions. Film photography offers thousands of different methods of expression - many cannot be reproduced using a digital camera without using photoshop (and some not at all) - and vice versa.

Digital photography is different - the DPC rules should not simply apply limitations because those limitations apply in practice to film photography, nor be delimited simply because a technique is possible in film.

If we are to have rules (and I think the competition more interesting if we do), then we must accept that they will not simply mirror non-digital capability and restrictions.

IMO, internal coherency within the competition rules (the restriction on there being a single image/shutter actuation for both in- and out of- camera imagery) is more desirable than protecting some technique simply because that technique could have been used on film with relative ease.
 02/25/2007 04:56:40 PM · #237
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reason is exactly what Azrifel stated. You can upload an old image to your card and then overlay it with a blank image and you get a new image where it has the date of the blank but the scene of the old uploaded photo.


LOL and I was only messing around with gary's camera for 5 minutes. :)


You what????


Oops.....


02/25/2007 06:01:28 PM · #238
Grumble. Everyone seems to assume the only reason to use this feature is either for "trick" photography combining dissimilar images or somehow to cheat. It also provides a good way to increase exposure times, effectively ISO 10 on a camera otherwise limited to ISO 100. Combined with an ND8 filter to produce ISO 1.25, this allows long exposures in full sun. It also reduces noise by averaging the pixels.


I'll miss the opportunity to use this technique here.

What gets me is the D200 has two similar features, image overlay, and multiple exposure. These can be differentiated in the EXIF from each other as well from features "off". Image overlay combines any two images that could be taken at any time, and certainly would be an opportunity for abuse. Multiple exposure averages up to ten sequential exposures (shutter releases) before writing a single, averaged image to the memory card, and the images must be taken within 30 seconds of each other or the feature "times out". Actually, neither of these features can be used for cheating on the time stamps because the EXIF from the first image is the one that is used in the composite.

02/25/2007 06:24:29 PM · #239
Originally posted by talmy:
Actually, neither of these features can be used for cheating on the time stamps because the EXIF from the first image is the one that is used in the composite.


And the EXIF/Date can be edited quite easily.

Message edited by author 2007-02-25 18:25:04.
 02/25/2007 06:43:52 PM · #240
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by talmy:
Actually, neither of these features can be used for cheating on the time stamps because the EXIF from the first image is the one that is used in the composite.


And the EXIF/Date can be edited quite easily.


The first image doesn't necessarily have to be the oldest, and tampering with EXIF data will get you permanently banned.
 02/25/2007 06:48:57 PM · #241
Originally posted by scalvert:
permanently banned.


Permanently banned is simply relative. The person who had multiple accounts recently only received a year's ban (even though he is unlikely to return). The threat of permanent banning is, therefore, only relative. It was not used on that serious occasion.
 02/25/2007 06:50:29 PM · #242
Originally posted by talmy:
Grumble. Everyone seems to assume the only reason to use this feature is either for "trick" photography combining dissimilar images or somehow to cheat. It also provides a good way to increase exposure times, effectively ISO 10 on a camera otherwise limited to ISO 100. Combined with an ND8 filter to produce ISO 1.25, this allows long exposures in full sun. It also reduces noise by averaging the pixels.


I'll miss the opportunity to use this technique here.



EXACTLY!!!!!

Originally posted by talmy:

What gets me is the D200 has two similar features, image overlay, and multiple exposure. These can be differentiated in the EXIF from each other as well from features "off". Image overlay combines any two images that could be taken at any time, and certainly would be an opportunity for abuse. Multiple exposure averages up to ten sequential exposures (shutter releases) before writing a single, averaged image to the memory card, and the images must be taken within 30 seconds of each other or the feature "times out". Actually, neither of these features can be used for cheating on the time stamps because the EXIF from the first image is the one that is used in the composite.


Overlay can, because it takes the dates from the first image you pick, not the oldest image.
 02/25/2007 06:58:47 PM · #243
Originally posted by pineapple:
Originally posted by scalvert:
permanently banned.


Permanently banned is simply relative. The person who had multiple accounts recently only received a year's ban (even though he is unlikely to return). The threat of permanent banning is, therefore, only relative. It was not used on that serious occasion.


no, but it's been used at least three times since i've been on the SC. twice were for EXIF tampering.
 02/25/2007 07:11:11 PM · #244
Since the images can be shown to have Image Overlay ON

The SC 'could' request all pertinent images which would have to be checked as well - sure you could 'up date' a file with a blank image but it would show as a Image Overlay file .. & presumably you would have TO produce all the files that created that one ..

IF the SC are saying that they can't tell (or refuse to look at Nikon software) to tell that a person is NOT cheating there is nothing to prevent a person to use Image Overlay on a blank frame to remake/redate a image NOW

SO if you are using Nikon software to check for image overlays
you should be able to determine tell if a image is overlay or Multiple Exposure

therefore Multiple exposures should be allowed . (since you HAVE to check anyway :P )

(IMO Image Overlay should not be allowed .. in any case & if you really want to use it - it is easier to use in PSCS than in camera .. )


02/25/2007 07:12:41 PM · #245
So why not ban "overlay" and allow "multiple exposure" since the former is the culprit, the latter benign, and the EXIF shows the distinction?

Originally posted by ursula:

Overlay can, because it takes the dates from the first image you pick, not the oldest image.

02/25/2007 07:15:34 PM · #246
Am I reading some camera brand racism here?
 02/25/2007 07:28:49 PM · #247
Originally posted by talmy:
So why not ban "overlay" and allow "multiple exposure" since the former is the culprit, the latter benign, and the EXIF shows the distinction?

Originally posted by ursula:

Overlay can, because it takes the dates from the first image you pick, not the oldest image.


Because the tag that distinguishes MEs from overlays is proprietary to Nikon, and can't be read except with Nikon software.
 02/25/2007 07:31:13 PM · #248
Originally posted by ralph:
Since the images can be shown to have Image Overlay ON

The SC 'could' request all pertinent images which would have to be checked as well - sure you could 'up date' a file with a blank image but it would show as a Image Overlay file .. & presumably you would have TO produce all the files that created that one ..

IF the SC are saying that they can't tell (or refuse to look at Nikon software) to tell that a person is NOT cheating there is nothing to prevent a person to use Image Overlay on a blank frame to remake/redate a image NOW

SO if you are using Nikon software to check for image overlays
you should be able to determine tell if a image is overlay or Multiple Exposure

therefore Multiple exposures should be allowed . (since you HAVE to check anyway :P )

(IMO Image Overlay should not be allowed .. in any case & if you really want to use it - it is easier to use in PSCS than in camera .. )


You're right. The hitch is that SC would have to use Nikon software, and it isn't practical for SC to have to use camera specific software every time a maker decides to keep tags proprietary (or something like that).

02/25/2007 07:31:54 PM · #249
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
Am I reading some camera brand racism here?


No, you're reading it wrong; no camera brand racism.
 02/25/2007 07:35:49 PM · #250
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by ralph:
Since the images can be shown to have Image Overlay ON

The SC 'could' request all pertinent images which would have to be checked as well - sure you could 'up date' a file with a blank image but it would show as a Image Overlay file .. & presumably you would have TO produce all the files that created that one ..

IF the SC are saying that they can't tell (or refuse to look at Nikon software) to tell that a person is NOT cheating there is nothing to prevent a person to use Image Overlay on a blank frame to remake/redate a image NOW

SO if you are using Nikon software to check for image overlays
you should be able to determine tell if a image is overlay or Multiple Exposure

therefore Multiple exposures should be allowed . (since you HAVE to check anyway :P )

(IMO Image Overlay should not be allowed .. in any case & if you really want to use it - it is easier to use in PSCS than in camera .. )


You're right. The hitch is that SC would have to use Nikon software, and it isn't practical for SC to have to use camera specific software every time a maker decides to keep tags proprietary (or something like that).

but as i stated above the SC HAS TO check because otherwise date violation can not be checked since it can be circumvented using ImageOverlay
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 08:06:53 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 08:06:53 AM EDT.