| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2008 06:41:47 PM · #276 |
I typed this once and it disappeared when I hit submit, so will try one more time with feeling :)
I can't understand why there is a never a 'Digital Art' editing challenge to embrace and accept the creative freedom of the digital age.
This does not mean that I think traditional photography is obsolite by any means, but that the Digital Art area should be not only included , but celebrated and repected. Why not allow the more artistic expression of members who would enjoy and employ this style?
I know there will be members who say "You should submit digital art to other sites that cater to that " But Pure Digital Art sites actually frown on Photobased Art, so it is hard for the Photo artist to find a place to share his or her work.
Just some thoughts for what its worth :)
Thanks for 'listening'
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 06:42:12 PM · #277 |
I'm not a big fan of the HDR processing, since it is often terribly overdone in my opinion.
However, I still appreciate the new rules and their possibility.
The rules made perfect sense to me when I first read them, but since there is so much confusion about it all, I'm now afraid I am missing something crucial :-(
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 07:00:26 PM · #278 |
Thread summary for those not yet upto speed with the new rules ;-)
Originally posted by Langdon:
- Mainly, combining multiple captures to allow for things like true HDR, noise reduction, and time-lapse photography. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
- With regard to multiple processing of one RAW file, everything that has been legal is still legal as long as they are all of the same scene and all shot within the challenge window. |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- you may saturate, desaturate or color-shift your entry or existing objects within it. This means, for example, that you can turn a stop sign green, but you can't create a rainbow. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- replying to question - Are you saying that entering an HDR photo made up of 3 different exposures is LEGAL now? And if so and we won a challenge would we then email you the 3 that made up the HDR? - answer YES. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- If you introduced a model or object on one (or some) of the frames, then it's not a single scene. I suppose if a bird or flock of birds flew through the frame, it would probably be OK since it's a natural progression of a single scene, and not something the photographer introduced. |
Originally posted by Langdon:
- replying to question - Sooo, no multiple selves? answer - Yes sir. We're trying to keep the impossible-type-photography in Expert. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- replying to question - So could a shot that included a person walking by be considered a natural progression of a single scene if what you are shooting is a street scene? - answer - The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography." My guess is that if such a shot came up, you'd probably have some SC calling it time-lapse and others saying it was staged, with the photographer introducing an object. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- The idea is that you use a tripod to photograph a single scene. It can be a static scene (HDR or noise reduction) or an action scene (time-lapse), but you can't create composites from different scenes or add objects to some of the frames. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- you COULD take a series of someone running (natural motion), but you couldn't do something like this because the rule is not "intended to allow a subject to appear in multiple, arranged places within a scene." |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- Honestly, time-lapse was a bit of a wild card in our discussions, so we'll have to see what kind of Pandora's Box this opens with all you creative types out there. The current challenge will be a major test of the new rules. |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- answering a question - I can take shots as far apart as I like, right? - answer - Within the limits of the challenge dates, that is correct. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
answering the same question - Well, the object is to show progression of a single natural motion, so if it were a very slow motion (like your sunrise - sunset example), then it would be fine. I don't think you could photograph the same action sequence a dozen times and just pull out the best 10 frames though, because it wouldn't really be a time lapse of a natural motion IMO, but other SC will have to weigh in on that one. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
answering a question about intermediate frames - answer - I would say no. The rule on frames hasn't changed- "You may... add a border to the outside edge of your entry." |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
responding to aa question about the length of delay between frames - answer - Yes, that would be true of a sequence that occurs over a long time frame, but for a quick motion (a single water drop, for example) I would expect the files to be pretty close to sequential. If there's a gap of 26 frames between the last drop and the splash (or they're out of order), I would personally conclude that the photographer didn't shoot a time-lapse of a natural motion, but stitched together several different motions. I expect validations to be, um... interesting. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- You CAN erase to show the parts that changed. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- HDR is typically used for landscapes- combining different exposures of the same scene to deal with high-contrast light conditions. Time-lapse is supposed to record a moving subject. Either would be legal. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
- discussing the birdie image - answr - One person's view, and not a consensus, so take it for what it's worth... I believe this one would be legal. You didn't coach the bird ;-) and you've shown the progression of motion from the branch to the perch. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
answering the following question - So is the intention really to simply allow HDTR style images - answer - Oh no, not at all. What the intent is, is to exclude arbitrary composites, where the photographer chooses subject positions. If you're recording the natural progression of a subject's (or subjects') motion, then you're OK, and if you choose the positions where the subject will appear, regardless of a timeline, then you're not OK. Examples of shots that would be legal:
- HDTR shots
- Star trail shots constructed from multiple frames
- Shot of a child progressing down a slide or on a swing
We recognize that there is some grey area, and we'll need to build consensus on where that line is. The language of the rules *may* have to be tweaked, depending on how things go in the following weeks. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
- FWIW, we considered just allowing a narrow range of specific techniques, but we kept coming up with things that didn't fit those boxes, yet seemed like they should be allowed. In the end, we decided on more generic language that includes a *lot* of things, and only excludes arbitrary composite images. This should be easier to adjudicate as well, but we'll take that one as it comes 8-o |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
answering the following question - I am not clear on if the new rules permit creating a panorama of a scene from multiple shots. answer - Not legal. The framing changes from shot to shot. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
answering the following question - Can I now remove these distracting elements by selecting the best parts of each image? - answer - Though you're using multiple source images, you still have to comply with the balance of the Advanced rules, and those have, in large part, not changed. So you *are* allowed to remove small distractions, and using multiples is one way to do so |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
answering the following - If the goal is to photograph the plaza free of distracting elements, and there's no way to keep people out, and if you can do it by using multiple exposures and combining the empty segments of all of them. answer - An empty plaza is not time-lapse (there's no progression), nor is it HDR or noise reduction. It would just be an excuse to clone out prominent objects and still runs afoul of this rule: "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph." |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- discussing out of sequence 'frames' - I would say NOT legal for exactly the reason you stated: it wouldn't be "natural subject motion," but artificial motion simulated by pasting together frames from several different motions. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
answering the following - a composition whose framing does not change, with the exception of natural subject motion). answer -
Motion within a scene does not change the framing, and "natural subject motion" is exactly what it sounds like- movement of a subject following normal laws of physics. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- The time-lapse rule really isn't complicated: just point your tripod at some scene with an action moving across the frame. Shoot in burst mode to capture the movement and put the frames together. That's it. As long as you're recording a single, continuous action, it will be natural movement (unless you find a figure skater or gymnast who DON'T follow the laws of physics). We're just trying to avoid people piecing together Photoshop composites from different scenes or "creating" an artificial motion sequence from multiple series of events. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
- With regard to "editing to emptiness," we actually have been discussing this technique. The feeling is that it falls under the long-standing "removal of features" language. That means that, in effect, minor distractions that appear in one frame, but not in another (or in a different place) may be removed same as the old Advanced Rules. If, however, what's removed is deemed to be significant to the composition, then just like the old rules, DQ. |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- by picking and choosing the five people whose poses you like best, you are using multiple images to compose a scene. By exposing one photo for the people and one for the clouds, you are essentially using HDRI. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- Your framing cannot change (aside from the slight variations you might expect in a handheld shot). |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- The only changes are that you can enter a larger size now, you can combine multiple exposures of the same scene to control contrast or noise, and you can combine multiple exposures of the same action scene to show an object moving across the frame. That's pretty much it. |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
- Changing the focal length would change the framing (illegal), but many other camera settings would be fine. You could, for example, change the aperture on a macro shot for more depth of field. |
Originally posted by Kirbic:
answering the following question - What about changing the focal point? answer - Yes... this technique was specifically discussed. The technique is also useful in landscape photography, and probably elsewhere as well. |
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 19:04:32. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 07:23:25 PM · #279 |
Nice summary. We can now refer back to this when the DQs roll in. :P
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 19:23:39.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 07:33:16 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Thread summary for those not yet upto speed with the new rules ;-) |
Thanks, Falc. I was just thinking that I hope we're not expected to read this entire thread.
Now can you summarize the summary? ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 07:55:50 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
...but what if there's no border? :P |
It would still be multiple frames/scenes. |
No, it's multiple exposures of one scene, as has been discussed repeatedly in other places of this thread.
It follows the rules, however. Using transparency transitions it would be simple to make a (one might even say 'time lapse') photo where you move through different periods of the day across the photo.
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 20:24:31. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 08:52:16 PM · #282 |
| As Falc posted and I responded to earlier in the thread, HDTR images should be acceptable. They are a single scene (no change in framing) and shoud fall under time lapse. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 09:52:51 PM · #283 |
If you're allowed to change the focal point, kirbic, then this seems to allow for multiple shots of a static macro subject to be combined to produce arbitrarily deep DOF. For example, if I have a bug that sits still (or is dead) and I get off 10 shots, each of which is focused a little deeper but has the usual narrow DOF, and then use layer masks to blend in all the in-focus parts.
Legal? Seems like yes. In that case, I'm a bit confused by the statement in the rules that "The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography." This isn't about time-lapse, this is about constructing DOF the way I'd like it to be.
If it's not legal, then what's the difference between this and the dragonfly example?
Please understand I'm happy either way; I just want to be sure I've got it straight.
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 21:59:02.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:08:02 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
if I have a bug that sits still (or is dead) and I get off 10 shots, each of which is focused a little deeper but has the usual narrow DOF, and then use layer masks to blend in all the in-focus parts.
Legal? Seems like yes. In that case, I'm a bit confused by the statement in the rules that "The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography." This isn't about time-lapse, this is about constructing DOF the way I'd like it to be. |
A dead (or still) bug isn't in motion, so we're only talking about DOF on a static scene... which is fine. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:09:45 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
As Falc posted and I responded to earlier in the thread, HDTR images should be acceptable. They are a single scene (no change in framing) and shoud fall under time lapse. |
Even though it creates something that is impossible? Shouldn't that be for expert editing? You guys just want a landscape to break the all time scoring record don't you? :P
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 22:11:37.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:18:50 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
if I have a bug that sits still (or is dead) and I get off 10 shots, each of which is focused a little deeper but has the usual narrow DOF, and then use layer masks to blend in all the in-focus parts.
Legal? Seems like yes. In that case, I'm a bit confused by the statement in the rules that "The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography." This isn't about time-lapse, this is about constructing DOF the way I'd like it to be. |
A dead (or still) bug isn't in motion, so we're only talking about DOF on a static scene... which is fine. |
So using 2-10 shots is legal for uses beyond HDR and time-lapse. Cool!
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 22:19:31.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:20:02 PM · #287 |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:21:24 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
As Falc posted and I responded to earlier in the thread, HDTR images should be acceptable. They are a single scene (no change in framing) and shoud fall under time lapse. |
The concept of non-sequential frames as illegal, appears to be at odds with some prominent HDTR techniques. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:21:41 AM · #289 |
Okay...I am tired and am going to be lazy here and not read the entire thread...but can someone tell me if I take 15 shots of a person running past the camera (they only pass the camera once) and decide to only use 5 of the 15 shots...(skipping some of the images in between because they are soo close to the previous ones)...would that be illegal?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:26:02 AM · #290 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I am tired and am going to be lazy here and not read the entire thread...but can someone tell me if I take 15 shots of a person running past the camera (they only pass the camera once) and decide to only use 5 of the 15 shots...(skipping some of the images in between because they are soo close to the previous ones)...would that be illegal? |
hahaha |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:29:32 AM · #291 |
| i'm sorry judi, i mean no disrespect, but after reading this entire thread, your question just came across funny to me. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:31:16 AM · #292 |
Geez...I must be tired...why?
(I used to be blonde!)
|
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:35:50 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Geez...I must be tired...why?
(I used to be blonde!) |
i don't know, i must be tired too. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:37:32 AM · #294 |
Please...is there anyone that can answer this...I have to leave soon to do this shot so I would really, really like to know!
|
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:37:44 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I am tired and am going to be lazy here and not read the entire thread...but can someone tell me if I take 15 shots of a person running past the camera (they only pass the camera once) and decide to only use 5 of the 15 shots...(skipping some of the images in between because they are soo close to the previous ones)...would that be illegal? |
From what I gather after reading it all.. your situation would be legal as long as you didn't pan with the runner and it is all within the one frame.
But don't take my word on it :) |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:39:09 AM · #296 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I am tired and am going to be lazy here and not read the entire thread...but can someone tell me if I take 15 shots of a person running past the camera (they only pass the camera once) and decide to only use 5 of the 15 shots...(skipping some of the images in between because they are soo close to the previous ones)...would that be illegal? |
From what I gather after reading it all.. your situation would be legal as long as you didn't pan with the runner and it is all within the one frame.
But don't take my word on it :) |
Thankyou...yes the camera would be still (no panning). I am just thinking that if the camera was a fast fps and the runner was slow then the images would overlap way too much.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2008 03:37:46 AM · #297 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I am tired and am going to be lazy here and not read the entire thread...but can someone tell me if I take 15 shots of a person running past the camera (they only pass the camera once) and decide to only use 5 of the 15 shots...(skipping some of the images in between because they are soo close to the previous ones)...would that be illegal? |
From what I gather after reading it all.. your situation would be legal as long as you didn't pan with the runner and it is all within the one frame.
But don't take my word on it :) |
Thankyou...yes the camera would be still (no panning). I am just thinking that if the camera was a fast fps and the runner was slow then the images would overlap way too much. |
I've had a similar problem with a different subject. It takes quite a bit of playing around to get right and you may have to sacrifice a few images so they don't overlap. It is very hard with action shots as you need to get in close to your subject for the most impact, it may be the case that you could have one frame with the subject partly entering or leaving the frame. The one I shot looks alright like that.
Anyway my entry is in after a lot work but I’m not overly happy with it so I intend to try again on the weekend if I get a chance.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2008 04:37:18 AM · #298 |
I completely understand Tim. I just got back from shooting mine...I think they are okay...I will check them later.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2008 03:42:57 PM · #299 |
As I have watched this discussion it has become clearer that one of the big stumbling blocks with the new rules will be on how the phrase "natural subject motion" is interpreted. It seems a bird flying through the sky, or the sun or moon moving over several hours is fine, but deliberately moving a person around the setting is not acceptable.
So let me offer two images that try to get at the ground between these two situations. I won't say they are even good images, but they make the point.
I got the the first image when two of our dogs were playing yesterday evening. I set up the tripod and grabbed a few shots as they moved around the room. I did nothing to direct their play, so I can argue that all of their actions were "natural." The two images were actually taken a minute apart according to the EXIF data.
The second image took a bit more staging and I planned this one. I call it "Feed Me, Please." Our outside cat has a regular feeding spot. He stands or sits in one place whenever he is hungry. So I set up the tripod to catch him there. After getting the first image (I actually got several) I put some food in his bowl and then got the second image while he was eating. Again I can argue that all of this is very natural. He does it all the time. He stands in one place, I put food in the bowl, and he goes over and eats.
So reactions?? If I entered this in one of the challenges would it end up with a DQ? Remember as well that the SC generally does not ask how I construct a situation. They have always asked only for the image/images and the processing steps. So unless they start asking for such information they would have no way of knowing that there was no food in the cat's bowl for the first image in the set and that I put food there prior to the second image. In addition there would be no way for them to verify what I claimed I did in capturing the image. So all they would really have is the two images, the EXIF data for both images and the description of the processing I did. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 03:55:28 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
As I have watched this discussion it has become clearer that one of the big stumbling blocks with the new rules will be on how the phrase "natural subject motion" is interpreted. It seems a bird flying through the sky, or the sun or moon moving over several hours is fine, but deliberately moving a person around the setting is not acceptable.
So let me offer two images that try to get at the ground between these two situations. I won't say they are even good images, but they make the point. |
As far as I can see, there's no real difference between the dog shot and the earlier, deemed illegal, examples of putting a person in half a dozen different places in a single frame. Granted, you didn't "direct" the dog, but the various positions are arbitrary, not "visibly sequential" in any way. I'd assume this image would not be validated.
The cat shot is tougher. It is, in a sense, "sequential" in a direct way. In other words, if you had 3 more frames filling in the gaps it would be visibly sequential, but you have chosen to show first position and last position only. I don't think the fact that you baited the cat is relevant at all, any more than I'd think it was if someone entered a sequence beginning with a seated dog, owner out of frame, and showing the dog running across the frame to answer the invisible owner's command.
It boils down to what the PURPOSE of this time-lapse category is. It seems to be defined for us as a way for us to show a progression from beginning to end of some particular motion or action. The dogs don't meet that criterion, really. The cat does, sort of... I don't know HOW they are gonna work witht is though... It hurts my brain.
R.
|
|
