| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2008 12:53:38 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Well, birds and waves are changing elements. There are no scenes (with the possible exception of still life) that will not have some changing elements over 10 frames. I don't see why I would have to use a fast shutter speed and shoot a burst for my model. It can't be done with portrait lights. They take 3 seconds to recycle. But this is really nonsense. What we have here is a contest where most of us can use one photo, and landscape, or still life photographers can use ten. It's not a fair contest, and not something I would regularly participate in. |
If you're shooting with portrait lights you don't NEED to use HDRI; you have complete control of your lighting. And if you have a properly-exposed image with a normal tonal range and you want the "effect" of HDRI tone mapping, then you can DO that without multiple exposures. I have a whole BUNCH of images in my portfolio that were made by pseudo-HDRI technique off a single original. There's nothing "unfair" about this at all. HDRI as a technique has its place in the lineup, and SC have acknowledged this by making it legal in advanced challenges.
I wonder why nobody has ever complained that it's "unfair" that some of y'all are shooting with professional lighting setups and we ordinary mortals can't compete with that?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2008 05:59:35 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by HighNooner:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HighNooner:
Originally posted by langdon:
Please note that we've made a few tweaks to remove the confusing Time-Lapse allowance from the Advanced Editing rules for now, although they can still be used for the January Free Study since it was announced before this change. |
Can they be still used for best of 2007 as well? They were taken before the new new rule |
Multiple capture entries were not permitted until the last day of 2007. In the unlikely event that your best photo of 2007 happened to be a time-lapse photo taken on December 31st, I suppose it would be allowed, but it would be a good idea to submit a ticket for opinions. |
So your Best of 2007 had to fit the Advanced rules at the time the image was taken?
What about using multiple frames of the same scene for HDRI? |
IN THIS CASE THIS IS IT
{removed photo from post pending discussion, this may be legal}
I will look for somthing else |
 GeneralE
I have submitted the originals could you please review it and tell me if it is legal
Message edited by author 2008-01-16 06:02:37. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 07:15:01 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Well, birds and waves are changing elements. There are no scenes (with the possible exception of still life) that will not have some changing elements over 10 frames. I don't see why I would have to use a fast shutter speed and shoot a burst for my model. It can't be done with portrait lights. They take 3 seconds to recycle. But this is really nonsense. What we have here is a contest where most of us can use one photo, and landscape, or still life photographers can use ten. It's not a fair contest, and not something I would regularly participate in. |
If you're shooting with portrait lights you don't NEED to use HDRI; you have complete control of your lighting. And if you have a properly-exposed image with a normal tonal range and you want the "effect" of HDRI tone mapping, then you can DO that without multiple exposures. I have a whole BUNCH of images in my portfolio that were made by pseudo-HDRI technique off a single original. There's nothing "unfair" about this at all. HDRI as a technique has its place in the lineup, and SC have acknowledged this by making it legal in advanced challenges.
I wonder why nobody has ever complained that it's "unfair" that some of y'all are shooting with professional lighting setups and we ordinary mortals can't compete with that?
R. |
You can't tell me you need to use HDR on landscape photography. All the blue ribbon landscapes that we have with one photo proves this. If you want to control your tonal ranges on a landscape you can use a graduated Neutral density filter to get your results that way.
My studio setup is far from professional. A collection of old strobes, cardboard barn doors. I guarantee I don't have perfect control over my exposure. I certainly don't have perfect control over my models. In a group shot, it would be a great help to take a smile from one photo, and replace it the frown from another. You have a full range of tones to use, to pick and choose as you like, I would like a full range of expressions.
I don't see how you can think you using ten photos and combining them, compared to my one shot, is fair. Now if we all could use ten shots, in a way that is advantageous to the type of photography we do, then that's fair.
I suggest that we put it up for a vote. If a majority agree with you, I will shut up. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 07:22:20 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It's not a fair contest, and not something I would regularly participate in. |
Just because you decided *NOT* to take ten images of the same thing like many here do doesn't mean it's not fair.....you have always had that option, and really, why with a digital camera, wouldn't you take multiples to make sure you have the best possible image you could?
You're pretty much arguing a non-point and describing a technique you just choose not to utilize. I hardly see any unfairness there.
I think the challenge should exclude full frame sensors to be fair......it wasn't a choice for me to not have one, I couldn't afford it, so you have an unfair advantage over me.
See how ridiculous and pedantic that sounds?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2008 08:07:24 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It's not a fair contest, and not something I would regularly participate in. |
Just because you decided *NOT* to take ten images of the same thing like many here do doesn't mean it's not fair.....you have always had that option, and really, why with a digital camera, wouldn't you take multiples to make sure you have the best possible image you could?
You're pretty much arguing a non-point and describing a technique you just choose not to utilize. I hardly see any unfairness there.
I think the challenge should exclude full frame sensors to be fair......it wasn't a choice for me to not have one, I couldn't afford it, so you have an unfair advantage over me.
See how ridiculous and pedantic that sounds? |
I don't think we are arguing the same thing. I think everyone should be able to use the same number of photos, and do what they want with them. The rules are now constructed to let a small group use ten photos (with whatever equipment they want) while the rest of us would benefit in other ways from using ten photos, but the rules won't allow us. I don't think thats a ridiculous concern. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 08:47:11 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think everyone should be able to use the same number of photos, and do what they want with them. |
The rules only allow multiple captures to help control "single capture problems" like exposure, noise and DOF, *NOT* to change the scene. This benefits users with many types of cameras and subjects. What you're asking for is the ability to do Photoshop composites, and that will never happen in Advanced.
Message edited by author 2008-01-16 09:00:44. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 09:27:15 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I don't think we are arguing the same thing. I think everyone should be able to use the same number of photos, and do what they want with them. The rules are now constructed to let a small group use ten photos (with whatever equipment they want) while the rest of us would benefit in other ways from using ten photos, but the rules won't allow us. I don't think thats a ridiculous concern. |
They way I see it the rules are constructed to allow anyone to use up to 10 photos, as long as they follow the rules. I don't see the "small group" defined anywhere in any ruleset here. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 10:22:40 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think everyone should be able to use the same number of photos, and do what they want with them. |
The rules only allow multiple captures to help control "single capture problems" like exposure, noise and DOF, *NOT* to change the scene. This benefits users with many types of cameras and subjects. What you're asking for is the ability to do Photoshop composites, and that will never happen in Advanced. |
So your telling me a ten shot HDR image isn't a photoshop composite? |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 10:25:38 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is it fair that people with P&S cameras compete against people with high end dSLRs? super telephotos? studio lighting? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wonder why nobody has ever complained that it's "unfair" that some of y'all are shooting with professional lighting setups and we ordinary mortals can't compete with that? |
Now I'm worried. Bear and I are making the same arguements. ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/16/2008 10:26:37 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I don't think we are arguing the same thing. I think everyone should be able to use the same number of photos, and do what they want with them. The rules are now constructed to let a small group use ten photos (with whatever equipment they want) while the rest of us would benefit in other ways from using ten photos, but the rules won't allow us. I don't think thats a ridiculous concern. |
They way I see it the rules are constructed to allow anyone to use up to 10 photos, as long as they follow the rules. I don't see the "small group" defined anywhere in any ruleset here. |
Unfortunately the rules are designed so that the ten shot rule is only useful to a few photographers. In practice, the rules restrict me from using ten shots for a portrait, or action shot. It's really only useful for landscape and maybe still life. So the way I see it is anyone can use it, as long as they are shooting a landscape. Anyone else using it will probably break the rules. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 10:34:56 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Unfortunately the rules are designed so that the ten shot rule is only useful to a few photographers. In practice, the rules restrict me from using ten shots for a portrait, or action shot. It's really only useful for landscape and maybe still life. So the way I see it is anyone can use it, as long as they are shooting a landscape. Anyone else using it will probably break the rules. |
Why are you so hung up on the fact that you can't use 10 shots for a portrait or action shot. Why on earth would you even "need" to do that???
Just because you can use 10 shots for a landscape or still life doesn't meed you "have" to or "need" to use 10 shots. Personally, I would prefer to use 1 shot even if I were entering a landscape image in a challenge that allows up to 10 unless it were absolutely essential that I try to increase my dynamic range. In that case, I might take 5 exposures, probably never 10. If I were shooting a portrait, I sure as heck would NEVER want to take more than one exposure, even if the subject could somehow manage to be perfectly still to the point that I could take several exposures to increase dynamic range, because there is simply no need to do that. Reflectors & lighting or just good ole fashioned outdoor overcast conditions are what I would use for a portrait.
I simply don't understand the complaint here as it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 10:58:08 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
So your telling me a ten shot HDR image isn't a photoshop composite? |
As long as it's 10 shots of exactly the same thing, yeah, that's what I'm telling you. It's bracketed exposures or averaged noise reduction, not a Worth1000 composite. A landscape photographer isn't likely to use more than 2 or 3 exposures for HDR. For a clean photo of Saturn, you'd use all 10, and a macro photographer might use several to help with depth of field. In all cases, the rule benefits the capture of a single scene- there is no composite of different elements pasted together, and no big advantage for landscapes over any other form of photography. Personally, I don't care for a strong HDR look, so it would be a DISadvantage. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 11:40:24 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
So your telling me a ten shot HDR image isn't a photoshop composite? |
As long as it's 10 shots of exactly the same thing, yeah, that's what I'm telling you. It's bracketed exposures or averaged noise reduction, not a Worth1000 composite. A landscape photographer isn't likely to use more than 2 or 3 exposures for HDR. For a clean photo of Saturn, you'd use all 10, and a macro photographer might use several to help with depth of field. In all cases, the rule benefits the capture of a single scene- there is no composite of different elements pasted together, and no big advantage for landscapes over any other form of photography. Personally, I don't care for a strong HDR look, so it would be a DISadvantage. |
I feel like we are speaking a different language. Exactly the same to me means exactly the same. Like you would accept picture ten for proof of picture one in a one shot challenge. But you know ten shots of anything are not exactly the same. They may be similar at best. I think what you are trying to say is that they should have similar compositions. Of course things change, even if the pictures are taken close together. Changes in birds, sunlight, water movement,wind, etc. are unavoidable. A set of pictures with different depth of field are not even similar, forget exactly the same. A picture of a salamander (a dead one I guess if you are going to try to make it exactly the same) with the focus on the eyes is not even close to the same picture with the focus on the tail. Putting similar photos together digitally is a digital composite, whether you like it or not. Since you are allowing digital composites in one circumstance, you should allow them in others to be fair. I for one would prefer photography, not digital composite works of art. That is why I am being a pia. I want this site to be pure as it has tried to be in the past. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 11:50:30 AM · #89 |
Automatic bracketing is a feature in most DSLRs as far as I know - so this rule really lets people learn and take advantage of these features.
I'm sure there are many people that didn't even know their camera had this function before the "HDR" challenge came along - these challenges are meant to encourage learning and development by photographer -
It's working on me.
Message edited by author 2008-01-16 11:56:51. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 12:02:30 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Putting similar photos together digitally is a digital composite, whether you like it or not. Since you are allowing digital composites in one circumstance, you should allow them in others to be fair. I for one would prefer photography, not digital composite works of art. That is why I am being a pia. I want this site to be pure as it has tried to be in the past. |
If you feel this way, then you should go all the way and take a stance against ANY form of Photoshop work that involves blending of pixel-containing layers and, especially, the use of alternative blending modes like soft light, darken, multiply, whatever. These all involve altering an image and blending the altered image with the original image. It's not possible in anything but digital processing, so these are, by definition, "digital works of art". You should be lobbying for complete removal of the advanced ruleset, and for all challenges to be shot under the basic, or even the minimal, ruleset.
But to do this is to place such severe, artificial constraints on our image-making as to make the laughingstock of the digital photography world. Technically, our world is constantly evolving, and if we want to remain a viable site we have to accommodate these evolutions as they happen. If we don't, our serious photographers will not remain with us and we will be the poorer for it.
IMO, SC has drawn the line in the correct place: they are allowing new processing techniques that permit the optimization of specific, singular images. I can't use HDRI for everything, even in landscape work; for example, it's very difficult to work with in a scene that include breaking waves on a headland, for obvious reasons. In many other natural scenes, it's simply not necessary, because the tonal range of the scene does not require it. On the other hand, you can't even do halfway-decent astrophotography without stacking and averaging images for the purpose of noise reduction.
I can understand peoples' desire to keep this site from becoming "anther Worth 1000", and I completely agree with that. I don't think we should be competing with digitally-composed, multiple-image composites on a weekly basis. Or if we do, they should be in a separate, weekly challenge of their own. But this is not what true HDRI Imaging is about. It's just a wonderful, relatively new, rapidly evolving technique for making the best possible image in adverse lighting conditions.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2008 12:09:54 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Since you are allowing digital composites in one circumstance, you should allow them in others to be fair. |
Stacking identical (or nearly so) photos is simply not the same sort of composite as piecing together elements from different scenes, and the latter will NEVER happen in Advanced Editing. If you really cared about fairness, you'd recognize the inherent UNfairness of what you propose. DOF, noise and dynamic range are limitations of the equipment unrelated to creating new compositions in Photoshop, and the ability to use multiple images for these purposes is analogous to letting people use Neat Image or clone out dust specks. The rule addresses photo quality, not composition. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 12:26:27 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Since you are allowing digital composites in one circumstance, you should allow them in others to be fair. |
Stacking identical (or nearly so) photos is simply not the same sort of composite as piecing together elements from different scenes, and the latter will NEVER happen in Advanced Editing. If you really cared about fairness, you'd recognize the inherent UNfairness of what you propose. DOF, noise and dynamic range are limitations of the equipment unrelated to creating new compositions in Photoshop, and the ability to use multiple images for these purposes is analogous to letting people use Neat Image or clone out dust specks. The rule addresses photo quality, not composition. |
Not the same sort of composite, but composite nontheless, at least we agree on that. (I won't remind you that you said composites of any sort wouldn't happen in advanced editing :-]} So we are allowing subtle composite work. Okay, I would like to do that in my portraits. Maybe change a smile from one photo to another. I think that is about the same degree of composite change.
As far as all these arguements about photoshop and equipment are not the same. I don't care what equipment we use. I don't care what PS we do on one photo. Using ten photos is not the same. It is a whole new ballgame. It is clearly in the range of digital art. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 12:50:48 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Maybe change a smile from one photo to another. I think that is about the same degree of composite change. |
You might be the ONLY one. Combining parts of different scenes is simply not in the cards- "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene, nor is it intended to allow a subject to appear in multiple places within a scene."
Message edited by author 2008-01-16 13:02:51. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 02:22:18 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Okay, I would like to do that in my portraits. Maybe change a smile from one photo to another. I think that is about the same degree of composite change. |
I'd like to set up my tripod, shoot one shot for perfect waves at high tide, wait a couple hours for a perfect sunset sky and shoot that, and combine them into one image. But they won't let me do that. So what's your point? Go out and shoot a backlit portrait at sunset, in burst mode, and HDRI the image all you like. That's perfectly OK.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:29:16 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Hehehehe...I can just imagine the Site Council behind the scenes....Scalvert...looking like the cat dragged him in....Karmat about to take up drinking...Ursula...sitting in the corner plucking petals off flowers, staring into nothingness.
Yup...me tinks SC had been twisted and pulled in all directions on this one...lmao!!
Note-...this post is said in good faith and humour....but I will still start running right about now...just to be safe...hehehehe!! |
Not at all, not at all (ducks). |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:39:28 PM · #96 |
For the sake of a bit of clarification (and I sincerely hope I don't achieve the opposite), would this:
be disallowed now because of the selection and deselection involved in plucking the end result from the burst that can be seen here, or would it be disallowed for the simple transgression of having the same (ish) element in different places? I'm presuming it's no longer legal. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:43:00 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by raish:
disallowed for the simple transgression of having the same (ish) element in different places? I'm presuming it's no longer legal. |
Correct. |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 03:46:30 AM · #98 |
I appreciate the change. When the first set of changes was announced, I seriously considered not renewing my membership (and with seven days left of my membership, have not done it yet). I didn't even understand what time lapse brought to the challenges on a regular basis (ie, for the monthly Free Study), let alone how to do it (though from the number of disqualifications in the Time Lapse challenge, I wasn't the only one).
I'm reading here and am much happier with HDR for "fixing it" purposes. I might use it, I might not (I have done a fairly healthy amount of pseudo-HDR on some of my challenge entries), but I don't feel it's unfair that others can use it. I'll give it a bit more thought and probably renew, but I don't think I would have had the "new" rules stayed in place.
For what it's worth . . .
Best,
Rob
P.S. Thanks to the SC members for working on this and sorting things out; it must have been a great big furry pain in the, um, well, you know.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2008 03:22:14 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Falc:
with the reworded (newer new) rules would an image similar to my 'From the Darkside'  be legal? |
That's a great question, and I don't know the answer. I'll have to ask for other opinions. |
Maybe I missed it but I have not seen the answer to this yet. Is there any?..
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Since you are allowing digital composites in one circumstance, you should allow them in others to be fair. |
Stacking identical (or nearly so) photos is simply not the same sort of composite as piecing together elements from different scenes, and the latter will NEVER happen in Advanced Editing. If you really cared about fairness, you'd recognize the inherent UNfairness of what you propose. DOF, noise and dynamic range are limitations of the equipment unrelated to creating new compositions in Photoshop, and the ability to use multiple images for these purposes is analogous to letting people use Neat Image or clone out dust specks. The rule addresses photo quality, not composition. |
(bold and underline have been added by me)
...however, according to what has been said in this post, the answer to Falc's question would have be NOT LEGAL, since the day/night transition effect is on the composition side and it has nothing to do with any "fixing" of the quality of the image nor compensating any limitation of the photo eq. Unfortunately the wording of the rule "create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates." missleads to think it would be legal, since the framing is identical, and the component shots could have been taken during the several days and nights along the challenge submission dates. IMO, the wording of the rule is not clear enough.
Message edited by author 2008-01-18 16:14:03. |
|
|
|
01/21/2008 02:58:11 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Falc:
with the reworded (newer new) rules would an image similar to my 'From the Darkside' be legal? |
That's a great question, and I don't know the answer. I'll have to ask for other opinions. |
Any response yet on this? My time lapse entry used the same technique, so I'd like to know. There's still time to shoot using it before the end of January, and for future challenges going forward.
Thanks. :)
|
|
