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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> "Masters' Free Study II" Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 104, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/10/2008 05:24:52 PM · #26
after reading this thread, and bits of the other thread about the DQ in the feast challenge, I suggest scrapping the basic and advanced rule sets.

have all challenges either expert or minimal. So either anything goes or nothing goes.
trying to create rules on middle ground clearly isn't working.
 12/10/2008 05:26:33 PM · #27
Originally posted by Judi:
So does that mean for Advanced Editing rules....several shots can be taken, with irregular time lapses between the frames and it would be legal?

Sure... as long as the scene doesn't change significantly. "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."

You may not... combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene.

Any time lapse of a moving object will have a subject appearing in multiple places within a scene.
 12/10/2008 05:26:44 PM · #28
Originally posted by dainmcgowan:
after reading this thread, and bits of the other thread about the DQ in the feast challenge, I suggest scrapping the basic and advanced rule sets.

have all challenges either expert or minimal. So either anything goes or nothing goes.
trying to create rules on middle ground clearly isn't working.


I agree.
 12/10/2008 05:28:42 PM · #29
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.

R.


Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks.
 12/10/2008 05:29:23 PM · #30
So Alex's best option in this instance, would have been to do a very long shutter exposure which would obtain the star trails and then when the swan entered the scene, fire a strobe to lighten the bird. Only one exposure and no DQ!
 12/10/2008 05:31:11 PM · #31
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.

R.


Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks.


Yeah, sounds interesting.. care to share the name?
 12/10/2008 05:31:27 PM · #32
Does it matter that the Swan image could have been taken in a single exposure? Long exposure to capture the star trails then the burst of flash to capture the Swan. Of course we would then have the Simms dilemma of stars entering and leaving the frame (and I'm guessing as the Swan was the reason for DQ the star trails where not looked at?)
 12/10/2008 05:31:55 PM · #33
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.

R.


Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks.


Another trick that might work. A very dark ND filter , you can create a long exposure shot in the day time and the moving cars will be either slightly ghost like or invisible.
 12/10/2008 05:32:25 PM · #34
Originally posted by Judi:
So Alex's best option in this instance, would have been to do a very long shutter exposure which would obtain the star trails and then when the swan entered the scene, fire a strobe to lighten the bird. Only one exposure and no DQ!


Absolutely. And I had assumed that was what he had done, though I didn't understand why the water itself did not appear to be lit.

R.
 12/10/2008 05:35:07 PM · #35
Arghhh, read all before I reply...

Message edited by author 2008-12-10 17:35:36.
 12/10/2008 05:35:19 PM · #36
Well regardles....Alex may have been DQ'ed...but he has an image that will stand the test of time and be a credit to his ability!
 12/10/2008 05:37:44 PM · #37
Now, is that star stacking stuff legal or not? It still confuses me.
 12/10/2008 05:38:07 PM · #38
Originally posted by Judi:
Well regardles....Alex may have been DQ'ed...but he has an image that will stand the test of time and be a credit to his ability!


Well said Judi and am pretty sure Alex knows that dpc isn't the be all and end all of photography, a stonking image that i'm sure will sell well :)

dpc is dead, long live dpc :)
 12/10/2008 05:44:16 PM · #39
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Now, is that star stacking stuff legal or not? It still confuses me.

You can "stack" images so that the stars line up (as points) to achieve a lower-noise still exposure, but you can't "combine" several still images to create a time-lapse of the stars trailing across the sky.
 12/10/2008 05:49:03 PM · #40
so star trails are illegal when using muliple exposures to make them?

Message edited by author 2008-12-10 17:49:20.
 12/10/2008 06:13:35 PM · #41
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
so star trails are illegal when using muliple exposures to make them?

That seems to be the case -- it is a use of multiple exposures to create a scene substantially different compositionally from any one of the frames used individually. The use of multiple images is only permitted to affect image qualty -- noise, tone range, DOF -- not to affect the composition.

Message edited by author 2008-12-10 18:13:56.
 12/10/2008 06:22:39 PM · #42
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
so star trails are illegal when using muliple exposures to make them?

That seems to be the case -- it is a use of multiple exposures to create a scene substantially different compositionally from any one of the frames used individually. The use of multiple images is only permitted to affect image qualty -- noise, tone range, DOF -- not to affect the composition.


Which brings us back to this email from Kirbic to Saberi sent regarding this challenge.

"Hi Alex,
Yes, combining up to 10 captures to achieve long star trails is legal in Advanced. The startrails software is one way to achieve it; it can also be done purely in photoshop.

Regards,

kirbic "
 12/10/2008 06:23:15 PM · #43
The good news is, I went from 85th of 170 entries (exactly 50%). Now I am 84th of 169 entries (51% - now solidly in the upper half of the scores)

So, it's all good ;-)

Alex's shot was on of my top scores. Sorry to see it DQ'd.
 12/10/2008 06:23:30 PM · #44
Edit: because my response does not make sense at this moment.

Message edited by author 2008-12-10 18:24:40.
 12/10/2008 06:26:45 PM · #45
i think the rules are hurting rather than helping
time to rethink
 12/10/2008 07:01:04 PM · #46
Originally posted by Simms:
Which brings us back to this email from Kirbic to Saberi sent regarding this challenge.

"Hi Alex,
Yes, combining up to 10 captures to achieve long star trails is legal in Advanced. The startrails software is one way to achieve it; it can also be done purely in photoshop.

Kirbic hasn't weighed in, so we can't really know if he was confused or had some rationalization. Looking back, I see that there were some star trail photos in the Night Shot challenge back in May, but none were discussed or validated. It really hasn't come up until now, but objects moving across successive frames were clearly declared illegal back in the January announcement banning time lapse.
 12/10/2008 07:03:25 PM · #47
Originally posted by ralph:
i think the rules are hurting rather than helping
time to rethink

Until recently it seems like we've had a long drought of rules-related forum storms, which could be taken as evidence that we're generally in good shape but might need a few clarifications. No?
 12/10/2008 07:10:35 PM · #48
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.

R.


Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks.


Yeah, sounds interesting.. care to share the name?


I remember reading an article about this in Photoshop User. It's in CS3 extended... some tool for architects. You could take several shots in a busy mall, run it through this command, and end up with a completely empty lit up open mall with not a soul in it, unless someone happened to stay absolutely still.

Very cool, but never got around to trying it.

eta... sorry to side-track. As a recent recipient of my first DQ in advanced for changing the size of my canvas, I am finding this thread interesting. Someone mentioned only having minimal and advanced. I kinda like that.

Message edited by author 2008-12-10 19:15:23.
 12/10/2008 07:13:28 PM · #49
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ralph:
i think the rules are hurting rather than helping
time to rethink

Until recently it seems like we've had a long drought of rules-related forum storms, which could be taken as evidence that we're generally in good shape but might need a few clarifications. No?


not sure / possible people WANT change but still work within the rules to play nice
chemical/paper photography had all sorts of tricks - we are currently prevented from using many tools/techniques of what used to be common place
- i don't see the sense -

12/10/2008 08:22:38 PM · #50
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ralph:
i think the rules are hurting rather than helping
time to rethink

Until recently it seems like we've had a long drought of rules-related forum storms, which could be taken as evidence that we're generally in good shape but might need a few clarifications. No?


Could be taken as evidence that high profile photographers weren't getting dq'd so there wasn't as big a fuss. Could be taken as evidence that people get tired of asking for clarification, consistency and a system based on precedent that doesn't involve arbitrariness. Could be evidence of lots of things.

Message edited by author 2008-12-10 20:23:27.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 01:12:15 PM

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: 08/05/2025 01:12:15 PM EDT.