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

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> What counts as "composition" for multiple frames?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/02/2010 11:57:49 PM · #1
Has anybody ever had a shot approved that used multiple exposures, except one was of the same image but in a different orientation? In other words, the tripod didn't move, but the camera went from landscape to portrait. The final crop of the picture uses only portions that fall within all frames. I mainly want to use the odd exposure to provide some detail in a portion of the picture that isn't present in the other ones (due to exposure).
 08/03/2010 12:02:31 AM · #2
Fairly certain that wouldn't fly.
 08/03/2010 12:19:11 AM · #3
I can't see why that would be a problem; as long as you follow the "fall within all frames" rule, it sounds okay by me.
 08/03/2010 12:20:08 AM · #4
Seems reasonable enough. As long as the entry area falls within both frames and there was no significant movement in the scene, I'd vote to validate. It's worth submitting a ticket for other opinions, though.

Message edited by author 2010-08-03 00:21:21.
 08/03/2010 12:23:39 AM · #5
Originally posted by scalvert:
Seems reasonable enough. As long as the entry area falls within both frames and there was no significant movement in the scene, I'd vote to validate. It's worth submitting a ticket for other opinions, though.


I'll probably do it. It's for a free study so we have a little time. Would it be worse if there was a little zoom as well? (which I readjusted in post so as to be the same as the other images). Maybe I'm getting greedy now... :)

EDIT: I submitted. Sorry if I did it wrong with the multiple tickets because I needed to send two files.

Message edited by author 2010-08-03 00:30:24.
 08/03/2010 12:55:40 AM · #6
Haha. I'm lame. It wasn't a different orientation, but rather a different zoom (that I would have to correct in post to make it the same again). Well, I submitted a ticket and we'll see. The question is similar, but the details are different.
 08/03/2010 10:11:21 AM · #7
dang, I thought this was going to be a philosophical debate.
 08/03/2010 12:40:58 PM · #8
I made up this example to show how I'd interpret the rule regarding "same scene in multiple frames" in answer to the the original question. As Shannon said, the orientation shouldn't matter as long as there are no substantive compositional changes in the final, cropped image area.



The newer question (combining/adjusting pics with multiple zoom levels) will probably require some conversation ...
 08/03/2010 02:01:05 PM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I made up this example to show how I'd interpret the rule regarding "same scene in multiple frames" in answer to the the original question. As Shannon said, the orientation shouldn't matter as long as there are no substantive compositional changes in the final, cropped image area.



The newer question (combining/adjusting pics with multiple zoom levels) will probably require some conversation ...


Is there really a difference though? Shouldn't it also be legal if it meets the requrirement you're illustrating in your example? In other words, if you zoom in one shot and then zoom out another you can still use both so long as you crop/resize until you have only the elements that were in both photos.

Message edited by author 2010-08-03 14:03:26.
 08/03/2010 02:07:13 PM · #10
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I made up this example to show how I'd interpret the rule regarding "same scene in multiple frames" in answer to the the original question. As Shannon said, the orientation shouldn't matter as long as there are no substantive compositional changes in the final, cropped image area.



The newer question (combining/adjusting pics with multiple zoom levels) will probably require some conversation ...


Is there really a difference though? Shouldn't it also be legal if it meets the requrirement you're illustrating in your example? In other words, if you zoom in one shot and then zoom out another you can still use both so long as you crop/resize until you have only the elements that were in both photos.

Changing zoom and position to keep one object the same size would still change the relative size of objects at different distances. If all you do is zoom in but keep your position, you're still changing the depth of field.

Message edited by author 2010-08-03 14:08:19.
 08/03/2010 02:10:15 PM · #11
In this case the DOF is no different as it's a landscape. Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll wait for the ticket too, but I'm feeling a bit safer considering this.
 08/03/2010 02:15:41 PM · #12
Also, it's perfectly legal to stack exposures for the purpose of increasing DOF. Scarbrd does this all the time.
 08/03/2010 02:38:18 PM · #13
Originally posted by yanko:
Is there really a difference though? Shouldn't it also be legal if it meets the requrirement you're illustrating in your example? In other words, if you zoom in one shot and then zoom out another you can still use both so long as you crop/resize until you have only the elements that were in both photos.

I wasn't arguing either for or against legality of this scenario, just saying that no one SC member is really in a position to give an absolute answer unilaterally.
 08/03/2010 02:38:45 PM · #14
Originally posted by yanko:
Also, it's perfectly legal to stack exposures for the purpose of increasing DOF. Scarbrd does this all the time.

So just stay in one spot and change the focus point. No need to zoom.

Message edited by author 2010-08-03 14:39:34.
 08/03/2010 03:29:53 PM · #15
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by yanko:
Also, it's perfectly legal to stack exposures for the purpose of increasing DOF. Scarbrd does this all the time.

So just stay in one spot and change the focus point. No need to zoom.


Well yeah. I only mentioned it because changing the DOF is legal under advance editing so long as you don't do anything extreme (ex. turnning something shot at f/16 appear to be shot at f/1.2).
 08/03/2010 03:51:51 PM · #16
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. I'm lame. It wasn't a different orientation, but rather a different zoom (that I would have to correct in post to make it the same again). Well, I submitted a ticket and we'll see. The question is similar, but the details are different.


OK that makes more sense. I was trying to understand how changing orientation could provide more detail.
 08/03/2010 04:56:57 PM · #17
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. I'm lame. It wasn't a different orientation, but rather a different zoom (that I would have to correct in post to make it the same again). Well, I submitted a ticket and we'll see. The question is similar, but the details are different.


OK that makes more sense. I was trying to understand how changing orientation could provide more detail.


Actually it was different lighting not orientation or zoom.
 08/04/2010 05:54:17 AM · #18
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. I'm lame. It wasn't a different orientation, but rather a different zoom (that I would have to correct in post to make it the same again). Well, I submitted a ticket and we'll see. The question is similar, but the details are different.


OK that makes more sense. I was trying to understand how changing orientation could provide more detail.


Actually it was different lighting not orientation or zoom.

Then that's a different scene, ain't it?
 08/04/2010 06:25:27 AM · #19
I guess it should all depend on the amount of difference.

It's fair to assume that a 5 EV difference on the same scene is acceptable for HDR purposes, but if you took a photo of a city by day and the same scene by night, even if the composition didn't change, you couldn't merge them together to make a new one, because it would indeed be two different scenes (not compositions).

Not an easy one to rule on, I guess it would depend on the changes.

ETA: Giorgio Baruffi once started a thread asking if he could combine several shots of the exact same composition, only different lighting, so he could improve the exposure, and he was recommended not to do so (unless doing it in only one capture).
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:49:24 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: 08/26/2025 06:49:24 AM EDT.