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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Advanced Rules Question
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 30 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/14/2011 11:45:35 PM · #26
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I wish I could remember who's image it was but there was a lovely night picture with a swan hit by a strobe in an HDR which was DQed on the logic that there was a fundamental difference between one frame and the next.

You can flag or slot a single exposure. You can pop your strobe to get a person moving through the frame. You can double expose completely different scenes. What you can't do is create a similar scene by combining scenes that the "average viewer" would see as being different frame to frame in subject matter.

If I'm wrong I need to get better at HDR.


You can double expose completely different scenes

I'm not so sure that's legal. I think you can double expose a single shot, but the framing has to be the same. So for instance you can exposure for a person in the drivers seat of a car...keep the exposure going, flag the lense, shut the lights, cap the lens...whatever...and move to the passenger seat. That's been done legally. You can't however compose a completely different scene as the second part of your double exposure.

Dave

04/14/2011 11:55:58 PM · #27
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I wish I could remember who's image it was but there was a lovely night picture with a swan hit by a strobe in an HDR which was DQed on the logic that there was a fundamental difference between one frame and the next.

You can flag or slot a single exposure. You can pop your strobe to get a person moving through the frame. You can double expose completely different scenes. What you can't do is create a similar scene by combining scenes that the "average viewer" would see as being different frame to frame in subject matter.

If I'm wrong I need to get better at HDR.


You can double expose completely different scenes

I'm not so sure that's legal. I think you can double expose a single shot, but the framing has to be the same. So for instance you can exposure for a person in the drivers seat of a car...keep the exposure going, flag the lense, shut the lights, cap the lens...whatever...and move to the passenger seat. That's been done legally. You can't however compose a completely different scene as the second part of your double exposure.

Dave


This is a different question than the original post, and I think it would also be ideal to have a SC member tell us the right answer. My personal opinion is that AS LONG AS THE SHUTTER REMAINS OPEN IT COUNTS AS ONE SHOT AND DURING THE EXPOSURE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, INCLUDING RECOMPOSING, ZOOMING, ETC, ETC. I ALSO THINK THE TERM "DOUBLE" IS INCORRECT, IT SHOULD BE CALLED "MULTIPLE" INSTEAD BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CHANGES (WHILE SHUTTER IS OPEN) IS NOT LIMITED TO 2.
 04/15/2011 12:10:00 AM · #28
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I wish I could remember who's image it was but there was a lovely night picture with a swan hit by a strobe in an HDR which was DQed on the logic that there was a fundamental difference between one frame and the next.

You can flag or slot a single exposure. You can pop your strobe to get a person moving through the frame. You can double expose completely different scenes. What you can't do is create a similar scene by combining scenes that the "average viewer" would see as being different frame to frame in subject matter.

If I'm wrong I need to get better at HDR.


You can double expose completely different scenes

I'm not so sure that's legal. I think you can double expose a single shot, but the framing has to be the same. So for instance you can exposure for a person in the drivers seat of a car...keep the exposure going, flag the lense, shut the lights, cap the lens...whatever...and move to the passenger seat. That's been done legally. You can't however compose a completely different scene as the second part of your double exposure.

Dave


This is a different question than the original post, and I think it would also be ideal to have a SC member tell us the right answer. My personal opinion is that AS LONG AS THE SHUTTER REMAINS OPEN IT COUNTS AS ONE SHOT AND DURING THE EXPOSURE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, INCLUDING RECOMPOSING, ZOOMING, ETC, ETC. I ALSO THINK THE TERM "DOUBLE" IS INCORRECT, IT SHOULD BE CALLED "MULTIPLE" INSTEAD BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CHANGES (WHILE SHUTTER IS OPEN) IS NOT LIMITED TO 2.


Alfredo, I see what you are getting at in regards to the recomposing, zooming etc. I think you are correct there because the rules talk about scene changes between frames of multiple exposures and not single exposures. I see your point now. That obviously would have to be legal otherwise no one would ever be allowed to zoom their lens or create motion blur by panning etc. Good point there.

As for the term double exposure vs. multiple exposure. Well, historically it's been called double exposure, and since we already have the term multiple exposures referring to multiple frames etc. for HDR I think that would be rather confusing.

Dave

Message edited by author 2011-04-15 00:10:46.
 04/15/2011 12:13:29 AM · #29
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I wish I could remember who's image it was but there was a lovely night picture with a swan hit by a strobe in an HDR which was DQed on the logic that there was a fundamental difference between one frame and the next.

You can flag or slot a single exposure. You can pop your strobe to get a person moving through the frame. You can double expose completely different scenes. What you can't do is create a similar scene by combining scenes that the "average viewer" would see as being different frame to frame in subject matter.

If I'm wrong I need to get better at HDR.



Also, no, you can do whatever you want with it if it's a single shutter actuation. I just had my entry validated using this approach.

ETA:
Different scenes, double exposure with validation.


Message edited by author 2011-04-15 00:15:01.
 04/15/2011 12:46:57 AM · #30
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:


Alfredo, I see what you are getting at in regards to the recomposing, zooming etc. I think you are correct there because the rules talk about scene changes between frames of multiple exposures and not single exposures. I see your point now. That obviously would have to be legal otherwise no one would ever be allowed to zoom their lens or create motion blur by panning etc. Good point there.

As for the term double exposure vs. multiple exposure. Well, historically it's been called double exposure, and since we already have the term multiple exposures referring to multiple frames etc. for HDR I think that would be rather confusing.

Dave


double is inaccurate and you are right multiple would be confusing....i think "composite exposure" would be a better name for a photo obtained with unlimited number of exposure modifications during a single actuation, but no one is going to hear us ;-)

[edited to correct typo]

Message edited by author 2011-04-15 00:57:01.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 10:40:24 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: 09/14/2025 10:40:24 AM EDT.