combining exposues - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/09/2012 12:12:22 PM · #1

say you have an image of a football stadium with two images where the sky is perfectly exposed in one and the field in another.

between the two shots the players on the field moved.

would combining these to images be legal in advanced editing, the focus of teh shot inst on the players, but on the stadium as a whole?

also, how am i allowed to combine these images, do i need to use an HDR combining process or can i add each image as a layer and erase the sky in one and the field/stands in the other?

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

01/09/2012 12:18:59 PM · #2

Originally posted by advanced ruleset:

You must:
create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All capturese used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.

Based on the advanced ruleset, the entry may use multiple captures but the composition of the frame may not change. I would say that regular HDR compositing applies but you would be left with severe ghosting due to the movement of the players on the field. Using two layers and erasing the differing scenes would in my opinion constitute a change in composition of both of the images.

Message edited by author 2012-01-09 12:20:34.

giantmike

Canon EOS R6

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/09/2012 12:29:35 PM · #3

I think this would be legal under advanced. I see the player movement similar to trees blowing on a windy day. HDR software often has anti-ghosting features which can help reduce/eliminate that problem.

And I see the second method (two layers and erasing) as legal as well. This is just the manual way to do HDR, and you will likely have to be VERY careful, but it should be ok.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/09/2012 12:31:00 PM · #4

the focus of the players isn't important since they are a miniscule part of the scene. maybe if the they are lined up in some formation in one and not in another, but if its a random setup and they are random in another and the choice of one over the other doesn't change the intent of the image.

i dont have a graduated filter so i need to combine two exposures to get the image to look right.

im not erasing the differing scenes i'm just erasing the part of the scene that isn't properly exposed.

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

01/09/2012 01:02:55 PM · #5

Ask an SC member direct to get the best response.

01/09/2012 01:03:56 PM · #6

Originally posted by EL-ROI:

Ask an SC member direct to get the best response.

becuase that worked so well in the past.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2012 01:05:23 PM · #7

Originally posted by giantmike:

I think this would be legal under advanced. I see the player movement similar to trees blowing on a windy day.

I'm guessing probably not legal (based on some earlier rulings) ... the leaves would an incidental part of a composition, but football players are a more essential component of a shot of a football stadium. Movement of spectators would probably be "incidental" but not the players.

However, that's just one opinion, and the only other ones you should be relying on at this point are from other SC members. Rather than posting in the forums and getting conflicting advice from those who have no actual say in the matter (and giving away your potential entry), you would be better-off submitting a ticket, with or without before/after versions of your images, and describe what you want to do there -- you will still get "unofficial opinions" (NOT "pre-validation"), but they are more likely to reflect an actual validation vote than what you can get here ...

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/09/2012 01:31:17 PM · #8

nah, seems to up in the air. I'll do what i want keep it for my personal collection.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/09/2012 02:57:01 PM · #9

I think you should submit it just to drive the SC crazy trying to determine if it's legal!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2012 05:31:10 PM · #10

Originally posted by kirbic:

I think you should submit it just to drive the SC crazy trying to determine if it's legal!

Note to self: Stop off at Acme Surplus on the way home and pick up a couple of bunker-busters ...

Note to

kirbic: SC is just like the Hotel California -- check in any time you like, but you can never leave ... ;-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2012 06:01:10 PM · #11

I can't imagine that it would be illegal to do one exposure for the stadium and another for the sky, then combine them manually. I can see where there would be issues with ghostly players in an automated HDR merge, but I'd drive right around that one by processing one exposure for the field, then doing a full fledged auto-merge for the whole stadium/sky image, then just cut the single-exposure field in to eliminate movement issues.

Heck, this is OFTEN done in the other direction, with people cutting in single/exposure sky renderings to eliminate cloud ghosts in windy landscapes.

R.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/09/2012 06:38:46 PM · #12

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

right but here's the kicker, would SC even know? wouldn't they see my two originals and that they were different, how i combine them isnt the issue is it? its that i combined them.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/09/2012 07:50:08 PM · #13

Originally posted by mike_311:

right but here's the kicker, would SC even know? wouldn't they see my two originals and that they were different, how i combine them isnt the issue is it? its that i combined them.

Combining originals that might look different is legal in some cases. for instance, it is legal to combine for DoF (focus stacking) or HDR. In this case, changes that are incidental, e.g. small movements of leaves/branches, are OK. When "subject matter" moves/changes between frames, then it's going to get DQ'd. The sticky wicket is the definition of what constitutes subject matter.
In the case of your example, I could (and probably would) argue that only incidental movement has occurred (assuming that the sky was clear, with no clouds moving into or out of the frame between shots). In this case, the combining of exposures can be said to be strictly for "HDR" purposes, an allowed technique. It really should not matter how much time elapsed between images, as long as compositionally they are the same, and no subject matter has changed.
Now, that's *my* position. I would not at all want to bet on the outcome of a DQ review on such an image. Which is why I humorously suggested that you submit it. It truly would start an interesting debate :-)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2012 08:03:32 PM · #14

Originally posted by kirbic:

In the case of your example, I could (and probably would) argue that only incidental movement has occurred (assuming that the sky was clear, with no clouds moving into or out of the frame between shots).

If you are only changing the color of a clear sky or the tonal range of a cloudy one it *might* be OK, but if you are substituting nice clouds for ugly ones or for a clear sky, then I would consider the clouds to be part of the "subject" and thus it would not be allowed.

There is really no way to answer a question like this hypothetically -- a judgement can only be made by seeing the actual final image and the underlying source images, and even then you may not (likely won't) get a unanimous opinion.

01/09/2012 08:15:16 PM · #15

no its essentially the same shot, the clouds moved (slightly), but if you saw the two original one has the stadium exposed with a blown out sky and the other the sky is better exposed but the stands are darker. the players on the field moved, but its not i am choosing their position as a preference of one over the other, their position is being dictated by the frame that has the better exposure. for instance its not like one has a national anthem setup or a certain formation. The player aren't the subject of the scene and aren't intended to be, they are only part of the scene.

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

01/09/2012 08:15:29 PM · #16

Originally posted by mike_311:

right but here's the kicker, would SC even know? wouldn't they see my two originals and that they were different, how i combine them isnt the issue is it? its that i combined them.

Interestion point.

If GeneralE's sentements are mirrored by the rest of the SC... it could be argued that focus stacking would a far more serious rule breaker than movements of subjects during HDR exposures. Especially since (by definition) important aspects of the composition are out of focus in some images yet when merged into one image it's not problematic for the ruleset...

I don't think that I've cloned out ghosts in the past when employing HDR... but I certainly wouldn't have thought it would be an issue. I'm shocked that it's debatable!

Message edited by author 2012-01-09 20:16:02.