| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2012 01:40:05 PM · #1 |
I stumbled on a nice primer on how to create composite lighting using multiple exposures and a single light source. The video is pretty basic but may provide a solid introduction if the technique is new to you. Here at DPC this would be usable only in expert editing rules.
Message edited by author 2012-09-20 13:40:27. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 01:57:09 PM · #2 |
I'm not entirely sure that the technique would be illegal in Advanced. The scene does not change. the lighting does. One of the stated purposes of allowing multiple images in Advanced is exposure control. So I think that the SC might have to review and pass judgement. If I were voting on it, I'd say "legal" since the scene is static.
FWIW, it's *certainly* legal, even in Basic, if done in a dark room and the shutter held open for all the flashes.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 02:13:01 PM · #3 |
Is the fact that his sky is blown out bothering anyone else?
Great idea, I probably should have done that on this shoot, instead of trying to light everything all at once with my car.
 |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 02:14:29 PM · #4 |
i agree it SHOULD be legal, but when you say the scene isn't changing, the lighting is changing! its not over or underexposing an image where the lighting and subjects are both static.
Message edited by author 2012-09-20 14:15:16. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 02:42:48 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i agree it SHOULD be legal, but when you say the scene isn't changing, the lighting is changing! its not over or underexposing an image where the lighting and subjects are both static. |
IMO, the scene is not changing at all (if the scene is truly static). The object positions are all exactly the same in all frames. The lighting changes only allow you to control exposure in the various areas, which seems to me to be in line with the stated objectives of allowing multiple exposures.
All that said, I think I know the answer to the question of how the SC would rule on this, and I will say that it would most likely not support my view.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 03:03:34 PM · #6 |
| maybe i'll test your theory, i haven't had a dq in a while. just need a good challenge to test it on... |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 03:20:42 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
maybe i'll test your theory, i haven't had a dq in a while. just need a good challenge to test it on... |
I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm just curious to know what the verdict will be.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 03:27:43 PM · #8 |
| let see what tonight holds, norman rockwell and metal on metal dont lend themself to well.. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:10:38 PM · #9 |
O.o you guys are gonna get me in trouble!
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:13:12 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
O.o you guys are gonna get me in trouble! |
Nah, I'm genuinely curious. The SC probably won't decide on an outcome until it comes to fruition. I'll be that catalyst.
I don't see how it's any different what HDR is trying to accomplish.
edit - You know Mike, it's going to be a minimal challenge tonight, I can feel it.
Message edited by author 2012-09-20 16:13:45. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:17:59 PM · #11 |
yeah i know, i was actually going to give up my cause and re-up for the membership, but if it minimal i swear i won't :)
@kirbic, we'd actually need to place first, otherwise no one would even care for us to submit for validation. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:25:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
yeah i know, i was actually going to give up my cause and re-up for the membership, but if it minimal i swear i won't :)
@kirbic, we'd actually need to place first, otherwise no one would even care for us to submit for validation. |
Don't worry... I'll report you if you want.
My thoughts are that actually, the first person to submit an image like this could hold great sway in determining if it's legal in the future or not.
If you do something mild (think two or three exposures), then you'll be more likely to cause this technique to be validated; Something wild (four-hundred shots), then you will probably ensure it's ruled illegal.
Just a thought, but it would seem that the legality of the technique may actually be more dependent upon the way it's used in the first validation case than anything else.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:32:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Cory:
My thoughts are that actually, the first person to submit an image like this could hold great sway in determining if it's legal in the future or not.
If you do something mild (think two or three exposures), then you'll be more likely to cause this technique to be validated; Something wild (four-hundred shots), then you will probably ensure it's ruled illegal. |
Depending on the next challenge, I know exactly what I want to try since I can fit it into numerous challenge topics. Should I go for broke or only a couple? |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:34:02 PM · #14 |
well we can only combine 10 right?
i was thinking three subjects in a dark field at night with a flash exposing each on in a different frame, then combine those frames in post!
the scene wont change only one of the subjects will be lit in each frame.
should be an easy validation :)
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 06:15:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
well we can only combine 10 right?
i was thinking three subjects in a dark field at night with a flash exposing each on in a different frame, then combine those frames in post!
the scene wont change only one of the subjects will be lit in each frame.
should be an easy validation :) |
By all means, push the limits, right over the edge ...
IF all elements of the scene are present (and static) in each frame, and only differently-lit, then I would consider this a form of HDR-blending per the Advanced Rules, adding in an element of the "painting with light" technique.
I would not so consider your example above, where the two secondary subjects are not at all visible in every source frame; I don't think anyone looking at the three photos side by side would consider them shots of the "same scene" with only different exposures/lighting.
Note that not all DQ decisions are unanimous, and my vote is frequently in the minority ...
Originally posted by Linked Artticle:
On the other hand, if you get too carried away, there is nothing worse than someone asking if you used Photomatix to compile your HDR garbage shot followed by âMy 13 year-old has that program too!â |
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 08:12:54 PM · #16 |
I would expect my example to be a dq. I was only joking :D
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 08:36:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
I would expect my example to be a dq. I was only joking :D |
In that case, thanks for helping provide an example for clarification. :-)
I makes sense to me to allow merging of images where the lighting of certain areas is accentuated. However, as I said, my opinion is that only, I don't speak for other SC members ...
ETA: I am reminded that (I think it was) yesterday was the thirtieth anniversary of the first use of the typographical smiley-face emoticon ... :-)
Message edited by author 2012-09-20 20:38:36. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 08:42:03 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I would not so consider your example above, where the two secondary subjects are not at all visible in every source frame; I don't think anyone looking at the three photos side by side would consider them shots of the "same scene" with only different exposures/lighting.
Note that not all DQ decisions are unanimous, and my vote is frequently in the minority ...
Originally posted by Linked Artticle:
On the other hand, if you get too carried away, there is nothing worse than someone asking if you used Photomatix to compile your HDR garbage shot followed by âMy 13 year-old has that program too!â |
|
So you're saying that in HDR you should be able to see in all frames what is obscured in the shadows, the very point of using HDR?
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 08:42:25 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Cory:
My thoughts are that actually, the first person to submit an image like this could hold great sway in determining if it's legal in the future or not.
If you do something mild (think two or three exposures), then you'll be more likely to cause this technique to be validated; Something wild (four-hundred shots), then you will probably ensure it's ruled illegal. |
Depending on the next challenge, I know exactly what I want to try since I can fit it into numerous challenge topics. Should I go for broke or only a couple? |
Depends on if you want this to become something that's allowed here or not. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 09:43:25 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I would not so consider your example above, where the two secondary subjects are not at all visible in every source frame; I don't think anyone looking at the three photos side by side would consider them shots of the "same scene" with only different exposures/lighting. |
What if it's just ambient light producing that effect (ex lightning storm)? |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 09:49:42 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
So you're saying that in HDR you should be able to see in all frames what is obscured in the shadows, the very point of using HDR? |
Something which fades off into the shadows is different than the "proposed DQ" example where one or more of the eventual subjects is completely invisible in some of the frame. There is a difference between bringing out detail in a shadowed area and "hiding" a subject in the dark.
This obviously would be a type of image open to a subjective determination (not good IMO), so I am trying to share my opinion of where the borderline should fall, and to make the grey area as narrow as possible, should this technique ever be subject to validation. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 09:54:09 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I would not so consider your example above, where the two secondary subjects are not at all visible in every source frame; I don't think anyone looking at the three photos side by side would consider them shots of the "same scene" with only different exposures/lighting. |
What if it's just ambient light producing that effect (ex lightning storm)? |
How would only one of the three subjects show up when the lightning illuminates the scene?
In the example (as I interpreted it), he was proposing lining up three people in the dark, setting the frasming and focal length to include all of them, and then, in the dark, lighting each in turn with a spotlight and making an exposure for each, then merging in post-processing. In each frame only one subject would be visible.
I know of no way to either call forth or focus lightning to achieve this result ... |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 10:10:59 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
So you're saying that in HDR you should be able to see in all frames what is obscured in the shadows, the very point of using HDR? |
Something which fades off into the shadows is different than the "proposed DQ" example where one or more of the eventual subjects is completely invisible in some of the frame. There is a difference between bringing out detail in a shadowed area and "hiding" a subject in the dark.
This obviously would be a type of image open to a subjective determination (not good IMO), so I am trying to share my opinion of where the borderline should fall, and to make the grey area as narrow as possible, should this technique ever be subject to validation. |
I see what you're saying but the majority of my mountain scenes that use/require HDR have zero detail in the shadows for the images that expose for the sky due to the disparity in EV. So under your argument, my foreground elements are illegal, as well. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 10:33:20 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I see what you're saying but the majority of my mountain scenes that use/require HDR have zero detail in the shadows for the images that expose for the sky due to the disparity in EV. So under your argument, my foreground elements are illegal, as well. |
Presumably they show up in more than one of the exposures (and that you're blending more than two exposures). I think we'd be able to tell whether something was there all along, or if it was placed into the frame for only one exposure.
Besides, here we were dealing with an example not of HDR at all, but a multiple exposure composite -- no different than if all were shot in constant ambient light, but each walked onto the stage individually to pose for a separate frame. |
|
|
|
09/21/2012 12:36:06 AM · #25 |
| So in the video, we can see lightstands and the like for the rimlighting, I assume that those would be cause for a DQ in advanced. Whatever the lighting, we can't allow flash heads or the like in the frame, right? |
|
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: 07/27/2025 04:10:12 PM EDT.
