Composite lighting - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/21/2012 01:58:46 AM · #26

How do you get this

Originally posted by GeneralE:

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.

from this...

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 :)

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/21/2012 06:06:47 AM · #27

Originally posted by Venser:

edit - You know Mike, it's going to be a minimal challenge tonight, I can feel it.

worse... its basic editing.

Message edited by author 2012-09-21 06:06:57.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/21/2012 06:12:34 AM · #28

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

How do you get this
Originally posted by GeneralE:

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.

from this...

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 :)

?

the point of my example is an extreme case. SC wouldn't be able to verify the scene didn't change, since they wouldn't be able to see the rest of it.

09/21/2012 06:30:44 AM · #29

Originally posted by mike_311:

the point of my example is an extreme case. SC wouldn't be able to verify the scene didn't change, since they wouldn't be able to see the rest of it.

Sure, but under the current rules the scene does not change and this should be legal. The issue is not that it's difficult for SC to ascertain this but that the rules leave a gray area as it pertains to this. There are some other issues with the rules that are vague about HDR type scenes as well.

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

09/21/2012 12:43:19 PM · #30

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by mike_311:

the point of my example is an extreme case. SC wouldn't be able to verify the scene didn't change, since they wouldn't be able to see the rest of it.

Sure, but under the current rules the scene does not change ...

The scene as depicted in the shots does change under that scenario, and therefore it cannot be validated.

09/21/2012 07:41:44 PM · #31

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The scene as depicted in the shots does change under that scenario, and therefore it cannot be validated.

If that is the interpretation of the rules then it should be altered to reflect that. The wording does not lead one to that conclusion, considering-
" 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."

and

"create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). "

Neither of which are done in this approach. I don't think this type of approach is addressed adequately in the rules, and that's fine, things need to be altered over time, but as written does not state "as depicted."

Message edited by author 2012-09-21 19:42:03.

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

09/21/2012 10:05:33 PM · #32

Please use some common sense about this -- it is not possible to write a rule set (other than Minimal) which will explicitly determine what is and what is not legal in every conceivable situation.

A hypothetical was posited, and I answered how I (personally) would interpret that particular challenge. I make no promises as to how I will interpret any particular effort without seeing it first, and this is not an "official SC ruling" â�� the technique may be ruled altogether illegal..

Based on the given example, this is what I mean:

Valid â�� it is possible to verify that it is three different exposures of a static scene:

Not valid â�� not possible to verify that it is a static scene:

"It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
--(attributed to H.D. Thoreau)

Message edited by author 2012-09-21 22:10:05.

09/21/2012 10:29:29 PM · #33

I'm not being obtuse, I understand exactly what you're saying.

The problem, and why discussions like these tend to become so full of frustration, is that unless a user has been trolling through the forums here forever, there is no reasonable way for them to understand the peculiarities with how rules tend to be interpreted. Sure, long-time users can say after an entry has been DQ'd, oh, well, yeah look at examples 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, where the ruling was the same. But short of somebody looking through all the DQ's or intensely mining the forums of the past, they have no access to such information.
Following the word of the rules, this technique should be legal, separate to anything that you have posted regarding how you would personally interpret it. I say that because there is no requirement in the rules that agrees with what you are proposing so far as a scene is defined, regardless of how you will vote. The statements regarding what defines a scene are met in this scenario. If you think this changes the definition of the scene, then the definition of a scene listed in the rules needs to be altered.

If you think this approach should not be applicable, then simply put it in the section discussing how advanced is not intended to be used to insert people into scenes multiple times etc.

We both agree about there always being room to misunderstand something, but it's also unfair to expect individuals to understand a backstory they were never even present for and which is not defined in the ruleset. Surely we can keep the rules from becoming a compendium yet also provide some means of seeing past rulings.

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

09/21/2012 11:15:31 PM · #34

When the rules refer to the "scene" they refer to the photograph(s0 and what's shown, not the setting itself. Otherwise we'd be DQing HDR images for cloud or leaf movement.

Just apply the usual "typical viewer's description" criterion and I think the issue is clear enough under the current rules.

Giles

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/22/2012 03:31:11 AM · #35

just a side note anyone know what that visual graphics tablet he was using, where you use the pen on what you can see? as its a monitor and tablet in one?