| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2012 04:08:25 AM · #26 |
i had this one validated two 30 second exposures shots in a burst as i didnt have my remote release first bit of light trail in first shot second bit in second shot but scene was unchanged other than that, shot on tripod
did you blend one shop front with the guy and one with the guy? |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 04:24:06 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
i had this one validated two 30 second exposures shots in a burst as i didnt have my remote release first bit of light trail in first shot second bit in second shot but scene was unchanged other than that, shot on tripod
did you blend one shop front with the guy and one with the guy? |
"Blending" as you termed, "deghosting" as photomatix calls it, can either be done manually, or you can allow the software ( photomatix ) to decide on the prominent position and then it works around it. I think it defaults to the mid exposure, I'm not really to sure. Again in this instance I didn't chose which final setting to use. You can also switch "deghosting" off and you get quite an interesting effect.
The guy ( as you will see if SC are OK with me putting the originals up ) is simply approaching then bending over. It was all over in less than a second, so he's maybe moved a few feet. The rest of the scene remains unchanged.... |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 04:34:25 AM · #28 |
No de ghosting is the removal of slight artefacts from camera moment, high dynamic range photograph is created by blending multiple exposure generally of different exposure increments to achieve the shadows, midtones and high lights that you can't capture in a single image on a digital sensor.
It's very hard to de ghost a man moving though the scene though I've always done it manually in ps with layer masks when I've had similar problems. I can't see the sc having a problem you've already created a thread about their decision so posting the images isn't going to matter |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 07:32:48 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
No de ghosting is the removal of slight artefacts from camera moment, high dynamic range photograph is created by blending multiple exposure generally of different exposure increments to achieve the shadows, midtones and high lights that you can't capture in a single image on a digital sensor.
It's very hard to de ghost a man moving though the scene though I've always done it manually in ps with layer masks when I've had similar problems. I can't see the sc having a problem you've already created a thread about their decision so posting the images isn't going to matter |
I'll post shortly. Deghosting is the removal of "ghosts", ie generally people and animal movements in HDR. I usually take 7-9 images, in this case only 5.
have a look at my website ( dougi555.1x.com ) you'll see ive done many HDR's and held many exhibitions..... i'm also about to publish a book with over 150 HDR images..... I know what HDR is.....
Message edited by author 2012-12-03 07:34:39. |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 07:42:51 AM · #30 |
An HDR image without de-ghosting applied.
 |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 07:51:13 AM · #31 |
For INfo, and so others dont fall foul of the rule, below are the five images i used as the basis of my HDR image shown at bottom for reference...
    
And the DQ'd final image
Be warned......... :)
|
|
|
|
12/03/2012 09:31:49 PM · #32 |
Oh for god's sake, now i've been suspended because of two in DQ's in 25 entries. The last one was nearly two months ago.....!!!!!!!! THIS IS SILLY NOW.
I GIVE UP! |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 09:40:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by dougi555:
Oh for god's sake, now i've been suspended because of two in DQ's in 25 entries. The last one was nearly two months ago.....!!!!!!!! THIS IS SILLY NOW.
I GIVE UP! |
file an appeal, i think the sample was tampered with |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 09:47:40 PM · #34 |
| im gonna say something that is probably unpopular, but that is the price you pay for doing HDR on something that will move, HDR was meant for architecture originally and well im sorry to say it contravened the rules which people do all the time in other ways but the case was clearly evident in this case, apologies if that is sounding unsympathetic am sympathetic but it is the rule and we all have to try and follow them in that way.. sorry! |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 10:20:09 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Originally posted by crowis:
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
This is crazy. Sorry but these rules need to be rewritten or updated or something, there is too much room for error. How is it your entry was a DQ but this one was verified?
 |
That is an odd photo. . .between the source material and the original. . .hmm. |
For freaking real!? Did you all fail photoshop 101 or what!? This same thing is easy to create even in the most simplest photoshop elements with an overlay layer. We are discussing using multiple photos versus normal HDR Which mean one photo different exposures in RAW merged. Real simple. Now we are dissing Damon's photo because some one doesn't have the simple photoshop skills to understand how simple an edit it is?! |
There was a long discussion about this image(I don't think you were here for this.
The image in question had people REMOVED entirely from the image. It's not a simple HDR image.
Matt |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 10:49:05 PM · #36 |
Sorry Alan, but I must say, that is a pretty cut and dry example to me. In some photos there is only one person visible. In your end result, there are two people visible, and they are main parts to your photos. To me, that is definitely a major scene change.
Best of luck in the future. |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 11:09:36 PM · #37 |
I, too, think the scene changed...
And... if the last DQ's had been maybe 20 entries between when the rule said in the last 25... I'd think maybe... there could possibly leave room for discussion, if you entered one after another of the challenges.
But... two in seven...?
I'm sorry, but... I don't think the Site Council had any hope of withholding that decision.
Don't let it get you down though... I've been there...
If I were you and had it to do over (which, of course, I'm not... and don't), I'd take that shot of the man bending over... do some shadow/highlights on it... and some dodge and burn... maybe some contrast... rock this world!
Don't give up...
It's only a week's suspension and you went three weeks before you entered that shot after your previous one, anyway.
Hang in there!
We're all rooting for you to ribbon again SOON!
Message edited by author 2012-12-03 23:28:00. |
|
|
|
12/03/2012 11:36:29 PM · #38 |
| I've been suspended. You have no idea how quickly it passes... Don't let it get to you. You're good for the site :-) |
|
|
|
12/04/2012 12:50:57 AM · #39 |
No offence mean, Alan. I admire your sincerity and your great HDR series. But your original shots to me is not a kind of HDR as per common practice by everyone in Advance Editing. It's hand held and the whole scenes are moving by quite huge margin not the persons subject alone. So, I got to agree with SC decision.
The frame between 1/400 and 1/100 shutter speed are moving too. I can do HDR with the 5 images of yours and I guess many others here are capable too. But I don't because I can pretty correctly guess what's the result. I see you take the 3th shot as the main and if all other is just light opacity layer merging, there will still be some distorted moving edges. If you're really using all the images for "Very Convenient", I think SC will take it as layering chop/paste kind of expert editing thingy.
However, if you submit a single frame "convenient 011" and call it pseudo-HDR, I guess no problem. :P
#Sorry for bad grammar.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2012 08:59:53 AM · #40 |
This is a different look than Dougi came up with, but the single-frame image is clearly workable; this is a workup of the 011 frame.
FWIW |
|
|
|
12/04/2012 11:06:40 AM · #41 |
Not an attempt to emulate.. Just an exercise in learning. My attempt
Message edited by author 2012-12-04 11:11:50. |
|
|
|
12/05/2012 01:44:58 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is a different look than Dougi came up with, but the single-frame image is clearly workable; this is a workup of the 011 frame.
FWIW |
for me that worked better as an example of whats possible with single image HDR still a little heavy but nicer i think anyway and would have met the challenge rules... good for people to learn from this example... nicely shown Bear! |
|
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: 06/06/2025 03:30:17 AM EDT.
