| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2013 09:21:46 PM · #1 |
I discovered this ruleset when I resurrected an old thread the other day. This ruleset was specified for "Time Lapse" and allows the photographer to have a subject move through the frame by using up to 10 frames of the same background. I really feel like this ruleset would open up the advanced editing set without jeopardizing the photographic integrity of this site. Think about it, under this rule set, Star trails, Time lapse, and Action Sequences are all legal, however, no new areas can be created, and a subject can not be multiplied and moved around in post, It must be "Natural Subject Motion..." Fantastic wording and a fantastic ruleset! Seeing as how the Website Suggestions section is locked (go figure :P ) I posted it here. Thoughts?
Here is the ruleset
Advanced Editing "Time Lapse" |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 09:24:21 PM · #2 |
| That was an early version of the ruleset that was put in place primarily to legalize HDRI images. The "time lapse" aspect of it caused so many problems, and so much acrimony, that it was axed in very short order... |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 09:29:01 PM · #3 |
| Yeah it was before my time here, I joined in 2008. I'm curious what kind of problems, I felt it was very specific as to what was allowed and what wasn't. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 09:49:48 PM · #4 |
To be honest, I can't even remember. It was a major snit-fit though. Someone in SC will know.
From the perspective of a lot of us, a major issue was that we'd been fighting for over a year to get HDR compositing allowed in advanced editing; at that time we could only use it in expert. So when the rule finally got written, with this weird time-lapse add-on, it was an "uh-oh" moment... We worried that the whole rule would go down because people were freaking out about what was, and was not, allowed in time lapse.
Anyway, it all worked out. More or less :-) |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 10:07:17 PM · #5 |
| The problem was defining natural subject motion. Star trails obviously qualify, but it became a problem with entries pieced together from cherry-picked frames of a long sequence of actions like this and this. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 10:31:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The problem was defining natural subject motion. Star trails obviously qualify, but it became a problem with entries pieced together from cherry-picked frames of a long sequence of actions like this and this. |
For what it's worth, I don't really see that as a problem. The rules clearly prohibit both of those images. The goldfish movement is clearly not a natural progression and the guy moving through the room could have been legit, but having him on the outside of the window made it unnatural and therefore a DQ. By having the "natural" in the rule, it clearly means that a subject must move along a "natural" path.
Maybe I'm biased :) I just kinda feel like the advanced rules are a tad to restrictive... Not by much... Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for a major overhaul but I would like to see it opened up to include certain aspects of photography that are deemed "Photography" and not digital art. No one looks at Star trails and says, "Hey, nice digital art..." |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 10:32:34 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
The rules clearly prohibit both of those images. |
Not clearly enough. The forums got pretty heated. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 11:10:46 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The problem was defining natural subject motion. Star trails obviously qualify, but it became a problem with entries pieced together from cherry-picked frames of a long sequence of actions like this and this. |
For what it's worth, I don't really see that as a problem. The rules clearly prohibit both of those images. The goldfish movement is clearly not a natural progression and the guy moving through the room could have been legit, but having him on the outside of the window made it unnatural and therefore a DQ. By having the "natural" in the rule, it clearly means that a subject must move along a "natural" path.
Maybe I'm biased :) I just kinda feel like the advanced rules are a tad to restrictive... Not by much... Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for a major overhaul but I would like to see it opened up to include certain aspects of photography that are deemed "Photography" and not digital art. No one looks at Star trails and says, "Hey, nice digital art..." |
ah you're one of those people who knows what's natural and what's unnatural. perhaps you should try the supreme court. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 11:11:23 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Sirashley:
The rules clearly prohibit both of those images. |
Not clearly enough. The forums got pretty heated. |
Heated... Here??? At Dpc??? You don't say? LoL... I can imagine. The goldfish to me was a no brainer. The guy outside and walking in was closer, but the problem remained that it wasn't natural. It was staged. From outside, he could have walked in any direction, hell, 3000 miles and ended up eventually walking through his living room, at ANY time... Hence, not a natural path of action.
In this photo
The rider must start and finish at those points in that time for it to be natural. While it may sound a bit complex, it's really not.
Hey, while we're at it, let's debate what's clearly a border and removing elements from a border... ;)
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 01:26:35 AM · #10 |
I am pretty sure this was submitted, in very good faith, under that ruleset.  AlexSaberi is an outstanding photographer of some considerable integrity; if I remember rightly it was the disqualification of this photo that was the catalyst for changing the rule set decription. |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 07:28:33 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
In this photo
The rider must start and finish at those points in that time for it to be natural. While it may sound a bit complex, it's really not.
|
how does that that not violate this?
nor is it intended to allow a subject to appear in multiple, arranged places within a scene |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 08:16:43 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Sirashley:
The rules clearly prohibit both of those images. |
Not clearly enough. The forums got pretty heated. |
Run it in the Winter, it will lower the heating bills! |
|
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 07:34:06 AM EDT.
