| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/31/2016 08:17:29 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by gipper11:
I would like to know why it was not DQable? If the intent of the challenge was clearly stated then it should have been DQ'd for sure, I can see why others were irritated, that is probably one of the reasons membership is decreasing.. |
On the contrary, we've seen that we lose participants when we turn into anal a$$holes about challenge descriptions. We did a couple DQable descriptions recently, actually, and boy did we ever get taken down a notch for that :-( It's altogether way too much stress to put on SC, if nothing else. The concept "pano", for example, is just too malleable to be "enforced" in that way. YOU say "Require the entered image to be constructed of "x" number of consecutive frames, for example, but *I* think the "nature" of panorama is the most important element: in other words, if I used, say, a 200mm lens to stitch together 4 vertical frames of a large building, I'd have a squarish image that looks like a detail of an architectural facade, not in the least "panoramic", but it would satisfy your criteria (at least as you've expressed yourself thus far).
Ditto for "HDR"; if we start defining exactly what is and what is not an HDRI image, we're down the rabbit hole with mobs of disgruntled members chasing us, to mangle a metaphor or two.
As SC, I don't ever want to be put into the position, again, of ignoring the forest for the trees. I'd rather the voters just voted. This isn't rocket science, it's a game.
ETA: We have in the past, and probably will continue to, flag special rules for certain absolute on/off type rules. If the challenge is "15-second Exposure" we can flag that and enforce it on pain of DQ, because EXIF covers that base for us. But even so, would you feel good about DQing an image where someone was bulbing a 15-second exposure and came up with 14.76 seconds in the EXIF? I certainly wouldn't, but if SC agreed to cut some slack there then SOMEBODY would go ballistic because "a rule is a rule". Been there, done that. We can add some slop into the flag (DQ if not within 1/2 second +/- of 15 sec) but then you feel bad about 14.49 secs, you know? Maybe rounding up is OK?
Are we artist-people or are we martinets?
Message edited by author 2016-01-31 20:23:47. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 08:18:16 PM · #52 |
[deleted]
I think you should write up a challenge suggestion or two, Jake. Stop complaining & start contributing.
Message edited by author 2016-01-31 20:24:09. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 08:29:33 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by gipper11:
"In a previous challenge, supposed to be taken close to your house, one of the top 5 completely ignored that and actually boasted of it in the comments. It wasn't a DQable offense"
I would like to know why it was not DQable? If the intent of the challenge was clearly stated then it should have been DQ'd for sure, I can see why others were irritated, that is probably one of the reasons membership is decreasing.. |
I didn't mean to bring it up to irritate you further. I brought it up to show there are always one or two that try to game the system, but the challenge descriptions are there for guidelines and it's up to the voters to decide if they meet those guidelines. It's bugging the heck out of me that I just got a one on the silhouette challenge because someone else and I disagree as to what a silhouette is. But I used my best judgement as to meeting the challenge, and they used theirs as to voting. Personally -- I'm looking forward to the discussion after the challenge. Everything is a learning process. I could take my blocks and go home because someone doesn't agree with me. Or I can look forward to an interesting discussion, since there's obviously more than just he and I with different takes on the subject.
If the SC had to try and judge whether something fits the challenge topic, everyone would quit. Seriously -- they have to determine if something fits the "calm" challenge, the "end" challenge?
Again. This is an incredible group of people that do there best to fit the challenge in their way. If one or two decide to take shortcuts, that doesn't invalidate the 58 others that entered the challenge. Realize that's life. And realize that you're probably mistaken on which ones took a shortcut and which ones actually followed it to the letter. That's the magic of it all.
Message edited by author 2016-01-31 20:33:21. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 08:37:36 PM · #54 |
It probably isn't that difficult to determine that the entry should be DQ'd if the person bragged about it. You didn't irritate me by bringing it up, the people who were irritated were the ones who were affected by it when it happened.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2016 08:55:05 PM · #55 |
| *scratching head* I'm kinda on the horns of a dilemma...I did try the HDR feature in-camera, and without it...and am having a helluva time seeing if the images I downloaded and have short-listed are already HDR'd or not! Didn't help that I can only use HDR in jpg format, and didn't switch back to NEF when not shooting HDR. So this will be fun, scrolling through those images' info in-camera, as I don't think iPhoto delves that deep into the EXIF data. *sigh*... |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 09:18:46 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
*scratching head* I'm kinda on the horns of a dilemma...I did try the HDR feature in-camera, and without it...and am having a helluva time seeing if the images I downloaded and have short-listed are already HDR'd or not! Didn't help that I can only use HDR in jpg format, and didn't switch back to NEF when not shooting HDR. So this will be fun, scrolling through those images' info in-camera, as I don't think iPhoto delves that deep into the EXIF data. *sigh*... |
Yeah... I was kind of wondering that, as well. I got a new point and shoot for Christmas, and I can't really tell what photos the camera as messed with and which are pristine. It's definitely problematic. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 10:12:46 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by snaffles:
*scratching head* I'm kinda on the horns of a dilemma...I did try the HDR feature in-camera, and without it...and am having a helluva time seeing if the images I downloaded and have short-listed are already HDR'd or not! Didn't help that I can only use HDR in jpg format, and didn't switch back to NEF when not shooting HDR. So this will be fun, scrolling through those images' info in-camera, as I don't think iPhoto delves that deep into the EXIF data. *sigh*... |
Yeah... I was kind of wondering that, as well. I got a new point and shoot for Christmas, and I can't really tell what photos the camera as messed with and which are pristine. It's definitely problematic. |
FWIW I did find the HDR indicator in the lengthy EXIF data screen that I can access in-camera, comes in handy. Ironically of the 7 short listed images, only 2 turn out to be HDR'd in camera, and I'll probably go with one of the 5 that didn't get HDR in camera! |
|
|
|
02/01/2016 11:46:02 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by gipper11:
I Do care because it is very easy to make one frame look like a pano and it is not that easy to stitch frames together and have them be perfect. The ones who did not put in the effort are likely to win.
When I first joined this site I was told the point of the contests are to force you to get up off your butt and do different things, if you don't know how to create a pano other than just cropping one single frame then learn how to do it or just name the challenge something like "make a pano either by cropping or stitching" I really like playing on a fair set of rules.
I was also told that if I was worried about how the voting system that I was at the wrong site. Low and behold as soon as a contest goes into voting there post tracking each vote so it does seem to matter to a lot of people.
I am doing this on my phone so forget about any mistakes - I am out getting some shots do the contests closing soon and getting wet doing it. |
No... if you look at the top ten images in the pano, it looks like the majority were done by stitching images.
Plus -- you get out of the site what you put into it. There will always be people who take short cuts. In a previous challenge, supposed to be taken close to your house, one of the top 5 completely ignored that and actually boasted of it in the comments. It wasn't a DQable offense. People got irritated. However, those of us who actually did the challenge learned how to see the world a little differently.
You will find that the vast majority of people here put the effort in, because the want to learn/explore/experiment. That's why we're here.
HDR -- this is simply a difference of opinion as to what constitutes HDR. I will definitely bracket when doing this. But I've often found that, even when I bracket, I have enough info in a single RAW file. And perhaps that's just because my chosen shots don't have the full range?
Same thing with silhouette. I actually put a heck of a lot of work into my shot. Some people truly disagree on whether it's a silhouette. I think it fits the challenge perfectly.
So while there will always be the classmate that wants the easy grade, most people here truly put the work in -- they just might see things in a different way. Truly. This is a spectacular group of very diverse people. They sometimes will annoy the heck out of you. But the amount that I've learned since I've been here is truly invaluable. |
i have to agree, Wendy. when i first started doing HDR i would always use at least three bracketed exposures. i look back at some of those creations with horror now! eeegad what was i thinking!?
now i prefer to use other tools that generate an "HDR" like look from a single, well exposed capture, but (hopefully) don't overdo it. |
|
|
|
02/01/2016 12:01:10 PM · #59 |
I went out Saturday to shoot for this challenge as well as the Brass and Wall challenge. The photograph I had in mind when I left the house and drove the 1 1/2 hours to the beach was not possible. I wanted to semi recreate a photograph I did for another challenge but the lack of wildflowers (which I knew would not be there) proved problematic because it uncovered things that were distracting. So I opted for another photograph in the same area and did a bunch of bracketed shots to make my HDR image. Then later in the day I was checking a location to make sure what I saw on Google Maps was correct, want to set up a shot in April when the sun will rise directly over something (April and August are the only times of the year this will happen). While checking this location I took a photo and then realized this may also work for a HDR B&W shot but I did not have my tripod (left it in the Jeep) so I sat down and braced myself to try and get a good bracket. After getting a few series I went back (was about 3/4 mile walk one way) to the Jeep for my tripod, learned a long time ago to get the shot then try to improve on it. Went back and got some good steady shots from the tripod and after returning to my Jeep went to Starbucks for some coffee. While sitting in Starbucks I transferred a photo to my phone to see how it would look in B&W HDR. I used SnapSeed to create an HDR image from one photo (it does not allow multiple image HDR), I believe it just does tone mapping like HDR Efex can do with a single image. Then I converted it to B&W in SnapSeed and I really like the outcome.
I get home and start processing photos from both locations and did multiple HDR images from each location. No matter what I did or tried I could not get an image that I liked as much as the fast phone edit I did SnapSeed. At this point I am still undecided which photograph I will use but honestly it looks like I will use the one I did on the phone. Which for me will be a first, I have never entered an image that I edited on my phone. Based on this thread I really want to enter this image to see how well it does and if anyone notices that it is just a tone mapped image done in a phone app and not a multiple image HDR. |
|
|
|
02/01/2016 03:05:45 PM · #60 |
| I say go for it. It's the end result that matters, not how you got there! |
|
|
|
02/01/2016 03:49:20 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I say go for it. It's the end result that matters, not how you got there! |
It's what uploaded as my entry. Still going to mess around with other shots to see what I get. |
|
|
|
02/01/2016 08:47:35 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I say go for it. It's the end result that matters, not how you got there! |
But, for someone who isn't familiar with HDR and how it works this could be a real dilemma. Without a HDR processing software it's near-impossible to create a HDR imagery no matter how much you tweak it the end result is never the same. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 01:04:49 PM · #63 |
Well I ended up upgrading to Lightroom 6 (I have the subscription, just never bothered to do the upgrade from 5) and found out it now has an HDR ability. I have used just about every single HDR program out there and up until yesterday HDR Efex in the Nik collection was my favorite. Not anymore, I really love the output from Lightroom 6. I personally hate HDR because 99% of what you see is so over the top and looks terrible (one reason I probably will not vote on this challenge). LR6 creates a very realistic looking file that is very low in noise (most HDR software introduces way to much noise), will use RAW files and outputs as a DNG file which basically gives you the ability to use RAW all the way thru the editing process. Now, you can take it to extremes after the merge in the develop module if you so desire or even output to another program like Silver Efex Pro to do a B&W conversion. Needless to say I am really impressed with this addition to LR.
I ended up entering a shot that is made from a 5 shot sequence I took handheld. The clouds had all but disappeared when I got back with the tripod so I was not real happy with how the sky looked in them. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 01:49:21 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I say go for it. It's the end result that matters, not how you got there! |
But, for someone who isn't familiar with HDR and how it works this could be a real dilemma. Without a HDR processing software it's near-impossible to create a HDR imagery no matter how much you tweak it the end result is never the same. |
Lightroom, Photoshop and even Photoshop Elements have support to merge images for HDR. What they lack over other programs are the presets that give you some classic HDR looks (and just like "classic" rock, that's not always a good thing). Yes, you'll want to familiarize yourself with what the technique is all about, but it doesn't require special software. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 03:38:40 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Lightroom, Photoshop and even Photoshop Elements have support to merge images for HDR. What they lack over other programs are the presets that give you some classic HDR looks (and just like "classic" rock, that's not always a good thing). Yes, you'll want to familiarize yourself with what the technique is all about, but it doesn't require special software. |
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom does an amazing job of creating HDRs with only three images. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 03:54:52 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Lightroom, Photoshop and even Photoshop Elements have support to merge images for HDR. What they lack over other programs are the presets that give you some classic HDR looks (and just like "classic" rock, that's not always a good thing). Yes, you'll want to familiarize yourself with what the technique is all about, but it doesn't require special software. |
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom does an amazing job of creating HDRs with only three images. |
It sometimes does a better job with only two, particularly with scenes that have very bright and very dark areas only. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 04:00:30 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom does an amazing job of creating HDRs with only three images. |
It sometimes does a better job with only two, particularly with scenes that have very bright and very dark areas only. |
Good tip! |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 05:10:21 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom does an amazing job of creating HDRs with only three images. |
It sometimes does a better job with only two, particularly with scenes that have very bright and very dark areas only. |
Good tip! |
Yeah, I thought it was a little weird, but when the HDR version of Lr was announced it was something both R. Concepsion and Scott Kelby pointed out in their webcasts. Seems less is more sometimes and the merge engine makes better decisions. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 06:44:03 PM · #69 |
| oh crap! I just realized that this isn't one that you can procrastinate. I can't see how a nighttime shot is HDR fodder. :( |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 06:52:14 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
oh crap! I just realized that this isn't one that you can procrastinate. I can't see how a nighttime shot is HDR fodder. :( |
There's a pretty wide dynamic range between (for example) street/store lights and a dark alley/sidewalk, etc. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 07:43:15 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom does an amazing job of creating HDRs with only three images. |
It sometimes does a better job with only two, particularly with scenes that have very bright and very dark areas only. |
Good tip! |
Yeah, I thought it was a little weird, but when the HDR version of Lr was announced it was something both R. Concepsion and Scott Kelby pointed out in their webcasts. Seems less is more sometimes and the merge engine makes better decisions. |
On only two images what kind of E.V. Spacing are we talking about? |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 11:07:02 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
On only two images what kind of E.V. Spacing are we talking about? |
In general, in an HDR merge your LIGHTEST image should render the shadows the way you want them and your DARKEST image should render the highlights properly. If you look at your bracketed exposures carefully, and see that two of them side-by side cover all that, those two are all you need. If you do 1-stop bracketing and find that you need only 3 exposures to cover the extremes, try both a 3-exp merge and a 2-exp merge and see which seems to work better. I've never seen the benefit of less-than-1-stop bracketing for HDR myself: I used to do 5-step and 7-step with 1/2 stop between, but it just made things more complicated. On a particularly difficult scene I may do 2 sets of 3 exposures, and adjust the EV compensation 1/2 stop in the problematic direction. That will allow me to use my preset, 3-exposure HDR setting that I have on my mode dial and still provide myself with some interim exposures. I rarely actually MERGE more than 3 of them, though. |
|
|
|
02/02/2016 11:28:06 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by digifotojo:
On only two images what kind of E.V. Spacing are we talking about? |
In general, in an HDR merge your LIGHTEST image should render the shadows the way you want them and your DARKEST image should render the highlights properly. If you look at your bracketed exposures carefully, and see that two of them side-by side cover all that, those two are all you need. If you do 1-stop bracketing and find that you need only 3 exposures to cover the extremes, try both a 3-exp merge and a 2-exp merge and see which seems to work better. I've never seen the benefit of less-than-1-stop bracketing for HDR myself: I used to do 5-step and 7-step with 1/2 stop between, but it just made things more complicated. On a particularly difficult scene I may do 2 sets of 3 exposures, and adjust the EV compensation 1/2 stop in the problematic direction. That will allow me to use my preset, 3-exposure HDR setting that I have on my mode dial and still provide myself with some interim exposures. I rarely actually MERGE more than 3 of them, though. |
Having been used to 7-exposures (real estate photography) I prefer going the 2 or 3 exposure route. It's less involved and the results are as good or better. Bracketing or E.V. spacing is always a guessing game. Practice makes perfect. |
|
|
|
02/03/2016 06:29:37 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by digifotojo:
On only two images what kind of E.V. Spacing are we talking about? |
In general, in an HDR merge your LIGHTEST image should render the shadows the way you want them and your DARKEST image should render the highlights properly. If you look at your bracketed exposures carefully, and see that two of them side-by side cover all that, those two are all you need. If you do 1-stop bracketing and find that you need only 3 exposures to cover the extremes, try both a 3-exp merge and a 2-exp merge and see which seems to work better. I've never seen the benefit of less-than-1-stop bracketing for HDR myself: I used to do 5-step and 7-step with 1/2 stop between, but it just made things more complicated. On a particularly difficult scene I may do 2 sets of 3 exposures, and adjust the EV compensation 1/2 stop in the problematic direction. That will allow me to use my preset, 3-exposure HDR setting that I have on my mode dial and still provide myself with some interim exposures. I rarely actually MERGE more than 3 of them, though. |
Having been used to 7-exposures (real estate photography) I prefer going the 2 or 3 exposure route. It's less involved and the results are as good or better. Bracketing or E.V. spacing is always a guessing game. Practice makes perfect. |
In general, it would be the images that best capture the details in the brightest and darkest areas of your photograph. The scene would dictate just how wide the exposure variance is. If you're in a dark room with a bright window then one image to expose the room with its shadow details and one for the scene outside. |
|
|
|
02/03/2016 09:41:12 AM · #75 |
| Regardless of method, my first reaction to the images in this challenge is WOW! DPC really stepped up. Some GREAT stuff! |
|
