Tourists disappear - DPChallenge Forums

01/25/2011 12:24:25 AM · #1

So i have this candidate structure for the sentinel challenge. Located at the west coast of the island, it makes sense to shoot it with a sunset sky at the bg. Unfortunately, sunset is also the best time of day, any day, when people flock by it. It's a tourist spot.

Would you consider those tourists major elements of the shot? In fact they are ruining the shot. Can i clone them out under adv editing rules?

thanks.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/25/2011 12:32:16 AM · #2

Unfortunately, probably not. I mean, if it's a distant view with tiny dots of people against the sky, you can probably do that; but if it's more up close, and people all around, you'll almost certainly get in trouble. You'd be wise to ask for SC feedback with a before-and-after shot...

R.

Tom

Canon EOS-5D

01/25/2011 12:34:24 AM · #3

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I concur.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/25/2011 12:39:05 AM · #4

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

thanks bear. im actually hoping to get a shot where there are only few people, distant view. Yeah i'll probably pm one them when this shot pushes through.

tanguera

Nikon D750

01/25/2011 01:00:42 AM · #5

Actually, if you wait until the afterglow of sunset, maybe you can do a longer exposure and just get a blur all around from the movement of the people. Might make for an interesting effect.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

01/25/2011 01:03:35 AM · #6

You should eliminate the tourists in pre-production, not post, thereby avoiding a potential DQ.
Tourists disappear all the time and you'll be long gone before anyone notices.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/25/2011 01:18:25 AM · #7

One possibility I think you can get away with is to eliminate some of the tourists if they are prominent. That way the description doesn't change that much. At least in my mind that's possibly acceptable. Still, I agree with everybody that it would be a potential DQ, but who the heck knows these days.

Message edited by author 2011-01-25 01:18:43.

01/25/2011 01:31:55 AM · #8

thanks tom for the reply.
johanna, that's a wonderful idea. i'll give it a try.
art, it takes only a few minutes, then sunset is over. so many people, so little time :) plus my long hair kinda makes me look like one of the bad guys in the movie "turistas", so if any gringo would disappear, i'd be the number one suspect.
doc, yeah i have read about one of your ribbon winning entries, the cookie sign was actually the precedent i was hoping for on this one.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

01/25/2011 01:54:18 AM · #9

*putting my thinking cap back on*

...ok, how about this: you buy about 1000 of those green glow sticks, break them open and pour the glowing contents around the perimeter you want to be vacated for your shot, don a hazmat suit and use a megaphone to tell everyone there has been a uranium leak at a nearby nuclear power plant (most of them won't know if a nuclear power plant even exists in the area). Then you have the beach to yourself.

That's about all the advice I can give without charging my normal rate. Best of luck!

01/25/2011 02:06:48 AM · #10

lol. thanks again art. always a fun read.

thanks again everyone for your responses. i think i got this figured out.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

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

01/25/2011 10:22:00 AM · #11

Originally posted by Cyberlandz:

doc, yeah i have read about one of your ribbon winning entries, the cookie sign was actually the precedent i was hoping for on this one.

That cookie shot is 2 1/2 years old so it may not be relevant any more. It's hard to tell.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/25/2011 12:26:12 PM · #12

well if its and multi image HDR, you can combine the shots and hope the software makes them ghost, then you can remove them with a checkbox :)

bergiekat

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

01/25/2011 12:28:28 PM · #13

@ Art...somehow I knew you'd throw some pearl of wisdom into this conversation, lol!

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

01/25/2011 12:34:46 PM · #14

Originally posted by mike_311:

well if its and multi image HDR, you can combine the shots and hope the software makes them ghost, then you can remove them with a checkbox :)

Unfortunately, this isn't allowed either; you can't combine multiple images with different compositional elements. Ghost removal is allowed for incidental movement, like of twigs, clouds, water ripples, but SC has specifically told us we can't use the technique to eliminate traffic, pedestrians, big stuff like that. More's the pity :-( There's actually a software out there thta works to eliminate non-matching elements from otherwise-identical images, cool stuff.

R.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/25/2011 01:22:47 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by mike_311:
well if its and multi image HDR, you can combine the shots and hope the software makes them ghost, then you can remove them with a checkbox :)

Unfortunately, this isn't allowed either; you can't combine multiple images with different compositional elements. Ghost removal is allowed for incidental movement, like of twigs, clouds, water ripples, but SC has specifically told us we can't use the technique to eliminate traffic, pedestrians, big stuff like that. More's the pity :-( There's actually a software out there thta works to eliminate non-matching elements from otherwise-identical images, cool stuff.

R.

but what if the people are incidental?

I made an image of a bridge in a park but I never got around to submitting it for a challenge. As a result of the HDR combination the people walking over the bridge became ghostly, but they were minor, its was just their upper bodies showing over the walls. the software removed some, others i had to remove, since they looked screwed up. In this case the people moving became like twigs or cloud movements.

i didnt intentionally create an hdr for this reason, its just happened to work out that way.

BTW: photoshop will take moving objects out of an image:

//submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/217/article2.html

Message edited by author 2011-01-25 13:23:19.

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

01/25/2011 01:29:44 PM · #16

Originally posted by mike_311:

All I know is, when they decided to allow HDR, multi-image compositing, I raised the issue of using the process to eliminate pedestrians and traffic from urban architectural shots, and I was told it could not be done legally. A while ago there was a ribbon-winning shot DQ'd because a swan in the shot was only present in one of the exposures, so that's related as well. At what point of detail do pedestrians become "incidental" like moving twigs? I don't know.

The fact that we can do it with Photoshop, actually, is neither here nor there: it doesn't matter with what software the effect was achieved, just whether or not it's a legal effect.

But I'm not SC, of course; this is just my take on it.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/25/2011 01:29:50 PM · #17

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by mike_311:
well if its and multi image HDR, you can combine the shots and hope the software makes them ghost, then you can remove them with a checkbox :)

Unfortunately, this isn't allowed either; you can't combine multiple images with different compositional elements. Ghost removal is allowed for incidental movement, like of twigs, clouds, water ripples, but SC has specifically told us we can't use the technique to eliminate traffic, pedestrians, big stuff like that. More's the pity :-( There's actually a software out there thta works to eliminate non-matching elements from otherwise-identical images, cool stuff.

R.

but what if the people are incidental?

I made an image of a bridge in a park but I never got around to submitting it for a challenge. As a result of the HDR combination the people walking over the bridge became ghostly, but they were minor, its was just their upper bodies showing over the walls. the software removed some, others i had to remove, since they looked screwed up. In this case the people moving became like twigs or cloud movements.

i didnt intentionally create an hdr for this reason, its just happened to work out that way.

I think this is likely to garner a DQ here. Your people turned ghostly because the scene changed between shots, which not allowed by the Advanced rules description of HDR editing. People are unlikely to be considered "incidental" in any case -- "and empty bridge" and "a bridge with people walking across it" describe two different pictures.

Note this is just one more opinion. Any time you think there's a potential for your editing being "borderline" you might want to submit a ticket with the Before and After versions and get some more informal opinions (not a "pre-validation") before actually entering it in a challenge.

CJinCA

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/25/2011 01:44:21 PM · #18

Would a neutral density filter and looooooong shutter eliminate the people milling about?

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/25/2011 01:48:43 PM · #19

Originally posted by CJinCA:

Would a neutral density filter and looooooong shutter eliminate the people milling about?

Yes, that would have been my suggestion.

01/25/2011 01:52:48 PM · #20

Originally posted by CJinCA:

Would a neutral density filter and looooooong shutter eliminate the people milling about?

It sort of depends on just how linear the "milling" is: it works real well for pedestrian traffic on a busy sidewalk, not so well for crowds milling around at a destination spot. It's certainly worth a try.

R.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/25/2011 02:50:44 PM · #21

use a lensbaby and blurrrrrr them out. :)

Citadel

Nikon D7500

01/25/2011 02:56:40 PM · #22

I wish I had the shot handy but I took a shot in a busy mall in Montreal and there is no one in the shot. 30 second exposure and people kept moving so they didn't actually make it into the final image.

01/25/2011 08:03:40 PM · #23

once again, thanks everyone for your replies. i'll probably go for a long exposure like many of you have suggested. but you know its a tourist spot, and a dating spot for lovers, too. so it's very likely that many of them will spend more than 30 secs in one spot while enjoying the view. but i think i'll manage to come up with something when i go there this weekend (a peak day for visitor count).

back to the original question. is it legal?

your replies confirm what i already think i know. thanks a lot everyone.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/25/2011 08:44:36 PM · #24

Here is another option - read the caption under the photo.