| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 04:41:22 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yeah, it's right there in the rules: "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene" |
So he *had* to clone them out to use the image??? |
This is something else I don't understand. I thought nothing could change, and the intent was to allow multiple of the SAME scene only to allow higher dynamic range. But apparently it can as long as you remove the things that did? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:44:57 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yeah, it's right there in the rules: "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene" |
So he *had* to clone them out to use the image??? |
This is something else I don't understand. I thought nothing could change, and the intent was to allow multiple of the SAME scene only to allow higher dynamic range. But apparently it can as long as you remove the things that did? |
As long as they are insignificant |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:47:06 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by EntertainMe:
I did a quick overlay.. the two groups occupy identical proportions of the composition. |
Minor distractions are not a question of percentage, but of prominence. The group in the background of the plane image are somewhat more prominent than the ones shadowed under the arch, so it might generate some discussion, but I'm reasonable sure it would pass. |
I'm satisfied as long as this case with the plane would pass validation as well.
One could argue that you could use advanced editing to shadow/desaturate the people to the point where it is ok to wipe them out completely if its a "prominence" thing rather than a "percent of composition" thing.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 16:47:54. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:47:46 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
Yeah, it's right there in the rules: "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene" |
But he didn't do that, in the swan shot. The "scene" was the same, an element wandered into the scene for one of the exposures. Likewise, in the arch shot, the "scene" is the same but an element within the scene has changed. You've validated that one although/because (not sure which) the inconsistent element has been removed. Would you have validated if the inconsistent element had been left in? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:49:15 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by MattO:
This is something else I don't understand. I thought nothing could change, and the intent was to allow multiple of the SAME scene only to allow higher dynamic range. But apparently it can as long as you remove the things that did? |
Well, Shannon said the image that had the swan in it could not have been used in any way since it violated the major elements rule,so....I'm guessing you are sailing close to the wind if you clone out anything. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:52:43 PM · #81 |
Let me pose a slightly different hypothetical: 3-image HDRI composite of a scene in my marsh. In ONE of the 3 images there's an osprey flying by. I clone it out, because it doesn't "belong" in the set. Based on the arch example, I'd assume that's the correct thing to do.
But what if the osprey appeared in all 3 frames, left/center/right in progression? Leave it in the composite in ONE of the 3 locations? Clone it out so there's no osprey at all? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:58:32 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me pose a slightly different hypothetical: 3-image HDRI composite of a scene in my marsh. In ONE of the 3 images there's an osprey flying by. I clone it out, because it doesn't "belong" in the set. Based on the arch example, I'd assume that's the correct thing to do.
But what if the osprey appeared in all 3 frames, left/center/right in progression? Leave it in the composite in ONE of the 3 locations? Clone it out so there's no osprey at all? |
I tried to respond, and then deleted my thoughts, good question. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:01:19 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me pose a slightly different hypothetical: 3-image HDRI composite of a scene in my marsh. In ONE of the 3 images there's an osprey flying by. I clone it out, because it doesn't "belong" in the set. Based on the arch example, I'd assume that's the correct thing to do.
But what if the osprey appeared in all 3 frames, left/center/right in progression? Leave it in the composite in ONE of the 3 locations? Clone it out so there's no osprey at all? |
Great hypo, but they still haven't answered what the SC's definition of "scene" is.
eta:
and how far apart in time are the different HDR frames allowed to be?
Someone said- can't be night and then day in same spot. But look carefully, those people didn't just "run" in the scene- there is a big backpack and/or a baby carriage and they look like they are resting on a rock. How far apart were the exposures?
Isn't the true spirit and intent of the rule, as Robert describes it, "to bracket and fire" not take a shot and then wait until people meander in and back out of the frame, or deep enough to matter?
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 17:07:42. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:26:56 PM · #84 |
Another hypothetical, and I'll probably ticket the SC on this one..
I would like to do a long-gap HDR, where the first shots are daytime, and the last shots are well into night.
I would not move or adjust the camera, other than exposure time, and all elements will remain the same, except the time of day.
Would this be DQ'd under the advanced ruleset?
ETA: I apparently just yanko'd blindjustice...
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 17:27:42. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:28:31 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But he didn't do that, in the swan shot. The "scene" was the same, an element wandered into the scene for one of the exposures. Likewise, in the arch shot, the "scene" is the same but an element within the scene has changed. You've validated that one although/because (not sure which) the inconsistent element has been removed. Would you have validated if the inconsistent element had been left in? |
For DPC purposes, we're talking about scenes that would reasonably be described as "a swan in a pond" and just "a pond" (two very different scenes). The arch entry was one scene with a transient and insignificant distraction.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me pose a slightly different hypothetical: 3-image HDRI composite of a scene in my marsh. In ONE of the 3 images there's an osprey flying by. I clone it out, because it doesn't "belong" in the set. Based on the arch example, I'd assume that's the correct thing to do. |
Yep, assuming it's a minor imperfection. If the osprey flew by 10 feet from your lens, then that's probably not going to be a usable frame.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But what if the osprey appeared in all 3 frames, left/center/right in progression? Leave it in the composite in ONE of the 3 locations? Clone it out so there's no osprey at all? |
We've ruled that you cannot take multiple frames and pick out the best expression on a face or best composition with a moving object, so if the ospreys are major it would be considered an illegal changing scene. If they're just dots in the sky, then you could clone them out of each frame as a minor distraction. If it was something like an osprey on a branch with only inconsequential movement between frames, then you'd probably be OK with picking one to keep just as you would with a moving leaves or clouds on a rapid burst.
A similar scenario that we've probably already validated repeatedly would be something like a long exposure HDR of surf. You cannot pick out one shot of a big wave crashing over the rocks as a great feature to keep from multiple frames, but we're not going to quibble over the slight natural changes between 8 second exposures of water. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:31:19 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I would like to do a long-gap HDR, where the first shots are daytime, and the last shots are well into night. |
That would be considered time-lapse and specifically disallowed by an update to the current Advanced Editing rules in January 2008. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:34:37 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Someone said- can't be night and then day in same spot. But look carefully, those people didn't just "run" in the scene- there is a big backpack and/or a baby carriage and they look like they are resting on a rock. How far apart were the exposures? |
The frames were taken about 3 minutes apart. I had a lengthy discussion with Neil and took issue with the difference in the sky for the reason you suggest, but they were close enough considering the short time frame to give the benefit of doubt. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:46:20 PM · #88 |
| this thread needs some popcorn. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:46:58 PM · #89 |
| I think Brennan brought it up 50 posts above, but I gotta say the people in this picture are hardly "insignificant". Think about it this way, you could imagine the arch hanging in some landscape gallery as it was done. Do you think it would hang in that same gallery with the family posing? Hell no. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:51:47 PM · #90 |
Was there a change in the interpretation of how a sky moves? My Best of 2008 shot has a sky used 20 minutes after the rest of the image specifically because I liked the sky in that shot. I submitted a ticket at the time and said it would fly (it didn't need official validation for placing). I would not have been under the impression that sky changes mattered.
As I said before, this stuff is all impossible to keep track of. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:59:18 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think Brennan brought it up 50 posts above, but I gotta say the people in this picture are hardly "insignificant". Think about it this way, you could imagine the arch hanging in some landscape gallery as it was done. Do you think it would hang in that same gallery with the family posing? Hell no. |
This is fallacious. Many photos would not hang in a gallery without their uncontroversial and DPC-legal edits. Your example clarifies nothing when it comes to the application of the editing rules at DPC.
And yes, if we are going to have you guys throw out nuanced example after nuanced example, have SC discuss/explain how the rules would apply to each one, then it is impossible to keep track. Stepping back, I think most of us can see where the bright line is, and if anyone thinks they are approaching it, one can either as SC ahead of time (like kirbic did), or take a chance.
We do our best to take something very subjective and put as objective a "lens" on it as we can. I think the example here is pretty clear as a guideline, as well as some of the other comments, but don't get bogged down in the details. If you have been a part of DPC for longer than 6 months, your gut will tell you if something you are doing is questionable. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:01:12 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Think about it this way, you could imagine the arch hanging in some landscape gallery as it was done. Do you think it would hang in that same gallery with the family posing? Hell no. |
The same is true with or without the family and in any Advanced Editing entry where something was cloned out. That's why we do post-processing. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:10:58 PM · #93 |
I'd just like to bring a few images up for the cloning people and distractions out in reference to the Kirbic image.
 Validated entry  Original that shows what all was removed.  Here is another entry with the same scene but a couple years later. Now if all of this cloning is allowed on these, but then Kirbics example would not be how is this? There is as much or more cloned out in those examples as would be to remove the people in Kirbics.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:17:42 PM · #94 |
The people gone, yeah no problem...but the posts!? wow, I would not think that would be ok.... good to know!
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 18:18:42. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:17:58 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
No one is asking the really important question: Are those people okay? What happened to them? Where did they go? |
this is what I am talking about. nobody cares about them. Clearly SC has an agenda and doesn't care out the small people who aren't prominent, god forbid they don't obstruct the landscape or wear big bright neon orange hats.
they are innocent victims and no one is talking about them.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:21:50 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by EntertainMe:
The people gone, yeah no problem...but the posts!? wow, I would not think that would be ok.... good to know! |
rules have changed since this example (from 2007), and we actually voted to DQ the second example, but were split so didn't actually "push the button". So both examples are NOT recommended practice. You will be DQ'd.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 18:24:13. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:23:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by EntertainMe:
The people gone, yeah no problem...but the posts!? wow, I would not think that would be ok.... good to know! |
rules have changed since this example. |
Since Feb 2010? Current rule set says (updated on Nov 9th, 2009)
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 18:24:24. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:26:18 PM · #98 |
I was editing my response, but didn't get it posted before you jumped all over it.
To quote myself:
Originally posted by frisca:
rules have changed since this example (from 2007), and we actually voted to DQ the second example, but were split so didn't actually "push the button". So both examples are NOT recommended practice. You will be DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:28:54 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by frisca:
and we actually voted to DQ the second example, but were split so didn't actually "push the button". So both examples are NOT recommended practice. You will be DQ'd. |
I'll just walk away from this with the idea that in these cases, it's a coin flip and it's up to the photographer to decide whether or not they want to take the chance. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:29:13 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I was editing my response, but didn't get it posted before you jumped all over it.
To quote myself:
Originally posted by frisca:
rules have changed since this example (from 2007), and we actually voted to DQ the second example, but were split so didn't actually "push the button". So both examples are NOT recommended practice. You will be DQ'd.
|
|
yep, don't use posts, hang it and clone out the wires, the viewers depiction is clearly unaltered from the original in the second case and not the first :) |
|
