| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2015 10:19:12 PM · #76 |
I've been hesitant to respond to this issue since I am a beneficiary of this particular DQ. At least I am for the moment as mine has not been validated yet due to an issue with DNG RAW files.
That said, this is a no-brainier to me.
With all due respect to everyone, this entry should be DQ'd.
The use of multiple images is allowed in Advanced editing for HDR and focus stacking. This case is neither of those. This case, if I understand it correctly, is the photographer preferred the sky in one image and the land and tree in another image. There is no multiple image HDR going on here. Also, any images shot at identifiably different focal lengths can not be considered the "same scene" for HDR purposes.
I'm all for pushing the envelope, but there has to be limits.
For the record, I gave this entry the highest score in the challenge, and even commented as such during the voting and after the DQ.
It is a spectacular image in its own right.
As usual, all this is just one guy's opinion.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 10:31:35 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
In my opinion, if she moved enough to have the tree in a totally different place in the two photos, then she does not have two photos of exactly the same scene even if the part used was in both photos. |
I agree. I've always understood the rule to be that the entire image must be the same in both images... only the DOF/Focus could change... to make up an HDR image from the exact same scene (other than minor things that change due to nature... such as light or wind... etc.)
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 11:00:12 PM · #78 |
| we should be glad, I think, that the site council does not necessarily have intimate knowledge of photographers in question. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 07:30:24 AM · #79 |
when we begin to penalize photographer for making good images because of overly technical rules or application of them, we lose sight of what this place is.
if we want to the integrity of photography in our submissions as much as possible that's fine, but we really need to get stop being such sticklers.
even if it did break the rule as it is written, if combining two exposure from two "nearly" identical scenes is going to result in a DQ, then this place has lost its way.
fix the rules. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 07:46:55 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Mike:
when we begin to penalize photographer for making good images because of overly technical rules or application of them, we lose sight of what this place is.
if we want to the integrity of photography in our submissions as much as possible that's fine, but we really need to get stop being such sticklers.
even if it did break the rule as it is written, if combining two exposure from two "nearly" identical scenes is going to result in a DQ, then this place has lost its way.
fix the rules. |
hear,hear |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 07:47:00 AM · #81 |
If the rules are being applied as written, how has the site lost its way?
Where do you draw the line?
If I have a tripod at a scene and I like a bird flying by in one shot and a woman walking by in another shot, may I combine the two to make a more dramatic image?
Originally posted by Mike:
when we begin to penalize photographer for making good images because of overly technical rules or application of them, we lose sight of what this place is.
if we want to the integrity of photography in our submissions as much as possible that's fine, but we really need to get stop being such sticklers.
even if it did break the rule as it is written, if combining two exposure from two "nearly" identical scenes is going to result in a DQ, then this place has lost its way.
fix the rules. |
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 08:09:03 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by tate:
If I have a tripod at a scene and I like a bird flying by in one shot and a woman walking by in another shot, may I combine the two to make a more dramatic image?
|
Sure you can, but you can't enter that image in a challenge where the rules forbid such a combination.
As much as DPChallenge encourages us to take photographs, and explore subjects and techniques we mightn't otherwise explore, it isn't the ONLY reason to take photographs, or process them, or experiment. By all means, go nuts however you like, but be aware of the rules if you're submitting into a challenge - if you want to experiment with stuff beyond what the rules allow, submit it to a side-challenge, or share it elsewhere in the forums. The art need not be explored simply because you can't fit it into a challenge. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 08:20:35 AM · #83 |
Exactly. To be clear, I was trying to make a point; the image was rightly DQ'd due to the "slippery slope" argument. If we let one thing slide, why not another?
Originally posted by vlado:
Originally posted by tate:
If I have a tripod at a scene and I like a bird flying by in one shot and a woman walking by in another shot, may I combine the two to make a more dramatic image?
|
Sure you can, but you can't enter that image in a challenge where the rules forbid such a combination.
As much as DPChallenge encourages us to take photographs, and explore subjects and techniques we mightn't otherwise explore, it isn't the ONLY reason to take photographs, or process them, or experiment. By all means, go nuts however you like, but be aware of the rules if you're submitting into a challenge - if you want to experiment with stuff beyond what the rules allow, submit it to a side-challenge, or share it elsewhere in the forums. The art need not be explored simply because you can't fit it into a challenge. |
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 08:34:52 AM · #84 |
One of the reasons I walked away from the site for a couple of years was the rule sets which I found too limiting and felt that I couldn't progress with post processing as I was constantly concerned with the legalities.
I don't believe the image should have been dqd as its not a major infraction nor does it significantly change the image but that's just my opinion.
The post processing rules I note have had a tweak since I've been away but they could do with a further relaxation in the advanced rule set.
Post processing is just as important as the initial photograph and tight rule sets certainly is a turn off.
Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 08:43:30 AM · #85 |
 tate, this is my humble opinion :) If both the bird and the woman was in the first shot AND in the second, but in a different position, then merging the images does not change the scene for me personally. If however the first shot ONLY had the bird and the second ONLY had the woman (or vice versa) then for me merging the two would alter the scene. I have yet to develop the skills to merge/stack (or whatever it is called multiple shots or exposures), but I have no problem with a fellow DPC'ers merging two shots that have all of the same components, but in different positions in the original image, in order to make a better image.
Based on the several comments below many people seem to be confused and therefore I believe Mike is right in that the rules need fixing or clarification. Or maybe the rules don't even need to be altered? Perhaps we need a poll investigating if members thinks it is okay for SCs to use their subjective judgement in cases like this, and consequently treat the rules more like guidelines? I would like to highlight that I believe the SCs deserves credit for all their hard work. To me it sounds like this DQ was based on literal interpretation of the rules and several non-SC members seem to agree. If this is what the community has wanted until now, then I don't think SC should be "hassled" for doing just that. I don't know if this is the case, as I have not been here for that long. Feel free to enlighten me of what the consensus has been in the the past. Regardless I believe the rules should reflects the current consensus of the site's members
Originally posted by tate:
If the rules are being applied as written, how has the site lost its way?
Where do you draw the line?
If I have a tripod at a scene and I like a bird flying by in one shot and a woman walking by in another shot, may I combine the two to make a more dramatic image?
Originally posted by Mike:
when we begin to penalize photographer for making good images because of overly technical rules or application of them, we lose sight of what this place is.
if we want to the integrity of photography in our submissions as much as possible that's fine, but we really need to get stop being such sticklers.
even if it did break the rule as it is written, if combining two exposure from two "nearly" identical scenes is going to result in a DQ, then this place has lost its way.
fix the rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 08:52:08 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by vlado:
Originally posted by tate:
If I have a tripod at a scene and I like a bird flying by in one shot and a woman walking by in another shot, may I combine the two to make a more dramatic image?
|
Sure you can, but you can't enter that image in a challenge where the rules forbid such a combination.
As much as DPChallenge encourages us to take photographs, and explore subjects and techniques we mightn't otherwise explore, it isn't the ONLY reason to take photographs, or process them, or experiment. By all means, go nuts however you like, but be aware of the rules if you're submitting into a challenge - if you want to experiment with stuff beyond what the rules allow, submit it to a side-challenge, or share it elsewhere in the forums. The art need not be explored simply because you can't fit it into a challenge. |
I want to see people submit more of their images, not less. i realize there is photography life outside of DPC but this place is better when we have more people participating and if they aren't because an image they made broke some outdated or overly confining rule or we are dq'ing good images for the same reason then something needs to change.
we need to figure out why we want to have certain rules and then make the rules. i'm sure at one point that was the case, but as Robert said, its gotten confused over the years.
ask yourself how many images you have seen dq'd for other than not having a valid original or date, that you went, "yeah we shouldn't be able to do that, I'm glad we have that rule."
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:06:52 AM · #87 |
I get what you are throwing down Mike. I'm always open to discussions and opinions regarding progressive change.
I think part of the difficulty in opening up the rule set becomes validating images.
If all of the sudden every challenge allows for multiple exposures of similar images, I can imagine a great deal more time being put in on the part of those reviewing them. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:11:14 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by tate:
...If all of the sudden every challenge allows for multiple exposures of similar images, I can imagine a great deal more time being put in on the part of those reviewing them. |
We're pretty much there already. Since the great majority of challenges run in Advanced, we are allowed up to 10 source images. And yes, I think that this thread has generated some great discussion. We need to talk about what it is that we want to allow (and not allow). What fits within the "focus" of the site as we perceive it? That end-user perspective is important. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:19:49 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
With all due respect, I think this DQ was totally unfair from what I've read the reasons to be. I don't know about making exceptions, but here FOV is FOV, whether cropped or not. At this sort of focal length a cropped image will look identical to a zoomed in image.
The boat - now that's an unbelievable allowance! I completely agree with Mike about the four images he referenced early on. Back to the boat - the sky and sea do NOT exist in the image (behind the boat) - they're occluded. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:38:02 AM · #90 |
Interesting comments. For the record, I'm for no rules on PP. We only need the rule that your image(s) must be yours, & taken during the challenge period. For the filmic crowd we could have a second rule that only one image is allowed, but still no rules on PP.
I liked the image in question, & to me it was as much fantasy as anything produced for an Expert challenge. It was compared to the art of Thomas Kinkade. Lots of people like it & apparently want the rules to be ignored because they like it or see nothing wrong in ignoring the rules for this one reason. But if SC had not DQd it, then they would be accused of favoritism & that is much worse than too-restrictive rules. IMO. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:38:52 AM · #91 |
The rules are fairly clear as they are stated currently. I can't imagine this sort of caveat being inserted into the rule-set. Too much ambiguity IMHO.
I have not read every single entry in this thread ; so perhaps this has been written already, but for this wanted a rule edit, perhaps put together the verbage as it would read in the REVISED rules.
e.g. "multiple exposures of a similar scene can be used to enhance the quality or drama of the image as long as the ..." you fill in the rest -- it gets complicated but I'm sure if a decent edit is proposed, it could be voted on ...
Originally posted by ArnaMarie:
tate, this is my humble opinion :) If both the bird and the woman was in the first shot AND in the second, but in a different position, then merging the images does not change the scene for me personally. If however the first shot ONLY had the bird and the second ONLY had the woman (or vice versa) then for me merging the two would alter the scene. I have yet to develop the skills to merge/stack (or whatever it is called multiple shots or exposures), but I have no problem with a fellow DPC'ers merging two shots that have all of the same components, but in different positions in the original image, in order to make a better image.
|
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:02:15 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Interesting comments. For the record, I'm for no rules on PP. We only need the rule that your image(s) must be yours, & taken during the challenge period. For the filmic crowd we could have a second rule that only one image is allowed, but still no rules on PP.
. |
I'm with you all the way me duck, hooray for you. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:03:13 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by tate:
The rules are fairly clear as they are stated currently. I can't imagine this sort of caveat being inserted into the rule-set. Too much ambiguity IMHO.
I have not read every single entry in this thread ; so perhaps this has been written already, but for this wanted a rule edit, perhaps put together the verbage as it would read in the REVISED rules.
e.g. "multiple exposures of a similar scene can be used to enhance the quality or drama of the image as long as the ..." you fill in the rest -- it gets complicated but I'm sure if a decent edit is proposed, it could be voted on ...
|
i say make it even looser. "you may combine up to 10 images from a single scene, even if that scene changes in composition and exposure, provided the scene doesn't change so much that it becomes a new scene."
this would allow panoramas and multiple exposures, but would forbid expert editing composites. it would also allow for minor changes to the scene like birds flying into your scene and people moving around and then allowing the photographer choose (god forbid) the most dramatic position of each. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:28:19 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by tate:
The rules are fairly clear as they are stated currently. I can't imagine this sort of caveat being inserted into the rule-set. Too much ambiguity IMHO.
I have not read every single entry in this thread ; so perhaps this has been written already, but for this wanted a rule edit, perhaps put together the verbage as it would read in the REVISED rules.
e.g. "multiple exposures of a similar scene can be used to enhance the quality or drama of the image as long as the ..." you fill in the rest -- it gets complicated but I'm sure if a decent edit is proposed, it could be voted on ...
|
i say make it even looser. "you may combine up to 10 images from a single scene, even if that scene changes in composition and exposure, provided the scene doesn't change so much that it becomes a new scene."
this would allow panoramas and multiple exposures, but would forbid expert editing composites. it would also allow for minor changes to the scene like birds flying into your scene and people moving around and then allowing the photographer choose (god forbid) the most dramatic position of each. |
+1 |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:43:30 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Jon_H:
One of the reasons I walked away from the site for a couple of years was the rule sets which I found too limiting and felt that I couldn't progress with post processing as I was constantly concerned with the legalities.
|
This is a thought I just don't understand. In my life, DPC is something fun that I ALSO do with my camera, it's not the ONLY thing I do with my camera. The only thing stopping you from progressing with post processing is yourself. Unless challenges are the only thing you shoot for there is no reason they should stop you from learning.
For instance, I found something I really wanted to do in PS, I practiced with it, learned it and waited for an expert challenge to use it, it didn't stop me from learning it while I waited. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:59:02 AM · #96 |
Hmmm. There is still ambiguity. Would a time lapse images like this be allowed?
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by tate:
The rules are fairly clear as they are stated currently. I can't imagine this sort of caveat being inserted into the rule-set. Too much ambiguity IMHO.
I have not read every single entry in this thread ; so perhaps this has been written already, but for this wanted a rule edit, perhaps put together the verbage as it would read in the REVISED rules.
e.g. "multiple exposures of a similar scene can be used to enhance the quality or drama of the image as long as the ..." you fill in the rest -- it gets complicated but I'm sure if a decent edit is proposed, it could be voted on ...
|
i say make it even looser. "you may combine up to 10 images from a single scene, even if that scene changes in composition and exposure, provided the scene doesn't change so much that it becomes a new scene."
this would allow panoramas and multiple exposures, but would forbid expert editing composites. it would also allow for minor changes to the scene like birds flying into your scene and people moving around and then allowing the photographer choose (god forbid) the most dramatic position of each. |
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 11:00:59 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Jon_H:
One of the reasons I walked away from the site for a couple of years was the rule sets which I found too limiting and felt that I couldn't progress with post processing as I was constantly concerned with the legalities.
|
This is a thought I just don't understand. In my life, DPC is something fun that I ALSO do with my camera, it's not the ONLY thing I do with my camera. The only thing stopping you from progressing with post processing is yourself. Unless challenges are the only thing you shoot for there is no reason they should stop you from learning.
For instance, I found something I really wanted to do in PS, I practiced with it, learned it and waited for an expert challenge to use it, it didn't stop me from learning it while I waited. |
Excellent point. Some people seem to think that somehow DPC is stifling their creativity but it's not as if a shot you enter on DPC is the absolute final version of that shot. Do a DPC version and then do a version for yourself that is more processed. Hell, you can even show it off here.
I've recently started building a website on wix.com and have been shooting some stuff and processing some stuff just for my site. DPC doesn't have to be the extent of your photography life. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 11:04:08 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by tate:
Hmmm. There is still ambiguity. Would a time lapse images like this be allowed?
|
in the world where i am supreme dictator, yes.
Message edited by author 2015-06-03 11:08:00. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 11:07:40 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Excellent point. Some people seem to think that somehow DPC is stifling their creativity but it's not as if a shot you enter on DPC is the absolute final version of that shot. Do a DPC version and then do a version for yourself that is more processed. Hell, you can even show it off here.
I've recently started building a website on wix.com and have been shooting some stuff and processing some stuff just for my site. DPC doesn't have to be the extent of your photography life. |
very true, but dpc is still a way to effectively measure the image. placement, score, and comments can be an affirmation of a success or failure. its tangible feedback. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 11:28:55 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by chazoe:
Excellent point. Some people seem to think that somehow DPC is stifling their creativity but it's not as if a shot you enter on DPC is the absolute final version of that shot. Do a DPC version and then do a version for yourself that is more processed. Hell, you can even show it off here.
I've recently started building a website on wix.com and have been shooting some stuff and processing some stuff just for my site. DPC doesn't have to be the extent of your photography life. |
very true, but dpc is still a way to effectively measure the image. placement, score, and comments can be an affirmation of a success or failure. its tangible feedback. |
I would enjoy seeing a "This is what I would have entered if the stupid editing rules hadn't crushed my creativity" thread. In all seriousness, I would find it interesting and you might win some people over. While it would lack the placement and score aspects, I think you would get feedback and comments that might affirmation the success or failure of the image. |
|
