DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> 2-second exposure
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/13/2006 04:49:11 AM · #51
I guess i am out

2 second exposure
 03/13/2006 05:01:27 AM · #52
Originally posted by lentil:
I guess i am out

2 second exposure


Why are you out? The link takes us to a beautiful 2 sec. exposure that you have already accomplished. I have no doubt you can do it again.
 03/13/2006 06:23:35 AM · #53
Originally posted by Rikki:
I think the trick here is "deception". Creat a photo where your audience would think your exposure is set to a 2 second exposure indeed. Look at Patrinus' entry in 4-5am. His clearly wasn't taken between that time but the voters thought he did. Not having a 2 second EXIF data shouldn't be grounds for DQ and i agree with SC. Sure it caused an uproar after the fact but hey, isn't photography about "seeing" and if deception is part of it, so be it ;) Remember that not everything you see is real ;)

just my two cents ;)


"Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
 03/13/2006 06:27:35 AM · #54
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Second shots are nevber allowed. Your image must be from one exposure only.

Yea, that's what I suspected. Neat Image to the rescue then! :)


Nothing to stop you taking a 2 sec exposure with the lens covered for 1.5 sec tho. How quickly can you get the lens cap on and off...? :)
 03/13/2006 07:28:46 AM · #55
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
"Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

I love that quote. Been using it for a long time now. Very cool seeing it show up in someone else's post...very appropriate use of it too I might add. ;^)
 03/13/2006 07:35:03 AM · #56
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
As has been suggested by Rikki, if ya can't do it, fake it. Noone will see the EXIF during voting.


Maybe there is a site upgrade in the works, and we WILL see the EXIF during voting now! ;)
 03/13/2006 08:07:31 AM · #57
Originally posted by BakerBug:


Maybe there is a site upgrade in the works, and we WILL see the EXIF during voting now! ;)


Yeah that way all the Canon folks can give the Nikon folks bad scores and vice versa.
 03/13/2006 08:13:32 AM · #58
Originally posted by idnic:
Good time for people who haven't tried long exposure to read the manual

This will be a fun challenge - if Rikki doesn't make it too difficult for me heheeeee


03/13/2006 08:44:53 AM · #59
Dark-frame subtraction should be OK if performed entirely within the camera, as are multiple exposures saved to a single frame. Your "original" needs to be a single file from the camera containing all the exposure elements of the final image.
 03/13/2006 09:33:58 AM · #60
If your teacher in photography class gave you an assignment to shoot a photo with a 2 sec exposure and you shot one for 1 second. What do you think your grade would be? This is a clear assignment, I'm amazed at all the people who think shooting anything but a 2 second exposure should be okay.
 03/13/2006 09:38:12 AM · #61
Oh come on Brent, you've never cheated in school ;-) What teacher (the voters) don't know won't hurt you ... LOL
 03/13/2006 09:39:23 AM · #62
it really isnt that hard that people should have to cheat. I shot this today - at 2 sec. - first time....no pp but converting from RAW to .jpeg and resized for web. If I can get this of a live animal, then I dont think it should be a big problem for anyone else - as we all know I'm just a rank amateur here.


03/13/2006 09:42:15 AM · #63
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
my two cents ... DMNC has never been grounds for DQ. 'nough said.


Actually, it has once! Quite a few photos were disqualified from the Rubber Ducky challenge for not meeting the challenge. Of course there was an Extra Rule that stated "Failure to meet the challenge should result in DQ.", which does not exist for the 2-Second Exposure challenge.
 03/13/2006 09:43:36 AM · #64
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh come on Brent, you've never cheated in school ;-) What teacher (the voters) don't know won't hurt you ... LOL


If the point of this site is to learn, then a specific assignment that dictates a given exposure setting should be followed to learn. And if the exif doesn't back it up it should be DQ'd.

If people put as much thought into actually shooting the challenge correctly as they do in how to cheat the system, they would have much better photographs in the end.
 03/13/2006 09:44:42 AM · #65
Maybe Iâm in the minority here, but issues raised in this thread are bugging me.

Many people are talking about creating the illusion of a 2-second exposure, where the challenge clearly states to take a 2-second exposure. Rational is that others are deceiving voters (example the 4-5am challenge) in other challenges too.

Is this what this site is about?

To me, the challenges are about pushing your boundaries as a photographer. The 2-second challenge will help people explore areas that they have not gone to before. It is to develop and refine skills that will allow them to be better photographers. What is the point if they are competing against people whose goal it is to deceive? What do I take away from the challenge as a voter (this or any other) if I canât trust the submissions to be what the challenge says they should be. If the challenge sayâs take a photo between 4 and 5 am, then I expect the integrity of the photographer to push themselves to meeting the challenge. If the challenges says âMake a photo APPEAR as if it was taken between 4 and 5amâ thatâs a different horse altogether.

This challenge doesnât ask us to make a picture APPEAR to have a two-second exposure; it specifically states the image WILL have a 2-second exposure. How much more clearly worded can it get?

Please donât fool yourselves into a âIâm an Artist thinking out of the boxâ frame of mind. This is so very overused here at DPC.

If you are someone who takes this approach â you can and nobody will know. Good for you. My hope is that you will feel very proud of your accomplishment. Honor and integrity are not in some peopleâs vocabularies I guess.
03/13/2006 09:45:54 AM · #66
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:


If people put as much thought into actually shooting the challenge correctly as they do in how to cheat the system, they would have much better photographs in the end.


I couldn't agree more!
 03/13/2006 09:46:20 AM · #67
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Maybe Iâm in the minority here, but issues raised in this thread are bugging me.

Many people are talking about creating the illusion of a 2-second exposure, where the challenge clearly states to take a 2-second exposure. Rational is that others are deceiving voters (example the 4-5am challenge) in other challenges too.

Is this what this site is about?

To me, the challenges are about pushing your boundaries as a photographer. The 2-second challenge will help people explore areas that they have not gone to before. It is to develop and refine skills that will allow them to be better photographers. What is the point if they are competing against people whose goal it is to deceive? What do I take away from the challenge as a voter (this or any other) if I canât trust the submissions to be what the challenge says they should be. If the challenge sayâs take a photo between 4 and 5 am, then I expect the integrity of the photographer to push themselves to meeting the challenge. If the challenges says âMake a photo APPEAR as if it was taken between 4 and 5amâ thatâs a different horse altogether.

This challenge doesnât ask us to make a picture APPEAR to have a two-second exposure; it specifically states the image WILL have a 2-second exposure. How much more clearly worded can it get?

Please donât fool yourselves into a âIâm an Artist thinking out of the boxâ frame of mind. This is so very overused here at DPC.

If you are someone who takes this approach â you can and nobody will know. Good for you. My hope is that you will feel very proud of your accomplishment. Honor and integrity are not in some peopleâs vocabularies I guess.


I completely agree with this. WE are here to learn new skills!
 03/13/2006 09:49:14 AM · #68
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

If the point of this site is to learn, then a specific assignment that dictates a given exposure setting should be followed to learn. And if the exif doesn't back it up it should be DQ'd.

If people put as much thought into actually shooting the challenge correctly as they do in how to cheat the system, they would have much better photographs in the end.


I'm not advocating cheating for those who's equipment can do the 2 second exposures. As a matter of fact, I've been mentally rehearsing mine all morning... will shoot tommorrow (more than likely).

But for those that CAN'T shoot two seconds for equipment reasons, do you not think researching what makes a longish exposure unique and mimmicking it is not a valuable lesson?
 03/13/2006 09:50:41 AM · #69
SC should start making a list of possible cheaters and ask for original photo right after voting starts.

Anybody else has any smart ideas? Speak up.

Nick
 03/13/2006 09:51:48 AM · #70
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

If the point of this site is to learn, then a specific assignment that dictates a given exposure setting should be followed to learn. And if the exif doesn't back it up it should be DQ'd.

If people put as much thought into actually shooting the challenge correctly as they do in how to cheat the system, they would have much better photographs in the end.


I'm not advocating cheating for those who's equipment can do the 2 second exposures. As a matter of fact, I've been mentally rehearsing mine all morning... will shoot tommorrow (more than likely).

But for those that CAN'T shoot two seconds for equipment reasons, do you not think researching what makes a longish exposure unique and mimmicking it is not a valuable lesson?


A very good lesson indeed, but if there equipment won't allow a 2 sec exposure, they should just sit out entering the challenge. ;o)

Message edited by author 2006-03-13 09:52:21.
 03/13/2006 09:52:32 AM · #71
BTW, ALL photography is a deception of sorts... Life doesn't happen in a nice little crop.

As for even cropping an image is a deception that you framed the photo better than you did.
 03/13/2006 09:54:53 AM · #72
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, ALL photography is a deception of sorts... Life doesn't happen in a nice little crop.

As for even cropping an image is a deception that you framed the photo better than you did.


Only if the challenge stated " DO NOT CROP YOUR ENTRY"! ;o)
 03/13/2006 09:56:09 AM · #73
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh come on Brent, you've never cheated in school ;-) What teacher (the voters) don't know won't hurt you ... LOL


If the point of this site is to learn, then a specific assignment that dictates a given exposure setting should be followed to learn. And if the exif doesn't back it up it should be DQ'd.

If people put as much thought into actually shooting the challenge correctly as they do in how to cheat the system, they would have much better photographs in the end.

So, in fairness, are we going to have a challenge for everyone except those who enter this one?

'Cause otherwise, I can't participate without "cheating" or "creating the illusion of" or whatever, and there's probably quite a few paying members likewise DQd before the challenge even starts.

I think this is just one of those experiments where the possible consequences weren't that well thought-out.
 03/13/2006 09:57:25 AM · #74
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, ALL photography is a deception of sorts... Life doesn't happen in a nice little crop.

As for even cropping an image is a deception that you framed the photo better than you did.


Oh Please... surely you can do a better job of rationalizing cheating than that!
 03/13/2006 09:57:56 AM · #75
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh come on Brent, you've never cheated in school ;-) What teacher (the voters) don't know won't hurt you ... LOL


If the point of this site is to learn, then a specific assignment that dictates a given exposure setting should be followed to learn. And if the exif doesn't back it up it should be DQ'd.

If people put as much thought into actually shooting the challenge correctly as they do in how to cheat the system, they would have much better photographs in the end.

So, in fairness, are we going to have a challenge for everyone except those who enter this one?

'Cause otherwise, I can't participate without "cheating" or "creating the illusion of" or whatever, and there's probably quite a few paying members likewise DQd before the challenge even starts.

I think this is just one of those experiments where the possible consequences weren't that well thought-out.


What's wrong with entering a different challenge if your camera can't do 2 seconds??

Message edited by author 2006-03-13 09:58:27.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 09:38:21 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/30/2025 09:38:21 AM EDT.