How I did my "Environmentalist" Negative entry.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/03/2006 05:35:01 PM · #5

That was a very creative idea and the execution worked well for what you can do in basic editing.

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 17:35:25.

DjFenzl

05/03/2006 05:38:29 PM · #6

Originally posted by deapee:

Sounds like something not really jiving with basic editing went on there, but I dunno...just saying.

A while back it was discussed and since it's all done in camera it's considered legal - although many still feel it's a bit of a grey area.

deapee

Kodak V803

05/03/2006 05:42:44 PM · #7

Well, I'm just saying...if you want a shot of something for a basic editing challenge, you shouldn't be allowed to put it on your computer monitor, and photograph it...just doesn't seem right...but just saying is all.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

05/03/2006 05:45:46 PM · #8

I don't know how it's legal, despite discussion:

Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not combine multiple exposures.

I don't see a "unless everything is done in-camera" qualifier in the rules. But apparently it's been discussed at length as someone else mentioned, so if I understand this correctly, multiple exposures are only allowed if you have one very specific model camera and if you don't have it then you're screwed? You only get special privileges if you have a special camera? Isn't that rather blatantly biased?

Note that this isn't an attack on the photo or its artist, but this ruling seems really really really super duper sketchy.

DjFenzl

05/03/2006 05:50:18 PM · #9

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

so if I understand this correctly, multiple exposures are only allowed if you have one very specific model camera and if you don't have it then you're screwed? You only get special privileges if you have a special camera?

yes.

I have a feeling this is one of the things that might get rehashed when the new rules come out though.

robshookphoto

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/03/2006 05:52:40 PM · #10

under basic editing, it DOES say
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission. "
this is no combining multiple exposures like it says... this is work done in camera. well done, kosmikkreeper.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

05/03/2006 05:53:43 PM · #11

If there is just one RAW or JPG file with all the information in it for validation it's legal. That's pretty much how I understand it.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

05/03/2006 05:57:58 PM · #12

Originally posted by mo5988:

But it is combining multiple exposures. There are two distinct shots taken and they are combined. Whether in or out of camera should be irrelevent, because frankly, how is this image any different than me taking two pictures and overlaying them in a photo editing program? In-camera vs. out does not really hold water as an argument for this one in my opinion.

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 17:58:44.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/03/2006 06:03:22 PM · #13

Anything done in camera has always been legal, period. So yup, if you have a camera that can't do them (like mine), you're screwed. Just like you're screwed if you see some animal miles away and want to take a close up but only have a wide angle lens. Them's the breaks.

I suspect that if there are future modifications to this rule, it will have to do with various editing capabilities, etc. that are popping up on the newest cameras.

fotomann_forever

05/03/2006 06:03:46 PM · #14

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Really, how is it different that this?

05/03/2006 06:05:03 PM · #15

It's different because it's Rikkized. :P

Ecce_Signum

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/03/2006 06:07:32 PM · #16

rules is rules and they were not broken with this shot. I'd love to see a cleaned up version.

ooh, can't wait for the first cam with PS on it lol

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/03/2006 06:09:17 PM · #17

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

rules is rules and they were not broken with this shot. I'd love to see a cleaned up version.

ooh, can't wait for the first cam with PS on it lol

I'd setting for some "after the fact" image stabilization (i.e. turn blurred images into sharp ones).

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

05/03/2006 06:16:46 PM · #18

For those interested... here's the original image. :-)

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

05/03/2006 06:24:38 PM · #19

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

rules is rules and they were not broken with this shot. I'd love to see a cleaned up version.

ooh, can't wait for the first cam with PS on it lol

See, that's exactly my issue. It violates the spirit of the basic editing rules. That is my objection. If I am not allowed to do it with PS or whatever, then you should not be allowed to do it with your camera, either, since both methods are really just a matter of software. The location of that software should be totally irrelevent. The ruling is horribly biased. I don't break the rules, but neither am I the type to blindly or blithely resign myself to rules that are poorly conceived.

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 18:26:01.

TrynityRose

Nikon D100

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

05/03/2006 07:00:52 PM · #20

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
rules is rules and they were not broken with this shot. I'd love to see a cleaned up version.

ooh, can't wait for the first cam with PS on it lol

See, that's exactly my issue. It violates the spirit of the basic editing rules.

Using two different shots (exposures) isnt legal in advanced either.

I guess it's like people having different editing software. Although most of them do everything else that the other's do. Although I know there is stuff in PS CS that you cant do in PS 7. I only have PS 7 so is therefore unfair to me that I cant do what other people can do in PS CS? Not really. So the fact his camera can do in-camera multiple exposures and mine cant is pretty much the same thing.

robshookphoto

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/03/2006 07:11:03 PM · #21

"See, that's exactly my issue. It violates the spirit of the basic editing rules. That is my objection. If I am not allowed to do it with PS or whatever, then you should not be allowed to do it with your camera, either..." - karmabreeze

Multiple exposure in-camera is something you can fake, and it is a technique that people have been using even before the digital age. outlawing it in images is not, in my opinion, something that should be done. This is like not allowing me to take advantage of my higher burst rate just because many other people do not have this capability in their cameras. besides, i think that things like this are too nit-picky for a photo site that is for fun. This is just my opinion, and i hope that i have not offended anyone.

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 19:13:02.

05/03/2006 07:17:07 PM · #22

Ok what if he used ONE exposure but tricked the camera and got the same result? For example, using a long shutter speed and covering the lense when he switched the eye and globe. Technically he would be capturing two images but with one exposure. Does that violate the spirit of the rules in your opinion?

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 19:18:02.

robshookphoto

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/03/2006 07:19:45 PM · #23

i think you probably know this, yanko, but i'll say it anyway. that is exactly what the camera is doing, the only difference is that the mirror is going twice for one photo. if you didn't know, glad to help, if you did, i'll shut up now.

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 19:20:41.

Louis

Nikon D800

05/03/2006 07:23:13 PM · #24

Originally posted by mo5988:

This is like not allowing me to take advantage of my higher burst rate just because many other people do not have this capability in their cameras.

Exactly. Same could be said for any other "feature" of a higher-or-lower-end camera. You use the tools available to you to take the best photograph you can. I don't think a feature-rich piece of equipment, high-end glass, or a tripod that can be placed on a 45 degree incline should be grounds for disqualification. Because at the end of the day, it's the photographer, not the equipment, that determines how good the picture is.

As proof, just look at all the great pictures JoeyL took with that piece of crap he had. ;)

FotoMunki