| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2006 03:49:14 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good luck with your score. You're gonna need it, Snowball. |
I'd give him a 10 for creativity :P |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 03:49:58 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by biteme:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good luck with your score. You're gonna need it, Snowball. |
I'd give him a 10 for creativity :P |
Does that wig count as 'headwear' ? :)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 03:50:02 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I can upload my own images to use as overlays and merge them in camera |
You wouldn't be the first. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 03:51:47 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by biteme:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good luck with your score. You're gonna need it, Snowball. |
I'd give him a 10 for creativity :P |
Does that wig count as 'headwear' ? :) |
If you want it to be headwear, it is headwear.
:P |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 03:55:39 PM · #330 |
Think how simple it would be just to disallow ANY images created from multiple exposures, whether done in camera or in photoshop. This would be entirely within the spirit of the rules as I understand them. I cannot see any valid rationale for allowing multiple exposures in-camera but not in photoshop.
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 03:59:40 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Think how simple it would be just to disallow ANY images created from multiple exposures, whether done in camera or in photoshop. This would be entirely within the spirit of the rules as I understand them. I cannot see any valid rationale for allowing multiple exposures in-camera but not in photoshop.
R. |
I tend to agree, though FWIW, my lovely clown portrait above is a single exposure. The perhaps more useful mosaic technique though requires multiple shots and recomposition each time.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 16:00:43.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 04:02:37 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I cannot see any valid rationale for allowing multiple exposures in-camera but not in photoshop. |
Have you visited Graphicfunk's portfolio lately? Multiple exposures are still possible, but the goal is to discourage digital composites. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 04:07:00 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...Though this is quite a low end camera phone these days (with really bad lighting for this shot :) )
 |
LMAOOOO! Ahem..been working too hard latey Gordon? |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 04:32:53 PM · #334 |
Lol. There is such a wide divide between in camera multiple exposures and photoshop compsosites. I am sure that, even if you do not indulge, that the preparation before shutter is pressed is often overwhelming.
On the other hand composites are different images sandwiched with individual control of each layer. No such freedom in the in-camera which is totally unforgiven.
I repectfully disagree about allowing in camera and in post processing. The latter renders and gives the upper hand to digital manipulation which is what DPC tries to control.
If your vision of photography is to use it like a tape recorder fine, knock yourself out. However, there is such a thing as a need to present an inner vision of something that can not be recorded because it has to be invented to satisfy an inner vision. If you wish to give weight to the tape recorder over artistic visions that is okay but is that really the direction we want to pursue? Does the quality of the image have no meaning in a photographic site? This also brings up the set up images which often run away with the popular votes. Yes, I know some purist have a disdain but then we allow the collective voice of the voters to decide. Both approaches are accepted with equal glee.
Again, I respectfully take exceptions with those who claim to have been fooled with lawful manipulations. Think about it: your perception has been shook. It should never be about morally right or wrong unless you condem art as the way to truth, it is not. Art is a different direction in the human expression vehicle with creation at its forefront. You can use it to make all kinds of statement and even to accent the truth, but it is not related at all to truth, which an altogother different topic. Illusion has always been part of art and continues. Look at Dali's work and tell me where your senses are not fooled or jolted.
There is no need to write rules and then when they are adhered to cry foul. DPC is first and foremost a photographic site and as such there will always be minds that believe that things should be different. It is the same in life, we all have a better view but then we find others that oppose our will with equal passion. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 04:54:15 PM · #335 |
Hi you all!
I am sorry that I didn't read all the 14 pages through but at least I tryed to search through them something about red eyes and didn't find anything.
So what I wanted to ask about is: Is is ok to "fix" red eyes in Basic?
I know it says, spot editing forbidden unless it is sensor dust but I would think that red eyes are the most boring thing "flash" users have to deal with and to me it is the most "Basic" editing I do for my self at home!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:09:15 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by Gunnsi:
Is is ok to "fix" red eyes in Basic? |
No (although we did discuss it). If there's nothing else red in your shot, you could desaturate the red channel, but skin tones would probably suffer. For now, your best option is converting to B&W. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:14:18 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gunnsi:
Is is ok to "fix" red eyes in Basic? |
No (although we did discuss it). If there's nothing else red in your shot, you could desaturate the red channel, but skin tones would probably suffer. For now, your best option is converting to B&W. |
Or get an HP camera that does it in camera I suppose.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:29:51 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Lol. There is such a wide divide between in camera multiple exposures and photoshop compsosites. I am sure that, even if you do not indulge, that the preparation before shutter is pressed is often overwhelming.
On the other hand composites are different images sandwiched with individual control of each layer. No such freedom in the in-camera which is totally unforgiven.
I repectfully disagree about allowing in camera and in post processing. The latter renders and gives the upper hand to digital manipulation which is what DPC tries to control.
If your vision of photography is to use it like a tape recorder fine, knock yourself out. However, there is such a thing as a need to present an inner vision of something that can not be recorded because it has to be invented to satisfy an inner vision. If you wish to give weight to the tape recorder over artistic visions that is okay but is that really the direction we want to pursue? Does the quality of the image have no meaning in a photographic site? This also brings up the set up images which often run away with the popular votes. Yes, I know some purist have a disdain but then we allow the collective voice of the voters to decide. Both approaches are accepted with equal glee.
Again, I respectfully take exceptions with those who claim to have been fooled with lawful manipulations. Think about it: your perception has been shook. It should never be about morally right or wrong unless you condem art as the way to truth, it is not. Art is a different direction in the human expression vehicle with creation at its forefront. You can use it to make all kinds of statement and even to accent the truth, but it is not related at all to truth, which an altogother different topic. Illusion has always been part of art and continues. Look at Dali's work and tell me where your senses are not fooled or jolted.
There is no need to write rules and then when they are adhered to cry foul. DPC is first and foremost a photographic site and as such there will always be minds that believe that things should be different. It is the same in life, we all have a better view but then we find others that oppose our will with equal passion. |
Yeah, I understand this, but what YOU do is leave the shutter open for an extended period of time and set up in such a way as to allow your "composite" images to happen in a single exposure, and I have no problem with that. It's my contention that it gets a lot fuzzier when you can do digital composites of separate exposures in camera.
The way the rules were set up, I can't take two separate exposures and sandwich them to make a single composite in post processing; I can't even do this legitimately for true HDRI processing of a landscape by sandwiching 3 or 4 sequential exposures of the same scene to capture an extended dynamic range. I have to kludge it by making exposure adjustments in the RAW processor instead. But in theory, if I had a camera that allowed compositing, I could merge yesterday's sky with today's foreground and get away with it, though I'm sure it wouldn't be easy.
Am I the only one that sees the difference? Are we judging the acceptability of a technique now by how easy it is to do? If it's easy (PS merging) it's a no-no, if it's fiendishly difficult (in-camera merging) it's ok? What am I missing?
But I repeat: I have NO problem with leaving the shutter open and staging events during the long exposure, such as you do. I admire that stuff, I really do. And I like multiple-strobe events in a single frame also.
I'm not being a hardass about this, btw; I'm just looking at all this loophole-poking and wondering if it wouldn't be simpler to say you can only open/close the shutter once for a single challenge entry. Eliminates a lot of gray area, though as Gordon points out there's all this *other* stuff you can do with some of these cams now. But that's really kind of beside the point, because an image like Gordon's clown is clearly not within the spirit of the rules, and if this sort of stuff becomes easily accessible and starts showing up a lot, I'm sure they'll slam the door on it...
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:33:27 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But that's really kind of beside the point, because an image like Gordon's clown is clearly not within the spirit of the rules, and if this sort of stuff becomes easily accessible and starts showing up a lot, I'm sure they'll slam the door on it...
R. |
... but if I print it out to a decent size, cut some windows in it, and shoot it between my face and the camera ... that's somehow different ?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:36:51 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But in theory, if I had a camera that allowed compositing, I could merge yesterday's sky with today's foreground and get away with it, though I'm sure it wouldn't be easy. |
i think it would be easier to do in photoshop than in-camera.
the fact of the matter is that doing the multiple exposure in camera is going to take a hell of a lot of setup and planning. if it's done poorly, it will suffer in the voting.
it seems unfair to me to single out multiple exposures as the one in-camera feature we disallow. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:39:07 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But that's really kind of beside the point, because an image like Gordon's clown is clearly not within the spirit of the rules, and if this sort of stuff becomes easily accessible and starts showing up a lot, I'm sure they'll slam the door on it...
R. |
... but if I print it out to a decent size, cut some windows in it, and shoot it between my face and the camera ... that's somehow different ? |
Apparently it is :-) The way it goes now, you can't "draw a clown on your face" in photoshop, but you can draw a clown, print it out, cut a hole, insert your face, shoot the result, and be in like Flynn. I can see that argument, 'cuz where are you gonna draw the line on creating props? But what you've done here is a middle ground, where you've combined in-camera elements you could not legally combine in photoshop, and to whatever extent cameras increase in capability so you can do extreme editing functions in-camera, this will make a mockery of the rules. Right?
What the heck do I know? I'm just thinking out loud here...
R.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 17:39:33. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:43:30 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But in theory, if I had a camera that allowed compositing, I could merge yesterday's sky with today's foreground and get away with it, though I'm sure it wouldn't be easy. |
i think it would be easier to do in photoshop than in-camera.
the fact of the matter is that doing the multiple exposure in camera is going to take a hell of a lot of setup and planning. if it's done poorly, it will suffer in the voting.
it seems unfair to me to single out multiple exposures as the one in-camera feature we disallow. |
You more or less make my point: it's OK in-camera because it's really hard to do? But the whole thrust of PP evolution is to simplify things. Case in point: in basic editing, you're still not allowed to use contrast masking to compress the tonal range of an image in PS7. But you can use shadow/highlight in PSCS/CS2 to do exactly the same thing, even though the only difference is that the "layering" is done automatically instead of by hand. NOW we have tone mapping, which works like an extreme shadow/highlight adjustment, and if I'm willing to pay an extra $99 to buy it, it's legal. But I STILL can't use PS7's contrast maskign feature, because it requires the merging of layers in alternate modes?
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:44:41 PM · #343 |
ok, can someone remind me what we're arguing about here? in 3 sentences or less?
if gordon sees fit to enter his clown photo in a challenge, so be it. i would like to think that the voters would disintegrate it to the point that others would be discouraged from doing the same.
the same goes for any other crappy use of an in-camera function. who cares how easy or hard it is to use? if the end result sucks, so will the score. if the end result is great -- if that person really put some effort into it -- it should score reasonably well. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:48:28 PM · #344 |
I see both sides of this argument Robert. On one hand, multiple exposures in photoshop would require multiple exposures to be validated. Big pain in the butt. What if someone pulled one of these astro shots which uses literally hundreds of shots composited?
On the other hand, multiple shutter releases in camera is closer to the way these things were done before digital was even around. My camera doesn't have in-camera merging ability and I often curse that when I do some of my trick shots. What would be relatively easy if I could switch exposure length becomes very tricky in one long shot. My Fire II shot is a perfect example.
So I think the ruling could be a result of practicality/history. One gets negated on practicality, the other gets allowed on a historical basis.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:51:24 PM · #345 |
The real problem I forsee, which is not to curtail the ones under discussion, are the tid bits dropped by Gordon, Bear Music and others. And that is that the accepted norm of the rules is the in camera image adjustment which are growing at an alarming rate: For example, some cameras allow a double exposure by combining two images. Think of it, in camera or not these are two images which get merged. So, in camera it is okay. Now you have more features which continue to emerge such as red eye correction. Follow the logic and you will then realize that those lacking these feautures are at a distinct disadvantage. I am working on building a full shutter release that I can place in front of my lens.
Look at the alarming updating of post processing software whose single click functions are truly a serious of selection and masking.
Well, this movement does not have the best interest of photographic sites because a lot of these introductions wreak havoc on any set of rules. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 09:25:07 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Eliminates a lot of gray area, though as Gordon points out there's all this *other* stuff you can do with some of these cams now. |
It's a matter of simplicity. If anything you do in-camera is legal, then there IS no gray area. As in-camera features become more sophisticated, we'll probably have to tweak the rules, but advantageous camera features are certanly nothing new. Image stabilization, high ISO performance, shallow DOF ability, extreme wide angles or zoom, water resistance and high frame rates are advantages that some cameras have and others don't.
We've already had people enter shots with newer Nikons that can combine multiple images in-camera. Oh well. You may not be able to do that, but there are infinite other possibilities you CAN manage with whatever camera you have. I'm not here to wring my hands over a feature I don't have– I'm here to wring as much as I can from the tools at my disposal. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 11:02:13 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm not here to wring my hands over a feature I don't have– I'm here to wring as much as I can from the tools at my disposal. |
That's the attitude that I have, and that I think is a good one to have if one wishes to have a more fruitful DPC experience. However, if a ton of stuff becomes available in-camera relative to what we have now, I think that - potentially - if the rules don't get tweaked then it will become a very different site. But maybe the camera ability development will be a rather slow process, so the adjusting won't be too big of a deal. :-)
edit: I do realize you said you'd probably have to tweak the rules, so I'm not really saying this as an opposing point to your post - just as a bit more discussion.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 23:03:25. |
|
|
|
11/12/2006 08:56:05 PM · #348 |
hello!
thank you so much Scalvert for your reply!
could someone please tell me one more thing: is it allowed to use a dodge tool, diffuse glow effect or simple paint to make a grey area of my picture whiter? (for advanced editing)
thank you! |
|
|
|
11/12/2006 09:17:36 PM · #349 |
yes, you can spot edit in the challenges that use the advanced editing rules. just remember that you can't add in new features or completely remove existing features of your shot while doing so.
whitening up a grey area is fine. :) |
|
|
|
11/12/2006 09:26:25 PM · #350 |
thank you so much Muckpond!
:)
and what if there was a part of the grey floor with some dark and light lines on it which I want to make only white? |
|
