| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2006 09:47:48 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Color me confused.  |
I don't know the answer. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 09:55:41 PM · #27 |
| Me and my 48 bit images scoff at you mere 32 bit troglodytes. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:02:34 PM · #28 |
I'd like to come in on this discussion too. This was one of my early experiments in HDR and ineligible for the Challenge because it was now within the dates.
But, here's the question. The duck swam into the composition during the taking of the second frame. So the two images were (obviously) not identical. Would this have been DQ material?
And, btw, I love this technique!
 |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:11:48 PM · #29 |
| The presence of the duck would certainly have been OK. We went pretty far in trying to allow for differences between frames; we allowed at least one image where the difference was intentional. In the case of the image DQ'd for compositing, the two images combined were *completely* different, which is another animal entirely... excuse the horrid pun ;-) |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:22:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
To be sure dynamic range, is only but one element of HDR processing |
Wait a sec ... (not wanting to argue, but) ... isn't that like saying "neutral tones" is but one element of B&W processing? The words "dynamic range" in "High Dynamic Range" would seem to indicate that "dynamic range" *is* the goal of HDR processing.
|
I would agree with this assessment. I think that HDR would have to be considered as simply a subset or method of 32 bit processing. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:29:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by EBJones:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
To be sure dynamic range, is only but one element of HDR processing |
Wait a sec ... (not wanting to argue, but) ... isn't that like saying "neutral tones" is but one element of B&W processing? The words "dynamic range" in "High Dynamic Range" would seem to indicate that "dynamic range" *is* the goal of HDR processing.
|
I would agree with this assessment. I think that HDR would have to be considered as simply a subset or method of 32 bit processing. |
But, that's not how it was worded. The words are that dynamic range is but one element of "HDR processing". (not "32 bit processing")
Perhaps that is what was confusing, he typo'd it, intending to type "32 bit processing" instead of HDR processing?
I can agree with the latter. But the way it was written sounded redundant and that's why I said I was confused.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:39:51 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The "one exposure" rule was waived for the challenge, but this rule was still in effect: You may not... add parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing.
|
Quote from the Advanced Editing rules: "Any of these rules may be overridden by the “Extra Rules” section of the Challenge Details."
Therefore, the rule you state is actually *not* in effect for this challenge, IMO. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:47:22 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Quote from the Advanced Editing rules: "Any of these rules may be overridden by the “Extra Rules” section of the Challenge Details."
Therefore, the rule you state is actually *not* in effect for this challenge, IMO. |
The rule that was waived was the one about requiring a single capture. The rule prohibiting parts of other photographs is a separate clause, and was NOT waived. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:50:31 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
The words "dynamic range" in "High Dynamic Range" would seem to indicate that "dynamic range" *is* the goal of HDR processing. |
Originally posted by EBJones:
I would agree with this assessment. I think that HDR would have to be considered as simply a subset or method of 32 bit processing. |
Me too. Not all 32 bit processing is High Dynamic Range. Do all the 32bit processing you want, but if you haven't expanded the dynamic range, it's not HDR.
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 22:51:33. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 10:53:22 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Quote from the Advanced Editing rules: "Any of these rules may be overridden by the “Extra Rules” section of the Challenge Details."
Therefore, the rule you state is actually *not* in effect for this challenge, IMO. |
The rule that was waived was the one about requiring a single capture. The rule prohibiting parts of other photographs is a separate clause, and was NOT waived. |
OK, but if a photographer was to interpret the allowance of multiple captures to mean that he could combine a photo of a butterfly and a photo of a pelican (which doesn't seem unreasonable given the wording of the extra rules), then it would also be reasonable for him to assume that the rule about prohibiting parts of other photographs would be overridden for this challenge.
Edit to add: Now that I think about it some more, I can see the other side of the argument, too. I guess that just because your entry is allowed to be created from multiple captures, you could argue that it's *not* reasonable to assume you could "cut and paste" a butterfly onto a photo of a pelican. Hmmm...
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 23:44:29. |
|
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: 10/15/2025 10:30:56 AM EDT.
