Another can o' worms? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/31/2003 05:48:41 PM · #1

I would propose that, in the event that the â��December Rulesâ�� are kept in some form, for some or all challenges going forward, that some additional language be considered for incorporation. Specifically, I think that multiple-image sources should be considered legal under certain well-controlled conditions. Iâ��ll first list some of the valid photographic uses for multiple-source-image work, and then discuss how I think these techniques could be incorporated without allowing for â��collagesâ��.

1.) Noise reduction & contrast enhancement for astrophotography. Even the best cameras can have rather dramatic noise problems when used to photograph very dim subjects, and image â��stackingâ�� is a time-honored technique in astrophotography to deal with noise and enhance contrast. It can also be used to great effect in night photography if the camera is producing too much noise. I use this even with the 10D when taking moonlit landscapes.
2.) Synthetic long exposure. For those whose cameras do not support very long exposures, this is a life saver. Take multiple consecutive exposures of the same scene, and stack for brightness instead of noise reduction, or combine the two techniques, e.g. two exposures stacked for brightness, repeated four times to reduce noise, total of eight exposures.
3.) Exposure compensation. Taking two different exposures of the same scene and combining, say the sky from one and the land from the other to emulate the effect of a graduated ND filter.
4.) Ultra-wide angle photography. Use of a parabolic mirror to produce scenes with greater than 180 degrees coverage. Since the camera will always be in the composition, two shots are needed to eliminate the camera from the scene.
5.) Stereoscopic images. By definition, two images are required. The 640px limit pretty much eliminates this as a viable option for challenge submissions, but hey, what the heckâ�¦
6.) Panoramas. The 640px limit gets in the way again, but certainly a valid use of multiple images.
7.) Stop Motion. Multiple exposures tracking a subject through a scene (e.g. the motorcycle jump photo that just got DQâ��d recently)

Of the above, I feel that 1-4 provide significant opportunity for creativity while maintaining photographic integrity, i.e. the representation of a single scene, not a collage or multi-image synthesis, e.g. an outlandishly large moon placed into a landscape. Items 5 & 6, though near and dear to me, arenâ��t a great fit with DPC because the 640px size limit makes the resulting images so small. Still, I think they should be allowed, since they are valid photographic techniques.
I feel that some allowance for multi-image work could be incorporated easily through the following language:

â��Multiple source images are allowed only where the following conditions are met:
- The images are all of the same scene, and taken within the challenge timeframe.
- No elements may be moved, duplicated, magnified, etcetera.
- The sole purpose of the multiple exposure should be for to achieve one of the following effects:
- List the allowed techniques here

The use of elements from differing images to create a synthetic final image, for example a collage, are not allowed.â��

tomlewis1980

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/31/2003 06:06:09 PM · #2

Sorry to disagree with you Kirbic, but I for one feel that the editing rules should go back to the way they were once the "December Rules" period finishes. As I said in another thread on the same issue...

I donâ��t think anybody has a problem with the occasional challenge that allows the use of digital editing. But I have been participating on this site almost from the very start and in that time I am yet to find another site that comes even close to DPC. The idea behind DPC has always (in my mind anyway) been to improve peoples skill with a camera, not what you can do in PhotoShop. Yes the digital darkroom is important to many people, however as it has been said many times, there are many places that cater for this, such as //www.worth1000.com/.

In short I just donâ��t see why so many people want to change what we have here, into what is offered elsewhere?

"You donâ��t know what youâ��ve got until itâ��s gone."

jab119

12/31/2003 06:19:55 PM · #3

I agree with tomlewis1980, I like the "challenge" to produce a good photo with my camera, not with post processing skills. At the other site I submit to (www.digitalphotocontest.com) I can edit photos to my hearts content, as long as the original is submitted also.

For most of the challenges I will usually take beween 20 and 150 exposures of my subject to get the best photo I can get out of the camera.

James

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/01/2004 03:31:13 AM · #4

Even though I think those rules on combining multiple images are well thought-out and written, I still think they would end up being h*** to validate/administrate. The two site owners already submit only on rare occasions, probably 'cause they don't have time to take pictures. Reviewing/DQing photos is turning into a "full-time" job for SC members, and it's not nearly as much fun as photography. Perhaps my biggest reason for keeping some version of the experimental rules is that it gives us fewer reasons for having to DQ a photo and therefore less administration to do. I (want to) have faith that the voters will hold the site's original goals in mind, and keep photorealism/"photographic integrity" as a high priority.

Besides, I can create "digital art" within the "original" restricted rules anytime I want, so I don't really view the expanded editing capability as making that much difference in the kind of image someone submits. My December Free Study entry had a tiny tone adjustment, and was re-sized and sharpened -- no other processing. But my Tacky Decoration has only two comments, both saying "what's this?" -- so you can imagine that is probably not a straightforward photograph ...

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

01/01/2004 09:55:15 AM · #5

Actually, part of my thinking behind proposing this is to make things easier to administrate. The more editing you have to dig for, the harder it will be to determine if someone has cheated. So in the final assessment, the less we disallow, the less administrative work there should be.
As for validation, since we would not be allowing synthesis of a scene from deffering elements from multiple images, examining one image from a series would be enough to validate in virtually all cases.
My intent here is also to try to level the playing field a bit for those with noisier cameras; proper use of image stacking yields incredibly better images in ultra-low light.
Finally, all of the above techniques are more "pure" photographic techniques than, say, cloning out a road sign, something that is allowed under December 2003 ruleset.

Edited: Learn to type Kirbic...

Message edited by author 2004-01-01 09:57:08.

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

01/01/2004 10:56:55 AM · #6

I think this is a fine proposal.

I'm hope the council and owners will continue the December rules shift for at least another months trial.

Some how I doubt that the rules alteration had very much to do with the recent spate of DQ's.

I've found that having the option to use more post shot techniques has taught me a great deal.

As much for creating a better image initially as learning about more digital dark room techniques. I also think we've seen that there were very few "over the top" submissions as had been decried in early threads.

Please keep the December rules............

That said, I think they should be for members only.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/01/2004 12:20:45 PM · #7

I think there is a big difference between "cloning out a road sign" and cleaning up an image by cloning out the tracks of a few dust specks on your dSLR's sensor. If the rules are changed to allow cloning the Site Coucil will have to draw the line deciding how much cloning is too much.

I fear that the recent spat of DQs may be only the tip of the iceberg, and that there may have been a whole lot more "illegal" photos in the pre-Decembers challenges than we realized. Does anyong else get the feeling that some people have been using the illegal editing techniques all along without getting caught, and now want those techniques made legal?

Ease and precision of enforcement move closer to the top of the list of factors we need to consider in determining whether to change the rules permanently. I, for one, would like the future challenges to be as free as possible of illegal entries.

Message edited by author 2004-01-01 12:24:16.

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/01/2004 01:05:18 PM · #8

I still use the 'old' rules, my preference I know, but my concern with new rules is folks will think I have PSed things that I have not. I prefer the old rules too the new ones, but I certainly hope we do not go to allowing 2 images to be used. If it comes to that I think I will not participate in those challenges. ( At least if they are regular challenges vs. occassional).

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

01/01/2004 01:10:21 PM · #9

Originally posted by coolhar:

Indeed there is a difference, however as GeneralE stated, we need to be careful about how much we expect the site council to do in review of images. the voters should decide, not burden the site council.

Originally posted by coolhar:

I fear that the recent spat of DQs may be only the tip of the iceberg, and that there may have been a whole lot more "illegal" photos in the pre-Decembers challenges than we realized.

Certainly there have been past abuses, and the recent increase in enforcement is a necessary and good step in minimizing them. As I have stated previously, when there is no penalty for cheating (or mistakes) then people will cheat (or not pay atention). Enforce the rules, and folks will soon realize that, one, they will be found out if they cheat, and two, that they better pay strict attention to avoid a mistake.

Originally posted by coolhar:

Does anyong else get the feeling that some people have been using the illegal editing techniques all along without getting caught, and now want those techniques made legal?

Ad hominem.

Originally posted by coolhar:

Ease and precision of enforcement move closer to the top of the list of factors we need to consider in determining whether to change the rules permanently. I, for one, would like the future challenges to be as free as possible of illegal entries.

Precisely. Which is why we must have a very simple set of rules, or we will drive the site council crazy trying to validate photos. My opinion, and it is just that, my opinion, is that the fewer rules, the better, let the voters decide.

Message edited by author 2004-01-01 13:11:45.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

01/01/2004 01:14:14 PM · #10

Originally posted by kirbic:

Iâ��ll first list some of the valid photographic uses for multiple-source-image work, and then discuss how I think these techniques could be incorporated without allowing for â��collagesâ��.

Some of what you've listed seems to be relatively niche areas of photography. Maybe this is something that could be satisfied in the one-off all-editing challenges we've been having every now and again? This then solves the problem of a continual headache of validating entries, but still means we get to play at some interesting areas of photography?