| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2008 06:24:23 PM · #326 |
this subject is too subjective. i'm moving on...
i might enter my idea and not really care if it gets DQ'd, but seems to be a bit too nitpicky.
if it looks real it's good enough - we are talking about photography technique and not sequential frames from my roll of tri-x - no?
ETA - i hope langdon is playing GH3 ;}
ETA2 - folks can still ' vote accordingly ' - correct...
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 18:28:17.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:27:07 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mpeters:
What is remotely natural about moving to 30 different positions in a church? |
If I was scoping out lighting or camera angles for an important wedding shoot or church brochure, I might easily be in 30 positions over the course of investigation. I might be in all sorts of random places- sitting, standing, etc. It would be impossible to tell where I began or ended, but it would still be natural movement over time, no? Does motion have to be linear to be time-lapse? What if the golfer dropped a tee and turned to one side, DQ? |
Sounds to me like you're saying that all these examples represent time lapse. So explain why the image by Roz was vetoed? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:27:18 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
What is remotely natural about moving to 30 different positions in a church? Even if each frame was taken exactly two minutes apart? |
Any 2-year old at a wedding. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:31:06 PM · #329 |
| 'Nother hypothetical. Bird flies to bird feeder, perches briefly, flies off. 1 action or 3? If he flies at varying speeds due to branches he has to maneuver around and I shoot at a continuous interval I'll have some nicely timed shots and some with overlap that I won't want to use. Legal to skip the overlapping ones? I would love to direct the wildlife to move in regular, smooth, predictable paths at a constant rate of speed but they never listen to me! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:33:23 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mpeters:
What is remotely natural about moving to 30 different positions in a church? |
If I was scoping out lighting or camera angles for an important wedding shoot or church brochure, I might easily be in 30 positions over the course of investigation. I might be in all sorts of random places- sitting, standing, etc. It would be impossible to tell where I began or ended, but it would still be natural movement over time, no? Does motion have to be linear to be time-lapse? What if the golfer dropped a tee and turned to one side, DQ? |
I might just call you fidgity. ;) But in a natural way. How about a shot of a golfer during his swing showing his clubhead at many different sequential positions? Good, right? What if he was prompted to swing particularly slow so my POS camera could catch many shots during the swing sequence? Again, the cherry picking argument makes sense.
Legality cant be decided based on length of time between frames or prompted versus observed motions.
I like the rule change I just think this has created the largest gray area yet between what is legal or illegal. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:34:24 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by MaryO:
Originally posted by mpeters:
What is remotely natural about moving to 30 different positions in a church? Even if each frame was taken exactly two minutes apart? |
Any 2-year old at a wedding. |
Hear hear! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:36:24 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mpeters:
What is remotely natural about moving to 30 different positions in a church? |
If I was scoping out lighting or camera angles for an important wedding shoot or church brochure, I might easily be in 30 positions over the course of investigation. I might be in all sorts of random places- sitting, standing, etc. It would be impossible to tell where I began or ended, but it would still be natural movement over time, no? Does motion have to be linear to be time-lapse? What if the golfer dropped a tee and turned to one side, DQ? |
Shannon,
With all due respect, you're getting into a slippry slope here. Unless you are expecting everyone to enter moon or star progessions, where do you draw the line?
Time Lapse is about timing and a natural flow through the frame. You can accomplish that in many ways, some legal some not. You rule out cherry picking from mulitple scenes or sequences, OK - I have issues with that, but I can live with it and you can validate that they were at least taken in sequence from the EXIF data.
But what you are saying with the golfer shot (or at least what frisca said) is that you can't have an image that COULD have been cherry picked.
If an image appears to have a natural progression and you can validate it according to imperical rules, it should be allowed, IMO. To DQ something because it looks natural but might not be is way too subjective.
Kiwi's example is a good expample of what not to do, could it be a natural happening of events? Sure, what isn't? But does it communicate a time period, a start, a finish? No, it doesn't. And that is way different than Roz's shot.
Also, keep in mind that the shooting and editing for this challenge is very time consuming. It would be a shame if all this work ended up in a bunch of DQs becuase of a narrow interpretation of "Time Lapse"
My 2 cents, well maybe 3! ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 18:38:33. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:39:17 PM · #333 |
Shannon,
to go back to one of the examples discussed earlier,the Plaza. It seams to me that if the 10 images were shot say 2 minutes apart and a succession of people/birds/traffic had passed before the camera then the main subject is the Plaza itself and the natural progression is represented by the various passers by. Each passer by is different, but its a tru natural progression in the period of a few minutes.
Is this considered legal time lapse or not? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:41:32 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by MaryO:
'Nother hypothetical. Bird flies to bird feeder, perches briefly, flies off. 1 action or 3? If he flies at varying speeds due to branches he has to maneuver around and I shoot at a continuous interval I'll have some nicely timed shots and some with overlap that I won't want to use. Legal to skip the overlapping ones? I would love to direct the wildlife to move in regular, smooth, predictable paths at a constant rate of speed but they never listen to me! |
So, did I miss something? Are we not allowed to skip a shot taken between the first and last shot? ie: if I take 4 shots of a long jumper in burst mode I can't select only frames 1,2 and 4 to use, I must use all four? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:46:04 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Time Lapse is about timing and a natural flow through the frame. You can accomplish that in many ways, some legal some not. You rule out cherry picking from mulitple scenes or sequences, OK - I have issues with that, but I can live with it and you can validate that they were at least taken in sequence from the EXIF data.
|
If I take a set of (say) 30 shots and cherry picked 10 to merge/submit then got DQ'd on that basis then I'll leave dpc - its utter madness! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:48:52 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Time Lapse is about timing and a natural flow through the frame. You can accomplish that in many ways, some legal some not. You rule out cherry picking from mulitple scenes or sequences, OK - I have issues with that, but I can live with it and you can validate that they were at least taken in sequence from the EXIF data.
|
If I take a set of (say) 30 shots and cherry picked 10 to merge/submit then got DQ'd on that basis then I'll leave dpc - its utter madness! |
My bird on the feeder image (earlier in thread) was 5 of 30, cherry picked for separation. The MkIII fires at 10fps and the resulting images are too close together to use sequential images. I suppose I could have trained a peregrine falcon.
I agree, this is getting silly.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 18:49:12. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:51:54 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
If I take a set of (say) 30 shots and cherry picked 10 to merge/submit then got DQ'd on that basis then I'll leave dpc - its utter madness! |
Hey, I just got DQ'd, don't leave dpc, but what to do? Not to submit or get another DQ? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:05:35 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by hajeka:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
If I take a set of (say) 30 shots and cherry picked 10 to merge/submit then got DQ'd on that basis then I'll leave dpc - its utter madness! |
Hey, I just got DQ'd, don't leave dpc, but what to do? Not to submit or get another DQ? |
Thanks Henk, however, if I were to get DQ'd and the reason for DQ is not in the rules (ie, your image numbers must be consecutive) then I really don't see the reason for staying. I understand this is a new set of rules but sadly they have been badly worded. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:05:59 PM · #339 |
Another spanner in the works - flowering bud... wont work at all unless it unfurls laterally as well as from a centre point (and how many flowers do that?) - or you are allowed to position it through the frame. Think of the resulting shot... the only beauty in the use of time lapse in this situation is an animation. The only other alternative to that is to take a shot of a bulb plant growing out of the bulb to flower as it goes up as well - i dont know the timing for that (2-3 days, a week?), but the effort is probably not worth the result. That or use a bunch of flowers in bud which take two days to come out which was my intention for this challenge, but then i realised why bother? - why not just buy / pick a few flowers at different stages of development and put them in a vase, as that is the resulting shot anyway? (a crap shot might i add with no real reference to the challenge)
So yeah - one of the great things about time lapse is that it's benefit is seen when it is used as a video technique and not a photographic technique... strobing (which is what we are really trying to achieve here by my understanding of the direction of this thread of "no cherry picking" (and yes i have read it all)) is another issue / technique altogether and has no need for timelapse to be "legalised"... HDTR is the only other option i can see for using the multiple frame inclusion into the rules apart from the obvious HDR.
So my entry, if i can be bothered/the weather holds this sunday, will be an HDTR... |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:09:07 PM · #340 |
All,
Time lapse seems to be causing a lot of confusion, and to be very honest, we're still discussing it like heck. This first challenge is going to be a learning experience for us all, that's for sure. It may be that we'll have to tweak things after we see how this sorts out.
FWIW, the *intent* of allowing time lapse was to allow a photographer to show motion with something other than blur. The intent was that the motion be, in essence, a single natural motion, certainly not an object jumping around the frame. A golf swing, a ball being thrown, several frames showing a snowboarder or skateboarder during a jump, the movement of the sun, moon or other astronomical object against a landscape, all come to mind. Bear with us during the trial, we *will* get it sorted out one way or another. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:12:26 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
All,
Time lapse seems to be causing a lot of confusion, and to be very honest, we're still discussing it like heck. This first challenge is going to be a learning experience for us all, that's for sure. It may be that we'll have to tweak things after we see how this sorts out.
FWIW, the *intent* of allowing time lapse was to allow a photographer to show motion with something other than blur. The intent was that the motion be, in essence, a single natural motion, certainly not an object jumping around the frame. A golf swing, a ball being thrown, several frames showing a snowboarder or skateboarder during a jump, the movement of the sun, moon or other astronomical object against a landscape, all come to mind. Bear with us during the trial, we *will* get it sorted out one way or another. |
Just unfortunate that a LoD side challenge is under way and this time lapse challenge is the first round !!! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:13:36 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by kirbic:
All,
Time lapse seems to be causing a lot of confusion, and to be very honest, we're still discussing it like heck. This first challenge is going to be a learning experience for us all, that's for sure. It may be that we'll have to tweak things after we see how this sorts out.
FWIW, the *intent* of allowing time lapse was to allow a photographer to show motion with something other than blur. The intent was that the motion be, in essence, a single natural motion, certainly not an object jumping around the frame. A golf swing, a ball being thrown, several frames showing a snowboarder or skateboarder during a jump, the movement of the sun, moon or other astronomical object against a landscape, all come to mind. Bear with us during the trial, we *will* get it sorted out one way or another. |
Just unfortunate that a LoD side challenge is under way and this time lapse challenge is the first round !!! |
Rule 1a applies in all forums! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:14:05 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Time Lapse is about timing and a natural flow through the frame. You can accomplish that in many ways, some legal some not. You rule out cherry picking from mulitple scenes or sequences, OK - I have issues with that, but I can live with it and you can validate that they were at least taken in sequence from the EXIF data.
|
If I take a set of (say) 30 shots and cherry picked 10 to merge/submit then got DQ'd on that basis then I'll leave dpc - its utter madness! |
You can pick 10 shots from a SINGLE series. You just can't mix-and-match from among multiple series.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 19:14:26.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:16:53 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
Another spanner in the works - flowering bud... wont work at all unless it unfurls laterally as well as from a centre point (and how many flowers do that?) - or you are allowed to position it through the frame. Think of the resulting shot... the only beauty in the use of time lapse in this situation is an animation. The only other alternative to that is to take a shot of a bulb plant growing out of the bulb to flower as it goes up as well - i dont know the timing for that (2-3 days, a week?), but the effort is probably not worth the result. That or use a bunch of flowers in bud which take two days to come out which was my intention for this challenge, but then i realised why bother? - why not just buy / pick a few flowers at different stages of development and put them in a vase, as that is the resulting shot anyway? (a crap shot might i add with no real reference to the challenge)
So yeah - one of the great things about time lapse is that it's benefit is seen when it is used as a video technique and not a photographic technique... strobing (which is what we are really trying to achieve here by my understanding of the direction of this thread of "no cherry picking" (and yes i have read it all)) is another issue / technique altogether and has no need for timelapse to be "legalised"... HDTR is the only other option i can see for using the multiple frame inclusion into the rules apart from the obvious HDR.
So my entry, if i can be bothered/the weather holds this sunday, will be an HDTR... |
I asked SC about moving the subject (only a little bit) from some frames to gain better composition in the final image and the result was that I can not do that. So you can not move the subject around to gain better composition or remove overlapping from frames. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:17:59 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
if I were to get DQ'd and the reason for DQ is not in the rules (ie, your image numbers must be consecutive) then I really don't see the reason for staying. I understand this is a new set of rules but sadly they have been badly worded. |
I disagree with the "not staying" part, but I fully agree with the "badly worded" part. The photo of  Roz was for me a nice example of time lapse. So now I'm without any clue to make a decent shot without getting DQ'd. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:18:41 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Qart:
What I see in the image by Roz is natural motion taken at regular intervals. No where in the description is the word 'burst' included and nothing about this image compares to the one by Kiwiness used to illustrate a very weak point. We're allowed up to 10 images. I see three and if they are in sequence which I'm going to assume they are, then this image is perfecty acceptible within the description of the challenge. If the challenge is this subjective to interpretation perhaps it's best to revise the desription befor more people waste their time and efforts. |
To me, it demonstrates three separate action -- walking, teeing up, and swinging. This does not, to me, represent a time lapse of a single action, any more that seeing someone in the same shot pitching, batting, and fielding would represent a time lapse of baseball.
Now give me three shots of a golf swing, and I'd certainly consider that time lapse.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:20:08 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You can pick 10 shots from a SINGLE series. You just can't mix-and-match from among multiple series.
~Terry |
Please explain "single series".
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:20:32 PM · #348 |
[quote=ClubJuggle
To me, it demonstrates three separate action -- walking, teeing up, and swinging. This does not, to me, represent a time lapse of a single action, any more that seeing someone in the same shot pitching, batting, and fielding would represent a time lapse of baseball.
Now give me three shots of a golf swing, and I'd certainly consider that time lapse.
~Terry [/quote]
I disagree, its all a question of time span. If you consider the whole act of Driving from the tee, then it could be three instances within that time frame and therefore a valid time lapse. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:20:38 PM · #349 |
| Another question: if you had 10 images where the subject overlapped on some of them when combined, could you make the subject partially transparent in some of the frames or would that be creating a new feature? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:21:29 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by MaryO:
Another question: if you had 10 images where the subject overlapped on some of them when combined, could you make the subject partially transparent in some of the frames or would that be creating a new feature? |
Yes, that's certainly allowable. |
|
