| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2008 10:14:46 AM · #476 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
To be clear,
This is one continuous run, all frames in order from the same pass through the playground equipment. Not every frame taken is included.
I had a previous ticket and image where the last image was from an earlier run. Hence, the confusion.
That said, the SC is correct in that this is a lot like Roz's shot. My impression was the SC felt that there were three different actions on this one, climbing, walking, sliding; not one continuos activity, say running or walking. My take is that if the image was several of him sliding down the slide (one activity) it would have been OK. I don't agree with ruling, but I understand what they are saying.
The question is, if there wasn't the confusion would this image have passed muster? |
As I see the problem with the decision on this image is that there is really no good way to have a clear and consistent criterion on what are separate actions.
A couple of example:
1. Let's got the astrophotograpy route. I go out with a nice wide angle lens and capture a entire sequence of the full moon from the time is rises until the time is sets. I can claim there are at least two actions - the rising moon and the setting moon. This is really not that different than in scarbrd's image with the climbing kid and the sliding kid. Yet I think it has been said that this type of image would pass muster.
2. I throw out a Frisbee for my dog to catch. The best part will likely be when he actually catches the thing. But I can easily end up with three separate actions. I get him chasing the Frisbee, I get him catching the Frisbee, and I get him returning the Frisbee. I almost have to get two actions in the photo no matter what I do. Someone may disagree and argue that it is all one action. But that is exactly the point - we will disagree.
I may think I have a good system/criterion for deciding what are separate actions and you may think you have one, but I am sure they will clash. I don't see how the SC can arrive at one position on what makes something a distinct action that can be adequately defended to the membership. That put them in a very difficult position. |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 01:07:47 PM · #477 |
How about this hypothetical
Your taking a series of pictures of a pendulum on a clock.
[thumb]629612[/thumb]
The order in which the shots were taken appear to like this, one pass from left to right.
[thumb]629613[/thumb]
In reality they were taken at even intervals over several passes of the pendulum.
[thumb]629614[/thumb]
Assume the photos were taken in succession, no gaps, no missing frames and the interval between the frames is constant.
Would this pass validation?
Questions in my mind,
Is the back and forth motion of the pendulum considered a single motion?
Or is it several motions since the pendulum changed directions several times?
Does the perceived order have to match the actual order?
Are we having fun yet? ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-01-06 13:08:48. |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 03:27:30 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
How about this hypothetical
Your taking a series of pictures of a pendulum on a clock.
[thumb]629612[/thumb]
The order in which the shots were taken appear to like this, one pass from left to right.
[thumb]629613[/thumb]
In reality they were taken at even intervals over several passes of the pendulum.
[thumb]629614[/thumb]
Assume the photos were taken in succession, no gaps, no missing frames and the interval between the frames is constant.
Would this pass validation?
Questions in my mind,
Is the back and forth motion of the pendulum considered a single motion?
Or is it several motions since the pendulum changed directions several times?
Does the perceived order have to match the actual order?
Are we having fun yet? ;-) |
You are, of course, certifiably insane, but I bet you are having fun.
Is the back and forth motion of the pendulum considered a single motion? Or is it several motions since the pendulum changed directions several times? ΓΆ€” nothing could better illustrate the faint absurdity of attempting to define "legal" in time-lapse photography by using the concept "a single motion". I don't think the literal interpretation of "single motion" would allow the photographing of a bird in flight.
Does the perceived order have to match the actual order? ΓΆ€” And whose perceived order are we talking about? Shall we DQ a sequence you made lifting the pendulum to the right to start it, since we "assume" the pendulum began with a leftward lift?
Oy, all this is driving me crazy. I still don't understand why the kid on the playground equipment is not a valid response to "time lapse photography", single motion or not be damned.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2008 03:30:53 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
How about this hypothetical
Your taking a series of pictures of a pendulum on a clock.
[thumb]629612[/thumb]
The order in which the shots were taken appear to like this, one pass from left to right.
[thumb]629613[/thumb]
In reality they were taken at even intervals over several passes of the pendulum.
[thumb]629614[/thumb]
Assume the photos were taken in succession, no gaps, no missing frames and the interval between the frames is constant.
Would this pass validation?
Questions in my mind,
Is the back and forth motion of the pendulum considered a single motion?
Or is it several motions since the pendulum changed directions several times?
Does the perceived order have to match the actual order?
Are we having fun yet? ;-) |
This is why I will NEVER enter a photo under these new guidelines. I may as well just let my membership lapse as I doubt I need it for anything other than my portfolio. |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 05:08:34 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Are we having fun yet? ;-) |
You are, of course, certifiably insane, but I bet you are having fun.
|
Oh yeah! :-P |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 05:13:57 PM · #481 |
| Thanks to the LoD I've submitted and on my 3rd edit decided to use consecutive shots. Interestingly whilst the burst was probably less than a second the exif shows 2 seconds (cos it only shows full seconds). I honestly can't see a valid reason for a dq request other than being in the top 5 (or is it 10) but time will tell ;) |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 05:16:13 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Thanks to the LoD I've submitted and on my 3rd edit decided to use consecutive shots. Interestingly whilst the burst was probably less than a second the exif shows 2 seconds (cos it only shows full seconds). I honestly can't see a valid reason for a dq request other than being in the top 5 (or is it 10) but time will tell ;) |
If you miss a DQ, but totally bomb, you still finish in the top 100!! :) |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 05:16:31 PM · #483 |
i expect to get dq'ed ;) or at least dnmc'ed to death ....
it did made me think about technique ..
|
|
|
|
01/06/2008 05:20:37 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Thanks to the LoD I've submitted and on my 3rd edit decided to use consecutive shots. Interestingly whilst the burst was probably less than a second the exif shows 2 seconds (cos it only shows full seconds). I honestly can't see a valid reason for a dq request other than being in the top 5 (or is it 10) but time will tell ;) |
If you miss a DQ, but totally bomb, you still finish in the top 100!! :) |
lol, never thought of it like that ;) |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 08:53:58 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
How about this hypothetical
Your taking a series of pictures of a pendulum on a clock.
[thumb]629612[/thumb]
The order in which the shots were taken appear to like this, one pass from left to right.
[thumb]629613[/thumb]
In reality they were taken at even intervals over several passes of the pendulum.
[thumb]629614[/thumb]
Assume the photos were taken in succession, no gaps, no missing frames and the interval between the frames is constant.
Would this pass validation?
Questions in my mind,
Is the back and forth motion of the pendulum considered a single motion?
Or is it several motions since the pendulum changed directions several times?
Does the perceived order have to match the actual order?
Are we having fun yet? ;-) |
This is why I will NEVER enter a photo under these new guidelines. I may as well just let my membership lapse as I doubt I need it for anything other than my portfolio. |
Even though I am very sceptical of the new rules, I submitted a photo. I used 3 photos out of series of 8. I think it would not be DQ'd, but to tell the truth, the rules are so vague,that I'm really not sure. |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 10:55:24 PM · #486 |
| Well I had a ticket open for prevalidation request and haven't heard back yet (I'm sure SC is quite overloaded at this point). But I'm in. I'll keep checking my email and unsubmit if I need to but I think its okay.... **crossing fingers and toes** |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 02:10:46 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I'm not concerned here about what he does between placing the ball and hitting it, all I'm pointing out is that I think he should be standing in the same place for both. His image should have overlap. |
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
In the middle image, he's putting down the ball. Why, after he's hit it, and is still in the follow through, does he appear to be several feet from where he put it down?
That's the question being asked. |
That is the question but the point is that it will take alot of studying of all the entries to make sure there aren't more of these kinds of flaws. |
Okay I can see that now, maybe we need to ask roz. Still that is not the reason she was given for being unacceptable. [/quote]
i know this is now old news but i have now made it clear in the photographer's comments why he was bending down in that particular spot ..
he was not placing the ball, he was reaching down to get a piece of grass to test the wind with .. the ball had been placed on the tee before this sequence was shot, so there werent a heap of movements that werent recorded between bending down and hitting the ball ..
as far as i understand it the sequence that included the golfer with his club held in that manner (which was to line up his shot), when he bent down and when he was photographed just after he hit the ball would satisfy time lapse photography .. i dont see why non linear would give it a dq .. i did not shoot several different sequences and then choose the best shots to include in the image, it was one sequence only ..
i really dont envy the sc on this one ..
and if they still maintain my golfer would'v got a dq then i would also expect a whole heap of dq's in the time lapse challenge .. and i wouldnt be suggesting they do that .. its a very difficult rule to understand, come to an agreement on and then enforce ... :)
i was going to write to the site council complaining about their decision on my entry after i saw all the similar entries in the challenge .. then i slept on it and decided that in the spirit of dpc i'd allow that this is a very new concept/rules with teething problems and my entry was one that fell thru the cracks ..
GOOD LUCK TO THE SITE COUNCIL ON THIS CHALLENGE AND NEW RULE-SET .:)..
its created such an amazing response ..
i particularly loved this one by don  posthumous..
the rules don't say a natural motion. They say "natural subject motion." When you use "motion" without an article, the meaning can include multiple separate motions. The trick here is "natural." I am impressed that SC is willing to tackle the interpretation of "natural," since it is a term that has been debated and redefined through the centuries. There is the Enlightenment idea of "natural", which is about humanity acting in rational ways reflecting Divine order. Then there is the Romantic idea of "natural," which moves it away from the human (thus Wordsworth's sense of longing in his early poetry, he feels separated from nature). I think the real reason the golfer would be DQ'd is because you think his motions represent an individual will that is somehow separate from "nature." A single golf swing approaches the Enlightenment idea of natural, where individual will seems to be acting according to a divine order, creating an almost perfect circle of swing, utilizing Newtonian physics to amplify the workings of his will.
Yes, I am quite simply amazed that the SC is willing to engage in a philosophical discussion over each DQ request. Perhaps you could tell us which philosophers, philosophies and/or religions are guiding you, or will each SC take up the cause of a different philosophy and battle it out on a picture by picture basis? Karmat could champion karmic balance as part of the "natural order." Scalvert could argue that only motions that illustrate Newtonian physics could be considered "natural," while ursula could argue that beauty is inherently natural. some of the younger male sc's might champion primal desire as natural, thus defending the sandwich-eating photos. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of SC HQ!
Message edited by author 2008-01-07 17:39:41.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 02:29:28 PM · #488 |
I think someone early in this or the "what the heck is time lapse" thread mentioned that this was gonna be a train wreck.
Well I agree and a LOT of the entries were worse than I dare submit after reading these threads about what was or was not acceptible.
I decided NOT to enter as I had once experienced a DQ and did not want to sit on ants for my next 24 entries. I have NO idea whether the Council will actually choose to DQ the more than 20 persons that submitted entries even MORE DQable than mine would have been but chose not to dare them.
For the person that said there would only be 3 to 4 entries ... I stand on my opinion that there were 86 entries in the HDR challenge that took more software and expertise than this did IMO. I suggested that he was underestimating the determination of the photographers here and was glad to see (I think) 89 entries ... well at LEAST a BOATLOAD more than 3 or 4.
It is a pleasure to have just renewed my subscription here. What a wonderful group of experimental people.
me
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 02:33:14 PM · #489 |
| honestly, Roz.. if you want to submit your image, you should. You can argue for its validity and would probably have *some* backing on that. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 02:42:08 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by frisca:
honestly, Roz.. if you want to submit your image, you should. You can argue for its validity and would probably have *some* backing on that. |
Then what's the point of pre-validation? If you pre-validate and get a reply that says the consensus of the SC says it would not be acceptable, what's the point of entering it?
I know that pre-validation isn't the final word but still it should be a good indicator. I would have loved to have entered the one I sent in for pre-validation and I'm pretty sure it would be scoring better than the one I have now. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 05:17:34 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by frisca:
honestly, Roz.. if you want to submit your image, you should. You can argue for its validity and would probably have *some* backing on that. |
Then what's the point of pre-validation? If you pre-validate and get a reply that says the consensus of the SC says it would not be acceptable, what's the point of entering it?
I know that pre-validation isn't the final word but still it should be a good indicator. I would have loved to have entered the one I sent in for pre-validation and I'm pretty sure it would be scoring better than the one I have now. |
The problem isn't with pre-validations, its with the fact the the rule for time lapse is very hard to understand and apply. I said what I said to Roz because I'm at my wits end to try to come up with an objective and understandable standard. It was more an expression of my frustration with this rule and the many many many tickets and lengthy discussion both within SC and the site as a whole, than a "real" answer. Sorry for not being more clear about what I was trying to say. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 05:22:32 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by frisca:
honestly, Roz.. if you want to submit your image, you should. You can argue for its validity and would probably have *some* backing on that. |
Then what's the point of pre-validation? If you pre-validate and get a reply that says the consensus of the SC says it would not be acceptable, what's the point of entering it?
I know that pre-validation isn't the final word but still it should be a good indicator. I would have loved to have entered the one I sent in for pre-validation and I'm pretty sure it would be scoring better than the one I have now. |
The problem isn't with pre-validations, its with the fact the the rule for time lapse is very hard to understand and apply. I said what I said to Roz because I'm at my wits end to try to come up with an objective and understandable standard. It was more an expression of my frustration with this rule and the many many many tickets and lengthy discussion both within SC and the site as a whole, than a "real" answer. Sorry for not being more clear about what I was trying to say. |
Oh, that's OK!
It's not like any of us take this thing seriously, right? ;-)
Frankly, I think you're doing a fine job of explaining your rule for Time Lapse, the problem is, while we understand your reasoning, many disagree with the very narrow interpretation being laid out.
Message edited by author 2008-01-07 17:22:46. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 06:40:07 PM · #493 |
Roz,
Thanks for explaining this as you did. I retract my statement that I can see why it was a DQ'd shot. I feel you captured the image in the spirit of time lapse photos and am sorry that you were not able to enter the shot. It is a great shot, and your explanation clears up my misconception that you had to reframe the shot. I apologize for the misconception and encourage you to pull something as wonderful as this off on the next challenge.
Originally posted by roz:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I'm not concerned here about what he does between placing the ball and hitting it, all I'm pointing out is that I think he should be standing in the same place for both. His image should have overlap. |
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
In the middle image, he's putting down the ball. Why, after he's hit it, and is still in the follow through, does he appear to be several feet from where he put it down?
That's the question being asked. |
That is the question but the point is that it will take alot of studying of all the entries to make sure there aren't more of these kinds of flaws. |
Okay I can see that now, maybe we need to ask roz. Still that is not the reason she was given for being unacceptable. |
i know this is now old news but i have now made it clear in the photographer's comments why he was bending down in that particular spot ..
he was not placing the ball, he was reaching down to get a piece of grass to test the wind with .. the ball had been placed on the tee before this sequence was shot, so there werent a heap of movements that werent recorded between bending down and hitting the ball ..
as far as i understand it the sequence that included the golfer with his club held in that manner (which was to line up his shot), when he bent down and when he was photographed just after he hit the ball would satisfy time lapse photography .. i dont see why non linear would give it a dq .. i did not shoot several different sequences and then choose the best shots to include in the image, it was one sequence only ..
i really dont envy the sc on this one ..
and if they still maintain my golfer would'v got a dq then i would also expect a whole heap of dq's in the time lapse challenge .. and i wouldnt be suggesting they do that .. its a very difficult rule to understand, come to an agreement on and then enforce ... :)
i was going to write to the site council complaining about their decision on my entry after i saw all the similar entries in the challenge .. then i slept on it and decided that in the spirit of dpc i'd allow that this is a very new concept/rules with teething problems and my entry was one that fell thru the cracks ..
GOOD LUCK TO THE SITE COUNCIL ON THIS CHALLENGE AND NEW RULE-SET .:)..
its created such an amazing response ..
i particularly loved this one by don posthumous..
the rules don't say a natural motion. They say "natural subject motion." When you use "motion" without an article, the meaning can include multiple separate motions. The trick here is "natural." I am impressed that SC is willing to tackle the interpretation of "natural," since it is a term that has been debated and redefined through the centuries. There is the Enlightenment idea of "natural", which is about humanity acting in rational ways reflecting Divine order. Then there is the Romantic idea of "natural," which moves it away from the human (thus Wordsworth's sense of longing in his early poetry, he feels separated from nature). I think the real reason the golfer would be DQ'd is because you think his motions represent an individual will that is somehow separate from "nature." A single golf swing approaches the Enlightenment idea of natural, where individual will seems to be acting according to a divine order, creating an almost perfect circle of swing, utilizing Newtonian physics to amplify the workings of his will.
Yes, I am quite simply amazed that the SC is willing to engage in a philosophical discussion over each DQ request. Perhaps you could tell us which philosophers, philosophies and/or religions are guiding you, or will each SC take up the cause of a different philosophy and battle it out on a picture by picture basis? Karmat could champion karmic balance as part of the "natural order." Scalvert could argue that only motions that illustrate Newtonian physics could be considered "natural," while ursula could argue that beauty is inherently natural. some of the younger male sc's might champion primal desire as natural, thus defending the sandwich-eating photos. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of SC HQ! [/quote]
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 08:54:58 PM · #494 |
Just to cross post, we've also added a new Keyboard Voting feature as a belated part of these updates.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 08:57:17 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Just to cross post, we've also added a new Keyboard Voting feature as a belated part of these updates. |
That'll come in useful for when you're changing nappies with your other hand. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 09:46:15 PM · #496 |
thanx benjamin ..  BHuseman ..:)
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 11:10:46 PM · #497 |
I am totally surprised that the SC allowed this new rule set. I was always under the impression that to cover their own butts (and I am all for that) they would never allow a rule set which has so much of a grey area. Essentially opening themselves up for lots of ridicule as to why one shot ribboned while another similar one was dq'd.
I wish them luck, and admire the guts it took to at least try this.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 04:15:02 PM · #498 |
| Can I take two shots of the same scene, but have one very OoF. Then in Post fade the OoF image over the top so that it gives it a soft look? Kind of like a natural Gaussian Blur. |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 12:36:19 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Can I take two shots of the same scene, but have one very OoF. Then in Post fade the OoF image over the top so that it gives it a soft look? Kind of like a natural Gaussian Blur. |
That's a good question and I'd like to see an answer from SC. My guess would be yes. Certainly, you can do gaussian on a shot, overlay, and selectively erase, that's always been legal. But in the past, using gaussian to completely obliterate features has not been legal. So assuming you used this technique with multiple exposures, would you be restricted in how OOF the overlay layer was?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2008 12:47:05 PM · #500 |
I would be interested in a SC response to that question too ...
|
|
