| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 08:41:15 PM · #51 |
Its nothing to do with high-profile.. its more a case of in an invitation challenge a photographer who normally takes a good photo inquired beforehand whether a technique was legal or not, he was told by a member of SC that is was, so he submitted a shot that did pretty well (5th place) then was subsequently DQd for breaching the rule he had already enquired about, granted the swan was the main problem here,but it seems it would of been DQd for the stacked stars anyhow. Had he been told that it was NOT legal then he would of submitted something else.
The thing is, Alex has been on the site a while and generally one would assume has a pretty good feel for the rules and their intricacies. However on this occasion he entered a gray area which subsequently he was given the go ahead on by SC.. then DQd.. which sucks. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 08:49:55 PM · #52 |
| He should've put a pair of stuffed manatees in the foreground instead. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:17:24 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by JH:
He should've put a pair of stuffed manatees in the foreground instead. |
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:30:23 PM · #54 |
So was the time lapse challenge rules especially for that challenge, and then removed afterwards? Or were they legal even after the challenge for a while, but recently removed? Cause I actually don't remember a post about this on the site =S
Anywho it's a great image, I actually gave it a 10. I understand why he was DQed, but I'm confused if he asked SC and they told him it was okay??
I'm a noob :P |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:44:56 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ralph:
i think the rules are hurting rather than helping
time to rethink |
Until recently it seems like we've had a long drought of rules-related forum storms, which could be taken as evidence that we're generally in good shape but might need a few clarifications. No? |
Um, pretty much "no" Shannon.
It may be that people have been doing this sort of stuff, but haven't been 'caught' because they were not in the top five. So, thinking it was okay, they continued doing this stuff. Eventually one lands in the top five, and then all heck breaks out and you get long, exasperated posts in threads like this.
Yes, clarity in the rules is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:52:16 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Yes, clarity in the rules is a good thing. |
unfortunately, i dont think the day would come when all the rules can be clarified entirely.
whenever i see one of these technical "rule violation" threads, it makes me smile because it means we have yet another member who managed to be creative and created a new method of getting the shot. i'm sorry that the rules can be limiting that though, at times. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:03:50 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ralph:
i think the rules are hurting rather than helping
time to rethink |
Until recently it seems like we've had a long drought of rules-related forum storms, which could be taken as evidence that we're generally in good shape but might need a few clarifications. No? |
The rules are fine overall. Not really that tricky at all with a little common sense.
So, yes - I think the "long drought of rules-related forum storms" is a positive indicator. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:11:38 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay I am going to play the devils advocate here. Say the photographer took 10 images one after the other...with no obvious gaps between the photos. A swan swam into the fifth photograph. So does the photographer -
A - Clone out the swan and gets DQ'ed for removing a major element.
B - Leave the swan in and gets DQ'ed for including an major element that was not in the other frames.
C - Scrap all the photos that have been taken and start again, crossing their fingers that another bird doesn't appear.
What should the photographer do to not be DQ'ed in a situation that is controlling purely by nature itself? |
Well, Judi, he STROBED the swan... That's pretty intentional on his part. And it's been clear, at least to me, after the MAJOR debate on the multi-exposure advanced ruleset, that you can't use the exposures the way he did, effectively, here. I'm not saying he intentionally broke the rule, I'm just saying I'm not surprised it's been DQ'd. I remember when I looked at the image I tried to figure out how in HELL he could legally have gotten that effect...
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.
R. |
I agree. Release the chains already. We don't run any expert editing challenges, we penalize attempts at creativity. It's as if we want to continue to see the same images that we saw in 2004, 2005, etc. The rest of the world is out there doing some pretty advance stuff but DPC is stuck in the stone age trying to regulate the use of fire. I guess that's fine for the cavemen among us soon that's all that will be left around here if we don't change real soon.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 22:12:42.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:18:34 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay I am going to play the devils advocate here. Say the photographer took 10 images one after the other...with no obvious gaps between the photos. A swan swam into the fifth photograph. So does the photographer -
A - Clone out the swan and gets DQ'ed for removing a major element.
B - Leave the swan in and gets DQ'ed for including an major element that was not in the other frames.
C - Scrap all the photos that have been taken and start again, crossing their fingers that another bird doesn't appear.
What should the photographer do to not be DQ'ed in a situation that is controlling purely by nature itself? |
Well, Judi, he STROBED the swan... That's pretty intentional on his part. And it's been clear, at least to me, after the MAJOR debate on the multi-exposure advanced ruleset, that you can't use the exposures the way he did, effectively, here. I'm not saying he intentionally broke the rule, I'm just saying I'm not surprised it's been DQ'd. I remember when I looked at the image I tried to figure out how in HELL he could legally have gotten that effect...
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.
R. |
I agree. Release the chains already. We don't run any expert editing challenges, we penalize attempts at creativity. It's as if we want to continue to see the same images that we saw in 2004, 2005, etc. The rest of the world is out there doing some pretty advance stuff but DPC is stuck in the stone age trying to regulate the use of fire. I guess that's fine for the cavemen among us soon that's all that will be left around here if we don't change real soon. |
i'm with Richard on this. while i understand that rules are important for contests, it is indeed sad to see creativity (of techniques) restrained at times. of course one can argue that workarounds to get the same result is also a form of creativity, but i actually see it as a set back for a person's (or his photograph's) full potential. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:27:42 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.
R. |
Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks. |
Photoshop.
File -> Scripts -> Statistics
Use a stack mode of Median on a group of files. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:13:05 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.
R. |
Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks. |
Photoshop.
File -> Scripts -> Statistics
Use a stack mode of Median on a group of files. |
Not everyone may have that ability in their photoshop. I think it was only available in CS3 Extended version, which is what I have. I wonder if it made it's way into CS4 standard version. It's a pretty handy tool.
ETA: Here's a quick tutorial on how it works.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 00:14:00.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:15:41 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.
R. |
Would you mind letting us know what that software, I would find it useful outside the challenges. Thanks. |
Photoshop.
File -> Scripts -> Statistics
Use a stack mode of Median on a group of files. |
There was actually a piece of software a guy wrote, and it was talked about in a thread here, and I downloaded it and it was interesting, but I only ever played with it a couple times and it was on my now-defunct machine and I can't find what it was.
R.
That Script is fascinating, btw. I just tried it out on a pair of similar files on my laptop... Never knew about that.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 00:20:04.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:38:59 AM · #63 |
I remember that thread but I think the URL to where that guy had the software no longer works. I think it was called People Remover or something like that. If I recall it did the same image stacking as Photoshop technique.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:56:44 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Simms:
Which brings us back to this email from Kirbic to Saberi sent regarding this challenge.
"Hi Alex,
Yes, combining up to 10 captures to achieve long star trails is legal in Advanced. The startrails software is one way to achieve it; it can also be done purely in photoshop. |
Kirbic hasn't weighed in, so we can't really know if he was confused or had some rationalization. Looking back, I see that there were some star trail photos in the Night Shot challenge back in May, but none were discussed or validated. It really hasn't come up until now, but objects moving across successive frames were clearly declared illegal back in the January announcement banning time lapse. |
Yes, but Shannon, Karmat has rung in, and she said the star trails weren't an issue:
Originally posted by karmat:
the dq was NOT for the star trails.
the dq was because the swan was in one original, not the others. |
So now we have you and GeneralE saying stacking to make star trails is illegal, and Kirbic and Karmat saying it's fine.
My head hurts.
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would stack photos to make star trails anyway instead of just using a long exposure. Is it to reduce noise?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:07:01 AM · #65 |
I too thought stacking for star trails was OK. I understand the swan thing, and can see why the DQ happened. I wish the rules could be written to allow this kind of creativity although I remember the firestorm regarding natural motion from back in Jan 08. Or, run a few more expert editing challenges to bolster the part of DPC's membership that likes more freedom. Heck, I like looking at the results of expert challenges, even if i don't feel qualified to enter!
I though Alex's shot was brilliant and figured it had to be a super long exposure with a swan decoy (kidding). I figured he flashed it, then threw a rock at it to scare it out of the frame. Would the action of a bird taking off because a rock was hurled at it be natural motion? :P |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:11:33 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would stack photos to make star trails anyway instead of just using a long exposure. Is it to reduce noise? |
And maybe to make them artificially longer.
I'm just going by what's been said already, and a reading of the rules as both written and intended. A photo with pinpoint stars is compositionally different from one with star trails. Stacking images with existing star trails to reduce noise (from the extended exposure) could be OK, but the trails would have to be be superimposed, not overlapped to lengthen them, so that each frame is compositionally the same as the composite.
That's how I see it -- I'm not always in agreement with some interpretations of the rules ... the mere fact that not all DQs (or validations) are unanimous should tell you something about the difficulty in achieving a consensus regarding a subjective issue. We just all do our best to be as fair consistent as we can. Notice that every single thread which has ever discussed an "incorrect" SC decision/DQ has had substantial numbers of members weighing in on each side of the issue as well. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:18:21 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by levyj413:
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would stack photos to make star trails anyway instead of just using a long exposure. Is it to reduce noise? |
And maybe to make them artificially longer.
I'm just going by what's been said already, and a reading of the rules as both written and intended. A photo with pinpoint stars is compositionally different from one with star trails. Stacking images with existing star trails to reduce noise (from the extended exposure) could be OK, but the trails would have to be be superimposed, not overlapped to lengthen them, so that each frame is compositionally the same as the composite.
That's how I see it -- I'm not always in agreement with some interpretations of the rules ... the mere fact that not all DQs (or validations) are unanimous should tell you something about the difficulty in achieving a consensus regarding a subjective issue. We just all do our best to be as fair consistent as we can. Notice that every single thread which has ever discussed an "incorrect" SC decision/DQ has had substantial numbers of members weighing in on each side of the issue as well. |
I thought the purpose of stacking a star trail shot was to use a series of shorter exposures(say 10 frames of 60s each) then overlay them in photoshop (using the multiply mode??) to create a virtual 10 minute exposure. So the trails aren't artificially longer; they are the same length as if shot in a 10 minute exposure. But the stacking method helps with noise and is preferred to a single exposure.
I may be out to lunch but even though the star trails aren't the reason for this DQ it would be great to have some confidence in the correct answer. I havn't tried the technique, yet.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 02:19:53. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 03:12:33 AM · #68 |
Guys the software is startrails.de. Really quick and easy
for me i need to clear up about the startrails. Kirbic said legal. If they are legal then I beliebve the swan being flashed on a single frame and disappearing is legal too. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:19:34 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
Guys the software is startrails.de. Really quick and easy
for me i need to clear up about the startrails. Kirbic said legal. If they are legal then I beliebve the swan being flashed on a single frame and disappearing is legal too. |
What is ironic is you could have fired the flash a 100 times during one exposure and shown the swan in a 100 different places in the lake and that would be totally legal but do it just once during a sequence of shots makes it illegal?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 04:23:40.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:07:58 AM · #70 |
| exactly. anyway I am waiting to hear from Kirbic. I wouldnt have done it if I want given the go ahead. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:26:54 AM · #71 |
Oh crap, i really need to know if multiple exposures for star trails is legal.
I`m out tonight for my shot and MUST know before i go.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:33:02 AM · #72 |
| i thought we have more SCs than just kirbic? gosh |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:20:44 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
Guys the software is startrails.de. Really quick and easy
for me i need to clear up about the startrails. Kirbic said legal. If they are legal then I beliebve the swan being flashed on a single frame and disappearing is legal too. |
What is ironic is you could have fired the flash a 100 times during one exposure and shown the swan in a 100 different places in the lake and that would be totally legal but do it just once during a sequence of shots makes it illegal? |
good point... |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:59:26 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What is ironic is you could have fired the flash a 100 times during one exposure and shown the swan in a 100 different places in the lake and that would be totally legal but do it just once during a sequence of shots makes it illegal? |
The "single capture" rule is still in effect, even with the recent allowance for multiple frames to help control the exposure, noise and DOF of that capture. "You must... create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change."
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 08:48:22. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:03:28 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by levyj413:
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would stack photos to make star trails anyway instead of just using a long exposure. Is it to reduce noise? |
And maybe to make them artificially longer.
I'm just going by what's been said already, and a reading of the rules as both written and intended. A photo with pinpoint stars is compositionally different from one with star trails. Stacking images with existing star trails to reduce noise (from the extended exposure) could be OK, but the trails would have to be be superimposed, not overlapped to lengthen them, so that each frame is compositionally the same as the composite.
That's how I see it -- I'm not always in agreement with some interpretations of the rules ... the mere fact that not all DQs (or validations) are unanimous should tell you something about the difficulty in achieving a consensus regarding a subjective issue. We just all do our best to be as fair consistent as we can. Notice that every single thread which has ever discussed an "incorrect" SC decision/DQ has had substantial numbers of members weighing in on each side of the issue as well. |
Actually, it's probably to keep the sky nice and dark. |
|
