| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2010 03:16:56 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by gjumi:
I don't think that's the true way, because, back in the plate days, double exposure was done with the cap. |
Back in my day I was taught to double expose by taking an exposure, metered 1-2 stops shy, pop the film release button that is normally used to respool the film back into the canister, which resets the shutter without moving the film, and then take the second shot. Of course this was in the days of 35mm film and SLRs, so If your back in the day goes back to single plate photography and wooden cameras, then it would have been the cap trick. Everything old is new again. |
My game here was the following: photography is defined by what light does, not what camera does; exposure is defined by the action (shining) of light, not the motion of the shutter.
Anyhow... |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:17:20 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Agreed. Any legal method to get a double exposure effect is valid. But if you create a triple exposure effect, then it's DNMC. Clearly. |
?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was the one that suggested the challenge and in my mind I really had "multiple exposure" in mind, but the technique is more often called "double exposure" so I naturally went with that.
Personally I would not vote down shots which have more than two "exposures". |
|
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures.
What's the deal with people wanting to muddy very clear challenge descriptions. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:23:20 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Agreed. Any legal method to get a double exposure effect is valid. But if you create a triple exposure effect, then it's DNMC. Clearly. |
?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was the one that suggested the challenge and in my mind I really had "multiple exposure" in mind, but the technique is more often called "double exposure" so I naturally went with that.
Personally I would not vote down shots which have more than two "exposures". |
|
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures.
What's the deal with people wanting to muddy very clear challenge descriptions. |
Honestly, I don't understand why other people have to be such sticklers about the whole thing.
Its one thing to submit a macro of a flower to the black and white landscape challenge.
But I think its a whole different thing if someone submits a triple instead of double exposure. The spirit of the challenge, the techniques of the challenge, are all still being maintained. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:34:56 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures.
What's the deal with people wanting to muddy very clear challenge descriptions. |
The *problem*, and you know this as well as I do, is that if the challenge were titled "Multiple Exposure" then there would be people saying "double" is not the same as "multiple"...
Anyway, the challenge description says to create a double exposure effect; it doesn't restrict how many times you can create the effect :-)
R. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:38:32 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Agreed. Any legal method to get a double exposure effect is valid. But if you create a triple exposure effect, then it's DNMC. Clearly. |
?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was the one that suggested the challenge and in my mind I really had "multiple exposure" in mind, but the technique is more often called "double exposure" so I naturally went with that.
Personally I would not vote down shots which have more than two "exposures". |
|
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures.
What's the deal with people wanting to muddy very clear challenge descriptions. |
Honestly, I don't understand why other people have to be such sticklers about the whole thing.
Its one thing to submit a macro of a flower to the black and white landscape challenge.
But I think its a whole different thing if someone submits a triple instead of double exposure. The spirit of the challenge, the techniques of the challenge, are all still being maintained. |
Agree to disagree... and fortunately others here do too.
If you do a double exposure (effect) vs 3 or more - you should not get ANY DNMC votes. If you do multiples, you will have chosen not to meet the stated terms of the challenge and then while many won't hold you to the challenge requirement, many will... so you should expect to get some low scores. Just as if you submitted a flower macro in the B&W Landscape as you so well stated.
Anyone can imagine any variation or so-called "spirit" of the challenge. But all we have to base our shots and our voting are the terms of the challenge. If they aren't met, then so be it. Double = 2.
But hey, I've only got one vote. But the purpose of these threads is to get a feel for what some of the voters will be basing their judging on so you can decide up front if what you want to take will get properly (or improperly) hammered.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:41:51 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures.
What's the deal with people wanting to muddy very clear challenge descriptions. |
The *problem*, and you know this as well as I do, is that if the challenge were titled "Multiple Exposure" then there would be people saying "double" is not the same as "multiple"...
Anyway, the challenge description says to create a double exposure effect; it doesn't restrict how many times you can create the effect :-)
R. |
Actually, I don't know that and if someone were to claim "double" was not "multiple" they would not have a leg to stand on. Multiple would be more than one. Last I checked, 2 was greater than 1. :)
Nice spin on the "it doesn't restrict how many times you can create the effect" -- but it doesn't hold. If it appears to be more than two (double) shots it can and should be downgraded.
I'll say it again. The CHALLENGE is to create a shot that meets the terms. The challenge is not to find a way to shoehorn in a triple or more "exposure" shot. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:43:16 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Fiora:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Agreed. Any legal method to get a double exposure effect is valid. But if you create a triple exposure effect, then it's DNMC. Clearly. |
?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was the one that suggested the challenge and in my mind I really had "multiple exposure" in mind, but the technique is more often called "double exposure" so I naturally went with that.
Personally I would not vote down shots which have more than two "exposures". |
|
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures.
What's the deal with people wanting to muddy very clear challenge descriptions. |
Honestly, I don't understand why other people have to be such sticklers about the whole thing.
Its one thing to submit a macro of a flower to the black and white landscape challenge.
But I think its a whole different thing if someone submits a triple instead of double exposure. The spirit of the challenge, the techniques of the challenge, are all still being maintained. |
Agree to disagree... and fortunately others here do too.
If you do a double exposure (effect) vs 3 or more - you should not get ANY DNMC votes. If you do multiples, you will have chosen not to meet the stated terms of the challenge and then while many won't hold you to the challenge requirement, many will... so you should expect to get some low scores. Just as if you submitted a flower macro in the B&W Landscape as you so well stated.
Anyone can imagine any variation or so-called "spirit" of the challenge. But all we have to base our shots and our voting are the terms of the challenge. If they aren't met, then so be it. Double = 2.
But hey, I've only got one vote. But the purpose of these threads is to get a feel for what some of the voters will be basing their judging on so you can decide up front if what you want to take will get properly (or improperly) hammered. |
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:46:55 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
Where do you get that from? Again, anyone imagine anything they want. They could claim "exposure" implies nudity (as I think someone joked earlier). The entire phrase is "key". So "effect" ONLY implies you're making it appear to be a double exposure, not actually creating a double exposure. The word DOUBLE clearly limits it to two -- as those who understand the English language would agree. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:50:24 PM · #84 |
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:50:55 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
Where do you get that from? Again, anyone imagine anything they want. They could claim "exposure" implies nudity (as I think someone joked earlier). The entire phrase is "key". So "effect" ONLY implies you're making it appear to be a double exposure, not actually creating a double exposure. The word DOUBLE clearly limits it to two -- as those who understand the English language would agree. |
An effect is something that can be applied in many ways. In the end, for this challenge, there is only ONE exposure since pressing the shutter more than once is not allowed in basic. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 04:16:37 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
Where do you get that from? Again, anyone imagine anything they want. They could claim "exposure" implies nudity (as I think someone joked earlier). The entire phrase is "key". So "effect" ONLY implies you're making it appear to be a double exposure, not actually creating a double exposure. The word DOUBLE clearly limits it to two -- as those who understand the English language would agree. |
An effect is something that can be applied in many ways. In the end, for this challenge, there is only ONE exposure since pressing the shutter more than once is not allowed in basic. |
Correct. But your goal is to create an effect that looks like a DOUBLE exposure. Hence TWO. If you would support an apparent TRIPLE exposure, then you should equally support an apparent SINGLE exposure... since your claim is the number of apparent exposures does not matter.
I'll stick with the challenge description and go with TWO. Can't go wrong with that. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 04:17:01 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
Replacing "DOUBLE" with "MULTIPLE" would have been no increase in words. :) |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 04:39:20 PM · #88 |
| gosh, I thought "double" meant...err..double. LOL. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 05:34:05 PM · #89 |
When I took photography in college, I was taught double exposure was considered the shorthand term for any exposure of more than one image, or of composting multiple images in the enlarger. Yes, in every day usage double means 2 and no more, but every trade has its "terms of art" where words take on specialized meanings, and for me "double exposure" is certainly one of those.
You can vote down multiple images, just as you can vote down any image that has a dog in it because you don't like dogs, but to say that a multiple exposure does not meet the challenge is, to put it charitably, a legalistic and narrow viewing of the letter of the wording in the challenge, to the detriment of the spirit of the challenge.
I assume that for many Jerry Uselman's work would not score well. I think it is one of the best sorts of this art. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 09:16:53 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I assume that for many Jerry Uselman's work would not score well. I think it is one of the best sorts of this art. |
Oh, poor Jerry'd be DOOMED in this challenge. DQ'd for sure. See, *everything* he did was accomplished in post-production :-)
R. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 09:18:59 PM · #91 |
Have any of you ever seen the Seinfeld episode on "double dipping" with a chip? I'd like to think none of you would say that "triple dipping" is OK, since double specifically refers to "two"...
R. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 02:10:15 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You can vote down multiple images, just as you can vote down any image that has a dog in it because you don't like dogs, but to say that a multiple exposure does not meet the challenge is, to put it charitably, a legalistic and narrow viewing of the letter of the wording in the challenge, to the detriment of the spirit of the challenge. |
Taking a legalistic and narrow view of the challenge wording, wouldn't a triple exposure image be composed of a double exposure with an added (redundant) effect, and hence meet the challenge, similar to a Dog+Cat image meeting a "Dog" challenge? I mean, the requirement is for "double exposure" not "exactly two exposures", right? |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 02:27:23 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
Yep, DNMC votes if I see what looks like more than two exposures (even though I know there is only one actual exposure). |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 03:50:58 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by mitalapo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You can vote down multiple images, just as you can vote down any image that has a dog in it because you don't like dogs, but to say that a multiple exposure does not meet the challenge is, to put it charitably, a legalistic and narrow viewing of the letter of the wording in the challenge, to the detriment of the spirit of the challenge. |
Taking a legalistic and narrow view of the challenge wording, wouldn't a triple exposure image be composed of a double exposure with an added (redundant) effect, and hence meet the challenge, similar to a Dog+Cat image meeting a "Dog" challenge? I mean, the requirement is for "double exposure" not "exactly two exposures", right? |
To me it's the effect that is important. Since it's basic editing, if someone carries off an image that looks like a quadruple exposure they'll get bonus points for doing so rather than be knocked down for taking this challenge to another level. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:20:36 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
[quote=mitalapo] [quote=BrennanOB]
Since it's basic editing, if someone carries off an image that looks like a quadruple exposure they'll get bonus points for doing so rather than be knocked down for taking this challenge to another level. |
I think it's great that this challenge is drumming up a lot of creativity, and if people are seeing possibilities with multiple exposures, that's excellent: For your own personal purposes.
The challenge clearly says double exposure effect. Like the university papers we had to write, a word count/page limit/formatting protocol/etc., had to be followed or there were penalties. If I were to submit The Great American Novel for a 10-page creative essay assignment I would expect to be proud, and fail miserably at the task at hand and in the grade received.
I don't see this as any different. To go "multiple" on this challenge because that's how you view it is one thing, but to argue for multiple on this thread, where numerous people are telling you that you will be marked down because of it is folly, and in all honesty a bit dim if you are concerned about your score and DPL. Talk to your DPL teammates about it. See what they have to say.
If you want to impress a bunch of people with just how many exposure effects you can cram on the sensor, have at it. Personally, the two exposure effects are more than enough of a challenge for me, and I'll gladly take the slight bump in my percentage ranking while folks feel the need to push the envelope. KISS, they say.
Message edited by author 2010-04-25 06:21:10. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 09:02:56 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
Yep, DNMC votes if I see what looks like more than two exposures (even though I know there is only one actual exposure). |
Oh you are a meanie...you have just 'poofed' my idea....now take that and stick it......ummm...but then again...maybe not...lmao!
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 10:40:41 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
[quote=mitalapo] [quote=BrennanOB]
Since it's basic editing, if someone carries off an image that looks like a quadruple exposure they'll get bonus points for doing so rather than be knocked down for taking this challenge to another level. |
I think it's great that this challenge is drumming up a lot of creativity, and if people are seeing possibilities with multiple exposures, that's excellent: For your own personal purposes.
The challenge clearly says double exposure effect. Like the university papers we had to write, a word count/page limit/formatting protocol/etc., had to be followed or there were penalties. If I were to submit The Great American Novel for a 10-page creative essay assignment I would expect to be proud, and fail miserably at the task at hand and in the grade received.
I don't see this as any different. To go "multiple" on this challenge because that's how you view it is one thing, but to argue for multiple on this thread, where numerous people are telling you that you will be marked down because of it is folly, and in all honesty a bit dim if you are concerned about your score and DPL. Talk to your DPL teammates about it. See what they have to say.
If you want to impress a bunch of people with just how many exposure effects you can cram on the sensor, have at it. Personally, the two exposure effects are more than enough of a challenge for me, and I'll gladly take the slight bump in my percentage ranking while folks feel the need to push the envelope. KISS, they say. |
The challenge says double exposure EFFECT, not double exposure. There's a big difference. It's the effect to use since double/multiple exposures are not allowed in basic. Now if you just take the topic and don't read the description .... that's another discussion.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 11:52:26 AM · #98 |
I know that it would limit the field of participants to actually have a literal double exposure challenge. I do think that it would make a nice side challenge for those who have cameras with that capability. It's something that I use once in a while, and I seem to have to relearn the camera controls each time, because it's long times between the use of those settings.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 05:33:27 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Is this where the dummies hang out? :p |
As your presence suggests this, yes. :)
Welcome to dummiedom, where rules are meant to be ignored, or manipulated into something so generalized that you can take a photo of anything and win!
Challenge titles mean nothing to us. Their descriptions even less. :)
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:28:59 PM · #100 |
| So how about it we tally the votes for this challenge by giving more points for the longest exposure? |
|
