| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2007 04:33:25 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Thanks! I was thinking the same thing. |
Well it looks like both of us would like to talk about the challenge at hand and not have to go through and read 5 pages of other shit to dicuss the topic. |
word! Can the current challenge thread please be unlocked?
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 04:37:49 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
If you're recording the natural progression of a subject's (or subjects') motion, then you're OK, and if you choose the positions where the subject will appear, regardless of a timeline, then you're not OK. |
When you say "natural", are you limitting the "path" to the type of motion dictated by mother nature only, as for example movement of celestial bodies, free animals, falling objects, etc,?
Could "natural" include other paths that are not controlled by nature, but by a rational moving subject (example an ice skater), or by the photographer (ice skater or any other human subject making moves as per photog's directions)?
Please try to be more precise in defining the border. Maybe the word "natural" is not enough to make it clear enough for everyone. At least it is not for me.
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 16:39:01. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 04:38:31 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
I am not clear on if the new rules permit creating a panorama of a scene from multiple shots. |
Not legal. The framing changes from shot to shot. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 04:42:46 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
I am not clear on if the new rules permit creating a panorama of a scene from multiple shots. |
Not legal. The framing changes from shot to shot. |
So shots must be able to stack one on another with most of the shot remaining basically the same through all 10, no? (eg. the bird feeder scene with only the bird changing, a 24-hour landscape with the lighting changing) |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 04:46:05 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
So shots must be able to stack one on another with most of the shot remaining basically the same through all 10, no? (eg. the bird feeder scene with only the bird changing, a 24-hour landscape with the lighting changing) |
Correct. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 04:46:26 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Falc:
Here's one taken in the back yard just today - I used 5 shots out of the 350 I fired at. The hit rate is LOW!! |
Try a trained bird instead. :P |
Fine. The other challenge thread seems to not be unlocked. Boohoo!
How is this shot put together? Layers and masking, yes?
My Bad! Thanks Shannon!
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 16:47:12.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:03:45 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Here's one taken in the back yard just today - I used 5 shots out of the 350 I fired at. The hit rate is LOW!! |
I think this example, kindly posted by Falc, has been accepted as an example of what it is legal.
However, as per Kirbic's explanation "If you're recording the natural progression of a subject's (or subjects') motion, then you're OK, and if you choose the positions where the subject will appear, regardless of a timeline, then you're not OK."
Please notice, that the 5 images selected by Falc (out of 350 fired as he explains), eventhough appear to be part of the same path, could not necesarily belong to any natural sequence of the bird's movements. More specifically, if we name the component images, from left to right as they appear in the composition, images 1,2,3,4 and 5..it could be possible that image number 2 was not taken within the time interval between images 1 and 3, and therefore this would NOT be a "natural progession" but a composition made "regardless of a timeline". This fact could not be seen by the voter, but it could be easyly detected at the time of validation!!. Would it be legal or DQd?
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 17:22:33. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:05:32 PM · #183 |
A quick Q (or 2) from myself, lets say I compose my shot (on a tripod) and take 10 images and get back home to find all 10 are ok shots but each has a part of the image that is distracting and would be voted down. Can I now remove these elements by selecting the best parts of each image and creating an image without these (say) 10 imperfections? (ie, remove a bus from #1, a person from #2, a plane from #3 etc).
I'm not sure how many DQ requests there are for each challenge but the SC work may well go up tenfold and the fotogs editing steps could go into pages.
This thread reads as though the new rule was created for HDR(I) images and that the poorly worded time lapse challenge could be seen as a mask for the introduction? Why not just say you can bracket the 'original' shot up to 5 times in each direction (giving 11 shots). |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:08:37 PM · #184 |
Laird Ecce,
You could do that with minor distracting elements. Though you're using multiple source images, you still have to comply with the balance of the Advanced rules, and those have, in large part, not changed. So you *are* allowed to remove small distractions, and using multiples is one way to do so.
Now, removing a crowd from a plaza in the same way, well, let's just say that the crowd would probably be seen as something more than a distraction ;-) |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:13:42 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Laird Ecce,
You could do that with minor distracting elements. Though you're using multiple source images, you still have to comply with the balance of the Advanced rules, and those have, in large part, not changed. So you *are* allowed to remove small distractions, and using multiples is one way to do so.
Now, removing a crowd from a plaza in the same way, well, let's just say that the crowd would probably be seen as something more than a distraction ;-) |
Thanks for the swift reply (and getting my title correct) however, how many images does the major distraction have to be in? if the main subject of my image was in all the shots and the light was right in (lets say) a pic with the crowd (which was in was in 4 images), surely I could remove the crowd entirely since 6 images didn't have the crowd in it?
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 17:14:09. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:15:10 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Now, removing a crowd from a plaza in the same way, well, let's just say that the crowd would probably be seen as something more than a distraction ;-) |
Oh, man, I'm not sure I agree with that. If the goal is to photograph the plaza free of distracting elements, and there's no way to keep people out, and if you can do it by using multiple exposures and combining the empty segments of all of them, this seems to me very valid...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:19:53 PM · #187 |
| Just an observation from the peanut gallery on these new rules: I am assuming all of the SC agreed to quit their day jobs once these changes went into effect. :) It will be fun watching all this play out. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:21:21 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by Falc:
Here's one taken in the back yard just today - I used 5 shots out of the 350 I fired at. The hit rate is LOW!! |
I think this example, kindly posted by Falc, has been accepted as an example of what it is legal.
However, as per Kirbic's explanation "..if you choose the positions where the subject will appear, regardless of a timeline, then you're not OK."
Please notice, that the 5 images selected by Falc (out of 350 fired as he explains), eventhough appear to be part of the same path, could not necesarily belong to any natural sequence of the bird's movements. More specifically, if we name the component images, from left to right as they appear in the composition, images 1,2,3,4 and 5..it could be possible that image number 2 was not taken within the time interval between images 1 and 3, and therefore this would NOT be a "natural progession" but a composition made "regardless of a timeline". This fact could not be seen by the voter, but it could be easyly detected at the time of validation!!. Would it be legal or DQd? |
Interesting question. Would it be legal?
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:27:55 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If the goal is to photograph the plaza free of distracting elements, and there's no way to keep people out, and if you can do it by using multiple exposures and combining the empty segments of all of them, this seems to me very valid... |
An empty plaza is not time-lapse (there's no progression), nor is it HDR or noise reduction. It would just be an excuse to clone out prominent objects and still runs afoul of this rule: "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph." |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:31:28 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by nutzito:
..it could be possible that image number 2 was not taken within the time interval between images 1 and 3, and therefore this would NOT be a "natural progession" but a composition made "regardless of a timeline". This fact could not be seen by the voter, but it could be easily detected at the time of validation!!. Would it be legal or DQd? |
I would say NOT legal for exactly the reason you stated: it wouldn't be "natural subject motion," but artificial motion simulated by pasting together frames from several different motions. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:31:33 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If the goal is to photograph the plaza free of distracting elements, and there's no way to keep people out, and if you can do it by using multiple exposures and combining the empty segments of all of them, this seems to me very valid... |
An empty plaza is not time-lapse (there's no progression), nor is it HDR or noise reduction. It would just be an excuse to clone out prominent objects and still runs afoul of this rule: "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph." |
hence one of my questions, putting aside the current challenge for a moment the images have to be identical bar any minor differences allowable to be edited under normal editing rules so why not just say you can bracket a shot? |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 05:36:34 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
...why not just say you can bracket a shot? |
Because it's not just bracketing. You could average 4 identical exposures to reduce noise or depict motion across the frame with time-lapse. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 06:35:47 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nutzito:
..it could be possible that image number 2 was not taken within the time interval between images 1 and 3, and therefore this would NOT be a "natural progession" but a composition made "regardless of a timeline". This fact could not be seen by the voter, but it could be easily detected at the time of validation!!. Would it be legal or DQd? |
I would say NOT legal for exactly the reason you stated: it wouldn't be "natural subject motion," but artificial motion simulated by pasting together frames from several different motions. |
If that is the case, I think the wording of the new rule, in the first bullet under subtitle "You must", and the fourth bullet under subtitle "You may not" could be revised:
It now says:
"You must:
* create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a composition whose framing does not change, with the exception of natural subject motion). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates."(bold added)
"You may not:
..
* combine captures of different scenes, or combine different subjects to create a new scene. The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography."
IMO it would be necessary to include as part of the rules, a definition of "natural subject motion" so noone needs to dig in the threads to find a clue of the meaning and limitations of such expression (btw my question to Kirbic to clarify it had not been answered when I started writting this post). It would also be recomendable to cover the case of possible false time lapse sequences such as the example posted by Falc. To do so, I would recommend to rephrase the argument of "artificial motion simulated by pasting together frames from several different motions" mentioned by Scalvert, because it could turn into ilegal shots that are purely time lapse as for example the composition of three shots of the moon taken in diferent dates (let's say with intervals of 2 days between each, to fit into the 1 week anouncement-submission deadline window of a typical challenge) which would technically belong to different motions (different earth's revolution cycles); maybe a good option would be to say that the actual timeline or shooting sequence of the component images has to be coherent with what they appear to be in the composed image, regardless of the uniformity of the period of time between shots (in good English of course, which as you may have noticed is not my native language).
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 06:45:05 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by nutzito:
a composition whose framing does not change, with the exception of natural subject motion). |
Motion within a scene does not change the framing, and "natural subject motion" is exactly what it sounds like- movement of a subject following normal laws of physics. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 06:57:16 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nutzito:
a composition whose framing does not change, with the exception of natural subject motion). |
Motion within a scene does not change the framing, and "natural subject motion" is exactly what it sounds like- movement of a subject following normal laws of physics. |
Shannon, it seems like you have been given this post to 'look after' lol
so, to coin a phrase, the 'real estate' of the final image should be in all 10 images (if 10 were used) and no (reasonably large element) can have left or entered the set of shots? |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 07:03:29 PM · #196 |
what's your definition of natural?
I mean, it's natural for me to walk, and I'm a natural being, so why am I precluded from moving in a manner that is natural for me to move? Walking across the street, swinging on a swing, a car racing around a trak... What's the difference between this and the moon making a passage, or the sun setting, a comet passing, or "the ball" dropping in Times Square (is that legal?) .. ? Or am I mistaken and all these things are legal?
On the subject of the impossible:
Mountain scene with sun high in sky, the moon in a another quarter, sunset in the background, and a starry night sky in the backdrop. A room with sunlight streaming in through a window on one side, and a night sky through a picture window. As I read the rules, this fits the definition of a time lapse, yet is completely impossible from the standpoint of reality.
The rules, as usual, have simultaneous kindled and quashed creativity through their inherent ambiguity and over-specification. Yes, I am contradicting myself, because it proves a point if you think about it.
The problem is, in reality, is that you've now moved the rules away from technique, and into the realm of INTENT. Please stick with technique, because every whim of the SC can change the judgment of intent. If it's purely technique, then you need to revise. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 07:06:02 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
what's your definition of natural?
I mean, it's natural for me to walk, and I'm a natural being, so why am I precluded from moving in a manner that is natural for me to move? Walking across the street, swinging on a swing, a car racing around a trak... What's the difference between this and the moon making a passage, or the sun setting, a comet passing, or "the ball" dropping in Times Square (is that legal?) .. ? Or am I mistaken and all these things are legal?
On the subject of the impossible:
Mountain scene with sun high in sky, the moon in a another quarter, sunset in the background, and a starry night sky in the backdrop. A room with sunlight streaming in through a window on one side, and a night sky through a picture window. As I read the rules, this fits the definition of a time lapse, yet is completely impossible from the standpoint of reality.
The rules, as usual, have simultaneous kindled and quashed creativity through their inherent ambiguity and over-specification. Yes, I am contradicting myself, because it proves a point if you think about it.
The problem is, in reality, is that you've now moved the rules away from technique, and into the realm of INTENT. Please stick with technique, because every whim of the SC can change the judgment of intent. If it's purely technique, then you need to revise. |
I've tried to say the above in several posts - thanks Steve ;) |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 07:08:26 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nutzito:
a composition whose framing does not change, with the exception of natural subject motion). |
Motion within a scene does not change the framing, and "natural subject motion" is exactly what it sounds like- movement of a subject following normal laws of physics. |
Firstly I would like to say I am one of the many member/users that truly appreciate the permament effort of the SC in making this a more interesting and challenging place.
As a member of the SC you might be the author or co-author of the expression "natural subject motion". If that is the case it is obvious you think it is perfectly self-explained. Must I (we?) apologize for not understanding it or putting its clarity in doubt?. I thought we could all help to make things clearer for everyone, and to make easier to predict what could be considered ilegal.
If it is not too much to ask, maybe Kirbic could still answer my dumb question in regards to the boundaries of "natural subject motion":
Could "natural" include other paths that are not controlled by nature (or only laws of physics), but by a rational moving subject (example an ice skater), or by the photographer (ice skater or any other human subject making moves (let's say continuous but randomly oriented moves) as per photog's directions)?
Thanks
(edited just to correct some of my own typos)
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 19:18:22. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 07:11:00 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
A couple more questions...
Lets say you are doing HDR and there are birds flying through the scene. In photomatix you can select a little box that says remove moving objects. And it gets rid of the birds in some scenes but not others(I don't know if it really works that well) Or what if you clone out the blurry ones from long exposure and keep the sharp ones from the fast exposure? Is this alright?
Back to the person in a long exposure scene... You take the long exposure with the person in the shot but they move a bit. Take a faster exposure, with the person in the same spot so that they are sharp. Can the photographer choose which version of the person they want to use? If you can erase/overlay for time lapse can you selectively mask out for clarity and sharpness like this scenario?
When shooting a time lapse sequence, lets say you don't have a tripod and just shoot some scene in burst mode getting natural action but all the images don't line up exactly. Saying all images are exposed the same, is it up to the photographers discretion to choose one image and then apply the overlay to that image making adjustments via free transform of each subject in different positions to realign naturally? Or must you try and line up all the images first? This could be problematic with even slight movements at super wide angle.
What if your camera is not in manual mode or the exposure is not locked, but you capture a time lapse and the the meter changes the exposure for a few shots. Can you then pick the best exposure for overlay, or pick parts (say one accidently exposes for the sky and one the foreground) can you combine the best of both exposures, then overlay the motion on top of this new base exposure?
Recently there was a big hoopla over cloning, editing out background in the Car advertisement challenge, the reason for the dq was that it changed the composition. Now if I wanted, could I simply take two shots of a scene, and completely over or underexpose one of them so that I could combine them to obliterate the unwanted details and make them black or white or seem like they are floating in studio land? How would you DQ that if one of the images of the scene has no detail? Is the photographer forced make the most of the pixels and include what they can, or does it fall under the change the description of the regular viewer clause?
I may think of more :P
I will enjoy seeing the true HDR images, but honestly I am not too interested in having the time lapse images part of the weekly ruleset. Somewhere in my head, HDR is part of capturing a single scene with as much detail as possible, but to me it seems that capturing moving action and overlayed over eachother goes against capturing that single decisive momeny. Maybe because HDR is generally done in a static scene it feels like a single moment. but I wish time lapse wasn't included, even though I know there will be some creative results.
Joe |
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 07:15:15 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nutzito:
a composition whose framing does not change, with the exception of natural subject motion). |
Motion within a scene does not change the framing, and "natural subject motion" is exactly what it sounds like- movement of a subject following normal laws of physics. |
Shannon, it seems like you have been given this post to 'look after' lol
so, to coin a phrase, the 'real estate' of the final image should be in all 10 images (if 10 were used) and no (reasonably large element) can have left or entered the set of shots? |
So an object in the scene, on it's natural path, which passes close enough to the lens as to block most or all of the background would not be legal by this definition. |
|
