| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2007 07:27:32 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gonna be an interesting week for the League of Death... :) Just the way I'd want it. |
See you in the other thread on this commment! Muahaha
Back to busines...
SC,I relish the challenge of new rules and trying to figure them out. I must say, so far this is much easier to understand than some of the rule versions in the past. The wording alone made me shy away from Advanced challenges as I was so unclear on many aspects. Ok, so knowledge is power. :) Thanks for the new additions, the clarifications on the concerns, all the new little "toys" for the site and for doing such a great job!!!
Happy New Year ya'll!
Kat |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 09:16:09 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
How exact must the framing be between shots? If I have a sequence where the shot was handheld or the tripod moved but it is clear the intention was to have the same framing, would that be OK? |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 09:17:47 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
How exact must the framing be between shots? If I have a sequence where the shot was handheld or the tripod moved but it is clear the intention was to have the same framing, would that be OK? |
Yup. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 10:01:36 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
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. |
We don't care about intent, nor can we judge what someone else is thinking. The time-lapse rule really isn't complicated: just point your tripod at some scene with an action moving across the frame. Shoot in burst mode to capture the movement and put the frames together. That's it. As long as you're recording a single, continuous action, it will be natural movement (unless you find a figure skater or gymnast who DON'T follow the laws of physics). We're just trying to avoid people piecing together Photoshop composites from different scenes or "creating" an artificial motion sequence from multiple series of events. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 10:58:32 PM · #205 |
I doubt this was intentional, but I just noticed that both the Stupid Gifts and the Object Isolation by Contrast challenges that are now in the voting stage are listed as using the new advanced editing rules. Since the new rules were not even announced until the two challenges were basically finished the entry stage I think that something is amiss.
I would assume that all of those entering those challenges were under the assumption that they should be using the old rules, unless of course they had prior knowledge of the new set of rules. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 11:17:00 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
I doubt this was intentional, but I just noticed that both the Stupid Gifts and the Object Isolation by Contrast challenges that are now in the voting stage are listed as using the new advanced editing rules. Since the new rules were not even announced until the two challenges were basically finished the entry stage I think that something is amiss.
I would assume that all of those entering those challenges were under the assumption that they should be using the old rules, unless of course they had prior knowledge of the new set of rules. |
Advanced Editing V is the old rules. (as far as I can tell) |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 11:23:16 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by langdon:
there's a new preference (for Members Only, set to On by default) that will email you any new comments received on challenge images that aren't in voting, and on all portfolio images. |
I really like this feature. I have it from every other photo site and I wanted it here, but there is so much more that I get here that I wouldn't have had the stones to ask you to go through the aggravation of putting it in place.
Thanks ever so much for doing that!
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 11:34:21 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by fixedintime:
I doubt this was intentional, but I just noticed that both the Stupid Gifts and the Object Isolation by Contrast challenges that are now in the voting stage are listed as using the new advanced editing rules. Since the new rules were not even announced until the two challenges were basically finished the entry stage I think that something is amiss.
I would assume that all of those entering those challenges were under the assumption that they should be using the old rules, unless of course they had prior knowledge of the new set of rules. |
Advanced Editing V is the old rules. (as far as I can tell) |
Advanced Editing V are the new rules, Advanced Editing IV I believe are the old rules.
Edited - you are right, I was looking for numbers whereas the new rules are just "New"
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 23:37:40. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:01:15 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by wavelength:
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. |
We don't care about intent, nor can we judge what someone else is thinking. The time-lapse rule really isn't complicated: just point your tripod at some scene with an action moving across the frame. Shoot in burst mode to capture the movement and put the frames together. That's it. As long as you're recording a single, continuous action, it will be natural movement (unless you find a figure skater or gymnast who DON'T follow the laws of physics). We're just trying to avoid people piecing together Photoshop composites from different scenes or "creating" an artificial motion sequence from multiple series of events. |
okay, that seems good, glad that I mis-interpreted that.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:06:35 AM · #210 |
langdon & SC... just want to give kudos for not letting the rules get stagnated. Really nice additions to the set.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:17:27 AM · #211 |
I haven't been around much in a while, so, pardon if this was already covered somewhere else.
The allowance of multiple captures of the same subject would seem to include creation of triptych/segmented-style photos, as long as they're of the same thing?
e.g. if I took four shots of the same location at different times in the day, combining those into a quad would be acceptable? |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:19:41 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
langdon & SC... just want to give kudos for not letting the rules get stagnated. Really nice additions to the set. |
langdon langdon langdon.......What happened to the other guy?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:29:40 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
The allowance of multiple captures of the same subject would seem to include creation of triptych/segmented-style photos, as long as they're of the same thing? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The rule on frames hasn't changed- "You may... add a border to the outside edge of your entry." |
In other words, no split frames.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:30:47 AM · #214 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
langdon & SC... just want to give kudos for not letting the rules get stagnated. Really nice additions to the set. |
langdon langdon langdon.......What happened to the other guy? |
I think Langdon ate him.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 12:31:24 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
langdon & SC... just want to give kudos for not letting the rules get stagnated. Really nice additions to the set. |
langdon langdon langdon.......What happened to the other guy? |
I think Langdon ate him. |
I hate it when that happens.
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 00:31:36. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 03:44:14 AM · #216 |
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." |
I'm just puzzling this out in my mind, so bear with me.
1. This is an interesting anomaly; in the case of the plaza, let's assume one person walking through the plaza, for simplicity's sake. Let's assume 5 exposures, made for the purpose of HDRI. Now, it's OK to show all 5 figures, it becomes HDRI+time lapse. It's NOT (apparently) OK to show NONE of the figures. But what about ONE of them? Now multiply this to have the plaza with a significant number of people. I'm still trying to shoot HDRI. Where are we going to draw the line in what's an acceptable vs an unacceptable rendering of this?
2. In a more generic sense, leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether or not time-lapsing to emptiness is "really" time-lapsing or not, think of it from a practical point of view. For those who are fortunate enough to live in interesting, urban landscapes, one of the great frustrations is trying to shoot them in a "pure" state, without traffic, concentrating on just the architectural forms. A standard approach to dealing with this is to shoot multiple, identical exposures then combine them to eliminate the moving distractions. Philosophically, this seems to me equal in validity to time-lapse photography.
Just thinking out loud here, not complaining or anything :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 04:33:03 AM · #217 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
1. This is an interesting anomaly; in the case of the plaza, let's assume one person walking through the plaza, for simplicity's sake. Let's assume 5 exposures, made for the purpose of HDRI. Now, it's OK to show all 5 figures, it becomes HDRI+time lapse. It's NOT (apparently) OK to show NONE of the figures. But what about ONE of them? Now multiply this to have the plaza with a significant number of people. I'm still trying to shoot HDRI. Where are we going to draw the line in what's an acceptable vs an unacceptable rendering of this?
Just thinking out loud here, not complaining or anything :-)
R. |
The way I see it is that we are going to have a lot of settling in to get this right but in the scenerio you have given it would be in my view a clear case of removing a major element!! just the way I see it on the surface of it. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 04:38:07 AM · #218 |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 05:20:12 AM · #219 |
| LOL!! Yes, Joe, it appears as though you have. Twice now, I think. Have you been talking to Richard offline or something? It could be contagious.... :-) |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 06:38:32 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I feel your pain, Natalya. My favorite part of the advanced ruleset was the option to use blending modes. Beyond that, though, I'm a basic edit kinda person. So here's what we do - you and I - we enter member challenges (when it's something we can shoot for - not thinking time lapse will work for me) and do it within our own comfort zone. Deal? |
But blending modes are still legal under advanced rules ?!?!?!
I have read the rules and can't find nothing against that...
Any help very welcome ! Thanks ! |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 07:20:42 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by wavelength:
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. |
We don't care about intent, nor can we judge what someone else is thinking. The time-lapse rule really isn't complicated: just point your tripod at some scene with an action moving across the frame. Shoot in burst mode to capture the movement and put the frames together. That's it. As long as you're recording a single, continuous action, it will be natural movement (unless you find a figure skater or gymnast who DON'T follow the laws of physics). We're just trying to avoid people piecing together Photoshop composites from different scenes or "creating" an artificial motion sequence from multiple series of events. |
ç
Thanks, that answers my question. IMO it would be usefull to include that definition as part of the rules. In regards to figure skater or gymnast not following laws of physics, you know better that that :-).
It would also be helpfull to clarify: a) if there is a maximum time interval in case of astronomical subjects; b) if the time interval has to be uniform.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2008 07:44:48 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by Mambe:
But blending modes are still legal under advanced rules ?!?!?!
I have read the rules and can't find nothing against that...
Any help very welcome ! Thanks ! |
Yes, blending modes are legal under advanced, that hasn't changed. But that is about the only feature of advanced that I really use. Everything else I do falls under "Basic" rules. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 08:51:01 AM · #223 |
| Here is a senario that is bound to come up. Say you take 3 pictures of a scene. One overexposed, one underexposed, and one with normal exposure. Suppose you use the dark picture to eliminate the background. Suppose you use the light picture to add halo or flair or glow. Who is to say what picture has the elements that should be retained or not added. Before you answer, consider this. This relates to the moving people senario, because if you are eliminating objects that have moved, why wouldn't you be able to eliminate elements that have changed because of exposure? |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:28:28 AM · #224 |
| other question. I capture the first image, change the background and the subject but the camera is always on the same position and with the same focal lenght, same focus... after this I capture the second image or the third.... well can I have the image that i want? the framing is the same but the scene is changed. |
|
|
|
01/01/2008 10:52:32 AM · #225 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
1. This is an interesting anomaly; in the case of the plaza, let's assume one person walking through the plaza, for simplicity's sake. Let's assume 5 exposures, made for the purpose of HDRI. Now, it's OK to show all 5 figures, it becomes HDRI+time lapse. It's NOT (apparently) OK to show NONE of the figures. But what about ONE of them? Now multiply this to have the plaza with a significant number of people. I'm still trying to shoot HDRI. Where are we going to draw the line in what's an acceptable vs an unacceptable rendering of this?
Just thinking out loud here, not complaining or anything :-)
R. |
The way I see it is that we are going to have a lot of settling in to get this right but in the scenario you have given it would be in my view a clear case of removing a major element!! just the way I see it on the surface of it. |
Oh, I'm sure that "emptying the plaza" will be seen as major-element removal. No question about it. SC has made that clear. But where is the line going to be drawn? Because in HDRI work in nature, this stuff happens; a bird is in one frame but not in any of the others. A bird is in all 3 frames, but in different locations, and blurred. I gotta get rid of the bird, I always get rid of the bird. So if I'm shooting the plaza and some element of the scene is changing, where's the line to be drawn? Just thinking out loud, as I said...
R.
Message edited by author 2008-01-01 10:56:15.
|
|
