| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2010 11:01:27 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... A double exposure as defined by either of those sources would be disqualified because only a single exposure is allowed in Basic editing. ... |
Is a single capture a single exposure? |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:36:58 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by rcollier:
It is really confusing after all since the Wikipedia entry actually defines "double exposure" as a subcategory of the page "multiple exposure", and yes, it is defined such that two exposures are involved. You may also want to email the people at photography.com about their incorrect definition. |
A double exposure as defined by either of those sources would be disqualified because only a single exposure is allowed in Basic editing. Furthermore, both of them specify one image superimposed on top of another, which would eliminate some of the examples posted in this thread by  klkitchens and graphicfunk. Since the challenge calls for various techniques, a little leeway is in order. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:25:22 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
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. |
Probably because this being a photography web site he mistakenly thought that the photographers people on this site would apply the definition used in the photography industry (i.e. double = multiple) and not the literal meaning used in every day language. |
Maybe he mistakenly thought the definition given on Wikipedia, Photography.com and other top hits on Google for "photography double exposure" was the appropriate one. I mean, if all of us non professionally trained photographers can't decipher the usage of the word "double", obviously that is our fault. Is it also our fault for not being able to find the "photographers" definition by doing a simple google search. It is really confusing after all since the Wikipedia entry actually defines "double exposure" as a subcategory of the page "multiple exposure", and yes, it is defined such that two exposures are involved. You may also want to email the people at photography.com about their incorrect definition. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 08:32:57 PM · #4 |
| I just started getting into photography and just signed up for this website. I found it and was like "so cool!" lol. Anyways I have a Canon xsi 40D and no external flashes. Is there a way to manually use my flash twice in a shot if I don't have an external flash? I really like the idea of double exposures but I am kind of broke at the moment haha. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:47:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
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. |
Probably because this being a photography web site he mistakenly thought that the photographers people on this site would apply the definition used in the photography industry (i.e. double = multiple) and not the literal meaning used in every day language.
Message edited by author 2010-04-27 15:49:17.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 09:35:37 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
Oh that's easy....get some dough and stick a politicians head through it....! |
Proving my point, eh? ;-) |
YUP...but what would you expect from pollies??? LOL!
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 09:19:51 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
Oh that's easy....get some dough and stick a politicians head through it....! |
Proving my point, eh? ;-) |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 08:36:19 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
You know if the SC started sending the dang descriptions to me (or someone else) for proofing, I think I could easily reduce the amount of ambiguity.. Not that it's possible to COMPLETELY box in any DPC'er, I do think we could be a bit better about our descriptions...
And for the record.. I am one of the "follow the damned description" sticklers... |
I've been starting to wonder if it's folks like you (not you specifically) who are the cause behind that famous "inefficiency" of government, with 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
Oh that's easy....get some dough and stick a politicians head through it....!
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 07:53:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Judi:
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! |
Maybe I don't mean what I say and I'm playing a psychological game to reduce the number of entries...but then again...maybe not ;) |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 07:06:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
You know if the SC started sending the dang descriptions to me (or someone else) for proofing, I think I could easily reduce the amount of ambiguity.. Not that it's possible to COMPLETELY box in any DPC'er, I do think we could be a bit better about our descriptions...
And for the record.. I am one of the "follow the damned description" sticklers... |
I've been starting to wonder if it's folks like you (not you specifically) who are the cause behind that famous "inefficiency" of government, with 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:59:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
You know if the SC started sending the dang descriptions to me (or someone else) for proofing, I think I could easily reduce the amount of ambiguity.. Not that it's possible to COMPLETELY box in any DPC'er, I do think we could be a bit better about our descriptions...
And for the record.. I am one of the "follow the damned description" sticklers... However, to be fair, I do think that triple/etc probably does meet the challenge, but only because of the word effect... I'm pretty close to being on the other side of the fence here...
As for those arguing the reflection argument.. Yeah, effect.. Definately fine to reflect, etc. to get this, hell, I wouldn't care if someone used a projector to "expose" a wall, then "exposed" the wall and something else together in a frame... Any way you get there is good I figure, since a real double exposure is absolutely not possible in Basic Editing..
Cheers,
Cory |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:58:45 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Challenge titles mean nothing to us. Their descriptions even less. :) |
What? You say that there is a description? I though we were suppose to just read the challenge title and go from there. I find the descriptions too confusing, so anything that doesn't jibe with my take on the challenge title is DNMC.
How many people will vote down urban settings in the landscape challenge? 30%? more? If Saint Ansel didn't take that sort of shot, it isn't really a landscape.
If in double exposure some one has two things in one "exposure" and a third thing over those two, that three things, right? Do we give those 1s? Or I just may let my cat vote for me again. He never gets confused. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:35:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Jac:
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. :) |
It isn't such a big deal, everyone interprets the description in their own way. We are never going to have a consensus on any challenge description, and why should we? just vote how you feel.
These threads are generally for people who want to influence others into voting how they see the challenge description, shame really !!! just vote how you see it....be an individual. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:28:59 PM · #14 |
| So how about it we tally the votes for this challenge by giving more points for the longest exposure? |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 05:33:27 PM · #15 |
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 11:52:26 AM · #16 |
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 10:40:41 AM · #17 |
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 09:02:56 AM · #18 |
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 06:20:36 AM · #19 |
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 03:50:58 AM · #20 |
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 02:27:23 AM · #21 |
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 02:10:15 AM · #22 |
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? |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 09:18:59 PM · #23 |
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. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 09:16:53 PM · #24 |
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 05:34:05 PM · #25 |
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. |
|
