DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Proposed Modification/Renaming of Challenge Rules
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/01/2016 11:16:42 AM · #26
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The time-lapse, on the other hand, is going in the opposite direction; by allowing multiple positions of the same object, evolving over time, we're heading into true multiple-exposure territory and that's something we probably want to keep in the extended ruleset.


I agree completely with the principle, I'm just not seeing the words that would disallow me from including multiple copies of an individual object. "Bear" in mind that such duplication might not be obvious. Think about multiple captures of insects around a light bulb... I could easily create a swarm from a meager few moths!

Got any ideas for some simple verbiage that would clarify that?
04/01/2016 11:22:03 AM · #27
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

Would the advanced ruleset be a subset of standard editing?

Nope, "Standard" is the new, improved, renamed, advanced ruleset. Basic will disappear, which it effectively has already, and Expert becomes "Extended"...

Thanks Bear. I think I was asking - but badly! - if there is anything legal in the advanced rule set that is illegal in the proposed standard ruleset?
04/01/2016 11:29:03 AM · #28
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

I think I was asking - but badly! - if there is anything legal in the advanced rule set that is illegal in the proposed standard ruleset?

I'm pretty sure not. I hope not :-) If you find something like that, be sure and let us know...
04/01/2016 11:31:20 AM · #29
glad to see minimal still seems like a waste of my time but at least standard has caught up with the times.
04/01/2016 11:34:23 AM · #30
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

I think I was asking - but badly! - if there is anything legal in the advanced rule set that is illegal in the proposed standard ruleset?

I'm pretty sure not. I hope not :-) If you find something like that, be sure and let us know...

Thanks Bear. I just wanted to double check without having to be adversarial when reading the rules. :-)
04/01/2016 11:36:52 AM · #31
Go, SC! I can't imagine how much time it took for you all to do this and agree on it.

Thanks bunches!

So... would this make my Feast image legal if it were submitted under the proposed rulesets?
|



04/01/2016 11:41:43 AM · #32
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The time-lapse, on the other hand, is going in the opposite direction; by allowing multiple positions of the same object, evolving over time, we're heading into true multiple-exposure territory and that's something we probably want to keep in the extended ruleset.


I agree completely with the principle, I'm just not seeing the words that would disallow me from including multiple copies of an individual object. "Bear" in mind that such duplication might not be obvious. Think about multiple captures of insects around a light bulb... I could easily create a swarm from a meager few moths!

Got any ideas for some simple verbiage that would clarify that?


something to the effect that you can't have more than the quantity of a subject that occurs in any frame in the submitted image.
04/01/2016 11:45:51 AM · #33
Originally posted by Lydia:

So... would this make my Feast image legal if it were submitted under the proposed rulesets?


No, the artwork rule actually hasn't changed in this new iteration:

Originally posted by DPC Challenge Rules:

You may: include existing artwork in your entry, but photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations must either be clearly presented as artwork or used only as a minor supporting element. Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification.


FWIW, the artwork rule WAS changed not long after your DQ to better clarify the intent of the rule.
04/01/2016 11:48:03 AM · #34
Originally posted by Mike:

something to the effect that you can't have more than the quantity of a subject that occurs in any frame in the submitted image.

That's an interesting approach... I'm trying to visualize any potential unintended consequences of that wording (something we have to do with all the changes, of course). I'd add "single" to "frame"...
04/01/2016 12:11:24 PM · #35
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Mike:

something to the effect that you can't have more than the quantity of a subject that occurs in any frame in the submitted image.

That's an interesting approach... I'm trying to visualize any potential unintended consequences of that wording (something we have to do with all the changes, of course). I'd add "single" to "frame"...


what it would do is allow you to remove something that wandered into your scene but also allow you to include it as well choose its positioning, but not have multiples of it.

if you take a scene of a lake with three frames and a duck wanders in -

1. no duck
2. duck
3. duck

in the submitted image you can only have one duck and you also get to choose its position or you can opt to not have the duck at all, but you cant have two ducks.

i guess unintended consequences would be in allowing the photographer to choose the best position which could be an issue with multiple subjects moving around as you "could" have two or more subjects in positions that never happened. Take Kirbic's example: you would be able to choose the position of say 5 moths buzzing around and show them only on one side of a light for instance, a situation that may have never really occurred in a single frame.

Message edited by author 2016-04-01 12:13:25.
04/01/2016 12:15:02 PM · #36
I vote for no cropping (or the minimal cropping to satisfy a percentage rotation) in Minimal.

I hate Minimal, but when I have to do it, I really want to have to do it. :D

04/01/2016 12:22:18 PM · #37
I say YES to cropping in minimal it's a great idea. Anything to make an image less boring is heading in the right direction.
04/01/2016 12:34:49 PM · #38
Originally posted by nygold:

I say YES to cropping in minimal it's a great idea. Anything to make an image less boring is heading in the right direction.


we should also limit it to 1 -2 challenges a year.
04/01/2016 12:38:11 PM · #39
Originally posted by Mike:

i guess unintended consequences would be in allowing the photographer to choose the best position which could be an issue with multiple subjects moving around as you "could" have two or more subjects in positions that never happened. Take Kirbic's example: you would be able to choose the position of say 5 moths buzzing around and show them only on one side of a light for instance, a situation that may have never really occurred in a single frame.

Plus, speaking of panoramas, we might have the same (moving) object appear multiple times if it's going at the right speed and in the right direction. Of course, that's easily coped with by cloning out.
04/01/2016 12:58:15 PM · #40
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by nygold:

I say YES to cropping in minimal it's a great idea. Anything to make an image less boring is heading in the right direction.


we should also limit it to 1 -2 challenges a year.

Haven't been any yet this year :)
04/01/2016 01:00:59 PM · #41
I'm also in the no cropping camp for minimal. I don't think it's truly minimal if it's cropped.
04/01/2016 01:05:32 PM · #42
looks good and easier to understand for new members if there are any new members that is ;)
04/01/2016 05:23:23 PM · #43
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by nygold:

I say YES to cropping in minimal it's a great idea. Anything to make an image less boring is heading in the right direction.


we should also limit it to 1 -2 challenges a year.


+1
04/01/2016 05:49:37 PM · #44
I don't get how you can think cropping is not minimal but somehow straightening is minimal. pffft

both or neither, imho

Message edited by author 2016-04-01 17:49:51.
04/01/2016 05:58:37 PM · #45
I am for cropping, most people compose so that the photograph can be cropped and printed in more than one aspect ratio, therefore space needs to be left for that purpose.
04/01/2016 06:12:01 PM · #46
Originally posted by posthumous:

I don't get how you can think cropping is not minimal but somehow straightening is minimal. pffft

both or neither, imho


Oh Dang.

I agree with Don.

:D
04/01/2016 06:42:53 PM · #47
This is an exciting day at DPC... Thank you to the SC for the proposed rule changes. I think they are much clearer and will encourage more involvement from the members.

I think cropping should be allowed in minimal, and straightening too. Just wanted to weigh in.
04/01/2016 07:32:28 PM · #48
Is it just me thinking it strange this is posted April 1st?
04/01/2016 07:35:17 PM · #49
Haha but still an interesting discussion!
04/01/2016 07:36:49 PM · #50
Cropping for minimal - something we all did with the enlarger anyhow (at least for those of us old enough to have started with real film). I have equated minimal to film prints, so this makes sense to me.

And yes, this being posted on April 1st is suspicious to me too.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 03:30:54 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 03:30:54 AM EDT.