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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> 'Off-Centered Subject II' Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 243, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/08/2006 02:46:09 PM · #126
Originally posted by hopper:

This is an interesting point Brent, and I have to admit it bothers me to find out someone created most of a submission on a printer and then photographed it ...

... but, a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE ... do you agree? Or do you think dpc should take an ALL or NOTHING approach to the rules?

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

How is shooting a major element printed out or on a computer screen more excepted by the SC than this?

Does printing it out or having it on a comuter screen suddenly make the whole thing different then just merging two photos in photoshop?

I'm sure you're both aware of this conversation... ;^)

Taking Photos of Photos
02/08/2006 02:46:29 PM · #127
Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by ursula:

Wow! I want one :)

Question, when you overlay these images in camera, do you have a choice of blending modes?


No unfortunately not, but maybe in the next version :)


I've already seen cameras that have built in green screen technology too - you can drop another image in to the background and pick the transparancy colour.

So that'll be fine if you own a camera that does it, but not fine if you do it in photoshop I guess for advanced editing.
02/08/2006 02:47:47 PM · #128
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by ursula:

Wow! I want one :)

Question, when you overlay these images in camera, do you have a choice of blending modes?


No unfortunately not, but maybe in the next version :)


I've already seen cameras that have built in green screen technology too - you can drop another image in to the background and pick the transparancy colour.

So that'll be fine if you own a camera that does it, but not fine if you do it in photoshop I guess for advanced editing.


Weird, eh?


02/08/2006 02:48:19 PM · #129
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

How is shooting a major element printed out or on a computer screen more excepted by the SC than this?

Does printing it out or having it on a comuter screen suddenly make the whole thing different then just merging two photos in photoshop?


Out in the real world you can shoot a model against a billboard and you have "artwork" as a background and a major element of your photo. It would be almost inpossible to draw the line to prohibit this in the case of intentionally manufactured-and-inserted artwork. Nobody is going to argue that you shouldn't be able to create a "set" for your photograph out of anythign you care to use, so why shouldn't the "set" be a computer display instead of a printed-out image?

R.


so to follow along with that train of thought, why shouldn't the 'set' be dropped in behind the subject as a layer in photoshop ?


I'm not taking a stand here on what the rules "ought" to be, just pointing out why a computer-screen element in the original photo is considered acceptable in the current rules; there's no way NOT to allow it, or a huge print taped to the floor as BG, considering that in the real world artwork can, and does, show up as photographic BGs. Like this shot, for example:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/261639.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/261639.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Whether the rules ought to be modified to allow dropping in digital backgrounds is a whole different topic.

R.
02/08/2006 02:49:23 PM · #130
Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by ursula:

Wow! I want one :)

Question, when you overlay these images in camera, do you have a choice of blending modes?


No unfortunately not, but maybe in the next version :)


I've already seen cameras that have built in green screen technology too - you can drop another image in to the background and pick the transparancy colour.

So that'll be fine if you own a camera that does it, but not fine if you do it in photoshop I guess for advanced editing.


Weird, eh?


Same with the current multi-image capable cameras I guess (like some of the fuji range that'll shoot double/multi-exposures)
Just means we can buy our way out of the rules, I suppose.
02/08/2006 02:49:57 PM · #131
Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

as time goes by, more and more tools will appear (even in-camera ones) as the software and firmware developers think outside the "film" box.


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)


And it's only gonna get more so..
The camera makers can't just keep adding on megapixels every year to try and sell them, unless we all want to have huge racks of hard drives.
The market will drive more and more features.
Why should only the people with megabucks be able use features from the brand new camera when software does the same much cheaper?
02/08/2006 02:50:26 PM · #132
Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

as time goes by, more and more tools will appear (even in-camera ones) as the software and firmware developers think outside the "film" box.


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)

"Finding and combining two images" would not be challenge-legal (IMO) since it is a post-shot function, regardless of the fact that the software and processor happen to be in the same box as your photo-capture device. The "original" file does not exist as a single image capture.

Multiple exposures combined into and saved as a single image at the time of capture would still be legal under current rules.
02/08/2006 02:52:45 PM · #133
Originally posted by meanwile:

Originally posted by kiwiness:


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)


Interesting. So what does the EXIF data look like compared to either shot alone?


It all becomes one photo with a single EXIF. I suppose if I use a photo I took yesterday combined with a photo I took today then the date would be the date I combined the photos, I am not sure. But if that is the way the EXIF turns out, I guess I could use two photos I took a year ago and get the new EXIF date on which I combined them. Dunno, but that would be a loophole I suppose.
02/08/2006 02:54:16 PM · #134
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

as time goes by, more and more tools will appear (even in-camera ones) as the software and firmware developers think outside the "film" box.


It is already happening. My new D200 allows me to find two images I have taken on my memory card and overlay them as a montage and reduce the opacity on either layer to optimize the image. I can also take up to 10 shots for a multiple exposure in one image. And all this "in-camera", so perfectly legal for DPC challenges :)

"Finding and combining two images" would not be challenge-legal (IMO) since it is a post-shot function, regardless of the fact that the software and processor happen to be in the same box as your photo-capture device. The "original" file does not exist as a single image capture.

Multiple exposures combined into and saved as a single image at the time of capture would still be legal under current rules.


But anything done "in-camera" is allowed according to DPC rules, or not?
02/08/2006 02:54:26 PM · #135
Originally posted by GeneralE:


"Finding and combining two images" would not be challenge-legal (IMO) since it is a post-shot function, regardless of the fact that the software and processor happen to be in the same box as your photo-capture device. The "original" file does not exist as a single image capture.


So when the camera spits out one file, with EXIF data on it about when it was captured/ created, how's that different ? Like I mentioned, the chroma key capable cameras I've seen do this - you shoot against a chroma key background, you've already picked the replacment background and it combines and produces one shot. This is just a slightly more hitech version of scalvert's poor man's chromakey printouts and set design.
02/08/2006 02:55:56 PM · #136
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

And it's only gonna get more so..
The camera makers can't just keep adding on megapixels every year to try and sell them, unless we all want to have huge racks of hard drives.

There's evidence that camera-makers are accepting that the bulk of cameras won't need more than the 8-12MP max size that most have now -- very few non-pros need more than that.

Seagate recently announced new disk technology which will "stack" data on the platters, allowing an approximately five-fold increase in data density -- the same 300GB mechanism/box (you can now get one for about $250) should have a capacity of about 1.5TB with the same physical footprint. The current 1TB drives (about $999) may cram 5TB into the same box.
02/08/2006 02:56:19 PM · #137
Originally posted by Gordon:

Why do you assume photography has nothing to do with post processing ? Why is talent equated in your mind with everything that happens before pressing the shutter, but nothing to do with what happens afterwards ?


Gordon, do you think ALL post processing should be allowed no matter what it is?
02/08/2006 02:57:02 PM · #138
I personally think that the biggest problem is not weather or not certain techniques are allowed, but that their use seems to be permitted selectively.

Nsbca's entry was disqualified on the major element rule, as was the seagull photo, both within the last week or so.

However there have been recent ribbon winners and top-20 finishers that were post processed to remove (what many believe to be) major elements, and those photos have not been DQed.

Someone made mention to the supreme court in this thread, and I agree that our Site Council is, in many ways, the Supreme Court of DPC. One thing that I think makes a big difference, is that the Site Council is made up of many members, and that different members might vote on a DQ today than do tomorrow.

To be clear, I'm not talking about people leaving the SC and new people joining. I'm talking about the fact there's 16 SC members, and 8 of them might participate in a DQ vote today, and the other 8 might participate in a DQ vote tomorrow.

We need to be able to expect consistency from our SC members, which is what is really lacking in these recent decisions. I think that holding all SC members (or even just a subset of SC members that serves on a DQ committee, but the same members stay on that committee) responsible for timely voting on DQ requests would be one way to get that. No more of this "I didn't vote on this DQ, but I would have said it was fine..." That swing vote may be the difference between DQ and not, and it's not fair to the photog that he's unlucky that one of the more liberal SC members didn't vote this time around.

Not being privy to the SC's procedures I don't know if something like this exists today, but I think a process needs to be set up for DQ discussions. Today we give the photographer 48 hours to submit the original. Let's say that from the time SC gets the original they get 48 hours to debate/discuss in their forum.

Then, after that 48 hours is closed, they get 24 hours to place their vote.

Exceptions can be made for vacations, etc. where a SC member plans to be out-of-contact, (though we photographers don't get an exception if we get a validation request when we're out-of-contact).

Make the group of people participating in the voting consistent and we can expect consistent decisions.

I'll close with one more analogy, in a final attempt to clarify the issue for those who think it's much ado about nothing. Continuing the football analogy from earlier; No, you can't use "But he did it last week" as an excuse when you get called for Pass Interference, but you also don't ever see refs calling 15 yard penalties for a foul that "hasn't been approved by the NFL yet, but was something we discussed at the Referee's meeting and were talking about clarifying in the next couple weeks."

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 15:01:18.
02/08/2006 02:59:02 PM · #139
Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Why do you assume photography has nothing to do with post processing ? Why is talent equated in your mind with everything that happens before pressing the shutter, but nothing to do with what happens afterwards ?


Gordon, do you think ALL post processing should be allowed no matter what it is?


That's an entirely different question. If we can't even agree on what photography is at a fundamental level, it is probably hard to agree on where the 'post' bit starts or should end too.

I'm just asking why some people want to ignore the entire history of photography and define it as everything that happens before the button is pressed, when in fact that is maybe 50% of what 'photography' has always been.

Sure some areas like HCB or photo journalism place more emphasis on the pre-shot part, but equally large and important parts of photography - real photography; is based on darkroom or lightroom image processing.

This isn't a 'digital art' discussion - which to me is about creating within a computer, but about what 'photography' actually is. Photography is not totally encompassed by 'stuff that happens within a camera' Never has been, shouldn't ever be.

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 15:04:38.
02/08/2006 03:02:48 PM · #140
Originally posted by Gordon:

Photography is not to encompassed by 'stuff that happens within a camera' Never has been, shouldn't ever be.


That what he said!
02/08/2006 03:05:16 PM · #141
Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Photography is not totally encompassed by 'stuff that happens within a camera' Never has been, shouldn't ever be.


That what he said!


Shame it sounds like gibberish. Edited to finish the sentence I lost while frothing at the mouth.
02/08/2006 03:06:08 PM · #142
I agree 100%

I'm just not sure who's making the argument that it is.

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Photography is not to encompassed by 'stuff that happens within a camera' Never has been, shouldn't ever be.


That what he said!
02/08/2006 03:06:21 PM · #143
Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by ladymonarda:

Now I am concerned about this blur rule. What denotes major element? I am looking at entering an image where in reducing the noise of the background, it appears now to be blurred. I spot edited the background, but the original image has a much more defined background. The rule states that you can spot edit in advanced editing to enhance your image. The editing enhances the image by making the background less noticable. Now I am thinking it might be dq'd.

This sounds like the perfect example of a case where the photog should check with the SC before entering. They have suggested that we do that several times recently if we are wondering about the legality of an entry.


The problem with checking beforehand is that your only getting the view of one SC which could quite easily get overuled if a DQ was raised.
02/08/2006 03:06:54 PM · #144
Originally posted by kiwiness:

But anything done "in-camera" is allowed according to DPC rules, or not?

Thanks to your enlightening information, I sincerely doubt that language will remain intact for long. : )

I repeat, selecting two previously-saved images, and combining them later, is illegal (to me) regardless of the "box" you process it on. The camera is being used as a post-processing editor in this case. The rules also state that the "original" must consist of a single image, and that you cannot combine multiple images. That there exist two prior images, both of which must be used to obtain the final image, trumps the face that you can edit, phone home, and make cappucino with your camera.

Gordon's scenario, where you pre-determine a BG image, and combine it at the time the second exposure is made may constitute a legitimate "double-exposure."

If we think about "photographic integrity" and what the terms mean ... a "double-exposure" is opening the shutter twice while the same piece of film is in place. The two images are permanently fused, without possible post-exposure adjustment of the images relative to each other.

A double-exposure does not mean taking two frames of previously-developed film and overlaying them in the enlarger -- that's known as matting.

Message edited by author 2006-02-08 15:09:08.
02/08/2006 03:07:17 PM · #145
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Photography is not totally encompassed by 'stuff that happens within a camera' Never has been, shouldn't ever be.


That what he said!


Shame it sounds like gibberish. Edited to finish the sentence I lost while frothing at the mouth.


LOL
I managed to completely understand right through all that froth...
02/08/2006 03:15:56 PM · #146
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

But anything done "in-camera" is allowed according to DPC rules, or not?

Thanks to your enlightening information, I sincerely doubt that language will remain intact for long. : )

I repeat, selecting two previously-saved images, and combining them later, is illegal (to me) regardless of the "box" you process it on. The camera is being used as a post-processing editor in this case. The rules also state that the "original" must consist of a single image, and that you cannot combine multiple images. That there exist two prior images, both of which must be used to obtain the final image, trumps the face that you can edit, phone home, and make cappucino with your camera.

Gordon's scenario, where you pre-determine a BG image, and combine it at the time the second exposure is made may constitute a legitimate "double-exposure."

If we think about "photographic integrity" and what the terms mean ... a "double-exposure" is opening the shutter twice while the same piece of film is in place. The two images are permanently fused, without possible post-exposure adjustment of the images relative to each other.

A double-exposure does not mean taking two frames of previously-developed film and overlaying them in the enlarger -- that's known as matting.


I quote from the DPC rule:

Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission.
02/08/2006 03:20:21 PM · #147
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Thanks to your enlightening information, I sincerely doubt that language will remain intact for long. : )

I repeat, selecting two previously-saved images, and combining them later, is illegal (to me) regardless of the "box" you process it on. The camera is being used as a post-processing editor in this case. The rules also state that the "original" must consist of a single image, and that you cannot combine multiple images. That there exist two prior images, both of which must be used to obtain the final image, trumps the face that you can edit, phone home, and make cappucino with your camera.


Original discussion on the same thing over a month ago:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=324077


02/08/2006 03:21:08 PM · #148
Originally posted by kiwiness:

I quote from the DPC rule:

Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission.


:) doh .... busted

that verbage will be coming off the books quicker than a prom dress

:)
02/08/2006 03:25:36 PM · #149
Originally posted by mavrik:

Original discussion on the same thing over a month ago:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=324077


Thanks Mav, I never saw that one!
02/08/2006 03:51:57 PM · #150
Originally posted by hopper:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

I quote from the DPC rule:

Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission.


:) doh .... busted

that verbage will be coming off the books quicker than a prom dress

:)


It's tempting to take something like 'the gimp' and port it to an embedded camera processor, just for the fun of doing all the editing 'in camera' ;)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 09:46:14 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 © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 09:46:14 AM EDT.