| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2007 07:37:19 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by ralph:
Since the images can be shown to have Image Overlay ON
The SC 'could' request all pertinent images which would have to be checked as well - sure you could 'up date' a file with a blank image but it would show as a Image Overlay file .. & presumably you would have TO produce all the files that created that one ..
IF the SC are saying that they can't tell (or refuse to look at Nikon software) to tell that a person is NOT cheating there is nothing to prevent a person to use Image Overlay on a blank frame to remake/redate a image NOW
SO if you are using Nikon software to check for image overlays
you should be able to determine tell if a image is overlay or Multiple Exposure
therefore Multiple exposures should be allowed . (since you HAVE to check anyway :P )
(IMO Image Overlay should not be allowed .. in any case & if you really want to use it - it is easier to use in PSCS than in camera .. ) |
You're right. The hitch is that SC would have to use Nikon software, and it isn't practical for SC to have to use camera specific software every time a maker decides to keep tags proprietary (or something like that). |
but as i stated above the SC HAS TO check because otherwise date violation can not be checked since it can be circumvented using ImageOverlay |
Image overlays are not allowed either. Why would SC HAVE TO check? I'm not following you. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 07:42:59 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Image overlays are not allowed either. Why would SC HAVE TO check? I'm not following you. |
presume i'm a cheater & use a old image that is very good for a challenge
it has the wrong date
to fix the date i take a blank frame (presume the settiings & lens are correct) & image overlay it with the old frame
i now have a current dated image -- the only thing that could CHECK is using Nikon software to test if is an image overlay
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 07:43:40 PM · #253 |
Think about it this way. We can't tell them apart except by using Nikon software.
If someone submits an image and there's a date violation where we might suspect an overlay, we would ask for the pertinent files according to your plan (to avoid using Nikon software). The person responds, "No, it's a double-exposure, not an overlay." Then what? How would you deal with that situation?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 07:46:46 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by ursula:
Image overlays are not allowed either. Why would SC HAVE TO check? I'm not following you. |
presume i'm a cheater & use a old image that is very good for a challenge
it has the wrong date
to fix the date i take a blank frame (presume the settiings & lens are correct) & image overlay it with the old frame
i now have a current dated image -- the only thing that could CHECK is using Nikon software to test if is an image overlay |
Not quite.
If a proof image comes in with a date violation, it is not up to SC to figure out if it is a violation due to overlay or some other reason whatever that may be. What we do is ask again for the UNALTERED ORIGINAL. If the photog is unable to provide that unaltered original, the image is DQed.
It is the photographer's responsibility to submit the valid original.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 07:51:05 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Think about it this way. We can't tell them apart except by using Nikon software.
If someone submits an image and there's a date violation where we might suspect an overlay, we would ask for the pertinent files according to your plan (to avoid using Nikon software). The person responds, "No, it's a double-exposure, not an overlay." Then what? How would you deal with that situation? |
using nikon software IT STATES whether it is a Multiple Exposure or an OVERLAY IMAGE
I'm saying you could not tell (using the blank frame method) that there is a date violation so YOU HAVE TO CHECK using Nikon software.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 07:52:04 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by ursula:
Think about it this way. We can't tell them apart except by using Nikon software.
If someone submits an image and there's a date violation where we might suspect an overlay, we would ask for the pertinent files according to your plan (to avoid using Nikon software). The person responds, "No, it's a double-exposure, not an overlay." Then what? How would you deal with that situation? |
using nikon software IT STATES whether it is a Multiple Exposure or an OVERLAY IMAGE
I'm saying you could not tell (using the blank frame method) that there is a date violation so YOU HAVE TO CHECK using Nikon software. |
He, he, maybe we can :) |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 08:15:29 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by ursula:
He, he, maybe we can :) |
{time out for a quick test)
-- hmmm//possible // i get a delta in some of the date fields
but i'm not sure a 1min delta would be recognized by all ...
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 08:29:52 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Think about it this way. We can't tell them apart except by using Nikon software.
If someone submits an image and there's a date violation where we might suspect an overlay, we would ask for the pertinent files according to your plan (to avoid using Nikon software). The person responds, "No, it's a double-exposure, not an overlay." Then what? How would you deal with that situation? |
And what happens when Canon has their camera that has the technology and you need Canon software to check those images, and then Pentax.... that could get really messy. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 08:32:40 PM · #259 |
| So, all images submitted from Nikon users have to be verified using Nikon software and whatever other software was used. As stated, getting a little tedious. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 11:43:48 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by kteach:
Originally posted by ursula:
Think about it this way. We can't tell them apart except by using Nikon software.
If someone submits an image and there's a date violation where we might suspect an overlay, we would ask for the pertinent files according to your plan (to avoid using Nikon software). The person responds, "No, it's a double-exposure, not an overlay." Then what? How would you deal with that situation? |
And what happens when Canon has their camera that has the technology and you need Canon software to check those images, and then Pentax.... that could get really messy. |
And that's one of the reasons why I have been in support of this ruling, and still am.
That doesn't mean I can't feel sad for not being able to make these images for challenges. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 11:45:43 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
So, all images submitted from Nikon users have to be verified using Nikon software and whatever other software was used. As stated, getting a little tedious. |
What's getting tedious is hearing people make it into a Nikon users issue, it isn't.
Message edited by author 2007-02-25 23:46:52. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 11:50:26 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
So, all images submitted from Nikon users have to be verified using Nikon software and whatever other software was used. As stated, getting a little tedious. |
What's getting tedious is hearing people make it into a Nikon users issue, it isn't. |
OK...Fuji S7000 does it....love it...not happy about the decision but I really don't use it that much....well except for challenges! LOL! Oh well.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:31:59 AM · #263 |
Wayy back I amazed some people with my regular SLR that could do overlays, other techniques can still be used here, and yes, I would miss doing that kind of stuff in an easier fashion.
This in-camera stuff is just a little "Photoshop-like" compositing feature that some manufacturers decided to incorporate into some cameras. I've played around with it, but haven't submitted any creations to any DPC Challenges. It is very tedious to use and a strain on the battery. Thumbnails almost smaller than human finger nails. Compositing can be done easier and with more control in Photoshop.
Just because DPC is an acronym for "Digital. . ." doesn't mean it embraces everything digital. There is more non-digital concepts to becoming a photographer producing great images. Some websites put more emphasis on Photoshop skills.
This seems to me like a Tax-Loophole, because if you relly want to create an outstanding composite you would use your Post-Processing skills. The same with some in-camera Panorama features, they can be done better with software and should. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 09:26:36 PM · #264 |
| bump. not to spark more debate, but to let people know. this takes effect with the "furniture" challenge. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 09:37:56 PM · #265 |
Darn. I was looking forward to seeing some double exposures turning a lazy boy into a love seat. :(
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 10:01:07 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by ursula:
You're right. The hitch is that SC would have to use Nikon software, and it isn't practical for SC to have to use camera specific software every time a maker decides to keep tags proprietary (or something like that). |
although (as you know) i disagree with the ruling, i do agree that it's unfair for SC to keep proprietary software to validate photos. if only fuji cameras and nikon cameras (for example) are the only ones with this capability, then it's not a big issue (just two programs) ... but down the track when 10 cameras can do it, i see the problem!! :)
i suppose the most practical way to keep the playing field level, in this case, is for camera manufacturers to expand the published exif data on photos. they write the data into the binary file, but they don't publish it in exif.
actually, with nikon, this drives me crazy, because i have the ability to add a comment to my files (my name and website as a form of copyright) and it's not published with the basic exif either. which is just dumb!!
opanda exif reader publishes pretty much everything from the exif, but even it doesn't publish multiple exposure or image overlays. only nikon software will read that! :(
so, i suppose ME could be allowed by any camera that publishes that data in the basic exif information.
going back to image overlays, i honestly feel that even though it's an exploitation, the risk is very, very low (at the moment). as i said much earlier on, software to tamper with exif data is going to be faster and easier than using one of the few (3 cameras that i know of) which are capable of image overlay.
edit: added info about opanda exif reader.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 22:02:59.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 10:20:22 PM · #267 |
Well my camera does it and its cheaper to buy than most. I don't like the call! Whats next? Anything done in the camera what a load of chit. For those cameras that don't what are you worried about, if you take good pictures. Who cares, do you feel threaten?
So much for having any kind of edge for us poor folks.
And I am looking for a different site. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 04:13:31 AM · #268 |
I have a question...
I didn't realize this rule had been implemented. I am planning to purchase a D300, one of the main reasons is to create beautiful multi exposure images like Ursula. Since HDR has been allowed, why hasn't this been changed? Isn't it basically the same? One is in-camera and one if out? no? |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 04:18:24 AM · #269 |
Because the in-camera process can potentially be manipulated to turn an outside-challenge-dates into a "valid" dated one, I believe.
When you do the combining in PS you still have your originals with EXIF for validation if required. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 08:25:59 AM · #270 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Since HDR has been allowed, why hasn't this been changed? Isn't it basically the same? One is in-camera and one if out? no? |
No, it's not "basically the same": HDRI is a means of extending the dynamic range of a capture by taking sequential, differently-exposed captures of the identical scene and merging elements of the several captures into a single, perfectly exposed image. Nikon's multiple-exposure capability allows you combine different scenes in-camera to produce photographic montages.
Look at it this way: as long as there has been a DPC there has been a rule against such photo-montages because they are considered to be more "digital art" than they are "photography". Until relatively recently, such montages could only be accomplished by combining separate images in photoshop, and the creators of the site did not want DPC to be "just another digital weirdness" site; they wanted a relatively "pure" photographic site. So the rules had always said "your image must be created from a single capture shot within the challenge dates". The rules had also always said that any effects created entirely in-camera were legal.
When in-camera multiple exposures became possible, a situation was created where it was allowed to do in-camera (if you were lucky enough to have such a camera) a sort of multiple-image compositing that was specifically disallowed via photoshop processing, and this was neither equitable nor compatible with the stated goals of the site. So they removed the loophole by disallowing multiple-capture montaging except in occasional expert editing challenges.
Meanwhile, there's been a huge shift out in the real world towards more and more sophisticated HDRI imaging; in a sense it's a big part of the future of digital photography, and there are many programs now, some of them free, that facilitate the creation of HDR images. You frame up the exact same scene, make one exposure for the bright areas, one for the midtones, and one for the dark areas, then combine them into a single frame that has a much better expressed dynamic range. This is a purely photographic technique, and it is essentially the digital equivalent of "zone system" processing, which has been around for many decades int he film world. After a great deal of back-and-forth on the pros and cons, it was decided to allow HDR imaging in the advanced ruleset.
So, they are two completely different things.
R. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 12:45:54 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I have a question...
I didn't realize this rule had been implemented. I am planning to purchase a D300, one of the main reasons is to create beautiful multi exposure images like Ursula. Since HDR has been allowed, why hasn't this been changed? Isn't it basically the same? One is in-camera and one if out? no? |
There are several applications for multiple exposure. HDRI is only one application. Time lapse is another. Expanding dof is another. For some reason, that I have yet to figure out, this site allows multiple exposure only for the HDRI application. That decision is somewhat arbitrary in my opinion, and gives landscape photographers a tool that the rest of us aren't allowed to use.
There is hope for you in the future. I believe a camera will come out that automatically brackets several exposures, and combines them in the camera to expand dynamic range. This of course will be allowed, but they will again try to exclude other in camera multiple exposure. It should be an interesting discussion. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 12:51:22 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
For some reason, that I have yet to figure out, this site allows multiple exposure only for the HDRI application. That decision is somewhat arbitrary in my opinion, and gives landscape photographers a tool that the rest of us aren't allowed to use. |
Bear_Music explains the rationale quite well in the post preceding yours ... HDR processing is an advantage to anyone shooting in challenging lighting conditions where the range of tonal values in the scene exceed the capacity of the sensor to capture/differentiate them, not just for landscapes. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 01:06:52 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
There are several applications for multiple exposure. HDRI is only one application. Time lapse is another. Expanding dof is another. For some reason, that I have yet to figure out, this site allows multiple exposure only for the HDRI application. That decision is somewhat arbitrary in my opinion, and gives landscape photographers a tool that the rest of us aren't allowed to use. |
Time-lapse photography is essentially the creation of photo-montages; it is consistent that they are not allowing this. I am not aware that HDR-style merging for increased DOF would be disallowed. Have you seen a ruling on this?
Where do you get the idea that "the rest of you" aren't "allowed" to use a tool that's available to landscape photographers exclusively? You can use HDRI processing in any sort of photography where the subjects don't move, or don't move much. Even we landscape photographers have to work with single-exposure, quasi-HDR processing when we have a lot of wind, crashing waves, whatever.
Should I complain about how you have an advantage over me when you use lights, in the studio, because I am the mercy of the elements and cannot "light" my landscapes? HDRI processing is just a TOOL, useful sometimes and not useful other times, that definitely belongs in the toolbox of any serious digital photographer.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2008 01:42:19 PM · #274 |
Thanks for that explanation  Bear_Music. I am looking forward to using the multi-exposure feature, regardless of acceptance on dpc :) |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 01:53:16 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Thanks for that explanation Bear_Music. I am looking forward to using the multi-exposure feature, regardless of acceptance on dpc :) |
FWIW, I have always enjoyed the side challenges with other members...there are no PP restrictions and you can try new techniques without being limited by editing rules.
While my camera does not do the multiple exposure thing like yours, I'd love to watch a side challenge with members who can do in-camera multiple exposures just to see what can be done.
You could always start a June Side Challenge with that theme...it would be fun!! |
|
