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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Site Updates and Advanced Editing
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 541, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/01/2008 11:26:49 AM · #226
With regard to "editing to emptiness," we actually have been discussing this technique. The feeling is that it falls under the long-standing "removal of features" language. That means that, in effect, minor distractions that appear in one frame, but not in another (or in a different place) may be removed same as the old Advanced Rules. If, however, what's removed is deemed to be significant to the composition, then just like the old rules, DQ.
01/01/2008 11:36:27 AM · #227
Originally posted by kirbic:

With regard to "editing to emptiness," we actually have been discussing this technique. The feeling is that it falls under the long-standing "removal of features" language. That means that, in effect, minor distractions that appear in one frame, but not in another (or in a different place) may be removed same as the old Advanced Rules. If, however, what's removed is deemed to be significant to the composition, then just like the old rules, DQ.


So let me put it this way: if ONE frame of the HDRI has no birds, I can use that as the "master" frame for what's allowable, and remove all birds? Or, if in ALL frames there are birds but they are insignificant specks (usually the case with the 10-22mm), then I can also remove all birds?

Have I got that right?

R.
01/01/2008 12:28:54 PM · #228
Originally posted by Rino63:

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.

You can capture something moving within the scene, but you cannot change the framing or scene itself (except as it would naturally change over time). For example, you could set up a tripod and shoot the same view at sunrise, noon and sunset, but you couldn't insert objects or a new background between frames.
01/01/2008 12:41:30 PM · #229
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So let me put it this way: if ONE frame of the HDRI has no birds, I can use that as the "master" frame for what's allowable, and remove all birds? Or, if in ALL frames there are birds but they are insignificant specks (usually the case with the 10-22mm), then I can also remove all birds?

"The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography." If you have moving subjects within your frame, then those are allowed for time-lapse. In this case, if you had a flock of birds in the shot and removed them from your entry, you would NOT be demonstrating time-lapse. If you don't want birds in your shot, then shoot your sequence after the birds are gone. If a stray bird flies into the frame while you're shooting, then you could either include it moving across the scene as time-lapse, or if it's a minor distraction, clone it out as you would for any other entry in Advanced. The same applies for people in the city. If you remove all the people, then you're not showing time-lapse. You're merely using the multiple exposures to clone out significant features, which isn't allowed.
01/01/2008 12:52:17 PM · #230
It seems to me that the interpretation of the new set of rules leaves so much room for subjectivity that it may have been better to use them as sporadic experiments (much like you did with the expert editing rules) rather than suddenly replace the well proven traditional advanced editing rules. I doubt anybody would mind the increase to 200kb/720 pixels though, perhaps this should be implemented accross the board and right away. I noted that you have not yet announced a Free Study challenge for January; it may not be a bad idea to run it with the traditional rules, as you experiment with the new ones in the Time Lapse challenge.
01/01/2008 12:53:18 PM · #231
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Rino63:

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.

You can capture something moving within the scene, but you cannot change the framing or scene itself (except as it would naturally change over time). For example, you could set up a tripod and shoot the same view at sunrise, noon and sunset, but you couldn't insert objects or a new background between frames.


.....but I can do it in a single shot using some old trick....
01/01/2008 01:13:50 PM · #232
Originally posted by kirbic:

With regard to "editing to emptiness," we actually have been discussing this technique. The feeling is that it falls under the long-standing "removal of features" language. That means that, in effect, minor distractions that appear in one frame, but not in another (or in a different place) may be removed same as the old Advanced Rules. If, however, what's removed is deemed to be significant to the composition, then just like the old rules, DQ.


Well therein lies a problem. You are talking about 10 frames, varying time and exposure. There will be different features in the frames, some of them may be major. So what if a major feature is in one of the ten frames? What if it is in 2? You will either be adding a major feature if you keep it, or removing it if you don't. Really no choice.

Really removal or addition of major features is silly when you are talking about 10 photos that vary with exposure and time.

I can suggest a solution. I would let the photographer choose a background photograph. (If it was suggested already in this thread I apologise) No additional major features can be added or taken away from the bacground photo. Details from the nine photographs can be used. Yes, this would allow us to blacken out or whiten out a background, but it is only fair that we pick what we want to use if you are allowing us 10 pics to work with. It also would save SC an enormous amount of time.

I am not in favor of the 10 picture addition to advanced editing. I think it belongs in expert editing. But, if we are going to have it, it should be a useable feature for all types of photography, not just landscape or the rarely used time lapse thing.

All of this pushes our site towards digital art, again not my preference, but that is inherent if we are using 10 photos and combining them in any way. And if most of us can't use the 10pic rule, it becomes an unfair advantage for landscape photographers. Remember, this is a competition. I for one don't want to compete if the rules are not fair.
01/01/2008 01:21:49 PM · #233
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Well therein lies a problem...


Michael,
I think we'll probably be fairly lenient on this, for the reasons you mention. However (you knew there was a "however") if a plaza is populated in every shot, and unpopulated in the final edit, well, as it stands that does fall outside the removal rule that was carried over from Advanced V.
Whether disallowing this type of removal is something we *shoud* do is one area that we'll need to discuss further down the line (there are also a couple others). We do, however, think that what we have is workable.
01/01/2008 01:31:20 PM · #234
Originally posted by cloudsme:

I am not in favor of the 10 picture addition to advanced editing. I think it belongs in expert editing. But, if we are going to have it, it should be a useable feature for all types of photography, not just landscape or the rarely used time lapse thing.

All of this pushes our site towards digital art, again not my preference, but that is inherent if we are using 10 photos and combining them in any way. And if most of us can't use the 10pic rule, it becomes an unfair advantage for landscape photographers. Remember, this is a competition. I for one don't want to compete if the rules are not fair.


The thing of it is, if you just look at this as "adding HDRI to the advanced ruleset" then the 10-picture limit is really a 10-exposure limit; the "pictures" are all identical, only the exposures vary. Then you merge them together to get a really-complete tonal range out of your subject. It's the current best practice for many types of imaging, particularly landscapes and architecture. There's nothing "extreme" about it, there's nothing "untraditional" about the result, and there's free software available to do it.

The problem, if there is one, is in the "time-lapse" joker in the deck, which is really open to some pretty radical interpretations.

So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. A LOT of us have been using "quasi-HDR" techniques to emulate true HDRI as best we can, because we NEED those techniques, we NEED this fuller dynamic range, in our work. Do we really want DPC to be the Luddites of digital photography, asking our members to work with less-sophisticated tools and produce less-than-optimum results? In terms of the "spirit" of DPC, there's really no problem allowing true HDRI work to compete; it's just more sophisticated PP of what is, in actuality, a single image even if it's not a single capture.

R.
01/01/2008 01:40:12 PM · #235
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Well therein lies a problem...


Michael,
I think we'll probably be fairly lenient on this, for the reasons you mention. However (you knew there was a "however") if a plaza is populated in every shot, and unpopulated in the final edit, well, as it stands that does fall outside the removal rule that was carried over from Advanced V.
Whether disallowing this type of removal is something we *shoud* do is one area that we'll need to discuss further down the line (there are also a couple others). We do, however, think that what we have is workable.


All right, the populated plaza shot. So the plaza has 15 people in in varying poses in the 10 shots. I pick the 5 most interesting poses, and expressions and include them. My plaza is now populated. I think this should be fine with the rules that we have. I also think it is digital art. I also think it is a huge advantage to this artist in the competition over someone who has used one shot of the plaza.
01/01/2008 01:51:53 PM · #236
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I am not in favor of the 10 picture addition to advanced editing. I think it belongs in expert editing. But, if we are going to have it, it should be a useable feature for all types of photography, not just landscape or the rarely used time lapse thing.

All of this pushes our site towards digital art, again not my preference, but that is inherent if we are using 10 photos and combining them in any way. And if most of us can't use the 10pic rule, it becomes an unfair advantage for landscape photographers. Remember, this is a competition. I for one don't want to compete if the rules are not fair.


The thing of it is, if you just look at this as "adding HDRI to the advanced ruleset" then the 10-picture limit is really a 10-exposure limit; the "pictures" are all identical, only the exposures vary. Then you merge them together to get a really-complete tonal range out of your subject. It's the current best practice for many types of imaging, particularly landscapes and architecture. There's nothing "extreme" about it, there's nothing "untraditional" about the result, and there's free software available to do it.

All right. I have no problem with your quasi HDRI, you are getting the most you can out of a single shot. I also would have no problem if you used a camera with extended dynamic range capabilities. But this is what you are doing with 10 pictures (and by the way, you can't tell me the darkest picture and the lightest picture are the same scene). You are taking a huge dynamic range and using it the way you like. I have no problem with that, as long as we all can do it. I want a huge dynamic range, and I want to use it the way I want to. That would mean darkening or whitening a background with my huge dynamic range. It's only fair. You have 10 times the data to work with than most of would otherwise. (btw, just bought CS3 so software isn't my issue, but it would be for some). I'm just saying that in order to be fair. If there are 10 pictures that can be used, but only one type of photography (landscape) can use it, it is not a fair competition. How can you argue with that?

The problem, if there is one, is in the "time-lapse" joker in the deck, which is really open to some pretty radical interpretations.

So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. A LOT of us have been using "quasi-HDR" techniques to emulate true HDRI as best we can, because we NEED those techniques, we NEED this fuller dynamic range, in our work. Do we really want DPC to be the Luddites of digital photography, asking our members to work with less-sophisticated tools and produce less-than-optimum results? In terms of the "spirit" of DPC, there's really no problem allowing true HDRI work to compete; it's just more sophisticated PP of what is, in actuality, a single image even if it's not a single capture.

R.
01/01/2008 02:28:48 PM · #237
Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

A couple pages ago I suggested that for this time-lapse stuff SC might consider a moratorium on DQs being used for penalty time-outs. IN other words, if you get DQ'd for falling afoul of this new rule, it won't count as a DQ for the purpose of assessing suspensions for too many DQs in a specific time frame. There are going to be a lot of people trying to figure out how to work within this rule, all of them with the ebst of intentions, and SC has alreadys aid we'll have to see what shakes out and how it is judged as far as legality goes, so it's kind of an open book.

Any feedback on this possibility, SC?

R.


I thought somebody had answered, but I guess not. Anyway. We've always been quite lenient in these matters. In cases like this, where it's a new set of rules, we do not count disqualifications towards penalties. The images stay DQed, but there are no repercussion until the rules are better set down.

Hope this helps.


I should probably clarify this, since I don't think it reads quite as Ursula intended.

First, to be clear, there is not a moratorium on penalties for repeat DQ's.

We do have and use the ability to waive suspensions when understandable confusion in the rules exists. This means, for example, that an understandable confusion in the meaning of time lapse could result in a suspension being waived. If a violation occurs on a straightforward rule where there isn't room for confusion (for example, the new rules allow compositing up to 10 images but someone composites 15), the penalties probably would not be waived.

We would be very unlikely to waive suspensions on rules that didn't change. For example, a date violation, addition of text, or failure to submit an original would be subject to normal penalties.

We do expect, however, than if you have a question, that you will ask it prior to the challenge rather than submitting and hoping for the best. Whether the photographer made a good faith effort to understand the rule is often a factor in our decision to waive suspensions, and asking for help in advance is often a good sign that they did.

~Terry
01/01/2008 02:34:20 PM · #238
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Well therein lies a problem...


Michael,
I think we'll probably be fairly lenient on this, for the reasons you mention. However (you knew there was a "however") if a plaza is populated in every shot, and unpopulated in the final edit, well, as it stands that does fall outside the removal rule that was carried over from Advanced V.
Whether disallowing this type of removal is something we *shoud* do is one area that we'll need to discuss further down the line (there are also a couple others). We do, however, think that what we have is workable.


All right, the populated plaza shot. So the plaza has 15 people in in varying poses in the 10 shots. I pick the 5 most interesting poses, and expressions and include them. My plaza is now populated. I think this should be fine with the rules that we have. I also think it is digital art. I also think it is a huge advantage to this artist in the competition over someone who has used one shot of the plaza.


Nope. This example would be disqualified under the following rule: "You may not combine captures of different scenes, or combine different subjects to create a new scene. The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography."

Remember, the rules also state that "Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified."

~Terry
01/01/2008 03:08:09 PM · #239
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Well therein lies a problem...


Michael,
I think we'll probably be fairly lenient on this, for the reasons you mention. However (you knew there was a "however") if a plaza is populated in every shot, and unpopulated in the final edit, well, as it stands that does fall outside the removal rule that was carried over from Advanced V.
Whether disallowing this type of removal is something we *shoud* do is one area that we'll need to discuss further down the line (there are also a couple others). We do, however, think that what we have is workable.


All right, the populated plaza shot. So the plaza has 15 people in in varying poses in the 10 shots. I pick the 5 most interesting poses, and expressions and include them. My plaza is now populated. I think this should be fine with the rules that we have. I also think it is digital art. I also think it is a huge advantage to this artist in the competition over someone who has used one shot of the plaza.


Nope. This example would be disqualified under the following rule: "You may not combine captures of different scenes, or combine different subjects to create a new scene. The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography."

Remember, the rules also state that "Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified."

~Terry


So this makes no sense now. I have to populate the picture, but I can't pick how I populate it. So are you going with the background photo solution? I can pick one background photo and populate it with only and all of that photo, except maybe add some time-lapse effect? But say this photo is exposed for the people, then I can use clouds from a different photo as long as there are overexposed clouds in the background picture? This would be the background photo solution.

I hate to talk about the spirit of the rules Terry, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what I'm feeling in spirit is that if you are a landscape photographer, you can use your ten photos to maximum advantage. Any other type of photographer, better stick to one photo.
01/01/2008 03:32:16 PM · #240
Originally posted by cloudsme:



... But say this photo is exposed for the people, then I can use clouds from a different photo as long as there are overexposed clouds in the background picture? ....


Uh... No.

that would be combining two totally different images.

What is being allowed is several images taken from exactly the same spot with exactly the same framing. Hence, you'll probably want to use a tripod if you want to combine images for a challenge.
01/01/2008 03:38:25 PM · #241
Originally posted by cpanaioti:


Uh... No.

that would be combining two totally different images.

What is being allowed is several images taken from exactly the same spot with exactly the same framing. Hence, you'll probably want to use a tripod if you want to combine images for a challenge.


That's what I'm not sure about, do you have to take it from the exact same spot? For example can you be handheld with slight panning on a subject or take action shots at sporting events?

I think it really needs to be clarified and maybe stipulated in the ruleset on how we interpret "the same scene" because it is beginning to look like we are only talking about landscape photography with the use of a tripod.
01/01/2008 03:41:50 PM · #242
Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:


Uh... No.

that would be combining two totally different images.

What is being allowed is several images taken from exactly the same spot with exactly the same framing. Hence, you'll probably want to use a tripod if you want to combine images for a challenge.


That's what I'm not sure about, do you have to take it from the exact same spot? For example can you be handheld with slight panning on a subject or take action shots at sporting events?

I think it really needs to be clarified and maybe stipulated in the ruleset on how we interpret "the same scene" because it is beginning to look like we are only talking about landscape photography with the use of a tripod.


I see where your coming from but I think the main idea is to allow HDR.
01/01/2008 03:43:10 PM · #243
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by cloudsme:



... But say this photo is exposed for the people, then I can use clouds from a different photo as long as there are overexposed clouds in the background picture? ....


Uh... No.

that would be combining two totally different images.

What is being allowed is several images taken from exactly the same spot with exactly the same framing. Hence, you'll probably want to use a tripod if you want to combine images for a challenge.


No, I meant clouds from the same scene, the same plaza, just a different and better exposure of the clouds.
01/01/2008 03:53:25 PM · #244
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Well therein lies a problem...


Michael,
I think we'll probably be fairly lenient on this, for the reasons you mention. However (you knew there was a "however") if a plaza is populated in every shot, and unpopulated in the final edit, well, as it stands that does fall outside the removal rule that was carried over from Advanced V.
Whether disallowing this type of removal is something we *shoud* do is one area that we'll need to discuss further down the line (there are also a couple others). We do, however, think that what we have is workable.


All right, the populated plaza shot. So the plaza has 15 people in in varying poses in the 10 shots. I pick the 5 most interesting poses, and expressions and include them. My plaza is now populated. I think this should be fine with the rules that we have. I also think it is digital art. I also think it is a huge advantage to this artist in the competition over someone who has used one shot of the plaza.


Nope. This example would be disqualified under the following rule: "You may not combine captures of different scenes, or combine different subjects to create a new scene. The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography."

Remember, the rules also state that "Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified."

~Terry


So this makes no sense now. I have to populate the picture, but I can't pick how I populate it. So are you going with the background photo solution? I can pick one background photo and populate it with only and all of that photo, except maybe add some time-lapse effect? But say this photo is exposed for the people, then I can use clouds from a different photo as long as there are overexposed clouds in the background picture? This would be the background photo solution.

I hate to talk about the spirit of the rules Terry, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what I'm feeling in spirit is that if you are a landscape photographer, you can use your ten photos to maximum advantage. Any other type of photographer, better stick to one photo.


Just one opinion, but exposing one photo for the people should be fine, given that both photos are taken from the same spot at the same time.

The difference is that by picking and choosing the five people whose poses you like best, you are using multiple images to compose a scene. By exposing one photo for the people and one for the clouds, you are essentially using HDRI.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, and I don't vote on DQs very often, so you may wish to wait for additional opinions on this if you plan to do something similar.

~Terry
01/01/2008 03:58:27 PM · #245
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/405/120/255852.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/405/120/255852.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' from ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', '/') + 1) . ' owen.

But he has laid his second 2 images completly over one. Do we have to completly layer over one image or can we partly layer over and then resize?
01/01/2008 04:16:05 PM · #246
Originally posted by keegbow:

But he has laid his second 2 images completly over one. Do we have to completly layer over one image or can we partly layer over and then resize?

Your framing cannot change (aside from the slight variations you might expect in a handheld shot).
01/01/2008 04:28:20 PM · #247
I think the new rules and the time lapse challenge will see a new record set for entires. A new low!

Most post here and in the challenge thread are from people who just don't understand or simply do not know how to do it??

I think it will alienate a lot of members who simply want to enter a shot in a challenge without displaying their knowledge, or lack of it, in a shootout with PP nerds. It seems fine, especially the larger 720/200 allowance, but it is outside the realms of advanced and is 'expert' PP.

I can't do it, and have little inclination to attempt it, so I am looking forward to watching the PhotoShop Wizards at work.

Go for it :)
01/01/2008 04:29:20 PM · #248
I am so confussed and feel at a loss of what i can do now for Advanced editing, as it is way above my knowledge of processing.

I will proberly not enter anymore advanced challenges, due to this confussion, re the new Advanced rules.

I would LIKE to see a SECOND BASIC CHALLENGE available to enter, alongside the New Advanced rule challenge, on the day there is the Advanced challenges.

Is this possible, PLEASE......

Message edited by author 2008-01-01 16:30:07.
01/01/2008 04:56:47 PM · #249
Originally posted by Rino63:

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.


This sounds illegal to me.
01/01/2008 04:58:08 PM · #250
Clarification, please (and my apologies if this has been addressed before):
We're still allowed to do everything from before - the only changes are *additional* things we can do?

(' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' sherpet, if this is true, you can just do what you've always done and not worry about the new rule additions)
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/21/2021 04:10:58 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 © 2001-2021 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: 01/21/2021 04:10:58 AM EST.