| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2008 07:22:46 PM · #351 |
| Thanks for the quick and definitive response! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:24:17 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Qart:
What I see in the image by Roz is natural motion taken at regular intervals. No where in the description is the word 'burst' included and nothing about this image compares to the one by Kiwiness used to illustrate a very weak point. We're allowed up to 10 images. I see three and if they are in sequence which I'm going to assume they are, then this image is perfecty acceptible within the description of the challenge. If the challenge is this subjective to interpretation perhaps it's best to revise the desription befor more people waste their time and efforts. |
To me, it demonstrates three separate action -- walking, teeing up, and swinging. This does not, to me, represent a time lapse of a single action, any more that seeing someone in the same shot pitching, batting, and fielding would represent a time lapse of baseball.
Now give me three shots of a golf swing, and I'd certainly consider that time lapse.
~Terry |
Terry... please my man give me the location of the 'single action' reference in the challenge description. What I've read over and over is 'single scene'... which fits the golf example to a 'tee'. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:25:29 PM · #353 |
So he's NOT to leave the room, even if you come and get him.
NO NO, I want you to stay here, and make sure, he doesn't leave the room.
until you.
yes
or anybody else..
no just me
just you..
come and get him... right?
ok, so we're not to enter the room until you come and get him.
(monty python & the holy grail) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:27:35 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by MAK:
So he's NOT to leave the room, even if you come and get him.
NO NO, I want you to stay here, and make sure, he doesn't leave the room.
until you.
yes
or anybody else..
no just me
just you..
come and get him... right?
ok, so we're not to enter the room until you come and get him.
(monty python & the holy grail) |
hahaha - i see the same logical flow - nice parody ;-) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:32:00 PM · #355 |
| Wouldn't it be nice (since the rules are not so very clear (understatement)), that for one time everyone can submit his/her own interpretation of time lapse, with a more clearer ruleset after this first challenge? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:34:17 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by hajeka:
Wouldn't it be nice (since the rules are not so very clear (understatement)), that for one time everyone can submit his/her own interpretation of time lapse, with a more clearer ruleset after this first challenge? |
I think that is what the SC are pushing but entrants are nervy about being DQ'd and want more clarification... ;) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:37:56 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Qart:
What I see in the image by Roz is natural motion taken at regular intervals. No where in the description is the word 'burst' included and nothing about this image compares to the one by Kiwiness used to illustrate a very weak point. We're allowed up to 10 images. I see three and if they are in sequence which I'm going to assume they are, then this image is perfecty acceptible within the description of the challenge. If the challenge is this subjective to interpretation perhaps it's best to revise the desription befor more people waste their time and efforts. |
To me, it demonstrates three separate action -- walking, teeing up, and swinging. This does not, to me, represent a time lapse of a single action, any more that seeing someone in the same shot pitching, batting, and fielding would represent a time lapse of baseball.
Now give me three shots of a golf swing, and I'd certainly consider that time lapse.
~Terry |
So to use this example posted earlier if there was one other frame included on the left side that showed the boy running it would be illegal since now it's showing two actions (i.e. running and jumping)?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:38:07 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
Originally posted by hajeka:
Wouldn't it be nice (since the rules are not so very clear (understatement)), that for one time everyone can submit his/her own interpretation of time lapse, with a more clearer ruleset after this first challenge? |
I think that is what the SC are pushing but entrants are nervy about being DQ'd and want more clarification... ;) |
Aw, heck, I can spare a DQ for everyone's edification ;-) Besides, according to  MAK and Falc I get to use Monty Python logic, which makes this completely irresistable.
Now to find someone with a really big foot ... |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:38:32 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
Originally posted by hajeka:
Wouldn't it be nice (since the rules are not so very clear (understatement)), that for one time everyone can submit his/her own interpretation of time lapse, with a more clearer ruleset after this first challenge? |
I think that is what the SC are pushing but entrants are nervy about being DQ'd and want more clarification... ;) |
OK - lets have this made as a solid clear statement from SC.
No DQ's, any personal interpretations of 'time lapse' is OK this time - how about it SC? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:38:54 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
All,
Time lapse seems to be causing a lot of confusion, and to be very honest, we're still discussing it like heck. This first challenge is going to be a learning experience for us all, that's for sure. It may be that we'll have to tweak things after we see how this sorts out.
FWIW, the *intent* of allowing time lapse was to allow a photographer to show motion with something other than blur. The intent was that the motion be, in essence, a single natural motion, certainly not an object jumping around the frame. A golf swing, a ball being thrown, several frames showing a snowboarder or skateboarder during a jump, the movement of the sun, moon or other astronomical object against a landscape, all come to mind. Bear with us during the trial, we *will* get it sorted out one way or another. |
Then I respectfully recommend that be very cautious about the DQs. Again, a lot of time and effort is going into this challenge, more so than other challenges. And even if you DQ but do not count the DQ against the multiple DQ rule, you will still have some very upset members.
Back on topic, why is this different than any other challenge? With the examples of Kiwi's church shot and the golf shot, we're really talking about DNMCs. We usually let the voters take care of that. In fact, it's stated somewhere that DNMC is not a DQable offense. We all remember the blue ribbon winner in the "2-Second Exposure" challenge that was actually .5 seconds. Granted it was controversial but it wasn't DQ'd even though it wasn't apparent unless you knew the exposure.
For example, if I enter a blue image in the Green challenge, I will not be DQ'd. So if someone enters something that is not considered Time Lapse by the voters, let the score communicate that rather than tasking the SC with subjective judgements on what is or is not Time Lapse?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:40:42 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by inshaala:
Originally posted by hajeka:
Wouldn't it be nice (since the rules are not so very clear (understatement)), that for one time everyone can submit his/her own interpretation of time lapse, with a more clearer ruleset after this first challenge? |
I think that is what the SC are pushing but entrants are nervy about being DQ'd and want more clarification... ;) |
OK - lets have this made as a solid clear statement from SC.
No DQ's, any personal interpretations of 'time lapse' is OK this time - how about it SC? |
This makes a lot of sense. There really is no reason to DQ over this rule first time through.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 19:41:03.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:43:00 PM · #362 |
| We will say "NI" to you again if you do not appease us. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:43:50 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Qart:
What I see in the image by Roz is natural motion taken at regular intervals. No where in the description is the word 'burst' included and nothing about this image compares to the one by Kiwiness used to illustrate a very weak point. We're allowed up to 10 images. I see three and if they are in sequence which I'm going to assume they are, then this image is perfecty acceptible within the description of the challenge. If the challenge is this subjective to interpretation perhaps it's best to revise the desription befor more people waste their time and efforts. |
To me, it demonstrates three separate action -- walking, teeing up, and swinging. This does not, to me, represent a time lapse of a single action, any more that seeing someone in the same shot pitching, batting, and fielding would represent a time lapse of baseball.
Now give me three shots of a golf swing, and I'd certainly consider that time lapse.
~Terry |
So to use this example posted earlier if there was one other frame included on the left side that showed the boy running it would be illegal since now it's showing two actions (i.e. running and jumping)?
|
No - three... he landed ;) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:43:50 PM · #364 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by kirbic:
All,
Time lapse seems to be causing a lot of confusion, and to be very honest, we're still discussing it like heck. This first challenge is going to be a learning experience for us all, that's for sure. It may be that we'll have to tweak things after we see how this sorts out.
FWIW, the *intent* of allowing time lapse was to allow a photographer to show motion with something other than blur. The intent was that the motion be, in essence, a single natural motion, certainly not an object jumping around the frame. A golf swing, a ball being thrown, several frames showing a snowboarder or skateboarder during a jump, the movement of the sun, moon or other astronomical object against a landscape, all come to mind. Bear with us during the trial, we *will* get it sorted out one way or another. |
Then I respectfully recommend that be very cautious about the DQs. Again, a lot of time and effort is going into this challenge, more so than other challenges. And even if you DQ but do not count the DQ against the multiple DQ rule, you will still have some very upset members.
Back on topic, why is this different than any other challenge? With the examples of Kiwi's church shot and the golf shot, we're really talking about DNMCs. We usually let the voters take care of that. In fact, it's stated somewhere that DNMC is not a DQable offense. We all remember the blue ribbon winner in the "2-Second Exposure" challenge that was actually .5 seconds. Granted it was controversial but it wasn't DQ'd even though it wasn't apparent unless you knew the exposure.
For example, if I enter a blue image in the Green challenge, I will not be DQ'd. So if someone enters something that is not considered Time Lapse by the voters, let the score communicate that rather than tasking the SC with subjective judgements on what is or is not Time Lapse?
Just a thought. |
Bravo!
Now the problem is... someone decided that the golf image wasn't legal. Why? Because it DNMC. When did this rule come about? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:46:46 PM · #365 |
| What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:48:22 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
I am pretty sure this has been answered before...there was a NO answer to diptych and tryptych.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:49:27 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
I am pretty sure this has been answered before...there was a NO answer to diptych and tryptych. |
Too lazy to go searching through the whole thread ;) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:50:38 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
You can not do a traditional triptych. That involves moving one image relative to the others, not the intent of time lapse. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:51:50 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
You can not do a traditional triptych. That involves moving one image relative to the others, not the intent of time lapse. |
Whoa, who said anything about time lapse? You're getting ahead of yourself :P |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:52:52 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by kirbic:
All,
Time lapse seems to be causing a lot of confusion, and to be very honest, we're still discussing it like heck. This first challenge is going to be a learning experience for us all, that's for sure. It may be that we'll have to tweak things after we see how this sorts out.
FWIW, the *intent* of allowing time lapse was to allow a photographer to show motion with something other than blur. The intent was that the motion be, in essence, a single natural motion, certainly not an object jumping around the frame. A golf swing, a ball being thrown, several frames showing a snowboarder or skateboarder during a jump, the movement of the sun, moon or other astronomical object against a landscape, all come to mind. Bear with us during the trial, we *will* get it sorted out one way or another. |
Then I respectfully recommend that be very cautious about the DQs. Again, a lot of time and effort is going into this challenge, more so than other challenges. And even if you DQ but do not count the DQ against the multiple DQ rule, you will still have some very upset members.
Back on topic, why is this different than any other challenge? With the examples of Kiwi's church shot and the golf shot, we're really talking about DNMCs. We usually let the voters take care of that. In fact, it's stated somewhere that DNMC is not a DQable offense. We all remember the blue ribbon winner in the "2-Second Exposure" challenge that was actually .5 seconds. Granted it was controversial but it wasn't DQ'd even though it wasn't apparent unless you knew the exposure.
For example, if I enter a blue image in the Green challenge, I will not be DQ'd. So if someone enters something that is not considered Time Lapse by the voters, let the score communicate that rather than tasking the SC with subjective judgements on what is or is not Time Lapse?
Just a thought. |
Bravo!
Now the problem is... someone decided that the golf image wasn't legal. Why? Because it DNMC. When did this rule come about? |
That is unfortunate, but Roz decided to post it the forum (and I thank Roz for that) but that would render that particular image un-enterable due to the exposure it's received here, IMO |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:55:31 PM · #371 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
You can not do a traditional triptych. That involves moving one image relative to the others, not the intent of time lapse. |
Whoa, who said anything about time lapse? You're getting ahead of yourself :P |
then let me be more general... no, diptych/triptych are not included in this rule modification. One scene, and the frames are not to be moved relative to each other. Moving the frames around essentially means violating the prohibition on duplicating/moving elements. There *is* an allowance for changes in the scene (see time lapse) but the framing of the shot must be constant. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:57:26 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
You can not do a traditional triptych. That involves moving one image relative to the others, not the intent of time lapse. |
Whoa, who said anything about time lapse? You're getting ahead of yourself :P |
then let me be more general... no, diptych/triptych are not included in this rule modification. One scene, and the frames are not to be moved relative to each other. Moving the frames around essentially means violating the prohibition on duplicating/moving elements. There *is* an allowance for changes in the scene (see time lapse) but the framing of the shot must be constant. |
A dandy explanation. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 08:03:37 PM · #373 |
OK so what if the image showed him walking up to the ball, back swing, follow through but no teeing of the ball is it natural progression then?
Cuz as a golfer that is how I do it. I tee the ball, walk back behind the ball to get a target, approach the ball, setup, waggle, start the take away and then SMACK IT! So to me, if the teeing of the ball were not there, it would better show natural progression as far as the way I play golf.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 20:08:57. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 08:07:26 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
What about a triptych? If all three frames are the same scene, can you put them next to each other like a triptych? |
You can not do a traditional triptych. That involves moving one image relative to the others, not the intent of time lapse. |
Whoa, who said anything about time lapse? You're getting ahead of yourself :P |
then let me be more general... no, diptych/triptych are not included in this rule modification. One scene, and the frames are not to be moved relative to each other. Moving the frames around essentially means violating the prohibition on duplicating/moving elements. There *is* an allowance for changes in the scene (see time lapse) but the framing of the shot must be constant. |
So assuming thatthe composition between each frame didn't differ, would this day-long time-lapse be legal, even though it has the appearance of having internal borders/frames? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 08:11:43 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
So assuming thatthe composition between each frame didn't differ, would this day-long time-lapse be legal, even though it has the appearance of having internal borders/frames? |
Yes, it would be legal. No internal frames may be added, but the rules say nothing about a sharp transition in masking. A similar shot posted by Falc was discussed much earlier in the thread. |
|
