| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2008 08:12:17 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
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 our folks now walking through the plaza aren't allowed to stop and scratch their heads before continuing, because it's not a single action.
Well, thought the rule changes might spur me to learn a new technique, but if I DO try it, it will only be for me, NOT for entry! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:09:59 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
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. |
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. How will they determine the "natural progression"of a footballer or a surfer?? or even worse what about animals??? if a bird is not flying in a straight line is it going to be DQed?? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:16:17 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. |
The rule says "motion," not "progression." The golfing activity is a series of separate motions. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:32:31 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by keegbow:
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. |
The rule says "motion," not "progression." The golfing activity is a series of separate motions. |
After reading many of the posts I have a better understanding. Somethings still aren't totally crystal clear but it sure helps. I agree about the shot of the golfer not fitting with what SC is trying to tell us. If it where a time lampse of a swing in motion then it would've been deemed legal I presume. There he's walking up, then putting the ball on the tee, then swinging.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 21:34:45. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:34:45 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by keegbow:
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. |
The rule says "motion," not "progression." The golfing activity is a series of separate motions. |
That makes sense. I think I get it again. :-) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:42:27 PM · #381 |
Okay...a little input from an idiot...please handle with care:
As I SEEM to understand it, Roz's picture is wrong because it shows 3 different 'progressive stages' rather than a motion. Okay... let's say in her photo she used "3" shots only. If, and this is my numbskull interpretation... she were to take slo-mo pictures depicting the 'progressive motion' in between EACH of her shots so that it would show the golfer walking up, then a blur showing movement up to the next capture of him bending over, then a blur of him standing up and moving to where he swings, would this be considered alright in this Challenge? Although utilizing multiple captures, it would show the actual movement from approach to swing.
Whew! Now... if someone only understands what I am trying to say!
Mike
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:48:17 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
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. |
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. How will they determine the "natural progression"of a footballer or a surfer?? or even worse what about animals??? if a bird is not flying in a straight line is it going to be DQed?? |
in roz's image i think there is a technical problem. I understand that she doesn't intend to enter this shot but I don't think is qualifies anyway. The first shot shows him walking up, the second shows him placing the ball/tee I assume, but in the third shot shouldn't he be standing at the same spot where he placed the tee? I can see that it's clearer to distinguish one shot from another but by moving him forward the single "framed" image has changed (the grass around his feet or something). |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:22:33 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by keegbow:
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. |
The rule says "motion," not "progression." The golfing activity is a series of separate motions. |
Let's say "motion" then. We now have the situation that you are saying we can only use a series of images that has one motion. Well this makes the situation even more confusing for example a golf swing has two distinct actions or motions and possibly three if you count the follow thru. The backswing is a completely different motion to the other two.
Now how will you determine the motions of any sporting action shots like for example surfing?? Does the surfer need to be moving in one direction with one motion? Or can a footballer change direction or motion as he runs?
The issue I’m most annoyed with is the fact that nowhere in the new rule set is it stated that we need to use all images shot in the sequence. This seems to be a pretty important part of the rules to leave out not to mention the fact that it goes completely against the idea of digital photography where it is the norm to take as many shots as possible and discard at will.
Anyway I pulled my image and wish everyone well with this challenge especially the site council. I think I will wait until we have a much more clarified idea of how the rules are going to be implemented before entering in member challenges.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:26:18 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
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. |
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. How will they determine the "natural progression"of a footballer or a surfer?? or even worse what about animals??? if a bird is not flying in a straight line is it going to be DQed?? |
in roz's image i think there is a technical problem. I understand that she doesn't intend to enter this shot but I don't think is qualifies anyway. The first shot shows him walking up, the second shows him placing the ball/tee I assume, but in the third shot shouldn't he be standing at the same spot where he placed the tee? I can see that it's clearer to distinguish one shot from another but by moving him forward the single "framed" image has changed (the grass around his feet or something). |
The first shot is him placing the ball on the tee ( the middle figure) the second is him walking back to line his shot ( left figure) and the third ( right figure) is after the he has hit the ball.
The issue regarding the grass is possibly from being handheld. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:38:19 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
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. |
This is fast becoming a total farce!!! here we have SC determing what is a natural progression of a sporting activity "golf" and then trying to tell us it isn't, well as another golfer believe me it is. How will they determine the "natural progression"of a footballer or a surfer?? or even worse what about animals??? if a bird is not flying in a straight line is it going to be DQed?? |
in roz's image i think there is a technical problem. I understand that she doesn't intend to enter this shot but I don't think is qualifies anyway. The first shot shows him walking up, the second shows him placing the ball/tee I assume, but in the third shot shouldn't he be standing at the same spot where he placed the tee? I can see that it's clearer to distinguish one shot from another but by moving him forward the single "framed" image has changed (the grass around his feet or something). |
The first shot is him placing the ball on the tee ( the middle figure) the second is him walking back to line his shot ( left figure) and the third ( right figure) is after the he has hit the ball.
The issue regarding the grass is possibly from being handheld. |
I'm not concerned here about what he does between placing the ball and hitting it, all I'm pointing out is that I think he should be standing in the same place for both. His image should have overlap.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:43:19 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by keegbow:
[quote=briantammy] [quote=keegbow]
The first shot is him placing the ball on the tee ( the middle figure) the second is him walking back to line his shot ( left figure) and the third ( right figure) is after the he has hit the ball.
The issue regarding the grass is possibly from being handheld. |
I'm not concerned here about what he does between placing the ball and hitting it, all I'm pointing out is that I think he should be standing in the same place for both. His image should have overlap. |
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:45:34 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
The issue I’m most annoyed with is the fact that nowhere in the new rule set is it stated that we need to use all images shot in the sequence. |
It's not mentioned because it's not required. It'd be pretty difficult to show any significant motion in 10 frames or less using a camera that shoots at 10fps or faster! I think the point was that all the images had to come from the same sequence, not that they all had to be used.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 22:46:36. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:52:47 PM · #388 |
Not that anyone is taking a poll (ahem), but even after reading the various reasonings in the last few pages of this thread, I still think that a photo Roz's golfer photo should be legal.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 10:56:08 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
Because he's not walking forward in the third shot it was taken just after hitting the ball so he should logically be somewhere near the tee. Which suggests that the third shot was either moved in post or shot with different framing.
Sorry Roz I love the photo I'm just trying to figure out the rules.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 23:02:08. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:00:02 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by keegbow:
The issue I’m most annoyed with is the fact that nowhere in the new rule set is it stated that we need to use all images shot in the sequence. |
It's not mentioned because it's not required. It'd be pretty difficult to show any significant motion in 10 frames or less using a camera that shoots at 10fps or faster! I think the point was that all the images had to come from the same sequence, not that they all had to be used. |
Everthing that is new and a change from the old should be clearly spelt out.
I still not sure what you are saying ( probably just my lack of knowledge) but if I put a few basic questions up maybe we can get some clear answers.
If a shoot a macro that has plenty of action and movement over a five second period with lets say a burst of 5-6 shots and then 3 – 4 single shots because I want to adjust my focus then another burst of 5 – 6 shots can I then select any ten of these images from the total of about 16. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:01:10 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
In the middle image, he's putting down the ball. Why, after he's hit it, and is still in the follow through, does he appear to be several feet from where he put it down? He didn't walk forward after hitting - he's still swinging in the rightmost shot.
That's the question being asked.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 23:04:10.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:03:50 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I'm not concerned here about what he does between placing the ball and hitting it, all I'm pointing out is that I think he should be standing in the same place for both. His image should have overlap. |
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
In the middle image, he's putting down the ball. Why, after he's hit it, and is still in the follow through, does he appear to be several feet from where he put it down?
That's the question being asked. [/quote]
That is the question but the point is that it will take alot of studying of all the entries to make sure there aren't more of these kinds of flaws. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:07:10 PM · #393 |
Maybe the feller has an unusual follow thru.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:08:41 PM · #394 |
Let's see whether I can sum up. Can someone on the SC please verify these?
All answers assume every shot is taken within the challenge period.
Does it have to be one continuous motion? Yes.
Can the subject change direction within the frame, as long as it's one continuous motion (e.g., a surfer or runner turning)? Yes.
Do you have to use every shot in a sequence capturing that one continuous motion? No.
Can you have other shots intermingled in a long sequence (e.g., one that takes place over hours or days) and leave out those shots? Yes. But each shot used in the final image has to be use exactly the same framing.
Can you use pieces of various shots taken at different times to show the time of day changing (what has been called HDTR elsewhere)? Yes, even if you use hard edges between the various pieces.
Can you use transparency in the layers to avoid overlapping subjects? Yes.
Can you move pieces of various images relative to the frame? No. This means no diptychs or triptychs.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:09:43 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I'm not concerned here about what he does between placing the ball and hitting it, all I'm pointing out is that I think he should be standing in the same place for both. His image should have overlap. |
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
In the middle image, he's putting down the ball. Why, after he's hit it, and is still in the follow through, does he appear to be several feet from where he put it down?
That's the question being asked. |
That is the question but the point is that it will take alot of studying of all the entries to make sure there aren't more of these kinds of flaws. [/quote]
Okay I can see that now, maybe we need to ask roz. Still that is not the reason she was given for being unacceptable. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 11:54:32 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
But each shot used in the final image has to be use exactly the same framing. |
Although there is minor leway on this for framing differences caused in hand-held shots |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 12:09:29 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
Because he's not walking forward in the third shot it was taken just after hitting the ball so he should logically be somewhere near the tee. |
Umm... does anyone seriously want SC members debating the validity of their shots on that basis? I know I wouldn't. The golfer may very well be a single group of motions, and maybe more frames would show a continuous transition from start to finish. Guess what? So was Kiwiness' photo, and with enough frames you could probably tell where he started and how he moved to each position throughout the frame (technically, any series of photos of a given scene is a time-lapse). Sure, it was obviously staged, but do we really have to try and figure out whether the golfer was staged or a candid of some guy playing through? How about a sequence showing a bullet piercing an apple? That would surely be a staged shot. Suppose I photographed someone throwing a frisbee to a dog... do I have to show the movement of the arm and dog in each frame, or can I just show the progress of the ball, with a static arm and dog on either end?
Believe me, we're well aware that there are problems with this clause. The goal was to allow some alternative to motion blur, but not arbitrary Photoshop composites. I'm not sure it's even possible to distinguish between the two, but we're about to find out. The rule is NOT clear, and I can certainly understand someone hesitating to enter for fear of a DQ. IMO as long as you're making a good-faith effort to show a single sequence of events over time, the worst that could happen is a no-penalty DQ (breaking other, well established rules would still count, of course). Some suggestions for people trying to figure out what's legal:
• Put the camera on a tripod or sturdy surface and shoot a scene with one or more subjects moving across the frame.
• There will be some allowance for the slight motion of a handheld shot, but don't pan to follow your subject. The framing should be as identical as possible on each shot.
• Stick to recording simple, linear motion rather than complex or random movement (this will help avoid the perception of a composite like the golf shot).
• Make sure ALL your frames came from a single sequence, and don't paste in frames from other runs.
• The entry should be a single image of the scene (no triptychs, etc.), but you can show transitions or the movement of objects within that frame.
• Don't move subjects in Photoshop. The framing must not change, and any moving objects should be positioned exactly where they were captured within that frame.
Note that this isn't meant to be an in-depth guideline or the only definition of a time-lapse photo, and there may be other ways to capture a perfectly legal entry for the challenge. It's only *my* interpretation of what a typical time-lapse would be according to the rules.
Message edited by author 2008-01-05 00:29:29. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 12:32:20 AM · #398 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Wildcard:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Why would he be standing in the same spot if walks back before hitting the ball and walks forward after hitting ? sorry I don't see your point. |
Because he's not walking forward in the third shot it was taken just after hitting the ball so he should logically be somewhere near the tee. |
Umm... does anyone seriously want SC members debating the validity of their shots on that basis? I know I wouldn't. |
Of course not but I also said "Which suggests that the third shot was either moved in post or shot with different framing." Which would be grounds for a DQ and was the question being raised. Given that SC has all the files I would assume they could use more than what "looks" logical to make their decisions.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 12:56:57 AM · #399 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
the worst that could happen is a no-penalty DQ (breaking other, well established rules would still count, of course). |
I wouldn't assume a DQ without penalty would be much of a consolation to people who spent hours editing for a challenge like this. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:46:20 AM · #400 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the worst that could happen is a no-penalty DQ (breaking other, well established rules would still count, of course). |
I wouldn't assume a DQ without penalty would be much of a consolation to people who spent hours editing for a challenge like this. |
The alternatives would be letting an illegal shot stand or DQ with penalty. Pick your favorite. |
|
